NFP and contraception

[Good_Daughter]

Common sense dictates that these two things are not independent of each other. Abstinence is not a sin (barring limited circumstances…one spouse refusing marital relations with no good cause, etc.). The sin arises not because of the no-action during abstinence, but rather the action taken during the infertile period. Hence the reason why the Church has placed restrictions on it.

You say abstinence is not a sin, then contradict yourself by saying when it is. Why do you think sex during infertility is a sin?

It’s easier to argue from the no-action abstinence point of view. Arguing from the action point of view creates the conflict. That’s because most sin arises from action, not no-action.

From the little I know about Catholic teaching on the ‘marital debt’, I’d say it’s the abstinence in NFP that holds the potential for sin, not the sex.

Sin can arise equally from action and non-action (sins of omission). I should know.

 

[Warrior1979]

You say abstinence is not a sin, then contradict yourself by saying when it is. Why do you think sex during infertility is a sin?

Once again, abstinence can be practiced by anyone. Sex used in a manner defined by the Church can only occur with the confines of marriage. The issue of “no-sex” therefore isn’t relevant, because it’s not exclusive to marriage, where “sex” is exclusive to marriage. The manner in which sex is used is therefore the issue.

From the little I know about Catholic teaching on the ‘marital debt’, I’d say it’s the abstinence in NFP that holds the potential for sin, not the sex.

Let’s say someone will use contraception if they have sex. However, they never have sex (no action). Have they sinned?

What if they have sex and use contraception (action). Have they sinned?

 

[copperblade]

Would it be a sin to abstain from sex your entire marriage?

 

[copperblade]

From the little I know about Catholic teaching on the ‘marital debt’, I’d say it’s the abstinence in NFP that holds the potential for sin, not the sex.

Sin can arise equally from action and non-action (sins of omission). I should know.

The way I always understood it is it was sinful to have sex just for the pleasure. I think that’s at the heart of it. But that’s not really how the Church handles the situation. Because even if you just want the pleasure, as long as you do it in marriage without contraception you’re fine. And likewise if you have real medical reasons to use contraception as contraception, it’s still considered a sin.

 

[Warrior1979]

Would it be a sin to abstain from sex your entire marriage?

I don’t believe so, provided both parties agreed. Also, the reason for abstaining couldn’t be sinful. For example, if the reason for abstaining was for the sole purpose of avoiding children, the marriage would not be valid. OTOH, abstaining because neither party has any sex drive doesn’t appear to be sinful.

All my opinion, of course. The experts may have something else to add.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Once again, abstinence can be practiced by anyone. Sex used in a manner defined by the Church can only occur with the confines of marriage. The issue of “no-sex” therefore isn’t relevant, because it’s not exclusive to marriage, where “sex” is exclusive to marriage. The manner in which sex is used is therefore the issue.

I agree, as long as we understand that Catholicism teaches abstinence in marriage can be sinful if one spouse is withholding sex from the other without good reason.

Let’s say someone will use contraception if they have sex. However, they never have sex (no action). Have they sinned?

What if they have sex and use contraception (action). Have they sinned?

I like to be cautious before pronouncing sin on anyone. Catholic teaching on contraception is clear, therefore the potential for sin exists for anyone who decides to use (no action) or actually uses (action) contraception. Here is why I say this:

I confess to almighty God
And to you my brothers and sisters
That I have sinned through my own fault
**In my thoughts **and in my words
In what I have done and in what I have failed to do
And I ask the Blessd Virgin Mary,
All the angels and saints
And you my brothers and sisters
To pray for me to the Lord our God

We say this prayer in Mass, of course, it may be only in Canada, I’m not sure.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The way I always understood it is it was sinful to have sex just for the pleasure. I think that’s at the heart of it. But that’s not really how the Church handles the situation. Because even if you just want the pleasure, as long as you do it in marriage without contraception you’re fine. And likewise if you have real medical reasons to use contraception as contraception, it’s still considered a sin.

Pleasure is a divinely created good. Its proper place in the marital act is following procreation and unity. This order protects our spouse from selfishness. Uncontracepted sex without concern for our spouse’s well-being is selfish and potentially quite sinful.

I understand some women need to avoid pregnancy for serious health reasons, but what is a ‘medical reason to contracept’?

How do you think the Church handles the ‘pleasure’ situation?

 

[Abu]

It is wise to know the wisdom of the Fathers who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation of contraception – the condemnation so explicitly defined infallibly – only the unfaithful dissent.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (*Marriage and Concupiscence *1:15:17).

 

[copperblade]

Pleasure is a divinely created good. Its proper place in the marital act is following procreation and unity. This order protects our spouse from selfishness. Uncontracepted sex without concern for our spouse’s well-being is selfish and potentially quite sinful.

I understand some women need to avoid pregnancy for serious health reasons, but what is a ‘medical reason to contracept’?

Like if you’re also on other medication that would produce a deformed or completely unviable pregnancy. I knew someone who was taking medicine for her arthritis and the doctors told her that if she got pregnant the baby’s bones wouldn’t form. They also prescribed her birth control for that reason.

How do you think the Church handles the ‘pleasure’ situation?

I think the Church pretty much ignores it. I think as long as you follow the rules about contraception, having sex and making sure the seed is planted, etc. then the degree of your desire is largely inconsequential. I’ve been told that even foreplay is not allowed unless it ends in intercourse.

 

[copperblade]

Is it wrong to take the birth control pill if you do not intend on having sex? Let’s say you wanted to take it just to make sure in case you were raped. I know the code that Catholic hospitals use from USCCB allows the use of contraception in the case of rape if it can be shown that no pregnancy has occurred yet.

 

[samiam1611]

Is it wrong to take the birth control pill if you do not intend on having sex? Let’s say you wanted to take it just to make sure in case you were raped.

What an interesting question! I Like say a person is being raped on a regular basis by a family member or something.

I know the code that Catholic hospitals use from USCCB allows the use of contraception in the case of rape if it can be shown that no pregnancy has occurred yet.

A woman who was raped can licitly be given the morning after pill if she has not ovulated yet.
The morning after pill works primarily by delaying ovulation, with the idea that it delays it long enough that the sperm die before she ovulates.
A secondary mechanism of the morning after pill is affecting the uterine lining making it difficult for a fertilized egg (zygote) to implant. So if the woman ovulated a day or so before or doesn’t take the morning after pill promptly after being raped, it’s possible for conception to have occured. (BTW, in this scenario, the morning after pill is more accurately termed a contragestive than a contraceptive.)
In both of these scenarios, the woman is not pregnant yet. In the 2nd scenario though, a new life has begun so although it’s not technically abortion in the medical sense, the Church still considers it llicit.

The thing that I was wondering about on another thread is how a Catholic hospital can determine if the woman has ovulated yet. Maybe they guess based on what point of her cycle she is in. Anyone know?

 

[joshman1]

My question is this:
NFP proponents say that NFP is acceptable when a couple is trying to space births because it is still open to life- but then they point to statistics that claim it is more effective than ABC.

That seriously confuses me.

 

[sacredcello]

My question is this:
NFP proponents say that NFP is acceptable when a couple is trying to space births because it is still open to life- but then they point to statistics that claim it is more effective than ABC.

That seriously confuses me.

With NFP, the inherent procreative meaning of the marital act is not intentionally thwarted, as it is with ABC. Periodic abstinence is necessary for success in NFP, and practicing the virtue of chastity helps the couple grow in holiness. This is not the case with ABC.

 

[joshman1]

With NFP, the inherent procreative meaning of the marital act is not intentionally thwarted, as it is with ABC. Periodic abstinence is necessary for success in NFP, and practicing the virtue of chastity helps the couple grow in holiness. This is not the case with ABC.

well, the procreative meaning IS thwarted though if NFPers’ numbers are to be believed. You can’t tout higher success rates than ABC, and then say that it doesn’t thwart the procreative meaning of marriage. That leaves periodic abstinence as the only reason for NFP, which to me seems a bit silly to be honest.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

What an interesting question! I Like say a person is being raped on a regular basis by a family member or something.

A woman who was raped can licitly be given the morning after pill if she has not ovulated yet.
The morning after pill works primarily by delaying ovulation, with the idea that it delays it long enough that the sperm die before she ovulates.
A secondary mechanism of the morning after pill is affecting the uterine lining making it difficult for a fertilized egg (zygote) to implant. So if the woman ovulated a day or so before or doesn’t take the morning after pill promptly after being raped, it’s possible for conception to have occured. (BTW, in this scenario, the morning after pill is more accurately termed a contragestive than a contraceptive.)
In both of these scenarios, the woman is not pregnant yet. In the 2nd scenario though, a new life has begun so although it’s not technically abortion in the medical sense, the Church still considers it llicit.

The thing that I was wondering about on another thread is how a Catholic hospital can determine if the woman has ovulated yet. Maybe they guess based on what point of her cycle she is in. Anyone know?

By blood test to see FSH levels and I guess, estrogen and progesterone levels. Also can be done by sonogram by measuring the follicles on the ovaries to see if an egg has been released.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Like if you’re also on other medication that would produce a deformed or completely unviable pregnancy. I knew someone who was taking medicine for her arthritis and the doctors told her that if she got pregnant the baby’s bones wouldn’t form. They also prescribed her birth control for that reason.

She has a medical reason to avoid pregnancy, like I mentioned, but not a medical reason to contracept. She could abstain from sex, use a fertility awareness method of birth control or contracept. The decision is hers but only the first two are acceptable according to Catholicism.

I think the Church pretty much ignores it. I think as long as you follow the rules about contraception, having sex and making sure the seed is planted, etc. then the degree of your desire is largely inconsequential. I’ve been told that even foreplay is not allowed unless it ends in intercourse.

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘degree of your desire’. Do you mean Catholicism doesn’t care about marital pleasure?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Would it be a sin to abstain from sex your entire marriage?

Catholicism teaches that marriage is supposed to be for the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children. If, at any time, a couple has serious reason to avoid children, abstinence is allowed. Sometimes abstinence is required for other reasons too, so no, it wouldn’t necessarily be a sin to abstain your whole marriage.

Is it wrong to take the birth control pill if you do not intend on having sex? Let’s say you wanted to take it just to make sure in case you were raped. I know the code that Catholic hospitals use from USCCB allows the use of contraception in the case of rape if it can be shown that no pregnancy has occurred yet.

I think I remember this being discussed on another thread, something about nuns working as missionaries in parts of the world where rape was a real threat. Rape is not the marital act so I can’t imagine contraception would be a problem in this situation. I’d be intersted to read others’ thoughts on this.

 

[Good_Daughter]

My question is this:
NFP proponents say that NFP is acceptable when a couple is trying to space births because it is still open to life- but then they point to statistics that claim it is more effective than ABC.

That seriously confuses me.

Either the NFP proponents were wrong or you heard them wrong. Catholic married couples are not required to be “open to life” every time they have sex. (That would eliminate all sex during times like pregnancy and menopause.)

 

[Debora123]

Someone can take any quote from anyone and interpret it any way they’d like.

With that being said, the quotes from St Augustine (and many others who wrote about sex before the 20th century) have proven to not really prove anything either way, bc someone can always claim “oh he means only for serious reasons” or “oh he means it’s only wrong if no children are intended at all…” etc etc…

If we can’t look to any of these quotes as reliable sources, then lets look at the next fact:

The church didn’t clear the rhythm method as acceptable until only 200 years ago.

The thing that I find interesting is, if the rhythm method existed during the entire history of the Catholic Church, then how come it wasn’t until the 1800’s that is was finally approved as being licit??

Why is it that no Pope or Saint ever mentioned that married couples could use women’s cycles as a way to have sex without intending to procreate?

I mean, they all said plenty of times “don’t have sex unless you are open to procreation” but not a single one bothered to mention “…except if using knowledge of the woman’s natural cycle.”

Hmmm, seems odd to me. Odd and fishy.

 

[copperblade]

She has a medical reason to avoid pregnancy, like I mentioned, but not a medical reason to contracept. She could abstain from sex, use a fertility awareness method of birth control or contracept. The decision is hers but only the first two are acceptable according to Catholicism.

You’d think so, but the Church teaches that one evil cannot be used to stop another evil. My understanding was that contraception was “intrinsically evil” and therefore you could never use contraception as a means to an end. If contraception is only an unintended side-effect, then it’s ok. But that’s not the case when the intention is to prevent pregnancy.

This is why I have a hard time with the moral logic that the ends doesn’t justify the means when taken to the extreme. It’s good 99% of the time, but I think the severity of evil does matter in extreme cases. The allowance of birth control in rape scenarios seems to acknowledge this fact.

Notice how the rule is “before the woman ovulated” which I’m guessing means it’s ok to contracept in the case of rape, but not ok to abort. I’ll agree to that, but this is in contradiction to either:

1. Contraception is intrinsically evil
2. The ends cannot justify the means.

This kind of problem comes up in other areas like lying. Is it ok to lie to prevent someone from being murdered? If lying is evil, and the ends can never justify the means, then the answer is no. However it seems a bit extreme. So if you look at the example in the Catholic encyclopedia they come up with what seems to be contorted explanation to get around the issue without admitting that sometimes an end is so evil that you should commit a much lesser evil to avoid it. You cannot lie but you can mislead someone by using ambiguous terms that lead to the same result (which in any other situation you would have to confess as lying). Or you can lie as long as you make a “mental reservation.” (In the example given if someone comes to the house to kill someone else, you can say “he is not at home” while completing the sentence in your mind “for you.” I cannot agree that this is somehow not lying.)

These problems happen when you try and make the world an absolute black/white situation.

So in addition to cases like rape and a malformed baby, I’d like to submit my own situation: the doctors have told us my wife shouldn’t get pregnant again for a year after her C-section. They prescribed her birth control too and told her she had to use that or a condom. The goal is, again, to prevent conception. Therefore, I would opt to use a condom because it would guarantee no chance for an abortion. However, I don’t think according to Catholic teaching we are allowed to use contraception.

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘degree of your desire’. Do you mean Catholicism doesn’t care about marital pleasure?

I mean the rules seem to ignore the pleasure aspect almost entirely. Pleasure is not taken into account when determining whether or not a sexual act is sinful. There may be a case where if the act is not pleasurable, it can be presumed that there were other reasons for it, which may in turn reduce culpability.

What’s the basis for lust though? I thought it was pleasure of the flesh just like gluttony.