Natural Family Planning

You could make the same argument about condoms.

Uh, condoms are a physical barriers between the two genital organs kiddo.

What about birth control?

If the condom breaks it's no longer a physical barrier.

Then it's no longer a condom.

Attached: gotcha 2.png (800x642, 152.15K)

So the sin is creating a material barrier between the sex organs, not the use of contraception?

The intent when using contraceptives is to definitely not make a babby and if one happens anyway it's an accident. When practicing NFP there are no oops babies because you and your wife are always open to new life. If you're not open to new life at all, the Catholic position is you're not ready for marriage.

Is a class one carcinogen as likely to give you cancer as smoking cigarettes.

So if a married couple have intercourse in a determined day of the month they're sinning?

I should preface this by saying my experience is all anecdotal. Hormonal Birth Control works for not making babies, that's it. It makes the woman incredibly moody, causes bloating and weight gain due to the increased estrogen levels, and usually makes their periods last for weeks as opposed to days (sometimes they go away entirely though, depends on genetics). Me and my wife eventually decided to remove the BC implant she had for two years because she just became so depressed. It also, in my opinion, winnie the poohs really badly with a womans fertility and has a higher chance of making them permanently infertile. Which is what the Jews that push BC want.

I admit I don't really know how those work.

The fact that you're practicing NFP means that you are deliberately trying to prevent conception or impregnation. It's a form of contraception by definition.

They'll both give you cancer, that means they're both bad. You're just arguing that one is less bad than the other.

If they do it for the purpose of preventing a pregnancy then by definition they're using contraception.

Also, if the genital organs don't touch each other it can't be classified as sex, can it?

You won't get cancer from NFP. God naturally gave women part of their reproductive cycles where they are less fertile, it's not wrong to have sex during these times.

If you're doing NFP the right way, the not-sinful way, your attitude should be something like "we may rather not have a baby right now for reasons we perceive as serious, but we will put our lives in God's hands and know that if it happens it's a blessing and part of His good plan for our lives."

If you're practicing contraception the attitude is always "I want to use my spouse's body as an instrument for my own selfish lust with no consequences. If she somehow still gets pregnant, it's an accident we really didn't want to happen."

So if I use a condom or BC with the right attitude then it's not a sin? If I use NFP with the wrong attitude then I'm in the clear?

Don't poke a hole in their logic or the doublethink could leak out and have unintended consequences.

Attached: cf15205823aec17f04eec8d169c08151cb5847024c25cb8b1c0dc943514d1cea.gif (379x440, 142.11K)

No, you're being deliberately obtuse. If you're using a condom or pulling out you're deliberately trying to take away God's opportunity to make new life so you can engage in carnal pleasures. If you're practicing NFP rightly (there are wrong ways to practice it) you're always inviting God to bless your marriage with new life.

If you're not ready to make a babby at all, then don't get married.

This shit is the KosherSwitch of birth control.

Do you see what's wrong with this logic?

If you're Catholic it's been decided by the Magisterium that NFP is not a sin. I'm just going to direct you to Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II can explain this to you better than I can.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

I'm reading Humanae Vitae and it's got a lot of flowery and big brain language but not definitive answers. Do I really have to read the entire Theology of the Body to get an answer?
Can I get a tl;dr version? This isn't making any sense.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/resources/humanae-vitae.cfm

Theology of the Body in One Hour is a popular tl;dr version. If you get married in the Catholic church your priest will put you through a marriage preparedness course where you'll probably have to read these documents.

Oh, and they'll also actually teach you how to do NFP in the marriage preparedness class. (They made me watch an online video course.)

It doesn't square the circle. Any argument made for NFP could be made for "artificial" contraceptives. It seems the heart of the argument is that NFP is "natural" while other contraceptive methods are not.

You can think about this topic however you like if you're not Catholic but I'm submitting to the authority of the Magisterium.

That's fine but understand that people are going to have these questions, and the answers which have been given in this thread have been unsatisfactory.

Hopefully someone else can come along and do a better job than I of explaining, then. I tried.

Attached: tumblr_oz41hv4v1x1qep5zro1_1280.jpg (1220x1241, 170.26K)

The sin of contraception consists in (note, we are talking about precise moral-theological, not the generic meaning of contraception; if we use the generic meaning of "anything that you do to not have children from sex", then it fits, but that's not the meaning in Catholic moral theology) that one changes, mutilates the sexual act in such a way that children can't be conceived from it.

NFP avoids this in that when you are using it, the sexual act isn't changed and is still ordered towards its natural end (note that the ordering we are talking about concerns the objective, physical manner in which it's done, not the subjective intentions and desires the couple). As such, the element of sexual act that makes it contraceptive is avoided, and so, the act isn't disordered in a way that would make it fit the sin of contraception.

Attached: Bonaventura_Berlinghieri_Francesco.jpg (969x1275, 2.15M)

Can you explain it to me like I'm kinda slow?

Attached: 1507295761446.png (485x443, 25.89K)

All that is unnatural (since natural law is moral law) is sin. All that is not against natural law, of itself is not sinful.

Sin of contraception is this: You deliberately try to have sexual act without possibility of procreation by changing of natural order of sex. Sterilisation and castration is obvious, it's mutilation of you procreative powers. Birth Control pills is bascilly the same, it destroy ovulation. Condoms make sex into masturbation by vagina.

NFP is different. Imagine graph of probability of having baby to time in menstrual cycle. Its classic bell curve (never 100%, never 0%). God made that cycle, it's natural. God also never made moral law that say "Thou shall not lie with thy wife in such and such days", nor does it rule flows from any moral percept or virtue. So it's moraly indifrent when you have sex. NFP is just sex when there is lowest probability (but it's never zero) for having child.

To use analogy. Imagine that you planning a family reunion. You have a brother that have like ten kids. To have them all would seriously wound you budget. But you know that there is football match next month and your nephews all play in it.
NFP is doing party on the day on the match but still sending them invitation. There is a big chance that they won't show up but if they do you would still be happy to take them in.
Counterception is sending them anti-invitation: "We are haveing family reunion and don't want you here".

That's like saying having proper sex but not getting a child is contraception.

Contraception is, whatever the circumstances, always necessarily wrong because it's a wrong way to have sex (how exactly it is wrong, and what in this case makes choosing this wrongness a sin is another, more complicated issue - since you want me to keep it simple, I will in at least this particular post avoid reaching this conclusion). It's an intrinsically evil way to do something, namely have sex.

NFP avoids this problem by not doing this thing, namely not having sex.

You can't be doing something in a wrong way if you aren't even doing that thing you could do wrongly in the first place.

To use some analogies to illustrate:

You can't be walking incorrectly if you at the moment aren't even walking.

You can't be writing something incorrectly if at the moment you aren't even writing.

You can't be having sex incorrectly if at the moment you aren't even having sex.

Simply said: contraception's evil consists in a certain way of having sex. You can't have sex in a wrong way if you aren't even having sex.

No. That's like saying that each moment a couple isn't having sex, they are using contraception.

You probably admit that a couple abstaining from sex is not, in itself, sinful. It can be virtuous, like the case in 1 Cor. 7:5. It can be a sin, for example when a couple doesn't want a child so they can spend their time traveling.

NFP is simply having sex only in the non-fertile time of a woman's cycle. It is sinful if done for selfish reasons. It is not sinful, or at least not mortally sinful, if done for grave reasons, such as a famine.

Contraception is the deliberate mangling of the sexual act. It is always evil. It has the same effect as abstinence; no children, but that doesn't matter, because ends do not justify the means.

ITT: People with no concept of lust and a knack for bad analogies.

not at all - NFP is an attempt to avoid children, pretty much the definition of contraception.

Attempts to avoid children aren't (inherently - circumstances, your intention, etc. can make any act wrong) evil. Contraception's inherent evil comes from the means, not the end.

This seems very similar to Talmudic rule-wrangling stuff.

What's the goal to be achieved: children
Is the goal one God finds good?
Are you impeding what God finds good?

That's the easiest way to check yourself.

The goal of every single sex act doesn't have to be the conception of a child for the sex act to be moral.

I didn't say it was, I just said the being against some forms of contraception and not others is illogical.

If it were just against the pill because it has abortificant properties, I'd see the church's point as I'm also strongly against abortion.

However, it's also against condoms- if condoms are bad, how is NFP not bad? Is purposefully pulling out bad?

I will even hear the argument that NFP is bad, but much less bad than condoms because it still has the potential to result in pregnancy. Gradation sure, but I'm not seeing the logical line here, it seems arbitrary.

Natural versus manmade is arbitrary. It should be goal-oriented. Is there an aim that God would like accomplished but I am not even attempting to fulfill? Then it's sin. Or does God not care about me impregnating my wife, in which case, why would he care about condoms? I'm just trying to understand and when you get into specific exceptions based on arbitrary labels (natural vs. unnatural) I'm calling what I see- Talmudic rule-wrangling. Let's not forget incest and anal sex is quite natural and still very immoral.

Test

What the heck. I can post but not make threads. When I try to make a thread it says "cannot extract file/s" anyone know whats wrong?

...

First of all, you have a misunderstanding of what Catholicism sees as natural and unnatural. Natural does not mean anything we see animals doing or what humans do. Natural means acting according to the natural law. Only the creatures that have the use of reason, humans, are subject to it. Read this if you want to know more newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm.

Secondly, you seem to be working from the moral framework of consequentialism, i.e., the means do not matter, the ends do. But God is not a consequentialist. Even if both abstinence and the use of a condom result in a child not being conceived, that does not mean that they are morally equivalent.

Thirdly, God does want us to be fruitful and multiply. But not having children is not inherently immoral. If it's done for selfish reasons, it is immoral. If it's done for unselfish reasons, it is not immoral. You would probably admit that not conceiving a child during a famine would not be immoral, no?

As said, the evil of contraception comes from the means, not the end.

I am the product of natural family planning. Take from that what you will.

Considering God is omniscient and knows the consequences of each act, and is the source of morality, there is no discernable difference between consequentialism and means. God picked the means because he knew the ends.

This means, when we come across a question specifically answered by scripture, we don't need to worry about the ends because God has already told us but, when coming upon questions not specifically answered, we look at other lessons and try to understand what was to be achieved by the lessons God gave us.

God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. Isn't NFP getting in the way of that? I mean, if you're using NFP because you can't feed another child, sure- because that wouldn't be multiplying long-term- but that's not why people are using it in a first-world country.

It's not that the means don't matter, it's that the means matter -because- of the end they accomplish. Trying to achieve ends while ignoring the means God has set out is utterly futile, but also not trying to understand the results God seeks to achieve is to ignore a whole aspect of the teachings he has given us.

Anyway, that was more philosophical than I intended. Natural law appealing to reason I understand - it still doesn't bring me to the results that contraception isn't okay but NFP is. It's incongruous.

I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're getting at here. If you claim that the means to come to an end cannot be immoral if the end is good, you're flat out wrong. To give an extreme example, castration and prayer both lead to the curbing of lust, but you can't just go and castrate yourself, because it is, in itself, immoral.

Well, rather than go down the rabbit hole of castration and Matthew 19:12, we'll assuming, arguendo, castration is wrong.

If so, then it must be because, although castration curbs lust, it has a greater, unanticipated negative effect whereas prayer is not accompanied by that negative effect.

Thus, you can figure out the negative effect to be prevented by barring castration and thereby realize other sins that might have been hidden.

God could not leave us an individual lesson for every situation because his time as a man was finite. Instead, we must pull general principles from individual lessons to apply against more nuanced circumstances.

Unless you perceive the goals to be obtained, this is impossible. The goal, of course, is love and being filled with the Holy Spirit and understanding agape allows us to know what we should be in each circumstance.

But I assure you the lessons are goal-oriented. God wants us to be fruitful, multiply, take care of the Earth for our future progeny and do so while not leaving behind the sick and lame.

So, if NFP is not strictly wrong, why is condom use? It doesn't make sense. If the point is to have as many children as possible in the short-term, clearly they're both wrong. If the point is to maximize population over the long-term, clearly both are acceptable provided they are used on a rational basis when food is scarce.

Of course, if the problem is short-term child creation then, really, sex outside of ovulational probability is sinful. Negative planning is also wrong, but failure to positively attempt to ensure pregnancy could even be considered sin.

Polite sage for mild tangent from the main thread discussion:

How the heck is flipping a normal light-switch in violation of the Sabbath, but opening a door isn't? (Confused non-Jew here.)

I didn't first realise how deep you really are into consequentialist philosophy. I don't know where you acquired it from, and I really don't know how it could be squared with the Christian faith. If you can show me even one theologian, even one Church Father who agrees with you, maybe i'll be convinced that it can. But I don't think I can change your opinion on this matter, so I'm out.

I don't really think of myself as consequentialist. I try in my own way to understand what God wants for us by considering the results of following his commandments.

Any sufficiently nuanced idealism has completely predictable results to the extent where the difference between idealism and pragmatism disappears.

The problem of "ends justify the means" is non existence because evil means don't create good ends.I can hypothesize why that is so- for instance, lies always being found out eventually, but God is the only one who truly knows.

It seems to me that not even attempting to understand why God has instructed us is lazy. I'm not questioning His teaching, just trying to learn how to apply them to situations not covered.

non existence > non existent

sorry,

Lust is evil, you should overcome it, not cater to it. Sex should be for the purpose of having children only.

Attached: IMG_5492.JPG (350x263 47.44 KB, 49.64K)

Sex is a loving and unitive act with your spouse. The magisterium has decided you don't need to have the primary intent to deliberately try for a babby every time you do it because it's fun to bone and doin' it makes your marriage strong and healthy.

Don't all Catholics smoke anyway though?

Begone fornicator!

Guess how I know you're a Satanist? Because it's God who makes the marriage strong and healthy.

If you do it for procreation.
Might as well post this here. I recommend watching the whole thing but this topic starts at 16:35. Boy, I sure hope people aren't taking parts of this video out of context to bear false witness.

Y'all have fun in your own marriages, and I hope you find a girl who also has no sex drive, but if you're Catholic it's been settled that it's not a sin to bone just for fun whether you understand why or not.

Go read these documents

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (881x374, 29.19K)

Unless someone can show me an ex cathedra statement to the contrary, it is apparent to me that NFP as commonly promulgated is disordered in that it intends to remove procreation and wrestle control on creation away from God whilst still using sex for pleasure. Though many justify this disorder through legalism in saying their means are not sinful despite the ends being contraceptive in nature.

Serious question: How is NFP substantially different from choosing to having sex, and then flipping a coin to determine whether you wear a condom or not?

Is there any justification or objection to one that does not apply to the other?

Any sexual act done explicitly in seek of pleasure is a sin.

NFP isn't random chance. When done correctly, it can be very effective at not resulting in a child or conversely, it can be very effective if you are wanting to have a child because you'll know what days are more fertile based on a number of measurable factors.

its natty and biblical

Correct

Ohhh… that's a good argument. That's not specifically what Saint Paul is talking about though, he's talking about taking time to focus on prayer and connection with God.

Taking a time to set aside for God and actually using it to undermine God's plan for our family seems a perverse twisting of scripture… don't you feel bad about that?

I understand what you mean, but sexual desire is physiological desire that cannot be completely erradicated and trying to restrict it too much is only unhealthy. There is virtue in being chaste, but there is no virtue in being overly prudish, it only leads to frustration, which will lead to people taking their frustrations out on others. That's especially dangerous for parents, who will take their frustration on children, it's like being raised by two parents who both work, let me tell you, human body isn't built to take so much stress and the stress of raising children at well. It can only bring psychological issues for the children and completely destroy their life.

Attached: 7ef.jpg (600x600, 28.92K)

Wow man, your deficient reasoning can be applied to any sin. It's like you're not even trying to be a Christian.
All sins are "psychological desires", that's why people are prone to them. However, God commands we abstain, not just from some sins, not just from sins of our choosing, but from ALL of them. And had you ever done NoFap, i.e. abstained from your lust, you would have noticed that it makes it much easier to abstain from gluttony and sloth as well. Secularly speaking, it is because indulging in all the different sins strengthens the same dopamine-pathways from the midbrain, i.e. where your impulses and "psychological desires" lie. This is why you must obey God entirely and precisely, because he is always right, and mental gymnastics and your comfortable (((Western))) lifestyle will not save you from his judgment.

Attached: 1bdab9c618b9a432c516025666df0991.jpg (1080x822, 239.28K)

What logical double-think? You have sex with your wife on a day of reduced fertility to lower chances of a pregnancy. Simple as that. Otherwise, you could say that barren or older couples are sinning by having sex with no/lower chance of procreation.

Contraception is a willful and intentional complete denial of pro-creation through artificial means. It's an abuse of the gift of sexual passion.

if you have a problem with it, take it up with God, not us.

The idea is that it keeps marriage and the sexual act sacred, by maintaining its natural purpose.

You SHOULD NOT GET MARRIED if you're not prepared for a child, what part of this is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ? Only a naturally barren couple has a legitimate excuse, and then it is considered a cross to carry, because there is the intentional surrender of a blood-child.

I understand you completely, you're of this world; it's logical you would not see the sense this makes by the light of the Gospel.

Yes, they are fundamentally different kinds of acts. Sex during times of the woman's infertility is still sex in the natural way. The infertility is accidental to the act. When you wear a condom, you are changing the nature of the act. You are saying you want the physical stimulation of vaginal penetration, but want to keep all semen out of there at all cost.

Ask why, if sex during times of intertility is sinful, why did God institute a menstrual cycle with extended periods of infertility when he could have made women always fertile? If it were true that sex during times of infertility were sinful, then all married couples would be bound to rigorously practice NFP so as to only have sex during times of probable fertility. Women would also have to stop having sex entirely once they hit their forties or so, because they become infertile for the rest of their lives. The idea that NFP is intrinsically sinful reduces into so many absurdities if you follow any of the resulting conclusions.

That is the implication, if you think that proper sex with no artificial products that interferes with conception such as condoms and medications that does not result in a baby being created is contraception then that means that any proper sex that does not result in conception is contraception, because the end result is a baby not being born. That's why it's illogical to think like that. Besides, NFP is not some guarantee (like actual contraception is) and if a baby does get created then it stays.

This, so winnie the pooh this

all the good ones

What about having sex with a pregnant wife?
She can't get pregnant by that act as well.

It satisfies the the familial bond that sex fulfills and helps keep the couple bound; this is even reflected scientifically, certain bonding mechanisms in the brain kick off during sex.

This is why woman whom go through life with only 1 sex partner have a 95% marriage success rate.

Absolutely - the whole reasoning behind it is being able to have sex without having children. To put it another way its akin to a man who wants to die deliberately volunteering for a dangerous mission or deciding to drive without a seatbelt. "Oh im not committing the sin of murder Im just taking actions to vastly increase the chance of myself dying God is cool with that because its not like Im shooting myself"

I agree. I am not against a man having sex with his pregnant wife but I am certainly against contraception.
Are such feelings justified or prelest? What is the moral difference between the two?

There is no Church teaching against pregnant sex because it satisfies one of the entire points of sex:

marital unity

personally, I think the entire concept of "prelest" is an orthodox fan-fiction

Better put would be if they purposefully don't have intercourse on certain days of the month, they're sinning.