?

Log in

Why on earth do Catholics believe *that*???
well, this place would look more interesting if it had some posts... 
18th-Jul-2006 07:07 am
schneckerock
so I guess I'll pose a question, a discussion I've had lately that is partly the reason this group got started, and then let you fine people discuss. just remember...
1) you're not answeringto me, you're answering to all the hypothetical readers who are seriously wondering this.
2) just because someone gives an answer you think sounds good doesn't mean your input isn't needed! say it in your own words.. you may never know if it's just the right thing to say.

so here goes: Why does the Church allow NFP but not condoms? aren't they basically the same thing? they both prevent pregnancy...
Comments 
18th-Jul-2006 12:26 pm (UTC)
Even years ago, when I had absolutely no regard for the church in any way, had not heard about NFP, and thought that birth control pills are certainly unnatural and not healthy, but not neessarily intrisincally evil (though I have ALWAYS held that abortion was a murder, I just didn't know it could be caused by the pill), I still felt very uncomfortable about the idea of condoms. I just couldn't picture making love to somebody I love, being totally vulnerable and naked, except in that part where we actually connect most deeply (at least on the physical level). It just seemed ridiculous to me. From the perspective I have today, I know that condoms affect the unitive aspect of marriage in addition to the procreative one.
18th-Jul-2006 03:38 pm (UTC)
You mean "I love you so much, let's put latex between us for 'protection'" doesn't work for you?

;-)
18th-Jul-2006 04:06 pm (UTC)
Exactly ;)
18th-Jul-2006 08:24 pm (UTC)
Well...NFP makes use of the body's natural, internal processes. Any form of artificial contraception, be it some kind of contraceptive like a condom, chemical or physical sterilization, or other surgical measures, are all external and artificial. That's the difference. The Church teaches that the latter are sinful, while the former is not.
19th-Jul-2006 01:41 pm (UTC)
yes... but why are they sinful? ;)

(and i suppose this is off topic a little bit, but by your definition, withdrawl would not be sinful, but the church teaches that it is.)
19th-Jul-2006 04:26 pm (UTC)
Yes, it's easy to get trapped in this natural vs. artificial frame, but it's not always that clear cut. I know some strong faithful Catholics who have fully bought into this mentality and have argues, with the best intentions, that fertility drugs are sinful, while in fact they're not.
21st-Jul-2006 04:01 am (UTC)
Difference is healing nature vs. circumventing it. Check out Veritatis Splendor 47-53 for a really good explanation of why the Church's position doesn't redound to biologism.
26th-Apr-2010 05:28 pm (UTC)
Part 3, Section 2, Article 6 of the Catechism:
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.

The use of condoms is saying "no" to life - an unwillingness to say "yes".

Using NFP does not involve a "barrier," so it is still possible to procreate (pregnancies have been known to happen during times that were thought to be infertile), thus saying "yes" to the possibility of joining with God in His Creation.

Also, what clcg1 said. :)
23rd-Jul-2006 05:34 pm (UTC)
I see it as not necessarily a biological vs. non-biological issue but as the difference between preventing conception and avoiding conception. Preventing conception is actively working against God's intention. Avoiding conception is a tacit acceptance of the procreative aspect of sex and on the same level as avoiding temptation.
26th-Jul-2006 03:09 am (UTC)
I'd also like to add that using NFP can be sinful if there is no reason to not have children. If NFP is selfishly being used to not have kids without just cause then it is wrong, just like condoms. The real difference between sin or not sin is the interior motivation. Artificial contraception can never have a good interior motivation whereas NFP can.
This page was loaded Feb 28th 2017, 4:49 pm GMT.