These two ARE NOT the same (NFP vs. Contraception)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2024
- There is a critical difference between contraception and Natural Family Planning.
Get 3 FREE sessions of our flagship course on Theology of the Body: www.tobforfree...
Click the link to join our Patron Community! Your monthly gift helps us continue to put out the message of Theology of the Body to the world. Thank you! tobpatron.com
Want to attend a course at the Theology of the Body Institute online or in person? Click the link to view our schedule: tobinstitute.o...
Check out our store! tobinstitute.shop
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี : คู่มวยแห่งยุค (11 ตุลาคม 2567)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aTc7-tPYuJM/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone new to the faith, I had trouble understanding the position of the Church on contraception (within marriage), but this truly opened my eyes as to why. 6:42 makes it very clear. Thank you Christopher!
As a Catholic convert I think it depends on how people are informed about NFP. Before I converted I researched this topic in detail because if the Catholic church was wrong about contraceptives then I wasn't going to convert (There were of course many other issues but this was simply one of them that I had to look into)
What people don't know is that NFP is not just the rhythm method, it is a combination of many methods which if put together and used properly are actually more reliable than traditional contraception. Contraceptions can fail, but the natural body cycle is less likely too (if you follow it properly). And the thing about it is that you cannot combine contraceptive methods, but you can combine NFP methods
On the other hand, neither NFP or contraceptives work if you don't use them properly. So when we look at the comparisons It only seems that NFP fails because it is comparing one method against one contraceptive method. But of course that is completely faulty because it doesn't take into account the combination of methods that can be implemented on the NFP side
So assuming you use it properly, NFP can be more effective than contraception, you just need to use the right combination of methods available. So with all things being equal, NFP is more efficient. That is what shocked me since I wasn't informed about this outside Catholic circles.
Tks Christopher for your important work in this issue... !!
Dear Christopher West! I am not roman catholic, but I wrestle with the issue of contraception a lot. I understand your arguments, but I would like to challenge your view about the "blasphemous icon". I think, if we put so much emphasis on every single sexual act, then the reality is, that we paint a blasphemous icon all the time, even unknowingly. That of course is not an excuse to do it intentionally, I understand that.
My concern is: what about the journey of sanctification? I understand, that contraception is ultimately about control. (And it very much can be also when using NFP.) Can I honestly say: "Thy will be done", even in this area of my life? But what if releasing control to God takes me a lifetime's work of the Holy Spirit? Or at least some time... That is, I think, a very realistic possibility.
I honestly don't think, that focusing so much on "painting the perfect icon" every single time when I make love with my spouse is actually helping me in sanctification. This was my idea also when I first read the TOB. On one hand it was a liberating reading, but on the other I felt that it places an almost unbearable burden on couples to "paint the sacred icon" every time they make love. I felt, that it compells me to monitor every desire I have, and every single sexual act all the time. Maybe my somewhat anxious and perfectionist personality plays into this feeling.
I like what C. S. Lewis writes in "The four loves": "We must not attempt to find an absolute in the flesh". I believe that sex is an icon, and that it brings glory to God, when our sex-life reflects Him and His love. But I also believe, that we BECOME one flesh, that our marriages BECOME this icon one step at a time by the transforming work of the Holy Spirit. We are living in the time of "already, but not yet". We are in the process of transforming „from glory to glory” (2Cor 3,18.)
That is why I think about contraception (currently) as follows:
- abortive methods are wrong for obvious reasons
- the pill is at least problematic, becouse it dishonours and likely harms the female body
- barrier methods are a grey zone for me (mostly because the issue of control)
- NFP is the best option (if the motivation is OK)
And I also think, that in practice the key to all of this is prayer and Scripture, because theese are the Holy Spirit’s tools for the sanctification of our marriages (1Tim 4, 4.)
I would like to understand this teaching, but my mind replays saying, in the example of the grandmother: if she has a deadly illness, should I take her to the hospital and make a serious surgery or should I let God be God and let her die at home in my caring company?. Not trying to fight with anyone, I'm trying to understand. Thanks.
You would take her to the hospital. The situation isn't comparable to contraceptives. According to the church, when you have sex, you have sex within marriage and you must be open to the possibility of life. Contraceptives are a proactive and artificial means to eliminate the possibility of life. NFP on the other hand is simply knowing when you are fertile and avoiding sex on those days if you're trying to space births - you are still open to new life doing this, it's just very unlikely to lead to a child being born.
TL;DR - I think in most cases you would bring grandma to the hospital.
The Church teaches that (1) life is good; to have life is a gift from God that should be treasured. (2) Also suffering (a "cross" in church lingo) is actually a gift from God as well, because our suffering united with Jesus's can redeem ourselves and others! (3) At the same time, we all must die at some point and must submit to God's authority and mercy.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with letting a deadly illness run its course. But a neutral act can become bad if we have bad intentions. If we choose against a procedure that has the potential to prolong someone's life, we have to ask what our intentions are, and if they contradict one of the teachings above.
@@paulhill2366 Thank you
@@marione.smedberg8062 Thank you
@@paulhill2366 That's correct. People who can't handle this teaching like to seize on the phrase "open to life" and claim that NFP then must be the same as contracepting, but the Church teaches that you must be open to life....when having sex. Not that you must have a pervasive all encompassing desire to bring about new life all the time.
Please make the distinction. Holy Mother Church teaches NFP can be used for GRAVE reasons and temporarily. It is not and cannot be a contraceptive method without incurring in sin.
Hello Mathias! Thank you for your comment. The CCC uses the word 'just' instead of 'grave' in no. 2368. And you are absolutely right in saying that it should not be used as a contraceptive method. Here's a playlist where Christopher approaches the topic from different angles:
th-cam.com/play/PLAbqXQaOvkM7_SbeCtscEXExc6_qCemGW.html&si=xhAEiuGlLjCdIimB
This is a serious question and not meant to mock, I'm just really curious and somewhat concerned.
What if the woman needs to take contraceptives as a treatment for a medical issue?
My fiancée is currently taking a medicine, which are effectively birth control pills, because of endometriosis. The main goal of the pills is not to prevent a pregnancy, but they do have that as a side-effect.
We won't have sex until we get married, but it is possible that we get married before she finishes her treatment.
I think that for now, since we're not having sex, it is morally harmless for her to take them pills, but I don't know what would be the Church's stand on this one once we're married.
My understanding is that there is no issue with what you've described. Look into the principle of double effect. If the primary intention is to alleviate harmful medical conditions but causes side effects, it is not considered evil. Consider as another example a man needing treatment for prostate cancer which eliminates his fertility.
"... the Church *does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means* necessary to cure bodily diseases..."
Testing here, as my previous comment failed to post.
It's from Humanae Vitae n. 15. You can look it up on Google. I guess my comment was being rejected because I included the link to Humanae Vitae. Why would Christopher West reject such a link? Beats me! 😅 🤷
Could you not make the same argument with many forms of medical intervention/correction?
medical intervention/correction in the context of creating new human life??? Or like I have an infection and need antibiotics. You do see the difference right?
@@jacobrodriguez7771 There is a difference but the argument here is that we are playing god by distorting nature. You can make the nature argument to justify or ban a lot of things for 'defiling nature' as its such a fuzzy definition. In fact JWs use the same argument for refusing blood transfusions etc. Antibiotics are a tame example compared to blood transfusions and then you up the anti when you bring in the idea of organ transplants. I don't find the nature argument compelling at all. Barrier contraception feels like an odd line to start claiming that people are playing god. Outside of the Catholic dogma it doesn't make sense to me.
I'm trying to understand my Catholic counterparts better so please don't take this as an attack
@@jacobrodriguez7771 still both are interventions to natural processes therefore should both be considered a "sin against nature" for the sake of consistency.
@@chamitu903 not if you’re a smart person…the Church doesn’t say that contraception is a sin due to it being an “intervention to a natural process”. Or a “sin against nature” the Church says that contraception is a sin because God’s purpose for sex is in marriage with an openness to life.
@@jacobrodriguez7771 is it really? Because there's no saying in the scriptures to support that claim and the only one that remotely suggests that has to be taken out of context to be interpreted in such way. This just sounds like some arbitrary take on the topic of sex made up by a bunch or white-haired old men on the Vatican back in the 60's, who were worried because contraceptives were trending and people realized we aren't animals thus sex means much more for us than just procreation.
And if that's actually God's view of sex then why the hell would he be ok with NFP when it goes against such view? Wouldn't he want us to go go full radical and abstain from sex totally? When did he suggest "ok sex must be open to life but in this case you can use method X but not method Y"? This is men made dude.
My husband is the Catholic but not in good standing, meaning he doesn't go to Catholic mass or confession. He is the one who believes in contraception but i want kids and don't want to use contraception. Hopefully he changes his mind soon.
Christopher and his wife Wendy will address a similar concern in their weekly podcast next Monday. Tune in
here: askchristopherwest.com/ask
So powerful
I'm assuming then that Dr. West is also against oral sex then?
Dr. West, why bring up the euthanasia vs. natural death argument if that's not the comparison you're drawing between contraception and NFP? Murder is not comparable to non-abortifacient contraceptive methods, so please don't bring it up in this context and confuse listeners. Preventing the egg and sperm from meeting by means of hormones that prevent a woman from ovulating or by barrier methods is not akin to killing granny.
Since the church permits married couples to prayerfully set a limit on the number of children they might have for "serious reasons," I don't understand how it follows that avoiding pregnancy indefinitely by means of fertility tracking is not immoral, but avoiding pregnancy by means of non-abortifacient contraceptive methods is.
Around 7:10, Dr. West informally quotes the John Paul II on contraception: "To justify [contraception] would be akin to saying there are circumstances in life in which we do not need to acknowledge God as God." I don't think that's a fair assessment of the use of non-abortifacient contraceptive methods, or even medical interventions of rare issues related to pregnancy. I also don't think a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy and elects to have a salpingectomy (removing the fallopian tube and the embryo that's implanted therein) is "not acknowledging God to be God" by not letting her fallopian tube rupture and only seeking medical care for herself once the growing fetus has died. Let there be some nuance, please. This topic is so incredibly complex.
Dr. West says people essentially take power that should only belong to God when they use contraceptives. It seems to me that NFP practitioners, using fertility tracking only made possible by modern medical advancements, are also taking God's power when they choose to only engage in the unitive and procreative act during times they know to be infertile. If God remains God when people seek medical intervention/care pursuant to a cancer diagnosis or life-threatening injury, I'm sure God remains God when people space or avoid pregnancy using any natural or medically-derived contraception that does not kill a fertilized egg.
At 10:19 in the video, another apparent issue with this line of thought surfaces. Christopher says in those few seconds that it is God who does not want a child when a married couple engages in sexual intercourse during naturally infertile times. I think that's a problematic statement. The married couple who is using NFP to "space births" (in other words, prevent conception)--because modern medicine has elucidated female fertility tracking to a high degree--is the unit who does not want a child--not God--because they used their autonomous decision-making power, yet their decision is moral because:
1) they're making it for serious reasons (and one of which he suggested is "you just need a break" after four kids... subjective much?), and
2) they're not using any modern medicine or methods of preventing conception, thus leaving it in God's hands, as he said.
Finally, I'd be curious to know how Dr. West and his wife decided on when to practice NFP indefinitely--to avoid any further pregnancies (assuming his wife did not continue having children until menopause). I know there are tons of subjective issues in faith and godly living, but this seems to be an important one to flesh out if getting it wrong is a mortal sin.
I'm not roman catholic, but I wrestle with the issue of contraception a lot. I think the motivation for not wanting a baby and the method used are two separate issue. One can use NFP and have a morally wrong motivation, using NFP in it self does not make it right.
I agree with your pont, that NFP is also an achievement of medical science (even if it is "natural") and it is an act of the will to not have sex on fertile days, thus taking control over reproduction.
Is not control, that is in the center of this whole matter? And here we are back to motivation...
Can you understand that there's a moral difference between refraining from helping and hurting?
I do understand that. But here’s the problem: preventing sperm and egg from uniting doesn’t fall in the category of hurting. My issue is that preventing a human from being created by means of abstinence is no more moral (or no less hurtful) than by means of other non-abortive birth control.
As a Christian who respects many RC teachings and wants to live honestly and rightly before God in the realm of family planning, I’m thinking a lot about the morality of both aspects of family planning: the motives and the methods. But what I keep getting stuck on is the shaky Biblical grounds on which the RC mandates only one method for moral family planning: abstinence during during fertile periods determined by modern fertility tracking techniques.
I also find another prohibition against a natural form of birth control, coitus interruptus, illogical. RC teaching uses Gen 38:9-10 as evidence that coitus interruptus is morally wrong at all times, but I think this interpretation of scripture does not consider the context carefully enough. Onan’s ultimate sin in this story was disobeying God’s command to fulfill his duty to give his deceased brother’s wife children. That’s a very specific context. We modern folks don’t consider that a God-ordained duty for men now who have a widowed sister-in-law, do we? So why would we also consider the method by which Onan disobeyed God to apply to our modern age in the context of a married couple? I don’t think the point of that story was to prohibit certain birth control methods-I think the point was to emphasize disobeying God is not the right way to live. Onan’s method of disobeying God is irrelevant. He could have abstained from sex and still been sinning.
@@Jay-jb8km What is being hurt through contraception (including c.i.) is the marital act itself, which is a Sacrament.
To make another analogy, it's the difference between refraining from taking communion and taking it but then spitting it out.
In the story of Onan, it says that Judah, not God, told Onan to raise up offspring for his brother with Tamar.
I contend that God wasn't particularly interested in levirate marriage.
In Deuteronomy, Moses does provide for levirate marriage, but the punishment is public humiliation, not death.
Remember that Deuteronomy is the law that Moses provided because of the Jews' "hardness of hearts" and includes divorce, while Jesus doesn't allow divorce; so I don't think it was God's instruction but a cultural practice of a people who didn't have a well-developed sense of the afterlife and considered carrying on one's line of critical importance.
you are just simply not acknowledging the difference morally between having sex and not having sex. When using the NFP method there was no sex during the fertile time, therefore what could be immoral? Also people have understood a woman's cycle of fertility forever, modern medicine did not make that possible. Contraception is evil.
I know this is a little off topic but what are some reasons that a priest can deny marriage to a couple?
What are the rules and requirements for a valid Catholic wedding?
(catholicweddinghelp)
Some impediments to marriage include:
Age: Both persons need to be old enough to contract marriage according to the local civil laws. (The Church has a minimum age requirement as well; see Canon 1083.)
Previous marriage: You cannot marry someone else if you are already married. This most common impediment to marriage is discussed more below.
Relatives: You cannot marry someone who is already your relative (Canons 1091-1094).
Reason: Anyone who is incapable of understanding what marriage is and the responsibilities that come with it (because of mental impairment, for instance) cannot enter marriage (Canon 1095).
Fear: No one can be forced into marriage, either directly or because of some "grave fear" (Canon 1103).
@@AnnulmentProof Shorter answer:
Look up
Why Marriage Is NOT a Contract (It's a Covenant), Ascension Presents
Answer: the responsibilities of marriage are the procreation and education of the offspring. In them marriage finds its crowning glory. Prudence and well-formed consciences of parents are necessary in the matter of family planning. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life, life as gift from God.
Long answer: I don't know where your heart is at, but when trying to understand the responsibilities of marriage it would be best to understand what marriage truly is. If marriage is just a contract, a social phenomenon, or a label, then the things that follow from it are fabricated, man made.
If you are open to seeking truth and understanding God's original plan for the communion between man and woman, and in so doing understand what the church teaches about marriage, then the catechism is a great place to start if you are already familiar with the bible.
Better yet, head to your local church and ask about RCIA. You can just pop in so that you can learn more about what church is about and why anyone even goes to church.
@@khaimaera I think it's relevant to point out that all those impediments admit exceptions, which could be remedied through ecclesiastical dispensation.
I'm sorry, this is silly. Using a condom or "pulling out" both have the same intent as so called NFP: to NOT get pregnant as a result of intercourse. John Paul II is entitled to his opinion, but it should not be treated as the word of God.
Hello @Polyester_Avalanche and thank you for your honest comment! If you'd be open to a deeper dive into the nuances of the morality of NFP, feel free to check out this playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLAbqXQaOvkM4Rew1g5OGJwAcGLNk7oa5m.html&si=IKpkWyEeWd1W-TYI We'd also recommend Christopher's Good News About Sex & Marriage. You can find it here: shop.corproject.com/products/good-news-about-sex-and-marriage
Yep. Different methods of the same thing that they continuously make arbitrary irrelevant distinctions over
And if you are born infertile or homosexual?
Celibacy, of course an infertile person can be honest about that with a potential spouse and still get married.
@@jacobrodriguez7771 but they can't procreate. Was that not the point of creating them male and female?
Shit out of luck basically, due to their rules based on sentimental abstract “ethics”.
Yeah, Butker was wrong!
Wow! Beautiful! I wish I could give this video more than 1 like ha
Perfectly explained, thank you brother, God bless
God bless you too! We're glad it was helpful. If you'd like to go deeper we'd recommend Good News About Sex & Marriage. You can find it here: shop.corproject.com/products/good-news-about-sex-and-marriage
This playlist on NFP will also help: th-cam.com/play/PLAbqXQaOvkM4Rew1g5OGJwAcGLNk7oa5m.html&si=7qq0M_XEZCXDJDKO
@@TheologyoftheBodyInstitute thx, I will look that up :)
Btw I’m a Baptist, but very much considering converting to Catholicism, and teachings about sex from a Catholic perspective are apart of this… love your channel🙏 makes a lot of sense
Yes they are lol.
Another point of view ?If you are gay or transgender or know someone who is, this is important information! It has been determined that sexual orientation is determined in the womb during fetal development. Various hormones such as testosterone are introduced at specific times & amounts which determine physical, biological & psychologic features of the fetus It is, therefore, not a choice by the fetus or mother & consequently not a sin & not immoral. It is a natural path of life’s evolution & found commonplace in nature. Extensive medical research clearly explains this process. Those who believe it is an abomination do so based not on facts but on religious authority. I totally accept that this is their right to believe this and I understand. It must be made clear however, it is based on religion not science. If you are truly interested in the truth based on knowledge, facts & research, the book Gay, Straight & the Reason Why by Dr. Simon Levay explains this with numerous research articles. If you want to understand the truth & have respect for others & yourself, this book will help. It also has, unlike the bible written over 2000 years ago by men that had, unfortunately, no understanding of science, an extensive bibliography. I strongly recommend the book if you want solid factual understanding. If you chose to respond to me, please read this book &/or the numerous articles referred to in the reference section beforehand. I do not want to waste your or my time if your claim to understanding is based on religion. The public must be exposed to facts & knowledge. It is an obligation for those who know the truth & defend it. Don’t let the religious pull you down to their level of ignorance. Peace
I actually agree with you that these issues are generally caused by the environment in the womb (although its not entirely true that the mother didn't choose it since she chooses what she eats and what chemicals she exposes herself to), but what does that have to do with the morality of the acts? Paedophilia is likely also caused this way but no one would say that's not immoral. Maybe I had a lot of testosterone in the womb so I'm super straight....it doesn't follow that I can fornicate with a bunch of women or cheat on my wife. We all have free-will. Engaging in homosexual acts is always evil.
You lie. There are people who that 99% certain isn’t true.
This is all well and good in theory.
Your grandma is dead analogy is a strawman at best.
Such distortions and falsehoods are both common and infuriating.