Why is NFP okay, but artificial contraceptives are not?

[gardenswithkids]

I guess I should quit because I can see I am not getting anywhere. I did not imagine I would change anyone’s mind, and am not trying to. I was hoping for a discussion that could present some rational reasons I could at least think about. Asserting that a chemical in the woman’s blood stream “alters the act” without explaining how or why does not mean anything. …

TMC, I think your question is a great subject for a separate thread as that question alone could stir lots of discussion specific to hormonal contraception. To briefly give you some things to think about, some methods contraception alter “the act”, in ways that can clearly be seen–for instance by physically placing latex or spermacide between the husband and wife. The birth control pill doesn’t simply alter the act–it changes the act because it dramatically alters the woman so the couple can engage in sex without her getting pregnant.

Birth control pills not only stop pregancy, they stop pregnancy by dramatically changing healthy parts of women’s bodies. (Side effects show the birth control pills affect many things beyond our reproductive parts, and many women refuse to use the pill apart from any moral consideration.) Fertility is a normal, healthy state. A woman’s body normally prepares for “the act” by producing a mature egg and preparing the lining of the uterus in the event that the eggs becomes fertilized. Hormonal contraception attempts to stop ovulation from happening, and in the event of “break through ovulation” it may work as an abortificant because of the effect those hormones had on the lining of woman’s uterus.

In contrast, NFP carefully studies and respects the way in which a woman’s body naturally works. While there’s nothing “natural” about recording temperatures or mucus, the temperatures and the mucus naturally change throughout a woman’s cycle. With NFP, the “act” is not redered infertile-avoiding pregnancy with NFP means the couple does not perform the “act” at all while the woman might be fertile.

As a side note: woman’s sex drive is normally at it’s highest when she is most fertile. That makes abstainance during NFP difficult. But studies on the birth control pill show a common side effect is that the pill reduces women’s sex drives–sometimes even irreversibly. Saying hormonal contraception alters “the act” isn’t just some high moral thinking–it can literally make the sex act less desirable to the woman, which I would consider a huge alteration to the act! When you take a healthy woman and make her artificially infertile, you can do more damage to her and the marital relationship than many realize.

 

[cmudd]

I guess I should quit because I can see I am not getting anywhere. I did not imagine I would change anyone’s mind, and am not trying to. I was hoping for a discussion that could present some rational reasons I could at least think about. Asserting that a chemical in the woman’s blood stream “alters the act” without explaining how or why does not mean anything. Especially when the complex mechanisms of NFP are asserted to not change the act. To say that conception likely to happen is not the same as open to procreation - frankly that’s just nonsensical given that the person supposedly “open to procreation” is responsible for the fact that conception is not likely to happen.

If sex MUST be open to procreation then it cannot be undertaken knowing full well that there is a 99% liklihood that procreation will not result, especially as it is undoubtedly the fervent hope of the participants that it will not result.

TMC,

It seems to me that you have gotten a lot of great information and clarification on the Catholic take on NFP. Could it be that you simply don’t agree with or don’t understand what you are receiving? Is it possible that you have already made up your mind and are asking for clarifications that you will never accept?

RCC says, “Sex is both unative and procreative. While the act can be used for either or both, it must not be closed to either or both. One must not necessarily want a child for the act to be licit and good.”

NFP says, “I can do that. I work within nature’s/God’s law and don’t alter the body or the sexual act to make the act itself sterile.”

TMC says, “I don’t believe it. You are still rendering the act sterile by waiting for infertile periods.”

NFP Practitioner says, “If God wants me to conceive, I will not stand in the way, I trust His will. But right now, my own limited human judgment says that I should avoid pregnancy. However, I will not alter the body that God gave me, nor will I introduce any artificial barriers to stop the possible transmission of life.”

TMC says, “How is that different from ABC? You still are imposing your will? And how is ABC changing the body?”

RCC says, “He can use his own discretion as long as he does not interfere with God’s/nature’s law. And because sex is unative as well as procreative (while not excluding either) he is making a moral decision.”

Modern Science says, “Chemical contraceptives alter the male/female body chemistry thereby rendering it sterile. Hence, the body is changed. Barriers put something between the individuals thereby sterilzing the act, not the individuals. Hence, the act is changed.”

TMC,
If you don’t accept the RCC’s reasoning on this, that is one thing, but it seems a bit obtuse to contend that this and other posts don’t articulately and thoroughly explain the Catholic position on NFP vs. ABC.

I hope you can work it out further or perhaps God can put someone in your life who can explain it better than the rest of us.

God Bless

 

[TMC]

TMC,

It seems to me that you have gotten a lot of great information and clarification on the Catholic take on NFP. Could it be that you simply don’t agree with or don’t understand what you are receiving? Is it possible that you have already made up your mind and are asking for clarifications that you will never accept?

RCC says, “Sex is both unative and procreative. While the act can be used for either or both, it must not be closed to either or both. One must not necessarily want a child for the act to be licit and good.”

NFP says, “I can do that. I work within nature’s/God’s law and don’t alter the body or the sexual act to make the act itself sterile.”

TMC says, “I don’t believe it. You are still rendering the act sterile by waiting for infertile periods.”

NFP Practitioner says, “If God wants me to conceive, I will not stand in the way, I trust His will. But right now, my own limited human judgment says that I should avoid pregnancy. However, I will not alter the body that God gave me, nor will I introduce any artificial barriers to stop the possible transmission of life.”

TMC says, “How is that different from ABC? You still are imposing your will? And how is ABC changing the body?”

RCC says, “He can use his own discretion as long as he does not interfere with God’s/nature’s law. And because sex is unative as well as procreative (while not excluding either) he is making a moral decision.”

Modern Science says, “Chemical contraceptives alter the male/female body chemistry thereby rendering it sterile. Hence, the body is changed. Barriers put something between the individuals thereby sterilzing the act, not the individuals. Hence, the act is changed.”

TMC,
If you don’t accept the RCC’s reasoning on this, that is one thing, but it seems a bit obtuse to contend that this and other posts don’t articulately and thoroughly explain the Catholic position on NFP vs. ABC.

I hope you can work it out further or perhaps God can put someone in your life who can explain it better than the rest of us.

God Bless

Well this is why I should probably let this topic go. I understand what the Church teaches. I admit I don’t agree, which I am sure is obvious. I don’t think my disagreement stems from selfishness or obstinence because to be perfectly frank this particular teaching does not affect me one way or the other. I think lots of people don’t agree. Many (although obviously not all, by any means) have a good faith disagreement that is not driven by selfishness or personal rationalizations.

To be honest, the requirement for both unitive and procreative elements makes even less sense to me than the natural/artificial split. So this is one of those things I will have to continue to work out, but I really can’t see coming into agreement.

 

[fix]

I guess I should quit because I can see I am not getting anywhere. I did not imagine I would change anyone’s mind, and am not trying to. I was hoping for a discussion that could present some rational reasons I could at least think about. Asserting that a chemical in the woman’s blood stream “alters the act” without explaining how or why does not mean anything. Especially when the complex mechanisms of NFP are asserted to not change the act. To say that conception likely to happen is not the same as open to procreation - frankly that’s just nonsensical given that the person supposedly “open to procreation” is responsible for the fact that conception is not likely to happen.

If sex MUST be open to procreation then it cannot be undertaken knowing full well that there is a 99% liklihood that procreation will not result, especially as it is undoubtedly the fervent hope of the participants that it will not result.

Contraception does prevent birth, but does so in a specific way. It does so
in a way that entails a twofold choice. There is first the choice to have
intercourse, something known to be intimately related to the generation of
life. There is secondly the choice to impede procreation, whether in
anticipation of the act of intercourse, during it, or while it is having
its natural consequences, and to do so precisely because one does not want
intercourse to lead to the generation of life and one believes that the
intercourse one has freely chosen is the kind of act that may do this. It
is thus proper to speak of contraceptive intercourse.

What makes the contraceptive act to be “contraceptive” or “antiprocreative”
is the choice, freely made, to get rid of, here and now, the procreativity
of a freely chosen act of coition. The contraceptive act is not simply
nonprocreative (i.e., one that does not in fact result in pregnancy) but
antiprocreative, i.e., an attack on the goodness of the procreativity of
marriage and of human sexuality. It is an act in and through which one says
that it is not good here and now to be fertile. It is an act in and through
which one says that it is “not” good that coition is open to the
transmission of life.

It is for this reason that Paul VI and the Church teach firmly that the
contraceptive choice is intrinsically disordered. To choose to act in this
way is to choose to act against something really good, and good not merely
in an instrumental way but personally and humanly good. The procreative
meaning of our sexuality and of the marital act is not a good of the
biological order, subhuman and subpersonal in character, but is rather a
good of the human person, a good participating in the goodness of the human
person and of God, the author of our procreativity. The contraceptive
choice is a choice to reject this good of the human person, of human
sexuality, and of marriage…

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/SEXSAN.TXT

 

[cmudd]

Well this is why I should probably let this topic go. I understand what the Church teaches. I admit I don’t agree, which I am sure is obvious. I don’t think my disagreement stems from selfishness or obstinence because to be perfectly frank this particular teaching does not affect me one way or the other. I think lots of people don’t agree. Many (although obviously not all, by any means) have a good faith disagreement that is not driven by selfishness or personal rationalizations.

To be honest, the requirement for both unitive and procreative elements makes even less sense to me than the natural/artificial split. So this is one of those things I will have to continue to work out, but I really can’t see coming into agreement.

TMC,

  You seem like you have an intellectual appreciation of things.  If it is your desire to fully understand the Church's position on these topics and/or to be able to give both intellectual and spiritual assent to the Church's teachings on sexuality, perhaps you might have greater appreciation for some of the more in-depth philosophical and scientific discourses on the topic.

  On these sites, it can be very difficult to get into deep conversation on many issues that we face today.  From your posts, you seem to be a person who may be better suited to and would benefit more from detailed study and conversation.  The writings of Paul VII, JPII, and BXVI adress the spiritual, social, and scientific issues at stake on this topic.  You may also check out the St. Paul VI Society.  I believe that Cardinal Newman even discussed the matter.

  If you go to the New Advent website, there are also a lot of great resources there.  I hope you can find what you are looking for there.

God Bless.

 

[agangbern]

I guess I should quit because I can see I am not getting anywhere. I did not imagine I would change anyone’s mind, and am not trying to. I was hoping for a discussion that could present some rational reasons I could at least think about. Asserting that a chemical in the woman’s blood stream “alters the act” without explaining how or why does not mean anything. Especially when the complex mechanisms of NFP are asserted to not change the act. To say that conception likely to happen is not the same as open to procreation - frankly that’s just nonsensical given that the person supposedly “open to procreation” is responsible for the fact that conception is not likely to happen.

If sex MUST be open to procreation then it cannot be undertaken knowing full well that there is a 99% liklihood that procreation will not result, especially as it is undoubtedly the fervent hope of the participants that it will not result.

I think “alters the act” does not refer to the sexual act. It refers to the the act of God in putting in place the natural design and purpose of the body of man. Using ABC disturbs that original design placed on the human body. And that makes it against God’s law. But using NFP does not in anyway interfere with the natural design of the body and of its elements. It rides only with what is naturally there is.

 

[hamburglar]

Hamburglar,

First of all, great name! Secondly, I know exactly what you are writing about. It took me a long time to understand the Church’s teaching on NFP. I think I can actually remember the moment when it just opened up to me. No miracle or anything, but it simply became clear. One important point I should make is that I never argued with Church teaching, I simply sought to understand it knowing that God would not let His Church go astray.

Now, let me see if I can help you out with this…

The Church does not and has never taught that each act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife should have as its ultimate and only goal, the conception of a new baby. As well as procreative (open to the transmission of new life), sex is unitive (bringing the two together intimately to express their mutual love). So, another purpose for sex is to bring a couple closer together. It would be foolish to think that every time a couple is intimate, they are trying to breed. That is one of the many things that separate us from the animals.

However, we must assent to the fact that the sexual act must be open to the possible transmission of life and we must welcome that possibility with generosity. Thus, we cannot, as an act of our own will, put up a barrier (ABC) that frustrates that essential procreative aspect of the sexual act (open to the transmission of life).

You might now be thinking, “Well, aren’t we frustrating God’s intentions by having sex when we know we cannot get pregnant?” No. It was God who designed the act to be unitive and procreative and it was God who designed us to have periods of infertility. So, how can we be violating God’s law by having unitive sex during those times of infertility? Again, remember that the Church does not say that we must desire children with each act of intercourse.

That being said, if a couple uses NFP as a natural form of Birth Control, they are still committing grave sin. The principle of the Church’s understanding of NFP is that it is FAMILY PLANNING, not contraception. NFP is to be used to regulate the number and frequency of children in accordance with the dictates of one’s own properly-formed conscience and with the needs of one’s family.

We are called to welcome children with generosity (it is part of the wedding vows). For grave reasons, we may limit or delay children (war, famine, severe financial or health issues, etc…). Conversely, we must be open to having as many children as our situation allows (financial, health, age, stamina situation).

I can speak from personal experience on this next point. If a couple is willing to take the time and the energy to learn NFP, then have the patience to use it properly, they are most often doing it with the right intentions in mind. I’m not saying everyone who does it is using it with the right intentions, but I am willing to bet that most are.

Moreover, total prevention of children is immoral. Delaying, limiting, or spacing them for grave reasons is very moral, indeed.

Please let me know if this was helpful. I know I can be long-winded, but you asked a very honest and astute question and I felt it needed an equal response.

THANK YOU! This is probably the best answer I have seen. Very helpful!

So I am correct in saying that it is immoral to use NFP because the couple does not want to deal with kids, but it is moral if they are in a tight financial situation where it wouldn’t be fair to the child if they were to have another one, because the child may not get all that is needed, such as healthcare?

 

[Tim_Hayes]

What yo need to understand with NFP is that as soon as we work out when one can or can not get pregnant and we abstain during times of fertility but not during times of “non fertility” shall we say then the couple engaging in sex during times of known infertility, must be sinning BECAUSE they are deliberatley engaging in sexual relations when they know they cannot get pregnant but avoiding sexual relations when they can get pregnant.

NFP might be a more spiritually uplifiting method of birth control that non abortive contraception but none the less the Church let the cat out of the bag with this decision.

How many children does one have to have before one practices non abortive contraception, for example if I have 5 children and then get a vasectomy but another couple practice NFP and only deliberately choose 3 children, am I the sinner but the NFP people not.

See the Church has to engage people with their questions and I can tell you from a personal perspective, the Church struggles on these issues because for eg. to say the NFP couple are shall we say not sinners with three children but the vasectomy fella with 5 kids is a sinner, becasue ultimatley marriage is mostly about children and becasue the man has had a vasectomy he is no longer open to children, that just does not compute with reasonable minded people.

It is sad but that is why people are driven from the church or don’t even enter it.

 

[fix]

What yo need to understand with NFP is that as soon as we work out when one can or can not get pregnant and we abstain during times of fertility but not during times of “non fertility” shall we say then the couple engaging in sex during times of known infertility, must be sinning BECAUSE they are deliberatley engaging in sexual relations when they know they cannot get pregnant but avoiding sexual relations when they can get pregnant.

For your reasoning to be valid it would mean the Church would allow condom use during infertile periods, which She does not. Why? Because the sin of contraception is not simply not conceiving. The action is one that intentionally chooses to alter the act and suppress the gift of fertility. How is not engaging in sex suppressing fertility? How is engaging in sex during non fertile times intentionally suppressing fertility? Why did God ordain a cycle of fertility/infertility?

 

[gardenswithkids]

…NFP might be a more spiritually uplifiting method of birth control that non abortive contraception but none the less the Church let the cat out of the bag with this decision.

How many children does one have to have before one practices non abortive contraception, for example if I have 5 children and then get a vasectomy but another couple practice NFP and only deliberately choose 3 children, am I the sinner but the NFP people not.

See the Church has to engage people with their questions and I can tell you from a personal perspective, the Church struggles on these issues because for eg. to say the NFP couple are shall we say not sinners with three children but the vasectomy fella with 5 kids is a sinner, becasue ultimatley marriage is mostly about children and becasue the man has had a vasectomy he is no longer open to children, that just does not compute with reasonable minded people…

First, we are all sinners. The Church struggles with these issues because those of us in the Church struggle with sin. We struggle with sin; or we give up, stop struggling and let sin win. The man with several children who succombs to sterilization stopped struggling with sin. Sin wins when we stop struggling with it.

Sterilization is a big sin, but is not an unforgivable sin. The best of us can commit sin, regardless of the number of children we have. The stresses of parenting can wear a person down, and people who choose sterilization typically have very young and needy children. I understand how a man with five children might just give up and have a vasectomy, but nevertheless it is still wrong of him. I understand why couples come to use other forms of contraception too–and I used to use them too-- but artificial contraception also always wrong. Jesus knew we would sin, which is why He gave us the Sacrament of Reconciliation. We can trust in the mercy of God, but we should presume upon His mercy. We must continue to “fight the good fight”, then repent and confess when we fall short.

The Church doesn’t tell people how many children they “have to have”. Church documents encourage couples to practice generousity, but allows them to practice NFP for just* reasons (*sometimes also termed “serious” or “grave” reasons.) The Church teachings on this matter are a part of its whole teachings, including: fallen human nature, sin and redemption, grace, generous giving of self in imitation of Christ, etc. The Church didn’t “let the cat out of the bag” with its teachings on regulation of birth–Adam and Eve started these struggles when they choose to sin. We can face our struggles and follow Christ, seeking His mercy, grace and strength to win a victory against sin; or we can stop struggling and let sin win a victory against us.

 

[cmudd]

THANK YOU! This is probably the best answer I have seen. Very helpful!

So I am correct in saying that it is immoral to use NFP because the couple does not want to deal with kids, but it is moral if they are in a tight financial situation where it wouldn’t be fair to the child if they were to have another one, because the child may not get all that is needed, such as healthcare?

Objectively speaking, that is a correct statement.  However, remember that we are called to lovingly and generously accept children.  That is precisely one of the affirmations during the Catholic Nuptial service.

If, for GRAVE reasons, we decide that it is best to delay having another child, it is a decision that should weigh heavily on your thoughts. Healthcare, for instance: If it is a matter of being out on the street or healthcare, a rational couple should carefully decide whether or not to have another child. If, however, it is a choice between paying for healthcare for another child and taking the annual family vacation to Hawaii rather than camping, well you might be letting material comfort get in the way of your duty to be fruitful and multiply.

This is why Catholics, and all men of good-will, must take special care to form our consciences properly. If our conscience tells us that it is more important to drive a BMW than to have a 4th or 5th child, there may be a problem there (no problems with BMW’s… great auto’s).

Nevertheless, as Catholics, we are reminded of our own responsibility and conscience when deciding on the number and frequency of children. It actually heightens our sense of being co-creators of a new human life.

Again, you are correct that Catholics may not contracept in any way (artificial or natural). Nor should we allow for a contraceptive mentality to creep into our minds. If situations demand that we limit the number of children we could have, it should be cause for some sadness in our lives. Also, we should not enter a marriage thinking that we will have only this or that number of children. My sister and her husband have 6 great children. For medical reasons, my sister may no longer carry a baby to term (or even half term) before having a miscarriage. While they are very satisfied that they have six children, there is still a longing for maybe one more and certainly sadness that their fertility is impaired.

Once again, I hope this is helpful and not too long-winded.

*Late

 

[Good_Daughter]

What yo need to understand with NFP is that as soon as we work out when one can or can not get pregnant and we abstain during times of fertility but not during times of “non fertility” shall we say then the couple engaging in sex during times of known infertility, must be sinning BECAUSE they are deliberatley engaging in sexual relations when they know they cannot get pregnant but avoiding sexual relations when they can get pregnant.

There is no such thing as knowing you cannot get pregnant, whether you use the pill, condoms, or NFP. There are times you are unlikely to get pregnant. Why is it sinful to have sex with your spouse when pregnancy is unlikely? Is sex sinful during pregnancy or after menopause?

NFP might be a more spiritually uplifiting method of birth control that non abortive contraception but none the less the Church let the cat out of the bag with this decision.

NFP is uplifting because it is the only method of family planning that gives us the potential to work with rather than against our own bodies and God’s design.

How many children does one have to have before one practices non abortive contraception, for example if I have 5 children and then get a vasectomy but another couple practice NFP and only deliberately choose 3 children, am I the sinner but the NFP people not.

There is no magic number of children one must have. Couples have to pray and use common sense to determine that. I can have ten children and still sin by using contraception. Conversely, someone who has had a vasectomy is still capable of great holiness.

See the Church has to engage people with their questions and I can tell you from a personal perspective, the Church struggles on these issues because for eg. to say the NFP couple are shall we say not sinners with three children but the vasectomy fella with 5 kids is a sinner, becasue ultimatley marriage is mostly about children and becasue the man has had a vasectomy he is no longer open to children, that just does not compute with reasonable minded people.

I agree, the Church does have to engage people with their questions. We’re all sinners, no matter what we use for birth control. The Church maintains contraception is always wrong and NFP, used improperly, can be wrong too. Someone with 5 kids may be more generous, but they may also be in a better situation to handle kids than someone with 3.

It is sad but that is why people are driven from the church or don’t even enter it.

Do you think the Church does not have the truth?

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Sorry Good daughter, but their is certainty for the vast majority of people who learn and practice nfp that they know when they cannot get pregnant.

The reason for the allowance of NFP is because it relates to the natural fertility of the body and the Church has long based many of its principals insome way on the Natural order of things.

Now generally speaking I have no problem with this, however if you go back to the early times of Church history and read the early Fathers, it is clear that any man who wastes their seed deliberately is sinning, becasue the PRINCIPAL reason for marriage is the procreation of children and secondry, the unitive aspect of the relationship, yet it is clear that those who deliberately avoid children and who engage in sexual relations within the marriage are SINNING, why do you think one of the basic grounds for non marriage amongst young people in the Church is infertility or inability to procreate.

Read St Paul very carefully and you will find that both the Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church disregard St Paul many times in their theology.

St Paul is explicit in his statement that those who cannot avoid the sin of lust should enjoin themselves in marriage so that they can engage in sexual relations without the associated sin of non married sex. Now we know from his other teachings that he is not a man to engage in excess, but the fact that he clearly states satisfy lust through marriage is clear that the unitive aspect is extremely important shall we say and this aspect has been greatly downplayed in churchhistory, especially the very early history.

The main reason the Church allows NFP as a form of child avoidance is becasue of the abstinance factor which in a way is like fasting, so we are giving something up, so that is the spiritual aspect of the NFP method.

Now we are explicity told that we are only to engage in NFP for extreme or very serious reasons, that tells you that as soon as they add the very serious reasons aspect, that it is the INTENTION behind the use of NFP that is sinful or not sinful.

So they allow a couple to practice child avoidance only in supposedly very serious circumstances. I repeat, that indicates that it is the intention of the child avoidance that is the sin and not the actual act per se.

As I said above in the other post, if the intention is to avoid children and we practice nfp so that we avoid the fertile times but not the infertile times then we are sinning, at the very least unless it is extremely serious circumstances.

Let me give you an example of someone I know, the mans wife is less catholic than the husband and after 5 children she was adamant that no more children were to be had ( for physical as well as mental reason) NFP was apparently practiced during the time of 5 children, So the wife went on the pill, despite knowing the husband was defineitively against abortive type of contraception.

Now when it comes to marital relations what is the husband to do, if he engages in sexual relations with the wife, he is co-operating in the possible death of new life, so the theory is that he should not engage in marital relations to avoid the possiblity of death of new life.

Now it is impossible to engage in kissing cuddling, hugging, sleeping in the same bed etc and not to engage in marital relations, therefor the only option left is the nigh on complete withdrawal of physical affection of just about any type to ensure marital relations do not occur.

Now I can tell you that if a couple, especially the younger they are, have nigh on no physical interaction, the marriage will be doomed and we can expect the breadown of such marriage, this is not fanciful thinking, it is the truth of life.

So the husband, decided that in the best interests of the wife, the relationship and the family, went and got a vasectomy, as it was the least physically risky form of contraception and figured that 5 children would be enough, we might say in some way, that is was a sacrifice that he did not really wish to do, but did it anyway.

It is hard for someone in such a position yet how can one said to be not in mortal sin as the husband defintely knows the church is against vasectomy, eventhough he personally does not believe he has done anythng overly wrong in the circumstances, the Church generally does not appear to agree with him.

 

[fix]

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time…

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different…
HUMANAE VITAE

The Church has spoken with the authority of Christ in this matter why the debate?

 

[CuriousInIL]

A procreative act is one that favours creation. In other words, nothing has been done to stop or inhibit creation in that act. A reproductive act brings forth something new. A pregnant woman who engages in sex with her husband does so with the unitive and procreative aspects of the act in place. What she is incapable of though, is reproductive sex.

Contraception (artificial or natural) works directly against the design of the human body. Name a type of contraception that doesn’t medicate a healthy body, require surgery on a healthy body, kill healthy, useful human cells or require the genital wearing of latex. Shoes protect our feet from harsh surfaces, the elements, etc. Contraception protects us from nothing but fertility, only beneficial if you see fertility as a type of harm, which I don’t.

Sex between a healthy man and woman is always natural, regardless of the woman’s degree of fertility. Yes, animals mate specifically when fertile, but some also eat their young, naturally.

The “natural” in NFP refers to the natural signs given by the female body to indicate fertility or infertility. These signs may be observed and “unnaturally” recorded for analysis.

Not at all sure that is true, condoms can also protect from disease.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Now we are explicity told that we are only to engage in NFP for extreme or very serious reasons, that tells you that as soon as they add the very serious reasons aspect, that it is the INTENTION behind the use of NFP that is sinful or not sinful.

So they allow a couple to practice child avoidance only in supposedly very serious circumstances. …

The wording on Church documents varies in translation from “just” to “grave” reason. The Church has not defined what constitutes such reasons, but leaves it up to couples to discern in prayer. Yes, the intention matters when couples uses NFP to avoid children, but their reason doesn’t neccesarily need to be only matters life-or-death.

…Let me give you an example of someone I know, the mans wife is less catholic than the husband and after 5 children she was adamant that no more children were to be had ( for physical as well as mental reason) NFP was apparently practiced during the time of 5 children, So the wife went on the pill, despite knowing the husband was defineitively against abortive type of contraception.

Now when it comes to marital relations what is the husband to do, if he engages in sexual relations with the wife, he is co-operating in the possible death of new life, so the theory is that he should not engage in marital relations to avoid the possiblity of death of new life.

Now it is impossible to engage in kissing cuddling, hugging, sleeping in the same bed etc and not to engage in marital relations, therefor the only option left is the nigh on complete withdrawal of physical affection of just about any type to ensure marital relations do not occur.

Now I can tell you that if a couple, especially the younger they are, have nigh on no physical interaction, the marriage will be doomed and we can expect the breadown of such marriage, this is not fanciful thinking, it is the truth of life.

So the husband, decided that in the best interests of the wife, the relationship and the family, went and got a vasectomy, as it was the least physically risky form of contraception and figured that 5 children would be enough, we might say in some way, that is was a sacrifice that he did not really wish to do, but did it anyway.

It is hard for someone in such a position yet how can one said to be not in mortal sin as the husband defintely knows the church is against vasectomy, eventhough he personally does not believe he has done anythng overly wrong in the circumstances, the Church generally does not appear to agree with him.

Situations gets very complicated when one spouse insists on using of contraception. From the Catholic perspective, spouses have the “right” to sexual relations with the other without contraception; in this situation originally the wife caused the harm to the marriage and her husband by taking birth control pills against his wishes. No doubt her husband was upset. Ideally maybe he should have abstained from relations, but there is even some “wiggle-room” in the Church teachings buried in the Vademeccum for Confessors regarding contracepted intercourse when a spouse refuses to abide by Church teachings. (That’s a different discussion and the Vademeccum was written for priestly confessors.)

While the Church teaches that sterilization like his vasectomy is objectively a mortal sin, mortal sin also requires full knowledge and consent of the will. Can it really be assumed that the man gave his full consent of the will if he was almost “blackmailed” by his wife who otherwise insisted on method of birth control that might have caused an abortion, and when the man really wanted to abide by Church teachings but simply didn’t know how given the predicament in his marriage? Yes, objectively speaking his having a vasectomy was gravely wrong. But I believe that both God and the Church teachings are much more merciful than what you portray. Even if persons are in states or mortal sin, they don’t have to stay there. If he has not already confessed, he should go to confession. Once he has been absolved, he is no longer in a state of mortal sin–if he ever even was in the first place. I leave it up to God to judge the persons involved in this matter.

And if anyone reading this faces a similar situation, read some of the threads here regarding when a spouse insists on contraception, print out a copy of the Vademeccum for Confessors http://www.cin.org/vatcong/vademec.html and find a good priest to offer spirtual guidance and the Sacrament of Confession.

 

[tgriffi2]

I am curious as well about contraception. I have purchased the NFP kit and found that it is VERY difficult to learn. I am not in a position emotionally to have another child. I have 2, one of which is only 6 weeks old. It was a stretch to have him. I waited for 6 years to do THAT. Are there not exceptions to the rule? Am I bound for hell is I do use condoms as the contraception of choice. I have been told that I am and that really bothers me. Could someone help???!!!

Thanks.

 

[Socio_Momma]

tgriffi2What method are you trying to learn? Have you looked to take a class to learn? Either in person or via home study that offers instructional aid through email/phone/faq. That might help a lot. IMO it’s hard to just read a book that isn’t home study designed and process NFP without an instructor to just get guidance & support from (even if just by phone or online) because it’s a whole new way of approaching our bodies.

It might also be easier if you find a method that “fits” with you if the first method you are checking out doesn’t seem to. I found the MarquetteModel to be the best “fit” for me (Dh agrees as NFP takes both of us ). marquette.edu/nursing/NFP/Model --you an contact the NFP Institute directly for more information.

Personally, I believe the best NFP method is the one that you and your DH feel most comfortable with and able to implement after prayerful discernment together either to avoid, achieve, or just get health info from (it may be that some couples aren’t really TTA or TTC but are just getting health info). Doesn’t have to be the one I use or even the one you first check out, kwim?

Either way though I would suggest learning with a home study (if you just got a book like Taking CHarge of Your Ferility, I would recommend using a different set of study materials, TCYOF is not ideal for learning IMO). Also, don’t be afraid of asking for help if you are confused on the method you learning. NFP instructors want to get couples to the point of feeling confident and accurate in their method use.

 

[Aileen74]

Not at all sure that is true, condoms can also protect from disease.

Hopefully spouses are not concerned about catching diseases from each other. If so, they have more problems than can be dealt with here

 

[Good_Daughter]

Sorry Good daughter, but their is certainty for the vast majority of people who learn and practice nfp that they know when they cannot get pregnant.

No method is 100% effective and that’s a fact. I’m glad you know many people who use NFP so effectively though.

The main reason the Church allows NFP as a form of child avoidance is becasue of the abstinance factor which in a way is like fasting, so we are giving something up, so that is the spiritual aspect of the NFP method.

The Church allows NFP because it is the only method of “child avoidance” that allows the procreative aspect of sex to remain in place. That is the spiritual aspect of the NFP method (although the sacrifice can be meritous as well). Couples may choose to use NFP because it can be effective in avoiding the reproductive aspect of sex.

Now we are explicity told that we are only to engage in NFP for extreme or very serious reasons, that tells you that as soon as they add the very serious reasons aspect, that it is the INTENTION behind the use of NFP that is sinful or not sinful.

So they allow a couple to practice child avoidance only in supposedly very serious circumstances. I repeat, that indicates that it is the intention of the child avoidance that is the sin and not the actual act per se.

As I said above in the other post, if the intention is to avoid children and we practice nfp so that we avoid the fertile times but not the infertile times then we are sinning, at the very least unless it is extremely serious circumstances.

I think the point you’re making is correct, NFP can be misused. It’s important to keep in mind that we can have good or bad intentions in wishing to avoid conception. The method we use to avoid it is a separate thing though. Contraception is not acceptable, according to the Church, despite serious reasons to avoid having children.

The Church teaches a couple needs serious reason to use NFP. You make it sound as though it is only allowed in life and death situations which isn’t quite true.