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.)

So powerful

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.

I'm assuming then that Dr. West is also against oral sex then?

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.

Could you not make the same argument with many forms of medical intervention/correction?

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.

I know this is a little off topic but what are some reasons that a priest can deny marriage to a couple?

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.

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.

And if you are born infertile or homosexual?

Yeah, Butker was wrong!

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