Prophetic Nature of Humanae Vitae & Promiscuity

[FightingFat]

I am having a discussion about contraception with a non Catholic who is accusing the Church of responsibility in the deaths of thousands of Africans by standing against contraception. My argument has the thrust of stating that contraception has only served to increase promiscuity and the Church’s teaching is far more realistic in that it asks we all understanding what sex is for and that the natural consequences are ones that bear a great responsibility, therefore, do not have sex unless you are prepared to shoulder the associated responsibility.

My adversary argues that people are no more promiscuous now than they were 100 years ago, the difference is that today people are more open about their indiscretions and less likely to marry for the sake of respectability.

Secondly, against the idea that birth control = promiscuity, he asserts that a glance at history will show many societies much more promiscuous than ours with vastly inferior birth control. He does acknowledge that there is something to the claim that the pill particularly gave women more say in sexual matters. He suggests that if you read up on the period of “freedom” that the pill supposedly brought in though you will find evidence that society frowned very much on sexually active women and that the “sexual revolution” amounted to some men being a bit more honest about their behaviour and a few women suffering for trying the same.

Finally, he asks why is it that aid agencies advocating condoms as part of the fight against the spread of AIDS were denied funding from various important sources? This is apparently because of the catholic church’s influence in oposing birth control and the protestant church’s influence in oposing “promiscuity”. This is not just wrong in that it led to unecessary deaths, it is wrong in that it attaches strictures to christian charity. Charity becomes a stick to beat people with so they behave a certain way rather than a gift freely given.

I think the best way to approach the discussion from here is with hard data of changes in sexual behavior. I have had a good trawl through Google (and Cathoogle) without much joy and I wondered if anyone here knew of sources of information that will help me demonstrate the reality of the Church’s teaching on this matter.

Thanks!

 

[ckempston]

I am having a discussion about contraception with a non Catholic who is accusing the Church of responsibility in the deaths of thousands of Africans by standing against contraception. My argument has the thrust of stating that contraception has only served to increase promiscuity and the Church’s teaching is far more realistic in that it asks we all understanding what sex is for and that the natural consequences are ones that bear a great responsibility, therefore, do not have sex unless you are prepared to shoulder the associated responsibility.

This particular part of your opponent’s position is totally inconsistent. Although I don’t agree with the Catholic church’s teaching on all methods of contraception, if a person is not Catholic, they’re not going to listen to the Catholic church when it comes to using “protection.” Is a Baptist going to stop using condoms because the Pope said so? Hardly. If they’re being promiscuous, they’re already probably not Christians at all, so they’re certainly not going to be affected by the Catholic church saying, “don’t use condoms.” Therefore, the claim that the Catholic church contributes to the spread of AIDS in this way is not a very strong argument.

My adversary argues that people are no more promiscuous now than they were 100 years ago, the difference is that today people are more open about their indiscretions and less likely to marry for the sake of respectability.

I’d agree with your adversary here. There’s good reason why prostitution is called the oldest profession.

Secondly, against the idea that birth control = promiscuity, he asserts that a glance at history will show many societies much more promiscuous than ours with vastly inferior birth control. He does acknowledge that there is something to the claim that the pill particularly gave women more say in sexual matters. He suggests that if you read up on the period of “freedom” that the pill supposedly brought in though you will find evidence that society frowned very much on sexually active women and that the “sexual revolution” amounted to some men being a bit more honest about their behaviour and a few women suffering for trying the same.

Finally, he asks why is it that aid agencies advocating condoms as part of the fight against the spread of AIDS were denied funding from various important sources? This is apparently because of the catholic church’s influence in oposing birth control and the protestant church’s influence in oposing “promiscuity”. This is not just wrong in that it led to unecessary deaths, it is wrong in that it attaches strictures to christian charity. Charity becomes a stick to beat people with so they behave a certain way rather than a gift freely given.

I think he makes a good point here. Do you refuse a poor guy 5 bucks because you think he might buy drugs with it? The point of charity is not for you to judge who is worthy of receiving your help, but it is a test of our hearts for the poor. God makes the rain fall on the wicked and the righteous, regardless of whether they thank him for it or use His gifts to glorify Him.

I think the best way to approach the discussion from here is with hard data of changes in sexual behavior. I have had a good trawl through Google (and Cathoogle) without much joy and I wondered if anyone here knew of sources of information that will help me demonstrate the reality of the Church’s teaching on this matter.

Thanks!

The church’s teaching is, in fact, not reality, so you will find no such support.

 

[Paladin_V]

I think he makes a good point here. Do you refuse a poor guy 5 bucks because you think he might buy drugs with it? The point of charity is not for you to judge who is worthy of receiving your help, but it is a test of our hearts for the poor. God makes the rain fall on the wicked and the righteous, regardless of whether they thank him for it or use His gifts to glorify Him.

Well… giving a guy 5 bucks is much different than giving people birth control. Give a poor guy 5 bucks, he may buy drugs or he may buy food. Give a person birth control, they may… what? Use it as a balloon? The only end of contraception is, well, contraception. It’s not charity to “help” someone by giving them something that is sinful. If a person has AIDS, than lets help them cope with the physical disease rather than help them contract a spiritual one.

It’s a tough cross to bear but it doesn’t excuse the improper use of sexuality. Contraception is wrong irrespective of the circumstances of the person; it hurts both persons and violates God’s gift. Mother Teresa taught NFP with great success in Africa.

 

[ckempston]

Well… giving a guy 5 bucks is much different than giving people birth control. Give a poor guy 5 bucks, he may buy drugs or he may buy food. Give a person birth control, they may… what? Use it as a balloon? The only end of contraception is, well, contraception. It’s not charity to “help” someone by giving them something that is sinful. If a person has AIDS, than lets help them cope with the physical disease rather than help them contract a spiritual one.

Strawman. You missed the point. The point was, organizations that teach things contrary to the church are often denied assistance. The Catholic church doesn’t give birth control, of course. It gives assistance to certain organizations, but only if they play by the CC’s rules. My analogy was perfect.

It’s a tough cross to bear but it doesn’t excuse the improper use of sexuality. Contraception is wrong irrespective of the circumstances of the person; it hurts both persons and violates God’s gift. Mother Teresa taught NFP with great success in Africa.

Question begging. It’s not improper to use certain methods of contraception (which is all NFP is anyway).

 

[Paladin_V]

Strawman. You missed the point. The point was, organizations that teach things contrary to the church are often denied assistance. The Catholic church doesn’t give birth control, of course. It gives assistance to certain organizations, but only if they play by the CC’s rules. My analogy was perfect.

My mistake… I did not realize you were referring to financial aid. My point still stands though: It’s not charity to “help” someone by giving them something that is sinful.

With the poor man, you don’t know he is using the money on drugs. Or if you do, you buy him a burrito instead (I could use a burrito right now ). Similarly, the Church still gives the money charitably, just through different organizations that do good rather than harm… in fact She gives more than any other “group” in the world. So, if we know an organization is pro-contraception, why should we support them when we can give it in beneficial ways? Why should we support an organization that goes against Holy Mother Church’s rules (aka Truth)? We can give it directly ourselves or through organizations that will do good, not harm.

I mean, lets say the Red Cross gave tons of aid but decided they should exterminate a group of people for “health reasons.” Should we support them? No. Well, a bit extreme compared to contraception, but the fact is we know contraception to be gravely sinful, even more harmful than AIDS is. So we don’t support those who administer contraception. I really don’t see the problem with not supporting a group that gives something out that you know to be harmful, even if they do some other good. Especially when there are other avenues open for charity.

Question begging. It’s not improper to use certain methods of contraception (which is all NFP is anyway).

Contraception? No. Birth control? Yes. It is the only legitimate way to control and space births and yet even NFP can be used sinfully. A fine line, perhaps, but then most lines between good and evil are quite fine. “Stray but a little, and the quest will fail, to the ruin of all.”

 

[ckempston]

My mistake… I did not realize you were referring to financial aid. My point still stands though: It’s not charity to “help” someone by giving them something that is sinful.

Money is neither sinful nor righteous. What someone does with it is what can be sinful or righteous. I’m afraid your point does not stand. If the Catholic church denies financial support to a group because they give people condoms in addition to other aid that they render, then that is wrong.

With the poor man, you don’t know he is using the money on drugs. Or if you do, you buy him a burrito instead (I could use a burrito right now ). Similarly, the Church still gives the money charitably, just through different organizations that do good rather than harm… in fact She gives more than any other “group” in the world. So, if we know an organization is pro-contraception, why should we support them when we can give it in beneficial ways? Why should we support an organization that goes against Holy Mother Church’s rules (aka Truth)? We can give it directly ourselves or through organizations that will do good, not harm.

Nobody is giving anybody condoms. It’s about financial support. When I give a poor guy 5 bucks, I don’t ask him if he’s going to the ABC store. That’s between him and God. It’s not up to me to judge. It’s up to me to fulfill my Christian duty.

I mean, lets say the Red Cross gave tons of aid but decided they should exterminate a group of people for “health reasons.” Should we support them? No. Well, a bit extreme compared to contraception, but the fact is we know contraception to be gravely sinful, even more harmful than AIDS is. So we don’t support those who administer contraception. I really don’t see the problem with not supporting a group that gives something out that you know to be harmful, even if they do some other good. Especially when there are other avenues open for charity.

No, we do not know contraception to be gravely sinful. You believe it to be, because someone told you so, but it’s no different from NFP (there’s no denying that NFP is birth control), so you’re stuck with the inconsistency.

Contraception? No. Birth control? Yes. It is the only legitimate way to control and space births and yet even NFP can be used sinfully. A fine line, perhaps, but then most lines between good and evil are quite fine. “Stray but a little, and the quest will fail, to the ruin of all.”

Contraception and Birth Control are usually synonymous, and in the way we’re using them to refer to NFP and condoms (for instance) they are synonymous…

What is the intention of NFP? It is to prevent conception. It has the exact same intention (which is one of the important points from humanae vitae) as other forms of birth control.

 

[Paladin_V]

Money is neither sinful nor righteous. What someone does with it is what can be sinful or righteous. I’m afraid your point does not stand. If the Catholic church denies financial support to a group because they give people condoms in addition to other aid that they render, then that is wrong.

Yes, my point does still stand. I am referring to those organizations that give out birth control. Those groups are not performing an act of charity by doing so.

Now, if the Church knows that a particular group gives out birth control and claims to do so, why support them? She is obligated not to because she knows that they distribute something that is harmful. Further, she has the means to go directly to the people in need here, as well as give financially to other groups that actually do good. So really there’s no reason at all or even need to give to organizations that support birth control… but for the sake of discussion…

According to your argument, who cares what people do with the money. Why not give it to Hamas or Iran? It doesn’t matter what happens, I am obligated to give money to anyone that says they need it!

This is not the case… obviously we must use reason to see what our charitable support is for. In the case of a homeless man, we just don’t know so we give it anyway, or we buy him food. In the case of organizations that give out birth control, we know so we don’t aid them. In the case of Hamas, we know so we don’t aid them. We can argue about whether contraception is right or wrong, but I hope you don’t think we should give financially to people we believe are doing harm, all in the name of “charity.”

Nobody is giving anybody condoms. It’s about financial support. When I give a poor guy 5 bucks, I don’t ask him if he’s going to the ABC store. That’s between him and God. It’s not up to me to judge. It’s up to me to fulfill my Christian duty.

Wait, what? People ARE and this is what the financial aid is being used on. I hope you can see that if I have money, and I know someone buys and gives out birth control, and I give my money to them, I am funding birth control. The birth control issue is the whole point in contention here, and whether or not to fund groups who distribute it.

God gave you reason and stewardship of His gifts to you. It is up to you to judge what to do with the gifts. To not use your reason and to use your gifts to support someone who you believe does evil, that is to utterly fail in your Christian duty.

No, we do not know contraception to be gravely sinful. You believe it to be, because someone told you so, but it’s no different from NFP (there’s no denying that NFP is birth control), so you’re stuck with the inconsistency.

Actually, we Catholics do know/believe it to be gravely sinful (and act according to that knowledge)… because someone told us so. You believe it is not, also because someone told you so. You also believe the sun is the center of the solar system because someone told you so. You know who your parents are because someone told you so. And, you believe in Christ because someone told you so. So lets not go down that road. Almost everything we know, someone told us; that has no bearing on truthfulness. We have reason to help us examine the truthfulness of what people have told us. Personally, I’ve examined the issue, which is important, but we also have the Church, with 2000 years of wisdom, thought, and most importantly the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so I defer to the Church. Just as a student defers to his or her teacher.

Contraception and Birth Control are usually synonymous, and in the way we’re using them to refer to NFP and condoms (for instance) they are synonymous…

What is the intention of NFP? It is to prevent conception. It has the exact same intention (which is one of the important points from humanae vitae) as other forms of birth control.

I guess, the contraception term can be applied, although I was under the impression that the term applies to barrier methods only.

Either way though, no one is denying that NFP is birth control (or contraception, since we’ve cleared up the definition). It does not have the same intention, however. In fact, one of the main reasons NFP is allowed is because of the difference in intention.

NFP uses the reproductive cycle of the female, designed by God, as a natural way to space births. The problem with other forms of birth control is that it sterilizes or prevents the sexual act; it is no longer a full gift of self. There is no possible way to use these forms of birth control otherwise, they are intended to sterilize the act. NFP can still be used with the intention of not giving fully, of sterilizing the marriage, but not necessarily so. The couple can have the intention of not getting pregnant but when they do have intercourse, they do nothing to sterilize the act, effectively saying “Lord, we don’t think the time is right, but your will be done.”

This is a fine line and perhaps there are other threads or resources that discuss NFP and contraception more completely. But, as I said, “a fine line, perhaps, but then most lines between good and evil are quite fine.”

 

[Jennifer_J]

Money is neither sinful nor righteous. What someone does with it is what can be sinful or righteous. I’m afraid your point does not stand. If the Catholic church denies financial support to a group because they give people condoms in addition to other aid that they render, then that is wrong.

Nobody is giving anybody condoms. It’s about financial support. When I give a poor guy 5 bucks, I don’t ask him if he’s going to the ABC store. That’s between him and God. It’s not up to me to judge. It’s up to me to fulfill my Christian duty.

No, we do not know contraception to be gravely sinful. You believe it to be, because someone told you so, but it’s no different from NFP (there’s no denying that NFP is birth control), so you’re stuck with the inconsistency.

Contraception and Birth Control are usually synonymous, and in the way we’re using them to refer to NFP and condoms (for instance) they are synonymous…

What is the intention of NFP? It is to prevent conception. It has the exact same intention (which is one of the important points from humanae vitae) as other forms of birth control.

The Church teaches that contraception is sinful, therefore for the Church to directly support contraception, would be sinful.

The intent of NFP is irrelevant. The intent to space births is not sinful, if just/serious/grave reasons exist. This can be done with abstinence. This can be done useing NFP, which is periodic abstinence. The Church doesn’t believe that controling births or regulating births is sinful–it’s the MEANS to this END that is sinful if you choose to use contraceptives. NFP is NOT contraceptive. NFP doesn’t interfere with any individual act of sex. Contraception does. NFP doesn’t seek to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace (procreative doesn’t mean fertile–it refers to the potential of life occuring because the act is done in a way that allows that life can be generated from it–non altered).

 

[ckempston]

The Church teaches that contraception is sinful, therefore for the Church to directly support contraception, would be sinful.

The intent of NFP is irrelevant. The intent to space births is not sinful, if just/serious/grave reasons exist. This can be done with abstinence. This can be done useing NFP, which is periodic abstinence. The Church doesn’t believe that controling births or regulating births is sinful–it’s the MEANS to this END that is sinful if you choose to use contraceptives. NFP is NOT contraceptive. NFP doesn’t interfere with any individual act of sex. Contraception does. NFP doesn’t seek to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace (procreative doesn’t mean fertile–it refers to the potential of life occuring because the act is done in a way that allows that life can be generated from it–non altered).

The pill doesn’t “interfere” with the act of sex either. It prevents the woman from ovulating. Though, I admit, anything that has an abortifactant effect if ovulation occurs would be sinful. So, your analysis of what the problem is is incorrect.

From Humanae Vitae:

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

Tell me, what are some serious reasons and moral precepts that would justify someone using NFP?

"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. "

NFP is an action taken before intercourse specifically intended to prevent procreation. Period. Humanae Vitae is both internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with the Catholic position on other methods of contraception.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The pill doesn’t “interfere” with the act of sex either. It prevents the woman from ovulating. Though, I admit, anything that has an abortifactant effect if ovulation occurs would be sinful. So, your analysis of what the problem is is incorrect.

From Humanae Vitae:

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

Tell me, what are some serious reasons and moral precepts that would justify someone using NFP?

"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. "

NFP is an action taken before intercourse specifically intended to prevent procreation. Period. Humanae Vitae is both internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with the Catholic position on other methods of contraception.

Serious/grave/just reasons are not spelled out. What is serious/grave/just for one couple might not be for another couple. However, illness, economic distress, emotional issues, and the like would be serious/just/grave reasons for the use of either abstinence or NFP.

No, my analysis is quite correct. NFP is not an action. It is abstaining. Abstaining for just/serious/grave reasons is not sinful. NFP is knowledge of the fertility cycle, which is not sinful, either. NFP doesn’t prevent procreation. Abstaining prevents procreation because it’s a non act. Procreative does not equal fertile, it means that if the act is done the way it was created that life could occur if conditions are right.

The Pill creates an artificial infertility that chemically interferes (creates a barrier) with the procreative aspect of the act, on top of it being abortifacent, as breakthrough ovulation can occur and another action of the pill is to create a hostile environment in the uterus. It separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the martial embrace.

 

[edwest2]

Here is an article that addresses the original poster’s desire for information:

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262

The fact of the matter is: promiscuity was looked down upon in the 1960s. Parents taught their children (I was there) that a girl who was unmarried should not allow a boy to have sex with her. To do so was wrong. Girls who thought otherwise were to be avoided. The same was true of older adults.

God was a bigger part of the daily lives of the Catholic community than now.

And to anyone who tells you that the Church is at fault when anybody else decides to have sex is not even logical. Who tells you when to have sex? Who tells anybody when to have sex?

And don’t buy the line that promiscuity was as common in the 1960s as opposed to now. Not true. But a few radicals in the late 1960s managed to convince some people, including Catholics, of a novel and false idea: kids are going to do it anyway, you can’t stop them.

Once again, who tells you when to have sex?

Peace,
Ed

 

[ckempston]

Serious/grave/just reasons are not spelled out. What is serious/grave/just for one couple might not be for another couple. However, illness, economic distress, emotional issues, and the like would be serious/just/grave reasons for the use of either abstinence or NFP.

Exactly: very convenient.

No, my analysis is quite correct. NFP is not an action. It is abstaining. Abstaining for just/serious/grave reasons is not sinful. NFP is knowledge of the fertility cycle, which is not sinful, either. NFP doesn’t prevent procreation. Abstaining prevents procreation because it’s a non act. Procreative does not equal fertile, it means that if the act is done the way it was created that life could occur if conditions are right.

“NFP is not an action.” I had to laugh at that one. Why do Catholics feel that they can redefine plain words to mean something else entirely?

The Pill creates an artificial infertility that chemically interferes (creates a barrier) with the procreative aspect of the act, on top of it being abortifacent, as breakthrough ovulation can occur and another action of the pill is to create a hostile environment in the uterus. It separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the martial embrace.

And where does this definition of the marital embrace having only unitive and procreative aspects? The Catholic church, hundreds of years after Christ. The Scriptures certainly talk about marital embrace being unitive, but nowhere in the whole Bible is it suggested that sex has to result with children (not even in the story of Onan, which isn’t a story about sex).

 

[Paladin_V]

Humanae Vitae needs to be read in its entirety. In quoting the above only, the following is missed:

“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”

With NFP, the act is still open to procreation, there is nothing unnatural put in the way. Further, as the document states, it cannot be used indefinitely or without real reason, lest it become “I do not wish to give myself fully but just during infertility.” The gift of self during fertility must take place. Just not necessarily always. If contraception is used, the only thing that can be said is, “I don’t wish to give myself fully to you.”

 

[ckempston]

Humanae Vitae needs to be read in its entirety. In quoting the above only, the following is missed:

It’s entirety was the point. It’s inconsistent however you slice it.

"Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious.

The church is, however, ignorant, because NFP doesn’t work for beans. Just go look at all the Catholics in online postings and you’re bound to find many that read similar to this: “I just had my baby 3 months ago, I’m following X method for NFP, and I’m also breastfeeding, but my period is late, and it appears I am pregant.” Yeah, duh. The Catholic church is simply wrong that there is any natural means to prevent childbirth. Any appearance that it works is simply a statistical illusion. It’s a crapshoot.

In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature.

You know what else was provided us by “nature”? Our brains. If you’re going to appeal to some “natural” order, go live in a cave and dress yourself in animal skins.

In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.

Just like in NFP.

But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love."

Paul said there was one reason to avoid intercourse in marriage: to devote yourself to prayer, and then come together so you won’t be tempted. He never said a thing about avoiding intercourse to prevent childbirth, although this would have been a perfect place to mention it.

With NFP, the act is still open to procreation, there is nothing unnatural put in the way. Further, as the document states, it cannot be used indefinitely or without real reason, lest it become “I do not wish to give myself fully but just during infertility.” The gift of self during fertility must take place. Just not necessarily always. If contraception is used, the only thing that can be said is, “I don’t wish to give myself fully to you.”

Define natural. That is the problem. I say it’s just as “unnatural” to use modern science to predict cycles as it is to use modern science to regulate ovulation.

 

[FightingFat]

The church is, however, ignorant, because NFP doesn’t work for beans. Just go look at all the Catholics in online postings and you’re bound to find many that read similar to this: “I just had my baby 3 months ago, I’m following X method for NFP, and I’m also breastfeeding, but my period is late, and it appears I am pregant.” Yeah, duh. The Catholic church is simply wrong that there is any natural means to prevent childbirth. Any appearance that it works is simply a statistical illusion. It’s a crapshoot.

Seriously, you’re wrong. I’ve been married for 14 years and I have four children and no accidents. My youngest is 5. We don’t even bother with all the temperature stuff. Learning the Church’s teaching about sex and marriage has had incredibly positive effects on my marriage and my relationship with my wife and my kids (not to mention the big fella upstairs).

 

[Paladin_V]

The church is, however, ignorant, because NFP doesn’t work for beans. Just go look at all the Catholics in online postings and you’re bound to find many that read similar to this: “I just had my baby 3 months ago, I’m following X method for NFP, and I’m also breastfeeding, but my period is late, and it appears I am pregant.” Yeah, duh. The Catholic church is simply wrong that there is any natural means to prevent childbirth. Any appearance that it works is simply a statistical illusion. It’s a crapshoot.

That’s just plain wrong. I just finished an NFP class with my fiancee and multiple studies by medical doctors have shown NFP to be just as effective as, and in most cases, more effective than, any other contraceptive. The majority of unintended pregnancies occur because of not following the methods accurately. It is absolutely not a crapshoot and there is science to prove it.

…they obstruct the natural development of the generative process] Just like NFP.

NOT just like NFP. When you are comparing NFP and contraception, you need to examine individual acts.

First, lets look at one specific instance of marital intercourse in either the fertile or infertile time (and there’s nothing wrong with having intercourse during the infertile time, infertility is a naturally occurring, periodic happening in the human body). NFP does not physically obstruct the generative process in this one particular act, there’s nothing there physically to prevent the generative act from happening if it is able to happen. You can not want to get pregnant, but if you are going to have intercourse, in that act of intercourse, you can’t do anything **or intend to do anything **to stop procreation it from happening. Whether or not you are fertile is irrelevant, the point is that when you do have intercourse, you don’t do anything to get in the way of procreation.

The potential problem with NFP is obstructing the generative process in the marriage overall. It is okay to say, “We don’t want each other’s fertility right now because [insert serious reason].” That is fine, but then they can’t have intercourse because each individual act of intercourse needs to be open to procreation, which they are not (as discussed above). What is not okay to say is, “We don’t want each other’s fertility ever,” or “we don’t want each other’s fertility because [insert non-serious reason].” That is a denial of gift to each other in the marriage, which is a different problem.

Granted, what is a serious reason? Well, that’s a bit more subjective, however we do know that we ought to have a well-formed conscience, guided by the Holy Spirit. We are entrusted with determining the seriousness of our reasons and the Church can help with that. But the point is that NFP can be “subjectively” evil, but it is not “objectively” evil.

When contraception is used in a specific act, it is always intended to sterilize that specific act. That is bad. NFP, however, does not sterilize any act because there is no act to sterilize. The only thing it can sterilize is the relationship, which is bad if there are not “serious” reasons. And even if there are, they can’t be indefinite.

 

[Paladin_V]

Seriously, you’re wrong. I’ve been married for 14 years and I have four children and no accidents. My youngest is 5. We don’t even bother with all the temperature stuff. Learning the Church’s teaching about sex and marriage has had incredibly positive effects on my marriage and my relationship with my wife and my kids (not to mention the big fella upstairs).

I think one of the best arguments for NFP comes from the phrase, “you know it by it’s fruits.” The incredible benefits of NFP on a marital relationship have been shown time and time and time again. Communication, patience, you name it. Not to mention that the negative effects of contraception on marital relationships have been shown over and over as well.

The fruits of NFP are some of the most effective arguments for using it.

Congratulations of 14 years of marriage! I’m getting married in June and can’t wait!! :extrahappy:

 

[Sair]

I mean, lets say the Red Cross gave tons of aid but decided they should exterminate a group of people for “health reasons.” Should we support them? No. Well, a bit extreme compared to contraception, but the fact is we know contraception to be gravely sinful, even more harmful than AIDS is. So we don’t support those who administer contraception. I really don’t see the problem with not supporting a group that gives something out that you know to be harmful, even if they do some other good. Especially when there are other avenues open for charity.

Contraception? No. Birth control? Yes. It is the only legitimate way to control and space births and yet even NFP can be used sinfully. A fine line, perhaps, but then most lines between good and evil are quite fine. “Stray but a little, and the quest will fail, to the ruin of all.”

First of all, let me just say that I’m all for relieving the physical hardship of people who are experiencing it, especially if it’s through no fault of their own (though I have to say I’m a little dubious regarding convicted criminals protesting the conditions in which they’re imprisioned - and they do, here in Australia). I seem to recall a passage in the Gospels or the Epistles, or perhaps a non-Biblical teaching, stating that the physical needs have to be met before a person will be open to spiritual ministry (though I can’t remember the precise quotation, I’m afraid - please enlighten me if you have it to hand)

However, I have to question the assertion that contraception does more harm, in real terms, than AIDS. On what basis do you make this assertion? Suffering? Spiritual health? Social consequences?

 

[ckempston]

That’s just plain wrong. I just finished an NFP class with my fiancee and multiple studies by medical doctors have shown NFP to be just as effective as, and in most cases, more effective than, any other contraceptive. The majority of unintended pregnancies occur because of not following the methods accurately. It is absolutely not a crapshoot and there is science to prove it.

They lied to you, or just chose data that fit what their itching ears wanted to hear. A woman can get pregnant any time of a given month. It is only that the liklihood increases right before and right after ovulation. If you use NFP for a year, you and your spouse are guaranteed to get pregnant.

babycenter.com/404_can-you-get-pregnant-right-after-your-period_7094.bc

NOT just like NFP. When you are comparing NFP and contraception, you need to examine individual acts.

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck…

First, lets look at one specific instance of marital intercourse in either the fertile or infertile time (and there’s nothing wrong with having intercourse during the infertile time, infertility is a naturally occurring, periodic happening in the human body). NFP does not physically obstruct the generative process in this one particular act, there’s nothing there physically to prevent the generative act from happening if it is able to happen. You can not want to get pregnant, but if you are going to have intercourse, in that act of intercourse, you can’t do anything **or intend to do anything **to stop procreation it from happening. Whether or not you are fertile is irrelevant, the point is that when you do have intercourse, you don’t do anything to get in the way of procreation.

Like tracking your infertile days to stop procreation from happening. Inconsistent, like I said.

The potential problem with NFP is obstructing the generative process in the marriage overall. It is okay to say, “We don’t want each other’s fertility right now because [insert serious reason].” That is fine, but then they can’t have intercourse because each individual act of intercourse needs to be open to procreation, which they are not (as discussed above). What is not okay to say is, “We don’t want each other’s fertility ever,” or “we don’t want each other’s fertility because [insert non-serious reason].” That is a denial of gift to each other in the marriage, which is a different problem.

You realize this comes from gnostic asceticism influence, right?

Granted, what is a serious reason? Well, that’s a bit more subjective, however we do know that we ought to have a well-formed conscience, guided by the Holy Spirit. We are entrusted with determining the seriousness of our reasons and the Church can help with that. But the point is that NFP can be “subjectively” evil, but it is not “objectively” evil.

The church doesn’t “help,” it dictates. You are not free to choose your own “serious reasons.” Pretending like your conscience has anything to do with it is stretching it.

When contraception is used in a specific act, it is always intended to sterilize that specific act. That is bad. NFP, however, does not sterilize any act because there is no act to sterilize. The only thing it can sterilize is the relationship, which is bad if there are not “serious” reasons. And even if there are, they can’t be indefinite.

“There is no act to sterilize”? That comment makes no sense. NFP is as unnatural as the pill. At least, it would be considered such if the Catholic position was consistent.

 

[Sair]

The potential problem with NFP is obstructing the generative process in the marriage overall. It is okay to say, “We don’t want each other’s fertility right now because [insert serious reason].” That is fine, but then they can’t have intercourse because each individual act of intercourse needs to be open to procreation, which they are not (as discussed above). What is not okay to say is, “We don’t want each other’s fertility ever,” or “we don’t want each other’s fertility because [insert non-serious reason].” That is a denial of gift to each other in the marriage, which is a different problem.

Granted, what is a serious reason? Well, that’s a bit more subjective, however we do know that we ought to have a well-formed conscience, guided by the Holy Spirit. We are entrusted with determining the seriousness of our reasons and the Church can help with that. But the point is that NFP can be “subjectively” evil, but it is not “objectively” evil.

When contraception is used in a specific act, it is always intended to sterilize that specific act. That is bad. NFP, however, does not sterilize any act because there is no act to sterilize. The only thing it can sterilize is the relationship, which is bad if there are not “serious” reasons. And even if there are, they can’t be indefinite.

Yeah. Here is a big problem of reasoning I find with the Catholic church. Firstly, can anyone enlighten me as to what kind of things constitute ‘serious’ reasons for not wanting to procreate?

Then, if one has ‘serious’ reasons for not wishing to have children, why is artificial contraception worse than abstinence during fertile times? Is it just because NFP leaves it open for God to circumvent your ‘serious’ reasons?

Also, what does the church make of the growing numbers of people who identify as childfree?