Theological basis for NFP?

[Odell]

Nita, in that case, give up your car, because He designed you with legs. Give up medical drugs, He designed you with an immune system. Give up eyeglasses, and any other tool that helps us do anything.

Oh but wait, He also designed us with a brain, and hands, and told us to use them.

Perhaps you should give up your car because you can’t put vegitable oil in there, Can’t take albuteral for a head ach do away with that, do away with glasses cause you can’t wear them backward.

Point is these thing are made to work a certain way and that is how we are to use them. If you don’t follow the users manual andput vegitable oil in your car you have a problem.

We use medication when something is wrong. Last I checked fertility is not sicknesss or an illness.

Catholic ethics protest that no one must take the pleasure as his sole guide where a relationship is concerned-a person can never be an object of use . That is the nub of the conflict.

And when you contracept you are using another person for mere pleasure
This is why contraception is a sin. Take contraception out of the picture you exclude the possibility of treating a person as a means to an end and as an object of use.

When you give yourself completly to another (fertility) you also exlude the possibility of using another because giving is the oposite of using. Just as love is the opisite of lust

 

[Nita]

Also farther back, I said that I understand the difference in method (not the implications assumed from those differences), and that I wanted to refocus the conversation back to the initial question.

Further articulating differences does nothing to answer the question.

I think I am beating a dead horse at this point and it’s not worth continuing, unless anybody has something new to add.

The original question was “But theologically speaking, what is the basis of defining artificial birth control as a sin?”

Since the Church approves NFP and calls ABC a sin, examining the difference between the two, seeing the contrast in what takes place in each, is an important step in understanding why ABC is sinful. Sometimes it is the very contrast that finally makes evident why one is good and the other not. Anything, no matter how simple, that helps in manifesting the negative aspects of ABC should be welcomed - if one wants to understand why it is a sin.

I bowed out once, and came back.
Maybe it’s because I once had the same thoughts/questions as you, (and eventually with God’s grace understood) that I get so frustrated when I can’t explain it in a way that will register for someone else.

God bless you, and I hope He will grant you understanding also.

Nita

 

[Kay_Cee]

Okay, so you are introducing “levels” of changing one’s natural body as designed by God. Apparently, sometimes it is okay, and other times it is not. You imply that what makes it not okay is when you change your body to “keep God from creating a human being.”

It seems like your logic is as follows:

1. Changing your body is sometimes okay
2. Keeping God from creating a human being is not okay
3. Changing your body to prevent God from creating a baby is not okay
4. Preventing God from creating a baby by only having unitive and not procreative sex is okay

The problem that I can’t get past is, the criteria change depending on the situation. If you are using NFP, then preventing sperm and egg uniting by waiting until there is no egg is okay. But preventing this process artificially is not. Number 4 contradicts number 2, and is the reason why you hear other Catholics decry NFP as sinful.

Clearly, there is something in this teaching that distinguishes between “naturally” spacing children (NFP) versus artificially spacing children.

So, maybe it will help to refocus the conversation on a specific question:

What, theologically, is the reason that artificially spacing children is a sin?

I ask that answers be thoughtful and detailed, drawing upon theological and logical truths. This really is the crux of the conversation, and the more refined and focused the answers on this specific question, the easier I hope it will be.

There are many bald males that would take issue with you calling it something “wrong” to be “corrected”.

First of all, baldness occurs when the hair follicles stop functioning the way they’re supposed to.

Let’s see if I can make the rest of it clear for you.

I am not talking about different “levels.” I am talking about purposely trying to avoid having your body function according to the way God designed human biology.

For example, the function of an eye is to see. Well, I was legally blind in my right eye due to a cataract. My eye was not functioning the way it was supposed to, that is, the way God designed eyes to function. And so I had surgery to *correct *what was wrong with my eye. Now it does what eyes are supposed to do. It has been brought back to function the way God designed eyes to work.

Contraception is the exact opposite of this. With contraception, a person who has nothing wrong with his body seeks to keep his sexual organs from functioning according to God’s design.

One desires to adhere to God’s design and the other rejects it.

If you can’t see the difference between those two things, I don’t know what to say.

 

[Em_in_FL]

May I join this conversation late?
There seems to have been several threads along these lines lately… weird.

Anywhoo…

There are 2 elements to this discussion… the means and the end.
I’m pretty sure that we probably agree on the “end” issue, that is that the goal of spacing/avoiding children must not be selfish and must be done for a serious/well-grounded/grave reason… correct? We can’t just decide to avoid having children for vain/selfish reasons.
Okay.
Now, the means… NFP vs contraception. Why is one considered valid and the other considered immoral?

1. Well, we do know that the very idea of contraception isn’t new… and that early Church Fathers disapproved of it’s use:
   catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
2. And, we also can agree that man didn’t “make up” the fertility cycle of women… this was by God’s design, inherent by nature.
3. Also, we can agree that the Sacramental natural of matrimony is “ordered toward procreation”… as in, the conjugal union is a renewal of the marital vows, and that conjugal union is LIMITED to the married state, and the conjugal union naturally begets offspring… therefore the marital vows are renewed when the natural conjugal union occurs.

Considering those three points… when the church’s “newer” teachings came out in modern times defining what “NFP” (ie recourse to the infertile periods), it doesn’t seem like they are redefining anything. They are simply expounding on the basics above. We can’t contradict those basics above.
(Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, Casti Connubii, etc)

The modern teachings simply defined (coined terms) that made these basics understandable. The basic terms that were coined was that the marital conjugal union must always be UNITIVE and PROCREATIVE.

Now, let’s pause for a moment on a little English language lesson.
Procreative is an ADJECTIVE. The church uses this word to describe the morality (as defined by the “basics” above) of the sexual ACT. It describes the word “sex”.
pro·cre·a·tive (prkr-tv)
adj.

1. Capable of reproducing; generative.
2. Of or relating to procreation: the procreative instinct.
   The SEX must be both UNITIVE and PROCREATIVE.
   It doesn’t mean that fertility must always be present, nor does it mean that permanently infertile couples cannot preform the ACT in a WAY that is “capable of reproducing”… the ACT is procreative despite whether or not the people are fertile.

Okay… whew…

So… why is NFP okay and contraception is not?
Because NFP does not separate the unitive and procreative aspects of marital conjugal relations.
Contraception always separates them.
Using NFP doesn’t change THE ACT.
Contraception does.

Here are some very good quotes from the US Bishops website:
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/Contraception.pdf

Contraception deliberately deprives the conjugal act of its openness to procreation and in this way brings about a voluntary dissociation of the ends of marriage. (CDF, DV, February 22, 1987, II A 2)

That’s interesting… “voluntary dissociation”…

The contraceptive mentality causes the will to become detached from its tendency towards the good and therefore towards true love. Thus sexuality and corporality become trivialized; their links with transcendence and the mystery at the origin of human life are overlooked or rejected. In consequence, human values such as chastity, fidelity, fertility, the gift of self, come to be despised and are not rightly understood. (PCF, IL, April 20-22, 1991, III)

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life. (PCF, Vademecum for Confessors: Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, February 12, 1997, 2; 4)

It is not in conformity with God’s design that couples should neutralize or destroy their fertility by artificial contraception or sterilization, and still less that they have recourse to abortion to kill their offspring before birth. (PCF, The Ethical and Pastoral Dimensions of Population Trends, March 25, 1994, #73)

The artificial methods of birth control as well as sterilization do not respect the human person of a woman and man because they eliminate or impede fertility, which is an integral part of the person. (PCF, The Ethical and Pastoral Dimensions of Population Trends, March 25, 1994, #76)

That last one here is interesting too… “fertility - which is an integral part of the person”.

Anyway… these are just some points to ponder…

 

[mellestad]

So… why is NFP okay and contraception is not?
Because NFP does not separate the unitive and procreative aspects of marital conjugal relations.
Contraception always separates them.
Using NFP doesn’t change THE ACT.
Contraception does.

See, this is where I lose you. NFP relies on the physical impossibility of procreation occurring. It is physically impossible. It is premeditated. Proper NFP cannot result in a child without a supernatural event.

So how is that not equal to your contraception example?

---

Here’s the thing:

1: Married couple is practicing NFP correctly. Alternately, a sterile couple is practicing NFP. Same thing. Sex, knowing procreation is impossible without divine intervention.

2: These couples put on condoms. Now they are sinning.

The intent was the same. The biological realities are the same.

So you say NFP doesn’t change the act but contraceptive do, but I don’t understand why they change the act, unless there is literally something offensive about the physical properties.

Or is that the case? I honestly don’t know what Catholic doctrine is on sex. If someone had a barrier-like covering in use that did not stop semen, would that be alright?

 

[Alyosha13]

See, this is where I lose you.

Exactly. 2+2 just does not equal 5, no matter how much I might strain my brain into seeing it. I would reply with an objection, but it’s the same objection I’ve given over and over, and the answers to the objections are always restatements or rephrasings of what I was originally objecting to, rather than a deeper exploration or explanation of those statements.

I thank everyone for replying, and I will continue to monitor any other responses, but I am running out of energy going in circles.

That’s not a judgment or criticism, just an acknowledgment that the answers I am seeking aren’t here.

God bless.

 

[Odell]

Exactly. 2+2 just does not equal 5, no matter how much I might strain my brain into seeing it. I would reply with an objection, but it’s the same objection I’ve given over and over, and the answers to the objections are always restatements or rephrasings of what I was originally objecting to, rather than a deeper exploration or explanation of those statements.

I thank everyone for replying, and I will continue to monitor any other responses, but I am running out of energy going in circles.

That’s not a judgment or criticism, just an acknowledgment that the answers I am seeking aren’t here.

God bless.

Actually you never adressed my last post. The nub of the conflict is that you can never use another individual as an object for mere pleasure.

Read my post on the last page and we can go from there.

 

[davidv]

See, this is where I lose you. NFP relies on the physical impossibility of procreation occurring. It is physically impossible. It is premeditated. Proper NFP cannot result in a child without a supernatural event.

So how is that not equal to your contraception example?

Thank you revealing part of the reason you are confused.

It seems that you are equating procreation with conception. They are not the same.
In previous posts you seem to have also equated procreation with fertility. They are not the same.

So, please spend some time understanding the difference between these terms, and how the Church uses them. Then reread the explanations given with the distinction in mind.

Here my simplistic explanation of each:
Procreation: One of the primary objectives of the marital act. God shares His creative powers in bringing forth new life.
Fertility: The capacity to achieve conception
Conception: The actual creation of new life. The combination of egg and sperm from the spouses and the soul from God.

Please note the highlighted words.

---

Here’s the thing:

1: Married couple is practicing NFP correctly. Alternately, a sterile couple is practicing NFP. Same thing. Sex, knowing procreation is impossible without divine intervention.

2: These couples put on condoms. Now they are sinning.

The intent was the same. The biological realities are the same.

So you say NFP doesn’t change the act but contraceptive do, but I don’t understand why they change the act, unless there is literally something offensive about the physical properties.

Or is that the case? I honestly don’t know what Catholic doctrine is on sex. If someone had a barrier-like covering in use that did not stop semen, would that be alright?

1. As per the definitions above, the NFP and the sterile couple engaging in the unaltered marital act is still precreative.
2. Morality is determined by three factors, the object (act), the intent and the circumstances. Immorality in any of the three, causes the act to be immoral.

Not having sex (NFP during fertile time) is quite different than having sex with a condom. Using a condon during sex is offensive to God because it acts against His purpose for sex.

This is one of many quotes that describe the Church teachings on sex.

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

 

[InspiritCarol]

Exactly. 2+2 just does not equal 5, no matter how much I might strain my brain into seeing it.

Of course it does, for large quantities of 2. But we’re not talking accounting here. (sorry)

I would reply with an objection, but it’s the same objection I’ve given over and over, and the answers to the objections are always restatements or rephrasings of what I was originally objecting to, rather than a deeper exploration or explanation of those statements.

Once a thing seems clear to us (people in general), it becomes hard to break it down further…

I thank everyone for replying, and I will continue to monitor any other responses, but I am running out of energy going in circles.

I hear you and know what you mean. I’m impressed you’ve lasted this long.

That’s not a judgment or criticism, just an acknowledgment that the answers I am seeking aren’t here.
God bless.

Sometimes a thing needs to be experienced in order for us to understand it. Did you ever wonder why Jesus put clay on the man’s eyes to heal him at Siloam? Of course it was not “magic” clay, nor did Jesus need it to make the blind see. No, it was the man himself that needed that small crutch for his faith; that physical contact so he could KNOW that which can not be known.

Perhaps relaying my personal experience may be of some small assistance, at least in opening your mind to the possibility that some of the responses you have received may contain in them more wisdom than you are able to perceive, as yet.

Having grown up in the American public school system; I understand COMPLETELY where you’re coming from. It is almost beaten into us that contraception is for the common good of society. It is so continually spoon fed to us through multiple media such as TV, newspaper and radio that contraception SEEMS intuitive and natural. Through the grace of God, my husband (a protestant convert) and I have discovered that not only is contraception against God’s will, but NFP is as far and away from contraception as you can get.

My husband convinced me, logically, that we needed to have our own home before starting a family. It took a few years, but God did bless us with a home, but no children. Feeling burdened with guilt, I went and confessed the use of contraception wherein the priest laughed at me; though absolved me. We conceived within days. After 2 extraordinarily difficult pregnancies, we decided that we needed to give me some time to recover, but had since made the transition to capital “C” Catholics. We used NFP very successfully and I can not begin to describe for you the metaphysical difference between the NFP and true contraception but it is PROFOUND. It’s the difference between making a flower arrangement from fresh flowers versus plastic ones. One uses the gifts that God has granted us to suit our needs to some degree; the other, cuts out life entirely from the equation.

But wait, there’s more.
After a small space, we felt called to have another child and conceived almost immediately. This pregnancy proved to be far and beyond worse than the first two containing multiple “medical mysteries” I won’t get into here (yes that’s the term the specialists used). In short; it was utter hell and despite having the healthiest baby yet, my husband and I decided that I might just die if I ever conceived again and since NFP had worked so well for us, we were not the least bit worried about continuing on with it indefinitely.

I’m sure you can guess where this is going but I’ll tell you anyway. After far too short an interval, my husband and I both felt the call again to have another child. This we both firmly refused and, in fact became extra careful. Then, the unexpected happened. My cycle did a 180 and after years of being completely regular and predictable, I ovulated exactly when I wasn’t supposed to: at the height of the “safe zone”.

When my husband and I figured out what had happened, we both acknowledged to each other that we felt a sense of relief. God had saved us from our lack of faith because he understood that we did not want to test him with something we felt surely must come to pass. That is, we were quite certain of suffering beyond reason resulting in possible death if I were to conceive again. It was our responsibility to avoid this as much as we could; yet through NFP, we still left the door open for God in our lives. And now I sit at 20 weeks into the easiest, smoothest pregnancy of them all. Yes truly a miracle on MANY levels.

Look at it this way: God is not a trained monkey that does tricks for peanuts; nor is he an ogre of a supreme being that forces us (in general) to conceive despite having absolutely refusing him. Yes people can still get pregnant despite the use of contraception but it is clearly and “unwanted” pregnancy versus what I would term mine as: a “complete surprise”.

If you still can’t see the difference there; don’t worry. Be still, be Still. Trust in God. Read the gospel more and most of all pray, pray, pray. God will open your heart in his time. I can’t say for certain if I would have understood without going through it myself; but then I have always know I was a clay-on-the-eyes kind of girl.

Pax.

 

[Em_in_FL]

See, this is where I lose you. NFP relies on the physical impossibility of procreation occurring. It is physically impossible. It is premeditated. Proper NFP cannot result in a child without a supernatural event.

So how is that not equal to your contraception example?

---

Here’s the thing:

1: Married couple is practicing NFP correctly. Alternately, a sterile couple is practicing NFP. Same thing. Sex, knowing procreation is impossible without divine intervention.

2: These couples put on condoms. Now they are sinning.

The intent was the same. The biological realities are the same.

So you say NFP doesn’t change the act but contraceptive do, but I don’t understand why they change the act, unless there is literally something offensive about the physical properties.

Or is that the case? I honestly don’t know what Catholic doctrine is on sex. If someone had a barrier-like covering in use that did not stop semen, would that be alright?

Intent - or ends - is the same… that we agree on.
The means matter as well.

The difference between taking recourse to the infertile periods (or knowledge of permanent infertility issues) and using a condom is that with contraception you are taking a VOLUNTARY action to cause something that is working as God designed it (considered to be good and holy and a renewal of marital vows) and breaking that.
This is different than taking a medication or using a bandage to heal a physical ailment that has harmed your “working” body… you are trying to FIX something that is broken.
Contraception looks at fertility (something that is working as God designed it) and sees it as a PROBLEM and tries to BREAK this design that God created to be “good”.
And for what purpose? If the need to avoid conception is really serious, why not USE God’s design, AS HE DESIGNED IT - which gives us naturally occurring infertile periods. Again, man didn’t invent this, God did.
Contraception is an insult to God’s working design.

And to answer your last question - say a couple was trying to get a semen analysis for a fertility test - it is licit to use a condom WITH PUNCTURED HOLES in order to make the collection. This still allows for the sex to be procreative.

 

[Good_Daughter]

What, theologically, is the reason that artificially spacing children is a sin?

God wants couples, in every marital embrace, to leave a physical pathway for the union of male and female seed. Once they’ve done this, everything else, like fertility or conception, is up to Him.

When we desire pregnancy, we try to leave the pathway open when we seem fertile. When we desire to avoid pregnancy, we try to leave the pathway open when we seem infertile. Either way, as long as that path is open, we do our part in keeping the marital act procreative.

When we contracept, we try to close the physical pathway ourselves to union between male and female seed.

I have a few questions from reading through the thread: If Catholicism teaches that every marital embrace must be procreative, how do you think pregnant women, post-menopausal women or women experiencing cyclical infertility can have sex with their husbands without sinning? What makes one kind of infertility different from any other?

 

[danserr]

God wants couples, in every marital embrace, to leave a physical pathway for the union of male and female seed. Once they’ve done this, everything else, like fertility or conception, is up to Him.

When we desire pregnancy, we try to leave the pathway open when we seem fertile. When we desire to avoid pregnancy, we try to leave the pathway open when we seem infertile. Either way, as long as that path is open, we do our part in keeping the marital act procreative.

When we contracept, we try to close the physical pathway ourselves to union between male and female seed.

I have a few questions from reading through the thread: If Catholicism teaches that every marital embrace must be procreative, how do you think pregnant women, post-menopausal women or women experiencing cyclical infertility can have sex with their husbands without sinning? What makes one kind of infertility different from any other?

There is a distinction between causing infertility and allowing the natural infertility of one’s body. ABC causes infertily, but in NFP and other situations you mention, the couple is not causing, but simply co-operating with their bodies’ natural infertility.

Those who say that NFP and ABC are the same thing because both may be used to prevent pregnancy are making an ends-justify-the-means- argument and forget their is a distinction between causing and permitting.

 

[InspiritCarol]

God wants couples, in every marital embrace, to leave a physical pathway for the union of male and female seed. Once they’ve done this, everything else, like fertility or conception, is up to Him.

…

I have a few questions from reading through the thread: If Catholicism teaches that every marital embrace must be procreative, how do you think pregnant women, post-menopausal women or women experiencing cyclical infertility can have sex with their husbands without sinning? What makes one kind of infertility different from any other?

That’s funny; you answer your own question. It seems to me that “leaving that physical pathway” is and of itself “procreative”. We are leaving the door open for God. Abraham’s wife Sarah conceived in her old age and it is said that Mary’s mother St. Anne did as well. Also, we are very actively being “procreative” while pregnant and it has been scientifically demonstrated that the hormones secreted by the husband assist in delivery. Doctors, in fact, use Pitocin (that hormone) to artificially induce. We don’t remotely understand how our bodies work and why so it is important to trust that God designed us to work. The more we recreationally interfere with his design, the harder we make on ourselves in the long run.

 

[ddarko]

Well there certainly is no support for NFP at all in Apostolic Tradition or from patristics. That is why you won’t see a single Church father cited in all of Humanae Vitae.

Wow, that was pretty funny bit of reasoning. I suppose according to your view, someone actually had to inform people that ‘you can not have sex for temporary periods’ ?

NFP is just abstinence from sex for periods of time. The question you should ask yourself is whether ANY CHURCH father was against such periodic practice of abstinence. As far as I know NO.

Now even NFP is not always MORAL. It is only moral if practiced for valid reasons.

Speaking of early church fathers, how about the divorce and remarriage teachings or Papal Primacy teachings of early church fathers? Might help to you to look at how well the Orthodox teachings hold up against that

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

This is a logical fallacy. It implies that those who use artificial methods do not take God’s will into account. It has been stated previously that the same can be true of people using NFP to bear no children.

I think you might have a serious misunderstanding on NFP. NFP is NOT a valid method of Contraception. On the contrary, it is just abstinence during fertile periods. So the there is nothing un-natural in it. A man and a woman freely choose not to have sex.

The artificial methods of contraception are a different story. It is about HAVING SEX and using something to prevent the conception. That is un-natural. Sex is sought after while not accepting the person in complete.

So let me explain in a different way. In NFP, you accept the spouse for who she is. Nothing is held back. The spouse is naturally infertile at that moment. Your free will to complete the sexual act during this period leaves no difference.

BUT, in artificial methods, one holds back, frustrates or suppresses the reproductive faculties. See the difference?

In the case of NFP, you are following God’s calendar. Your spouse is simply infertile at that time as God has created her. In artificial contraception, you are following your calendar i.e. I have sex whenever I want and I will just suppress/frustrate reproductive faculties of mine or hers.

That being said, NFP DOES become a **tool **of sin if done for wrong reasons. i.e. we just don’t want any kids etc. So in this case it is a sin not because of the sexual act or anything. It is a sin BECAUSE of the intention which violates the promise given in Marriage. Therefore regardless of NFP, the couple is now in sin.

God Bless

 

[Good_Daughter]

That’s funny; you answer your own question. It seems to me that “leaving that physical pathway” is and of itself “procreative”.

Maybe for you, but I don’t think everyone posting in this thread would buy my answer so quickly.

 

[mellestad]

As I was laying in bed on Saturday, I had something of an epiphany about this issue (yes, there is something wrong with my brain).

I think I’ve found an explanation that ties everything up neatly, and allows what you seem to be telling me to make sense, in a way.

So, when I think about sex and procreation I think about a physical process. Little bits of DNA combining, chemical processes, ovulation dates, the psychology and neuroscience of the couples relationship…technically I could take it all the way down to the atomic level, and even speculate about what happens on the quantum level. Everything about it is materialistic. So for me, there is a strong contradiction in what you are collectively telling me, because I know there isn’t any materialistic reason why contraceptives are different than NFP. There isn’t, they are identical.

For Catholics though, this is actually a magic ritual. Every time you have sex, the ideal is that it is a ritualized thing that includes your god in the process, and the assumption is that if conception occurs, it is because God interceded and actually involved Himself in the process. Without God, there can be no proper consummation of marriage, and without God, procreation is impossible. When a form of contraception is involved, you are potentially thwarting the involvement of your deity, thus breaking the ritual.

So I think that is what keeps stumping me. I still think there isn’t any difference, because I’m not religious so the magical parts of the thing are not a part of my world-view.

If I make that assumption though and operate within your world-view, it makes sense, and I can understand the thought process.

So, Alyosha13, maybe that helps clear things up for you? The short answer would be, “From a materialistic viewpoint, there is no difference and it doesn’t make any sense to separate the two methods. From a Catholic standpoint, sex is about ritual and contraceptives break that ritual by denying God the ability to participate.”

 

[Em_in_FL]

As I was laying in bed on Saturday, I had something of an epiphany about this issue (yes, there is something wrong with my brain).
…
…

So, Alyosha13, maybe that helps clear things up for you? The short answer would be, “From a materialistic viewpoint, there is no difference and it doesn’t make any sense to separate the two methods. From a Catholic standpoint, sex is about ritual and contraceptives break that ritual by denying God the ability to participate.”

Not really an “epiphany”… but not too far off from the truth (from a non-religious point of view)…

Sex is Sacramental… call that a ritual, sure.
But I wouldn’t say it “denies” God the ability to participate, because even contraceptives have “failure” ratings (God can always intervene)…
I would say it *INSULTS *the God who created that very Sacrament/ritual.

So, as Catholics who desire to not insult our God, who created everything and saw that it was “good”… NFP is the only answer.

 

[mellestad]

Not really an “epiphany”… but not too far off from the truth (from a non-religious point of view)…

Sex is Sacramental… call that a ritual, sure.
But I wouldn’t say it “denies” God the ability to participate, because even contraceptives have “failure” ratings (God can always intervene)…
I would say it *INSULTS *the God who created that very Sacrament/ritual.

So, as Catholics who desire to not insult our God, who created everything and saw that it was “good”… NFP is the only answer.

Then you’re back to square one, because if God could cause a condom to tear, He could cause a woman to ovulate in a supernatural way.

Now your argument is just back to intent, and the intent in both instances is to thwart procreation. With that line of argument I can’t see justifying NFP because it would have the same ramifications to God.

 

[cargau]

Then you’re back to square one, because if God could cause a condom to tear, He could cause a woman to ovulate in a supernatural way.

Now your argument is just back to intent, and the intent in both instances is to thwart procreation. With that line of argument I can’t see justifying NFP because it would have the same ramifications to God.

The intent as it relates to a desire for pregnancy is not what is at issue here. Welcoming God’s free participation in to the act without deliberately using artificial means to deny God that freedom, is. Of course, God is God, he can do anything including defeating the useful function of a condom. That is not the point. What is important is the participants willingness to embrace or deny God’s participation. That is an act of the will…to trust and love God.

Having sex during infertile times and avoiding sex during fertile times does nothing to subvert God’s participation outside of His divine design.

So, when you think of the word “intent”, don’t think of it in terms of intent to get pregnant or not. Rather think of “intent” as allowing God to participate, or not.

Oh, and he is not my god, or your god, he is God to everyone…yes, even you )