Contraception

[RhetorTheo]

I'd like to point out, as an actual USER of NFP, that we do not use it as a loophole. We use it because we believe that contraception is wrong

You use NFP to prevent conception because you believe that taking steps to avoid conception (ie, contra-ception) is wrong?

not only because the church says it is wrong (which in and of itself is enough reason), but for a myriad of other reasons that people have already mentioned on this thread. We use it because we believe that sex is supposed to be an act of giving and love, and not an act of selfishness.

Please explain how taking extreme measures to prevent conception, while enjoying the physical aspects of sex, makes it "giving and love" and "not an act of selfishness."

We use our time of abstinense as a time of prayer and as a time to build our relaionship. As a result our marriage is not focused on sex, but on God and each other.

You don't need to use NFP to do that. You could do that using ABC, or no birth control at all.

We are open to life. We acknowledge that God could grant us the gift of parenthood at any time, because there are no guarentees when it comes to a womans cycle.

There are no guarantees for couples using condoms, the Pill, or other methods of ABC. Are they "open to life," too? If not, why not? Please define "open to life."

With all that said, NFP can be used in a sinful and selfish manner. It should not be used because a couple just doesn't want children so they can "enjoy life."

Amen!

NFP should be used with care and thoughtfulness. And the beauty of it is that every month those who practice it must think about whether or not they are ready to be parents.

But those who use condoms or the pill have to think about it daily. Isn't that better?

NFP should not be used for selfish reasons - to have a certain kind of lifestyle, or to abdicate the responsibility of parenthood to enjoy a carefree life. The reasons for using NFP should be serious.

What are serious reasons? You mean you would be bankrupt if you had another child, or would die?

Most people don't use NFP as a "loophole." People generally use loopholes to make their lives easier or to avoid "punishment"; abstaining from sex is not "easy," it's a sacrifice and difficult - someone seeking an easy way out or a way to enjoy sex without being "sinful" is unlikely to find NFP a solution because it's sacrificial and somene seeking a loophole probably doesn't have a sacrificial mentality.

It is a loophole. It makes lives easier than having 15 children, only having sex when you want to have children, only marrying when you are in your late 30's so you don't have 15 children, being abstainant, etc.

Those who do begin using NFP simply because they aren't "allowed" to use contraception often find themselves changing their mentality, becoming open to life, and willing to accept God's plan for their parenthood.

So you know people who started using NFP thinking they would abort if they got pregnant, then decided they would keep the child if they got pregnant? If not, how does one become "open to life" while using NFP to prevent pregnancy? How are you defining "open to life"?

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I'd like to point out, as an actual USER of NFP,

Hey, smartie, what makes you think we aren't using NFP ?

I for one have never dissed it as a contraceptive method.

As as long as Miss Selby gets to use intution, so do I.

My guess is you'd feel the same about sex, kids and sprituality if you were using a condom.

This stuff comes for the heart not the , well you get the point.

 

[Miss Shelby]

This stuff comes for the heart not the , well you get the point.

That's exactly what the advocates of NFP are saying. Are you not reading or is the point lost on you?

And yes, since this is a discussion and not a debate, I will use my intution as I see fit. Other people in this thread are making very ignorant and presumptuous comments about the state of people's minds when using NFP, so is it so wrong that I throw out the possibility that maybe it's because people lack instruction and understanding about it that they have a problem with it?

Michelle

 

[Miss Shelby]

Hey, smartie, what makes you think we aren't using NFP ?

I don't know Charlie. Are you and have you, and have you been instructed by your parish or diocese on it?

Michelle

 

[Franze]

IMO we have to see that artificial contraception is bad, because the pregnancy isn´t a sickness, think about it, we are born thank to a sickness

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I don't know Charlie. Are you and have you, and have you been instructed by your parish or diocese on it?

Michelle

I was an NFP'er for 10 or 11 years.

And no the point of unity verus procreative sex is not long on me, I just don't see which contraceptive method you use makes a diffeence.

(Abortive methods off the table for this discussion)

...And when did I suggest, say or intimate that you shouldn't use intution ?
Use anything you want, I just wanted to know if had access to some scholarship on the subject.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Those who do begin using NFP simply because they aren't "allowed" to use contraception often find themselves changing their mentality, becoming open to life, and willing to accept God's plan for their parenthood.

I was an NFP'er for 10 or 11 years.

While Charlie's views may well be the natural and inevitable result of the NFP mentality, I continue to disagree with your definitions of "open to life" and "willing to accept God's plan for their parenthood."

 

[Paul S]

Perhaps Charlie's overall views are the result of the NFP teaching and mentality?

So you're saying that perhaps the Church is wrong when she allows NFP for grave reasons?

The Church says NFP, for grave reasons, is moral. Artificial contraception never is. Why? Because the Church says so, and, as Catholics, that should be reason enough.

 

[Filia Mariae]

Why must this always degenerate into a debate? A seeker comes here asking for help and everybody has to throw in their two cents about why the Church is wrong. Guess what? We already know who disagrees with the Church. Perhaps this thread wherein someone is asking for help understanding Church teaching is not the best place for people to vent their lack of understanding.

 

[RhetorTheo]

So you're saying that perhaps the Church is wrong when she allows NFP for grave reasons?

No, I'm only disputing the twisting of the various requirements, such as "open to life" and "grave reasons," to say that it's okay to use it for the same reasons ABC'ers use ABC, that is, to subordinate the primary end of the marital act to other ends. (In fact, to reject the primary end and to embrace only the other ends.) It's a loyalty to the Church's teachings akin to the SSPX's loyalty to the Pope.

 

[Miss Shelby]

No, I'm only disputing the twisting of the various requirements, such as "open to life" and "grave reasons," to say that it's okay to use it for the same reasons ABC'ers use ABC, that is, to subordinate the primary end of the marital act to other ends. (In fact, to reject the primary end and to embrace only the other ends.)

It's my understanding that finacial cirucmstances qualify as grave reasons. I am not sure what else would, but if I may be frank, isn't that a personal thing?

What you and others here seem to be doing is presumptuously assuming to know people's reasons for using NFP.

Michelle

 

[Paul S]

No, I'm only disputing the twisting of the various requirements, such as "open to life" and "grave reasons," to say that it's okay to use it for the same reasons ABC'ers use ABC, that is, to subordinate the primary end of the marital act to other ends. (In fact, to reject the primary end and to embrace only the other ends.) It's a loyalty to the Church's teachings akin to the SSPX's loyalty to the Pope.

If the end of NFP is to put off having children forever, that's just as sinful as ABC. "Grave reasons" may be used to delay it for a time, such as financial or health reasons. The couple must still be open to life and having more children, or they sin by using NFP.

 

[RhetorTheo]

If the end of NFP is to put off having children forever, that's just as sinful as ABC. "Grave reasons" may be used to delay it for a time, such as financial or health reasons. The couple must still be open to life and having more children, or they sin by using NFP.

I agree with each thing you said, but I suspect we mean different things by each of those sentences. And the way that "open to life," "grave reasons," "selfishness," etc. are used in contradictory ways depending upon whether the persons being spoke of are ABCers or NFPers makes me wonder if they are being used as anything but window dressing.

 

[Paul S]

What does the Church say about NFP?

Humanae Vitae

Recourse to Infertile Periods
​

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

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. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Why must this always degenerate into a debate? A seeker comes here asking for help and everybody has to throw in their two cents about why the Church is wrong. Guess what? We already know who disagrees with the Church. Perhaps this thread wherein someone is asking for help understanding Church teaching is not the best place for people to vent their lack of understanding.

1) I don't like the characterization the i'm venting

2) I don't like the characteization the i don't understand.

3) I don't even like the characterization that I'm debating.

Reasonable people can come to differing stands on this because the Chruch is of more than one mind, in its writings and proculimations.

This is why we have a problem coming a like mind as a laity.

 

[Miss Shelby]

2) I don't like the characteization the i don't understand.

That characterization was a generalization. I didn't say it was you. I didn't say that it was anyone in particular, but made the observation that perhaps ignorance could be a factor. Especially when most of the people who use NFP do not describe it as taking a contraceptive approach to having sex. (i.e. some have said they use it because they are trying to conceive)

And if the Church says that one can be open to human life and for licit reasons use NFP, then I am not going to argue with that.

Michelle

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

That characterization was a generalization. I didn't say it was you. I didn't say that it was anyone in particular, but made the observation that perhaps ignorance could be a factor. Especially when most of the people who use NFP do not describe it as taking a contraceptive approach to having sex. (i.e. some have said they use it because they are trying to conceive)

And if the Church says that one can be open to human life and for licit reasons use NFP, then I am not going to argue with that.

Michelle

I'm going to be as arms length as possible with this because it is my intention not to torque you off.

If you believe the Church saying that NFP is moral in certain defined situations and that is what Humanae Vitae says, then IMO you have to believe Humanae Vitae does not say what it means when it is speaking of he unity/procreatie bond being unbreakable.

This is because, IMO, you are withholding your reproductive self from your spouse during all acts of sex when using NFP. This is the same problem Humanae Vitae ascribes to ABC when it describes ABC as immoral.

The document is, therefore, unclear as to the morality for contraception and the ethical reasons behind it. The chruch is, therefore , unclear on it teaching.

And, IMO, no amount of spin, convuluted logic or flowery testimony as to the glories of NFP can charnge this apparent inconsistancy.

 

[Rising_Suns]

I'm going to be as arms length as possible with this because it is my intention not to torque you off.

If you believe the Church saying that NFP is moral in certain defined situations and that is what Humanae Vitae says, then IMO you have to believe Humanae Vitae does not say what it means when it is speaking of he unity/procreatie bond being unbreakable.

This is because, IMO, you are withholding your reproductive self from your spouse during all acts of sex when using NFP. This is the same problem Humanae Vitae ascribes to ABC when it describes ABC as immoral.

The document is, therefore, unclear as to the morality for contraception and the ethical reasons behind it. The chruch is, therefore , unclear on it teaching.

And, IMO, no amount of spin, convuluted logic or flowery testimony as to the glories of NFP can charnge this apparent inconsistancy.

Cosmic,
For some reason you do not understand the teachings of the Church on contraception, and you have made this clear since the first day you came here. But Cosmic, there is a point beyond which one should submit to the teachings of the Church and refrain from publicizing their disagreements--which can potentially cause other souls to fall into sin, and thus bring judgement upon yourself.

Please be carefull of this.

Blessings,

-Davide

 

[Miss Shelby]

I'm going to be as arms length as possible with this because it is my intention not to torque you off.

If you believe the Church saying that NFP is moral in certain defined situations and that is what Humanae Vitae says, then IMO you have to believe Humanae Vitae does not say what it means when it is speaking of he unity/procreatie bond being unbreakable.

This is because, IMO, you are withholding your reproductive self from your spouse during all acts of sex when using NFP. This is the same problem Humanae Vitae ascribes to ABC when it describes ABC as immoral.

The document is, therefore, unclear as to the morality for contraception and the ethical reasons behind it. The chruch is, therefore , unclear on it teaching.

And, IMO, no amount of spin, convuluted logic or flowery testimony as to the glories of NFP can charnge this apparent inconsistancy.

Charlie you are not torqueing me off and I apologize if I seem a little abrasive, it is certainly not personal.

But it's not a sin is it to not have sex? It's a sin if one or both withhold sexual love from one another indefintlely, but I don't think that means that the couple should not NOT have sex if it's a mutual thing and they pray together in place of it?

Michelle

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Cosmic,
For some reason you do not understand the teachings of the Church on contraception, and you have made this clear since the first day you came here. But Cosmic, there is a point beyond which one should submit to the teachings of the Church and refrain from publicizing their disagreements--which can potentially cause other souls to fall into sin, and thus bring judgement upon yourself.

Please be carefull of this.

Blessings,

-Davide

Which teaching am I supposed to follow ? The one where its okay to use NFP or the one where NFP is just another contraceptive ?

Everybody whats to make this about me and my ilk being unable to submit to true teaching.

Me and my ilk can't figure out which is the true teaching.

I've alway thought this was more about questionable theology then obiedence.