Birth control not allowed but it is allowed

I recently heard on one (more than one really) of the catholic radio talk shows that birth control is not allowed but then they recommend NFP. NFP is a form of birth control; so why is it allowed but not a latex product? The intent and end result are the same and both have chances of failure just one more of a chance then the other. Thanks

Natural birth control is allowed (it’s what the “N” in “NFP” stands for). Artificial birth control is not.

Eating is allowed. Gluttony is not. All things which are allowed can be abused, and abuse is not allowed. ABC is an abuse of birth control.

I understand the wording but birth control is birth control regardless of the method used. What makes natural birth control acceptable and artificial not acceptable? I would think the intent is where the moral issue is actually framed and not the method.

The “moral issue” is whether to interfere with God’s design or to understand the design and cooperate with it.

Artificial Birth Control interferes with His design by either putting a physical barrier between the man and woman or by chemically altering the woman’s physiology.

NFP requires the couple to understand the cycles that God designed, to communicate about the stage of the cycle and to cooperate with that design in deciding when (not if) to have children.

ABC is an attempt to separate the act from the natural consequences. It’s like bulimia, when a person overeats and then induces vomiting. Weight gain is the natural consequence of overeating. Pregnancy is a possible natural consequence of sex. ABC is sexual bulimia.

AFAIK, humans are the only species that has sex for fun. In other species, the female (and sometimes the male as well, as with pandas) must be “in heat” (fertile). God designed human nature differently - we can have sex for fun without attempting to achieve pregnancy. But we must be at least open to the possibility of pregnancy (because no birth control is 100% effective). In this way, we cooperate with our nature, not try to circumvent it.

And, FWIW, NFP also happens to be the most effective form of birth control. According to Wikipedia,

A study of 19,843 women in India (52% Hindu, 27% Muslim, and 21% Christian) using natural family planning to avoid pregnancy had an unexpected pregnancy rate of 0.2 pregnancy/100 women users yearly.

That statistic is equivalent to one unexpected pregnancy per 500 women per year. Nothing short of complete abstinence (or sterilization) is that effective.

That’s 50% more effective than “perfect use” of birth control pills. And without any of the possible side effects of pills (have you ever read a package insert for BCPs??? It’s absolutely terrifying). NFP is 45 TIMES more effective than “typical use” of BCPs (which fail 9% of the time).

According to the World Health Institutes, NFP is twenty TIMES more effective than “perfect use” of condoms, and NINETY TIMES more effective than “typical use” of condoms (which fail 18% of the time - which is almost the same conception rate as if nothing is used). One study put a drop of green dye into the tips of condoms - and green dye got everywhere! Those things are about as effective as sugar pills.

Seriously! Let’s do the basic math. In these studies, men are wearing condoms 100% of the time. But a woman is typically only fertile four days (or so) each month. That’s about 20%. If you use NOTHING, a woman will become pregnant, on average, once in every five sexual encounters (though many will miscarry, often without her knowledge). With condoms, it’s about one in six encounters. Condoms are typically just barely better than nothing at all.

NFP is not only the safest way to regulate family size, but it’s also the most reliable.

the magisterium concluded that God does not require husband and wife to desire to procreate every time they engage in coitus.

if you believe God does require husband and wife to desire procreation every time they engage in coitus, I am interested in how you arrived at your conclusion.

the RCC teaches that a husband and wife must being open to procreation is all that is necessary when engaging in coitus.

to be a little more explicit, why do you believe God wants husbands and wives to engage in coitus only when the woman is in her fertile period?

there are two reasons God made human coitus pleasurable. one reason is to encourage the creation of more souls. the other reason is to make the marital bond stronger.

NFP is simply deciding not to have sex so as to not have children that the mother and father cannot support either emotionally, psychologically, physically or spiritually.

Actually Its artificial birth control that is not allowed

the essential difference between NFP and artificial birth control is enormous and objectively real.

NFP requires its users to cooperate with God and His creation. artificial birth control requires users to defy God and His creation.

for most, that is a huge difference. it is the difference between obeying God and defying God.

Your information is incorrect. All the higher apes, of which humans are but one, can and do engage in recreational sex. The bonobos especially, and their slogan (if they had one) would be: “make LOVE not WAR”. When they are frustrated, they don’t fight, but have some good sex. They have a highly superior ethical system compared to the human behavior.

Statistically speaking, the average human couples have 2.2 children - and humanity already grows at a dangerous and alarming rate (by 2050 there will be about 9 billion people!). Humans also engage in thousands of sexual actions during their lifetimes. So why should anyone be required to be “open” to conception each and every time?

Recreational sex is NOT like bulimia. It is like drinking a zero-calorie Coke, to enjoy the taste and avoid the calorie intake.

The irrationality of this approach becomes crystal clear when even those people who are unable to conceive (missing ovaries and/or uterus) are required to PRETEND that conception is possible and act accordingly. That is sheer irrationality and hypocrisy.

If God would prefer us to have sex only during the estrus, he could have made us just like the other, lower animals. Or he could show his displeasure in some obvious way. But he does not. So the only rational conclusion is that he does not care. A much more rational approach is that God (if he existed) gave us the ability to have extra fun, without the burden of the unintended outcome. Conception is not necessarily a “blessing”. In many cases it is a curse, especially when there are no sufficient resources to provide a decent upbringing for the children.

There might be a few exceptions. But I am correct for the large majority of species.

Statistically speaking, the average human couples have 2.2 children - and humanity already grows at a dangerous and alarming rate (by 2050 there will be about 9 billion people!).

Your statistics are off. 2.2 children is the replacement rate for a first-world population. Humans must be having more than 2.2 children or else the population would remain static.

Humans also engage in thousands of sexual actions during their lifetimes.

I think a lot of humans would envy this statement. But it’s a choice.

So why should anyone be required to be “open” to conception each and every time?

I think that has been answered already, in several ways.

Recreational sex is NOT like bulimia. It is like drinking a zero-calorie Coke, to enjoy the taste and avoid the calorie intake.

That’s a good comeback. OK, ABT is like onanism (withdrawl), which was the only way people could have recreational sex up until the modern age. And we know what happened to Onan.

The irrationality of this approach becomes crystal clear when even those people who are unable to conceive (missing ovaries and/or uterus) are required to PRETEND that conception is possible and act accordingly. That is sheer irrationality and hypocrisy.

Where on earth are you getting that from? A person who is infertile may have sex at any time. A post-menopausal woman or a woman without ovaries is incapable of practicing NFP (which observes fertility signs).

However, a person who is infertile cannot marry in the Church. The infertility would have to come after the marriage.

If God would prefer us to have sex only during the estrus, he could have made us just like the other, lower animals.

And he could have created us with an aversion to any other immoral activity. God permits everything we want to do. That doesn’t mean he approves.

Or he could show his displeasure in some obvious way.

You mean like striking Onan dead?

But he does not. So the only rational conclusion is that he does not care.

THAT’S a *rational *conclusion? God doesn’t care if we shoot up a schoolyard full of children? He won’t stop you.

A much more rational approach is that God (if he existed) gave us the ability to have extra fun, without the burden of the unintended outcome.

So you’re saying that ABC comes from God? And it’s rational to say that ABT comes from God?

Conception is not necessarily a “blessing”. In many cases it is a curse, especially when there are no sufficient resources to provide a decent upbringing for the children.

If the risk of conception is high and someone wants to use birth control without sterilization, the rational choice is NFP. It is the safest and most effective method.

I agree. I don’t understand it, either. BC is BC, whether artificial or natural. Either way, two people are interfering with God’s will.

No, that’s wrong. A person who is infertile may definitely marry, otherwise postmenopausal women could not marry and you know that they do. It’s a person who is impotent (can never have intercourse) who may not marry.

Here’s an answer from the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=297

Ed

So if we want to be pedantic, birth control is allowed. We are allowed to control births to foster responsible parenthood and for serious reasons. Of course how we accomplish this matters, means matter. (The end never justifies the means). Unless you are suggesting that being completely abstinent is a sin (as complete abstinence is also a method of birth control)?

What is not allowed is, contraception, as in, interfering with conception (literally against conception). The natural and biological end of sex is reproduction. When you purposely frustrate this natural end, you are perverting the sexual act. As Catholics we understand that changing the natural* order of things, is bad and outside of what God wants for us. However, we also understand that choosing not to have sex is not frustrating conception, because one is not participating in sex.

*I am using “natural” here to refer to natural law, not “things that occur in nature.”

Thank you for that correction.

Killing is killing. But it’s immoral in some (most) cases, and perfectly acceptable in others (such as self defense when no other recourse is available).

The context in which we do things matters. We can have intercourse within our human nature, or we may use devices or chemicals to alter our sexuality. One context is acceptable, and the other context is not.

But, if someone is trying to avoid pregnancy, I don’t understand why they wouldn’t prefer NFP. It is absolutely the safest and most effective method of birth control. And it’s not immoral. It’s not like the Church is trying to force us to use an unreliable method. The Church presents us with the safest and most reliable method. And that’s a BAD thing??? :confused:

Thanks for posting this Phemie; my head was about to explode. :eek:

Of course you are. But your previous point was that ONLY humans use sex for pleasure. Since the higher apes engage in “sex for pleasure”, I just pointed out that you were mistaken.

I feel sorry for them. But the point is still the same. Only a very few sexual encounters result in conception.

Again, you are mistaken. Non-vaginal intercourse is as old as humanity itself. Thanks to Clinton, the word “BJ” is now a household phrase. (Not much else can be attributed to him as a positive contribution to American life. :))

I have to apologize for not being explicit. What is “forbidden” is any kind of sexual activity where the final ejaculation is outside the vagina. Even if it is just an “empty gesture”, since there can be no successful conception - barring a special miracle. But a miracle could happen in any circumstance, can’t it? My question is simple: “why is there any restriction on the act, when it is impossible to achieve conception”? What is the point of “PRETENDING”? Where is the rationale in this restriction?

This is where the problem starts. If I would be in the position to create something, I would make absolutely certain that its behavior will not be contradictory to my design specification. In other words: “I would CARE about the outcome”. If you allow something that you may not “approve of”, then you do not disapprove of it, either. You are neutral.

As the last resort… why not? Though I am sure that God could come up with a less violent solution. :slight_smile: And if he needed some outside advice, I could give him some.

If he would CARE, he would stop me. If I would be in the position to allow or prevent such an action, I would CARE enough to interfere and prevent it.

No, the safest method is to avoid intra-vaginal ejaculation - coupled with mutual stimulation.

Huge difference. How is having sex, when a woman is not fertile, against God’s will? Is it your opinion that a married couple should only have sex when she is fertile?

No. I think that if a married couple wants to have sex, they should engage whenever they want, whether it is the fertile period or not.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.