contraception vs nfp

[twoangels]

Originally Posted by Corki

It's because the purpose is only part of the equation. Yes, you can use both contraception and NFP for the purpose of delaying your next pregnancy. There is nothing wrong with the intent to delay having a child for a good reason.

But contraception interrupts the marital act itself. It renders it no longer unitive nor ordered to procreation. With NFP, whenever the couple engage in the marital act, it remains unitive and ordered to procreation.

I don't see how using contraceptives renders the act no longer unitive, but I suppose this gets into the older debate we've had on this forum as to what the unitive aspect refers to.

[twoangels]

Originally Posted by igor1980

That's what I can't understand. Isn't the INTENT of NFP to have sex without having babies? Why it is ok?

The intent of NFP is to determine when you ought to abstain from sex in order to avoid getting pregnant. Charting does not prevent babies. Having sex on your infertile days does not prevent babies. Only abstaining from sex on your fertile days prevents babies.

So think of it this way. If you used a condom every time you had sex, you are only gaining the contraceptive effectiveness on your fertile days. With NFP, you are simply aware that your fertility as a woman is not constant and instead of contracepting, you abstain.

It is perfectly ok to have sex without intending to have babies. It is not ok to thwart the reproductive functions of sexuality. As such, the only moral alternative is to abstain. NFPjust tells you when to abstain.

[etmom]

Originally Posted by twoangels

The abortificiant properties of the birth control pill were not known at the time it was condemned by the Church. As such, such properties are simply an added fact. Even if ovulation were completely surpressed, it would be immoral.

I was wondering the other day that if a medication was invented that didn't supress ovulation, but simply regulated the cycle. Let's say when you took it, it ensured you ovulated on CD15, each and every month, always got your period on CD28. It did not interfere with ovulation or implantation. It would simplify NFP, take the uncertainty away and long periods of abstainance because you could easily determine which exact days to abstain.

I'm wondering if that would be immoral?

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by twoangels

I don't see how using contraceptives renders the act no longer unitive, but I suppose this gets into the older debate we've had on this forum as to what the unitive aspect refers to.

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....57&postcount=8

Angels, when you are actively recjecting as aspect of your partner, in this case, their fertitily as God has given that to them, then it is not a unitive act

Rejection is not Unitive, it is devisive.



If your spouse said that they loved you, but didn't like your face. Suppose they said that they didn't like your face as God gave it to you and wanted you to wear a bag over your face during the marital act, would you feel united with them?, that they are accepting of you, the whole you?

The exact same holds true in regards to fertitilty, it is a Gift from God to be accepted as part of the whole person, exactly as God gave the Gift.

Contraception is the bag of the face of fertility. NFP is the acceptance of each spouses fertitilty exactly as God gave it, with no changes, just fully and loving acceptance.

Does that make sense?

[SusanneT]

Originally Posted by etmom

I was wondering the other day that if a medication was invented that didn't supress ovulation, but simply regulated the cycle. Let's say when you took it, it ensured you ovulated on CD15, each and every month, always got your period on CD28. It did not interfere with ovulation or implantation. It would simplify NFP, take the uncertainty away and long periods of abstainance because you could easily determine which exact days to abstain.

I'm wondering if that would be immoral?

That perfectly illustrates my problem with NFP. it always seems to me that a contraceptive mindset is excused by the fact that the procreative nature of the actual act is not interfered with its all just down to timing. But the more scientific it all becomes the closer to contraception it gets and we are endless lead that way by claims of it effectiveness.

What if a method of NFP that was 100% effective and only needed say 5 days abstinance were invented. Would it be okay to have sex every other day ? The fact is that in many cases (including my own) when we use NFP - we just don't want to get pregnant but we do want to have sex and NFP is the only alternative to the full time abstinance. White although many managed before marriage is understandably difficult within it.

[sw85]

Originally Posted by SusanneT

That perfectly illustrates my problem with NFP. it always seems to me that a contraceptive mindset is excused by the fact that the procreative nature of the actual act is not interfered with its all just down to timing. But the more scientific it all becomes the closer to contraception it gets and we are endless lead that way by claims of it effectiveness.

What if a method of NFP that was 100% effective and only needed say 5 days abstinance were invented. Would it be okay to have sex every other day ? The fact is that in many cases (including my own) when we use NFP - we just don't want to get pregnant but we do want to have sex and NFP is the only alternative to the full time abstinance. White although many managed before marriage is understandably difficult within it.

The answer is the same as it is now. NFP cannot be disordered *in and of itself* because there is nothing ethically offensive in the act. NFP *can* offensive when the intention itself is disordered, i.e., when one is using it without a good reason.

[SusanneT]

Originally Posted by etmom

I was wondering the other day that if a medication was invented that didn't supress ovulation, but simply regulated the cycle. Let's say when you took it, it ensured you ovulated on CD15, each and every month, always got your period on CD28. It did not interfere with ovulation or implantation. It would simplify NFP, take the uncertainty away and long periods of abstainance because you could easily determine which exact days to abstain.

I'm wondering if that would be immoral?

That perfectly illustrates my problem with NFP. it always seems to me that a contraceptive mindset is excused by the fact that the procreative nature of the actual act is not interfered with its all just down to timing. But the more scientific it all becomes the closer to contraception it gets and we are endless lead that way by claims of it effectiveness.

What if a method of NFP that was 100% effective and only needed say 5 days abstinance were invented. Would it be okay to have sex every other day ? The fact is that in many cases (including my own) when we use NFP - we just don't want to get pregnant but we do want to have sex and NFP is the only alternative to the full time abstinance. White although many managed before marriage is understandably difficult within it.

[searching04]

Originally Posted by Brendan

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....57&postcount=8

Angels, when you are actively recjecting as aspect of your partner, in this case, their fertitily as God has given that to them, then it is not a unitive act

Rejection is not Unitive, it is devisive.



If your spouse said that they loved you, but didn't like your face. Suppose they said that they didn't like your face as God gave it to you and wanted you to wear a bag over your face during the marital act, would you feel united with them?, that they are accepting of you, the whole you?

The exact same holds true in regards to fertitilty, it is a Gift from God to be accepted as part of the whole person, exactly as God gave the Gift.

Nope, not even close. Not even in the same ballpark.

Contraception is the bag of the face of fertility. NFP is the acceptance of each spouses fertitilty exactly as God gave it, with no changes, just fully and loving acceptance.

Does that make sense?

[Mary Gail 36]

Originally Posted by manualman

The nice thing about NFP is that you rarely need to obsess over the "seriousness" of your reason to avoid. Those difficult times of abstinance when you don't want to have a way of stripping away phony rationalizations and exposing the truth of the situation.

An awful lot of NFP couples have "Oh what the heck" babies. Most ABC using couples don't even comprehend the phrase, much less have any. It's a physical manifestation of the inner difference between the two sexual worldviews.

I always appreciate your explanations of NFP vs ABC.

Funny, in high school when we learned about NFP, the objections were "The Church can't tell us when to have or not have relations, NO FAIR"

On CAF, the objection I see often, that I never saw before is "Hey, with NFP the couple can still have sex! NO FAIR! NFP is exactly like ABC because the couple is still being intimate." I don't get it.

With NFP you work with the body's natural rhythms. Some days we are fertile, some days we aren't. To avoid pregnancy, the couple avoids intimacy on days they could conceive.

With ABC, they remove the days they can conceive. Sex becomes only about self satisfaction.

[domestichippie]

Originally Posted by Mary Gail 36

I always appreciate your explanations of NFP vs ABC.

Funny, in high school when we learned about NFP, the objections were "The Church can't tell us when to have or not have relations, NO FAIR"

On CAF, the objection I see often, that I never saw before is "Hey, with NFP the couple can still have sex! NO FAIR! NFP is exactly like ABC because the couple is still being intimate." I don't get it.

With NFP you work with the body's natural rhythms. Some days we are fertile, some days we aren't. To avoid pregnancy, the couple avoids intimacy on days they could conceive.

With ABC, they remove the days they can conceive. Sex becomes only about self satisfaction.

Please don't thinkbim trying yo debate the issue. This is something that has bothered me even as a Protestant. Ive been taught all my lifethe Abc is the responsible thing to do and I'm trying to understand

[Abu]

Domestichippie #18
wouldn't nfp still be a an attempt to thwart fertility?
Also what is really an appropriate reason to put off children?
#22
Would it then be wrong for a couple to use nfp to not have s family simply because they don't want more or any children?

Very wrong for “no children” and very wrong without a just/defensible/serious reason.

From post #29:
Humanae Vitae 10 states: “seriis causis” (serious reasons); HV 16 states: “iustae…causae” (just reasons) and “argumenta…honesta et gravia (worthy and weighty justifications), as well as “probabiles rationes” (defensible reasons) and “iustas rationes” (just reasons).

The real issue in this thread is the reality that contraception is gravely evil and that NBR is a worthy endeavour for serious, just, reasons. The individual couple has to prayerfully and with counseling, if needed, decide what for them constitute just, serious reasons.

Natural Family Planning - Serious Motives
Answered by Fr. Richard Hogan, NFP Outreach
‘Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving "from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions" (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love.’
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/n...us_motives.htm

[MotherAtHeart]

Originally Posted by manualman

In the modern world we are terribly shallow. We think we know it all and that we can ignore the soul and the effects our behavior has on it. But this damage to our soul from contraception comes home to roost over time. It results in a cheapening of sexual intimacy that tends to cause spouses to view each other selfishly instead of givingly.

This all results from our failure to appreciate the truly deep and subtle beauty God designed into our souls and bodies as an interconnected whole. The proof is EVERYWHERE in the society around us that has rejected this teaching.

I just had to say I loved your response. It's getting to the root of the problem. And it can be applied to so many other things that we do. Choosing to sin has an effect on our soul we like to ignore.

[Corki]

Originally Posted by twoangels

I don't see how using contraceptives renders the act no longer unitive, but I suppose this gets into the older debate we've had on this forum as to what the unitive aspect refers to.

I was away from this thread for a while and see this wasn't answered. You are right, it's about the definition of unitive. The unitive aspect of marriage is the self-giving and bonding aspect. It's the "one flesh" aspect of marriage. Contraception is, at best, only partially self-giving. This is really obvious when you speak of barrier contraceptives which litterally put something between the two bodies.

[For Others]

Is the fact that there is a chance that contraception may fail to prevent pregnancy even relevant?[/quote]

Yes, it is very relevant. With a contraceptive mentality, a couple will often consider the conception of a ensouled human person as a "failure" and seek to remedy said "failure" with the death of a person. God, save us from the scourge of abortion!

[redbirdNY]

Originally Posted by domestichippie

It is my understanding that barrier methods are thought be wrong because they are ...well a barrier.

Chemical contra ception is believed to be abortifacient.

Other methods thwart the purpose of marital relations.

Correct?

How is it that nfp is ok? Does that not also thwart the purpose?

Please explain.

Yes it does however in my opinion, The Vatican allows it since they realize it is impractical to have endless amounts of children........and of course they realize that it is unrealistic to ask married couples to completely abstain from sex.