If God wants to give a baby to a couple, wouldn’t he be able to overcome a condom or the pill as easily as he can overcome NFP? Therefore, aren’t condoms and pills on equal footing with NFP regarding “openness to life”?
I think this link will help answer your question.
Are you seriously trying to justify refusing to be open to life?
The answer in TeresaMarie’s post was a good one.
In summary, anything that blocks conception is wrong, because it is going against nature.
NFP is not a block. It is doing nothing, which is not wrong for a time. It is working in cooperation with nature, not blocking it, or not against it.
Just some thoughts.
God can do anything he wants, but he respects and holds us accountable for our actions and intent.
Therefore, aren’t condoms and pills on equal footing with NFP regarding “openness to life”?
To quote John Bender from The Breakfast Club: “Not even close, Bud.”
With the pill or condoms a pregnancy is an unexpected consequence when a couple is trying to avoid the natural outcome of sexual union. Basically they are ways to try gaming the system to a couple’s advantage. NFP works within the rules of the “game” that God himself designed.
Think of it this way. If I lose weight because I chose not to eat chocolate cake I am working with biology. If instead I binge on chocolate cake and then stick my finger down my throat to throw up I am seeking the enjoyment without the natural consequences. Ones called a diet and requires a sacrifice. The other is a disease. Same with the pill and condoms; I want all the enjoyment without sacrifice.
Sin is a matter of the will, not whether God can do something or not.
And, yes, God can overcome the obstacle, but the fact that you are using an obstacle is why it is sinful.
To put it briefly:
God designed out bodies in such a way that it should ideally function appropriately. Due to Man having fallen, we do have disease and such, which is allowed to be remedied with medicine, because it helps restore our bodies to how God intended them to be. Since we are not the masters of our bodies, we don’t have the right to change how our bodies function for our own personal gain. Using contraception changes the way our bodies work from the way God intended them to work (i.e. it goes against God’s will for how our bodies function), and thus is sinful. God programmed the female body to be fertile only a short time during her monthly cycle and we have methods of checking where a woman is in her monthly cycle (using methods of NFP). This can then be used to abstain from sex (if good reason is had) during times when the woman is fertile to avoid conceiving. This same method can also be used to increase a woman’s chance of conceiving by purposefully engaging in the marital act during the fertile periods. (and there are more infertile periods than fertile periods). Because this method of tracking and abstaining works with the God given function of the human body, instead of altering it to fit our needs, it is morally permissible.
The same can be said about artificial limbs. It is morally permissible to get an artificial limb if reason presents itself, such as having lost it due to disease or injury. However, it is immoral (against God’s will) that we purposefully remove a limb to replace it with an artificial one.
Not to mention that contraceptive pills are a carcinogen in the same class as tobacco smoke (class 5 I believe).
I have to say that I do not believe that this post was an attempt to justify refusing to be open to life but rather a non-Catholic trying to understand our faith using their understanding of contraception, NFP and the mighty power of God in the process of life. But, my response would be that when a person uses a condom or BC they are saying in their heart that they are not open to life during sexual relations. When they use NFP they are abstaining during the times when a pregnancy could occur but there is still a possibility that a life could occur because nothing is done to prevent it artificially. There is a great deal of confusion for many people regarding this area of Catholic teaching and I think that this question is a legitimate attempt to try to understand.
This week is the 45th anniversary of Humanae Vitae (“of Human Life”) – Paul VI’s encyclical on the regulation of birth, 7/25/68
You could use this logic toward anything. What about the Church’s ban on murder? If God wanted that person to be alive, He could just keep that bullet from killing that person. But most of the time, God obeys the laws of nature that He created.