Why does the Church allow NFP but not contraception?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2021
- Why does the Church allow NFP but not contraception? Find out, as Jason Evert interviews Fr. Mike Schmitz in this episode of the Lust is Boring Podcast.
To watch the full episode, click here: • Ask Fr Mike ANYTHING!
Listen to the podcast at chastity.com/podcast/
Go with us on pilgrimage: chastity.com/pilgrimage/
Support Us on Patreon: / jasonevert
Hallow 14-days free: hallow.com/lustisboring/
Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/?promocod...
Visit www.chastity.com - Розваги
If sex is purely for procreation we would be driven to have it only during fertile period. Human sex is not just for procreation.
To clarify, sex is for procreation and union (together), and the two ends should not be artificially separated. See here for a more thorough explanation: ua-cam.com/video/DDC5RwCSbc4/v-deo.html&feature=emb_imp_woyt
@@Chastityprojectso then NFP is a sin and we should only have sex during fertile times. And infertile couples can never have sex.
Good point! However, the martial act is used for union between man and wife. NFP allows couples to keep natural act of procreation according to the cycle. Its allows the act to be completed without hindering the possibility of pregnancy. Although, some times of the cycle are more fertile than others.
So fr mike proved that NFP is immoral when he said it is wrong to engage in sex purely for binding purposes, which is EXACTLY what couples do when they have sex deliberately in the infertile periods ONLY!!!
No, its allows for God to decide when a child will be given to a husband and wife. The possibility of pregnancy is always present even in minimized cycle period.
So is the case with most contraception. I think we are trying to make this form of birth control sound natural, when it may be natural in the physical aspect, but morally it might be hard to make the case that this planning method is anymore or less moral than say condoms. After all if planning method is 99% effective you probably have a better chance of getting pregnant using condoms.@@anthonyp3066
@@anthonyp3066So is the case with most contraception. I think we are trying to make this form of birth control sound natural, when it may be natural in the physical aspect, but morally it might be hard to make the case that this planning method is anymore or less moral than say condoms. After all if planning method is 99% effective you probably have a better chance of getting pregnant using condoms.
The Early Church Fathers did not approve of NFP. Leviticus 18 lists sex during a woman's menstrual cycle as equally immoral as incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. If Onan would have used today's Catholic approved NFP, would God still have struck him dead?
If NFP is no different from contraception, I'd like to challenge you to give it a try. It's an act of sacrifice to postpone your desire for your spouse in order to be obedient to God. God sees our efforts and intention of loving Him in obedience. Putting on a condom, taking pills, etc, is convenient and requires no self mastery or sacrifice. And contraception is unnatural. But with NFP I'm unable to see anything physically unnatural about it.
What do you have to say about women with PCOS or other hormonal issues who cannot use NFP because it doesn’t work?
I highly recommend one get in touch with the great physicians at naprotechnology.com/ . As they will explain, NFP can be used effectively with PCOS, and there are also very effective remedies for curing it as well.
@@Chastityproject I did try NaPro (Creighton). It basically told me that yes, my hormones are not functioning correctly. I was referred to a NaPro physician who were all way too expensive and did not take my insurance.
I am not against NFP, I’m really not. I was actually all for it before getting married and finding out about my diagnosis. I just think reality is that it does not work for everyone and I wish those of us that it doesn’t work for didn’t have to feel guilty about using other methods of family planning.
Preach
Because it doesn't work. NFP is a marriage killer.
This is a conversation I can't have with anyone I know. Most people just don't understand.
If I use contraception with my husband (phisical barrier) should I confess to the preist about it? I think abstinence and NFP is the only way to go?
Yes, please do. See here fo more details: ua-cam.com/video/DDC5RwCSbc4/v-deo.html&feature=emb_imp_woyt
Omg you don’t realize how brainwashed this religion has you?
"Increase and multiply" cannot be "avoided." As Yoda would say "either do, or do not." Nfp = calendar contraception.
I am a converted Catholic with 3 children. My husband and I had our first child at 18. We are still trying to work our way up. I have to finish school as I’m trying to become a Dental Hygienist and my husband is finally an EMT but currently in fire academy and once that is done he needs to do his medic. It’s really not the right time for us to have more children but we still want to have more. We simply can’t afford it as we rely on food stamps, in debt, and don’t have enough income to support another child. We are stressed because of our income and battling our own illnesses. We ultimately don’t want to be on birth control, but after having twins we both can’t imagine getting pregnant until responsibly we will be able to afford it. My menstruation is all over the place and hard to track since having twins. My husband and I are pretty fertile and we have relation very often. I’m seeking help and advice… please pray for me and my family for guidance!
God will provide. "she shall be saved through childbearing.."1 Tim 2:15. If u need to not be pregnant, then have no relations aka "virtuous continence" casti connubii 53. ALL family planning is grave sin bc it changes the natural purpose of the act. Stay home, have 17 kids and let your husband work.
Do what you think is right and forget the Church.
The think is some people can’t have kids due to a illness or don’t want children but is there isn’t wrong with that?
Jason, have you noticed that "licit NFP" is not open to debate ever?
I am sincerely hoping for a response in this, because our parish could not really answer this because it is kind of a "unique situation" as they put it. What about using contraception as a means of mood and hormonal control? I was born with a condition called uterus didelphys, i have two uteruses and cervixes. I also cannot birth naturally due to this. When i am on birth control it helps me to think and not get carried away with mood switches due to my hormone imbalance. Contraception has been helpful for my husband and i have to have children because it helps regulate everything to what a normal woman would have. Monthly things for me have NEVER been normal enough for me to use NFP. I wish they were. Without it, I also have horrendous pain and become very anemic, which also affects my lively hood. I have been told by doctors that 80-90% of my pregnancies would end in miscarriage. My husband and i have experienced 2 miscarriages, and 5 years of infertility without contraception. When i use it correctly, i'm able to have children because it is still not 100% effective. Because of birth control, my husband and i were able to have children. The next question would be, since i have had repeat miscarriages and extremely harsh pregnancies due to what i was born with, is it right for my husband and i to agree to occasionally use condoms? With my first child, my blood pressure was 200/200 and at risk of stroke and seizure. I was pulled back for an emergency c section and my baby boy was delivered early at 33 weeks. We miscarried 4 years later in November. The next year we became pregnant with our daughter, she never turned in utero due to small amounts of room. I was also diagnosed high risk. This c section was horrible enough on my body to where my husband decided he didnt want to put me through that, i am sure they butchered something, i could feel them on my lungs, etc. If we could, we would have more babies now. We want more babies, we just know my body can also take so much before something critical does happen, especially since things got so close with my first pregnancy. I could not stand the thought of leaving my babies here on earth without a mama. My heart also aches for my little ones in heaven. I dont know where this would fall in the church... I'm also not sure why i wasnt made like other women. Able to experience the gift naturally of what a woman can do. To doctors half the time i am nothing more than a science experiment sadly, because I have something rarely seen in books or in people.
Thank you for the question and for your faithfulness to God during this trial. I have two resources that I think you'll find to be helpful. In terms of the morality aspect of this, a good group to reach out to would be the National Catholic Bioethics Center, at www.ncbcenter.org . And in terms of family planning and fertility-related health issues and questions, I highly recommend the team at popepaulvi.com Both of these organizations are faithfully Catholic and will help you through this. God bless!
Hi there! I am sorry you go through all of that. Definitely sounds like you have a medical reason that would excuse you from this restriction.
You need to stay alive to care for your children. My mom had to go on birth control and then have her tubes tied after her 4th child because of her heart condition. She technically died once and couldn't risk it a second time.
Hello there, know of my prayers 💙 wow you have a heavy cross to carry. I do not envy you😢. In a way, this is a question of why does God allow you to suffer. At the very least He allows you to suffer to save your soul and to help save the souls of those you love IE redemptive suffering. Not to mention it is the biggest grace to suffer anything on earth vs purgatory. And it has to be one or the other. As one striving to be a priest I understand the struggle of not having sex. (Even more the struggle of not having an intimate companion.) I remind myself that only the treasure stored in heaven has any real value and that everything we NEED is found in Jesus. This cross helps me to own that. Because as He said in the gospel said today " I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE!"
I recommend talking with another priest In regards to taking birth control as a kind of medication just as some do for anxiety for example. Of course your intention is good but is the means good? I don't know anything about birth control to say. As far as using condoms the moral option would be not to use them. If you are at risk unfortunately you need to abstain from the act. This might be hard to hear at first but I think it will set you free. Again know of my prayers.
There's always the option of abstaining from sex. It may sound rash and unnecessary, but think about it deeply and pray about it. Principally, a wrong can never make a right and what the Church has forbidden, for our salvation's sake, should never be compromised, because you start compromising your and your spouse's soul. To love, to will the best of the other, in this case you and your spouse's marriage, may certainly be the case that you should consider abstaining from sex if you do not want to face the high risk dangerous consequences of engaging in the marital embrace with your husband.
Love is never possible without sacrifice and sometimes that sacrifice may be something as beautiful as the marital embrace and the begetting of children. Your and your husband's salvation comes first. Remember that God is with you... Jesus is with you through any hardship
Senseless. The aim of, say, using a condom (an example of AFP) and having sex only on infertile periods (NFP) are the same. The means may be different but there was no explanation why one is wrong/evil/immoral, just an assertion.Senseless. The aim of, say, using a condom (an example of AFP) and having sex only on infertile periods (NFP) are the same. The means may be different but there was no explanation why one is wrong/evil/immoral, just an assertion.
Thank you for the comment. In order for an act to be good, both the motive and the means must be good. Please watch our video where we explain the distinction between these two methods of family planning, and why they are not the same: ua-cam.com/video/DDC5RwCSbc4/v-deo.html&feature=emb_imp_woyt
@@Chastityproject So the aim i.e. avoiding conception is good?
The reasons Catholics use artificial contraception is because natural family planning says procreation is not primary.
@@Chastityproject In terms of motive, the AFP and NFP are the same - family planning by delaying pregnancy while allowing the couples to have and enjoy sex.
In terms of means, how do we know NFP is good but AFP is bad? Is it because it is "artificial"? Does being artficial make something bad? Clothes, medicines, footwear, soap, cars, some food all are artificial. Are they bad?
@@junramos2002 NFP doesn't violate and thwart the natural functions/purposes of the body. During abstinence, the body performs the natural function of maintaining homeostasis. During sex, the body performs the natural function of attempting to generate new life. Subverting the completion of the sexual act through contraception, however, thwarts this natural function of the body.
Wearing clothes, taking medicine, using soap, etc. don't thwart the natural functions of the body but actually help the body preserve its natural design by preventing/reducing disease.
This is where the Catholic Church looses me and why I think I will be converting to Eastern Orthodoxy or even Protestantism. I don’t want to buy I think the churches view on this is backwards.
Why not just go Satanist? More licence.
its simple be procreative and some times of the month are less fertile than others. Its to keep GOD in the martial act and understand the fertile cycle.
@@anthonyp3066 yeah I understand it. I understand the reasoning behind it I’m just still not on that side yet but I am coming around to it.
OK.... I had my twins peripartum cardiomyophy - pretty rareheart conditioned developed in pregnancy. Ended up in preterm labour's because of it. Recommended not to have anymore children due to the damage and the risk of it killing my inborn child and myself. Can't do natural family planning due to having pcos with irregular cycles ie I can't track ! So is it really that wrong to use co dims for example ?
So sorry to her about those difficulties. Please make sure to watch this episode, which will answer your question: chastity.com/podcast/the-pill-lazy-gynecology/
You didn't ask me...but I'm a psychiatrist. I think PCOS is a perfectly reasonable medical condition to morally justify the use of hormonal therapy. Pray to God. He knows you and your fears.
NFP separates babies from the conjugal act. What is the purpose of agenesic NFP-timed relations?
Strengthening the marital bond without artificially blocking the potential for procreation. If NFP is artificial, then God would be to blame, who created seasons of infertility every month. Must a couple abstain on these days?
@@Chastityproject there is no day on the calendar which is off limits, because none may be "circumscribed" (Casti Connubii #8). #59 says "strengthening the marital bond" is "forbidden" when procreation is not the primary purpose.
@@Chastityprojectno, it is the humans who make the error by deliberately timing the sexual act during the seasons of infertility in order to not create life. NFP is morally equivalent to contraceptive use.
@@AnnulmentProof Well, GOD created times to be fertile and not fertile. He is the one and pregnancy can happen during minimized fertile period. GOD is not removed from the act. That is was NFP is allowed
@@anthonyp3066 procreation is deliberately removed from the nfp act. Doesn't that naturally violate "increase and multiply?"
Jason, if the conjugal act is for procreation, what is the NFP-timed to act for?
@Mthf is "bonding" a primary, or secondary end of the conjugal act?
@Mthf That's because one is controlling birth and the other is controlling birth. "Bonding" can never be a primary purpose of marriage, unless "everything" is primary. Therefore nothing is off limits.
@Mthf the Church says no secondary before primary. No Pope can contradict that, even in an encylical
@Mthf NFP = deliberately and intentionally non-procreative. This is to place the secondary ends of marriage as primary, does it not?
@MthfGod says "bonding" is secondary because the church defines the essence of marriage. She has declared procreation alone to be essence. Canon 1013 - § 1.
[1] The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children;
[2] its secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence.
The only way to get licit NFP is to eliminate the hierarchy of ends, which is exactly what Vatican 2 attempted to do.
IAM a Catholic and both me and my wife used contraception I my self feel very Sorry for using it do I go to confession I feel so upset now listening to this
Yes. Even though it is a past sin you didn’t know if you should still confess it. You can also let the priest know you did not realize it was a serious sin.
Don't, none of their business
then you're not really catholic (hint, theres nothing actually logically wrong with using contraception and you shouldn't remain in a dumb religion that cant come up with a good explanation for why it is wrong)
What if you are using contraception (not pills) in the early years of marriage as you are getting to know each other and is just not ready to have a baby? I.e do not really want to bring kids into the world before we are used to each other, absolutely open to life! Not against NFP either, but again this will take sometime to get used to for a newly wedded couple. Until both the husband and the wife are comfortable/more organised with NFP is it okay to use contraception?
Thanks for your question, Neema. If a couple has a just reason to postpone pregnancy, NFP is the moral solution, not contraception. However, two important questions to ask would be: 1. "Is 'getting to know each other better' a sufficient reason to avoid the gift of life? and 2. Does 'needing to get organized/comfortable with NFP' make contraception ever acceptable? The answer to both of these questions would be no. Why is this the case? Please take a moment to watch the episode we did on exactly these topics: ua-cam.com/video/DDC5RwCSbc4/v-deo.html
@@Chastityproject thank you! 😊
@@Chastityproject Jason, how many *primary* purposes can a thing have?
The Catholic Church would basically tell you that if you're not ready to have a baby - for WHATEVER reason - then you should not be getting married. If you feel that you don't know your to-be spouse well enough to start a family with him, then you should not be getting married. According to the Catholic Church, the primary purpose of marriage is NOT to be with someone you are in love with, and be happy together and enjoy spending time together. The primary purpose of marriage is to reproduce. The being in love part is not something the Catholic Church is particularly concerned with. That's why throughout the generations, arranged marriages were very common. Having a woman's father pick out a husband for her isn't considered wrong or sinful in any way (as long as the bride does state that she is marrying the man "of her own free will"). This whole idea of love not really mattering, and the teaching that contraception is evil and sinful, those were a couple of reasons as to why, after much soul searching, I left Catholicism (I am still a Christian, 100%, just not a Catholic). Not ONLY those, believe me. Although I completely agree that God doesn't change, and things that were once sinful in the old Biblical times don't just become perfectly OK simply because in modern culture, everyone is doing them. However, I also know that God is very well aware that times DO change. 2000 years ago, having a lot of kids was wonderful! The more the better - children were a huge help to work on the farm or care for the home and younger siblings. Nowadays, in the U.S. and other developed countries, having so many kids is just not feasible. Financially it is almost impossible for couples to have even ONE child. And even though that may be the case, why would God not be OK with a married couple who are very much in love, being physically intimate? Simply because they are not open to having a child? It just makes absolutely no sense. And I'm not even going to go into all the other rules and restrictions around sex - even between married couples. It's ridiculous and a lot of the arbitrary rules do not come from God. They come from the people in power in the Catholic Church, such as the Pope. And we all know the corruption and bullsh*t that has been rampant amongst Popes and other high-up clergy throughout history.
I thought the purpose of marriage was to have a family.
Great🙏🏻👍🏻
When a man and a woman are married and are committed to their God, the question for them may be : what is pleasing to the Lord? What is God honoring sex? If sex is only self satisfying , then it is not God centered, but rather self centered. We can only have one Master. A God centered view of the sexual act is not creating a world for you to have all the sexual pleasures for your gratification. First, we are not to have sex as if God is not there. God knows what’s going through your heart and mind. Second, there should be a humble servant’s attitude towards the spouse, not a give me attitude. To God be the glory. His ways are the best ways. We can not improve His design.
Why I believe birth control is self centered:
First, birth control is not a God centered idea. But rather the opposite. It’s focus is not on God’s sovereignty.
When a God centered couple wants to have children, they recognize only God can open the womb.
When the God centered couple isn’t currently trying to have children, they recognize that only God can close the womb.
We know that in His design there are seasons of a closed womb and (for some, those He chooses) an open womb.
Who are we to think we can change His design? That we could do better? What makes us want to? Sex on demand?Self centered sex? What happened to self control?
The Godly couple has self control to abstain and should they become pregnant they recognize it is God’s sovereign will at work.
How about a DEBATE on this topic? It could be: "Is Contraception Sinful?"
If NFP is permissible, then all contraception is permissible. No amount of mental gymnastics will get around that fact.
I’m a baptist, but in simpler terms (from what I’m able to understand), I think it has to do with prohibiting unnatural/artificial/manmade means of contraception. 🤷🏻♀️
@@realmxdi but artificial just means created with the human intellect. NFP is created with the human intellect - it is using human rationality to avoid procreation. NFP is artificial.
@@aisthpaoithtgreat point. It's not natural..
@@realmxdi But contraception is nothing new though. Condoms from animal intestines were used in the roman times.
No its a matter of blocking the act. Like pull out method and denying the chances of having a child or NFP which is the martial act during anytime including less fertile periods. Women can become pregnant at any time without contraception. Understand the martial act is about union and procreation with spouse and GOD. Contraception removes all possibility of pregnancy through unnatural means. Women can become pregnant at anytime including the less fertile time.
The mental gymnastics going on here are insane.
No, this is how theology and Catholic thought about what is and isn't sin works. St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine read in the same way Fr Mike is speaking. It may be hard to understand at first, but it isn't 'mental gymnastics', it's just very scholastic.
@@Myriil00I think she was talking about all the problems with their logic.
💙 OMG, this topic is sooo complex 💙
NFP and contraception are both the same thing morally. They use knowledge of the body to decrease the chance of pregnancy. And Abstinence in the Catholic view, shouldn';t be allowed at all since its the one that is 100% not open to life.
I think it’s due to the synthetic/man made nature of other forms of contraception? I’m a baptist so don’t take my word for it. Just trying to understand their pov.
Edit: It’s been a month since commenting. I plan on being confirmed soon. 😭
@@realmxdi NFP is using scientific knowledge as well.
@FirstJohn2.12-17 Abstinence, which is part of NFP, is very much people impeding on creating life.
@FirstJohn2.12-17 It does actually. There is a marriage debt issue and there is the fact that a couple that says the marriage vows and yet never consummates is considered unmarried by the Church.
@FirstJohn2.12-17 Well I don't think its a bad thing if people in their 50's or older want to get married. And also the Church allows for NFP.
Funny, I read the book "Real Catholic Exorcisms" on page 62. Lucifer reportedly said following: "If the message of the Virgin Mary at Fatima is not given due importance and HUMANAE VITAE respected, a new punishment will come." 😐
I was always told, if it walks like a duck ,and quacks like a duck its usually a duck! ,its only one week of the month no sex? Please! its more like 12 - 15 abstinences days considering that a mans sperm can live for 5 -6 days, if you have sex anytime after the wife's period ends your running a risk of another kid ,if your avoiding pregnancy.
And its interesting because most of your marriage is going to be avoiding pregnancy, isn't it? or you going to have kid a year? And ( if ) sex after menopause isn't what its cracked up to be.
I cant imagine the the stress, if every month if you or your wife wondering if their /you are pregnant again ,especially if your pushing 45 looking at 50 , and hoping to retire someday, or you can have some money to do somethings with the kids you have already .
Family planning is contra-baby. Fr. Mike Schmitz says that the reproductive system can be used primarily for non-reproductive purposes (NFP). That is the definition of contraception.
@@AnnulmentProof That's the joke of the whole thing ( that's why they call it "Catholic birth control" ) , anytime your trying to manipulate outcome its a control factor ,we used to get get pregnant, so there you go !
Procreation must be primary, but nutrition doesn't have to be primary. NFP subordinates procreation, which is condemned in casti connubii 59.
NFP is permitted by the same Church that wrote CC59, and does not see it being in conflict with HV. What authority would you appeal to above it?
Strong reasons.
If you ask me, NFP is not ok in 99% of it usage. That we Catholics by the nonsense that you can use NFP as much as you like, it show how dumb we are.
How have they decided which is the primary purpose of sex? How do we know that the primary wasn’t for bonding and enjoyment and the secondary procreation?
Because ultimately the act is designed to procreate life. That's the final end and hence the primary end. Pleasure and bonding are only secondary. Pleaser serves as an incentive to the primary end and bonding serves as a benefit to it so that the offspring have both parents united. Thus the pleasure and the bonding are both subservient to the ultimate end which is the offspring. No argument can be made that the opposite is true because is if you do then the same would likewise be true of eating. We know the primary end of food is for nutrition and sustaining life not merely the pleasure we get from eating. Pleasure from eating is an incentive so hence is a secondary cause. It be absurd to turn it around and say the opposite.
Yes great explanation! NFP is also not something that should be abused and should be used only for serious reasons
I can’t believe anyone would actually believe this. The what it’s forness 😩😭. Not one thing he said made sense or was convincing
Nah broskis, sex is there for procreation and it is pleasurable so that we do procreate, sex has evolved to be a pleasurable act so humans have sex more and reproduce more, but at the end of the day, the purpose of sex is to procreate
NFP and contraception are the same thing morally. They use knowledge of the body to decrease the chance of pregnancy.
They both can be used to plan pregnancy, but that's as much as they have in common. To say this makes them morally equivalent is like saying abortion and abstinence are the same because they prevent babies from being born. In terms of NFP and Contraception, one works in accord with the seasons of fertility and infertility that God has ordained in a woman's body, and the other works against it.
@@jasonevert No, both utilize science to prevent pregnancy. That's the mechanism and goal of both.
And abstinence is right there next to those two.
@@veddermn8 The Church is not opposed to science. The mechanism of both methods is very different. One renders a fertile act sterile, and the other does not alter a woman's fertility at all.
@@jasonevert Both use science to prevent fertilization. Both alter the woman's ability to become pregnant.
Babies are independent of bonding, but bonding is dependent on babies.
NFP is artificial timing which throws a wrench into the relationship dynamic.
Abstinence is a natural part of every marital relationship, and if a couple can not endure such times when necessary, it shows a lack in the development of self-mastery. NFP (when used properly) is not to blame if tension arises. Rather, NFP often exposes a lack of chastity because of the demands it places upon the spouses, many of whom might expect marriage to merely relieve them of the need for self-denial.
@@Chastityproject is it natural to avoid the fertile window and pursue the infertile window?
@@AnnulmentProof We are animals but we are also human, it is proper (natural) for us to use reason to make choices. If you want to ask what is natural, it would probably be accurate to say it's natural for us to be having sex constantly (even in public), but because humans are rational creatures our reason tells us not to, it is most proper for humans to utilize reason to make desicions. To follow the instincts most concerned with nutrition, generative, and reproductive abilities is part of being human, but to use reason in accordance with these instincts is most proper. We should strive for virtue which NFP does by having couples exercise absence, to further strengthen bonds.
@@hacm1925 nature seeks to increase likelihood of conception. NFP/AFP seek to decrease likelihood of conception. This is why all "planning" violates natural law. It makes the secondary purpose primary.
@@Chastityproject no way. Sex is apart of marriage and the bond. Its more than just procreation. You cant have one without the other. Marriage is union to raise children
The nutrition analogy is so great in that it really shows how stupid this abstract natural law "ethics" philosophy is. Father is wrong here in that by the logic of condemning contraception, eating sweets for the sole purpose of pleasure is evil, which is of course stupid. Just like saying sex for the purpose of bonding alone is wrong is also stupid and logically baseless.
But yes, NFP and other methods of contraception are still morally equivalent. One just happens to be a more passive method. I've dealt with people beating around the bush on this subjects for years and heard the same idiotic arguments and analogies. They continue to fail.
The bulimia analogy is also stupid and very deceptive. Bulimia is a problem because of the concrete physical and mental adverse consequences. not for some stupid, abstract, arbitrary notion of it "violating the proper nature of things". Using contraception on the other hand is neither physiologically or mentally corrosive, so the analogy fails and contraception is not evil.
“Because [NFP] is so effective, it’s like more than 99% effective”.
According to whom? You? The church? What’s your credibility in the subject of medicine or Where’s your source?
“and couple have a divorce rate under 4%”. Again, according to whom? And if so, what’s your point? Does it truly mean than they are genuinely happy? Or couldn’t it be that married couples in the church just avoid divorce since the church is always telling us of all the ways were gonna burn in hell if we separate. Instead we could just stick around unhappy and sick of each other until death just so that we don’t burn in hell but not truly because we want to.
@@Soulsburner Mercedes Arzú Wilson, “The Practice of Natural Family Planning Versus the Use of Artificial Birth Control: Family, Sexual, and Moral Issues,” Catholic Social Science Review 7 (November 2002).
P. Frank-Hermann, et al., “The Effectiveness of a Fertility Awareness Based Method to Avoid Pregnancy in Relation to a Couple’s Sexual Behaviour During the Fertile Time: A Prospective Longitudinal Study,” Human Reproduction doi:10.1093/humrep/dem003 (February 2007), 1-10; R. E. J. Ryder, “‘Natural Family Planning’ Effective Birth Control Supported by the Catholic Church,” British Medical Journal 307 (September 18, 1993), 723, 725.
Think an organisation that is plagued by child abuse scandals should stay quiet on this one