Question about contraception

[lucymeadhbh]

Hello everyone,
This topic has been done to death in both the secular media and within this forum I know but I feel I am not fully understanding the churches teaching in a singular regard.
My question is this:
While I understand that hormonal contraceptives are extremely dangerous for the mother and the potential life that may be created, a condom does not act as an abortificent but is still forbidden. I understand it is forbidden because using it means the couple in question are not open to life…
BUT
the Church endorses NFP as an ethical means of contraception. I’ve also heard people say that NFP is an effective means of contraception. How can it be both an effective means of birth control and, the people who use it still be open to creating a new life, therefore not sinning.
Am I explaining myself properly?

I would appreciate any advice/opinions…
God Bless You All
Meadhbh

 

[Rico_S]

I understand it is forbidden because using it means the couple in question are not open to life…

This is the root of your confusion. “Open to life” gets thrown about, but really it is not part of church teaching regarding contraception and it only confuses the matter–the couple practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy due to a serious medial condition is no more open to life than the couple using a contraception to avoid b/c they cannot afford another child.

The church teaching is simply that each act must be* ordered toward procreation*. Basically it has to look like baby making sex even if you aren’t trying to make a baby.

 

[Kamakanani]

Hi Meadhbh,

Hopefully someone more qualified, like an NFP instructor, can jump in as well to provide more details, but, based on what was said during my NFP class, the main issue is intent. If the intent in using NFP is as contraception just because you don’t want children right now, it’s possibly a sinful use. NFP is intended for use to space children morally as needed, and the couple together needs to discern on a monthly basis whether or not they feel called to abstain or if they are open to actively pursuing children at that time. The “bottom line” though (so to speak), is that the couple is called to be open to life, and to be fruitful and multiply.

Hope that helps,
Kamakanani

ETA: of course, if there are medical reasons that the woman cannot get pregnant, then using NFP strict rules for avoidance is perfectly fine.

 

[SirEwenii]

As Rico said it is more about the idea that we ought not prevent the natural consequence of sex. During natural family planning a couple are not preventing the natural consequence of sex: a child, it is their bodies which are doing this: they simply do not e

To put it simply and a little crudely: one of the purposes of having sex is to have children, if you are not in a position to have children for serious reasons simply do not have sex: simple as that. Contraception is like eating food and vomiting out the contents: that would be gluttony. If you don’t want to put on weight don’t over eat.
There is nothing wrong with eating, and there is nothing wrong with sex but if you are doing both purely for pleasure than you are doing both incorrectly- you are trying to separate the action (eating/having sex) with the natural consequence (nourishing body/having children).

Does that make sense? If you can’t have children, don’t have sex (NFP)

 

[ServusHumilis]

Quite simple; they are still completing the marital act as taught by the church but doing so at such a time when they are less likely to conceive.

 

[Rau]

Hello everyone,
This topic has been done to death in both the secular media and within this forum I know but I feel I am not fully understanding the churches teaching in a singular regard.
My question is this:
While I understand that hormonal contraceptives are extremely dangerous for the mother and the potential life that may be created, a condom does not act as an abortificent but is still forbidden. I understand it is forbidden because using it means the couple in question are not open to life…
BUT
the Church endorses NFP as an ethical means of contraception. I’ve also heard people say that NFP is an effective means of contraception. How can it be both an effective means of birth control and, the people who use it still be open to creating a new life, therefore not sinning.
Am I explaining myself properly?

I would appreciate any advice/opinions…
God Bless You All
Meadhbh

NFP is about using awareness of one’s fertility as a factor in determining whether or not to have sex. Every sex act remains ordered to procreation.

Contraception is interfering In a sex act to ensure no pregnancy results. Its intent is to enable sex whenever you like, and with no potential for pregnancy.

We are not called to have the maximum number of children, or any particular number of children.

 

[TomD123]

The Church does not teach that the intent to avoid children within marriage is wrong.
This intent is either right or wrong depending on the situation. Of course, couples should always be loving and accepting of new life, but at times they can deliberately not want to have more kids and this is responsible. This is only a problem if it is done for selfish reasons.

This is why the Church teaches periodic abstinence (NFP) can be used to avoid children. If there are no good reasons, the couple sins, however the couple doesn’t commit the same sin as if they were contracpeting. There is no such thing as commiting the sin of contraception with NFP. One can be sinful and selfish with NFP but not contraceptive.

Contraception is wrong becasue it is a deliberate frustration of the inherent purpose of the sexual act. By inherent purpose I do not mean a possible use that an outside observer imposed externally or prefers, I mean the very built-in natural end of sexuality.

To deliberately act contrary to something’s natural end, is to, by definition, misuse and abuse that thing. For instance, to prevent a car from being able to drive is to abuse a car and render it useless. To do this with our sexual powers is by definition bad.

Also, to act against the nature of our very sexual powers is to take something in us, given to us by God, and to say we have better use of it than God’s original, built-in, designed plan. Therefore, it is an insult to God.

Finally, it is also harmful because since sexuality is built in such a way that is conducive to procreation (and unity for the sake of procreation); an abuse of its very nature is bound to cause problems. This does not mean in every case, but it means as a whole, to strip sexuality from its God-given meaning by acting contrary to its very essence is going to cause problems in general. In society, it seems as though contraception is responsible for completely redefining sex. As such, we use it in such a way that it is not really fit to be used for, in a way that is unfitting given what it is by nature. For this reason, it is not used to aid in the flourishing of man but to interefere with this flourishing. For example, since society has redefined sex so as to make babies an unwanted possible sideffect, abortion has become increasingly seen as a potential solution.

 

[UnCatholicBride]

NFP is about using awareness of one’s fertility as a factor in determining whether or not to have sex. Every sex act remains ordered to procreation.

Contraception is interfering In a sex act to ensure no pregnancy results. Its intent is to enable sex whenever you like, and with no potential for pregnancy.

We are not called to have the maximum number of children, or any particular number of children.

Typical use failure rate for a condom is 18%
Typical use failure rate for NFP is in the 13% range

Wouldn’t a couple using condoms but having sex during a woman’s fertile window be MORE open to the possibility of children than a couple abstaining during the fertile window.

You literally cannot get pregnant outside of the fertile window, so honestly, NFP is no different than using a condom or hormonal birth control- both allow you to have sex without the consequence of children.

Just another one of those silly church rules that sound good on paper but have no real life application.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

the Church endorses NFP as an ethical means of contraception.

This is not correct. “Contraception” is not permitted under any circumstances. However, “birth control” is permitted under certain circumstances. Contraception is artificial birth control, which is not permitted. NFP is natural birth control, which is permitted.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…

The church teaching is simply that each act must be* ordered toward procreation*. Basically it has to look like baby making sex even if you aren’t trying to make a baby.

:tiphat:
Rico, nice job! I’ve often gone on and on trying to say what you summarized in one simple sentence!

 

[billcu1]

What about this? Some interesting questions have come up here. I’m 44 yo and single and because I’m on disability it’s just about all I can do to take care of myself. Can I never get married if I didn’t want kids because of financial reasons? If NFP is all that’s allowed you are avoiding getting pregnant. And some here are saying that’s wrong right? Someone fill me in. I try to stay away from women except as friends anyway and I am not promiscuous.

 

[billcu1]

Typical use failure rate for a condom is 18%
Typical use failure rate for NFP is in the 13% range

Wouldn’t a couple using condoms but having sex during a woman’s fertile window be MORE open to the possibility of children than a couple abstaining during the fertile window.

You literally cannot get pregnant outside of the fertile window, so honestly, NFP is no different than using a condom or hormonal birth control- both allow you to have sex without the consequence of children.

Just another one of those silly church rules that sound good on paper but have no real life application.

Personally I’m fine with a method that has a 100% success rate 100% of the time anyway. When not wanting children.

 

[Corki]

Typical use failure rate for a condom is 18%
Typical use failure rate for NFP is in the 13% range

Wouldn’t a couple using condoms but having sex during a woman’s fertile window be MORE open to the possibility of children than a couple abstaining during the fertile window.

You literally cannot get pregnant outside of the fertile window, so honestly, NFP is no different than using a condom or hormonal birth control- both allow you to have sex without the consequence of children.

Just another one of those silly church rules that sound good on paper but have no real life application.

The Church’s teaching on contraception are not related to effectiveness. When people bring up number of the effectiveness of NFP it’s usually just to dispel the old canard of “Vatican Roulette”.

NFP is very different that any form of contraception. It is the only method of family planning that keeps sex both unitive and ordered to procreation. It’s not that it allows you to have sex without the consequence of children. It allows you to have sex without cheating your spouse out of the fullness of the marital act.

 

[billcu1]

The Church’s teaching on contraception are not related to effectiveness. When people bring up number of the effectiveness of NFP it’s usually just to dispel the old canard of “Vatican Roulette”.

NFP is very different that any form of contraception. It is the only method of family planning that keeps sex both unitive and ordered to procreation. It’s not that it allows you to have sex without the consequence of children. It allows you to have sex without cheating your spouse out of the fullness of the marital act.

So you are saying then that sex without children is the fullness of the marital act? Or can be anyway?

 

[Corki]

So you are saying then that sex without children is the fullness of the marital act? Or can be anyway?

Yes, it can be. Every instance of marital sex is not fertile. Every married woman is not fecund. Those acts are still ordered to procreation AND unitive. The act is complete (as long as it’s between spouses).

 

[Rau]

Typical use failure rate for a condom is 18%
Typical use failure rate for NFP is in the 13% range

Wouldn’t a couple using condoms but having sex during a woman’s fertile window be MORE open to the possibility of children than a couple abstaining during the fertile window.

You literally cannot get pregnant outside of the fertile window, so honestly, NFP is no different than using a condom or hormonal birth control- both allow you to have sex without the consequence of children.

Just another one of those silly church rules that sound good on paper but have no real life application.

Your logic will face difficulties the moment a highly effective condom is invented! What will be your argument then?

No one compels you to have sex at any point in the cycle, nor to live in ignorance of your fertility. If you’re not ready for a child, the right course is to abstain for the relevant days that month, not to take “precautions” then have sex anyway.

 

[NurseyJ]

A lot of people think that NFP is simply “Catholic birth control”, but no, it definitely is not. Though contraception and NFP may have the same end result (not becoming pregnant), they both achieve this in very different ways. In the case of NFP, you respect God’s design, and your spouse and you aren’t removing either the unitive (the bonding between spouses) or procreative aspects of sex. In the case of contraception, you reject God’s design, disrespect your spouse, and put yourself above God. That said, one can even have a contraceptive attitude in using NFP. It is only supposed to be used if a married couple has serious, legitimate reasons for not having a baby (be they financial, physical, mental, emotional, etc.)

You might find yourself saying, “Surely, there could be legitimate reasons to control family size or space births. Contraception lets you do that, so what’s the problem?”

The problem is that the ends don’t justify the means. Yes, there are legitimate reasons to control family size or space births, but that doesn’t justify using something intrinsically wrong (contraception). For example, if I need to support my family financially, I would not be justified in robbing banks to achieve that outcome. We cannot do evil so that good may result. NFP is a morally acceptable alternative.

 

[SusanneT]

A lot of people think that NFP is simply “Catholic birth control”, but no, it definitely is not. Though contraception and NFP may have the same end result (not becoming pregnant), they both achieve this in very different ways. In the case of NFP, you respect God’s design, and your spouse and you aren’t removing either the unitive (the bonding between spouses) or procreative aspects of sex. In the case of contraception, you reject God’s design, disrespect your spouse, and put yourself above God. That said, one can even have a contraceptive attitude in using NFP. It is only supposed to be used if a married couple has serious, legitimate reasons for not having a baby (be they financial, physical, mental, emotional, etc.)

You might find yourself saying, “Surely, there could be legitimate reasons to control family size or space births. Contraception lets you do that, so what’s the problem?”

The problem is that the ends don’t justify the means. Yes, there are legitimate reasons to control family size or space births, but that doesn’t justify using something intrinsically wrong (contraception). For example, if I need to support my family financially, I would not be justified in robbing banks to achieve that outcome. We cannot do evil so that good may result. NFP is a morally acceptable alternative.

Well put !

 

[UnCatholicBride]

A lot of people think that NFP is simply “Catholic birth control”, but no, it definitely is not. Though contraception and NFP may have the same end result (not becoming pregnant), they both achieve this in very different ways. In the case of NFP, you respect God’s design, and your spouse and you aren’t removing either the unitive (the bonding between spouses) or procreative aspects of sex. In the case of contraception, you reject God’s design, disrespect your spouse, and put yourself above God. That said, one can even have a contraceptive attitude in using NFP. It is only supposed to be used if a married couple has serious, legitimate reasons for not having a baby (be they financial, physical, mental, emotional, etc.)

You might find yourself saying, “Surely, there could be legitimate reasons to control family size or space births. Contraception lets you do that, so what’s the problem?”

The problem is that the ends don’t justify the means. Yes, there are legitimate reasons to control family size or space births, but that doesn’t justify using something intrinsically wrong (contraception). For example, if I need to support my family financially, I would not be justified in robbing banks to achieve that outcome. We cannot do evil so that good may result. NFP is a morally acceptable alternative.

But the fact of the matter that a man climaxing in his wife outside of her fertile window is no more “ordered toward procreation” than climaxing in a cantaloupe! Neither result in an act of “marital embrace” that could physiologically result in a child.

You’re also rejecting God’s design by abstaining during your fertile window. There is a reason that women desire intimacy more highly during the fertile window- God biologically created us to have an internal drive for reproduction, and abstinence circumvents that design.

But then again this is why I pick and choose aspects of my faith- because I don’t believe that a bunch of old men who have never been married or had a marital embrace have the proper knowledge on a woman’s body, and they certainly have no authority over MY body.

 

[TomD123]

But the fact of the matter that a man climaxing in his wife outside of her fertile window is no more “ordered toward procreation” than climaxing in a cantaloupe! Neither result in an act of “marital embrace” that could physiologically result in a child…

The problem with this is that you misunderstand what “ordered towards procreation” means. Human sexuality by its very nature has as an end (inherent purpose, final cause) the procreation of children. The first step in this is the sex act which is ordered to the ultimate purpose of children but it has only the specific job of getting sperm into the woman. If this is accomplished, the sex act by itself is natural, whether or not every step afterwards works to produce a child.

Climaxing in a cantaloupe is not ordered to new life. That act by its very nature (meaning, what it IS) cannot result in a new human. Intercourse with a woman by its very nature can and does result in new life. REGARDLESS of whether or not everything that is biologically necessary for a child happens AFTER the sex act. The act itself based on what it IS is still entirely capable of producing a child.

You’re also rejecting God’s design by abstaining during your fertile window. There is a reason that women desire intimacy more highly during the fertile window- God biologically created us to have an internal drive for reproduction, and abstinence circumvents that design.

.

Exactly…the inherent purpose of sex and marriage is procreation. However, there are circumstances where children are not possible for the couple. In these cases, one must abstain and avoid that inherent desire to have a kid. Not disrupt the very purpose that sex exists for

But then again this is why I pick and choose aspects of my faith- because I don’t believe that a bunch of old men who have never been married or had a marital embrace have the proper knowledge on a woman’s body, and they certainly have no authority over MY body.

They alone do not have any authority over the natural law. The Catholic Church has no authority to decide if birth control is ok. This is part of natural law. The Church simply has the authority to teach on natural law. If you believe that the Church is founded by Christ for our salvation, you would believe what she claims, namely infallibility on faith and morals. It has nothing to do with old men who have never been married, it has everything to do with the guidance of Christ. If you do not believe this, you call Christ a liar when He said “He who hears you hears me.”