B
basilisk
Guest
From: lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm (bolding mine)
*Resolutions from 1930
Resolution 15
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Voting: For 193; Against 67.*
From: anglicanhistory.org/gore/contra1930.html
Innocent III admitted that ‘it sometimes happens that the Church looses one whom God has bound, and binds by the judgement of the Church one who in God’s sight is free’;
I have tried to conform myself to Church teaching on artificial birth control. I have read and studied, tried to understand why, and to see the reasoning behind the teaching.
I cannot, in good conscience, agree with the Catholic Church that artificial birth control, in and of itself, is intrinsically immoral or evil. Some forms of it may be, some reasons for using it may be, but it’s just not so black and white.
I cannot tell you how many threads I have read on these boards full of pain, sorrow, despair, anger, and sadness, because trying to practice NFP has destroyed marriages. Use whatever semantic tool you wish to deflect that, but it is NFP itself which is the ruin of what might otherwise have been loving, happy, lifelong marriages.
Paul IV was indeed prescient in some of his predictions of the societal depravity we face today. But saying they came about because, and only because, of the widespread acceptance and use of artificial birth control is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, IMO. I think it may be a contributor, but any scientific or medical breakthrough can be used morally or immorally.
In the quote above from the Lambeth Conference, it speaks of morally sound reasons for avoiding complete abstinence. I think the biggest one of those is preserving the marriage for the benefit of the children. Sometimes it seems to me that some Catholics get so caught up in how or whether children get conceived that they forget just what it takes to raise those precious little people once they are here. I can tell you without doubt or reservation that continued attempts to practice NFP, in which I was well-educated, would have led to the utter destruction of my marriage. You can call that selfish, depraved, or say we are too focused on sex. But I call it respecting the fact of our high sex drives and need to express our love and desire with spontaneity and joy. If people can achieve those things using only natural methods, well, more power to you. You are a stronger and better person than me, and I have no doubt that God will reward your forbearance and fortitude while I am being purified of all my weaknesses in Purgatory! But not everyone can achieve that, and where there is any doubt at all, I think the couple should be free to choose for themselves. As the Church has not proclaimed this infallibly, there must be at least some doubt. No matter how tiny…
Another problem I have with this teaching is that I think my moral obligation to human life begins only after it actually exists. I am against abortion and euthanasia… I am pro-life. But there has to be life there first. I do not, on moral grounds and because of side effects, use hormonal birth control. I am absolutely convinced that most, if not all, hormonal birth control has the potential to be abortifacient. Life begins at conception… no argument there. However, I have no moral problem with non-spermicidal barrier methods or with sterilization. These things only PREVENT conception! There is no obligation to protect a life that never existed. I see a moral equivalency between keeping the egg and sperm from meeting through periodic abstinence and by using barriers. I know that the argument is that one violates the integrity of the marital act and one does not. Well, so, big deal. No one is getting killed… I just find this insistence on mechanical integrity frankly a bit absurd and really distasteful. As the vast majority of sperm end up trying to fertilize the wrong thing or dying even in the most technically perfect sexual act, obviously the “waste” of sperm is not as huge a deal as some would make of it.
(continued in next post…)
*Resolutions from 1930
Resolution 15
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Voting: For 193; Against 67.*
From: anglicanhistory.org/gore/contra1930.html
Innocent III admitted that ‘it sometimes happens that the Church looses one whom God has bound, and binds by the judgement of the Church one who in God’s sight is free’;
I have tried to conform myself to Church teaching on artificial birth control. I have read and studied, tried to understand why, and to see the reasoning behind the teaching.
I cannot, in good conscience, agree with the Catholic Church that artificial birth control, in and of itself, is intrinsically immoral or evil. Some forms of it may be, some reasons for using it may be, but it’s just not so black and white.
I cannot tell you how many threads I have read on these boards full of pain, sorrow, despair, anger, and sadness, because trying to practice NFP has destroyed marriages. Use whatever semantic tool you wish to deflect that, but it is NFP itself which is the ruin of what might otherwise have been loving, happy, lifelong marriages.
Paul IV was indeed prescient in some of his predictions of the societal depravity we face today. But saying they came about because, and only because, of the widespread acceptance and use of artificial birth control is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, IMO. I think it may be a contributor, but any scientific or medical breakthrough can be used morally or immorally.
In the quote above from the Lambeth Conference, it speaks of morally sound reasons for avoiding complete abstinence. I think the biggest one of those is preserving the marriage for the benefit of the children. Sometimes it seems to me that some Catholics get so caught up in how or whether children get conceived that they forget just what it takes to raise those precious little people once they are here. I can tell you without doubt or reservation that continued attempts to practice NFP, in which I was well-educated, would have led to the utter destruction of my marriage. You can call that selfish, depraved, or say we are too focused on sex. But I call it respecting the fact of our high sex drives and need to express our love and desire with spontaneity and joy. If people can achieve those things using only natural methods, well, more power to you. You are a stronger and better person than me, and I have no doubt that God will reward your forbearance and fortitude while I am being purified of all my weaknesses in Purgatory! But not everyone can achieve that, and where there is any doubt at all, I think the couple should be free to choose for themselves. As the Church has not proclaimed this infallibly, there must be at least some doubt. No matter how tiny…
Another problem I have with this teaching is that I think my moral obligation to human life begins only after it actually exists. I am against abortion and euthanasia… I am pro-life. But there has to be life there first. I do not, on moral grounds and because of side effects, use hormonal birth control. I am absolutely convinced that most, if not all, hormonal birth control has the potential to be abortifacient. Life begins at conception… no argument there. However, I have no moral problem with non-spermicidal barrier methods or with sterilization. These things only PREVENT conception! There is no obligation to protect a life that never existed. I see a moral equivalency between keeping the egg and sperm from meeting through periodic abstinence and by using barriers. I know that the argument is that one violates the integrity of the marital act and one does not. Well, so, big deal. No one is getting killed… I just find this insistence on mechanical integrity frankly a bit absurd and really distasteful. As the vast majority of sperm end up trying to fertilize the wrong thing or dying even in the most technically perfect sexual act, obviously the “waste” of sperm is not as huge a deal as some would make of it.
(continued in next post…)
And I stand by it being a valid question. Some people turn up here who honestly don’t understand the rules of NFP, or have never had proper instruction, or never had a spouse attend classes with them. Obviously that doesn’t apply in all cases! I can’t speak for others but if I have ever posted that, it has been for the sake of clarity, not out of a lack of compassion. Just wanted to make that clear.