Posted on 09/25/2009 1:19:31 PM PDT by NYer
Many people, indeed many Catholics, do not see the moral difference between contraception and NFP. “It does the same thing, doesn’t it?” They will often refer to NFP as “Catholic contraception.” What these people need is a brief lesson is Moral Theology 101. And here it is.
In order for a human act to be moral, three aspects of it must be good: The act itself (the “object” or means), the goal or reason for doing it (the “end”), and the circumstances under which the act is done.
The bedrock principle from which all moral reasoning flows is this: “The end doesn’t justify the means.” Another way of saying this is “We may not do evil (means) that good (end) may come of it.”
Let me give an example. Let’s say my mother-in-law lives with us. This makes living conditions crowded. My two teenaged daughters have to share one bedroom. I would like to create a situation in which each daughter has her own bedroom. This is a good end.
What means do I use to achieve this end? I decide to put arsenic in my mother-in-law’s coffee and bury her behind the garage. Bad means. In this instance, my good end does not justify the bad means.
Another example. Same situation. My mother-in-law’s residence in our home is causing crowding with my daughters, and I want to create an uncrowded situation for them. Again, this is a good end.
So I decide to put an addition onto my house, creating an additional bedroom. Good means.
“But,” someone objects, “what’s the difference? Whether you poison your mother-in-law or put an addition on the house, it does the same thing, right? It eliminates the crowded condition.”
Discussion: In both examples above, the end is the same. Yet in the first example, the act is immoral because of the bad means. Moral to the story: Although two means achieve the same end, one means can be OK, while the other one is not. Just because one means is good doesn’t mean the other means is good.
An application: Family Planning. The goals (end) of limiting/spacing births or achieving pregnancy are both good. But there are good and bad ways (means) of achieving these ends. In the case of limiting births, the good way/means is NFP. The bad way/means is contraception. In the case of achieving pregnancy, the good way is intercourse alone or accompanied by technology to assist intercourse (e.g. LTOT). The bad way/means is use of technology to substitute for intercourse (e.g. IVF).
Contraception and IVF cannot be justified (made right) on the basis of the good end for which they are used. They need to be justified in themselves.
The question then is not “Why are we doing this?” but “What are we doing?” In the case of NFP, the couple are having intercourse at a time when they know that their combined fertility potential is not sufficient to achieve pregnancy. Both spouses are fully present to one another. Both are giving all that they are to one another. It’s just that, at the time of intercourse, all that they give to one another is not enough to achieve pregnancy. The marital act is all that it can be at that time.
In the case of contraception, the couple are having intercourse at a time when they know that the combined fertility potential is or may be sufficient to achieve pregnancy. The couple then introduce into the marital act drugs, chemicals, or mechanical devices that make them not fully present to one another. They are not giving all that they are to one another. They are withholding. The marital act is made less than it can be at that time.
But don’t contraception and NFP both involve intercourse without pregnancy? Yes, they do. But, again, the means of avoiding pregnancy are radically different between the two methods. We must remember that it has never been Catholic teaching that intercourse is only licit when the couple is seeking pregnancy. There has never been a teaching of the Church that couples must seek intercourse only when the wife is fertile, and avoid it when they know she is not.
The wrongness of contraception does not lie in the desire to have marital intimacy while avoiding conception. It lies in contraception’s failure to recognize marital intimacy as something sacred, a work of art, something not to be monkeyed with. One does not put a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
Although NFP is distinct from contraception insofar as they are both means of family planning, it can be like contraception-and wrong-insofar as the circumstances are concerned. This pertains to avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons. A couple using NFP for frivolous reasons as an excuse for selfishness would be guilty of “the contraceptive mentality.” This doesn’t refer to the desire to space or limit the number of children a couple has, but to the selfishness with which the couple carries out that plan. Whenever the Church has spoken of the legitimacy of family planning, it has always done so in the context of the couple having serious reasons.
NFP, used for serious reasons, is morally different from contraception as a means of family planning. But it becomes similar to contraception when it is used selfishly, without serious reasons.
What constitutes a serious reason? That’s the topic for another essay.
In case you were wondering.
NFP is like saying, “Wow, those cookies look great. But sorry, I’m on a diet right now so I better not.”
Contraception is like saying “Wow, those cookies look great. Let me eat them all but then immediately go puke them all up.”
Contraception is sexual bulimia. You seek a natural pleasure, but you frustrate its natural effect.
NFP requires self restraint. That’s is enough to condemn it in societies eyes. What people don’t understand about the Church and it’s understanding of human sexuality would fill the Grand Canyon.
NFP is actually not supposed to be used as a preventative tool. It is actually supposed to be used for a married couple to learn when is the best time to CONCEIVE. Obviously, it will be used for contracepting as well, but that is not its intent. It also brings a couple closer together as they both take part in planning their families.
Another point about about contraceptives. The pill is not a contraceptive, but an abortifacient. The IUD is also an abortifacient. Many contraceptives are really abortifacients in the guise of birth control.
Too sadly true!
It seems to me that using artificial sweeteners to make the cookies would be cheating in the same way. You eat fake food to gratify your tongue with sweetness without getting the nutrition (calories) that normally accompany the sensation. The natural effect of eating or drinking is that you are nourished.
Maybe that’s why studies suggest that those who drink diet soda tend to be more overweight than those who don’t. They unconsciously eat more to compensate for the missing calories.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight
NFP and Contraception: What’s the Difference?
About six or eight kids.
(sorry...couldn’t help myself....)
Some pills don't reliably prevent ovulation, but do prevent implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. That is arguably abortifacient because the egg has already been fertilized. The "mini-pill" or very low dosage pill falls into this category . . . which is why such pills (e.g. Yaz) are marketed not as birth control but for regulation of dysmenorrhea and menorraghia (pain and excessive bleeding during menstruation).
The older pills, especially the heavy hitters like Ortho-Novum and Ovulen 21, absolutely prevent ovulation if taken properly. The multi-phase pills like TriPhasil are not an absolute guarantee because they have to be taken faithfully at the same time every day.
Of course, if people can't follow directions all bets are off.
Why is wanting to allow Nature to take her course "crazy"?
Contraception was uniformly condemned by ALL Christian denominations until 1930, when the Anglicans (why are they always at the bottom of stuff like this) decided it was o.k. 'in certain circumstances' and that opened the floodgates.
There are a lot of couples in their 50s who look around and wish they hadn't contracepted all their kids out of existence while they were in their fertile years . . . there's a T-shirt: "OMG! I forgot to have kids!"
What’s wrong with six or eight kids? It’s very generous all the way around.
Why is wanting to allow Nature to take her course "crazy"?
Contraception was uniformly condemned by ALL Christian denominations until 1930, when the Anglicans (why are they always at the bottom of stuff like this) decided it was o.k. 'in certain circumstances' and that opened the floodgates.
There are a lot of couples in their 50s who look around and wish they hadn't contracepted all their kids out of existence while they were in their fertile years . . . there's a T-shirt: "OMG! I forgot to have kids!"
NFP is a remarkably reliable way to achieve/avoid pregnancy without the use of chemicals or barriers during intercourse. Furthermore, NFP puts you so in tune with your body that you can identify problems very quickly. Name me a birth control pill that can do that.
I have 4 kids. I used NFP to both achieve (successfully within months) and avoid. In time my daughters will be carefully taught this method.
If I agree that your chosen method of pregnancy avoidance is reliable, can you not agree that mine is as well?
This is a pet peeve of mine. NFP is in no way, shape or form contraception and can never be used as contraception. NFP does not act against conception, ever, whether it is used to postpone pregnancy or not. That's part of the beauty of NFP, it doesn't keep the body from acting naturally, because if you don't have sex, it is natural to not get pregnant.
Now, NFP could be properly referred to as birth control, because it does allow for both birth and self-control. But it ain't contraception.....
I agree that abortifacients are morally wrong, but God has allowed science in that area. Condoms, though not 100% effective, are not abortifacient nor contain harmful chemicals. I don't see what is morally wrong there. I fully agree that sexual intimacy should be between a husband and wife only, God gave this as a gift and the “marriage bed is undefiled” in his sight. It is not only for reproduction.
I think the problem is that women who are capable of conceiving eight kids are capable of conceiving sixteen kids. I know the Church has to be against contraception, but I don’t think God would care if a woman who’s already had six or eight kids used nonabortiofacient birth control.
You can look it up.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
If all Christians unanimously taught that contraception was sinful till about 80 years ago (easily proven), and since then all Christians caved on this issue except the Catholic Church which held strong to the teachings of the Apostles and the Early Church (again easily proven), I wouldn’t say Catholics are crazy so much as everyone else is either deceived or apostate. At least from a Christian moral perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.