- Status
K
KostyaJMJ
Guest
The meaning of a word depends on how the language community behind it uses it to describe reality. That is why the meaning of words changes over time. In modern English the words “contraception” or “birth control” apply to NFP as well as to artificial methods. But all of that has nothing to do with the debate about the morality of NFP vs. artificial methods. just my :twocents:
1
1ke
Guest
Birth control (aka controlling births, spacing and/or planning pregnancies) is the end.
Contraception and natural family planning are distinct means of achieving the end of spacing/avoiding/planning. One of these is a moral means (NFP) and one is an immoral means (contraception) of achieving the (moral) end of spacing/avoiding/planning.
Similarly, “feeding my family” is an end. There are multiple ways to achieve this end-- get a job and earn money, steal food, steal money. Not all of these means are moral. But they all achieve the end.
S
surritter
Guest
So by that definition, “birth control” is licit.
If you say that to the average Catholic, they’ll think that you’re pro-contraception. See the problem?
And again, I know what you are saying, but we’re in the trenches fighting this battle against the culture of death within a society that doesn’t understand the nuances of these terms. So I’m starting to think that each time the terms “contraception” or “birth control” are mentioned, they should be supplemented with a definition for how the speaker intends those terms.
1
1ke
Guest
Words are powerful things. Ideas have consequences. They influence. That is why I try very hard to be precise in my language and explanations. And that is why we cannot allow organizations such as “planned parenthood” control the vocabulary or the discussion or the definition. **We **must shape the conversation within our own catechetical efforts.
There is nothing wrong with stating the truth-- that the Church as no problem with spacing/avoiding prengnancy (that needs to be accompanied by the authentic teaching of when it is moral to do so… i.e., just reasons in conformity with objective moral criteria).
I don’t think avoiding terms is productive. I think there is greater gain to be had from confronting misconception and correcting it.
Yes certainly.
N
NemoSum
Guest
OK.
There are two things God designed for sex: unitive and creative.
The reason why using a condom is evil-- I am told-- is because its seperates these two ends. Although the condom users may have unity, they are not open to life, so it is evil.
BUT
Here is the kicker
If one abstains from his wife during her fertile periods, THEREBY PREVENTING BIRTH MORE EFFECTIVELY THAN A CONDOM, they are somehow good. How is that so?
Does the couple who abstains during their fertile times really possess that creative aspect of their sexual relationship? Obviously not.
Seems like we want to have our cake and eat it too.
Also, contra-ception= against conception … only having sex during infertile periods is a way of preventing conception, it is contraception.
There are two things God designed for sex: unitive and creative.
The reason why using a condom is evil-- I am told-- is because its seperates these two ends. Although the condom users may have unity, they are not open to life, so it is evil.
BUT
Here is the kicker
If one abstains from his wife during her fertile periods, THEREBY PREVENTING BIRTH MORE EFFECTIVELY THAN A CONDOM, they are somehow good. How is that so?
Does the couple who abstains during their fertile times really possess that creative aspect of their sexual relationship? Obviously not.
Seems like we want to have our cake and eat it too.
Also, contra-ception= against conception … only having sex during infertile periods is a way of preventing conception, it is contraception.
S
surritter
Guest
You’re missing the key – the sin lies not in the pursuit of one aspect or the other or both. The sin lies in the intentional and artificial separation of the two aspects. It’s sinful because it is twisting the design of the body into something that should have the other aspect coming along for the ride (if the natural cycle is such that it is there).
Those who partake of the unitive act while purposely shutting out the procreative aspect are the ones who are trying to have their cake and eat it too. That is not what the couple who abstains during the fertile periods is doing. They might not want the creative aspect, but notice they respect the link between the two aspects and elect to skip BOTH aspects. Therefore, it is no sin.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Jeez people, I’m sorry! I made a mistake. I thought that was why natural family planning was moral but I guess I was wrong.
S
StillWondering
Guest
Holly, no fret. The comments above are talking about the technical facts behind NFP.
We don’t always know the details to every teaching, but knowing the fundamental truth is always important and you got that right on the head on two counts:
- NFP is allowed.
Using NFP to delay pregnancy or prevent pregnancy is not morally wrong in itself. Though it may be immoral if used improperly.
- NFP is *about *life.
The purpose behind NFP is to nurture life within the family in healthy responsible ways, particularly planning for the well-being of the children God gives us in marriage.
A
Abu
Guest
The above is incorrect because the morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. As has been expressed, God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.
As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate.
My preference is to use the term Natural Birth Regulation (NBR). It is vital to realize that the doctrinal teaching against contraception in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930) and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) are infallible definitions. Contraception is intrinsically gravely wrong. NBR is extremely effective when properly practised, encourages self-control, and has no harmful effects on health.
S
StillWondering
Guest
Well said Abu.
NFP is promoted for both Catholics and non-Catholics. The selling point for non-Catholics is that it is extremely effective, check out Mother’s Theresa’s success in the Hindu city where her nuns work, and it promotes health through knowledge and intimacy with the female body.
The reason for how effective it is does not determine it’s morality as Abu worded so well. In fact it is an option because it is moral.
It’s promoted by the Church because is moral *AND *it is effective.
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
Both good logical points.
And I would add that NFP has its artificial side as well.
Artificial devices (e.g. thermometers) are used to determine when the woman is or is not fertile.
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
BTW I am not against NFP. It certainly allows for a more pleasant unitive experience than barrier methods. But I couldn’t help but point out the loop-hole thinking behind NFP.
V
Vincent
Guest
The artificiality of NFP facilitates, rather than violates, human nature.
More here: “Artificial vs. Natural?”, by Janet Smith
S
surritter
Guest
Artificial contraception is so called not because of any use of man-made objects, but because it allows one aspect of intercourse to be maintained (expression of love) while thwarting the other naturally linked aspect (procreation). This separation violates the nature of the sex act, and this is why the adjective “artificial” is used.
A
Abu
Guest
Since contraception means “birth control by the use of devices (diaphragm or intrauterine device or condom) or drugs or surgery” it is hardly logical to interpret NBR as against conception, since neither the instructors nor the Church’s teaching permit it’s use as an alternative to the mindset that uses contraceptive methods as routine in and out of marriage to thwart the ends of procreation.
The use of aids such as thermometers or ovulation tapes, employs mankind’s God-given reason and laws of physics and chemistry (known by reason and experiment) to cooperate with Him in His providence.
The use of aids such as thermometers or ovulation tapes, employs mankind’s God-given reason and laws of physics and chemistry (known by reason and experiment) to cooperate with Him in His providence.
S
StillWondering
Guest
I’m not sure if that is fair
.That is like saying something is not all natural merely because an artificial item is use. A person using a utensils to eat with instead of just picking up food and chewing is not eating unnaturally. Utensils are artificial. But no one would say one is eating unnaturally. As a contrast, an unnatural means of feeding one’s self is to use a feed tube.
I’m not trying to make trouble, but that isn’t a loophole.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Every time I have talked to someone with NemoSum’s line of thinking, they often were using condoms currently at the time and were seeking to justify their behavior.
(Please note I am not tossing out any accusations, I’m merely making an observation).
As someone who used condoms in the past and now uses NFP in his marriage, I can without question say the benefits for NFP far exceed that of “artificial” contraception. It’s nice knowing your wife in such a close and intimate way that you know when/how her body works.
(Please note I am not tossing out any accusations, I’m merely making an observation).
As someone who used condoms in the past and now uses NFP in his marriage, I can without question say the benefits for NFP far exceed that of “artificial” contraception. It’s nice knowing your wife in such a close and intimate way that you know when/how her body works.
R
rotlex
Guest
Can someone answer me this, seriously, regarding barriers? If contraception is not allowed, artificial methods, which I CAN understand, WHY is withdrawal also considered a “sin”? Please answer this without referring to the “sin of Onin”, as there appear to be way too many debates out on that. So other than that, can someone explain this?
In my view, withdrawal is probably more open to life than even NFP, due to a few obvious reasons. So really, what is wrong with this? (Sorry, not meaning to vear off topic at all with this).
S
surritter
Guest
It is because the couple is intentionally separating the love-giving aspect of sex from the life-giving aspect of sex. That is the entire reason why ANY form of birth prevention is immoral unless it maintains this integral link. NFP is moral because it respects and maintains the link – if the couple wants to avoid pregnancy, they simply forego BOTH aspects of sex, unlike withdrawal, where the couple goes ahead with the “love-giving” but then abruptly reneges on the “life-giving.”
- Status