www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope approves use of condoms in fight against Aids

Glory to Jesus Christ!


It has been a while since I have posted and I have to say sadly this time I disagree one this one specific point that you, Stuart, and Athanasius the L had to say about NFP.

Firstly, yes, a couple can practice NFP with a contraceptive mentality and if that is the case then they are committing the same immoral action as a person using contraception for contracepting (I know there are some cases where the pill can be used for medical purposes such as regulating the period and there in is the double effect which has it's own sticky questions).

But back to my main point in response to you two gentleman's comments about NFP and comparing it to using a condom. The difference between the use of condoms and the practice of NFP is that with NFP you are still willingly allowing the possibly for the will of God to bless the couple with a child. You are working with the natural flow of a woman's body and not using a device (i.e. condom) that obstructs the possibility of getting pregnant.

And Stuart, if the family, as in this example you gave, is trying to simply space out or limit the size of their family, then why use a condom when you can practice NFP? The principal use of a condom is to stop the possibility of conception (though it is noted that these tools are not 100% effective) and the practice of NFP is not against the possibility of God willing their family to grow despite their faith practice of NFP to space out or limit the size of their family without a contraceptive mentality.

Though I am interested in this thread as it seems the good Holy Father is making an extremely specific case for it's use as the case has been made for the use of the pill has been made in those very specific cases.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

So, it's not the method of regulating conception that is the question then. NFP is not, in and of itself, good or bad. It can be employed to either effect.


These statements are factual in that the sense that yes, one is "natural" and the other uses a "device." I wonder where it was decided that using "devices" is inherently a sinful method of spacing children but "natural" methods are not a sinful method of spacing children. There may be reasons, but the notion of "natural" vs "unnatural" is insufficient in and of itself.

Also, when was it decided that God is incapable of blessing a couple that uses condoms with a child? The theological ramifications of this discovery are almost unimaginable.


Well, you just conceded that God can give a couple children even when using condoms, so your first point about condoms taking away the possibility of God giving children to a couple is refuted.

To answer the question as to why artificial (and I should say for the record I am speaking purely of non-abortifacient artificial practices) would be more preferential than NFP, among many other possible reasons is the reality that marital relations between a husband and wife can have a much less restrained and unencumbered dynamic. This is a positive idea to me, although to many Latins "lots of sex whenever you want" is rather frightening, I think.

I am grateful that Pope Benedict raised this issue indirectly, because it is something that I have been contemplating recently aside from this development.

Dear jjp,

As I stated in my response, even though it is still possible to get pregnant while using a condom, the use of contraception (contra = against, conception) is that you are willingly working against and trying to obstruct the natural process and possibility of getting pregnant. You are choosing something that in and of itself is trying to obstruct the possibility of life. By doing that you are also freely denying your partner all of yourself rather than freely offering up all of yourself. In the use of contraception, and therefore by your use of something that is against conception, you are mitigating the nuptial act to a selfish and indulgent, physical and sexual act.

Here is another way of understanding it. With NFP you are trying to work with God in the sense that you are working with the laws of nature that He created in our bodies. With contraception you are trying to take God out of the equation and work against and obstruct the natural process of conception.

Medicine and the whole medical field is meant to bring something that is out of alignment in our bodies back to it's normative and natural function. Using unnatural devices that help in this healing is not bad (like a ummmm what's the word . . . prosthetic limb) because it is helping to bring us back to our natural state physically speaking.

Contraception on the other hand is not helping to bring our bodies back in sync with itself but rather is something that is obstructing the natural function of our bodies. On top of that many condoms have spermicide and such that further destroys the possibility of and obstruct the natural process of participating with God in the bringing forth of new life.

I'm not trying to force NFP on you just trying to see if we can at least understand why it is used and preferred over contraception. And I'm talking about in the normative situations that these issues are to be found.

I wonder though, if NFP were to of come from the East rather than the West, would this of been such a huge issue? Just my pondering.

A question: If I remember correctly (and since Stuart is a professional historian I hope he can help with any misconstrued understandings of history) did not the fathers speak out against what we now term abortion? Also, there have always been contraception throughout history, is there any record of them speaking out against this?

Well, this has really gone of topic. If someone wants to cut this off and move to start a new topic, that might be a good idea. I hope we cab get back to the main topic and apologize for my part in taking this thread further off topic.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

The operative word, however, is "deliberate." Perhaps I should have made myself clearer.
Contraception deliberately frustrates the fruitful act. Sterility or menopause is not deliberate, but is related to biology.

NFP recognizes times of fertility and non-fertility. When NFP is practiced, there are times of continence that are observed.
A non act cannot frustrate something because it is passive, not active.
Using a condom or the pill is an active choice to frustrate the completed conjugal act.
the non act of continence, therefore, does not apply.



No verbal or mental gymnastics here; only reasoned arguments.


it's a free country.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. The Roman Catholic approach to arguing this seems to me to be a bunch of theological "spin." I mean no insult, but that's how it comes across to me. Their position prior to Humanae Vitae was preferable, in my opinion, in that it was at least coherent and logically consistent. But on the other hand, it was even more lacking in mercy than the Roman Church now is. Rome is great on using Christ's words about taking up one's cross and the narrow path. She often falls wide of the mark when it comes even to acknowledging Christ's words about an easy yoke and a light burden. I think I'll stick with the Eastern approach that Stuart has articulated so well.

NFP is not contracepting, by definition, because it is a time of continence. It asserts a positive action to go against the natural process of conception that is possible through the marital act.

Otherwise, the natural conclusion to your argument would be that a married couple was contracepting at every moment that they were not engaged in marital relations.

Was your last sarcastic comment really necessary?

A most interesting debate but I have a problem with this effort to draw a distinction regarding the function of medicine:

"Medicine and the whole medical field is meant to bring something that is out of alignment in our bodies back to it's normative and natural function. Using unnatural devices that help in this healing is not bad (like a ummmm what's the word . . . prosthetic limb) because it is helping to bring us back to our natural state physically speaking.

Contraception on the other hand is not helping to bring our bodies back in sync with itself but rather is something that is obstructing the natural function of our bodies. "

A prosthetic limb is not necessarily a good example of an "unnatural device that is intended to restore us to our natural state" as the loss of a limb is not always the result of an 'accidental' event. An auto accident or a soldier injured in war come to mind. But, and this is the big logical leap - some diseases which result in the loss of a limb are a result of the natural function of our bodies.

In our earthly form we are not 'designed' to be immortal. Aging is a natural process. Type 2 diabetes is a natural progression for many humans in the aging process. The loss of a lower limb is often a natural progression of the disease. Would the use of a prosthetic limb in the case of a diabetes related amputation be a 'natural' restoration of the body?

Heart disease, kidney disease, corneal disease, liver disease all are natural occurrences in most cases. Are organ transplants therefore inherently 'wrong'as being an unnatural restoration of bodily function? (If that were the case I would not be writing this as I would be blind having had two corneal grafts due to an eye disease.)

The processes of aging and death are natural processes. Are medical advances designed to delay these proper in that they could be construed as not "helping to bring us back to our natural state physically speaking."

When I worked in family services, we would have a case or two a year with parents who denied medical care to their children using the logical extension of this argument as they preferred not to use man's efforts to interfere with the 'natural process' which they misidentified as being "God's will."

From the Orthodox perspective, I would argue that the Latin position is the result of overthinking.

My intention was not to be sarcastic.
I was simply pointing out how your argument is untenable because it fails when it is taken to its logical conclusion.
Observing continence is a non act. It is passive. Using a condom is not passive by any means. It is a direct action taken.

That is the difference with NFP.

I understand perfectly your argument. I have heard it before numerous times. I understand perfectly that NFP is not technically a deliberate act of contraception. I also think your argument basically amounts to a distinction without a real difference. To me and to my like-minded brothers and sisters, the intent and the mentality of the couple who uses non-abortifacient, artificial forms of contraception and the intent and mentality of the couple who uses NFP is virtually identical. In both cases, there is deliberate, purposeful circumvention of the reproductive purpose of the marital act. Your distinction between passive and active means is-in my opinion-entirely unpersuasive. Now you obviously disagree; I respect that. I would simply ask that who think as you do would respect my position. Instead, what we usually get is self-righteous condemnation. Honestly, I can think of no moral issue about which so-called traditionalists show more condemnation and less mercy towards their own brothers and sisters in Christ than that of contraception.

BTW, what does writing "it's a free country" have to do with pointing out that my argument is untenable?

Self righteous condemnation?

What are you talking about. Where did I condemn you, or condemn Eastern Christians?

It is not a latin rite who makes insulting comments about the the Roman pontiff by calling him a "ranting gentleman" or denigrates natural law as a "fetish".

By the way, there are like-minded Eastern Catholics who would agree with the latin understanding of NFP.
Fr. Thomas Loya is one who preaches about this all the time.

I did not accuse you personally. I wrote "what we usually get is self-righteous condemnation." Also, I am aware that there are Eastern Catholics who would agree with the Latin understanding of NFP. I'm no more impressed than I am when it is preached by Roman Catholics.

I'm not personally opposed to the use of NFP. Those who use it do so with the Church's blessing. What I do have a problem with are those many instances in which some of its proponents refuse to admit that it represents a departure from tradition. I also have a problem when some of its proponents refuse to acknowledge that some Catholics (though not all by no means) who use NFP do so with a "contraceptive mentality" and are no more open to accepting children than are those who actively contracept without intent to have children ever for largely selfish reasons, and indeed, are less open to life than are those who actively contracept in order to space births, or who, for grave reasons, must avoid pregnancy.

Just so there is no understanding, I am not directing my accusations against you personally.

Sincerely,

Ryan

Maybe I don't understand what the purpose of NFP is. Natural Family Planning, right? Obstructing the possibility of life by only having sex when the woman is in the least fertile stage? What other reason would you only have sex when the woman is least fertile, if not to prevent - contra - conception?

Wouldn't you be "playing God" or "taking him out of the equation" by presuming to be asserting your own will over God's plans by only having sex when the wife is least fertile? Wouldn't a truly faithful and God-loving couple have sex whenever the spirit moved them, regardless of fertility cycles, and have faith that God will sort the rest out? These are some of the leaps in logic I believe StuartK refers to.


1) What is the difference between a man denying his sperm to a woman who does not want the sperm, versus a woman denying an egg to a man who does not want the egg?

2) How does this make sex any more selfish, indulgent, physical or sexual? I always see that assertion, but it is never explained to me.


There are so many assumptions in this statement (which I hear frequently) and nobody has ever been able to clarify them for me. Why is it assumed that doing something "naturally" also means that you are ergo "working with God"? Whereas doing something "unnaturally" automatically is equated to "taking God out of the equation"? Saying it doesn't make it so, it needs to be explained. How is this the case?

All we are talking about is trying to space out and define how many children a couple has. But it seems you were taught that those who use NFP to regulate the amount of children they have are also willing to put God's will in front of their plans for children, but those who use other contraceptives are unwilling to allow God to give them children despite such use, based simply upon the method of contraception that is chosen. How do you make this leap in logic and presume to read those people's minds?


Is it a sin to have Lasik eye surgery? That is surely not a natural procedure, and distorts the natural state of our body.


Lasik eye surgery on the other hand is not helping to bring our bodies back in sync with itself but rather is something that is obstructing the natural function of our bodies.

I only use this example to demonstrate that bringing one's body "out of it's natural state" is not a sin in and of itself. There has to be something more going on to be sinful.


I have zero understanding of why NFP is considered a more moral form of family planning than condoms or other non-abortifacient contraceptives.

As was agreed earlier, one can be sinful in using NFP if the intent is to never have children and to put a couple's own will in front of God's. What I can't see is why a couple cannot similarly use other contraceptives while fully embracing and welcoming God's prerogative to bless them with a child despite these measures.


Speaking for myself, it wouldn't make sense to me regardless of where the idea came from. It doesn't surprise me that it came from the West, however.


I think it's a can of worms the Pope opened, or at least it is not a huge leap to see where the conversation would have went. If a separate topic is required I'd love to keep exploring this there, because it is something that I have been trying to wrap my head around for a while. I keep thinking I must be missing something from the NFP argument, but it never makes any sense.

Fertility is a natural process that God created into our biology that has times of fertility and infertility. NFP recognizes and works within the creative boundaries that God sets.


Ryan does make a good point about contrceptive mentality. NFP can certainly be used in a contraceptive mentality for some in some cases. As the Church teaches, there are sometimes reasons in which prudential judgement of a married couple chooses to delay having children, even and up to indefinite periods.
As the teachers who teach NFP tell us, it is 99% effective when done properly. it can be used to detect times of fertility as well when a couple is trying to conceive.

NFP simply recognizes God's creative design of a woman's cycle. That's why it's called "natural" family planning as opposed to artificial.

Again I ask, what does being "natural" have to do with anything? Why does that make it more holy?

Does Lasik eye surgery violate the visual boundaries that God has set? If so, does that make it a sin because it does not recognize some type of human-conceived "boundary"?


I don't understand where natural=holy and articifial=sinful comes from. Can you elaborate?