NFP and Contraception

[Toten]

How is NFP diffrent from other types of non-abortive contraception?

 

[mikew262]

How is NFP diffrent from other types of non-abortive contraception?

Besides NFP being approved by the Church and the other methods not, not much IMO.

Natural Family Planning (NFP) are methods of family planning, which help women to achieve or avoid pregnancy by identifying times of infertility and potential fertility.

Contraception is used to avoid pregnancy and in some cases disease.

See why I take my position? Both can be used to avoid pregnancy. Now to use NFP in this manner can be construed as sinful by the Church.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Non-abortive contraception (ie barrier methods) are not approved by the church because they diminish the “self giving” nature of relations within marriage.

I highly recommend reading Humanae Vitae…

 

[Em_in_FL]

Also… the Catechism has a great section on this topic…

V. The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love

1643
"Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter—appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152

 

[setter]

I will offer a few contrast between NFP and ABC: NFP does not act against or seek to frustrate the fetility and inherent openness to life of the conjugal act; NFP properly reinforces the co-creative reponsibility of the couple to cooperate with the bodies natural fertility cycles; NFP lends itself to greater intimacy between the couple and greater self-mastery to make the sexual exchange more truly a gift (versus a taking); children are more readily perceived as a gift from God to be welcomed than an unplanned, uninvited intrusion.

 

[Em_in_FL]

More in the catechism…

The openness to fertility

1652
"By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162

      Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163

1653
The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.164 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.165

1654
Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

The very act of using contraception (of ANY form) goes against this teaching.

Using NFP puts our trust in God…

 

[otjm]

It is like asking what is the difference between doing something, and not doing something.

Not doing something means just that.

Doing something, and frustrating the natural end of that act, is not “not doing something”;

 

[1ke]

NFP and contraception are both methods of birth control. Birth control is just the spacing & planning of children.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control. Big difference.

Why?

Each marriage act (act of sexual intercourse) must be unaltered before, during, or after the act. No action may taken to alter the act because each act must be objectively unitive and procreative in order to be authentic and properly ordered as God designed.

Subjectively that particular act may or may not be procreative. For example, if someone is naturally infertile due to time of the month, post-menopause, already pregnant, etc, then an unaltered act of intercourse is objectively procreative but subjectively does not result in conception.

**How does NFP meet this criteria? **In NFP each marital act is objectively unitive and procreative. If you have reason to avoid pregnancy you do not engage in the act. That respects the objective elements that must be present in every act.

How does contraception fail to meet this criteria? When contracepting a couple engages in the marital act while simultaneously altering the act to nullify it’s procreative element-- either before, during, or after the act. Before-- sterilization, Pill, sponge, diaphram, condom, IUD. During-- withdrawal, masterbatory acts that don’t culminate in intercourse. After- morning after pill, abortion. All of these things alter the act either in anticipation of, during, or after.

NFP says: Don’t want to become pregnant at that time? Abstain and respect the act as God created it because we and the act serve God. Engage in the act when the woman is naturally infertile and never alter the act.

Contraception says: Don’t want to become pregnant? Have sex and mutilate the act because the act serves us.
**
NFP is not an alterative to contraception, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence.**

For more, go to www.omsoul.com and pick up some of their resources, especially the Contraception Why Not CD by Janet Smith.

 

[Brenda4God]

Big questions there! If you really want to understand, I would pick up and read these books (not to insult those who are trying to answer you at all because they’ve given some great information too):

Sex and the Marriage Covenant (Kippley)

and

Good News About Sex and Marriage (West)

The Couple to Couple League is great!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How is NFP diffrent from other types of non-abortive contraception?

Toten
This subject is so emotional for many it is difficult to receive a good answer, so I have taken the most correct information given to you an altered slightly to attempt to give you the most accurate information. I caution concerning the item specifically excluded.
other;:

NFP and contraception are both methods of birth control. Birth control is just the spacing & planning of children.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control. Big difference.

Let me insert here that in the writings of the church the word “contraception” is treated as only through artificial means. The “NFP” is defined by the church as not being “contraceptive” however outside the church few agree with this specific assessment
other:

…(cont)…
Why?

Each marriage act (act of sexual intercourse) must be unaltered before, during, or after the act. No action may taken to alter the act because each act must be objectively unitive and procreative in order to be authentic and properly ordered as God designed.

Subjectively that particular act may or may not be procreative. For example, if someone is naturally infertile due to time of the month, post-menopause, already pregnant, etc, then an unaltered act of intercourse is objectively procreative but subjectively does not result in conception.

**How does NFP meet this criteria? **In NFP each marital act is objectively unitive and procreative. If you have reason to avoid pregnancy you do not engage in the act. That respects the objective elements that must be present in every act.

How does contraception fail to meet this criteria? When contracepting a couple engages in the marital act while simultaneously altering the -]act/-] [biological actions associated with reproduction] to nullify it’s procreative element-- either before, during, or after the act. Before-- sterilization, Pill, sponge, diaphram, condom, IUD. During-- withdrawal, masterbatory -]acts/-] are biological actions associated with reproduction] that don’t culminate in [complete] intercourse. …

Any post intercouse action is abortion.

This may read a little rough but probably is the best answer you will get

 

[Scottgun]

The NFP=ABC (Artificial Birth Control) agrument comes up so often, it bears looking at basic moral reasoning again. (I’m paraphrasing CCC 1749-176, btw)
The goodness or badness of an act must be evaluated according to 3 criteria:

1. The objective–this is the rightness or wrongness (or indifference) of an act in and of itself. (Examples: murder is objectively bad, almsgiving is objectively good.)
2. Subjective–this is the intent of the one doing the act (called the agent). Note that a good intention does not make an objectively evil act good, and that an evil intent can render a good act evil. (Such as giving alms in order to get people to think you are pious).
3. Relative–this is all the surrounding circumstances and the actual result of the act or the end achieved. These do not change the objective goodness or badness of the act in and of themselves.

**Plugging the above in it becomes abundantly clear that NFP is NOT morally equivalent to ABC and that the Church’s teaching is entirely consistent. **
NFP is not really an act, it’s information. Having marital relations is the act. So:

1. Objective–Abstaining from sex is in and of itself morally indifferent. Putting barriers between couples in the marital act or rendering the womb hostile to life with chemicals is objectively wrong. NFP passes gate #1. ABC does not, so it goes down right out of the chute. NFP passes, but is not quite out of the woods yet 'till we get to:
2. The subjective–as stated above, good intentions do not make objectively evil acts good. Here we can see that with an NFP-practicing couple, there is a possibility of evil intent which would render abstinence evil, but obviously it is hard for outsiders to say, because ta-da! it is subjective. (We can have a giant debate about what constitutes bad intent, but here I’m just dismantling the NFP=ABC canard.) Big red note: The intention to not have children in a particular fertile cycle by itself is not immoral.
3. The relative–and here is the cause of much the trouble regarding this teaching. We are living in the age of a widespread mental illness that denies the existence of #1 (objective right and wrongs), that everything is #2 and #3, and says the ends justify the means (consequentialism). So people look at the ends: ABC=no pregnancy, NFP=no pregnancy, and wrongly conclude they are morally equivalent.

So while one can find all kinds of complaints against this teaching, logical inconsistency or “distinction without a difference” with ABC should not be among them.

 

[hasikelee]

How is NFP diffrent from other types of non-abortive contraception?

That is similar to asking how dieting is different from bulimia or anorexia to have a healthy weight.

Or how murdering grandma is different from waiting for her to die naturally to inherit her money.

 

[StratusRose]

What’s the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage?

Answer: The ends don’t justify the means, and your taking something in your own hands instead of putting it in God’s hands.

 

[1ke]

Toten
This subject is so emotional for many it is difficult to receive a good answer, so I have taken the most correct information given to you an altered slightly to attempt to give you the most accurate information. I caution concerning the item specifically excluded.

Please refrain from using my posts in the future in the manner that you have. My information is not inaccuare as you assert.

Let me insert here that in the writings of the church the word “contraception” is treated as only through artificial means.

This is untrue. It is not “artificial”-ness that makes an act contraceptive. Withdrawing is contraceptive, and yet no “artificial” chemicals or barriers is used.

Artificial versus natural is not the key element of Church teaching. In fact, “artificial” is never used in Humanae Vitae. This is what HV has to say: “Similarly excluded is any **action **which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.”

The distinction is between an action that alters intercourse in an attempt to render it infertile and abstaining, which does not alter intercourse in any way.

The “NFP” is defined by the church as not being “contraceptive” however outside the church few agree with this specific assessment

This is also inaccurate. To characterize NFP as contraceptive is dishonest. It is also inaccurate to say that “few” outside the church agree with the assessment. It would be more accurate to say that YOU agree with this assesssment.

NFP is clearly not contraceptive, as there is no action to render intercourse infertile. Abstaining is not intercourse. Abstaining is not an action taken before, during, or after intercourse to render the act infertile. If it were, I would be contracepting as I type because I am abstaining right this minute.

Any post intercouse action is abortion.

This is also an untrue statement. Abortion is a heinous act, but there are actions post intercourse that are not abortive but are contraceptive.

This may read a little rough but probably is the best answer you will get

I completely disagree with your assessment of your reply to the OP.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Please refrain from using my posts in the future in the manner that you have.

Sorry to see you were offended. Offending you was not an objective. The objective was to answer the Original Poster (OP). I stand by the earlier post. I can certainly attempt to refute in a different manner though I am not sure how you would rather see such.

…This is untrue. It is not “artificial”-ness that makes an act contraceptive. Withdrawing is contraceptive, and yet no “artificial” chemicals or barriers is used.

Artificial versus natural is not the key element of Church teaching. In fact, “artificial” is never used in Humanae Vitae…

excerpts from HUMANAE VITAE

[From section 7] And since in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control many appeal to the demands of married love or of responsible parenthood, these two important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed.

[From section 16]Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born.

[From section 17] titled: Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control.HUMANAE VITAE, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH, JULY 25, 1968 posted @ vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[manualman]

Here is an interesting parallel principle. Let’s say for discussion that some doctor invented a totally no risk way to install a drain valve onto your stomache. Overeat? Just drain it out before it is digested! Instant cure for obesity, right? Great idea, right? Wrong. The church would rightly object and note that such an interference with God’s design for the link between our appetite for food and our spiritual condition would constitute a violation of God’s design for humanity. i.e. sinful.

Gluttony is a sin, not just because it leads to ill bodily health, but because it is an intrinsic vice. This is not to say that eating desert is always sinful. Gluttony is not defined as indulgence, it is defined as a distorted use of the gift God made of culinary delights!

Contraception is exactly the same thing as an artificial stomach drain - except for sex instead of food. God made our bodies the way he did with a purpose. He knew the Fall would happen. He knew it would make us selfish and greedy. He knew that having and raising children was a difficult and demanding task. Therefore, he made married sex to be a thing tremendously unifying for the couple AND made it the direct cause of new human life - all tied together. It is no wonder that when humans use technology to artificially uncouple it that birth rates plunge and the culture becomes narcississtic. NFP on the other hand retains the link and only allows avoidance of additional children through sacrifice of the good and desired physical intimacy (for a time). The maintenance of that link is why NFP couples so often choose to have more kids. (Often the choice is made when the heat of the moment overcomes the reasoned knowledge that it is a ‘risky’ time.) This is why NFP is OK and ABC isn’t. ABC = instant gratification severed from the nudge God intended married sex to give against fallen human selfishness.