Birth Control

[Melody]

Planned Parenthood has the following Percentages to give us wrt Effectiveness.

(01) Natural Family Planning - 75-99%
(02) Continuous Abstinence  - 100%
(03) Outercourse / Withdrawal - 73-Nearly 100%
(04) Sterilization - 99.5-99.9%
(05) Combined-Hormone Methods (Pill / Ring / Patch) - 92-99.9%
(06) Over the Counter Barriers (Condoms/Spermicides) - 71 - 98%


Please note these do not reflect the Catholic Point of View.

[tklein1014]

I accedentally nullified my vote, but maybe that might not be such a bad thing because for me it depends on if you're married or not.  Unmarried, for sure #2.  Married, I could go with either #1 or #3.

Tina

[Melody]

Tina,

A small qs.: Are you aware that everything except option #s 1 & 2 are against the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Melody

[tklein1014]

I wasn't 100% sure about #3, although I didn't see why not, since there is no barrier, and a small opportunity for God to intervene is still present, and it doesn't cause abortions.  Oh well...

Tina

[Rev. Eric]

#3 - Withdrawal is sometimes called the "Sin of Onan" due to Genesis 38:6-10.  Despite the fact that there is no barrier involved (such as a condom) it is still considered by the Church to be a contraceptive act based upon a contraceptive mentality.  

Furthermore, those who engage in this activity may come to a rude awakening.  Even though the man removes himself from the sexual act prior to ejaculation, he was still emitting a notable concentration of sperm prior to this point.  This, of course, explains the wide effectiveness percentage range reported by Planned Parenthood.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[tklein1014]

it is still considered by the Church to be a contraceptive act based upon a contraceptive mentality.

A sincere question here...  I don't understand the moral difference between having a "contraceptive mentality" when using withdrawl for BC & having the same when using NFP for BC.  When using NFP for BC & only engaging in activity when when the woman is "CLOSED" (LOL), pregancy is still being avoided, no?  When the man withdrawls, pregnancy is being avoided as well.  If anything, with NFP there's a physical barrier (albeit a natural one), with withdrawl there may or may not be a physical barrier (depending on the woman's time in her cycle).  Both have the possibility of conception, and neither causes abortions.  What's the difference?

Furthermore, those who engage in this activity may come to a rude awakening.

Just my $.02, but in a perfect world everyone would go into it with the expectation of pregnancy, no matter how "effective" the BC is, because all of them fail sometimes, except abstinence, of course.

Even though the man removes himself from the sexual act prior to ejaculation, he was still emitting a notable concentration of sperm prior to this point.

This is precisely the reason why I didn't see the moral wrong, since there is still the opportunity for sperm & egg to meet.  I respect the church's judgement, but I just don't "get it", that's all.

Tina

[Rev. Eric]

Hey Tina,

As you pointed out, NFP involves a "natural barrier."  The key word is natural, which means that it allows a human couple to space out pregnancies while they still complete the conjugal act.

The withdrawal method interupts the conjugal act.  Even though it is not a very effective method of birth control and pregnancy may still occur, the intention of the couple is still to engage in a contraceptive act.

Because NFP uses a natural method that does not interrupt the conjugal act, it is not considered contraceptive.

However, even though a couple may be using NFP, they should still be open to the possibility of life, unless specific circumstances suggest otherwise.  Rightly understood, NFP should be used to space out pregnancies rather than prevent them altogether.  If a couple decides that they simply do not want children (and there is not a good reason for it) and constantly resort to NFP then even though the physical act is not technically contraceptive, they have adopted a contraceptive mentality.  In such a case we could say that they are abusing NFP and violating their marital promise to be open to bearing children.

I know this stuff can get tricky and confusing.  I've taken courses on Sexual Ethics and I still have a hard time properly grasping some of it.  For example, modern science and medicine have raised many issues in the realm of ethics in general that no one ever had to deal with before.  St. Thomas Aquinas never had to discuss the moral ramifications of, say, a morning-after pill.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[tklein1014]

That really helped to clear things up a little, thanks.  It also raises a couple questions, though...  

Question - What would be morally considered a "good reason" for avoiding pregnancy?  Would it be strictly physical (infertility, dangerous for the woman, etc.) or could practical reasons be valid as well, such as finances, size of home, etc.?

Hypothetical - What if a couple were using NFP to avoid pregnancy, but were open to the possibility of life at the same time - If it happens, it happens - that kind of thing.  Would it still be considered immoral because they have a "contraceptive mentality", or does the fact that they're open to, and will welcome any surprises God may have for them, make it not really "contraceptive mentality"?

Thanks again,

Tina

[Seeker]

Tina,

You bring up soem great points to consider.  The points you bring up show why it is so important for a constant prayerful discernment to avoid a contraceptive mentality.  NFP and abstinence can both be sinful if the intention is to avoid God's will (just as the good Rev. Eric pointed out).  But we also need to remember that the end does not justify the means.

Someone once explained to me the difference between NFP and artifical contraception to me in the following way: Artificial contraception would be similar to someone putting a feeding tube down their throat in order to remove all the food they've eaten so they can enjoy the food without gaining wieght.  Withdrawal would be similar to eating what you want, but then regurgitating it up before you're able to digest it to avoid gaining weight.  NFP is similar to eating healthy and controlling your appetite so you do not gain weight.  This analogy helped me to understand it better, but even it is incomplete.  Obviously, gaining weight may be considered a curse, but children are always a blessing. Clearly NFP would be in accordance with God's will in this analogy, and the others would be our way of trying to get around God's will while still enjoying the physical pleasure of the act He created.

In my opinion, it's important to remember a couple other things.  I humbly submit this as food for thought because I still struggle with understanding it all.  From what I understand, marriage is a sacrament and the conjugal act is a consummation of the marriage covenant between the couple and God.  We may call it "having sex," but that really demeans the act.  It should be a true expression of the marriage covenant and the freely given love the couple has for each other.  It's a sacrament that the couple administers to each other and God cannot be taken out of that.  I guess I'm trying to say that the points you bring up make it very important for the couple to maintain a strong prayer life, and to remain in a state of grace.  I wish a I had better and more solid answer to the questions you raise.  I guess I took up a lot of space and never really answered your hypothetical question.  But I felt the need to pass on something that has taken me over 12 years of mariiage to learn.  Hopefully, this might have helped to explain a process for making a decision about your hypothetical situation.

There's a great (and free   ) CD that explains the marriage covenant and artificial contraception that really opened my eyes. It's by Christopher West who is an expert on Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body. You can learn more about the CD here.  Also read Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul's Theology of the Body for better guidance in your free time .  It'll be time well spent.  In fact, I need to do that myself.

[tklein1014]

Thanks for your response also, seeker.  Both yours and Rev. Eric's have definately helped to show the moral difference.

I agree that a prayerful approach is extremely important in any moral decision.  See my sig...  That's my constant prayer 24/7.    Not really 24/7, but I'm constantly asking for guidance, since I often feel so "new" and unknowing (even though I've been officially a church member for 5.5 years).

Tina

[Seeker]

Tina,

We're all "new" and unknowing, whether we admit it or not.  God truly rewards humility such as yours.

God Bless!

[Stigmata]

The problem with the poll is that it allows only one choice.

Couples should decide what is best for them.