Natural vs Artificial Birth Control

[pensmama87]

It’s funny, in a dark way, the allegiance between contraception promoters and the “NFP is sinful” crowd. Both somehow seem to think that people who are charting fertility to avoid pregnancy are having their cake and eating it too.

Guess what? You don’t have to have cake all the time or never! You can have it in moderation! Just don’t eat it and then throw it up.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh no no no. Please understand; I’m not married to any of these rationales and I suppose neither is Catholicism. I’m just spouting back the arguments very, very commonly used on these very forums by Catholic brethern and sistern.

The issue we are discussing involves the meaning of “ordered per se toward procreation”.

This has been addressed repeatedly on many other forums…

As perfect NFP and The Pill have similar failure rates, the idea that one is more “ordered per se toward procreation” than the other is ludicrous.

God designed us to work in a specific way and frustrating His design is the problem.

That, by the way, is the vague “nature/design” argument you keep saying people aren’t using. You “frustrate his design” with every medication you take - particularly if those medications are for “diseases” that are life-style driven like high blood pressure.

Knowing about cycles and conducting ourselves in a way that recognizes that knowledge is consistent with God’s design.

Sure. Ovulation tests are what make highly effective, modern NFP possible from a statistical perspective. So testing when that ovums drops so we can avoid sex is “ok” while regulating when that ovum drops through hormonal medication is not “ok”.

The “little blue pill” is intended to return a body to a state that it was designed to function by God, not frustrate it.

The rise of ED as you get older seems to be a natural function of the body, deacon; given how extremely common it is. I’ve read nothing in ancient religious texts that indicates God designed us men to be as “robust” at 60 as we are at 20…

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ve not ignored it at all. I and others just find the language intentionally ambiguous. The NFP couple are engaged in specific conduct to frustrate the procreative aspect of marriage as much as they possibly can within their understanding of the Church’s confines.

Biologically, it should be near-impossible for the woman to get pregnant. Calling sex that is only engaged in during these moments as “ordered toward life” causes concern. They use the ovulation cycle itself - as precisely measured by artificial ovulation tests - as a barrier.

So, again, it appears that flowery language aside, “it seems the Church very specifically bans the use of artifice that directly and negatively affects the procreative outcome of sex” is a direct, true and unambiguous explanation of Church policy.

Disease and physical corruption were never part of God’s design. They exist only as a result of man’s own sinfulness.

So cholesterol making plaques in the bloodstream (and thus increasing BP) because I ate too many hamburgers - this would not have happened pre-fall regardless how many hamburgers I ate?

I think how we understand the consequences of the fall are not the same.

The “testing” you refer to in most cases simply means a woman… …takes her temperature. Hardly anything very sophisticated.

Sure, but a thermometer that was that precise and affordable didn’t exist until very, very recently. Ergo - Artifice.
And from the reading I’ve done on highly-effective NFP, it would be difficult to maintain a high success rate and not use ovulation tests. But I’m happy to stop at thermometers…

Scripture (if you want to read it literalistically [which I tend not to]) does talk about some robust extremely long lived people.

Thank you for your perspective, deacon.

 

[MichaelP3]

Is this only applicable to contraception?

 

[Vonsalza]

Then it’s a phrase that has a very specific “Catholic meaning” like the word “contraception” that differs from the one that many non-Catholics would assign to it.

The notion that couples who avoid each other when conception might be possible are “ordered toward life” is, frankly, a little hard to accept at face-value for those of us outside the fence.

It’s sorta like watching a bird pluck its feathers while proclaiming it’s still “ordered toward flight”.

But believe as you will, deacon.

Again, the language (see above) is clear and precise, it focuses on means, not ends…

Sure, and the “means” of deliberately testing one’s wife so you can avoid her like a sexual leper during her periods of fertility seems to be a dubious means with respect to being ordered.

The header to CCC 1652 is “Openness to Fertility”.

NFP just seems an obvious contradiction to that for many non-Catholics (and maybe a pope or two as well!).

But, again, believe as you will, deacon.

Quite possibly. My understanding is the teaching of the Church. If your understanding is different I can see why you are having trouble accepting this truth.

Oh, now stop with that sort of tiresome talk. The earth does indeed go around the sun, deacon. The inverse is not true. The Church can and does err. “The Church always teaches Truth” is a hill you cannot defend, so I recommend abandoning it.

It cannot err in a way that affects salvation, from what I’ve been taught. That’s a far, far cry from “it cannot err”.

First, the thermo technique is only one technique. Others that use no thermometers exist. Second, I don’t know what you mean by very very recently, but reliable oral thermometers have existed for quite a long time, and worked just fine for me and my wife for decades.

As the temp change in a woman is roughly half-a-degree (as an average), you need a thermometer (and a woman) that is accurate and precise enough to reliably measure that. We can debate about when those became widely available to women, but I’d argue that it’s well within your lifetime.

At any rate-

For any good, Catholic women reading this, NFP that is as effective as modern birth control is tightly associated with ovulation tests and clock-work menstral regularity.
You’ll find plenty of Catholics who might advise you that such things aren’t needed; but they’re the lucky ones. The less technology you employ in your attempt to practice NFP, the more likely you’re going to get pregnant. And, again, if you’re not super-regular, then practice NFP at your peril.
[edited per moderator referral]

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Vonsalza, “openness to life” means that the act is ordered towards procreation. As long as you’re not meddling with the act artificially, it’s still ordered towards procreation. That’s why NFP is acceptable for Catholics to use.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza, “openness to life” means that the act is ordered towards procreation.

Sure. And since you refuse to “sleep” with her when she’s likely to actually produce a child, it looks like a bit of a contradiction.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Did you read the rest of my post? It’s ordered towards procreation as long as you don’t artificially screw with it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Did you read the rest of my post? It’s ordered towards procreation as long as you don’t artificially screw with it.

As NFP is made possible due to the advance of technology, the notion that there’s nothing “artificial” involved is, again, a little hard to swallow.

But again, believe as you wish.

 

[Vonsalza]

The “means” referred to are the means of the marital act, not “testing”; which here again you seem to be trying to turn into some kind of complicated lab procedure rather than the woman just feeling her mucus between her fingers.

Any woman relying on the cervical mucus method in order to determine when to avoid having reproductive intercourse should also create a contingency plan for her eventual pregnancy.

I’ll say again; the examples where NFP is as effective as modern birth control methods involves the full utilization of modern technology. And even then, there’s a lot of debate about whether highly effective results involve cherry picked data.

The header to CCC 1652 is “Openness to Fertility”.
NFP just seems an obvious contradiction to that for many non-Catholics (and maybe a pope or two as well!).

Context matterss.

Cop-out, deacon. Unambiguously. But I don’t blame the denial. It indicts the already wobbly defense of NFP being acceptably “Catholic”.

…here again I never said the church cannot err.

Oh, so then you readily admit that the Church could possibly be wrong on a particular teaching?

Good enough for me, deacon.

Deacon, the desire for a way to avoid making babies but still enjoy the unitive function of sex is as old as the species. Before technology made NFP possible, all women had was the Rhythm Method - which NFP advocates doggedly try to distance themselves from.

After all, NFP ain’t in any 13th century texts.

If you don’t want to recognize the relatively novel reality of it, suit yourself.

Respectfully, deacon, the same is said by any true believer in anything on this planet. This isn’t a testimony of the truth of your reality. It’s a testimony of the sincerity of your devotion; which I don’t question at all!

Because I don’t “see it your way”, I’m being disingenuous???

That’s not reasonable, deacon.

Do you feel like this might apply to you, too, deacon?

Thank you for your engagement, deacon.

 

[Nita]

One big difference between contraceptives (as generally used) and NFP is that the Church teaches there needs to be a good reason/s to practice NFP - not just a selfish desire for physical pleasure:

• “If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances,” (Humanae Vitae #16)
• “For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness…” (CCC #2368)

Unfortunately, this is rarely mentioned and I would guess most Catholics are unaware of this teaching.

 

[hoping4more]

OP, Vonsalza;

I think what you are getting hung up on and what (name removed by moderator) has tried to communicate (though inadequately) is that you should not do anything to harm your body from its natural process, making the Pill, IUDs, vasectomys etc illicit.

Though you are correct NFP and artifical contraception can both be ‘not ordered toward procreation’. The difference is two fold, it is by ‘each act’ and whether it disrupts your body’s natural process. So yes it is not the rhythem method or just looking at mucus but it still is in the same vein; observing from the outside.

Though, in fact NFP can be wrong! ah the horror!

If a couple wanted no children, just because, and used NFP as such, then yes they would be, in general, sinning.

NFP and Serious Reasons...What are these reasons? - Taylor Marshall