Why is artificial birth control usage so wrong?

[jilly4ski]

Yes, they must. We can both be right, they are not mutually exclusive. They also have sex without risk of a child. Does the fact that they abstain during fertile times make my statement incorrect?

Indeed, but I guess I am confused why this is a problem. The Church has always said that a couple may abstain from relations if they cannot have another child. (Although it must be mutual abstention and temporary for the spiritual growth of the couple).

So now we have a way to see when a woman is fertile and when abstaining will accomplish the spacing of births. But the morality of the marital act and spacing births is not based on what we know about the human body, but rather intentions (we need serious/just/grave reasons to use NFP, can’t use it for selfish reasons), and our actions (means used to achieve our goal of spacing births, like using means that distort the purpose of the marital act).

Saying that using NFP is like ABC is like saying that morally a couple past menopause, pregnant, or knowingly infertile is committing a sin by engaging in the marital act. But this is not the case, because their intentions are not selfish (hopefully) and they do not use immoral means to do so.

The Church is not going to tell us that we must have relations on specific days only that the marital act must fulfill its ultimate purpose, it does this by being completed the way it was designed to be completed by God. (Thus why ABC, masturbation, homosexual sex, etc. are “prohibited”).

 

[PassingThru]

The fact is that Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) uses God-given infertile periods without any interference with His natural moral law; that used for serious reasons, this would foster family life. There is no command from God not to use the infertile periods. While usually very efficient, it is certainly not absolute.
God killed Onan for using contraception. (Gen 38:9-10).

The morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. As has been expressed, God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this by anyone while at the same time putting a man-made barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act. The infertile period is usually observable and may be used regularly only when there are serious reasons.

That the marital act may be completely divorced from its objective of procreation by self-imposing a barrier while acting, and thus having separated the act from its consequences opens the door to using sex with anyone or anything, such as masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, IVF, cloning. That’s why God has implanted the natural moral law within human nature, so that we can use our reason from cause to effect. Bestiality is encouraged by some utilitarians.

This is all well and good. I guess you do not disagree then, yes?

 

[PassingThru]

Indeed, but I guess I am confused why this is a problem. The Church has always said that a couple may abstain from relations if they cannot have another child. (Although it must be mutual abstention and temporary for the spiritual growth of the couple).

So now we have a way to see when a woman is fertile and when abstaining will accomplish the spacing of births. But the morality of the marital act and spacing births is not based on what we know about the human body, but rather intentions (we need serious/just/grave reasons to use NFP, can’t use it for selfish reasons), and our actions (means used to achieve our goal of spacing births, like using means that distort the purpose of the marital act).

Saying that using NFP is like ABC is like saying that morally a couple past menopause, pregnant, or knowingly infertile is committing a sin by engaging in the marital act. But this is not the case, because their intentions are not selfish (hopefully) and they do not use immoral means to do so.

The Church is not going to tell us that we must have relations on specific days only that the marital act must fulfill its ultimate purpose, it does this by being completed the way it was designed to be completed by God. (Thus why ABC, masturbation, homosexual sex, etc. are “prohibited”).

Again, lots of things I am not saying, and lots of talking around a simple point.

Its like an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. I feel like making everyone stand up and say:

“Hi, my name is Joe, and I practice NFP to have sex with my wife without worrying about another mouth to feed.”

Its the simple truth, but so hard for some to admit too, that is all.

 

[Abu]

Janet1983
Does that mean that using ABC is an actual mortal sin?

Objectively, yes – with full knowledge of Christ’s teaching through His Church. NBR is meritorious when used for serious reasons.

It is vital to realize that the doctrinal teaching against contraception in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) and Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) are infallible definitions. Contraception is intrinsically gravely wrong. NBR is extremely effective when properly practised, encourages self-control, and has no harmful effects on health.

Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930, teaches infallibly (#56) that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, 1968:
“Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) [Note 16 refers to *Casti Connubii]
“Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

 

[Alindawyl]

I am not treading on what is in someones mind, or the validity of religious teachings. I will, however, point out what is as plain as the nose on my face. NFP, as a practice, exists to allow couple to have sex without risk of child. If it didnt function as such, it would not be practiced. (Please leave the “I use it to get pregnant” sub-group out of this discussion)

If your claim really was “as plain as the nose on my face”, then it would be self-evident. That which is self-evident does not require demonstration. Either we’re insane for denying what is self-evident or it’s not actually self-evident. So please either call us insane or demonstrate why your opinion is true.

As to your assertion that you’re not treading on the validity of religious teachings…

1. The Church teaches that contraception is wrong
2. The Church approves of NFP
3. PassingThru believes that NFP is contraception

You’re asking us to trust your personal opinion over either Church teaching on contraception or Church approval of NFP. The Church speaks with apostolic authority in matters of faith and morals. You speak with what authority in matters of faith and morals?

 

[murphjos]

Yes, they must. We can both be right, they are not mutually exclusive. They also have sex without risk of a child. Does the fact that they abstain during fertile times make my statement incorrect?

You shrug off the distinctions between ABC and NFP apparently without giving them any thought. You are fixated on the fact that with NFP a couple can deliberately have sex and not get pregnant. But that does not make ABC and NFP equivalent. I can offset the calories in a cheeseburger by running 5 miles or by throwing it up. Does that make a fitness routine and bulimia equivalent methods for managing weight?

NFP changes nothing about the sexual act. To “Have sex without risk of a child” an NFP couple must not have sex. All contraception sterilizes the sex and no discipline is required.

Abstaining is not easy so the couple must balance the natural urges of their bodies against the rational need to space births for various reasons. No sexual encounter is ever separated from it’s procreative nature. Clearly this is part of God’s natural design for sex. The urge is a call to unite for the purpose participating in the creation of new life. Contraception allows a couple to satisfy the sexual urge with out even thinking about the ultimate (God given) reason for the urge. A contracepting couple can completely separate sex and procreation indefinitely. The marital act is reduced to an act of mutual masturbation.

I think the phrase “risk of a child” that you keep using kind of sums up the contraception mentality. The ultimate purpose of sex is the orgasm and children are a by product that may or may not be tolerated. That separation of the procreative and unitive (pleasurable) aspects of sex is what distinguishes contraception from NFP.

 

[PassingThru]

If your claim really was “as plain as the nose on my face”, then it would be self-evident. That which is self-evident does not require demonstration. Either we’re insane for denying what is self-evident or it’s not actually self-evident. So please either call us insane or demonstrate why your opinion is true.

As to your assertion that you’re not treading on the validity of religious teachings…

1. The Church teaches that contraception is wrong
2. The Church approves of NFP
3. PassingThru believes that NFP is contraception

You’re asking us to trust your personal opinion over either Church teaching on contraception or Church approval of NFP. The Church speaks with apostolic authority in matters of faith and morals. You speak with what authority in matters of faith and morals?

Well, I never said that NFP was contraception, according to how the Church defines it. So you are putting words in my mouth there.

And, I never said to trust my person opinion on contraception, either. What I have boiled this down to is my simple statement from earlier: “NFP, as a practice, exists to allow couple to have sex without risk of child”. Like I responded earlier, this statement can be true, and not invalidate any of the Church teachings.

Now, that statement brought on your “insane” comments above. You also want me to some how “prove” this statement. I don’t really know how I can prove it, any more than I can prove the sun is a star I suppose. Maybe I can ask from the opposite direction. Lets say NFP did not function with any accuracy whatsoever whether sex will result in a child. Do you contend it would still be used?

Or, how about this. As stated, I contend NFPs use is to allow a couple to have sex with reasonable certainty no child will result. I say this is so obvious as to not need defending. You think I am wrong, apparently. Then please, grace me with what a couple uses NFP for? Not a flowery pontification on the definition of NFP, but why does a couple use it?

And to answer your question, yes, pending a great answer to the question above, I would say you are treading on insanity, or at least willful dilution . (Regarding my actual statement above, not what you are implying in your previous post, which is not at all what I said.)

 

[PassingThru]

You shrug off the distinctions between ABC and NFP apparently without giving them any thought. You are fixated on the fact that with NFP a couple can deliberately have sex and not get pregnant. But that does not make ABC and NFP equivalent. I can offset the calories in a cheeseburger by running 5 miles or by throwing it up. Does that make a fitness routine and bulimia equivalent methods for managing weight?

I dont mean to shrug off all distinctions, and I don’t think I have. And I am not “fixated on the fact that with NFP a couple can deliberately have sex and not get pregnant.” I am simply aware that the reason NFP exists is “that with NFP a couple can deliberately have sex and not get pregnant.” I think many NFP proponents don’t like this fact, and try to dance around it, as if it is somehow not true for them, but only for ABC users, which to me is absurd.

NFP changes nothing about the sexual act. To “Have sex without risk of a child” an NFP couple must not have sex. All contraception sterilizes the sex and no discipline is required.

This is a perfect example of the “dancing” I just mentioned. I never said anything about the “act”, but thanks for the info. Your second statement makes no sense. Are you implying that a couple practicing NFP does not have sex? Of course they do. And when they do, are you implying they are not reasonably certain a child will not result? I would assume again, no. Where, exactly, was my statement wrong? (I think you just don’t like it, and are flailing a bit.) Your last sentence doesn’t really relate to my point. Ill just grant it to you, as it is not relevant.

EDIT: Ahhh, I think you are playing a semantics game by taking one of the times that i did not say “reasonably certain” and using that against me by being overly literal. Again another dance around a very simple point. I think you know exactly what I meant.

Abstaining is not easy so the couple must balance the natural urges of their bodies against the rational need to space births for various reasons. No sexual encounter is ever separated from it’s procreative nature. Clearly this is part of God’s natural design for sex. The urge is a call to unite for the purpose participating in the creation of new life. Contraception allows a couple to satisfy the sexual urge with out even thinking about the ultimate (God given) reason for the urge. A contracepting couple can completely separate sex and procreation indefinitely. The marital act is reduced to an act of mutual masturbation.

OK. Last sentence is a bit out there, but thanks, thats nice of you to say. Very christian of you.

I think the phrase “risk of a child” that you keep using kind of sums up the contraception mentality. The ultimate purpose of sex is the orgasm and children are a by product that may or may not be tolerated. That separation of the procreative and unitive (pleasurable) aspects of sex is what distinguishes contraception from NFP.

I used the phrase as I wanted a generic term. Use whatever one you want. NFP, just like ABC, toots its own horn using statistics about how it is 99+% effective. Effective at what, exactly? You fill in your own term, and then Ill blast you for using it. Its still off point.

At the end of the day, I still think you are uncomfortable with the fact that NFP is used to have sex and be reasonably certain that “the marital embrace will unfortunately not be blessed with a soul from on high”. (Does that somehow make it better by using more flowery language? Snarky, yes, sorry).

 

[choose_to_love]

@passing

“All contraception sterilizes the sex and no discipline is required.” - - murphy

“Your second sentence makes no sense” - - Passing

I think what you are missing, Passing, is the active sterilizing that the contracepting couple is doing. They are affirmatively changing the nature of their bodies, and consequently of the act, by sterilizing them. The NFP couple does not do so. Murphyjo’s sentence does make sense, I suggest.

As to what I see as your larger point, yes, NFP/NBR is an alternative to total abstinence for the couple with serious reason to postpone pregnancy. A couple uses NFP/NBR to partake of the marital embrace (flowery language just for you) when otherwise they would be completely abstaining. Of course, as has been pointed out, regulation of birth is part of responsible parenthood. It is the means of doing so about which the Church has something to say.

 

[vsedriver]

They will give long winded explanations of “prayerful discernment” and “unaltered acts” as well as “open to life”, but will bristle at the thought they are doing this system to enjoy sex without risk of child. Why? I have no idea. The practice of throwing every person who uses a condom under the bus and treating them as child-hating sex mongers is apparently perfectly reasonable in their mind, but many refuse to acknowledge that NFPs very existence is dependent on them NOT getting pregnant.

I am not treading on what is in someones mind, or the validity of religious teachings. I will, however, point out what is as plain as the nose on my face. NFP, as a practice, exists to allow couple to have sex without risk of child. If it didnt function as such, it would not be practiced. (Please leave the “I use it to get pregnant” sub-group out of this discussion)

But you fail to acknowledge that the real difference between NFP and ABC is that with NFP God is in control via natural laws that He created. With ABC man is in control bypassing God’s natural laws over the purpose of the sexual act. It doesn’t really matter that both have the same end in mind… controlling pregnancies. What matters is who is doing the controlling God or man.

 

[Janet1983]

Objectively, yes – with full knowledge of Christ’s teaching through His Church. NBR is meritorious when used for serious reasons.

That is pretty harsh considering the fact that the disapproval of contraceptives by the Roman Catholic Church is more or less common knowledge (especially because it has already led to outcries concerning the usage of condoms in African nations, though this is not a point to debate here).
Considering this there are many Catholic teenagers out there, especially in Europe who live in mortal sin as the issue is known, but not pressed upon. The usage of condoms however is something you will find advertised on billboards all over countries like Germany.

 

[bingbang]

But you fail to acknowledge that the real difference between NFP and ABC is that with NFP God is in control via natural laws that He created. With ABC man is in control bypassing God’s natural laws over the purpose of the sexual act. It doesn’t really matter that both have the same end in mind… controlling pregnancies. What matters is who is doing the controlling God or man.

So God doesn’t have the power to snap a condom or cause a pill to fail?

 

[choose_to_love]

Bing, didn’t I read something about not putting God to the test somewhere?

I thohght this argument was dealt with earlier in this thread once already. So, I can step out in front of a bus, because if God wants me to live, He will protect me?

 

[bingbang]

Bing, didn’t I read something about not putting God to the test somewhere?

I thohght this argument was dealt with earlier in this thread once already. So, I can step out in front of a bus, because if God wants me to live, He will protect me?

What I am saying is that if you have sex with a condom or purposely have sex when you believe the woman is not ovulating than it is still up to God whether she gets pregnant. I just haven’t found a rational explanation for why condoms are not OK but NFP is…they are both a means to the same end. The whole natural law argument just doesn’t hold enough weight. It isn’t a logical teaching and the ONLY logical reason to follow it is if you believe that the church is always right, and since the church said that NFP was OK and condoms aren’t, then you should follow that. Without the church being right, there is no argument to be made.

 

[PassingThru]

@passing

“All contraception sterilizes the sex and no discipline is required.” - - murphy

“Your second sentence makes no sense” - - Passing

I think what you are missing, Passing, is the active sterilizing that the contracepting couple is doing. They are affirmatively changing the nature of their bodies, and consequently of the act, by sterilizing them. The NFP couple does not do so. Murphyjo’s sentence does make sense, I suggest.

As to what I see as your larger point, yes, NFP/NBR is an alternative to total abstinence for the couple with serious reason to postpone pregnancy. A couple uses NFP/NBR to partake of the marital embrace (flowery language just for you) when otherwise they would be completely abstaining. Of course, as has been pointed out, regulation of birth is part of responsible parenthood. It is the means of doing so about which the Church has something to say.

That was not the second sentence. Re-read the post, you quoted the third. Let me know if it is more logical then…

And I fully understand the difference, and I am not denying what you say about ABC. Which is why I did not say anything to contradict your statement.

(I will leave it to a later discussion as to whether 10s or 100s of sexual encounters with precisely *none * of them having an opportunity to be procreative as “natural”. But alas…)

You sound very realistic, if still not quite direct enough to answer the question without hedging. At least a bit…

 

[PassingThru]

But you fail to acknowledge that the real difference between NFP and ABC is that with NFP God is in control via natural laws that He created. With ABC man is in control bypassing God’s natural laws over the purpose of the sexual act. It doesn’t really matter that both have the same end in mind… controlling pregnancies. What matters is who is doing the controlling God or man.

Well, I would not admit to that point, you are correct. The fact that God made a womans menstrual cycle does not mean that any use of this knowledge is automatically acceptable. I have no problem that you believe it. And it still is away from my point.

If I acknowledged your point as true, and therefore NFP is automatically good, would that make people suddenly realize they practice NFP in order to have sex that will with near certainty not result in a child? Somehow I think my acceptance of your point is unrelated.

And no, God is not in control, we are a bit past that I think. A discussion for another time. (ie, If I pull this trigger, it would not be me that kills someone. God is in control. He made me, and the gun, and gave us the knowledge, and created the explosion that projected the bullet, etc etc down a never ending discussion. I would simply say we control the gun, and we control NFP. Using physics or biology does not magically take it away from our “control”)

 

[Abu]

Janet1983
That is pretty harsh considering the fact that the disapproval of contraceptives by the Roman Catholic Church is more or less common knowledge

Hardly, as God killed Onan for practising contraception. For mortal sin there has to be full knowledge of the gravity of the sin. We cannot judge the guilt of the individual before God, but are commanded to judge all actions, writing, speech, against truth.

The puerile contrived arguments equating NBR with contraception are hoist on the petard that with NBR there is nothing to contracept, as well as the fact that it strengthens self-control, an admirable trait as the virtue of temperance.

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (Eternal Word television Network (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[Fr Torraco is the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answers questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[murphjos]

Are you implying that a couple practicing NFP does not have sex? …

Yes! In order to not conceive we must not have sex. We must abstain. That is the point. We do not sabotage the biology. That is the most important practical distinction. We don’t have sex and not conceive. We abstain when we may conceive. If that does not seem like a significant distinction to you then you have never followed up on a passionate kiss during phase II with a nice game of Backgammon.

OK. Last sentence is a bit out there, but thanks, thats nice of you to say. Very christian of you.

It is inevitable that, when you unapologetically state an orthodox position, you are accused of being un-Christian. In what gospel are we commanded to never offend or speak plainly of an uncomfortable truth?

What is your real point? You have been given very well reasoned an thoughtful responses to your questions. Are you trying to prove that those of following Church teaching in this matter are fanatics and hypocrites? What did you expect to read; “Oh wow! your right. NFP is just like ABC. What an idiot I have been with all that abstinence and charting… I am going to Rite-Aid for condoms right now.”?

Lines of questioning like this from non-Catholics (or dissenting Catholics) usually are motivated in two ways;

1. The questioner is truly seeking the Catholic view point. Some of these have Catholic family or friends. Some are just curious. Some are considering a conversion.
2. The questioner has already made up their mind and is simply out to win a debate. Perhaps to satisfy them selves and justify their existing stance. I really don’t know why.

What group do you belong to?

 

[Janet1983]

The puerile contrived arguments equating NBR with contraception are hoist on the petard that with NBR there is nothing to contracept, as well as the fact that it strengthens self-control, an admirable trait as the virtue of temperance.

Wow. I actually had to consult a dictionary to understand what you were trying to say… So just that I truly get it let me repeat back to you what I think you’ve said so that you can correct me if my understanding of this passage was false:

The childlike constructed arguments that NBR is like contraception are dismantled as there is nothing to contracept with NBR. NBR also does strengthen self-control, which is as admirable a trait as moderation.

I hope that is what you wanted to say. I am not 100% certain though. Please forgive me for my limited knowledge of the English language. It is not my first language and I happen to have problems when it comes to words that are not commonly used.

If this was however what you wanted to say I would disagree as much as I would agree.

Yes, NBR is not an artificial way of preventing a pregnancy and it therefore could not be counted among condoms, the pill and other devices that either change the hormonal balance or constitute a barrier through which in most cases no pregnancy can develop.

On the other hand I must agree that NBR, even though it is not an artificial measure to prevent pregnancy, is still a method to do even that and leads to the same effect. Both measures (ABC as well as NBR) are methods to more or less successfully prevent the possibility of the beginning of a pregnancy.

Having said this I can fully understand those who claim that they do not see any effective difference between NBR and ABC.
Considering however that this is a Catholic board, I expect the majority of members here to be Catholic. Even though the question might be left open whether or not NBR constitutes contraception it is a method that is legitimized by the Church and therefore all those who proclaim to be Catholic are held to follow this directive in faith, even though they might not understand the theological roots.

I was actually not even trying to argue the point until you brought it to my attention.

The only question I was actually raising is that of mortal sin and the fact that this seems very harsh to me. Considering the fact that the practice of ABC is rampant among teenagers (of which I do not approve) especially among teenagers in Europe I start to wonder. One of the reason for this is probably that many teenagers in countries like Germany do not take the Church serious in their assessment of birth control not in their assessment of pre-marital sexual relationships.
Taking all this into account it does seem rather harsh, considering the effects of mortal sin in Catholic theology.

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (Eternal Word television Network (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[Fr Torraco is the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answers questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

Well you have seen my argument earlier on in this answer and this points out the exact statements I made, trying to refute some of them.

I tend to disagree with his assessment on calling the argument utilitarian, but I don’t think I have to agree with him. Yes the argument is utilitarian in its point of view, but it is not exclusive of the entirety of the human act. In both cases (ABC and NBR) we are dealing with a marital relationship on a very intimate level. Considering the outcome of the sexual activity (and this is where the utilitarian argument does come in, I agree) we have no pregnancy. One of the means to this end is ABC while another one is NBR.
It is a good point to argue from both sides and I am of the opinion that this is where another authority comes in.

Either you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church or you don’t. Either way you have to make a decision and live with the consequences (but that kind of a decision is rather common in all areas of the human existence).

It is possible to argue back and forth and it sure is a common occurrence (as you can see just by the length and depth of this thread), but the final and most important argument in this hinges on the authority of the one proclaiming ABC to be wrong and NBR to be good and that is the Catholic Church.

 

[PassingThru]

Yes! In order to not conceive we must not have sex. We must abstain. That is the point. We do not sabotage the biology. That is the most important practical distinction. We don’t have sex and not conceive. We abstain when we may conceive. If that does not seem like a significant distinction to you then you have never followed up on a passionate kiss during phase II with a nice game of Backgammon.

Still avoiding. I get what you are saying, and I have not compared ABC to NFP. You keep insisting I am, yet, only you are saying it. All I have said (and you have failed to deny) is that you practice NFP in order to have sex and minimize the chance of a pregnancy occurring. Do you at least have the honesty to deal with this head on?

It is inevitable that, when you unapologetically state an orthodox position, you are accused of being un-Christian. In what gospel are we commanded to never offend or speak plainly of an uncomfortable truth?

Eh, you can state a position without accusing almost everyone you see on a day to day basis of sex with their spouse as “mutual masturbation”. It is possible to be charitable, you know. I am sure it makes you feel better to say it your way, however.

What is your real point? You have been given very well reasoned an thoughtful responses to your questions. Are you trying to prove that those of following Church teaching in this matter are fanatics and hypocrites? What did you expect to read; “Oh wow! your right. NFP is just like ABC. What an idiot I have been with all that abstinence and charting… I am going to Rite-Aid for condoms right now.”?

If you would please read what I have said, I have never said NFP is the same as ABC. That is what you are hearing because you are very defensive, for some reason. All I have said is that NFP exists to enable a couple to have sex without a reasonable chance of a child as a result. Period. Dont blame your failure of reading comprehension on me. I will summarize for you here, as you dont seem to quick:

NFP is not the same as ABC.

That does not mean my statement above in italics is also not accurate. Do you agree?

You seem to practice NFP. I will ask you what I asked previously but no one seems to answer. Why do you practice NFP? Again, not a long definition of why NFP is acceptable to the Church. I know its reasoning, and I understand it. But, that will not answer, in plain english, why you use it. So, why do you practice NFP?

Lines of questioning like this from non-Catholics (or dissenting Catholics) usually are motivated in two ways;

1. The questioner is truly seeking the Catholic view point. Some of these have Catholic family or friends. Some are just curious. Some are considering a conversion.

1. The questioner has already made up their mind and is simply out to win a debate. Perhaps to satisfy them selves and justify their existing stance. I really don’t know why.

What group do you belong to?

I married Catholic, which is what brought me here. The only reason I post here, is because I disagree when people place NFP users as somehow in a different moral plane. I get that they disagree with the practice of ABC, and as such condemn its use. What gets me is the attitude that they have a more “righteous” sex drive or sexual urges. Or the sex they have is somehow sanctioned by Jesus himself. Or any number of other ideas.

The shining example is here, in this thread. Not a single user has the honesty (so far) to admit that they practice NFP in order to have sex with their spouse without the worry of a pregnancy. Even this simple admission, I feel, makes the person feel somehow “dirty”, like an ABC user. To me, it is an undeniable fact, but sometime pride gets in the way.

Like I said, NFP does not equal ABC. But it does seem to mess with peoples heads sometimes…