NFP and Contraception once again

[QuasiCatholic]

Apologies if someone else already shared this line of thinking, because I haven’t read the whole thread. But my problem with the whole NFP “open to life” thing goes something like this:

If we accept that condoms, for example, have a 5% failure rate. And that any act of abstinence has by definition a 0% failure rate, then aren’t you actually being more “open to life” by having sex with a condom, knowing full well you might get pregnant, than by not having sex during your fertile period, thereby guaranteeing you won’t?

either way the intent to not get pregnant is there – but with abstinence you’re actually completely eliminating the possibility.

 

[Abu]

QuasiCatholic #60
I haven’t read the whole thread.

Then that shackles you to preconceived misconceptions which you could have demolished. To be serious about such a grave matter one needs to be conscientious.

If we accept that condoms, for example, have a 5% failure rate. And that any act of abstinence has by definition a 0% failure rate, then aren’t you actually being more “open to life” by having sex with a condom, knowing full well you might get pregnant, than by not having sex during your fertile period, thereby guaranteeing you won’t?
either way the intent to not get pregnant is there – but with abstinence you’re actually completely eliminating the possibility.

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: **with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. **You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

Since when, and why, has abstention for serious reasons being a fault? The more we learn and practice self-restraint in all things for a greater good, do we become more Christ-like.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization

.”

No offense to Fr. Torraco, whoever he is, but this part does not follow at all from the earlier part of his argument, even if he thinks it does.

And that still doesn’t answer the question – condoms do not prevent procreation. They might lessen the chances of it a little, but they in no way remove the possibility of conception from the sex act. How can an act that can result in procreation not be procreative?

 

[jilly4ski]

Apologies if someone else already shared this line of thinking, because I haven’t read the whole thread. But my problem with the whole NFP “open to life” thing goes something like this:

If we accept that condoms, for example, have a 5% failure rate. And that any act of abstinence has by definition a 0% failure rate, then aren’t you actually being more “open to life” by having sex with a condom, knowing full well you might get pregnant, than by not having sex during your fertile period, thereby guaranteeing you won’t?

either way the intent to not get pregnant is there – but with abstinence you’re actually completely eliminating the possibility.

Think of this as the whole point. Sex=babies. If you abstain (a perfectly legitimate thing to do, since you can’t always be having sex) you won’t have babies. (Again fine, there are plenty of valid reasons not to have babies). But if you distort the marital act to exclude the possibility of babies, then it is a sin. See the difference between infertile (old age, infertile time, or just infertility) sex and contraceptive sex, is the distortion of the marital act. Infertile sex is the same as regular sex. But with contraception you must do something to prevent that specific act from producing children.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Think of this as the whole point. Sex=babies. If you abstain (a perfectly legitimate thing to do, since you can’t always be having sex) you won’t have babies. (Again fine, there are plenty of valid reasons not to have babies). But if you distort the marital act to exclude the possibility of babies, then it is a sin. See the difference between infertile (old age, infertile time, or just infertility) sex and contraceptive sex, is the distortion of the marital act. Infertile sex is the same as regular sex. But with contraception you must do something to prevent that specific act from producing children.

As I said a moment ago, I can see this argument for, say, sterilization, or the Pill – which has something like a 99.99% effective rate.

But condoms are not at all a guarantee. They do not entirely remove the possibility of children from the equation. And sex that can result in procreation is by definition procreative. So … ?

 

[underacloud]

And that still doesn’t answer the question – condoms do not prevent procreation. They might lessen the chances of it a little, but they in no way remove the possibility of conception from the sex act. How can an act that can result in procreation not be procreative?

The sin is in the intent, not the outcome. If you use a condom, you are attempting (intending) to frustrate the procreative nature of sex.

Likewise, if I attempt to murder someone, I sin (and commit a crime), even if I fail to kill them. The sinfulness of an action depends on the intent of the action.

 

[Aaron_Brrr]

The sin is in the intent, not the outcome.

Now I am really confused. So if I do the wrong thing for the right reasons it is no sin? That sounds dangerously close to “The ends justify the means”, which is how a lot of really nasty things occurred in history.

 

[underacloud]

Now I am really confused. So if I do the wrong thing for the right reasons it is no sin? That sounds dangerously close to “The ends justify the means”, which is how a lot of really nasty things occurred in history.

No, it does not mean that the ends justify the means. Every means is considered an end in itself and the intended action (whether considered a means or an end) must be morally good (or neutral) in itself.

What it does mean is that:

a) You can’t sin by doing something you don’t know (at some level) is a sin. (this is a simplification, noting there are differences between invincible ignorance and vincible ignorance).

b) You can sin by intending to do something you know is wrong but fail to acheive it.

 

[Abu]

QuasiCatholic #62
No offense to Fr. Torraco, whoever he is, but this part does not follow at all from the earlier part of his argument, even if he thinks it does.

Such ignorance explains the lack of understanding of the logic of a statement, especially as Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network.

Since the condom intent is to deliberately put a barrier to conception during the sexual act, nothing can justify that action. The obvious question, which is always avoided, is why did God provide infertile periods and not command against their use even for just reasons? As has been correctly stated the intent is wrong in deliberately putting a man-made barrier to conception which thwarts the objective of the act.

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Oct-30-2003 (EWTN): **
A number of differences between natural family planning and contraception are worth noting.
First, the evil in contraception consists essentially in its deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the love-giving and life-giving meanings of the marital act. There is no such rupture in natural family planning. Moreover, anyone who attempts to morally justify contraception must face up to the logic of that attempt: the person must also accept the moral justification of homosexual activity, genital activity with anyone or anything, in vitro fertilization, and cloning.
Second, while natural family planning nurtures total mutual self-giving between husband and wife, contraception introduces a reservation into their nuptial union. Contraception communicates the message, “I love you…but.” When husband and wife contracept, they lie to each other and to themselves. This may not be what husband and wife intend, but this is what they are objectively doing.
Thirdly, while natural family planning teaches a husband to respect his wife wholly, contraception not only does not teach this, but also permits a man to view his wife as a passive receptacle for his own passions. As noted previously, contraception imposes upon the wife the distorted masculine reduction of feminine sexuality (which includes conception, gestation, giving birth, and breast feeding) to the isolated coital act. Thus, while with natural family planning husband and wife together share the responsibilities of parenthood, with contraception the responsibility is laid on the shoulders of one or the other spouse.
Fourthly, while natural family planning includes growth in virtue, especially chastity, contraception requires no virtue at all. Moreover, while natural family planning deepens the marital bond, contraception weakens marriage’s unitive dimension.
Fifthly, while natural family planning involves a cooperation with the gift of fertility, contraception involves the manipulation and frustration of fertility.
Sixthly, while natural family planning has no adverse side effects but rather only a number of benefits, contraception has a number of serious medical side effects and is often abortifacient. As one moral theologian once put it, so called “pure” or “clean” contraception is a virtual myth.
Finally, while among couples using natural family planning child abuse and divorce are rare, historically the use of contraceptives since the 1960s has increased hand in hand with the rising divorce rate.

 

[jilly4ski]

As I said a moment ago, I can see this argument for, say, sterilization, or the Pill – which has something like a 99.99% effective rate.

But condoms are not at all a guarantee. They do not entirely remove the possibility of children from the equation. And sex that can result in procreation is by definition procreative. So … ?

It is not about how well it prevents pregnancy. With contraception you have distorted the actual act of sex. You have taken the marital act and deliberately attempted to make it not connected to babies, (whether or not you succeed is besides the point). When a couple is infertile (either indefinitely or like all women periodically) you have done nothing to change the marital act. The church has defined procreative and unitive a little differently than society does. Since for the Church, if you are infertile and complete the marital act the way it was designed to be completed that is procreative sex.

The other poster was talking about intent or more specifically the means to accomplish an end as being sinful. Here is the basic explanation. The intent to avoid children is an ok goal. But how you do so matters. The Church says that we must leave the marital act the way God ordained it (since it was created for a specific purpose). To purposefully make it (or try to make it) infertile and disconnect it from procreation is distorting the marital act, (making it something it is not) thus making it sinful. But when you abstain from sex you are leaving the connection between babies and sex alone and you are not distorting the specific marital act. When you engage in the marital act, regardless of your fertility and your knowledge of such, you have not changed or distorted the act, the act itself is the same whether or not you are fertile or not.

 

[JayLynn]

I haven’t read this entire thread, but I understand what the OP is asking. Everyone keeps replying that NFP is the answer. I just recently had my 6th baby and although I love my children dearly I don’t think I can handle having any more. I’ve reached my emotional limit. Three of those children were created while using NFP and trying to avoid pregnancy. I’ve read the books, taken the course, tracked my fertility and still I get pregnant even during supposedly “infertile” times. My sister is the same way, extra fertile I guess.

I love my children and I want to be the best mother I can be, but lately I’ve been overwhelmed by the noise level and find myself impatient and shouting more often, where before I was calm. I also have financial concerns if our family keeps growing. We can afford the ones we have now, but another baby would require a new vehicle among other things.

I know contraception is wrong and I’d never even contemplate a potentially abortificiant kind like the pill, but someone please tell me why something like condoms are so bad in a situation like mine? I feel like it would be irresponsible of me to have another child if it’s going to make me a worse mother. And at the moment I’m so afraid of getting pregnant again that I wont let my husband near me and I’m sure that’s not great for out marriage. I feel like I’ve done my duty and I’m only 34 so I still have so many fertile years left. I actually find myself hoping for early menopause.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

There is a difference between someone – even a priest – saying that there is a logical connection between two things and that same person actually providing a logical proof to prove that there is a logical connection between those two things.

I flat out reject the idea that there is a formal logicial proof showing that accepting contraception requires one to also accept homosexuality or human cloning. If anyone would like to try to put one together, I’d be happy to show you my counter argument.

As for the argument that contraception deliberately thwarts the marriage act and NFP doesn’t – that is splitting hairs. Making a conscious decision to avoid sex at the times when you are most attracted to each other in order to avoid contraception is in itself a deliberate thwart of the reproductive system – only on a monthly scale instead of a one-time scale.

As for the issue of intent – What about this hypothetical? Say you’re infertile – in which case the church says its fine to still have sex. Now what if you’re GLAD you’re infertile? What if every time you have sex you’re thinking “wow I’m glad I’m infertile so I don’t have to worry about having kids?” Does that intent make the sex a sin? Do you have to be actively hoping for a miracle pregnancy each time to make it alright?

Maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t the churches stance on birth control still doctrine instead of dogma? Couldn’t it theoretically be changed at any time?

 

[Default]

I am not catholic but seriously considering becoming catholic. One of the big issues I still have with the church is NFP. The church’s teaching on sexual morality seems to have a great logical, natural law foundation but the permissive side of NFP to me significantly weakens these arguments I can understand that the participation in the marital act is sacred because it alone allows humans to participate with God in the creation of life. I also understand that limiting sexual activity to marriage goes hand in hand with the understanding that a critical reason for marriage is for the benefit of children. This then greatly supports the church’s teaching about divorce, homosexual unions, sex outside of marriage etc. with this background I see a great argument against masturbation because you are taking what is supposed to be procreative and making it a selfish act solely for personal pleasure. Similarly the same argument could be made to support the church’s teaching regarding married couples using birth control or homosexual sex. But then to say on the other hand that married couples can have recreational sex in a way that is designed as much as humanly possible to avoid having children (through charting and all the other NFP methods) really cheapens all of these natural law arguments that otherwise support the church’s position on sexual morality as a whole. If the marital act really is sacred and tied to procreation it would be much more defensible from a logical standpoint at least to say that married couples who don’t want children should abstain completely. I agree with others who have pointed out that if sex is critical to a marriage there are likely issues with the marriage. From the outside at least I think the permissive aspect of NFP really detracts from the church’s teachings on sexual morality. Maybe going to the logical conclusion would be too unpopular but at least it would make all of the teachings very supportable from a natural law / reason perspective.

 

[Abu]

Default #172
But then to say on the other hand that married couples can have recreational sex in a way that is designed as much as humanly possible to avoid having children (through charting and all the other NFP methods) really cheapens all of these natural law arguments that otherwise support the church’s position on sexual morality as a whole.

False reasoning, and lacking the understanding that the Church CANNOT teach error in defining any doctrine on faith and morals.

The obvious questions are:

1. Why did God provide infertile periods and not command against their use even for just reasons?
2. Why did the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, specifically establish His Church to teach us what is right and what is wrong and specifically mandate the following?
   “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
   “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
   I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)

First to Peter only:
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

1. How could Christ’s own Church be wrong in teaching the wise use of the cycles God has provided?
2. Who is wiser than Christ’s Church?

 

[QuasiCatholic]

False reasoning, and lacking the understanding that the Church CANNOT teach error in defining any doctrine on faith and morals.

1. How could Christ’s own Church be wrong in teaching the wise use of the cycles God has provided?

Well, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI must have thought it was possible for the church to be wrong, because they had 72 people studying the issue for three years in the '60s to decide if the historical teachings were no longer true.

If there was no possibility of them being wrong, why did they need to study it? If you know for sure you’re right, that’s a pretty big waste of everyone’s time.

And the majority decision of that group of 72 was that contraception was NOT intrinsically evil. But Pope VI overrode their decision (so it was kind of a waste of time anyway, really)

 

[Rau]

By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.

Asked and answered many times. The couple may. And a couple that has not reproduced may do so also. We are simply asked not to disrupt the course of the act.

Are you really asking “what is wrong with contraception”?

 

[Rau]

The view that sex is only for procreation sounds like objectification. It sounds like couples are viewed only for their usefulness to produce something and emotional needs are ignored.

No one on this thread holds the view that sex is only for procreation. So why do you raise it?

 

[Rau]

As I said a moment ago, I can see this argument for, say, sterilization, or the Pill – which has something like a 99.99% effective rate.

But condoms are not at all a guarantee. They do not entirely remove the possibility of children from the equation. And sex that can result in procreation is by definition procreative. So … ?

The probability attached to conception is not relevant to the morality of the act. The interference, the disruption, to the course of the act is the issue.

 

[Default]

I understand the church’s position. My whole point is that the permissive part of NFP does not appear to dovetail with the very nice consistent natural law arguments that can be made to support the rest of the church’s teaching on sexuality. If your point is this is an “all faith, no reason” situation, then so be it. As I mentioned at the outset, I am not catholic but seriously studying the faith and talking to priests about converting. Presumably thinking about the underpinnings of the faith is reasonable instead of simply saying that is what the church teaches, so don’t think about it.

Also, the point about why there is no restriction on infertile period sex in the bible is a bit of a straw man. No one can predict with certainty that having sex precisely at this moment or that moment will result in conception. The problem I have is intent. If a couple practicing NFP is doing everything in their ability to enjoy the pleasure of sex but avoid the consequences it is hard to justify that on a natural law / reason basis and square it with all of the rest of the church’s teaching. On the other hand, if a couple simply doesn’t focus on cycles and has relations when the mood strikes, that seems completely fine even if sometime they are having sex at low fertility times. If their honest intent is that we aren’t going to worry about it, and let God decide then that seems completely fine. One of the great things to me about the Catholic Church is the focus in self mastery and control. If you honestly don’t want another child, can’t afford a child, or whatever the reason is, then in my own mind I have to really question whether God is asking me to also forego the physical gratification of the act and exercise some personal restraint and discipline instead of trying to separate the two.

 

[Abu]

QuasiCatholic #74
Well, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI must have thought it was possible for the church to be wrong, because they had 72 people studying the issue for three years in the '60s to decide if the historical teachings were no longer true.

False.

Pope Paul VI’s Commission had to advise only on the question of the action of the new contraceptive Pill. Unfortunately the majority failed to heed the infallible definition against contraception in Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, which was issued because of the Anglican capitulation to contraception in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference where they recommended that contraception be accepted.

If there was no possibility of them being wrong, why did they need to study it? If you know for sure you’re right, that’s a pretty big waste of everyone’s time.

The advent of the Pill was being touted as a saviour, and had to be studied to determine the acceptability or otherwise of its action by the Church instituted by Christ. This was thus justly done.

And the majority decision of that group of 72 was that contraception was NOT intrinsically evil. But Pope VI overrode their decision (so it was kind of a waste of time anyway, really).

Since the minority report spoke against the action and effects, it was faithful to Christ’s teaching through His Church.
I was only about the Pill. Both the Encyclicals Casti Connubii of Pius XI, 1930, and Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, 1968, condemned contraception infallibly as gravely wrong, and the latter was issued after the advent of the contraceptive “Pill”.