NFP and Contraception. Just curious, not attacking the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter swade4147
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

swade4147

Guest
Let me start by saying that i am not trying to start a flame war, just curious about a certain point regarding the two subjects.

I just have a quick question regarding two arguments i see often on this board concerning the topic of NFP and contraception. Stop me if i am mistaken, but the difference is stated to be that NFP is open to God because it unpredictable and not 100% likely to prevent pregnancy. While contraception is shutting God out of the picture, and used to completely avoid pregnancy every time.

Now while this argument makes sense, it seems to contradict another argument against contraception, especially condoms. I hear people say that all the time that condoms are not even 100% effective anyway, due to them breaking or leaking.

Now if condoms are not a sure fire thing against pregnancy, how is it that God is taken out of the picture? Even if the odds are 99% against pregnancy, it seems if it is God’s plan for you to get pregnant, he is still able to make it happen. I mean, if he can get a virgin pregnant, whats stopping his divine will from taking advantage of a contraception method that is not always successful?

thanks for any feedback.
 
swade4147 said:
Let me start by saying that i am not trying to start a flame war, just curious about a certain point regarding the two subjects.

I just have a quick question regarding two arguments i see often on this board concerning the topic of NFP and contraception. Stop me if i am mistaken, but the difference is stated to be that NFP is open to God because it unpredictable and not 100% likely to prevent pregnancy. While contraception is shutting God out of the picture, and used to completely avoid pregnancy every time.

Now while this argument makes sense, it seems to contradict another argument against contraception, especially condoms. I hear people say that all the time that condoms are not even 100% effective anyway, due to them breaking or leaking.

Now if condoms are not a sure fire thing against pregnancy, how is it that God is taken out of the picture? Even if the odds are 99% against pregnancy, it seems if it is God’s plan for you to get pregnant, he is still able to make it happen. I mean, if he can get a virgin pregnant, whats stopping his divine will from taking advantage of a contraception method that is not always successful?

thanks for any feedback.
Click to expand...
The reason for allowing NFP is not because it is not 100% effective, it is because it follows the natural phases of the human body. We believe God gave us these phases for good reason, as with all of our natural functions. So, to use NFP is to use sexuality as God intended us to, which is all natural.

So, the other contraceptive methods are “artificial”, and that is the primary reason for not allowing it.
 
Premontre said:
The reason for allowing NFP is not because it is not 100% effective, it is because it follows the natural phases of the human body. We believe God gave us these phases for good reason, as with all of our natural functions. So, to use NFP is to use sexuality as God intended us to, which is all natural.

So, the other contraceptive methods are “artificial”, and that is the primary reason for not allowing it.
Click to expand...
Welcome Swade4147.

The above quote certainly is part of it.

There is another issue of giving yourself to your spouse. When you contracept (literally, contra-conception) you are holding back part of yourself from your spouse. You are saying that you are willing to give them everything, except your fertility. Most couples who contracept look at their fertility as a problem, some thing that needs to be controlled and manged, not unlike a disease. In truth, your fertility is a wonderful gift from God. When you purposely interfere and disable it, you are telling that God, ‘Thanks but no thanks’.

Pope John Paul II wrote an Apostolic Exhortation called Familiaris Consortio. In it he says:

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of “total” self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.

Our responsibility as Christians is use the gifts that have been given us for the greater glorification of God.

On a side note, the Catholic church does not prohibit birth control. It prohibits * artificial* birth control. The stipulation at marriage is that you are open to life, not that you try and have as many kids as you can. If you and your spouse are open to life, yet choose not to be together during her fertile times as to avoid having children, there is nothing wrong with that. But you need to be together with the full understanding that sex can result in babies and you need to open to that happening.
 
swade4147 said:
I just have a quick question regarding two arguments i see often on this board concerning the topic of NFP and contraception. Stop me if i am mistaken, but the difference is stated to be that NFP is open to God because it unpredictable and not 100% likely to prevent pregnancy.
Click to expand...
No. Contraception is that which a person does to render the sexual act sterile. It’s something that is done before, during, or after the act (for example, taking a pill, wearing a condom, or withdrawing) to change the sexual act or alter their fertility. This is what the Church says is wrong.

Natural family planning, on the other hand, does not sterilize the sexual act at all. When spouses wishing to avoid pregnancy know they are fertile, rather than distorting the sexual act, they simply abstain from it. When spouses make use of infertile periods they embrace the sexual act as it was designed to be. Natural family planning is just as effective at preventing pregnancy as contraception. The efficacy of a method does not determine its licitness.
 
swade4147 said:
Stop me if i am mistaken, but the difference is stated to be that NFP is open to God because it unpredictable and not 100% likely to prevent pregnancy. While contraception is shutting God out of the picture, and used to completely avoid pregnancy every time.
Click to expand...
While you may have seen this argument on CAF and elsewhere, it is completely misplaced.

The effectiveness of NFP versus contraception has NOTHING to do with the Church’s teaching regarding the morality of NFP and immorality of contraception.

The Church’s ACTUAL teaching is that each act of sexual intercourse must be BOTH unitive and procreative. Contraception distorts the marital act, it disrupts the procreative element either before, during, or after the act rendering it sterile. NFP does not do this. Each time the couple engages in sexual intercourse it is unaltered-- it is completely unitive and procreative. If the couple does not wish to conceive, they choose to abstain from the martial act instead of engaging in it and mutilating it.
swade4147 said:
Now while this argument makes sense, it seems to contradict another argument against contraception, especially condoms. I hear people say that all the time that condoms are not even 100% effective anyway, due to them breaking or leaking.

Now if condoms are not a sure fire thing against pregnancy, how is it that God is taken out of the picture? Even if the odds are 99% against pregnancy, it seems if it is God’s plan for you to get pregnant, he is still able to make it happen. I mean, if he can get a virgin pregnant, whats stopping his divine will from taking advantage of a contraception method that is not always successful?

thanks for any feedback.
Click to expand...
Certainly your thoughts flow logically from the “not 100%” argument. However, as I’ve already explained above, this is not why the Church teaches that contraception is immoral.
 
Premontre said:
So, the other contraceptive methods are “artificial”, and that is the primary reason for not allowing it.
Click to expand...
Being artificial is not the Church’s reason for teaching contraception is immoral. Artificial-ness has nothing to do with it. Many things are “artificial” that the Church has no moral issue with.

Again, *each act *of intercourse must preserve both the unitive and procreative elements.

This may seem a small distinction, but it is very important.
 
swade4147 said:
Let me start by saying that i am not trying to start a flame war, just curious about a certain point regarding the two subjects.

I just have a quick question regarding two arguments i see often on this board concerning the topic of NFP and contraception. Stop me if i am mistaken, but the difference is stated to be that NFP is open to God because it unpredictable and not 100% likely to prevent pregnancy. While contraception is shutting God out of the picture, and used to completely avoid pregnancy every time.

Now while this argument makes sense, it seems to contradict another argument against contraception, especially condoms. I hear people say that all the time that condoms are not even 100% effective anyway, due to them breaking or leaking.

Now if condoms are not a sure fire thing against pregnancy, how is it that God is taken out of the picture? Even if the odds are 99% against pregnancy, it seems if it is God’s plan for you to get pregnant, he is still able to make it happen. I mean, if he can get a virgin pregnant, whats stopping his divine will from taking advantage of a contraception method that is not always successful?

thanks for any feedback.
Click to expand...
I think non-spermicidal and non-lubricated condoms are more open to life as if you have sex with a condom during your fertile period you have greater risk of pregnancy than if you’re using NFP. It’s true that God could still cause pregnancy to happen if a couple use NFP but calendar based methods of NFP are more open to God’s work as symptothermal methods chart every single ovulation. This means God can’t change the date of ovulation in order to increase the likelihood of pregnancy without the couple taking preventitive means.

Calendar based methods include Standard Days Method and Rhythm Method however the problem is that they have longer periods of abstinence.

Condoms are not 100% ethical as some contain chemicals on the outside of the condom which damage the lining of the vagina, could damage sperm which succeeds in fertilising an egg (rare) and therefore disable a fertilised egg/child or even cause to abort. Most condoms are non-spermicidal these days but you need to read the back of the packet.
 
budgie2 said:
I think non-spermicidal and non-lubricated condoms are more open to life as if you have sex with a condom during your fertile period you have greater risk of pregnancy than if you’re using NFP. It’s true that God could still cause pregnancy to happen if a couple use NFP but calendar based methods of NFP are more open to God’s work as symptothermal methods chart every single ovulation. This means God can’t change the date of ovulation in order to increase the likelihood of pregnancy without the couple taking preventitive means.

Calendar based methods include Standard Days Method and Rhythm Method however the problem is that they have longer periods of abstinence.

Condoms are not 100% ethical as some contain chemicals on the outside of the condom which damage the lining of the vagina, could damage sperm which succeeds in fertilising an egg (rare) and therefore disable a fertilised egg/child or even cause to abort. Most condoms are non-spermicidal these days but you need to read the back of the packet.
Click to expand...
No. Absolutely not. I have seen you make this type of post in other NFP threads. ALL use of condoms is intrinsically evil and must be avoided. There is no form of artificial birth control that that is ‘more’ open to life.
 
Swade,

Like everyone has been sayin the church doesn’t permit the use of NFP because it is ineffective. It has more to do with natural law theory. Here is an article that outlines what natural law is and how it applies to contraception tinyurl.com/mr7gmb. It is a little long but it is a good article for people who have no idea what the church is referring to by natural law
 
A method cannot be both open to life and also prevent pregnancy. The more open to life it is the less effective it is at preventing pregnancy. There’s a lot of people trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes in the Church and a lot of people who do not understand the Church’s teaching at all. Preventing pregnancy is a priority of family planning organisations such as Planned Parenthood, not necessarily a priority of priests, although there are members of NFP institutions for whom pregnancy prevention is their main goal.
 
We need to understand that when NFP is designed to prevent pregnancy, it is to do so for a time -ie, to space births.

It is not allowable to use NFP to never have children. That goes against the marital vow to be open to children.

NFP is allowed because:
  1. It does not introduce anything artifical in the marital act
  2. It does not alter nor hinder the natural functioning of the reproductive system
    As such, using NFP respects the Creation of sexuality by not amending it.
  3. It is open to life because to practice NFP correctly does not mean merely following a method (calendar-based or biofeedback) but also following that technique only for a time. Births are allowed to be spaced because children present a demand for the family’s resources of time, energy and finances. If you can’t afford more children, you shouldn’t have them until your finances recover. If your marriage cannot withstand the stress of another child, you should repair your relationship first. If your body cannot bear the stress of another pregnancy, you may legitimately not get pregnant again.
So why aren’t condoms and other methods allowed if they are also intended only to delay and space out births?
Because they are artifical methods and show disrespect for the gift of sexuality.

I’ve heard it argued by theologians that there is a special case of a woman whose body cannot withstand pregnancy (ie, has a heart defect that would kill her and the baby), but who is young and newly married and whose cycle cannot be tracked for NFP due to permanent hormonal or systemic imbalances that cannot be rectified medically.

This is a difficult and rare case. Normally, abstinence would be called for, but in the case of a young marriage it is imperative to maintain the integrity of the marriage, and so some artificial means of contraception could be allowed provided it is non-abortive (ie, severing the fallopian tubes). In similar cases - such as for a woman whose body is under temporary stress, ie chemotherapy - abstinence would otherwise be called for.
 
As a former Protestant who thought NFP was illogical, I understand why you would ask; as a new Catholic and 3 year user of NFP I have to agree with what losh14 said.

I read a lot of philosophical feminism and it is interesting to see how contraception (meaning we can have sex pretty much risk free all the time) can lead to the further objectification of women. This is obviously not the main reason the Church teaches NFP, but the point is that when you track NFP and its influences it preserves the integrity of sex and marriage in a way artificial birth control cannot.
 
budgie2 said:
A method cannot be both open to life and also prevent pregnancy. The more open to life it is the less effective it is at preventing pregnancy. There’s a lot of people trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes in the Church and a lot of people who do not understand the Church’s teaching at all. Preventing pregnancy is a priority of family planning organisations such as Planned Parenthood, not necessarily a priority of priests, although there are members of NFP institutions for whom pregnancy prevention is their main goal.
Click to expand...
It’s not the “method” that prevents pregnancy it’s the not having sex that prevents pregnancy. Unless you’re weird you probably are not having sex as you read this and that’s acceptable. We don’t want to know about it if you are (sympathies to your spouse though 😊).
 
I just found this thread but don’t see an answer to my question: “What is the efficacy of NFP?”. I haven’t been able to find a source for this information and would appreciate any direction . . .
Thanks!
KateO
 
KateO said:
I just found this thread but don’t see an answer to my question: “What is the efficacy of NFP?”. I haven’t been able to find a source for this information and would appreciate any direction . . .
Thanks!
KateO
Click to expand...
There are tons of studies. Here are some links that might be helpful:

usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/section2.shtml

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

naturalfamilyplanning.ie/nfp-effectiveness/nfp-comparison/

springerlink.com/content/m0v4556421x46851/

cssnc.org/nfp_effectiveness.html
 
I have problems understanding the difference between NFP and contraception too. The way I see it, both are ways of having sex while intentionally avoiding pregnancy. A couple wants the pleasure of sex without the consequences of it’s natural intended purpose. I see that contraception is wrong because it is unnatural and the purpose of sex is to procreate. I am confused by NFP because it too is used by people who want to have sex but want to avoid pregnancy. While contraception uses drugs or condoms to prevent pregnancy, NFP is purposely and intentionally “avoiding” and “sneaking by” pregnancy. I am having a hard time trying to understand. My girlfriend is protestant and has never been taught about contraception being immoral. I think she sees the logic in how contraception is unnatural and selfish, but NFP is confusing.
Most distinctions between the NFP and contraception that I am aware of are kind of theological. Marriage is a symbol of the trinity and when you contracept you are “disrupting the flow of love” within the trinity (I’m paraphrasing). Is this view of marriage exclusively catholic, or is it embraced by other denominations of Christianity as well? Thank you so much for any feedback! I’ve been thinking long and hard about this issue and I’m just trying to understand better.
 
I do not believe that effectiveness has anything to do with why NFP is acceptable. All forms of bc short of a hysterectomy have a failure rate.

What NFP does that is different is it works within the natural design that God has created. We were created with this cycle of fertility (and a curiosity to understand). We can respect the beauty of Gods creation, or we can in our arrogance ignore Gods design and try to fix it.
 
Im very worried about this. I think I just need a better understanding. The arguments against contraception that convince me do not correlate to arguments for NFP. People will say contraception is used for selfish desire for pleasure without respecting the purpose of the act but, NFP is used as a way to have the pleasure of sex without having the consequences of babies.
 
Curious_Hobbit said:
Im very worried about this. I think I just need a better understanding. The arguments against contraception that convince me do not correlate to arguments for NFP. People will say contraception is used for selfish desire for pleasure without respecting the purpose of the act but, NFP is used as a way to have the pleasure of sex without having the consequences of babies.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and have the same dilemma, the intention of NFP is no different from any other form of contraception - to avoid as far as possible conception and to enjoy the act by avoiding of procreation aspect.

In its purest form based on unitive and procreative elements, sex should be indulged in only with the intention of having children or on impulse without premeditation with regards to timing or anything else thereby truly being open to the possibility of conception.

Regards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top