Birth Control

[kbachler]

Briefly and quickly:

from the Catechism of the Catohlic Church:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. **In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totalit**y. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

“In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159”

Then why isn’t the creation of NFP intrinsically evil?

 

[twoangels]

I actually thought everyone was being amazingly charitable toward CountrySinger (especially compared to other threads I’ve read on similiar topics). Most seem to just be giving their life examples as to what happens when you take a leap of faith and trust God.

Moreover, has anyone said that their trusting in God came with great reproductive cycles, happy-off-the-bat marriages and financial security? My husband and I got married and did not go through a honeymoon phase. The economy was bad, the job he had was temporary, while he’s very intelligent and educated the lack of response from employers was filling him with self doubts. That said, we had just reasons to use our fertile period and did become pregnant. Certainly I found contraceptives stirring in my head as a temptation because our circumstances seemed so unique, but in the end we just decided postponing pregnancy wasn’t worth it.

The pregnancy has been a tough period in our life. Honestly, while things improved in our marriage, everything around us seemed to be continuing to fall apart. I was truly in a situation where I was fearing that our entire nestegg would go toward paying for the prenatal care and delivery because I my insurance was turning out to be like having no insurance. Meanwhile I was feeling threatened that I’d lose my job and that by the time the baby arrived, both of us would be unemployed. Where was God in this? Was I being foolish?

Well it seems God realized I needed a reminder that He was still in charge so I had a very deeply spiritually moving prayer experience that compelled me to visit my grandma. Three days after I visited her, she suffered a heart attack and started on the road that eventually led to her death this past November. I was amazingly close to her. I’ve never had someone so close to me pass away before and it was like God had insisting to me that it was very important I visit even though it meant taking time off work and spending money that I was afraid of spending because things felt so insecure.

Then everything changed at around Christmas. We received a financial gift that paid off my larger student loan entirely and my husband basically got his dream job. And in meditating on this I realized again how strong the Blessed Virgin’s faith was. It was like we got the visit from the Magi before our baby was born. Mary had to wait until after.

But with all that said, I do think that to embrace the teaching against contraceptives, you really have to believe in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Otherwise I think we all start sounding like a bunch of people saying “No, if you’re sick, don’t go to the doctor. Pray and God will heal you.” Society views contraceptives the way it views antibiotics and other medical technology, solving some world problems that generations past could not be solved. They see them as an obligation, a responsibility to use. Even with all the profound arguments I’ve read pertaining to the Theology of the Body, the majority of my stance does come down to my belief in the teaching authority of the Church. If I didn’t believe in that authority, I wouldn’t be Catholic at all. Overall I don’t think Christ would leave Christians in the dark about what we are to believe. So where my faith in God providing flounders, there is my faith in the Church’s teaching authority and at that point I choose to take a leap of faith. That is to say that my faith doesn’t extend far enough to take the step I’m about to take. I always go through a period of self doubt, thinking I might be crazy and am filled with intense fear. But whether its been allowing this pregnancy to occur, or other choices I’ve made that put me on unstable ground (usually where God doesn’t open the doors still about 3 days prior to when if something doesn’t change, you’re in deep trouble and have no idea what you’ll do), He’s always come through and its always made my faith in Him stronger.

I totally understand being uncertain about whether this is God’s will or utter foolishness. But it is important to recognize that when we do follow God’s path, it’ll always look like foolishness to the outside world.

 

[kbachler]

I’ll repeat it again… Procreative does NOT mean Fertile.

I didn’t claim it did. However, procreative does require fertility as a necessary condition. Hence, if fertility does not exist, procreation is not possible.

Therefore, NFP, which is FAMILY PLANNING is in fact a form of contraception based on fertility.

 

[kbachler]

Abstaining from sexual contact is just that.
It is NOT interference with a sexual act.
You seem to be spinning circles for yourself.

… but then, oops, I’m supposed to shut up and “be ashamed.”

“Abstaining from sexual contact is just that. It is NOT interference with a sexual act.”

So there is no timing of the sexual act under NFP?

 

[catharina]

“In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159”

Then why isn’t the creation of NFP intrinsically evil?

There is absolutely nothing that renders procreation “impossible” with NFP.
Haven’t you heard of pregnancies that began the day after a period happens?
Or that happen on any other ‘unlikely’ day?

NFP leaves the ultimate decision in God’s will.
There is NO ARTIFICIAL impediment in place to prevent conception.

 

[choose_to_love]

@kd, catharina, and masondoggy: Aw, shucks. Just trying to be a vessel for the HS. Thank you for your kind words (re: posts 110, 111, and 159).

 

[catharina]

Society views contraceptives the way it views antibiotics and other medical technology, solving some world problems that generations past could not be solved. They see them as an obligation, a responsibility to use.

Also society views abortion as just one more aspect of “reproductive healthcare.”

 

[catharina]

@kd, catharina, and masondoggy: Aw, shucks. Just trying to be a vessel for the HS. Thank you for your kind words (re: posts 110, 111, and 159).

Sweet.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I didn’t claim it did. However, procreative does require fertility as a necessary condition. Hence, if fertility does not exist, procreation is not possible.

Therefore, NFP, which is FAMILY PLANNING is in fact a form of contraception based on fertility.

No it does not.
“Procreative” means done in a way that could achieve conception (assuming fertility at that given moment - again eve infertile couples can have Procreative sex).

 

[catharina]

No it does not.
“Procreative” means done in a way that could achieve conception (assuming fertility at that given moment - again even infertile couples can have Procreative sex).

BOLDED:

perfect example.

 

[kbachler]

Contraception means that the sexual act is happening and you are taking action to contradict the possibility of conception.
NFP is abstaining. There is no possible conception to contradict… how is that a lie?

It’s intellectual dishonesty. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty. The word “lie” is being used in the more logical sense of an untruth, not in the sense of an insult. For conveying that, I apologize, that was not my intent.

However, I do intend to point out that to hang your argument on saying NFP isn’t contraception is a form of intellectual dishonesty. There is no reason for NRP other than family planning. That is also the point of, for example, a condom, a diaphragm, etc. (One may argue that these tools can be misused - that is of course a problem with ANY tool and doesn’t make the tool evil per se.)

The action being taken is the couple controlling the timing of the act. The couple practices NFP (hence the name) to plan the family - i.e. a euphemism for controlling the timing of pregnancy.

Are you aware of the concept of NFP being used in any way other that family planning?

Look, if the word “contraception” is throwing you off, don’t use it. How is family planning through NFP (creating a “time-boundary”) any less family planning than the use of a condom (creating a “space-boundary”)?

 

[kbachler]

No it does not.
“Procreative” means done in a way that could achieve conception (assuming fertility at that given moment - again eve infertile couples can have Procreative sex).

So, if we assume something that isn’t true (i.e. if we lie) then procreative means it COULD achieve conception.

Do you REALLY believe that?

Also, again - based on the stats people are throwing around, use of a condom would - by YOUR definition - be more procreative than NFP because the failure rate is higher.

So 1) To work your argument needs to assume a lie and 2) even so, you argument still doesn’t work.

Sorry, this is not in the least convincing.

 

[catharina]

So, if we assume something that isn’t true (i.e. if we lie) then procreative means it COULD achieve conception.

Do you REALLY believe that?

Also, again - based on the stats people are throwing around, use of a condom would - by YOUR definition - be more procreative than NFP because the failure rate is higher.

So 1) To work your argument needs to assume a lie and 2) even so, you argument still doesn’t work.

Sorry, this is not in the least convincing.

I’m very very very sorry for you.
You seem to have no clue how insulting your words are
whether the insult is your “intent” or not.

 

[Em_in_FL]

What I mean, in layman’s terms, by saying “done in a way that could achieve conception”, is that the man must finish inside the woman.

Procreative sex means simply that. A husband climaxes inside his wife. HER fertility at that given moment does nothing to change whether it’s Procreative or not.

 

[kbachler]

There is absolutely nothing that renders procreation “impossible” with NFP.
Haven’t you heard of pregnancies that began the day after a period happens?
Or that happen on any other ‘unlikely’ day?

NFP leaves the ultimate decision in God’s will.
There is NO ARTIFICIAL impediment in place to prevent conception.

In that case condoms are fine, since they fail, as does the pill and other methods, and accordng to the stats provided, they fail more often than NFP. God is just as capable of causing a pregnancy in those cases as in NFP - even more so based on the statistics people have given.

This argument is not convincing. You’ve provided no difference here.

The “artificial impediment” is that people notice the timing and so avoid sex during a “risky time.” That is an artificial impediement in exactly the same sense as noticing sperm fertilizes an egg and so blocking the sperm.

 

[kbachler]

What I mean, in layman’s terms, by saying “done in a way that could achieve conception”, is that the man must finish inside the woman.

Procreative sex means simply that. A husband climaxes inside his wife. HER fertility at that given moment does nothing to change whether it’s Procreative or not.

Then by your argument, you have no difficulty with the use of the Pill, right?

 

[catharina]

In that case condoms are fine, since they fail, as does the pill and other methods, and accordng to the stats provided, they fail more often than NFP. God is just as capable of causing a pregnancy in those cases as in NFP - even more so based on the statistics people have given.

This argument is not convincing. You’ve provided no difference here.

The “artificial impediment” is that people notice the timing and so avoid sex during a “risky time.” That is an artificial impediement in exactly the same sense as noticing sperm fertilizes an egg and so blocking the sperm.

There is no impediment.
There is no artificial interference.

There is mutual self-restraint.
That’s otherwise know as self-sacrifice.
It’s not new to Christianity.
ABC has always been forbidden in Christianity,
going farther back to the days of Jewish Law.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Then by your argument, you have no difficulty with the use of the Pill, right?

You’re forgetting the UNITIVE part.
She is then blocking herself from fully being with her husband.

 

[catharina]

Then by your argument, you have no difficulty with the use of the Pill, right?

Now I start to wonder if you’re trolling here.

 

[kbachler]

I’m very very very sorry for you.
You seem to have no clue how insulting your words are
whether the insult is your “intent” or not.

Catharina, I’d rather be unintentionally insulting and get people who have blind faith to think, rather than have them simply repeat bad arguments that they don’t seem to understand. To me, blind faith is an insult, and an insult against God.

The two most important commandments included: “Love God with all your heart, and spirit and MIND”. It is the “mind” part that means to me that people need to strive to understand God. (That isn’t claiming that they will understand everything, but God clearly reveals Himself so its clear that he is making Himself understandable.)

My point is clear - if NFP is moral and other forms of family planning are not, then what is the difference that makes that so?

I have yet to see anyone here apologizing for NFP come up with a reason other than “because someone said so.” If you understand the difference, please (and I really mean this) please, tell us.