The Case Against Contraception

[Calliso]

Again, we see the nuance (bolded), very subtle but critical.

NFP is not avoiding children “by limiting sexual activity to the infertile period”. It is avoiding children “by abstaining during fertile periods”. The former is an unfair attempt to link it to the ABC culture by suggesting that an incidental reality of following NFP (sex occurring only during infertile periods) suddenly becomes it’s primary purpose.

Some argue that this focus on nuance is a distraction intended to downplay the similarity, but I think the contrast is critical. Again, NFP…sex without babies is not the goal. No babies for a specific time period due to grave reasons IS the goal. ABC? The primary goal is sex without babies. Most do not see how the nuance is relevant until you ponder it thoroughly. The primacy of intent is the first distinction to absorb. The second is methodology and providence. Both combine to clearly show why NFP is conditionally moral, and ABC is intrinsically evil.

I can kinda understand what you are saying here but what I have a problem with is that on one hand you point out that with NFP the goal is no babies for a limited time for grave reasons. The problem I have though is then you go on to say well ABC goal is just sex. But that would seem to assume that those who use NFP donlt ever want kids which usually isn;t the case. I think this is where individual intent matters. That couple using ABC might only plan to use ABC for a short while and they might have grave reasons. Another couple using NFP might not really have grave reasons to avoid having children and are just wanting sex without babies.

 

[Calliso]

the problem in telling the difference can be found in a common nuance which you included here in your premise, as follows.
The bolded part is the subtle difference, yet it is critical to understand why it is different. The Church does not teach that NFP is a way to have sex without conceiving. She teaches that it is a morally permissible (if grave reasons exist) way to abstain from sex during fertile periods. That’s it. End of story. When you add in, “but still have sex”, it departs from the spirit of the teaching. It’s inferring that there exists some validity in primarily seeking unitive sex without procreative outcomes, when the real teaching is that it is seeking procreative and unitive sex at all times, unless for grave reasons through prudent and prayerful discernment, sex should be avoided during fertile periods.

It’s a subtle, but important, difference. The ABC culture fits nicely into your statement, and hence, users of ABC typically possess that mentality, even if their intentions are not entirely selfish. But it is a misrepresentation of NFP and Church teaching to suggest that the mentalities are the same.

Yes but what I am trying to get at is isn;t that what NFP users are doing? I mean specifically when they are abstaining during the fertile times but still having sex during the infertile. That to me would seen to indicate that for those acts the primary intent/purpose is uniative and not procreative. Of course they might be open and willing to accept any pregnancies but then again so would many ABC users.

 

[Calliso]

Did you see my response? This post isn’t right because the whole point of NFP is that at least once a month you are having a conversation not just with your spouse but with God to figure out what he wants for us. Therefore if Debora is outside the door and wants in she is let in and welcomed. The only reason she wouldn’t be let in is because we talked it over beforehand and decided with her not to throw a party that day. Lets say Debora is a Queen, and we can’t just throw any old party for her. Its a very demanding task to provide a party worthy of her. If we can’t throw the kind of party worth of her, doesn’t it only make sense to talk to her and agree to do it another day?

I guess though I admit these analogies for me can be hard to understand!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I can kinda understand what you are saying here but what I have a problem with is that on one hand you point out that with NFP the goal is no babies for a limited time for grave reasons. The problem I have though is then you go on to say well ABC goal is just sex. But that would seem to assume that those who use NFP donlt ever want kids which usually isn;t the case. I think this is where individual intent matters. That couple using ABC might only plan to use ABC for a short while and they might have grave reasons. Another couple using NFP might not really have grave reasons to avoid having children and are just wanting sex without babies.

With ABC the goal is sex without conceiving. How? By seeing fertility as something to remove, although it would normally be present, in order to have sex without conceiving.

From planned parenthood. Notice how spontaneity and convenience are selling points:

Taking the pill is simple, safe, and convenient. It does not interfere with having sex. Many women say it improves their sex lives because it helps them feel more spontaneous.

Sterilization is safe and, because it lasts for life, it is simple and convenient. It allows a woman to enjoy sex without worrying about pregnancy. Many women and men report that they have more sexual pleasure because they don’t have to think about unwanted pregnancy anymore

.

Using the birth control shot is safe, simple, and convenient.
The shot provides very effective, long-lasting pregnancy protection.
There is no daily pill to remember.
There is nothing to do right before having sex.
Some women say it improves their sex lives because it helps them feel more spontaneous.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Not to mention in ancient times there was a plant that was used for contraceptive purposes so often that it is now extinct. So why would God create a plant that could be used for such purposes. Also I think it is questionable how natural modern NFP really is.

God made uranium. That doesn’t mean we should use it all up dropping nuclear bombs. People misuse all sorts of things in creation- including ourselves. It’s called sin.

Pax.

 

[Warrior1979]

Again, we see the nuance (bolded), very subtle but critical.

NFP is not avoiding children “by limiting sexual activity to the infertile period”. It is avoiding children “by abstaining during fertile periods”.

Incorrect. It includes both. Please see the relevant section of HV #16:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

People tend to focus ONLY on abstinence. I focus on the marital relations during the infertile time because that is what is relevant to the discussion.

As I’ve repeated numerous time, abstinence is not the issue. There is no sin in abstinence…barring situations such as that as Onan, where he was ordered to have children. Even if you believe in contraception, and you abstain for the rest of your life, you haven’t sinned.

OTOH, if one takes action, it’s an entirely different story. That why the Church places restriction on NFP…having sex during the infertile period suppresses (not eliminates, but suppresses) the primary function of sex.

The former is an unfair attempt to link it to the ABC culture by suggesting that an incidental reality of following NFP (sex occurring only during infertile periods) suddenly becomes it’s primary purpose.

I recognize the distinctions between ABC and NFP. But I also recognize that people attempt to misrepresent NFP to suit their own purposes. That misrepresentation, my friends, is due to contraceptive mentality.

 

[Corki]

Ummm really? I thought that was exactly the reason most people use NFP not talking about those who use it to conceive But no the intent of NFP is definately to have sex without getting pregnant.

Then you don’t understand NFP at all. NFP is based on periodic abstinence. It’s a method of planning when NOT to have sex if you have a serious reason to avoid having another child. You can take that information and use it to decide to have sex on the rest of the days but even if you don’t have any sex in the month, you would still be using NFP. It’s all about days to avoid, not days to indulge.

Also you would be surprised on how many couples actually do have sex every day.

Statistics seem to point in another direction. But if a couple really had sex every day of their marriage, they wouldn’t be interested in NFP anyway because obviously they wouldn’t be experiencing pregnancy, child-birth, small children or the times around these events where there is no sex.

 

[Corki]

God made uranium. That doesn’t mean we should use it all up dropping nuclear bombs. People misuse all sorts of things in creation- including ourselves. It’s called sin.

Pax.

Seriously.

God made lots of things that can be missued – look at tobacco, poppies, poisen in plants. Now if God told us to use that plant to contracept - but wait, God actually said the opposite – that using pharmakia (drugs from plants) brings condemnation.

 

[Calliso]

Then you don’t understand NFP at all. NFP is based on periodic abstinence. It’s a method of planning when NOT to have sex if you have a serious reason to avoid having another child. You can take that information and use it to decide to have sex on the rest of the days but even if you don’t have any sex in the month, you would still be using NFP. It’s all about days to avoid, not days to indulge.

Statistics seem to point in another direction. But if a couple really had sex every day of their marriage, they wouldn’t be interested in NFP anyway because obviously they wouldn’t be experiencing pregnancy, child-birth, small children or the times around these events where there is no sex.

Ok I think I get what you are saying sorta. Yeah I get it that a huge part of NFP is about avoiding, but I still think at least for some couples maybe not all it is also about getting in days to indulge. I mean for instance you have a couple that has serious reasons to avoid having children for awhile lets say they are struggling a bit finicially. Now obviously the safest way to do things would be to abstain completely just donlt have sex period until the bad times have past. Unfortunately many people would agree that long term abstinance in marriage often isn;t a very good thing so most would seek a solution in which they would feel adequetely safe and at the same time still at least some of the time be able to engage in intimate relations. So I can see how it could be either or or both.

 

[Nate13]

I recognize the distinctions between ABC and NFP. But I also recognize that people attempt to misrepresent NFP to suit their own purposes. That misrepresentation, my friends, is due to contraceptive mentality.

If you make the contraceptive mentality into meaning that if a couple ever thinks for one instant that they might not be ready for another child then yes. Abstinence would be wrong then as well since you are abstaining solely to prevent conception, which would fit into your definition of the contraceptive mentality. The thing is this is not what the contraceptive mentality really means. We already know that there are good solid reasons for not wanting to conceive at times and even potentially for long periods of time. The question is not whether there are good reasons for doing so, but rather what method do we use to bring this about.

 

[ahs]

Incorrect. It includes both. Please see the relevant section of HV #16:…
As I’ve repeated numerous time, abstinence is not the issue. There is no sin in abstinence…

So, I think we all agree on this, no? And then it comes to sex during the infertile period, which the Church has never condemned. In respect to sex outside the fertile window, I think we agree, that this in iteself is not contraception.

And, so what of the “planning” of sex during the infertile period. The Church also has not condemned this (with just reason), because even though we may plan to have intercourse only during the infertile period, we still use no barriers, no withdrawal, no thwarting of that particular act…we complete that act fully (intravaginal ejaculation) and that act, therefore, is still odered toward procreation, because there is still a chance for conception there, should God Will it, or should the wife ovulate in proximity to that time of the act. No contraception has taken place because the couple is still fully willing to accept a baby should the wife conceive, and the sexual faculty is fully presented. (Please correct me if I mis-used the term “faculty”. )

I recognize the distinctions between ABC and NFP. But I also recognize that people attempt to misrepresent NFP to suit their own purposes. That misrepresentation, my friends, is due to contraceptive mentality.

I agree, with you here, at least to the point that NFP can be abused…used for selfish reasons rather than just reasons. The Church does state that a couple must have a just reason. Of course, the Church also leaves that discernment up to each couple (what constitutes a just reason). Personally, I think this is because there can be as many just reasons as there are couples in the world. The Church does not presume to know each couple’s ability to raise “n” children (emotionally, financially, medically, etc…).

 

[SteveGC]

Incorrect. It includes both. Please see the relevant section of HV #16:

I’m not saying that NFP doesn’t include both. I’m saying that it’s not the primary intent of NFP. The primary intent of NFP is to provide an awareness of fertility periods, so that (for grave reasons) that period may be avoided in the sexual relationship of a married couple. Pope Paul VI’s comment in Humanae Vitae is simply a recognition that sexual relations in marriage are a natural, ordered and good thing, even during those times when grave reasons exist to temporarily avoid conception. It is not a declaration that using fertility recognition is a general way for couples to enjoy sex without conception. We have to remember that the culture of NFP revolves around procreation unless there are grave reasons, while the ABC culture revolves around sex without babies.

Now, I’m talking about the prevailing “culture”, not a specific individual’s (or couple’s) utilization of a method. I certainly concede that there are likely some abusers of NFP, and use it without grave reason for the primary purpose of having unitive sex without procreation. Likewise, I could concede that there may be some ABC users out there that may use a contraceptive to avoid pregnancy only during those periods where grave reason exists for them not to conceive. But the culture dictates the norm, not the exceptions, and I believe these are the exceptions. Both of these scenarios are wrong, and immoral. The former because it is not truly open to life, and the latter because of disordered methodology.

But when you look at the normative principles and culture behind NFP vs. ABC in society, it is crystal clear that the former is aligned with the concept of procreative & unitive sex, and removes the procreative aspect naturally only for grave reasons, and the latter is aligned primarily with unitive sex, and removes the procreative aspect artificially for any old reason at all. Those are the prevailing cultures and thrusts behind the two, and they are diametrically opposed.

It is for this reason that I object to someone defining NFP as a way to have sex without babies. That’s an incidental quality, not a design characteristic.

 

[SteveGC]

But doesn’t NFP involve the use of artificial, man made instruments such as thermometers, calculators for the cycle, calendars? Is it effective without these artificial man made instruments?

These instruments do not interfere with the natural conception process. It not the involvement of man-made instruments in ABC that’s immoral, it’s what’s done with them that is.

 

[SteveGC]

I can kinda understand what you are saying here but what I have a problem with is that on one hand you point out that with NFP the goal is no babies for a limited time for grave reasons. The problem I have though is then you go on to say well ABC goal is just sex. But that would seem to assume that those who use NFP donlt ever want kids which usually isn;t the case. I think this is where individual intent matters. That couple using ABC might only plan to use ABC for a short while and they might have grave reasons. Another couple using NFP might not really have grave reasons to avoid having children and are just wanting sex without babies.

I’m not suggesting that NFP doesn’t incidentally include the notion of sex without babies - it does. I’m saying the culture of ABC promotes sex without babies, and this promotion is typically absorbed and internalized in the ABC user. And yes, as I mentioned in the post above, I concede that there might be a few ABC users who use it during the fertile period only (and for grave reasons)…in this instance, ABC still possesses the inherent immorality of disordered methodology. But that is not the norm, in fact I would be shocked to find any ABC users out there that reserve their use of contraceptives for just the fertile period. No, the prevailing usage (even for those with grave reasons to avoid conception) is during all sexual encounters, in both infertile and fertile periods. Again, the primary immorality here is disordered methodology.

Yes but what I am trying to get at is isn;t that what NFP users are doing? I mean specifically when they are abstaining during the fertile times but still having sex during the infertile. That to me would seen to indicate that for those acts the primary intent/purpose is uniative and not procreative. Of course they might be open and willing to accept any pregnancies but then again so would many ABC users.

Yes, the sex during infertile periods for NFP users is an incidental reality that stems from the primary purpose of NFP, which is to abstain during fertile periods. I don’t deny that. And yes, you can even say that “for THOSE acts, the primary intent of their sex is unitive and not procreative”…but this does not diminish the fact that the prevailing culture of NFP is a cooperation with the divine dual-purpose of sex, while ABC’s prevailing culture is sex without babies. And in all instances, whether the ABC user has proper intentions and grave reasons, or the NFP user has improper intentions and non-grave reasons, the former has sexual relations that are not ordered to procreation, and the latter has sexual relations that are always ordered to procreation. This fact makes ABC usage always immoral, and NFP usage conditionally moral (immoral in the case here).

 

[EternalJade]

I beg to differ. NFP is not going through great lengths. Really.

Fertility is cyclical. Most of the time a woman is infertile.

The observational part of NFP does not cause infertility. A nun could observe her cycle to observe health issues. It’s not a cumbersome part of life to know how the female body works.

NFP (to avoid) only works if one avoids sex on the fertile days.
That requires self control,
It requires communication between spouses,
It requires trust that sex is being avoided for serious reasons. Really, honestly, how many men are willing to abstain for trivial reasons? How easy is it to feel rejected if the reasons are trivial?

NFP only works because a couple is able to postpone intimacy with a spouse they love. Is that as easy as using a condom?

NFP can only be done on a monthly basis. If the couple is abstaining today to avoid a pregnancy, is there any guarantee what will happen the rest of the cycle?
Is there any possibility that the following month they might not have the strength or the desire to abstain?

I’m getting a bit tired of the foot stomping, “NO fair, NFP couples are still having sex, no fair!”

Married Catholics can renew their marital vows when they wish. It is good and holy to do so. If a couple cannot have a child at this time, they do not do what causes pregnancy.

Have sex when the wife is fertile. That is the only way to get pregnant.

This is an aspect of NFP that I just don’t get. To me, this mentality would make me feel enslaved and it seems to reduce your sex life and having children to a mind game. What about people who are…DONE? God said be fruitful and multiply but that certainly doesn’t mean that you have to be open to it for your entire life. Frankly I think this is crazy. I have 4 children and while we would be happy with a surprise, there’s certainly no point in evaluating more children every month because we have decided that our family is complete the way it is. With the NFP mentality I’m sure many people end up with more children than they can mentally and/or financially handle. To me that is sad. I firmly believe that God wants us to be open to life going into marriage, and He gave us the intelligence to decide how many children we can handle. And sex for unitive purposes when you have finished child bearing is still a holy, wonderful gift.

 

[Nate13]

This is an aspect of NFP that I just don’t get. To me, this mentality would make me feel enslaved and it seems to reduce your sex life and having children to a mind game. What about people who are…DONE? God said be fruitful and multiply but that certainly doesn’t mean that you have to be open to it for your entire life. Frankly I think this is crazy. I have 4 children and while we would be happy with a surprise, there’s certainly no point in evaluating more children every month because we have decided that our family is complete the way it is. With the NFP mentality I’m sure many people end up with more children than they can mentally and/or financially handle. To me that is sad. I firmly believe that God wants us to be open to life going into marriage, and He gave us the intelligence to decide how many children we can handle. And sex for unitive purposes when you have finished child bearing is still a holy, wonderful gift.

Does this number ever change or is it set in stone before you get married? I think you would agree that lots of things can change and have an impact on what is possible to either allow for more or less kids. The whole idea is that this year you may think your done, but you may end up with a huge promotion and your kids might be acting like little angel’s by next year and you decide your in a position to bring another child into being. I think the whole point is to never close ourselves off to what God wants for us. Even if your in a position now where you feel there is absolutely no way, you know at the back of your mind anything is possible and God may make things happen that allow you to be prepared for another. Especially if financial reasons are what is holding you back, we definitely can’t close ourselves off because everyday we see poor people becoming rich and rich people becoming poor. I think the physical and emotional strain on the mother are probably some of the best reasons and something that only time will tell whether more kids are on the horizon. At the end of the day though we should repeat the words of Jesus while he was undergoing the agony in the garden, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

 

[SteveGC]

This is an aspect of NFP that I just don’t get. To me, this mentality would make me feel enslaved and it seems to reduce your sex life and having children to a mind game. What about people who are…DONE? God said be fruitful and multiply but that certainly doesn’t mean that you have to be open to it for your entire life. Frankly I think this is crazy. I have 4 children and while we would be happy with a surprise, there’s certainly no point in evaluating more children every month because we have decided that our family is complete the way it is. With the NFP mentality I’m sure many people end up with more children than they can mentally and/or financially handle. To me that is sad. I firmly believe that God wants us to be open to life going into marriage, and He gave us the intelligence to decide how many children we can handle. And sex for unitive purposes when you have finished child bearing is still a holy, wonderful gift.

So long as your reasons for ceasing growth of your family are sufficiently grave (which is determined individually based on prudent and prayerful discernment under a well-formed Christian conscience), then there is no problem with your statement. Although, generic comments such as “DONE”, and “we’ve decided our family is complete” do not suggest a prudent and prayerful discernment. Not saying you’re not being prudent, it’s just that these comments are typical of those who are not aligning their decisions with a full concept of “God first”. And I don’t mean to offend, although I’m sure it sounds like it. I only say it this way because my spouse and I are saying the same things, and we realize that we’re not putting first things first by doing so…and we still struggle with it.

The only remaining problem (after grave reasons are justified) is methodology, and not only is ABC not an acceptable means, it is not any better at achieving it’s purpose than properly utilized NFP. Many suggest NFP is much more effective. All the NFP users out there that I know have growing families with children that are precisely separated in age based on the original intent of the parents to space them. It can be that precise.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Well you do evaluate each month and it is as simple as, “Are we in the mood? But we I’m fertile…so what the heck.”

I should not have anymore children because of medical issues,

Will there be a time when we just cannot stand to be apart? I don’t know, I do know that ABC is off the table and if we do the possibility of a child is real.

That actually helps us decide. What’s more important, our needs or the possibility of conceiving a baby that might not make it? Or a baby in the NICU? Can we bear that risk? Right now the answer has been no, I don’t know if God will ever guide us to decide differently.

I do know He does guide us.

 

[EternalJade]

So long as your reasons for ceasing growth of your family are sufficiently grave (which is determined individually based on prudent and prayerful discernment under a well-formed Catholic conscience), then there is no problem with your statement. Although, generic comments such as “DONE”, and “we’ve decided our family is complete” do not suggest a prudent and prayerful discernment. Not saying you’re not being prudent, it’s just that these comments are typical of those who are not aligning their decisions with a full concept of “God first”. And I don’t mean to offend, although I’m sure it sounds like it. I only say it this way because my spouse and I are saying the same things, and we realize that we’re not putting first things first by doing so…and we still struggle with it.

The only remaining problem (after grave reasons are justified) is methodology, and not only is ABC not an acceptable means, it is not any better at achieving it’s purpose than properly utilized NFP. Many suggest NFP is much more effective. All the NFP users out there that I know have growing families with children that are precisely separated in age based on the original intent of the parents to space them. It can be that precise.

But, if you consider non-abortifacient bc to be on the same footing as NFP, then it makes no difference. As for prudence. I have a medical condition and while pregnancy wouldn’t kill me, it would be hard on me, and I have a lot of fatigue even when not pregnant. 4 children are what my dh and I can comfortably handle emotionally, physically and financially. However- I don’t think there need be a grave reason to stop. The be fruitful and multiply is a blessing, not a harsh order that yokes you into constantly being frightened you might be pregnant for all of your fertile years.

 

[EternalJade]

Does this number ever change or is it set in stone before you get married? I think you would agree that lots of things can change and have an impact on what is possible to either allow for more or less kids. The whole idea is that this year you may think your done, but you may end up with a huge promotion and your kids might be acting like little angel’s by next year and you decide your in a position to bring another child into being. I think the whole point is to never close ourselves off to what God wants for us. Even if your in a position now where you feel there is absolutely no way, you know at the back of your mind anything is possible and God may make things happen that allow you to be prepared for another. Especially if financial reasons are what is holding you back, we definitely can’t close ourselves off because everyday we see poor people becoming rich and rich people becoming poor. I think the physical and emotional strain on the mother are probably some of the best reasons and something that only time will tell whether more kids are on the horizon. At the end of the day though we should repeat the words of Jesus while he was undergoing the agony in the garden, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Actually Nate we are aware that our minds might change, hence we would never sterilize ourselves. We’ve gone back and forth about having one more, but if we do it will most likely be a surprise. At least in this economy and our current finances etc we probably wouldn’t plan it.