Is this an abuse of marriage?

[Xantippe]

The OP asks whether the act is essentially a contraceptive act.

Hmmm. Let’s think about this. The act reflects a choice made to reduce the chance of conception. What should we call that?

Funny!

 

[UnCatholicBride]

Within seconds of finishing the marital act, the viable seed are already well on their way toward the egg.

Anything that comes out after the act is nothing but fluid, or fluid with non-viable seed.

Most doctors actually encourage you to get up and get yourself cleaned up as soon as possible after the act- especially if you’re prone to bladder and kidney infections.

Standing, urinating, or dancing around trying to shake them out is not going to prevent viable seed from reaching the egg.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Within seconds of finishing the marital act, the viable seed are already well on their way toward the egg.

Anything that comes out after the act is nothing but fluid, or fluid with non-viable seed.

Most doctors actually encourage you to get up and get yourself cleaned up as soon as possible after the act- especially if you’re prone to bladder and kidney infections.

Standing, urinating, or dancing around trying to shake them out is not going to prevent viable seed from reaching the egg.

Yes.

OP could go speak to a priest about this in real life, it wouldn’t hurt.

 

[LongingSoul]

I find no act against conception in prayer. I’ll bet lots of “oopsie” babies (those born to couples using NFP, but throwing caution to the wind) were conceived notwithstanding a quick prayer after the deed was done! C’est la vie.

A woman who jumps out of bed after sex to pee is makes a choice to pee. I find no problem with that either, regardless of the effect on conception (which presumably is nil effect).

A woman who jumps out of bed to reduce the chance of conception, believing that such an act has that effect, at the very least acts “questionably”. Did she act out of ‘panic’ after the event? Or, does she plan to adopt this strategy as a means to impede conception each time they have sex?

The reason I think its important to get the definition of contraception right and distinguish that act from acts and attitudes that are more aptly described as selfish or something else… is to protect the validity of NFP. I don’t know if the OP has an agenda in posting the original conundrum but it sure seems like it to me. When something is done that is not an invasive attack on the fertility but merely what a normal woman would do anyway… it hasn’t moved more beyond an act of praying that one hasn’t conceived.

 

[Xantippe]

The reason I think its important to get the definition of contraception right and distinguish that act from acts and attitudes that are more aptly described as selfish or something else… is to protect the validity of NFP. I don’t know if the OP has an agenda in posting the original conundrum but it sure seems like it to me. When something is done that is not an invasive attack on the fertility but merely what a normal woman would do anyway… it hasn’t moved more beyond an act of praying that one hasn’t conceived.

I think the attitude is bad, although the particular actions are fine.

And frankly, I think there is something wrong with praying, “God, don’t let me be pregnant!” particularly as a repeated activity. I don’t like the idea of people doing stuff that they think is unwise and then expecting God to fix things for them. I understand that as a one-off, and under particular pressure, that it might be very understandable. It’s just that it seems like a lousy thing to do as a way of life.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think the attitude is bad, although the particular actions are fine.

And frankly, I think there is something wrong with praying, “God, don’t let me be pregnant!” particularly as a repeated activity. I don’t like the idea of people doing stuff that they think is unwise and then expecting God to fix things for them. I understand that as a one-off, and under particular pressure, that it might be very understandable. It’s just that it seems like a lousy thing to do as a way of life.

They may be signs of immaturity and selfishness… but they are not ‘contraception’.

 

[Xantippe]

They may be signs of immaturity and selfishness… but they are not ‘contraception’.

Right.

But attempting to reduce the fertility of a particular sexual act (however ineffectively) is contraception.

I think prayer has to be treated as a somewhat different category, because there is always (or there ought to be) an implied, “your will be done.”

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Right.

But attempting to reduce the fertility of a particular sexual act (however ineffectively) is contraception.

I think prayer has to be treated as a somewhat different category, because there is always (or there ought to be) an implied, “your will be done.”

That definition of contraception would include coffee and tobacco, which are both known to reduce a woman’s fertility, as well as NFP. Standing up after sex doesn’t change the sex act to anything other than a reproductive type of act. It isn’t contraception, even if it does reduce fertility.

Are you saying that a Catholic must take every reasonable step to increase the likelihood of conception for every sex act? Should the OP stand on her head after coitus to ensure she isn’t contracepting?

 

[Xantippe]

That definition of contraception would include coffee and tobacco, which are both known to reduce a woman’s fertility, as well as NFP. Standing up after sex doesn’t change the sex act to anything other than a reproductive type of act. It isn’t contraception, even if it does reduce fertility.

Are you saying that a Catholic must take every reasonable step to increase the likelihood of conception for every sex act? Should the OP stand on her head after coitus to ensure she isn’t contracepting?

No, it’s about intentions.

If the person is doing jumping jacks/drinking 20 cups of coffee a day/wearing an amulet from a witch doctor/etc. with the intention of reducing fertility, that’s contraception. If the person is doing all of those things with no such intention, that’s not contraception.

The intent is what’s important. Consider, for instance, if a woman were taking birth control pills that were actually duds due to a manufacturing error. She’d still be attempting contraception, no matter how ineffective they were.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

That definition of contraception would include coffee and tobacco, which are both known to reduce a woman’s fertility, as well as NFP. Standing up after sex doesn’t change the sex act to anything other than a reproductive type of act. It isn’t contraception, even if it does reduce fertility.

Are you saying that a Catholic must take every reasonable step to increase the likelihood of conception for every sex act? Should the OP stand on her head after coitus to ensure she isn’t contracepting?

It is the INTENT. What you feel in your heart. If you are drinking 5 pots of coffee a day with the INTENTIONS TO NOT HAVE A CHILD. Then, yes, that would be contraception.
What is so hard to understand? If cleaning yourself is just your normal routine, regardless of being fertile or not, then it isn’t contracepting. If you say, “Oh poo, I’m ovulating, had sex, and don’t want a baby. Hurry let’s try to get this semen out of me.” That would be contracepting, no matter how stupid it actually is.
Not rocket science, people.

Also, a female can take the pill prescribed for medicinal reasons and NOT be contracepting. Her INTENT is to help with her problem, not to contracept. Infertility is just a side effect of the drug. (I looked this up on the USCCB website. And I paraphrased)

 

[LongingSoul]

Right.

But attempting to reduce the fertility of a particular sexual act (however ineffectively) is contraception.

I think prayer has to be treated as a somewhat different category, because there is always (or there ought to be) an implied, “your will be done.”

But not actually doing anything directly that hinders the process, can’t be counted as contraception. For example we had a recent situation with an elderly relative of my husband. She was struggling with her age related limitations and was bedridden and in pain. She made the decision to stop all her medications for heart etc. Some of the relatives feared that what she was doing to increase her chances of a quick death amounted to suicide. However, they were assured by the Priest who attended to her that although wanting to die was her intention… refusing her meds was not a suicidal intention. She was within her moral right to go that road.

 

[Xantippe]

It is the INTENT. What you feel in your heart. If you are drinking 5 pots of coffee a day with the INTENTIONS TO NOT HAVE A CHILD. Then, yes, that would be contraception.
What is so hard to understand? If cleaning yourself is just your normal routine, regardless of being fertile or not, then it isn’t contracepting. If you say, “Oh poo, I’m ovulating, had sex, and don’t want a baby. Hurry let’s try to get this semen out of me.” That would be contracepting, no matter how stupid it actually is.
Not rocket science, people.

Yep.

 

[LongingSoul]

It is the INTENT. What you feel in your heart. If you are drinking 5 pots of coffee a day with the INTENTIONS TO NOT HAVE A CHILD. Then, yes, that would be contraception.
What is so hard to understand? If cleaning yourself is just your normal routine, regardless of being fertile or not, then it isn’t contracepting. If you say, “Oh poo, I’m ovulating, had sex, and don’t want a baby. Hurry let’s try to get this semen out of me.” That would be contracepting, no matter how stupid it actually is.
Not rocket science, people.

Also, a female can take the pill prescribed for medicinal reasons and NOT be contracepting. Her INTENT is to help with her problem, not to contracept. Infertility is just a side effect of the drug. (I looked this up on the USCCB website. And I paraphrased)

There is 1. the intention to prevent conception and there is 2. the intention to reduce the chances without directly acting on the process. Contraceptives are not made and marketed as intending to reduce the chances of conception. They are marketed as direct acts to prevent conception.

So the intention and the act must be very specific to be called contraception for the purposes of the Church teaching.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

There is 1. the intention to prevent conception and there is 2. the intention to reduce the chances without directly acting on the process. Contraceptives are not made and marketed as intending to reduce the chances of conception. They are marketed as direct acts to prevent conception.

So the intention and the act must be very specific to be called contraception for the purposes of the Church teaching.

I’m sure people with sense know that contraceptives aren’t 100% effective. They DO only reduce the chances of conception.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

It is the INTENT. What you feel in your heart. If you are drinking 5 pots of coffee a day with the INTENTIONS TO NOT HAVE A CHILD. Then, yes, that would be contraception.
What is so hard to understand? If cleaning yourself is just your normal routine, regardless of being fertile or not, then it isn’t contracepting. If you say, “Oh poo, I’m ovulating, had sex, and don’t want a baby. Hurry let’s try to get this semen out of me.” That would be contracepting, no matter how stupid it actually is.
Not rocket science, people.

Also, a female can take the pill prescribed for medicinal reasons and NOT be contracepting. Her INTENT is to help with her problem, not to contracept. Infertility is just a side effect of the drug. (I looked this up on the USCCB website. And I paraphrased)

Intending to delay a pregnancy isn’t sinful. You can use NFP for example. The only thing that is sinful is intentionally using contraceptive means to delay pregnancy. Drinking 5 cups of coffee doesn’t change the sex act to anything other than a reproductive type of act. It isn’t contraception regardless of what further intentions there are for drinking it.

 

[Rau]

The reason I think its important to get the definition of contraception right and distinguish that act from acts and attitudes that are more aptly described as selfish or something else… is to protect the validity of NFP. I don’t know if the OP has an agenda in posting the original conundrum but it sure seems like it to me. When something is done that is not an invasive attack on the fertility but merely what a normal woman would do anyway… it hasn’t moved more beyond an act of praying that one hasn’t conceived.

I understand your motivation here.

However, if the person holds the view that an act impedes conception and chooses that act for that reason alone, how is that not contraception?

Perhaps this point is obscured by the absurdity of the example, the normality of the act in question and its ineffectiveness? If so, ignore the actual act and just re-read my prior paragraph.

One is not required to optimize chance of conception, eg lying in bed undisturbed for 3 hours (if that had such an effect). One is free to get up whenever the desire to get up arises.

Praying “please God don’t let me be pregnant” expresses misgivings and leaves the matter with God.

 

[Rau]

There is 1. the intention to prevent conception and there is 2. the intention to reduce the chances without directly acting on the process. Contraceptives are not made and marketed as intending to reduce the chances of conception. They are marketed as direct acts to prevent conception.

So the intention and the act must be very specific to be called contraception for the purposes of the Church teaching.

The act of contraception is not defined by the marketing strategy, nor the design, of contraceptive pills.

 

[Rau]

Intending to delay a pregnancy isn’t sinful. You can use NFP for example. The only thing that is sinful is intentionally using contraceptive means to delay pregnancy. Drinking 5 cups of coffee doesn’t change the sex act to anything other than a reproductive type of act. It isn’t contraception regardless of what further intentions there are for drinking it.

If u believe 5 cups of coffee make u infertile, and you consume them for that purpose so that sex will not result in conception, and you have sex, did you employ contraception?

What if you believe the coffee will halve the chances of conception, but the rest is the same? Is that contraception?

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Intending to delay a pregnancy isn’t sinful. You can use NFP for example. The only thing that is sinful is intentionally using contraceptive means to delay pregnancy. Drinking 5 cups of coffee doesn’t change the sex act to anything other than a reproductive type of act. It isn’t contraception regardless of what further intentions there are for drinking it.

No where in my post did I say the word delay. NFP you are still open to the possibility of having a baby. People misread charts all the time. People make oopsies with NFP and the church says that if a couple wants to space out kiddos or whatever, use NFP.
. If Suzie is a coffee addict and she drinks it all day because she likes it is absolutely different from Lacy who is drinking it because she has heard that she can’t conceive because of it. Coffee is Lacy’s birth control. It isn’t Suzie’s, it’s Suzie’s drink of choice or addiction.

 

[Xantippe]

The act of contraception is not defined by the marketing strategy, nor the design, of contraceptive pills.

Right.

Back in the day, people would do stuff like using crocodile dung vaginal suppositories.

dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12540/When-crocodile-dung-contraception.html

Even in the modern era, people have done stuff like use a lemon or vinegar as a contraceptive. (When I was in the Peace Corps, our Where There Is No Doctor medical guide talked about that technique.)

You don’t need to have a crinkly package or factory-produced pills to have an attempt at contraception.