Why is NFP not the same as Contraception

[LongingSoul]

I’m posting this thread in the hopes that google searches regarding Catholic teaching on NFP might find it and get a truthful perspective. There persists an insidious misrepresentation of the teaching by some who claim that NFP can constitute ‘contraception’ which is intrinsically evil.

Why is NFP not the same as Contraception

"** WHAT CONSTITUTES ‘UNSELFISH’ USE OF NFP?**

Unselfish use would be when the following factors are taken into account:

Both spouses have serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy, such as serious health problems, serious economic difficulties, or pressing needs of the other children in the family. Gaudium et Spes (n. 50) of Vatican II says spouses should consider their own welfare and that of their children born, and those that the future may bring; spouses must reckon also with prevailing material and spiritual conditions, their state in life, and the interests of their family group, of temporal society and of the Church herself (Drummey, Catholicism and Ethics)

BOTH METHODS AIM TO PREVENT PREGNANCY

True, both NFP and contraception aim to prevent pregnancy, but morally they are not the same. Contraception involves taking direct and deliberate steps before, during, or after marital intercourse to avoid pregnancy by frustrating the natural channels of fertility. NFP involves no marital act at all. So, contraception means doing something that is immoral, whilst NFP means doing nothing at all. There’s a big difference, morally speaking, between acting against something and abstaining from it. (Drummey)

HOW CAN NFP (SUCH AS THE BILLINGS METHOD) BE OPEN TO LIFE IF IT HAS AN ALMOST 100% SUCCESS RATE IN AVOIDING PREGNANCY?

The Church teaches that each and every marriage act must at least remain ordained to the transmission of life (Humanae Vitae, n. 11). But, ‘remaining ordained’ to life simply means that nothing is being done to thwart or frustrate the natural channels of fertility. The abstinence of an NFP couple wishing to avoid a pregnancy does not, at any time, maim sperm (as does a condom), or inhibit ovulation, or cause chemical abortions (as does the oral contraceptive pill), or have a direct link to increased risk of cancer (as in the case of sterilisation). Being ordered towards the procreation of life does not mean that every marital act of spouses must produce a child; it simply means that nothing should be done that deliberately closes the act to the possibility of life, as remote as it is with properly used NFP. NFP couples are respecting God’s physical laws and are not tampering with them. NFP is God’s gift to families, a gift that helps establish Godly order in marriages, families and society. NFP is free, moral and has no harmful side-effects; contraception is neither free, moral nor harmless physically or spiritually. (Abundant Life, March 2000)

NFP HAS THE SAME ANTI-LIFE MENTALITY AS CONTRACEPTION.

A couple who for serious reasons seeks to practise responsible parenthood (ie by abstaining from marital relations during fertile periods and using infertile periods only for the marital act) can do so without harbouring a hostile attitude towards human life. They are not attacking life at its very beginning through chemical or mechanical means, but are instead allowing every marital act to remain ordered to new life without any manipulation or alteration (Pope JP II, see Drummey). God has designed women who are within their child-bearing years, to not always be fertile. In fact, most of the time, they’re infertile. NFP couples are able to determine when intercourse will not result in pregnancy. If they have a just and serious reason for avoiding pregnancy they would not be doing anything wrong if they had sex during infertile times. Why? Because pregnancy did not result from them acting in such a way as to render their intercourse infertile. On the contrary, God chose not to bring a new life into the world as evidenced by the way He designed the wife’s body. The fact that pregnancy doesn’t result from these acts of intercourse is God’s doing, and not that of NFP couples. (West, Good News About Sex And Marriage)

IN BOTH NFP AND CONTRACEPTION, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACT ARE THE SAME, SO THEY ARE EQUALLY MORAL OR IMMORAL.

This argument ignores the fact that there is more to morality than the consequences of an act. The act itself, and the couple’s intention, must also be moral.

Firstly, consequences are only one kind of circumstance; they are not the sum total of the act’s morality. In contraception, the couple chooses to perform the marital act but to destroy its procreativity. Abstinence is not an act at all. The NFP couple simply choose not to perform an act they are not required to perform. The contraceptive couple is anti-procreative; the abstaining NFP couple is non-procreative. (A Carroll, Seton Home)

Secondly, the intention is also different. Contraception implies a will to prevent the beginning of new life. That is the whole goal of the contraceptive act. The NFP couple, when they do perform the marital act, has the intention of leaving the act open to all the giving of love and all the giving of life which the mystery of married sex bestows upon it. They respect life and are open to it. The NFP couple is valuing life. The marital act doesn’t produce conception; it simply makes it possible. The NFP couple’s marital acts can still be called procreative acts even if the chances of pregnancy are minimal because they have done nothing to make them anti-procreative. The contraceptive couple is deliberately doing whatever they can to make conception impossible whenever they choose to perform the marital act. Hence, NFP and contraception are not morally equal."

whynotcatholicism.net/view/why-is-nfp-not-the-same-as-contraception

 

[awke]

I guess I never understand why there’s such an objection to contraception as being unnatural or “tampering with God’s laws”.

We do unnatural things all the time when we take medication, undergo chemotherapy, put on makeup, use rogaine, take a multivitamin, or turn on the AC. We are using technology to tamper with what would have naturally occurred (sickness, death due to cancer, visibility of wrinkles, hair loss, vitamin deficiency, discomfort due to heat). Why are these viewed as enhancements to life, but using contraception is tampering with God’s laws?

Being ordered towards the procreation of life does not mean that every marital act of spouses must produce a child; it simply means that nothing should be done that deliberately closes the act to the possibility of life, as remote as it is with properly used NFP.

Using NFP certainly attempts to close the act to the possibility of life. Otherwise, why would people be practicing it?

If someone was truly open to life, or truly trusting that God would give them the right number of children, they wouldn’t use NFP at all.

 

[St_Francis]

I guess I never understand why there’s such an objection to contraception as being unnatural or “tampering with God’s laws”.

We do unnatural things all the time when we take medication, undergo chemotherapy, put on makeup, use rogaine, take a multivitamin, or turn on the AC. We are using technology to tamper with what would have naturally occurred (sickness, death due to cancer, visibility of wrinkles, hair loss, vitamin deficiency, discomfort due to heat). Why are these viewed as enhancements to life, but using contraception is tampering with God’s laws?

Good health is when the body works as it is supposed to. If one’s eyes see clearly at 20/20, that’s the way the eyes are supposed to work and so that is good health for the eyes.

If the eyes do not see well, then they are not meeting their standard, so to speak, and we do something to help them work correctly.

The difference between bringing people’s bodies up to standard and using artificial birth control (abc) is that the latter *prevents *the body from doing what it is supposed to do rather than making repairs so it will be up to the standard of good health.

Using NFP certainly attempts to close the act to the possibility of life. Otherwise, why would people be practicing it?

NFP does not close the act to the possibility of life because no act takes place.

If someone was truly open to life, or truly trusting that God would give them the right number of children, they wouldn’t use NFP at all.

Not at all, because God does not intervene when human action (or inaction) suffices.

 

[awke]

Good health is when the body works as it is supposed to. If one’s eyes see clearly at 20/20, that’s the way the eyes are supposed to work and so that is good health for the eyes.

If the eyes do not see well, then they are not meeting their standard, so to speak, and we do something to help them work correctly.

I’ve had surgery, and my vision is now 20/15. Is that sinful? It’s not natural and it’s not standard.

The difference between bringing people’s bodies up to standard and using artificial birth control (abc) is that the latter *prevents *the body from doing what it is supposed to do rather than making repairs so it will be up to the standard of good health.

Spacing out births or limiting the number of children can definitely be good for physical or mental health. This is the same argument that NFP people make.

NFP does not close the act to the possibility of life because no act takes place.

Sure, there is an act. The couple is using some sort of charting method to determine when the woman is fertile and infertile, and then only having sex at the infertile times. That definitely sounds like an act to me. It sounds like the couple is trying to bond by having sex without getting pregnant.

Not at all, because God does not intervene when human action (or inaction) suffices.

I think God’s intervention or lack of intervention is something that you and I cannot predict or claim to understand.

 

[mjs2001]

NFP does not close the act to the possibility of life because no act takes place.

But the purpose of NFP is to engage in the “act” while minimizing the possibility of conception, which is also the purpose of contraceptives.

I engage in NFP and I hate it; and I find that the Church’s arguments for it are unconvincing and a bit irrational. And I should add that it has not strengthened our marriage.

 

[St_Francis]

I’ve had surgery, and my vision is now 20/15. Is that sinful? It’s not natural and it’s not standard.

Did you have 20/20 vision and then have surgery to reduce your vision to 20/15?

Spacing out births or limiting the number of children can definitely be good for physical or mental health. This is the same argument that NFP people make.

Any serious reason is sufficient for people to use NFP. Deciding not to have a baby when someone is unemployed, or when a move is going to happen. It doesn’t have to be health-related.

Sure, there is an act. The couple is using some sort of charting method to determine when the woman is fertile and infertile, and then only having sex at the infertile times. That definitely sounds like an act to me. It sounds like the couple is trying to bond by having sex without getting pregnant.

There is nothing sincul about marital relations during the infertile time, is there? Those times are infertile due to the normal functioning of the body, aren’t they?

Mutually refraining from marital relations during the fertile perio is also not sinful either.

The problem with abc is that there is an action taken to frustrate the act which is taking place.

I think God’s intervention or lack of intervention is something that you and I cannot predict or claim to understand.

I was nust saying what the Church teaches.

 

[awke]

Did you have 20/20 vision and then have surgery to reduce your vision to 20/15?

Would it make a difference if I did?

Any serious reason is sufficient for people to use NFP. Deciding not to have a baby when someone is unemployed, or when a move is going to happen. It doesn’t have to be health-related.

Yep, same argument can be made for contraception.

There is nothing sincul about marital relations during the infertile time, is there? Those times are infertile due to the normal functioning of the body, aren’t they?

Mutually refraining from marital relations during the fertile perio is also not sinful either.

No, I don’t feel that it is sinful. Although avoiding sex during fertile times isn’t exactly being open to life. It’s specifically trying to prevent it.

The problem with abc is that there is an action taken to frustrate the act which is taking place.

NFP is doing the same thing. If people didn’t practice any form of birth control (including NFP), they would get pregnant a lot more. Using NFP tampers with that process to avoid pregnancy.

 

[St_Francis]

Would it make a difference if I did?

Surgery without a proportionate reason would objectively be a sin.

Yep, same argument can be made for contraception.

I just meant that the reason doesn’t have to be health-related.

No, I don’t feel that it is sinful. Although avoiding sex during fertile times isn’t exactly being open to life. It’s specifically trying to prevent it.

The Church teaches that the sin of abc is something other than avoiding pregnancy. The sin is in making it so the body does *not *work in the healthy way it is supposed to work, performing an additional act that will make it so the way the body works *doesn’t *happen.

NFP is doing the same thing. If people didn’t practice any form of birth control (including NFP), they would get pregnant a lot more. Using NFP tampers with that process to avoid pregnancy.

To decide to avoid pregnancy is not in and of itself sinful (it *can *be, like people who decide to marry with an intention to never have children or to avoid becoming pregnant for a frivolous reason).

So avoiding pregnancy is not what makes abc sinful–it is the modification of the act which is sinful.

 

[St_Francis]

But the purpose of NFP is to engage in the “act” while minimizing the possibility of conception, which is also the purpose of contraceptives.

NFP requires *abstaining *from the act at certain times; abc interferes with the purpose of the act while partaking of the act.

NFP works with the way the body works normally. ABC changes the way the body works in order to prevent conception.

I engage in NFP and I hate it; and I find that the Church’s arguments for it are unconvincing and a bit irrational. And I should add that it has not strengthened our marriage.

I am sorry that NFP is not working well for you, and I hope that if you come to a better understanding of the principles behind it, that that will help you.

 

[St_Francis]

I would say the first step is to understand that this is not some arbitrary rule imposed on people to torture them. When I went to a school which required uniforms, the students felt their self-expression was being stifled, so the rule became for them an arbitrary imposition which tortured them. After I left that school, I realized uniforms were a great idea which freed up time in the morning, worries about what others would think, and invidious comparisons and competition. (I guess I should add that these were all-girls’ schools )

Now, when I buy a car, it comes with a manual, and the manual might say to change the oil every 3000 miles or 3 months (I realize this has changed, but I don’t know the new situation). No one complains about this rule, do they? They understand that it is about keeping the whole vehicle in good shape, to allow the owner to have the car for longer, etc. It does not seem like an arbitrary rule designed for the purpose of torturing us, and we have a different attitude towards it.

I hope that by learning more about God’s purpose behind NFP and oposition to abc, that you will come to feel better about using NFP.

 

[Irishmom2]

Longing Soul, excellent post. I hope people will actually take the time to read it. It is very thorough.

 

[LongingSoul]

I would say the first step is to understand that this is not some arbitrary rule imposed on people to torture them. When I went to a school which required uniforms, the students felt their self-expression was being stifled, so the rule became for them an arbitrary imposition which tortured them. After I left that school, I realized uniforms were a great idea which freed up time in the morning, worries about what others would think, and invidious comparisons and competition. (I guess I should add that these were all-girls’ schools )

Now, when I buy a car, it comes with a manual, and the manual might say to change the oil every 3000 miles or 3 months (I realize this has changed, but I don’t know the new situation). No one complains about this rule, do they? They understand that it is about keeping the whole vehicle in good shape, to allow the owner to have the car for longer, etc. It does not seem like an arbitrary rule designed for the purpose of torturing us, and we have a different attitude towards it.

I hope that by learning more about God’s purpose behind NFP and oposition to abc, that you will come to feel better about using NFP.

St Francis, thankyou for your wonderful Catholic answers to these common misconceptions. They will be very helpful to others trying to ‘think with the Church’ and live the holy life!

I guess I never understand why there’s such an objection to contraception as being unnatural or “tampering with God’s laws”.

We do unnatural things all the time when we take medication, undergo chemotherapy, put on makeup, use rogaine, take a multivitamin, or turn on the AC. We are using technology to tamper with what would have naturally occurred (sickness, death due to cancer, visibility of wrinkles, hair loss, vitamin deficiency, discomfort due to heat). Why are these viewed as enhancements to life, but using contraception is tampering with God’s laws?

Using NFP certainly attempts to close the act to the possibility of life. Otherwise, why would people be practicing it?

If someone was truly open to life, or truly trusting that God would give them the right number of children, they wouldn’t use NFP at all.

Think of it this way. Two people want to have a product. There are natural limitations to their freedom to have it like financial limitations. The options are to 1. save up and wait until you can purchase the product legally or 2. bypass the natural limitations and steal the product so you can have it now.

Theft is intrinsically evil. It violates the order of justice that safeguards humanity and the common good. The Church teaches through her wisdom that contraception is like theft. It is intrinsically evil and violates the natural order upon which all men ultimately depend.

For that reason this distinction is important for more than just the couple involved, but for the correct understanding of the natural order. The evil act is in how the ‘product’ is obtained… not in the reasons that you want it.

For example, someone might want a chocolate bar because they like chocolate but they are broke… and someone might want the chocolate bar because they are broke and starving. No intentions or circumstances changes the act of theft into something less evil. Both have committed an evil act. (One’s culpability may be reduced but not the nature of the act.)

Theft can never conform to Gods will.

 

[LongingSoul]

Longing Soul, excellent post. I hope people will actually take the time to read it. It is very thorough.

I hope so too!

 

[sailor28]

But the purpose of NFP is to engage in the “act” while minimizing the possibility of conception, which is also the purpose of contraceptives.

I engage in NFP and I hate it; and I find that the Church’s arguments for it are unconvincing and a bit irrational. And I should add that it has not strengthened our marriage.

Why do you continue to use it?

 

[mjs2001]

Why do you continue to use it?

Even though I hate being restricted to NFP and I’m not convinced that the Church’s teaching is entirely rational or productive, I use NFP because I am catholic and the Church teaches that artificial means of contraception is sinful. I don’t want to sin and I don’t want to encourage my spouse to sin. I can accept that I have a conscience that is “defective” or that I must be a mere perv who “objectifies” my wife by experiencing a strong emotional bond with her even if a condom separates us.

We could have chosen to join any Church, or remained in none at all. We chose to be Catholic (or, rather, we were called to it). I have to say “Thy will be done.” If God would only grant me the grace to do it joyfully. . .