Why NFP rather than condoms, sponge, etc.?

[Chancellare]

The Church, then, has a weak arguement in your eyes. That’s sad. Please study the Church’s teaching on this matter. Perhaps then, your eyes will be opened–not to the science, but to the morality and ethics.
I guess that all the Prolife Doctors are unable to see the science. I’m a music major (by education) married to a Biology Prof so I’m not unaware of the science, I do have trouble with some of the more technical writing but certainly can ask those around me for clarification. Could you please link to the scientific publications that say what you claim? I don’t think you have, and if you have I missed it. Please, provide links for what you are saying about the science. Then I can read it and discuss it. I’m not stupid and can discuss this as can many other educated people on this board. Give us all a break and post the studies…

Jennifer

I understand your position. Being non-specialists does not mean being stupid.

Though educated in engineering and economic sciences, my job involves looking into the job performance of specialists who are supposed to adhere to scientific methodologies, including physicians and engineers. Sometimes I have to fire some of them for various incompetencies though.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I know, what a terrible thing to do to actually believe what science and trials tell us!
I can see how that would completely destroy my credibility in some circles
BTW do you believe Diet Coke helps lose weight?

Let me see if I understand what you have been saying. You assert that in 100% of the cases where women take birth control pills that it is absolutely not possible for the woman to have an egg fertalized? Ever? Seems like the makers of the pill don’t even make that claim! Catholics are concerned about even 1 baby being aborted by the pill. Not to mention the .1% risk factor that the makers of the pill openly tell you about. You seem to not even admit that the .1% is possible.

You don’t seem to recognize the human element to all of this. Many, many women take the birth control pill incorrectly. Is this the pill’s fault? No, but that is not the point. Furthermore, if one takes the pill daily, but at different times of the day, it CAN result in fertilization. I have had multiple doctors tell me this, and since they were dispensing birth control, I will assume they were not pro-lifers. However if the woman has been on the pill for years the baby may not be able to attach to the uterus. (let’s not quibble about the use of the word “baby” here). Thus the baby is aborted.

Perhaps you are right, if the pill is taking 100% correctly the circumstances described above would never occur. I’m willing to accept that hypothetically, even though the makers of the pill do not even say that. But I can assure you that there are thousands of woman who do not take the pill properly 100% of the time. That is where your argument starts to fail, IMHO.

Oh, by the way, I got pregnant while using the pill. It was due to my own human error. Thanks be to God–my now 18 year old baby is my best friend and a precious addition to this world.

 

[1ke]

Hey everyone, Jack’s posts are off topic and none of his arguments are at all relevant.

The Church’s teaching against contraception is **not **based on “effectiveness” of the method.

Nor is it based on whether the Pill is abortifacient or not. Even if the pill is not abortifacient (I am not conceding that BTW), it is still **contraceptive **and therefore intrinsically disordered and objectively gravely sinful.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Hey everyone, Jack’s posts are off topic and none of his arguments are at all relevant.

The Church’s teaching against contraception is **not **based on “effectiveness” of the method.

Nor is it based on whether the Pill is abortifacient or not. Even if the pill is not abortifacient (I am not conceding that BTW), it is still **contraceptive **and therefore intrinsically disordered and objectively gravely sinful.

Agreed, 100%. Sorry to the OP for the off topic portion of the thread. I hope someone answered your question to your satisfaction along the way? Please ask if you need more clarification!

Jennifer

 

[Dwyer]

I don’t think your going to get all the answers about human life from a medical school textbook, Doc Hawkins. There are other areas of knowledge that affect human societies besides science. Aristotle said we know something is something because it has a particular Matter and Form. A corn seed, for instance, for all intents and purposes, is corn. We know the corn seed won’t grow into a rose, or a bear, or a pine tree. The corn seed has corn Matter. It won’t become anything else except corn. The same with a human embryo. The human embryo won’t grow into a rose, a bear, or a pine tree. It has human Matter. It won’t become anthing else except a human being.

When the corn seed is fertilized, it becomes alive. It grows new cells, and starts to take the Form of a corn plant. But because it has Corn Matter, and won’t become anything else besides corn, we know that the new plant is corn from its very beginning. Ditto for the Human embryo.

Scientifically, human life begins from conception. It is a proven fact. It doesn’t take an M.D. to figure that out.

Maybe, Doc, you’re the one who has been manipulated by others. Maybe the B.M.A. has brainwashed you. Maybe BBC World, Prime, World News, and Radio 1, 2,3, 4, and the rest of them, and watching too much Till Death Do Us Part idiotic British TV shows have brainwashed you from childhood into a Liberal Democratic tradition mixed with a hefty dose of Fabian Socialism into believing that nothing can be scientifically proven right or wrong and that pro-life people are “extreme.” I am not saying that to sound mean. The same can be said about American television. Think about it. Your view is an example the relativism that Pope Benedict XVI has preached against. Read David Hume. He proved that science can’t prove anything.

You can only go so far with science. Science won’t tell you whether invading another country, stealing from, exploiting other people, murdering, or executing someone else is wrong. You need to look at other human faculties to decide these issues. Religion and morality are important. And if you are a Catholic Christian, you believe the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, has the ultimate say on these matters. Not some medical textbook.

I once heard a Holocaust survivor say, and I have this on video tape, that medical doctors, of all professions, were the most numerous of any profession that joined Hitler’s S.S. I don’t know what that says about the medical profession, at least in Germany. Maybe there is something rotten in Denmark about it. (O.K., that was kind of a cheap shot, but that man really did say that, and I had to mention it).

 

[Em_in_FL]

TY for the really helpful contribution - NOT
as for people who can’t tell the difference between “potential” and actuality, I give up discussing with them
they have their own propaganda to peddle, and no doubt need to feel self-righteous I guess?
once you have shown you understand the refutations of the “hostile endometrium” theory Jennifer, we might be able to have a discussion about the science
until we can swap citations etc ad nauseum thus only proving one thing, selective undiscriminatory citation can be used to prove almost anything!
have you turned science on it’s head BTW and managed to prove a negative???

If you’d like more “scientific data” I’ll provide a nice little quote here…

I found it on this LINK… which is the package insert of a popular form of oral birth control…

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Oral Contraception
Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and *the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).*Receptor binding studies, as well as studies in animals and humans, have shown that norgestimate and 17-deacetyl norgestimate, the major serum metabolite, combine high progestational activity with minimal intrinsic androgenicity.90-93Norgestimate, in combination with ethinyl estradiol, does not counteract the estrog

HTH!

 

[Em_in_FL]

the combined oral contraceptive pil is not an abortifacient - that is a myth spread to scare people out of using it (and it seems to be quite effective)

I love it when the truth comes out, don’t you???
(see my above post )

 

[PLAL]

Read Dr. Janet Smith’s “Contraception Why Not”…

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

 

[BigE]

This whole debate still confuses me.

Both NFP and contraception have the same intent - to avoid having children.

Yet somehow contraception is wrong because “it is not natural” and it blocks God’s will.

1. I mean we’re talking God here. I would think if he wants someone to have kids - a little condom can’t stop the creator of the universe. Right? So then it becomes wrong perhaps because we’re “actively” trying to prevent his will. But so is NFP, just not as hard? Is that the issue? Or does it then boil down to this whole “natural” issue?
2. What does “natural” mean anyways? And when does it apply? Thousands of people die every year riding in autombiles and flying in planes. Neither of those activities are “natural” to us. We could save thousands of children, AND improve the environment if the church insisted everyone walk to their destinantions.

Obviously, I really struggle with this teaching.

 

[Chancellare]

This whole debate still confuses me.

Both NFP and contraception have the same intent - to avoid having children.

Yet somehow contraception is wrong because “it is not natural” and it blocks God’s will.

1. I mean we’re talking God here. I would think if he wants someone to have kids - a little condom can’t stop the creator of the universe. Right? So then it becomes wrong perhaps because we’re “actively” trying to prevent his will. But so is NFP, just not as hard? Is that the issue? Or does it then boil down to this whole “natural” issue?

'2) What does “natural” mean anyways? And when does it apply? Thousands of people die every year riding in autombiles and flying in planes. Neither of those activities are “natural” to us. We could save thousands of children, AND improve the environment if the church insisted everyone walk to their destinantions.

Obviously, I really struggle with this teaching.

I also struggle with differentiating what is the significance of “natural” and “un-natural”. Until I came across a commentary made by a priest. He said:

Let’s say God designed and created the flashlight and therefore specified its intended use.

So when it is used to hammer a nail, that is not the “natural” use and therefore a lot of unintended problems will happen to the flashlight and the other things associated with such “un-natural” use.

So long as man uses the flashlight according to its “design” limits, everything is ok.

This I suppose explains the significance between ‘natural’ and "un-natural’.

 

[1ke]

Both NFP and contraception have the same intent - to avoid having children.

This is correct. The church does not teach it is wrong to space, plan, or avoid children for just reasons.

Yet somehow contraception is wrong because “it is not natural” and it blocks God’s will.

This is incorrect. Contraception is not wrong because “it’s not natural” nor is it wrong because it “blocks God’s will”. This may be the way some people attempt to explain the wrongness of contraception, but it is not the Church’s teaching.

1. I mean we’re talking God here. I would think if he wants someone to have kids - a little condom can’t stop the creator of the universe. Right?

Thou shall not tempt the Lord your God. This line of reasoning was the reasoning the Devil used when tempting Jesus in the desert.

So then it becomes wrong perhaps because we’re “actively” trying to prevent his will. But so is NFP, just not as hard? Is that the issue? Or does it then boil down to this whole “natural” issue?

No.

1. What does “natural” mean anyways? And when does it apply? Thousands of people die every year riding in autombiles and flying in planes. Neither of those activities are “natural” to us. We could save thousands of children, AND improve the environment if the church insisted everyone walk to their destinantions.

Obviously, I really struggle with this teaching.

Yes, you are correct. But, the Church’s teaching is not based on “being natural”. Please re-read my earlier post.

 

[StCsDavid]

This whole debate still confuses me.

Both NFP and contraception have the same intent - to avoid having children.

Yet somehow contraception is wrong because “it is not natural” and it blocks God’s will.

1. I mean we’re talking God here. I would think if he wants someone to have kids - a little condom can’t stop the creator of the universe. Right? So then it becomes wrong perhaps because we’re “actively” trying to prevent his will. But so is NFP, just not as hard? Is that the issue? Or does it then boil down to this whole “natural” issue?
2. What does “natural” mean anyways? And when does it apply? Thousands of people die every year riding in autombiles and flying in planes. Neither of those activities are “natural” to us. We could save thousands of children, AND improve the environment if the church insisted everyone walk to their destinantions.

The argument really isn’t about natural versus unnatural. It’s about purpose of marital relations and the will of the participants. Remember, contraception wasn’t invented to prevent pregnancy. A 100% fool-proof method already exists. It’s called abstinence. Contraception was invented to allow couples to have sex whenever they wanted with no regard for the procreative purpose of the act.

Suppose you went up to receive holy communion wearing a motorcycle helmet with the face shield down. You would in essence be saying, “I want to be one with you Lord, but I don’t want to receive you totally, but please give me all the grace that I should be receiving anyway.” In the same way, when a couple uses contraception they are withholding a very important part of their being from the other person.

NFP honors the dignity of the person and the marital relationship. It is not contraceptive.

I encourage you to read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to gain further clarity on this.

 

[jack_hawkins]

If you’d like more “scientific data” I’ll provide a nice little quote here…

I found it on this LINK… which is the package insert of a popular form of oral birth control…
HTH!

Yes, the issue of inserts has already been covered:thumbsup: thanks for trying though
if you go into the “pro-life” argument in depth with a working knowledge of reproductive physiology, pharmacology and the scientific method in general you will realise that their argument is at best misleading, at worst an out and out lie.

 

[jack_hawkins]

BigE, I really don’t think anyone can give you a proper rationale for how ABC is wrong and NFP is OK, because there isn’t one.
All the arguments revolve in a confused sort of way around God’s will and being natural and then the barrier to full intimacy argument (which is just a re-hash of the unnatural/not God’s will argument when you analyse it).

 

[BigE]

The argument really isn’t about natural versus unnatural. It’s about purpose of marital relations and the will of the participants. Remember, contraception wasn’t invented to prevent pregnancy. A 100% fool-proof method already exists. It’s called abstinence. Contraception was invented to allow couples to have sex whenever they wanted with no regard for the procreative purpose of the act.

So would contraception be ok if the church defined its use as appropriate just within marriage?

And abstinence IS 100% foolproof to avert pregancy - but that same foolproof plan against pregnancy does not allow one to fully express their love to their partner. Is the love between two people less important that the procreative aspect of their marriage?

 

[wanner47]

Yes, the issue of inserts has already been covered:thumbsup: thanks for trying though
if you go into the “pro-life” argument in depth with a working knowledge of reproductive physiology, pharmacology and the scientific method in general you will realise that their argument is at best misleading, at worst an out and out lie.

So let me get this straight, Jack – the information found on the inserts of birth control pills is “at best misleading, at worst an out and out lie”?

And the FDA, filled to the brim with scientists who have “working knowledge of reproductive physiology, pharmacology and the scientific method in general” approved such information to be included with BCPs?

Is that what you’re asserting?

 

[wanner47]

So would contraception be ok if the church defined its use as appropriate just within marriage?

Actually, the Anglican church did this back in 1930.

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

This resolution “opened the floodgates” to other Christian denominations allowing the use of birth control within marriage, and look where it’s led us.

And abstinence IS 100% foolproof to avert pregancy - but that same foolproof plan against pregnancy does not allow one to fully express their love to their partner. Is the love between two people less important that the procreative aspect of their marriage?

Why don’t you ask St. Paul?

1 Corinthians 7:5

Do not deprive each other,** except perhaps by mutual consent for a time**, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. (bolding mine)

As you can see, mutual periodic abstinence – such as what is undertaken in NFP – is perfectly licit within the bounds of a sacramental marriage.

 

[StCsDavid]

BigE, I really don’t think anyone can give you a proper rationale for how ABC is wrong and NFP is OK, because there isn’t one.
All the arguments revolve in a confused sort of way around God’s will and being natural and then the barrier to full intimacy argument (which is just a re-hash of the unnatural/not God’s will argument when you analyse it).

Mr. Hawkins you appear to put science ahead of faith in order of importance in determining the right or wrong of a particular action. You completely dismiss the natural law and give the impression that God’s will is a punch line versus an objective reality. That is the popular way in secular Europe and here in the States. Certainty requires the least intellectual exertion or thought. It’s a little too lazy for my taste, but to each his own. I do take offense at your propensity to make sport of faith.

You seem like a reasonably bright fellow, and I’m disappointed that your scientific citing is terribly lacking and from what I’ve read thus far, simply inaccurate. The rationale that ABC is evil is based upon both faith and science. I suspect a blind spot in your ability to reason this is out exists. One’s lived experience or simply a desire to continue an objectively evil practice often prevents one from a careful examination of the truth.

 

[BigE]

I apologize, this is a cut & paste from a previous post of mine on this same topic… I’m sort on time today…

---

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.

Why must the the marriage act be both unitive and procreative at the same time?

Isn’t that in itself a “subjective” determination of what the act should be?

Is the opposite a sin too? One spouse does not love the other but still has sex. The procreative act is open, but the unitive is closed?

 

[calchiquita]

Maybe I missed it, but did anyone bring up that you are not supposed to use NFP for selfish reasons? If health and finances aren’t a concern, you should be open to life.