Why is NFP okay, but artificial contraceptives are not?

[hamburglar]

First off, let me state that I am in full agreeance (is that a word?) with the Church’s teaching against contraception.

I have been asked why NFP is okay, but artificial contraception is not. They say that the CCC says that “every action which, … render procreation impossible” and since condoms do not render procreation IMPOSSIBLE, they don’t fit under this.

 

[texaspanda]

NO ABC or NFP render procreation impossible, even when used properly
Neither one is 100% effective.

 

[1ke]

First, you misunderstand the Catechism paragraph you quoted. You used ellipsis in an important part, so I will quote it entirely here:

“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

So, every ACTION done before, during, or after intercourse that proposes (ie attempts) to render the act of intercourse sterile is intrinsically evil.

Condoms do this. NFP does not-- NFP in no way alters the act of sexual intercourse. The act of intercourse itself must be completely unaltered.

---

Here is something I’ve written previously regarding the difference between NFP and contraception:

NFP and contraception are both methods of birth control. Birth control is just the spacing & planning of children.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control. Big difference.

Why?

Each marriage act (act of sexual intercourse) must be unaltered before, during, or after the act. No action may taken to alter the act because each act must be objectively unitive and procreative in order to be authentic and properly ordered as God designed.

Subjectively that particular act may or may not be procreative. For example, if someone is naturally infertile due to time of the month, post-menopause, already pregnant, etc, then an unaltered act of intercourse is objectively procreative but subjectively does not result in conception.

How does NFP meet this criteria? In NFP each marital act is objectively unitive and procreative. If you have reason to avoid pregnancy you do not engage in the act. That respects the objective elements that must be present in every act.

How does contraception fail to meet this criteria? When contracepting a couple engages in the marital act while simultaneously altering the act to nullify it’s procreative element-- either before, during, or after the act. Before-- sterilization, Pill, sponge, diaphram, condom, IUD. During-- withdrawal, masterbatory acts that don’t culminate in intercourse. After- morning after pill, abortion. All of these things alter the act either in anticipation of, during, or after.

NFP says: Don’t want to become pregnant at that time? Abstain and respect the act as God created it because we and the act serve God. Engage in the act when the woman is naturally infertile and never alter the act.

Contraception says: Don’t want to become pregnant? Have sex and mutilate the act because the act serves us.

NFP is not an alterative to contraception, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence.

For more, go to www.omsoul.com and pick up some of their resources, especially the Contraception Why Not CD by Janet Smith.

 

[1ke]

NO ABC or NFP render procreation impossible, even when used properly
Neither one is 100% effective.

‘Effectiveness’ has no bearing on the morality of the action.

 

[helgasdogs]

“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

So, every ACTION done before, during, or after intercourse that proposes (ie attempts) to render the act of intercourse sterile is intrinsically evil.

That’s a brilliant justification for marital rape.

h

 

[Bruised_Reed]

That’s a brilliant justification for marital rape.

h

It’s not a justification for rape, brilliant or otherwise, but I can’t wait to read why you think it is.

 

[baltobetsy]

I am in full agreeance (is that a word?)

Since you asked … no, it’s not, but “agreement” is.

To stay on topic, there are some who will worry that NFP is approved because it doesn’t really work, and that the more we learn about how the body works, and the more effective NFP becomes, the less moral it becomes. Don’t be fooled. NFP is moral because it does not pervert the marital act as artificial contraception does.

Betsy

 

[hamburglar]

I would still get the response that condoms do not attempt to render procreation impossible. Condoms propose to “significantly reduce the chance of pregnancy and the contraction of HIV” or whatever the ads say.

 

[1ke]

I would still get the response that condoms do not attempt to render procreation impossible. Condoms propose to “significantly reduce the chance of pregnancy and the contraction of HIV” or whatever the ads say.

Are you debating a 3rd grader?

Seriously, that is not a valid-- or logical-- argument.

Regardless of its “reliability” the question remains, does it alter the sex act? The answer to that question is: Yes

 

[TMC]

First, you misunderstand the Catechism paragraph you quoted. You used ellipsis in an important part, so I will quote it entirely here:

“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

So, every ACTION done before, during, or after intercourse that proposes (ie attempts) to render the act of intercourse sterile is intrinsically evil.

Condoms do this. NFP does not-- NFP in no way alters the act of sexual intercourse. The act of intercourse itself must be completely unaltered.

---

Here is something I’ve written previously regarding the difference between NFP and contraception:

NFP and contraception are both methods of birth control. Birth control is just the spacing & planning of children.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control. Big difference.

Why?

Each marriage act (act of sexual intercourse) must be unaltered before, during, or after the act. No action may taken to alter the act because each act must be objectively unitive and procreative in order to be authentic and properly ordered as God designed.

Subjectively that particular act may or may not be procreative. For example, if someone is naturally infertile due to time of the month, post-menopause, already pregnant, etc, then an unaltered act of intercourse is objectively procreative but subjectively does not result in conception.

How does NFP meet this criteria? In NFP each marital act is objectively unitive and procreative. If you have reason to avoid pregnancy you do not engage in the act. That respects the objective elements that must be present in every act.

How does contraception fail to meet this criteria? When contracepting a couple engages in the marital act while simultaneously altering the act to nullify it’s procreative element-- either before, during, or after the act. Before-- sterilization, Pill, sponge, diaphram, condom, IUD. During-- withdrawal, masterbatory acts that don’t culminate in intercourse. After- morning after pill, abortion. All of these things alter the act either in anticipation of, during, or after.

NFP says: Don’t want to become pregnant at that time? Abstain and respect the act as God created it because we and the act serve God. Engage in the act when the woman is naturally infertile and never alter the act.

Contraception says: Don’t want to become pregnant? Have sex and mutilate the act because the act serves us.

NFP is not an alterative to contraception, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence.

For more, go to www.omsoul.com and pick up some of their resources, especially the Contraception Why Not CD by Janet Smith.

This is so convoluted that it is hard to know where to begin, so I’ll just state the obvious:

NFP is a form of contraception. Period. There is no rational way to distinguish it from other non-abortive forms of birth control. Either NFP is wrong, or contraception is OK.

It appears that you distinguish the two based on your assertion that NFP is not an act, and/or that it does not alter the marital act. This is simply and obviously untrue. NFP is a complex system wherein the woman is observed, temperatures are taken, mucus is measured, menses is recorded and days are counted, all with one purpose - to achieve a high degree of probability that sex can be had without pregnancy resulting because no egg will be in position to be fertilized.

There are a lot fewer “acts” involved in, for example, using the birth control pill. The pill does not alter the marital act, either. The pill gives the precise same result - it gives a high probability that no egg will be present to be fertilized.

And the intent of the act is precisely the same. A couple having sex using NFP is not being open to procreation - they are doing their best to avoid it. Just like the couple on the pill or using some barrier method of contraception.

An NFP couple can get pregnant if they do something wrong, or if bad luck (or divine will) puts an egg in place anyway. A couple using the pill, or using a condom or other barrier, faces the same possiblities.

I just can’t understand why anyone could suppose there is a real moral difference here. I know that this is what the Church teaches, but I would like to hear an explanation that makes sense.

 

[manualman]

The goal of avoiding children can be, depending on the reason, morally good. Similarly, it can be morally good to desire to lose weight (i.e. when one is overweight). (Note that there can also be unhealthy reasons for having both of these goals, but goals aren’t the subject here)

When trying to lose weight a person can choose discipline (diet and excercise) or they can eat as they please and merely puke up the unwanted calories. One is a moral method of losing weight, the other is not.

Same goes for birth control. Given a just reason to avoid pregnancy (for sake of discussion), one can choose moral means to do it or immoral means. The goal or end is not the question. The means MATTER.

The NFP requires the adherent to make the sacrifice of abstinance when there is a need to avoid. It does not alter the couple’s fertility or render the people infertile, it merely restricts the couple to times when GOD made the woman infertile. If this weren’t a major difference, then people wouldn’t be so opposed to using NFP! Face it, ABC is the broad road.

 

[1ke]

NFP is a form of contraception. Period. There is no rational way to distinguish it from other non-abortive forms of birth control.

NFP is birth control. I stated that it is.

Contraception is birth control. I stated that it is.

NFP is not contraception.

Either NFP is wrong, or contraception is OK.

You ar mistaken. Bank robbery and working are both forms of obtaining money. Must working be wrong or bank robbery be OK? Of course not, because bank robbery is an immoral means to the end of obtaining money and working is a moral means to the end of obtaining money.

So too, NFP is a moral means to the end of birth control. Contracepted sex acts are immoral means to the end of birth control.

It appears that you distinguish the two based on your assertion that NFP is not an act, and/or that it does not alter the marital act.

It does not alter any act of intercourse in any way. You have not shown that it does.

This is simply and obviously untrue. NFP is a complex system wherein the woman is observed, temperatures are taken, mucus is measured, menses is recorded and days are counted, all with one purpose - to achieve a high degree of probability that sex can be had without pregnancy resulting because no egg will be in position to be fertilized.

There is no alteration of the act of intercourse.

The couple may choose to engage in the act or refrain from the act. But, they may not alter the act.

There are a lot fewer “acts” involved in, for example, using the birth control pill. The pill does not alter the marital act, either. The pill gives the precise same result - it gives a high probability that no egg will be present to be fertilized.

Yes, it does alter the act.

And the intent of the act is precisely the same.

Of course it is. That does not mean all ways of achieving the end are morally equivalent.

I just can’t understand why anyone could suppose there is a real moral difference here. I know that this is what the Church teaches, but I would like to hear an explanation that makes sense .

There absolutely his a HUGE moral difference between mutilating the sex act and procreative organs and engaging in the marital embrace as a completed, unaltered act as designed by God.

 

[Sr_Sally]

NFP is not an alterative to contraception, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence.

This is the important difference. A couple wishing to avoid getting pregnant also needs to avoid having sex. Natural periods of infertility is God’s merciful gift to those couples. During those periods they can have unaltered sex. Depending on how grave their reason for avoiding pregnancy is, they may find those infertile periods to be very short and very far between. However, in order to stay within God’s natural law, they need to stay within those boundries.

Couples using ABC or altered sex acts of some type (withdrawl, etc.) are not staying within God’s law. They are saying “we want what we want, when we want it.” That is also a good definition of sinful selfishness. They are not willing to abstain or sacrifice themselves in anyway to accomplish the goal of sex without pregnancy.

 

[TMC]

NFP is birth control. I stated that it is.

Contraception is birth control. I stated that it is.

NFP is not contraception.

You ar mistaken. Bank robbery and working are both forms of obtaining money. Must working be wrong or bank robbery be OK? Of course not, because bank robbery is an immoral means to the end of obtaining money and working is a moral means to the end of obtaining money.

So too, NFP is a moral means to the end of birth control. Contracepted sex acts are immoral means to the end of birth control.

It does not alter any act of intercourse in any way. You have not shown that it does.

There is no alteration of the act of intercourse.

The couple may choose to engage in the act or refrain from the act. But, they may not alter the act.

Yes, it does alter the act.

Of course it is. That does not mean all ways of achieving the end are morally equivalent.

There absolutely his a HUGE moral difference between mutilating the sex act and procreative organs and engaging in the marital embrace as a completed, unaltered act as designed by God.

Bank Robbery? I can identify why bank robbery is immoral. Its pretty objectively stealing which is no 7 on the big list of 10. It affirmatively injures others by taking what is theirs. What are the equivalent moral problems with birth control?

I don’t understand this altering the marital act distinction. Barrier methods arguably alter the act (although I can’t be sure because I am not sure how you are defining the term “alter”.) How does using the pill alter the marital act?

 

[TMC]

This is the important difference. A couple wishing to avoid getting pregnant also needs to avoid having sex. Natural periods of infertility is God’s merciful gift to those couples. During those periods they can have unaltered sex. Depending on how grave their reason for avoiding pregnancy is, they may find those infertile periods to be very short and very far between. However, in order to stay within God’s natural law, they need to stay within those boundries.

Couples using ABC or altered sex acts of some type (withdrawl, etc.) are not staying within God’s law. They are saying “we want what we want, when we want it.” That is also a good definition of sinful selfishness. They are not willing to abstain or sacrifice themselves in anyway to accomplish the goal of sex without pregnancy.

To say that ABC is against God’s law is just a way of saying what I already acknowledge - that the Church forbids it. I want to know why. If the answer is merely “becauase the Church says so” then I know where I stand. But I have always heard there are rational, reasonable, moral reasons for this prohibition – that it is not merely a command based on authority. What are they?

Are you saying that it is selfishness? Even were that true, selfishness in other things is considered a minor defect. A venial sin, if at all. If I eat all the ice cream, that selfishness. If I do that all the time, week in and week out, growing obese and unhealthy, I can see sin in that. But one act of contracepted sex is supposed to be a mortal sin, right? Straight to hell unless you confess? What other single act of selfishness (that is not independently immoral) has such consequences?

 

[manualman]

If there is no difference, then why are you unwilling to follow church teaching?

In your heart you know darn well there is a difference. That’s why you are so desperate to denigrate NFP.

 

[TMC]

The goal of avoiding children can be, depending on the reason, morally good. Similarly, it can be morally good to desire to lose weight (i.e. when one is overweight). (Note that there can also be unhealthy reasons for having both of these goals, but goals aren’t the subject here)

When trying to lose weight a person can choose discipline (diet and excercise) or they can eat as they please and merely puke up the unwanted calories. One is a moral method of losing weight, the other is not.

Same goes for birth control. Given a just reason to avoid pregnancy (for sake of discussion), one can choose moral means to do it or immoral means. The goal or end is not the question. The means MATTER.

The NFP requires the adherent to make the sacrifice of abstinance when there is a need to avoid. It does not alter the couple’s fertility or render the people infertile, it merely restricts the couple to times when GOD made the woman infertile. If this weren’t a major difference, then people wouldn’t be so opposed to using NFP! Face it, ABC is the broad road.

I agree that the means used to achieve an end may make a moral distinction. The question is why ABC is an immoral means and NFP is a moral means. Obviously they are different and people prefer one to the other. Why is preferring one moral, and the other immoral?

Is it the “sacrifice of abstinence?” If so, why is such a sacrifice required? Is sacrifice required to avail oneself of other choices? Given two alternative approaches to a reach a goal, must the Christian always take the one that involves sacrifice, even if there is no other moral distinction between the two?

 

[1ke]

Bank Robbery? I can identify why bank robbery is immoral. Its pretty objectively stealing which is no 7 on the big list of 10.

So, we agree that not all means of achieving an end are moral.

It affirmatively injures others by taking what is theirs.

To stay with the analogy, contraception affirmatively injures the marital act by taking what is God’s. God designed sexual intercourse to be BOTH unitive and procreative. You cannot engage in properly ordered sexual intercourse if you separate one from the other or pursue one at the expense of the other.

What are the equivalent moral problems with birth control?

There is no problem with birth control for a just reason.

The problem lies with contraception which is an immoral means of birth control.

It’s number 6 on the big list of 10.

I don’t understand this altering the marital act distinction. Barrier methods arguably alter the act (although I can’t be sure because I am not sure how you are defining the term “alter”.) How does using the pill alter the marital act?

I suggest you read humanae vitae, which expounds on this very issue.

 

[manualman]

The sacrifice is a unique characteristic of the sexual union of the couple.

What did Paul VI predict to be the result of ABC? Large increases in promiscuity, increases in infidelity, decreased emphasis on the value of children and a cheapening of sex from an act of giving into an act of taking. Why should this happen? God built sex and the human psyche with the relationship between sex and procreation in mind. Clearly it is no accident that the two are linked! When the couple uses ABC to sever that link between the procreative and the unitive, something happens. The ABC inherently encourages the couple to forget about the procreative and giving nature of sex and focus on the pleasure. The pleasure subtly becomes the sole end of the act instead of a nice feature of it. Ironically, this causes the sex to become a mutual using of each other instead of a mutual giving to each other (I say ironic because catholic ABC advocates usually cite the need for more “unitive” time).

In NFP however, the couple never can lose sight of the procreative nature of sex. We are forced to confront the seriousness of our reason to avoid every month. The method itself inherently contains a mechanism to direct the couple back towards the consideration. If you say you have a good reason to avoid, you have to ponder the legitimacy of that reason (sometimes in a cool shower!) monthly.

I think this is the difference and is why Paul VI’s prophecies about the effects of ABC have all come true in this culture of contraception we live in.

 

[larry85704]

ABC is not ok because Pope John Paul II said so. The Church gathered a group of people together years ago to examine ABC and see if it was good, or bad. You know, make a study, recommend something.

The study reported that ABC should be allowed. Pope John Paul II chose to ignore their findings. Ultimately, morality is because God said so. There are no arguments that cannot be counter-argued. It is the job of the Bishops, and Pope, to advise us on what they think God would say. Ultimately, if forced into a corner, the Church can use Papal Infallibility to assert its sovereign right to decide what the Catholic Church teaches. My understanding is that the Pope said ABC violated the “Natural Law”. But it does not really matter why he said what he did.

So, the short answer is simply because the Pope said so.

Obviously, he could change his mind in the future.

By the way, you cannot use NFP to never have kids. I think it is grounds for annulment if a couple, through their own efforts, never has children. When you get married it is with the understanding that you will have kids.

As my wife likes to say, every sword has two sharp edges. Sex is an important part of a marriage. I used NFP and learned that nothing dies if sometimes you don’t have sex. I also learned that women choose when to have a baby. I also learned that not having sex when you want to will cause you to develop hobbies. There is a danger there, you can replace the natural desire to have sex with the desire to do your hobby. Oops. But I am sure the Pope was aware of the good and bad points, both edges of the sword,

NFP won’t hurt you. ABC, depending on the type, can hurt you. Not having sex when you thought tonight would be good can hurt your feelings, but like I said, get a hobby.

Personally, if you, or your spouse, want to use NTP great. If you don’t you might have kids, that’s great too. Or you might not. Some people, I assume, have sex all the time, and never get pregnant. They use nothing. So is it that God doesn’t want them to have kids? Could be. Then she goes and gets her uterus moved, or some mysterious medical procedure and God changes His mind. But that is ok, I think. Unnatural acts can be used to cause pregnancy. It is confusing to me too. Just accept it and go back to your hobby.