Do any Catholics amongst you really believe contraception is wrong?

[Spidermama]

I'd be interested to know. If so why? And if not, how do you square it with your faith?

But I use barrier contraception, and I also accept that conception may occur.

You are taking a calculated risk, as am I. I genuinely do not see the difference.

I don't really see how NFP is any more (or less) moral than any other kind of FP.

As far as being open to God - nothing is impossible for God. If it is God's will, conception will (or won't) occur, regardless of the type of contraception.

I have a very devout (unmarried) Catholic friend who, in the past, has practised NFP. I do feel if you're going to stray from the path do it properly and use a pretty reliable method of contraception; I think NFP is great for married couples who want to avoid conception either for religious or health reasons (that would be my argument, why take hormones all month when you are only fertile for a few days). My attitude is, don't use it unless the arrival of (another) baby wouldn't be the end of the world.

And the choice about when to have sex, or rather when not to have sex if you are using NFP, is in order to prevent conception.

I agree, Tribpot. I think it is in the same camp as using Persona.

Spidermama, re the Mary thing... I read an interesting book a while back which looked at this amongst other things and the writer said that Mary was not an important figure in the early Christian church - but when the church started to expand into countries (like Ireland for example) with an existing "pagan" religion where female deities were very important, the role of Mary was enhanced to make the new religion more palatable to the people they were trying to convert.

The foloowing article discusses the idea that barrier method of contraception and NFP are equally immoral. It lays out the Church's position far better than I could (I'm no theolgian!) and might prove interesting to the debate...

www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

Well, I've had a quick shufti, and I can't see that it's saying anything different to you (clearly you are a better theologian than you thought) - but I still don't get the logic. I do notice however that it is only permitted where there are 'just and grave causes' for avoiding conception. And I wonder what they are.

I am loving the phrase 'use of marriage' instead of sexual intercourse BTW

Perhaps the mother's health would be one acceptable reason, or simply the wish to space children out a bit more than one a year! Other valid reasons might be where a child or parent has health issues (serious illness etc) that mean that the family has to concentrate on that individual for the time being.

Well, yes. I guess you could interpret it however you wanted. Which seems a bit odd. I thought you might have been given some guidance, given that you use NFP. Does wanting to space out your children really fall into the same category as a risk to the health of the mother in terms of just and grave causes?

How about if a catholic couple decide to space them 30 years apart?

It does sound like NFP is just a less reliable form of contraception. If its unreliability makes it moral then what happens if we invent a way to be absolutely sure of the safe times?

And just thinking this through if some cheaper condoms were of poorer quality and unreliable would they then be ok to use?

The idea that it's ok to avoid pregnancy as long as you do it inefficently sounds like an odd line to draw.

Why is NFP inefficent? I thought it's as efficent as you want it to be (like the pill, if you miss one, it's not that efficient).
I guess that in order to interpret well what "just and grave causes" could be, one needs the help of the Church AND the Holy Spirit! It is the spirit with which you do it that changes everything (being open to life and to the will of God).

Of course one can use this guideline to say "We now stop having babies because there are no more available rooms in the house". With the Holy Spirit (IMO!!) one might say "We now trust that God will provide for us if He blesses us with one more life". Which could mean a bigger house or sibblings learning to share a bit more.

I had postnatal depression and that was a very good reason for avoiding pregnancy. If God had wanted women to have babies all the time, He would have made us fertile at all times! Instead He gave us many infertile days of the month to enjoy love-making

ChocFudgeCake, NFP isn't 100%. it's an educated guess only as to the safe times. It has got a bit more reliable these days (through science ) but it's still a gamble.

Some people are saying that makes it ok with god because he can make sure it fails if he really wants you to get pregnant. Why he can't make the pill fail in that case I don't know.

If the point of NFP is to avoid pregnancy and the point of the pill/condoms is to avoid pregnancy why is one a sin and not the other?

Few contraceptives are 100% greyriverside. Used correctly NFP is a pretty effective form of contraception, equivalent in failure rate to barrier methods I believe.

But it is still contraception IMO.

Wasn't Mary chosen because she was free from original sin - that's what the "immaculate" bit of the conception refers to isn't it?? hmmm, dredging the depths of a very lapsed catholic brain here! so could be completely wrong.

Yes, you are right, Greyriverside, I didn't mean to say it was 100% reliable, I wanted to say it was like the pill.
And did you know that when the pill fails to prevent conception, it can still prevent implantation? Like the coil. One wouldn't even know what's happening.

Condoms don't do that though.

That's correct.