Birth Control

[EasterJoy]

I’m using the traditional definition of Natural law, dating back through Summa Theologica to Aristotle.

You wrote: Our ability to create and build is within His natural law. Thus our ability to make condoms is within His natural law. I don’t see how this doesn’t imply that building nuclear bombs and blowing the planet to smithereens isn’t within natural law. Who would use that as a defense of ABC?

This is not what Aquinas meant by Natural law. By his meaning, the Natural Law is humans’ participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil. Your definition of natural law implies that if a person has the capacity to do something, then Eternal law must allow for it. According to Aquinas, even natural law compels us to develop virtue, so as to discern the true good, instead of to automatically choose apparent goods. Or as Paul put it, with regards to the general problem of how those who do not know revealed law nevertheless can discern it, even though some can use their “intellect” to rationalize reasons to defy it:

*The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper…

For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus*. Rom. 1:18-28, 2:14-16

 

[EasterJoy]

I remember a bumper sticker that said, ‘If You Can’t Feed, Don’t Breed!’

It’s a little hard to reconcile that with “let the little children come unto Me”, isn’t it? That doesn’t sound like something the president of the local chapter of St. Vincent dePaul would have on his or her back bumper.

 

[Vico]

This is an important point. Natural Family Planning requires that both spouses agree to periodic abstinence.

Thank you.

 

[bslorence]

an argument based on the concept that we should not interfere with what is natural doesn’t make sense

That sounds to me like a misconstruing of what ‘natural law’ means in moral theology. My understanding of the concept, reduced to something akin to a slogan, is that there are some moral norms that can be deduced from our observations of reality.

These would be contrasted with the norms of positive law, which are either made up by governments or, as in the case of something like the Sabbath, instituted by God.

(And I suspect that the metaphysical question about the extent to which our observations correspond to an objective external reality is somewhat beside the point – because we ain’t got but our observations to go by)

 

[kbachler]

You wrote: Our ability to create and build is within His natural law. Thus our ability to make condoms is within His natural law. I don’t see how this doesn’t imply that building nuclear bombs and blowing the planet to smithereens isn’t within natural law. Who would use that as a defense of ABC?

No one would. This is precisely the problem with arguments based on natural law arguments.

This is not what Aquinas meant by Natural law. By his meaning, the Natural Law is humans’ participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil. Your definition of natural law implies that if a person has the capacity to do something, then Eternal law must allow for it. According to Aquinas, even natural law compels us to develop virtue, so as to discern the true good, instead of to automatically choose apparent goods. Or as Paul put it, with regards to the general problem of how those who do not know revealed law nevertheless can discern it, even though some can use their “intellect” to rationalize reasons to defy it:

I generally agree with you with what Aquinas wanted it to mean. Unfortunately, he doesn’t (and frankly no one does) adequately deal with the counterargument that you essentially state - that what occurs naturally therefore must be allowed for within Eternal Law. Further, that reasonable people can reasonably disagree over what is virtuous. Although many (most) people may agree on many things, the more detailed one gets the less agreement one may find.

Again, this is why Natural Law arguments don’t work well. They work reasonably well for explaining for how people come to agreement on a system of laws and behaviors, but not well beyond that.

So the argument that NFP is more natural than ABC don’t really follow. The arguments that NFP is more virtuous than ABC also don’t really follow. (NFP argues that abstinence for child spacing is fine (thus the quantity of unity suffers) and that sex when had should be “open” thus stressing self control and the quality of unity; barrier ABC argues that barriers for child space is fine (the the quantity of unity does not suffer) and that sex can use a barrier (thus quality of unity can be less during that time) although there is nothing stopping use of BOTH NFP and ABC such that the quality of unity can be greater at other times.) In other words, if you had a person who didn’t really need more self control but did need more unity with their partner, its hard to see how NFP alone is more virtuous than NFP in conjunction with ABC, even using a Thomasian argument.

*The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made.
*

Agreed, and I would go further - He has commanded us to understand Him. (Love God with all your heart and all your spirit and all your mind.)
EasterJoy;7515514:

As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper

…

Not sure that I see the relevance of this quote, but I would point out that the arguments that I have pointed out are in fact quite deep and discerning, and have not been sweeping nor one size fits all.

For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts

, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. Rom. 1:18-28, 2:14-16

I agree.

 

[kbachler]

What I wrote was:

“It is not logical to assume that the act to be gifted is anything other than what occurs without any contraceptive device or potion, as union is to be fruitful. (See: Genesis 1:28)”

There is no assumption that each instance will be fruitful, rather matrimony tends to be fruitful, as expressed in the Catechism 2366.

The marital act that is gifted in the marital covenent is of the form that is apt to the creation of children, which therefore excludes barriers, etc.

Canon 1061 defines the coital act is “per se aptum ad prolis generationem” and performed “humano modo” which consummates marriage.

No one claimed that each instance should be fruitful. That was not part of the argument I made. Consequently, the argument above is a non sequitur with respect to what I stated.

 

[kbachler]

Physically, what is the difference between an infertile couple engaging in the marital act and a fertile couple engaging in the marital act? Does it make any difference if a couple believes they’re fertile but don’t conceive a child?

I agree.

Just out of curiosity, what would you say it means for two to become one flesh, in the biblical sense?

Let me preface my answer to your first question by saying that I don’t believe there should be any issue with an infertile couple engaging in the marital act. It is unitive, and if they feel a calling to have children they will find their path to do that through adoption or some other approach.

That said, I have certainly read of instances of priests refusing to marry infertile couples because the marital act could not be pro creative. From what I have read, I believe that a significant number (larger number perhaps) of Catholics, including priests, are not clear on the very questions you ask.

In the Biblical sense, I believe that the phrase “and the two become one flesh” is an allegorical phrase that encompasses both the physical act of sex, but also that implies a deeper bonding both physically and spiritually in terms of becoming one person - although still two people. As an analogy, one can no more divide a married couple than one can separate the Holy Trinity.

 

[Em_in_FL]

That said, I have certainly read of instances of priests refusing to marry infertile couples because the marital act could not be pro creative. From what I have read, I believe that a significant number (larger number perhaps) of Catholics, including priests, are not clear on the very questions you ask.

I think there are some definition misunderstandings here.

Infertile couples can indeed have procreative sex - which is done “in a way that could produce a child if fertility conditions are present”.
Simply because they don’t procreate (actually have children) doesn’t mean the act wasn’t procreative.

You may also be confusing infertility with impotence.
In order for a marriage to be valid it must be consummated. If the severity of the impotence does not allow for consummating the sacrament, then that can pose as a problem…

Canon Law

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

 

[HouseArrest]

NFP argues that abstinence for child spacing is fine (thus the quantity of unity suffers)

Instead of quoting the whole post I pulled out this part…

How can you assume that in using NFP the quantity of unity suffers? Are you assuming those using NFP are having less sex than those using nothing or those using ABC?

 

[Vico]

No one claimed that each instance should be fruitful. That was not part of the argument I made. Consequently, the argument above is a non sequitur with respect to what I stated.

You are referring to this:

Yes, I understand the meaning of the two becoming one flesh. The quotes you give are appear to be reasons to use ABC rather than NFP, so that the two do not have to deprive one another. Since NFP is allowed, it is not assumed that the act must always be fruitful, contrary to your latter statement. Thus, by the arguments you give, ABC should be allowed.

This is incorrect, the quotes are to show that the correct form of the marital act is to be used regardless of fruitfullness, but the form is determined from the idea of fruitfulness. Which was stated there:
The marital act that is gifted in the marital covenent is of the form that is apt to the creation of children, which therefore excludes barriers, etc.

Canon 1061 defines the coital act is “per se aptum ad prolis generationem” and performed “humano modo” which consummates marriage.

 

[barb_finnegan]

It’s a little hard to reconcile that with “let the little children come unto Me”, isn’t it? That doesn’t sound like something the president of the local chapter of St. Vincent dePaul would have on his or her back bumper.

I don’t even know whose car it was, if they were Catholic or not. I couldn’t get close enough to it to find out who printed it organization-wise.

But I do remember seeing it parked near one of the Catholic churches in my hometown.

I didn’t mean to sound rude, as a few posters have said on seeing my post. I just ‘stated the fact’ that I saw the sticker. But surely, people should use the brains that God gave them and not ‘breed’ children that they can’t take care of. We’ve got enough welfare recipients as it is.

 

[EasterJoy]

Let me preface my answer to your first question by saying that I don’t believe there should be any issue with an infertile couple engaging in the marital act. It is unitive, and if they feel a calling to have children they will find their path to do that through adoption or some other approach.

That said, I have certainly read of instances of priests refusing to marry infertile couples because the marital act could not be pro creative. From what I have read, I believe that a significant number (larger number perhaps) of Catholics, including priests, are not clear on the very questions you ask.

If the priest denied marriage for reason of sterility, and not because the couple could not consumate the marriage or some other reason, then that decision was in error:

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

(Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.)

 

[EasterJoy]

No one would. This is precisely the problem with arguments based on natural law arguments.

I generally agree with you with what Aquinas wanted it to mean. Unfortunately, he doesn’t (and frankly no one does) adequately deal with the counterargument that you essentially state - that what occurs naturally therefore must be allowed for within Eternal Law. Further, that reasonable people can reasonably disagree over what is virtuous. Although many (most) people may agree on many things, the more detailed one gets the less agreement one may find.

Again, this is why Natural Law arguments don’t work well. They work reasonably well for explaining for how people come to agreement on a system of laws and behaviors, but not well beyond that.

So the argument that NFP is more natural than ABC don’t really follow. The arguments that NFP is more virtuous than ABC also don’t really follow. (NFP argues that abstinence for child spacing is fine (thus the quantity of unity suffers) and that sex when had should be “open” thus stressing self control and the quality of unity; barrier ABC argues that barriers for child space is fine (the the quantity of unity does not suffer) and that sex can use a barrier (thus quality of unity can be less during that time) although there is nothing stopping use of BOTH NFP and ABC such that the quality of unity can be greater at other times.) In other words, if you had a person who didn’t really need more self control but did need more unity with their partner, its hard to see how NFP alone is more virtuous than NFP in conjunction with ABC, even using a Thomasian argument.

Agreed, and I would go further - He has commanded us to understand Him. (Love God with all your heart and all your spirit and all your mind.)

Not sure that I see the relevance of this quote, but I would point out that the arguments that I have pointed out are in fact quite deep and discerning, and have not been sweeping nor one size fits all.

I agree.

Your arguments have been all the reasons that people should feel free to oppose what the Church teaches. I don’t find them deep and discerning, but mostly argumentative. Love God with all your heart and all your spirit and all your mind does not mean that reason is an inerrant guide to discerning the will of God.

I don’t get where this “counter-argument” comes from, “that what occurs naturally therefore must be allowed for within Eternal Law”. When Aquinas uses the term “natural law”, he defines what he’s talking about and goes on to discuss it. You can’t come in and change the meaning of his definition: that is, switch the discussion from the concept he’s talking about to some other concept, and use that to say his argument doesn’t work. He could have called it “the law of the upright heart” or some other thing that doesn’t have the word “nature” in it at all. It is as if I were to say that cloth for a particular dress has to be cut on the bias and you came in and read me chapter and verse about how bias is a bad thing. Since you mean something different by “bias” than I meant in using the word in the first place, the objection that follows, while true in another context, doesn’t apply in this one. I would argue that the same is true of your objections to natural law. As you define the term, it applies to Newton’s Laws, not the ones Aquinas was talking about.

The quote about “they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened” points out that the law of the upright heart is nevertheless something that “reasonable people” are completely capable of rationalizing themselves out of, and that God does permit them to do so. So when Paul talks later in the same letter about “when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts” he had already laid the groundwork for that remark by making it extremely clear that “having the demands of the law written on your heart” was something quite different than whatever someone “claiming to be wise” could conjure up as being reasonable. This is why “reasonable people can reasonably disagree over what is virtuous”…because reason can be darkened. One has this gift and another has that gift, but what is and isn’t virtuous does not depend on opinion, reasonable or otherwise.

In other words, Paul was not saying that Eternal Law can be arrived at using the reason of anyone who cares to use their reason. He was explaining why the eternal law is sometimes accessible to those who have only their reason to find it: because their reason is wedded to a desire to use the true good as a guide for their actions. Those are two very different things.

OTOH, if you’ve read Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body and don’t buy the arguments there, it’s unlikely you’ll believe me. If you want to argue with them instead of understand them, I have no counter-argument that is likely to stop you.

 

[Scarran]

kbachler:

I want to thank you for spending so much time explaining your viewpoint in this thread. I have enjoyed reading all of your posts tremendously! Up until this point, I’ve felt like I was the only one that had this opinion. Prior to starting my own thread on NFP I searched through the existing threads on this forum and found this one! I am so grateful that you’ve shared your viewpoints with everyone as you are obviously very intelligent.

I’ve argued the same thing that you’ve been arguing in this thread with at least 4 Catholic priests in the last year. Usually we agree to disagree in the end, but so far none of them have been able to offer a convincing counter argument. What amazes me is that each Catholic priest that I speak with on this topic insists that I’m not open to life if I consider any other form of birth control other than NFP, when this is entirely not true. I’ve explained that each form of birth control is subject to some possibility of failure, and I’m willing to accept any and all failures and accept life.

My main argument with those that are against you in this thread is that the INTENT of NFP is the same as ABC. The INTENT is far more important than the means of birth control, and as you said using a timing method is hardly different than using any other method other than the fact that one involves timing rather than a physical method.

I’m not sure if you’ve mentioned this yet, but many claim that using NFP is natural while ABC is not. I disagree with this point as well. NFP is NOT natural, as the body was designed to have intercourse during the fertile time. Avoiding this time is unnatural.

My other argument is that Humane Viate and Theology of the Body is that the Catholic Church does not describe what a couple should do if only one is devout Catholic while the other isn’t. NFP and Theology of the Body both have merit for two practicing catholics, but what do they perscribe if one is catholic and the other is areligious? How do NFP and Theology of the Body work then? I see NFP as being potentially negative in this situation.

In any case I think you’ve done a fabulous job in this thread kbachler, explaining that NFP is really the same as ABC in intent, and that God never stated that birth control was wrong. NFP and ABC are both just tools used to achieve birth control. Onan’s story is highly subjective.

Sexuality has been around since Adam and Eve, and is very powerful. Birth Control has been around since ancient Eygpt. Why then didn’t Jesus give us specific guidance on Birth Control? Why must the Catholic Church feel that it has to invent sins? Did Jesus forget to discuss birth control? I can understand why we might need guidance from The Church on issues that didn’t exist back then (cryogenics, stem cell research, etc.), but birth control?

 

[Jennifer_J]

kbachler:

I want to thank you for spending so much time explaining your viewpoint in this thread. I have enjoyed reading all of your posts tremendously! Up until this point, I’ve felt like I was the only one that had this opinion. Prior to starting my own thread on NFP I searched through the existing threads on this forum and found this one! I am so grateful that you’ve shared your viewpoints with everyone as you are obviously very intelligent.

I’ve argued the same thing that you’ve been arguing in this thread with at least 4 Catholic priests in the last year. Usually we agree to disagree in the end, but so far none of them have been able to offer a convincing counter argument. What amazes me is that each Catholic priest that I speak with on this topic insists that I’m not open to life if I consider any other form of birth control other than NFP, when this is entirely not true. I’ve explained that each form of birth control is subject to some possibility of failure, and I’m willing to accept any and all failures and accept life.

My main argument with those that are against you in this thread is that the INTENT of NFP is the same as ABC. The INTENT is far more important than the means of birth control, and as you said using a timing method is hardly different than using any other method other than the fact that one involves timing rather than a physical method.

I’m not sure if you’ve mentioned this yet, but many claim that using NFP is natural while ABC is not. I disagree with this point as well. NFP is NOT natural, as the body was designed to have intercourse during the fertile time. Avoiding this time is unnatural.

My other argument is that Humane Viate and Theology of the Body is that the Catholic Church does not describe what a couple should do if only one is devout Catholic while the other isn’t. NFP and Theology of the Body both have merit for two practicing catholics, but what do they perscribe if one is catholic and the other is areligious? How do NFP and Theology of the Body work then? I see NFP as being potentially negative in this situation.

In any case I think you’ve done a fabulous job in this thread kbachler, explaining that NFP is really the same as ABC in intent, and that God never stated that birth control was wrong. NFP and ABC are both just tools used to achieve birth control. Onan’s story is highly subjective.

Sexuality has been around since Adam and Eve, and is very powerful. Birth Control has been around since ancient Eygpt. Why then didn’t Jesus give us specific guidance on Birth Control? Why must the Catholic Church feel that it has to invent sins? Did Jesus forget to discuss birth control? I can understand why we might need guidance from The Church on issues that didn’t exist back then (cryogenics, stem cell research, etc.), but birth control?

But the intent of spacing children is NOT immoral. So your argument on these grounds falls apart. Total Abstinence or periodic abstinence are the only Church approved LICIT means of controling births.

 

[HouseArrest]

kbachler:

using a timing method is hardly different than using any other method

Here’s what I don’t understand what you don’t understand. It has been said time and time again, in many different ways…

If you are using ABC, you are taking the sex but altering it. If you use NFP you don’t like all the ramifications of it, so you’re saying no thanks, to the whole act. Saying no to the whole act is permissible, for many reasons such as possible conception, the flu, and being busy, but saying no to part of the act is not permissible.

You can take the whole thing, or leave the whole thing. That is the difference.

 

[Scarran]

Here’s what I don’t understand what you don’t understand. It has been said time and time again, in many different ways…

If you are using ABC, you are taking the sex but altering it. If you use NFP you don’t like all the ramifications of it, so you’re saying no thanks, to the whole act. Saying no to the whole act is permissible, for many reasons such as possible conception, the flu, and being busy, but saying no to part of the act is not permissible.

You can take the whole thing, or leave the whole thing. That is the difference.

I disagree. If you are using ABSTINENCE you are saying no to the whole act. With NFP you are taking the sex, but at a different time.

 

[Scarran]

But the intent of spacing children is NOT immoral. So your argument on these grounds falls apart. Total Abstinence or periodic abstinence are the only Church approved LICIT means of controling births.

So if your intent is to space children, why does it matter what method you use? Got intended the act to take place during the woman’s fertile time. NFP is unnatural as it avoids this via timing, and ABP uses physical means. In the end they are just two tools used to achieve the same goal.

 

[agapewolf]

So if your intent is to space children, why does it matter what method you use? Got intended the act to take place during the woman’s fertile time. NFP is unnatural as it avoids this via timing, and ABP uses physical means. In the end they are just two tools used to achieve the same goal.

If grandma dies, what does it matter if she dies naturally or we kill her? “What does it matter what method you use?”

If we need money, what does matter if we rob a bank or earn it in a job. “What does it matter what method you use?”

“In the end they are just two tools used to achieve the same goal.”

The end does not justify the means.

 

[Em_in_FL]

So if your intent is to space children, why does it matter what method you use? Got intended the act to take place during the woman’s fertile time. NFP is unnatural as it avoids this via timing, and ABP uses physical means. In the end they are just two tools used to achieve the same goal.

I assume you meant “God intended the act to take place during the woman’s fertile time.”???
Ummm… no. It’s intended to take place whenever the couple desires.

As the pp mentioned… the ends don’t justify the means.
NFP does not disassociate the procreative (check your definitions) and unitive aspects of marital intimacy. ABC always does. This is why they are different.

Scarran - it seems as though you may have not read through the entire thread as you are coming into this discussion a little late. Most of these points have already been made.