NFP and Condoms

[_Zorgirl]

Hi,

I have been learning a lot about NFP, and it really makes sense to me. I for sure agree that if things like BC are possibly harmful, put the body into a state which is not the natural state (unlike medications used to help the person onto the natural and proper state of being) and how they at times can abort since we believe life begins at conception and not just when the fetus joins the wall of the uterus.

I also get why barrier methods that go in place are not ok, since they do not allow for the choice to be made as often etc.

However, why does the church not allow condoms within a marriage to be used on days when a couple may be ovulating and not in a state to intentionally get pregnant at that time? I know they say the two must become one flesh, and that sex is two fold, and God only gives what we can handle, but I just need a little more understanding. NFP is tricky at times from what I hear, and sex is a wonderful bond for couples, and know abstinence shows they care for their family and respect each other, but all that aside, why not condoms on fertile days as a tool to assist the couple? Help me to understand a little more. For the record, I am single, but wanting to know.

Thanks.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Hi,

I have been learning a lot about NFP, and it really makes sense to me. I for sure agree that if things like BC are possibly harmful, put the body into a state which is not the natural state (unlike medications used to help the person onto the natural and proper state of being) and how they at times can abort since we believe life begins at conception and not just when the fetus joins the wall of the uterus.

I also get why barrier methods that go in place are not ok, **since they do not allow for the choice to be made as often etc. **

However, why does the church not allow condoms within a marriage to be used on days when a couple may be ovulating and not in a state to intentionally get pregnant at that time? I know they say the two must become one flesh, and that sex is two fold, and God only gives what we can handle, but I just need a little more understanding. NFP is tricky at times from what I hear, and sex is a wonderful bond for couples, and know abstinence shows they care for their family and respect each other, but all that aside, why not condoms on fertile days as a tool to assist the couple? Help me to understand a little more. For the record, I am single, but wanting to know.

Thanks.

Birth control is not sinful just because it is harmful to the body or because it can be abortifacient. Nor are barrier methods sinful because they do not allow the choice to be made as often, whatever that means.

All forms of birth control are sinful because they subvert the sex act from its full meaning. That is, they deliberately frustrate the procreative end of sex. Anything, be it condoms, pills, a vasectomy or hysterectomy, whatever. Anything that deliberately renders the sex act sterile is sinful.

Even NFP can be sinful if used with a contraceptive mentality, i.e. deliberately avoiding children for selfish reasons.

chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/morality/why-catholic-church-again

chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/birth-control

chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/methods/condom/condom

 

[MidnightSun12]

NFP is the calculated decision to not have sex, whereas sex with a condom is the affirmative decision to mutually masturbate (which, like masturbation, is mortally sinful). Deciding not to have sex is not, in itself, a sinful act and that is why NFP can be morally permissible.

That said, we can sin both in our thoughts as well as our actions so even if a married couple strictly uses NFP they can still develop the mentality of contraception when there is no serious reason present to not have children.

I hope this helps!

 

[_Zorgirl]

Thanks for the replies. I have heard all these answers before, and they are super to hear again to remind me of what I often forget. I think though what I do not really understand fully is why sex has to be about children. How did the Catholic church come to decide this, besides it being natural and children being a great gift? I am in the process of studying Theology of the Body and I know I have heard some answers before, but I want as many resources as to the history and reasoning behind this. It makes sense, but I really want to dig deeper to truly accept and understand it and be able to share the belief with others. I do not want to sound ignorant, I just want to fully understand and be able to live out such a different idea than society puts out for us (usually, in North America, that is)

 

[JamesCaruso]

NFP is the calculated decision to not have sex, whereas sex with a condom is the affirmative decision to mutually masturbate (which is mortally sinful). Deciding not to have sex is not, in itself, a sinful act and that is why NFP can be morally permissible.

That said, we can sin both in our thoughts as well as our actions so even if a married couple strictly uses NFP they can still develop the mentality of contraception when there is no serious reason present to not have children.

I hope this helps!

I disagree that use of a condom equates to mutual masturbation, What it is is normal sex whose ultimate purpose is frustrated. I hope you don’t see sex without a condom as mutual masturbation that is open to life. The sex act should be an expression of love, whether with or without a condom.

 

[_Zorgirl]

I read the articles of the AP and thought of one thing: even if condoms were not allowed, abstinence is the only 100% effective method to avoid pregnancy (assuming the couple is in a situation were a pregnancy would be harmful etc). So, I get how it takes love, courage and could be said to be a better choice for a family to abstain, but at the same time, you still have to be open to having children, so it seems like a paradox of sorts. I am sure it is not, but this is what confuses me.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I think though what I do not really understand fully is why sex has to be about children.

Not trying to sound condescending, but to make a comparison, that’s like asking why eyes have to be about seeing. That is what it was made for. To divorce it from that meaning is an offense to God’s eternal Reason.

On the practical side, since sin always has spiritual effects, separating sex from its procreative meaning does damage to marriages as well. Pope Paul VI addressed these concerns well in Humanae Vitae. Also, couples who practice NFP report stronger relationships and greater marital satisfaction. The statistics back this up, as couples who use NFP have a divorce rate of around 1% whereas contracepting couples are around 60%.

How did the Catholic church come to decide this, besides it being natural and children being a great gift?

The same way the Catholic Church decides everything: it was revealed to Her by Christ and/or the Holy Spirit. This has been part of the Church’s teaching since the very beginning. Contraception is also condemned in the Bible.

Do you understand the doctrine of infallibility?

 

[prodigalson2011]

I read the articles of the AP and thought of one thing: even if condoms were not allowed, abstinence is the only 100% effective method to avoid pregnancy (assuming the couple is in a situation were a pregnancy would be harmful etc). So, I get how it takes love, courage and could be said to be a better choice for a family to abstain, but at the same time, you still have to be open to having children, so it seems like a paradox of sorts. I am sure it is not, but this is what confuses me.

The beautiful thing about a paradox is that it “seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.” The Catholic faith is full of them. Take for example the Catholic doctrines of human free will vs. God’s divine plan.

The thing about NFP is that, used properly, there is no abuse of God’s creation involved, and the marital act still retains its fullness; it follows its natural course. It respects the body as God designed it.

The reasons that NFP is completely different are manifold. If you’re faithfully studying the Theology of the Body, you’ll learn plenty more. You’re on the right track; keep running!

 

[MidnightSun12]

I disagree that use of a condom equates to mutual masturbation, What it is is normal sex whose ultimate purpose is frustrated. I hope you don’t see sex without a condom as mutual masturbation that is open to life. The sex act should be an expression of love, whether with or without a condom.

What transforms the marital act into the moral equivalent of masturbation is when the marital act, itself, is no longer open to the possibility of new life (either via a physical or a chemical barrier that is intended to close the act to the possibility of life).

The act of contracepted sex simply cannot be an expression of love since love is the full giving of oneself to the other (contraception is fundamentally contrary to the whole idea of full-giving of self). Also, we need to remember that God is Love so any act that removes God from the equation also therefore must be contrary to love.

If we can argue that a couple can express their love for each other while using a condom then we must also immediately consider the possibility of the homosexual act being an expression of love. If the openness to the possibility of new life is not a requirement of the sexual act (and sex can be only about the pleasure), then why do the participating members need to be of the opposite gender (or even members of the same species?) Unfortunately, contraception is the gateway to all sexual perversion, which is the cause of much of the suffering in today’s society.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I read the articles of the AP and thought of one thing: even if condoms were not allowed, abstinence is the only 100% effective method to avoid pregnancy (assuming the couple is in a situation were a pregnancy would be harmful etc). So, I get how** it takes love, courage and could be said to be a better choice for a family to abstain, but at the same time, you still have to be open to having children, so it seems like a paradox of sorts.** I am sure it is not, but this is what confuses me.

Holiness takes love and courage–and also an active prayer life to discern what God has planned for our lives. NFP requires that, as does parenting a large family, as does undesired infertility. There’s the paradox! It’s about being open to* God’s* plan for our lives and families, accepting whatever “crosses” He gives us. Since you are studying theology, you probably realize already that** the cross is a paradox**.

When we pick up our crosses to follow Him, sometimes He gives us choices on which cross we can pick–and sometimes He doesn’t. I doubt that any couple would intentionally pick the cross for pregnancy to pose serious health risks for the wife, but it they have that cross, they can choose NFP. NFP is one of those crosses that allows for some choice and NFP isn’t only for those who have serious health risks.

The Church has not specifically defined what makes a “just” reason for using it, but leaves it up to couples to prayerfully discern. Simple because a couple has reason for using NFP doesn’t mean God always wishes them to use it. Because NFP can be difficult at times, that can help couples remain or open up to the possibility of having more children. My husband and I stopped using NFP several years ago–and we had more children as a result of that decision.

 

[_Zorgirl]

Not trying to sound condescending, but to make a comparison, that’s like asking why eyes have to be about seeing. That is what it was made for. To divorce it from that meaning is an offense to God’s eternal Reason.

On the practical side, since sin always has spiritual effects, separating sex from its procreative meaning does damage to marriages as well. Pope Paul VI addressed these concerns well in Humanae Vitae. Also, couples who practice NFP report stronger relationships and greater marital satisfaction. The statistics back this up, as couples who use NFP have a divorce rate of around 1% whereas contracepting couples are around 60%.

The same way the Catholic Church decides everything: it was revealed to Her by Christ and/or the Holy Spirit. This has been part of the Church’s teaching since the very beginning. Contraception is also condemned in the Bible.

Do you understand the doctrine of infallibility?

I do understand infallibility, but I still have human feelings and wonderings. I like how you compared the eye (an organ) to a sexual organ. However, we can close our eyes during the day and not have a need for sleep though, one could say. Also,you can have sex on days where you might not be ovulating, or near ovulation, right, so I guess that is the intended way to allow us humans to have sex without always having to have a child. There are times when having a child just would not be the best, and God has given us reason and an ability to make choices, right? So, I would never want to blindly just have sex whenever and presume that God would take care of allowing a pregnancy or not. I mean, yeah, I know he allows or disallows all things and good would always come, but we still have free will,right, so we also have a responsibility to our lives to think and even though God will take care of us, we also would be best to work within that plan. Just like how if we want to feel well and live life we must eat food and move. We do not just sit down and presume God will fill us or not fill us. We take action to eat or to eat well to better our bodies. Life is a gift, but sometimes we need help. This makes sense, but I am still going to think about it more.

Thank you everyone for your replies. Some of them were hard to read and not feel a little insulted, but they all were your replies, so thanks.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Thanks for the replies. I have heard all these answers before, and they are super to hear again to remind me of what I often forget. I think though what I do not really understand fully is why sex has to be about children. **How did the Catholic church come to decide this, besides it being natural and children being a great gift? ** I am in the process of studying Theology of the Body and I know I have heard some answers before, but I want as many resources as to the history and reasoning behind this. It makes sense, but I really want to dig deeper to truly accept and understand it and be able to share the belief with others. I do not want to sound ignorant, I just want to fully understand and be able to live out such a different idea than society puts out for us (usually, in North America, that is)

Well, it’s not just a “Catholic Church” thing… it’s what God designed.
God’s first instruction to his created humans was to “Be fruitful and multiply”. First instruction.
God DESIGNED sex… he designed all creation to have sex (plants, animals, etc) in order to propagate the species - by design.
For humans he made it twofold… we get EXTREME ENJOYMENT from the act… and it also serves the original primary design of all creation (plants, animals, etc) for procreating… twofold for humans - again, by DESIGN.
God made it that way - and instructed us to be sexual within a holy structure (marriage).

I read the articles of the AP and thought of one thing: even if condoms were not allowed, abstinence is the only 100% effective method to avoid pregnancy (assuming the couple is in a situation were a pregnancy would be harmful etc). So, I get how it takes love, courage and could be said to be a better choice for a family to abstain, but at the same time, you still have to be open to having children, so it seems like a paradox of sorts. I am sure it is not, but this is what confuses me.

So yeah… God wants us to ideally have lots of love and babies. But, we all know there is a lot of brokenness and pain in this world - original sin means that we don’t live in “ideal” circumstances. Things happen - things can make us stress and pray for change… financial strains, health issues, craziness… all of these are very legitimate/just reasons for a couple to say, “Hey, we just can’t handle another baby right now because of this stress. If this stress could disappear we’d love to be open to children!”… and out of respect for God’s design (the twofold gift of sexuality) we aren’t going tell God that His design is bad just because “we want sex anyway - our way”… that’s disrespecting God’s intended design.
Sure, we’re sacrificing something AWESOME, but out of respect for that awesome design, we put our stresses into PRAYER during that time.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I do understand infallibility, but I still have human feelings and wonderings. I like how you compared the eye (an organ) to a sexual organ. However, we can close our eyes during the day and not have a need for sleep though, one could say. Also,you can have sex on days where you might not be ovulating, or near ovulation, right, so I guess that is the intended way to allow us humans to have sex without always having to have a child. There are times when having a child just would not be the best, and God has given us reason and an ability to make choices, right? So, I would never want to blindly just have sex whenever and presume that God would take care of allowing a pregnancy or not. I mean, yeah, I know he allows or disallows all things and good would always come, but we still have free will,right, so we also have a responsibility to our lives to think and even though God will take care of us, we also would be best to work within that plan. Just like how if we want to feel well and live life we must eat food and move. We do not just sit down and presume God will fill us or not fill us. We take action to eat or to eat well to better our bodies. Life is a gift, but sometimes we need help. This makes sense, but I am still going to think about it more.

Thank you everyone for your replies. Some of them were hard to read and not feel a little insulted, but they all were your replies, so thanks.

Again, I’m sorry if any of my posts came across as condescending or insulting. I certainly didn’t mean them to. I’m not always the most tactful communicator.

 

[JamesCaruso]

…Since you are studying theology, you probably realize already that** the cross is a paradox**. …

O who am I
That for my sake,
My Lord should take
Frail flesh, and die?

But the paradox is mainly in the eyes of the world.

A mother dying in childbirth so that her offspring might live, dispels the paradox, but not the mystery, of love. Why would a mature woman, with everything to live for, a good husband, a good job, many friends, allow herself to die so that this tiny barely formed human being, weak, with no intellectual development, no memories except of darkness in the womb, no skills or qualities as yet to be learned, nothing, nothing to commend her… nothing but her mother’s love.