[metmom]

NFP is contraception.

The objection I responded to was about what had been referred to as *sterile sex* being the cause of immorality, and that contraception is to blame.

There is NOTHING wrong with sex merely for the sake of pleasure between a married man and woman, contrary to what some other Catholic posters on FR have stated before. The marriage bed is undefiled. Hebrews 13:4

If the sin is in the act of contraception, the prevention of conception, then the method used is irrelevant whether it’s condoms or the rhythm method or NFP.

And contraception is contraception, “natural” or not.

bb is correct in her post. Sexual sin has existed for long before contraception. The moral decline in our country is not because of contraception and easy sex. It’s due to the depraved condition of human nature which loves sin more than it loves God.

We sin because we’re sinners. We are not sinners because we sin. ANY sin that someone commits began in the heart long before it was borne in the actions. What we are seeing in our society is not the end result of contraception, it is the end result of man’s rebellion against God, which manifests in sin, that is different for each of us.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Good afternoon, ladies!

I'm venturing to make this discussion more "manageable" by first listing our areas of agreement. (Just skim this quickly. That way we shouldn't have to reiterate these points from here on in. That should make our future dialogue more focused.

(Or you could just skip the framed text.)

1. We agree that sexual immorality and sexual perversion -- Satan's tricks--- were not invented by the "Sexual Revolution" of the 20th century, but have been with us since Genesis.

2. We agree that we don't condone sex outside of a male/female marriage nor do we accept ANY methods of birth control that cause the death of the new human life.

3. Where I will disagree with you is in the area of We agree on a husband and wife deciding for for themselves what is best in the planning of their family. Couples just starting out may not be in a position to afford children and must wait until they are more financially secure in order to best provide for the needs of their children.

[You had put that as a point of disagreement, but as I will explain, it's actually a point of agreement.)

4. We agree that all life is in God's hands and He is able to work all things for our good when we love Him and are called according to His purpose/plan.

5. We agree that knowing this doesn't prevent us from getting a flu shot each year. It doesn't keep us from getting antibiotics when we have an illness. There are certain areas where God expects us to act responsibly and others where we have no control and we must trust in Him.

6. We agree that, just as it is up to each believer to live his/her life in accordance with God's will and plan in obedience to His moral laws, so also must we, who may provide guidance to young people, teach them how we go about knowing God's perfect will.

7. We agree that it begins with impressing upon [young people] their priceless worth to their Creator and His great love for each of us.

8. We agree that it continues with learning to appreciate the powerfully marvelous gift He gives a husband and wife in the act of procreation and to never take physical advantage of each other but to honor and respect each other, preferring the other to oneself.

9. We agree that there is NOTHING wrong with sex merely for the sake of pleasure between a married man and woman, contrary to what some other Catholic posters on FR have stated before. The marriage bed is undefiled. Hebrews 13:4

10.We agree that we sin because we’re sinners. We are not sinners because we sin. ANY sin that someone commits began in the heart long before it was borne in the actions.

OK?

Let me try to address the few contested points that remain, in no particular order.

.

• "Condoms and other barriers are not 100% effective nor is ANY method for that matter, short of hysterectomy..."

  Actually, total abstinence is 100% effective. Even periodic abstinence is 100% effective, when one uses the most conservative rules (e.g. pre-ovulatory abstinence, plus the "Clearblue Fertility Monitor" $38.00 from WalMart!) So if a couple absolutely has to avoid pregnancy, e.g. in a situation where another pregnancy would threaten the life of the woman, they'd be morally wrong to risk it with a condom, but morally advisable to use the most conservative form of NFP --- no need to go for a hysterectomy!

• "Why is one method called "sinful" while the other is totally acceptable? Either way, the couple IS involved in the decision they make.

  Yes, the couple is involved in the decisions they make. But that is not a moral problem. In fact, it is a moral requirement.

  The "shortest" proof-text Biblical objection to contraception is that it is Onanism (engaging in an act of intercourse altered so as to prevent conception) --- described in Genesis 38 as "evil in God's sight."

  Before we get stuck on debating that, the far more "pervasive" Biblical objection to contraception is that it is "pharmakeia", sometimes translated as the making of magic potions (sorcery), but more accurately the sin of making/taking drugs that intentionally do harm. The ancient "sorcery" was actually unethical pharmacology: the use of potions to cause death, miscarriage, sterility in an person or animal; also trafficking in what we'd today call "party drugs," opiates, hallucinogens, "love potions" to arouse sexual desire.

  Thus Christian medical ethics distinguishes between a flu shot or an antibiotic (meant to prevent or impede or heal disease) vs. a hormonal pill, patch, embeddable, implantable, or injectable dose (meant to prevent or impede normal physiological function.) In short, legitimate drugs restore a healthy normal condition; illegitimate drugs shut down a healthy normal condition.

• "I think it is disingenuous to try to tie ALL methods of contraception (which WOULD include NFP, if we're being honest) to the problems we have today with homosexuality, abortion, divorce and sexual immorality. "

  First, NFP is not contraception, as discussed above. It does not impair natural fertility in any way.(Which is what makes contraceptives CONTRA-ceptive, and not just "non" conceptive.) It works with the God-given natural design, not against it. It works via abstinence, and I think you would agree that abstinence is not contraception. We wouldn't call our virgin 13-year-old daughters or granddaughters contraceptors, would we?)

  Second, on *links* with problems we have today such as homosexuality, abortion, divorce and sexual immorality: I think you would agree that abstinence is NOT connected to homosexuality, abortion, divorce, and sexual immorality: both total and periodic abstinence (NFP) are negatively correlated with the above listed problems.

  On the other hand, contraception is strongly positively correlated to these problems: statistically, and I would argue, causally.

  Step back from the individual act of cortracepted intercourse, and widen your lens to look at a "contraceptive culture." We now --- and this is unprecedented in human history --- have a culture in which it is practically mandatory to let teachers train our children (via sex-ed) in the ideology that sex is not connected to the sanctity of life, is not connected to procreation, and therefore has no necessary connection to gender.

  This is how contraception as a cultural product, as an ideology, leads straight to homosexuality as an ideology: because neither side (gay or straight) is actually committed to natural sex.

  No one can deny that the "Sexual Revolution," which was fueled by the oral contraceptive, led to a vast increase (not decrease) in fornication, out-of-wedlock childbirths, abortion, STD's, divorce, gender confusion/dysphoria, gender rebellion, and many other ills.

• "If the sin is in the act of contraception, the prevention of conception, then the method used is irrelevant whether it’s condoms or the rhythm method or NFP."

  There you have it. The sin of contraception is NOT the prevention of conception!! You can morally prevent conception by being a virgin. You can morally prevent conception by abstinence. You can morally prevent conception by NFP (which is a form of abstinence.) The specific sin of contraception is intentionally impairing - denaturing - contracepting an act of intercourse so it cannot achieve its natural end. It is not abstinence. It is sabotage.

• "Men and women continue to engage in illicit sex regardless of advances in contraception. It's not the availability of MORE methods that encourages sin. Abortions haven't ceased because more methods are out there."

  As the "costs" of illicit sex go down, the incidence goes up. This follows a universal pattern of human behavior. You can predictably increase certain choices either by removing costs and risks, or by increasing rewards or benefits. We live in a society which does both: reduces the risks illicit sex, and increases benefits for nonmarital childbearing (if it comes to that.) . These are what political economists call "perverse incentives": they always, predictably, increase the incidence of the behavior.

  Contraceptives dropped the costs/risks of illicit sex, and therefore skyrocketed illicit sex and marital breakdown.

There's about three more major points I wanted to make, but (you'll agree) THIS IS ENOUGH! YOW!

But when we treat of these subjects again, at least we don't have to keep ardently insisting upon the points we already agree on, OK?

Trying to economize on words ... :o) Ha! Ha!Mrs. Don-o