A wholly reasonable approach to birth control

[1ke]

So in the end there really is no possibility of reunion between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

That’s not true. Of course there is always the possibility.

Entire Anglican and Episcopal parishes converted to Catholicism, and they too had
to accept all Church teachings even though their denomination did not teach these things were wrong.

With God all things are possible. We must pray for continuing dialog and the action of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AlNg]

NFP is only one small part of the preparation that is required.

I don’t see it mentioned in the Bible that you have to take a course in NFP in order to get married? Was this requirement something added recently to the deposit of faith?

 

[1ke]

I don’t see it mentioned in the Bible

Well the Bible isn’t in the Bible either. Sola Scriptura is a heresy.

that you have to take a course in NFP in order to get married?

The Bishops have broad discretion in the administration of the sacraments including the preparation to precede them.

These are the power of the keys, of binding and loosing. And that is in the Bible.

Was this requirement something added recently to the deposit of faith?

There is a difference between doctrine and discipline. The administration of the sacraments fall within the realm of the governing authority of the bishops.

 

[Gorgias]

Here, it is clear that some means of artificial birth control are being held to be acceptable, given only a subset are being rejected…

@gorgias

I read it as “NFP, as ‘contraception’, is permitted”, not as "NFP and other means of contraception, are permitted. The grammar of the sentence reads in particularly that way.

 

[Anesti33]

Rau:

Here, it is clear that some means of artificial birth control are being held to be acceptable, given only a subset are being rejected…

@gorgias

I read it as “NFP, as ‘contraception’, is permitted”, not as "NFP and other means of contraception, are permitted. The grammar of the sentence reads in particularly that way.

It would appear that that is a valid reading in isolation. However, let us consider the whole passage.
UOC Canada:

BIRTH CONTROL : Though opinions vary among Orthodox on this issue, the view of most Orthodox bodies is that controlling conception through “natural family planning”, or contraception, is acceptable for married couples, as long as it is done in a spirit of responsible Christian stewardship of life.

It seems clear that “or contraception” is a parenthetical qualifying phrase, modifying “natural family planning”. It is ignorant to use this term to describe NFP, but it is what it is.

This means, first, that birth control will not be used merely because having and rearing children is seen as a financial or social inconvenience. Secondly, it means that any form of contraception used will not be physically harmful to either spouse, and will not involve the abortion of a fertilized egg. Finally, the decision to utilize birth control, as well as the decision to have a child, must be a mutual one between both wife and husband.

It seems that the “finally” clause may clarify that they are not allowing artificial birth control, which is usually a unilateral decision of a spouse (wife decides to take the Pill, husband puts on a condom, wife inserts IUD or sponge.) NFP is achieved through mutual understanding and action.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Yes, that would be a problem.

So in the end there really is no possibility of reunion between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

As diffuse, and as “every bishop is head of his own local church” as Orthodoxy is, I don’t know how something like that would play out. It might be good for Rome to remind the Orthodox of what Patriarch Athenagoras said in response to Humanae vitae — “the Pope could not have spoken in any other way” — and then ask how, then, can you approve of contraception, even in the limited circumstances such churches at the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada allow for?

 

[JerryZ]

The thing that picked my attention was this part:

controlling conception through “natural family planning”, or contraception, is acceptable for married couples,

But NFT is NOT equal to contraception. One uses natural means to plan for conception while the other uses artificial means to do so,
The Catholic Church advocates for NFP to be uses and teaches that contraception is sinful.
Some methods are even detrimental to the health of the woman. I have knows many women who having been on the pill for decades then suffered the consequences. Infertility and even cancer.
Those are my 2 cents.
Peace!

 

[AlNg]

But NFT is NOT equal to contraception

If you use NFP to avoid having children, would that mean that the intention of avoiding children is the same in both cases?
AFAIK, the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. So in either case, artificial birth control or NFP used to avoid children, are you not going against the primary purpose of marriage?

 

[Vico]

…

This seems like a reasonable approach to birth control. So why do the Orthodox and RC churches have such a differing perspective?

The Catholic Church condemned the Anglican Church decision that “allowed the use of contraception in marriage” at the Seventh Lambeth Conference in 1930. Pope Pius XI wrote Casti Connubii against that decison (however without naming the Anglican Church by name).

Casti Connubii excerpt:

56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-...ents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

 

[AlNg]

False: the primary purpose of marriage is the sanctification of the spouses.

What is your source for this? Can you kindly explain why the following declarations are false? Thank you.

“the primary purpose of marriage is the generation and nurturing of offspring;”

Library : On the Primary Purpose of Marriage

On the Primary Purpose of Marriage In this scholarly essay, Jennaya Arias sets forth the three purposes that God ordained for marriage: procreation and education of children, mutual help and support of the spouses and the remedy for concupiscence. She explains why the Church teaches that...

www.catholicculture.org

Thomas Aquinas stated, “It is clear that offspring is the most essential thing in marriage,
Summa Theologiae IIIb:49:3

" The procreation of children is the first and natural and lawful reason for marriage"
St. Augustine
( On Adulterous Marriages 2:12:12 [A.D. 419]).

“Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place .”
encyclical Casti Connubii on Christian Marriage

" The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children . It’s secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscense."
1917 Code of Canon Law #1013.

" the primary purpose of Matrimony is children, and the secondary purpose (mutual support and regulation of lust) is subordinated to the primary purpose."

https://www.meaningofcatholic.com/2019/12/27/church-teaching-on-the-purpose-of-marriage/

Please give us your source to show that the above teachings declaring that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children is false. Thank you kindly.

 

[Rau]

If you use NFP to avoid having children, would that mean that the intention of avoiding children is the same in both cases?

Yes, but that is not an evil intention. Contraceptive acts fail the test of morality in their “moral object” not in their intention. It is not wrong to take (appropriate) steps to avoid pregnancy. It can be wise and proper in fact to avoid pregnancy for periods of time.

 

[AlNg]

Yes, but that is not an evil intention.

I don’t see how it would fulfill the primary purpose of marriage by having relations but with the intention of not having any children. Whether you use artificial contraception or NFP with the purpose to avoid children, your intention is to have relations but avoid the responsibility of having children.

 

[Usige]

Usige:

My bishop takes the responsibility seriously that couples must truly understand what they are undertaking. This includes things like if either member of the couple has been sterilized they are encouraged to have the sterilization reversed, and if they can’t both they and their fiancee must sign a form acknowledging that the sterilization is a grave offense against God and marriage and that they will not seek a declaration of Nullity on the grounds of exclusion of children.

Although this situation is probably rare, having a couple do this certainly sets a rather unwelcoming tone from the Church for their marriage together. But then the Church is going to do what the Church is going to do. In the meantime, less people are getting married and a lot less people are getting married in the Church.

Admitting that their actions are a grave offense sets an “unwelcoming tone”? I guess that it is better to simply ignore sin and just prettend that our choices have no impact on eternal salvation. In that case the Church should simply shut her doors because people just want to live in a land of unicorns and rainbows where they never do anything wrong and their personal choices are always good. It’s not like God left the Church to guide a fallen people back on to the right track or anything.

 

[kapp19]

Please give us your source to show that the above teachings declaring that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children is false. Thank you kindly.

Make enough distinctions and the problem disappears:

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm#article3

Remember, especially this point - marriage is distinct from Matrimony.

 

[goout]

The point of NFP is not to “avoid having children”. That’s a simplistic and reductionist view of it.

 

[Rau]

I don’t see how it would fulfill the primary purpose of marriage by having relations but with the intention of not having any children.

It is not required to optimize the chance of pregnancy each time one has relations. It is not required to have as many children as possible to fulfill the primary purpose of marriage. It is not wrong to engage in relations absent any goal to conceive. Seeking to avoid children for the entirety of marriage (without proper justification) would be in opposition to the primary purpose of marriage. But using NFP at appropriate times is not.

 

[Rau]

The point of NFP is not to “avoid having children”.

It may be that purpose “for a time”. Or it may be the exact reverse.

 

[1ke]

If you use NFP to avoid having children, would that mean that the intention of avoiding children is the same in both cases?

Intending to space children isn’t immoral.

Contraception is an immoral means of doing so while periodic abstinence (using the information NFP gathers on fertility signs) is not an immoral means of doing so.

Both the ends and the means must be moral for an act to be a moral one.

AFAIK, the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. So in either case, artificial birth control or NFP used to avoid children, are you not going against the primary purpose of marriage?

Both marriage and sexual intimacy have more than one purpose. We aren’t required to have as many children as possible. Responsible parenthood, not Providentialism is Church teaching. We are rational creatures, not animals.

 

[1ke]

The point of NFP is not to “avoid having children”.

Sorry, I misread your post! Edited.

Leaving this here for others:

NFP is information about the woman’s cycle and signs of fertility. That information can be used to avoid or achieve. And many women use NFP to achieve pregnancy.

 

[tuffsmurf]

I think it is too much to require 9 to 12 months of marriage prep, I don’t see why it can’t be done in 3-4 months, max 6.

Also I don’t agree with requiring NFP classes before marriage. I think they should be offered (sadly I live in a diocese that doesn’t offer them at all) to both engaged and married couples, but NFP is not an essential part of marriage and many couple will not need to use it, perhaps because they are older or just want to have all the children God gives them.