First, I support the notion that people should abstain from sex before marriage. Yes, it's hard; yes, we have natural urges; but we are not animals and we can control ourselves if we choose to.
Second, Natural Family Planning (NFP) is a scientifically proven method used by practicing Catholics to space children, or to prevent conception due to financial or other reasons. NFP is more effective than any other form of birth control.
There is a BIG difference between NFP and "popping a pill." NFP doesn't and never will induce an abortion. Many current contraceptives procure early abortions.
When discussing the difference between NFP and contraception Pope Paul VI expressed it this way in section 16 of "Humanae Vitae," "In the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter they impede the development of natural processes."
But reasons and arguments aside for the moment, isn’t a good part of the real problem the simple fact that those who raise their voices so stridently against the Church’s teaching simply don’t want to govern their sexual appetites, and therefore, by default become enslaved by them?
God bless.
Sure, we can control ourselves, but it's usually very difficult in the realm of sex because the urges are very strong. It takes great discipline to go from puberty to college graduation without having sex. The urge to have sex can be compared to the urge to eat. While one act is necessary for personal survival and the other isn't, the urges are still similar in many ways. How often do people have the discipline to stay away from chocolate cake or grandma's chocolate chip cookies while on a diet? Many can, many more stumble and indulge occasionally, and still more can't seem to stick to it at all. That's the world -- people are weak. We have to deal with the world.
There is a BIG difference between NFP and "popping a pill." NFP doesn't and never will induce an abortion. Many current contraceptives procure early abortions.
Well, but it's also true that the body of a sexually active woman naturally passes fertilized eggs on a regular basis that never, obviously, implant. The function of the contraceptive vaccine would actually prevent these natural tragedies from occuring, since it works by making all eggs impenetrable to sperm. Could it not be argued, then, that not using this vaccine if a woman is sexually active could be considered immoral? After all, we do employ medicine and technology to reduce the rates of infant deaths that result from natural causes, don't we? Shouldn't we also employ our knowledge to save naturally discarded zygotes? In fact, doesn't our moral code demand it of us?
When discussing the difference between NFP and contraception Pope Paul VI expressed it this way in section 16 of "Humanae Vitae," "In the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter they impede the development of natural processes."
We impede the development of natural processes when we treat diseases and get braces for our children's teeth. Nature is not holy. It often produces horrors that we can prevent by using our intellect and knowledge. All due respect to the pope, by the way.
But reasons and arguments aside for the moment, isn’t a good part of the real problem the simple fact that those who raise their voices so stridently against the Church’s teaching simply don’t want to govern their sexual appetites, and therefore, by default become enslaved by them?
People are enslaved by their sex drives in the same way that they're enslaved by their hunger for food. We don't have a choice whether or not we experience sexual desire. We were obviously made by God to have sex -- and quite a bit of it, judging by the intensity of most folks' libidos. Having sex is the natural outcome of living. Now, understanding that, what do we do about the consequences? I say we should use whatever tools we have available to prevent potential problems.