Natural vs Artifical contraception

[NemoSum]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

 

[Holly3278]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

Natural family planning is allowed because it still allows for the possibility of life. At least that’s the way I understand it.

 

[NemoSum]

To spice this up:

In order to sell Natural Family Planning to a couple, they tell them that it is more effective in preventing birth than a condom. If that is true, isn’t the condom user more open to life statistically?

 

[StillWondering]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

Since you italicized real, maybe you could explain what you mean? Are there *fake *moral differences that you can list as part of your understanding?

---

I’ll list some basics of NFP:

1> It’s scriptural, in 1 Corinthians, Saint Paul explains that there are times when it is right and proper for two people in prayer to separate for a time from their conjugal sharing. However, they should return to prevent intrusions from the devil.

This is the exactly the same basic mechanics behind NFP. You and your spouse find out the wife is fertile. In prayer, you two, together, discern whether it is a good time to have children or another child. If it is, you commit to your conjugal responsibilities with love and trust in the love during this time. If not, you prayerfully abstain from conjugal relations until the time when you can return to them again. That’s why woman have cycles in good health.

2> It puts God’s plan first. God created cycles for women. God gave us a reliable and controllable mechanic to procreate. God gives us prayer and discern through our intellect, will, and love of Him. NFP is only meant to be used as a God-centered way of stewardship of the household.

3> It promotes unity between the couple and health for the women. By living a life of prayer together, the husband and wife can respect God’s decision that man and woman are equal partners in the stewardship of the home. The family unit is the small temple of our society where God wishes to bless and reside among. He Himself is a family and so it would be wonderful for each of our families to be united in God. The health is crucial if you have familiarity with NFP. Many many women can attest to the fact that they have found abnormalities in their mucus that lead to proper and healthy treatments. In this modern age where many worship medical science, we are often fed pills after pills with great effect, both for good and bad. NFP provides a healthy long term evaluation of the woman’s health without chemicals as well as indications of natural treatments and medical treatments if necessary. One good example is the color of the mucus and viscosity can give indications of nutritional imbalances. The cure? A change of diet until the mucus returns to expected color and clarity.

---

Above I gave three reasons that should be very convincing depending on your background. However, all three reasons are applicable for all peoples with or without faith. To summarized, the first is scriptural (this implies a long tradition spanning well into Israel history), the second it places God as the rightful lord of our existence and joy (for atheist, intellectual discernment is usually their guiding principle), and lastly it promotes the health and well being of the couple in multiple levels.

To contrast this with artificial contraceptive for your needs, think about the when, what and why of using artificial contraceptive. Since I explain the NFP thoroughly in everyday terms, the latter part would be useful if continued by you since you brought the question.

 

[Gerard_Nadal]

The intent to plan a family is not at issue. What is at issue is the right use of God’s creation according to His wise design and expressed will for that right use.

Working with a woman’s natural cycle and rhythms to time your marital intercourse, completing the act naturally leaves open the possibility, though not probability for transmission of life. It is also a qualitatively different experience.

Condoms have at best an 85% effectiveness, which means 15% failure rate over the course of a year. So within six years, more than half of all couples using condoms will experience condom failure leading to an unwanted pregnancy.

Today’s pill is a much lower dose hormone which means it must be taken the same time every day. If a woman is off by only a couple of hours, she can get pregnant.

The pill also raises the risk of breast cancer.

I write extensively about this on my pro-life blog as a molecular biologist:

gerardnadal.com/

However, once the contraception fails, one has taken a long mental walk down the road to abortion. The NFP couple, leaving themselves open to life, have not gone down that road ad are extremely unlikely to do so.

 

[surritter]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

God designed sex to have two purposes: expression of love and procreation. To intentionally divorce the two is the problem, because it twists the design of the act. This is not to say that each instance of intercourse should have a goal of getting pregnant! Couples can use NFP to avoid conception, but notice that to avoid conception, they also agree to forego the other aspect of sex (physical expression of love).

So the sinfulness is in the separation of the two aspects, and this is why NFP is permitted while artificial contraception is not.

 

[JRKH]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

I will just add to what others have stated that in NFP the virtue of discipline is employed much more than in AFP.
By restricting intercourse, monitoring cycles etc, the couple is much more attuned to their own bodies, their partners body and to their relationship with God. Such discipline also provides great spritual benefits when combating other “spirit vs, flesh” issues such as anger etc.
AFP does not provide for such discipline. It allows the unrestricted indulgence of the flesh without regard to the natural consequences of such indulgence and thus provides no spiritual strength to resist other “spirit vs, flesh” issues.

I can’t explain it too well but I hope you understand what I’m getting at.

Peace
James

 

[puzzleannie]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

there is none. a natural means of contraception, preventing pregnancy by the use of some drug or mechanical device derived from nature like an herbal concoction or sponge is just as immoral as using a drug or device contrived in a laboratory.

If you are asking about natural family planning, which is being selective about when to engage in sex with a view either to increasing or decreasing the chance to conceive, that is not contraception because no action, device or drug is used to prevent conception during the act of sex. search on NFP and engage in one of the thousands of threads here which can educate you on that concept.

 

[karoleck]

Puzzleannie well put:thumbsup:

 

[Seatuck]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

Artificial contraception puts something into the marital act that doesn’t belong there. Marital love is a language . It reflects the love language of the Trinity and also God’s love for his people. It gives of itself in a total, fruitful , faithful and free. Contraception is none of those. It puts limits on the giving of the act.
Contraception can also be a state of mind as well as a physical doing of something. This is also immoral.

For more understanding of this see one of the many studies of Theology of the Body or actually read it itself.
You could look at The Good News about Sex and Marriage by Christopher West as well.

 

[1ke]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

There is no difference between “natural” and “artificial” contraception. Any act of contraception is intrinsically evil.

Abstaining from sexual relations, whether periodically or completely, is not contraception.

Contraception is the act of engaging in sexual intercourse while taking an action to render it sterile-- before, during, or after the act.

Abstaining is simply that, not having intercourse.

The Church teaching is that any time a couple engages in the act of intercourse it must be ordered per se to procreation and unity. The Church teaching is not some vague statement about being “open to life” it’s a very specific statement about each act being ordered properly. The Church has no teaching regarding how often or when a couple is to have intercourse or to abstain from it.

Per se ordered to procreation means it is ordered in its very being, the act itself. If the couple takes no action to alter the act, it is ordered *per se to procreation. An individual act of intercourse might be naturally infertile due to the time of the month, the age of the woman, pregnancy, or disease/defect but it is still ordered per se *to procreation.

 

[1ke]

Natural family planning is allowed because it still allows for the possibility of life. At least that’s the way I understand it.

No, this is not why natural family planning is moral.

 

[1ke]

In order to sell Natural Family Planning to a couple, they tell them that it is more effective in preventing birth than a condom.

While I would disagree with your comment that it is used to “sell” natural family planning to couples, yes, natural family planning methods are more effective than condoms in avoiding pregnancy. That is a true statement.

If that is true, isn’t the condom user more open to life statistically?

I suppose you could look at it that way.

However, it is irrelevant.

‘Open to life’ is not the criteria that determines whether something is moral or immoral and this line of reasoning is not the basis of the Church’s teaching that contraception is immoral.

 

[surritter]

There is no difference between “natural” and “artificial” contraception. Any act of contraception is intrinsically evil.

Abstaining from sexual relations, whether periodically or completely, is not contraception.

Contraception is the act of engaging in sexual intercourse while taking an action to render it sterile-- before, during, or after the act.

Abstaining is simply that, not having intercourse.

The Church teaching is that any time a couple engages in the act of intercourse it must be ordered per se to procreation and unity. The Church teaching is not some vague statement about being “open to life” it’s a very specific statement about each act being ordered properly. The Church has no teaching regarding how often or when a couple is to have intercourse or to abstain from it.

Per se ordered to procreation means it is ordered in its very being, the act itself. If the couple takes no action to alter the act, it is ordered *per se to procreation. An individual act of intercourse might be naturally infertile due to the time of the month, the age of the woman, pregnancy, or disease/defect but it is still ordered per se *to procreation.

I agree, but would just add that we need to be careful with terminology. Contraception is “against conception.” Any direct act which purposes contravenes conception while still engaging in the sex act is intrinsically evil – and this is what you have said. But contraception can also be a mentality, and even if NFP is used, that abstinence could be sinful (though not intrinsically so).

 

[surritter]

To spice this up:

In order to sell Natural Family Planning to a couple, they tell them that it is more effective in preventing birth than a condom. If that is true, isn’t the condom user more open to life statistically?

That’s like saying that someone who plays Russian roulette is “open to life” because five of the chambers are empty. Sheeesh.

 

[1ke]

But contraception can also be a mentality, and even if NFP is used, that abstinence could be sinful (though not intrinsically so).

No, contraception is not a mentality. It is an action.

If a couple sets its *will *against conception outside the moral criteria established by the Church (i.e., serious reason conforming to objective moral criteria as laid out in Humanae Vitae, the Catechism, etc) then they have indeed committed a sin.

But it is not the sin of contraception. It is a *different *sin-- perhaps greed, selfishness, disobedience, etc. But not contraception.

 

[hellopeople]

Natural family planning is allowed because it still allows for the possibility of life. At least that’s the way I understand it.

Really, because I keep hearing that NFP works even better than condoms or the pill in preventing pregnancy. By this definition, that means condoms would be more moral.

 

[crazzeto]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

God gives us infertal periods as part of his plan, thus making use of these does not violate the natural law. Though even still, many suggest a pure understanding of this is that NFP should only be used in situations where pregnancy is legitimatly a very big concern.

ABC does an end run around God, and there by removes the sacramental view of sexuality. It closes you emotionally to the possiblity of having a child, and turns sexuality into nothing more than a self gratifying act.

 

[surritter]

No, contraception is not a mentality. It is an action.

If a couple sets its *will *against conception outside the moral criteria established by the Church (i.e., serious reason conforming to objective moral criteria as laid out in Humanae Vitae, the Catechism, etc) then they have indeed committed a sin.

But it is not the sin of contraception. It is a *different *sin-- perhaps greed, selfishness, disobedience, etc. But not contraception.

OK – I’ll agree to that. But the common terminology even among Catholics is that contraception is “the avoidance of pregnancy.” (Which is why, even in Catholic writings, the term artificial contraception is used.)

So your post is valuable to at least clarify the terminology.

 

[1ke]

OK – I’ll agree to that. But the common terminology even among Catholics is that contraception is “the avoidance of pregnancy.” (Which is why, even in Catholic writings, the term artificial contraception is used.)

So your post is valuable to at least clarify the terminology.

While there may be many lay Catholic individuals who phrase or equate contraception with “avoiding pregnancy” the Church does not. It is unfortunate if they do so because it is imprecise and leads to erroneous conclusion. Similarly, the “open to life” line of reasoning is not the basis of Church teaching.

You will not find contraception equated with “avoiding pregnancy” in any Church documents nor in any of the writings of the best theologians on this topic-- for example Dr. Janet Smith PhD.