The church finally says ABC is ok!! What would you all think of that??

[Tantum_ergo]

I beg to differ.

For one, they are both used to avoid pregnancy.

AVOID pregnancy?

Um, last I knew, women only have a limited ‘fertility’ each month. The rest of the time, no egg to fertilize.

So. .Did God pass an injunction down and say, "Only have sex when the woman is fertile?’

No. He did not.

Now, NFP is used for many things. In fact, for SOME people it is a way to GET pregnant, Sound weird? Well, suppose you WANT to get pregnant, doesn’t it make sense you want to find your most fertile time?

God gave us brains to use.

Suppose you have three children under six. You want to give them attention. You are open to life, and hey, even if your thermometer says it is a ‘no fertility’ day, it might be one of those ‘flukes’. So you aren’t saying, "There is NO CHANCE I’ll get pregnant today’. And if you are, you are. And if you aren’t, you aren’t. But you didn’t create an artificial BARRIER; you were still OPEN to pregnancy and in fact, most women aren’t mathematically ‘perfect’ in their cycles. And you didn’t use a chemical to ‘trick’ your body into thinking it was pregnant or to abort or make it impossible for anything to implant.

I just don’t see why responsible planning (knowing that at any encounter one could STILL get pregnant and thus be OPEN TO LIFE) is seen as equating in ANY way to methods that use barriers, pills, or worse.

 

[Debora123]

The couple is always free to either choose to have sex or not…there is no set obligation for relations and this isn’t changed by their knowledge of the fertility cycle.

Sure there is. A couple who is trying to have sex without any “consequences” will only do so when fertility isn’t a factor.

 

[Jennifer_J]

There is a lot of action involved in making darn sure what your fertile days are. Especially when a couple is trying to have sex without getting pregnant.

Not really a whole lot of action in NFP and taking your temp or observing mucous do nothing to the actual, physical act of sex. With NFP you either have sex or you don’t. With contraception, you do something to the physical act (either an actual barrier or a chemical one) itself–you sterilize. That’s the point. When I use NFP, the act isn’t sterilized. It is either natually fertile or naturally infertile. It is never sinful to not have sex (unless you are unjustly denying your spouse).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Sure there is. A couple who is trying to have sex without any “consequences” will only do so when fertility isn’t a factor.

And so you assume a couple using NFP NEVER has sex in a time where pregnancy could take place, or that if the time says ‘not fertile’ it is invariably 100% correct? I think you need to get out and meet more people!

 

[Jennifer_J]

Sure there is. A couple who is trying to have sex without any “consequences” will only do so when fertility isn’t a factor.

Those who use NFP for spacing are well aware that fertility is ALWAYS a factor, that it is bound up in the act. Yes, we know what the fertility cycle looks like, we know phase 3 should be very safe, however, we also realize that anytime we have sex, a baby could result. We also know that our act of sex is ordered properly–ordered toward procreation, even if procreation can’t happen at that point. We have done nothing to alter the act.

 

[Debora123]

AVOID pregnancy?

Um, last I knew, women only have a limited ‘fertility’ each month. The rest of the time, no egg to fertilize.

So. .Did God pass an injunction down and say, "Only have sex when the woman is fertile?’

No. He did not.

Now, NFP is used for many things. In fact, for SOME people it is a way to GET pregnant, Sound weird? Well, suppose you WANT to get pregnant, doesn’t it make sense you want to find your most fertile time?

God gave us brains to use.

Suppose you have three children under six. You want to give them attention. You are open to life, and hey, even if your thermometer says it is a ‘no fertility’ day, it might be one of those ‘flukes’. So you aren’t saying, "There is NO CHANCE I’ll get pregnant today’. And if you are, you are. And if you aren’t, you aren’t. But you didn’t create an artificial BARRIER; you were still OPEN to pregnancy and in fact, most women aren’t mathematically ‘perfect’ in their cycles. And you didn’t use a chemical to ‘trick’ your body into thinking it was pregnant or to abort or make it impossible for anything to implant.

I just don’t see why responsible planning (knowing that at any encounter one could STILL get pregnant and thus be OPEN TO LIFE) is seen as equating in ANY way to methods that use barriers, pills, or worse.

Yes, most couples who use NFP do so to avoid a pregnancy. It is what it is, however you want to word it.

There can be responsible planning with a condom as well, and its users must still be open to life if the condom fails and a child is conceived. Condoms have a higher failure rate anyway.

 

[Debora123]

Well, that’s really not how it works, one asking the other the gate keeper.

Both husband and wife need to participate in the decision…there is no, “I’m not going too give myself to you because I’m fertile.” Abstinance is already difficult, the other spouse playing tempter is just mean.

We have very valid reasons to not get pregnant. I don’t approach, DH does not approach when I’m fertile.

I actually would be hurt if he did, I have a very high risk of not being able to carry a baby to term. We wouldn’t risk that heartbreak of losing a baby, just to satisfy a temporary urge.

But with the condom, It’s, “I want you now, but you better not touch me unless you’ve been to the drugstore.”

Exactly.

Likewise, there is a mutual decision involved in using a condom as well.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Yes, most couples who use NFP do so to avoid a pregnancy. It is what it is, however you want to word it.

There can be responsible planning with a condom as well, and its users must still be open to life if the condom fails and a child is conceived. Condoms have a higher failure rate anyway.

Failure rate is not the issue either. Open to life has nothing to do with statistics. The act with a condom is altered, it is not ordered toward procreation. The act with knowledge of fertility is not altered. The act is ordered properly toward procreation.

 

[Debora123]

Not really a whole lot of action in NFP and taking your temp or observing mucous do nothing to the actual, physical act of sex. With NFP you either have sex or you don’t. With contraception, you do something to the physical act (either an actual barrier or a chemical one) itself–you sterilize. That’s the point. When I use NFP, the act isn’t sterilized. It is either natually fertile or naturally infertile. It is never sinful to not have sex (unless you are unjustly denying your spouse).

Sure, you don’t do anything to sterilize sex in itself, you just make darn sure you’re gonna have sex only when fertility isn’t a factor.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes, but it is also used to avoid pregnancy (as a condom is used to avoid pregnancy), and is probably used that way more often than it is used to conceive.

Here’s the deal.

By avoiding conception, I need to avoid intercourse, in order for NFP to work. Having sex when I’m not fertile, does nothing to avoid pregnancy.

Condoms work by allowing a couple to have intercourse to avoid the possibility of conception, when conception would otherwise be possible.

I think that the reason people use condoms is that it makes intercourse possible whenever.

 

[Debora123]

And so you assume a couple using NFP NEVER has sex in a time where pregnancy could take place, or that if the time says ‘not fertile’ it is invariably 100% correct? I think you need to get out and meet more people!

So are we supposed to count on incorrect use of NFP?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Sure, you don’t do anything to sterilize sex in itself, you just make darn sure you’re gonna have sex only when fertility isn’t a factor.

I’ve already answered that. But again, couples can choose when to have sex. There is nothing sinful about that. They are not altering any act. Contraception does. Thus the difference.

 

[Debora123]

Those who use NFP for spacing are well aware that fertility is ALWAYS a factor, that it is bound up in the act. Yes, we know what the fertility cycle looks like, we know phase 3 should be very safe, however, we also realize that anytime we have sex, a baby could result. We also know that our act of sex is ordered properly–ordered toward procreation, even if procreation can’t happen at that point. We have done nothing to alter the act.

…And that chance of a baby resulting is actually HIGHER with condoms than it is with NFP.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Sure, you don’t do anything to sterilize sex in itself, you just make darn sure you’re gonna have sex only when fertility isn’t a factor.

Actually you are making sure to not have sex when fertiity is a factor. (I think it would be fair to say the sex on the infertile days isn’t something “extra” , or illicit)

 

[FCEGM]

Is it safe to say that at some point in the future, the Church could change the teaching on ABC? What would you all do/think at that point???

I think it’s safe to say that kicking against the goad is a tiresome and useless practice. Trying to justify one’s sinful practice (or justifying the desire to practice what is forbidden) by hoping that the Church will at some unknown point in the future change her teaching keeps one stuck at a level of spiritual immaturity which consistently overlooks the Lord’s gift of grace to live according to His teaching through His Church here and now.

 

[Jennifer_J]

…And that chance of a baby resulting is actually HIGHER with condoms than it is with NFP.

Again, it has nothing to do with chances or stats. It has to do with the sacredness of the act. The marital embrace is sacramental in nature, it’s a renewal of the marital covenant. The Church holds this act to be sacred. Because of that, it is to be used properly, to be ordered properly. Certainly it is for unity and procreation. Both parts are to be present in the act, even if procreation is naturally not there (through a natural defect or part of the natural cycle). Procreation doesn’t equal fertile. It just means that all things being equal, procreation could happen because there are no barriers in place.

 

[Debora123]

**Originally Posted by Debora123 **

Wow, this discussion is all about word games! The key is in the wording used, lol

Seems like this thread is going in circles, as these discussions usually do.

God bless you all. It’s been fun.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Wow, this discussion is all about word games! The key is in the wording used, lol

Seems like this thread is going in circles, as these discussions usually do.

God bless you all. It’s been fun.

No, the Church has defined things in a very specific way. It’s not word games.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Wow, this discussion is all about word games! The key is in the wording used, lol

Seems like this thread is going in circles, as these discussions usually do.

God bless you all. It’s been fun.

Deborah, could you explain to me how you think NFP actually works?

I think you are missing the difference:

Condom use= sex whenever

NFP= no sex when one is fertile.

There is nothing wrong for sex whenever for a married couple, but if you do that you need to accept any possible babies, and not change anything to make sure they don’t come.

 

[Bookcat]

Nice little summary of part of the Church’s teaching.

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which was issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?

2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.

1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html