Birth Control

[kbachler]

And this is an interesting coincidence that may help…

Wikipedia distinguishes the difference between “Contraception” and “Birth Control”.
“Contraception” does not list Natural Family Planning (rhythm, FAM, LAM, whathaveyou).
“Birth Control” does.

The Church teaches that controlling and regulating births is not an issue.
It simply:

1. Must be justified (serious/just/grave reasons for doing so).
   and
2. Must be done in a moral manner… i.e. not disassociating the unitive and procreative aspects. <— This is where “contraception” is not allowed.

Hope this clarifies some of the terms a bit…

I understand. With the first point, I’ve definitely seen fundamentalist posters on this forum who would argue tht there is NO good reason for family planning, and that infertile people cannot get married because such a marriage cannot be valid.

Not saying this is your point, but some have made the point on this board.

Regarding the second point - given the claimed efficacy of the different methods, I find it very difficult to understand why NFP would be allowed, but nothing else, when there are other methods which claim comparable efficacies, and which in some cases allow a greater unitive process.

My point here is this: I understand that the Church wanted to define a moral ground for sex in marriage. I’m all for it.

And they made a good attempt at it.

But given the technology, and given what we actually now know about sex in humans and about the efficacy of various family planning methods, I find it VERY DIFFICULT for the Church to not revisit this issue, because as it stands, I cannot find a reason for preferring any method of family planning over any other.

In addition - there is the fundamental issue that basically the Church is saying “we want you to only use a method that has a chance to fail so God can provide you children.”

But God is God. Is the Church actually arguing that OUR CHOICE of family planning method LIMITS GOD?? Even though all methods are imperfect?

Seems to me that this is an argument that needs to be revisited.

I understand that you may disagree with this. But I respect your thoughts and intellectually honest attempts at answering.

 

[BrokenFortress]

… I cannot find a reason for preferring any method of family planning over any other.
…

I just took out one portion because I have a question regarding it. So are you saying that in your mind, NFP and things such as the Pill or IUDs etc are the same?

What about the unnatural consequences of those, such as aborting an embryo since it can’t implant in the woman’s uterus?

Or do you not believe that life begins at conception?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I understand. With the first point, I’ve definitely seen fundamentalist posters on this forum who would argue tht there is NO reason, and that infertile people cannot get married.

Not saying this is your point, but some have made the point on this board.

That’s CERTAINLY not the teaching of the Church… just to be clear.

Regarding the second point - given the claimed efficacy of the different methods, I find it very difficult to understand why NFP would be allowed, but nothing else, which claim comparable efficacies, and if some cases allow a greater unitive process.

My point here is this: I understand that the Church wanted to define a moral ground for sex in marriage. I’m all for it.

And they made a good attempt at it.

But given the technology, and given what we actually now know about sex in humans and about the efficacy of various family planning methods, I find it VERY DIFFICULT for the Church to not revisit this issue, because as it stands, I cannot find a reason for preferring any method of family planning over any other.

In addition - there is the fundamental issue that basically the Church is saying “we want you to only use a method that has a chance to fail so God can provide you childred.”

But God is God. Is the Church actually arguing that OUR CHOICE of family planning method LIMITS GOD?? Even though all methods are imperfect?

Seems to me that this is an argument that needs to be revisited.

I understand that you may disagree with this. But I respect your thoughts and intellectually honest attempts at answering.

It has nothing to do with the effectivity… at all. God is God and He CAN (and does) work around every barrier - we all know that.
The point is that we are to TRUST God’s design.
God Himself designed the female cycle with infertile phases. That was HIS creation. Not something man invented. If God wanted us to have children every time we have sex then He would have designed us differently.
He created marital sexuality for us to be completely and totally united - in every way, shape, and form… so that we give ourselves to each other in complete union.
Not “I want your sex, but not your fertility”… but TOTALLY… unitive and procreative.

I have to run… leaving work (not that I got much done today )…
I suggest getting in contact with your priest and discussing this section of the Catechism. Also, look into Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body - there are several books that cover it… it may be enlightening…

Cheers and peace…

 

[kbachler]

NFP is only information. You can choose when to have marital relations - this falls under “Free Will”. Nothing is altered in the act. Married couples give themselves ENTIRELY to each other - without any blocks, barriers, or desires to alter God’s creation.

Timing is altered.

Procreative does not mean conceiving - remember? fertility plays no role. Effectivity is not a factor in morality.

Some on this board have argued that infertile people cannot marry because such a marriage is not valid. But if fertility plays no role, why does NFP exist?

Similarly, the information that blocking sperm from fertilizing and egg is just information. We can choose to use a Pill that will change the timing of the availablity of an egg or not. Nothing is changed in the marital act. The choice is still free will.

Catechism quote:

For times when couples PRAYERFULLY feel that they cannot handle another child at that moment. There are many reasons that would be valid - physical, mental, emotional health, finances, housing, etc… these motives must not be selfish.

But how is this any less valid or more valid if a different family planning method is chosen? Couple should do so prayerfully in any circumstance.

 

[Rico_S]

I just took out one portion because I have a question regarding it. So are you saying that in your mind, NFP and things such as the Pill or IUDs etc are the same?

What about the unnatural consequences of those, such as aborting an embryo since it can’t implant in the woman’s uterus?

Or do you not believe that life begins at conception?

Ugggh. While your points are not irrelevant, ABC is not condemned by the church b/c some methods are abortafacient. This path will not further kbalcher’s understanding of the church’s teaching on NFP and ABC.

 

[kbachler]

That’s CERTAINLY not the teaching of the Church… just to be clear.

It has nothing to do with the effectivity… at all. God is God and He CAN (and does) work around every barrier - we all know that.
The point is that we are to TRUST God’s design.
God Himself designed the female cycle with infertile phases. That was HIS creation. Not something man invented. If God wanted us to have children every time we have sex then He would have designed us differently.
He created marital sexuality for us to be completely and totally united - in every way, shape, and form… so that we give ourselves to each other in complete union.
Not “I want your sex, but not your fertility”… but TOTALLY… unitive and procreative.

I have to run… leaving work (not that I got much done today )…
I suggest getting in contact with your priest and discussing this section of the Catechism. Also, look into Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body - there are several books that cover it… it may be enlightening…

Cheers and peace…

If it had nothing to do with the effectivity, NFP (or any other method) would not exist.

ALL the methods are based on trusting God’s design AND on controlling it - just as our dominion over all the aspects are based on this.

“He created marital sexuality for us to be completely and totally united - in every way, shape, and form… so that we give ourselves to each other in complete union.
Not “I want your sex, but not your fertility”… but TOTALLY… unitive and procreative.”

If this were so, then why are there large parts of the cycle during which a woman is not procreative AND we KNOW IT.

I have problems with rules like this - rules where man tries to put God in a box. Makes me feel like the Pharisees are still hard at work…

 

[BrokenFortress]

Ugggh. While your points are not irrelevant, ABC is not condemned by the church b/c some methods are abortafacient. This path will not further kbalcher’s understanding of the church’s teaching on NFP and ABC.

No need to get annoyed with me, I only asked because I was genuinely wondering and trying to understand where they’re coming from.

 

[Rico_S]

No need to get annoyed with me, I only asked because I was genuinely wondering and trying to understand where they’re coming from.

No problem…I am not annoyed at you…but I really want to see where this discussion goes and I think it will get derailed if we turn it into an “abc can be aborafacient” discussion.

 

[kbachler]

I just took out one portion because I have a question regarding it. So are you saying that in your mind, NFP and things such as the Pill or IUDs etc are the same?

What about the unnatural consequences of those, such as aborting an embryo since it can’t implant in the woman’s uterus?

Or do you not believe that life begins at conception?

No, it was not my intent to say that. I was trying to stay a little more generic than that.

I believe that human life definitely begins within a short period following conception and may begin as early as conception, but that we don’t have definite science on the latter yet, and therefore, as a matter of prudence, we should treat it as beginning at conception until or unless proven otherwise. I am not in favor of using an embryo’s self-viability as a determining factor.

 

[kbachler]

NFP is only information. You can choose when to have marital relations - this falls under “Free Will”. Nothing is altered in the act. Married couples give themselves ENTIRELY to each other - without any blocks, barriers, or desires to alter God’s creation.

Based on this response, I see nothing that fundamentally removes the Pill from consideration.

Procreative does not mean conceiving - remember? fertility plays no role. Effectivity is not a factor in morality.

It doesn’t mean it, but it does require it. Otherwise NFP would not exist. (Hypothetically) If my wife and I are moral by having relations ONLY during 1 “safe” week a month, then why would we be less moral if we have relations during any one of 3 safe weeks a month?

Catechism quote:

For times when couples PRAYERFULLY feel that they cannot handle another child at that moment. There are many reasons that would be valid - physical, mental, emotional health, finances, housing, etc… these motives must not be selfish.

But this is still true irespective of method.

 

[kbachler]

Oops.
Another thank you.
Later … .

Catharina, what he means is that the natual/artificial argument is a red herring and that it isn’t worth the effort to respond to it. It detracts from the real, more fundamental reasons at hand.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

This concept isn’t always easy to accept for someone not raised in this culture. Right now I am attempting NFP and I had my Dh read about the reasons for the teachings on here, and after a lot of thought he said it just sounded like double speak, and also like going to extraordinary lengths not to get pregnant. With using something like a foam or other non abortificant you are way more open to children than if you scrupulously abstain during the womans fertile time. And of course you can space children and prayerfully discern either way…we are going to start reading the book called Holy Sex and maybe it will offer more insight, we’ll see. one big issue we have is not everyone can use NFP and God is merciful, not cruel.

 

[kbachler]

This concept isn’t always easy to accept for someone not raised in this culture. Right now I am attempting NFP and I had my Dh read about the reasons for the teachings on here, and after a lot of thought he said it just sounded like double speak, and also like going to extraordinary lengths not to get pregnant. With using something like a foam or other non abortificant you are way more open to children than if you scrupulously abstain during the womans fertile time. And of course you can space children and prayerfully discern either way…we are going to start reading the book called Holy Sex and maybe it will offer more insight, we’ll see. one big issue we have is not everyone can use NFP and God is merciful, not cruel.

I agree - I was raised as a Protestant, and considered divinity school before converting. Even so, the logic of why this was needed seems questionable, and the lack of Biblical foundation is disturbing, much less so the actual argument.

I appreciate the comment.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Here’s another resource that might help.
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
<<Contraception: Why Not?
JANET SMITH
Janet Smith explains why the Catholic Church keeps insisting, in the face of the opposite position held by most of the rest of the modern world, that contraception is one of the worst inventions of our time.>>

Also, have you read Humane Vitae or Casti connubi?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m home now.

Timing is altered.

I don’t understand… altered from what? Nothing is done to alter God’s intended creation.

Some on this board have argued that infertile people cannot marry because such a marriage is not valid. But if fertility plays no role, why does NFP exist?

Are you talking about the need to consummate the marriage? This is different from being infertile. Impotency is not infertility.

Similarly, the information that blocking sperm from fertilizing and egg is just information. We can choose to use a Pill that will change the timing of the availablity of an egg or not. Nothing is changed in the marital act. The choice is still free will.

God’s intended creation for marital unity is altered. God intended that the woman’s fertility cycle be present. The Pill changes that. Not only that, but it’s also an abortifacient.

 

[Em_in_FL]

If it had nothing to do with the effectivity, NFP (or any other method) would not exist.

ALL the methods are based on trusting God’s design AND on controlling it - just as our dominion over all the aspects are based on this.

“He created marital sexuality for us to be completely and totally united - in every way, shape, and form… so that we give ourselves to each other in complete union.
Not “I want your sex, but not your fertility”… but TOTALLY… unitive and procreative.”

If this were so, then why are there large parts of the cycle during which a woman is not procreative AND we KNOW IT.

I have problems with rules like this - rules where man tries to put God in a box. Makes me feel like the Pharisees are still hard at work…

Again, I think you’re confusing some definitions…
A woman’s cycle isn’t “procreative” or not… it’s the sexual act. Are you talking about fertility??? I’m confused on your meanings… sorry.

 

[Em_in_FL]

No, it was not my intent to say that. I was trying to stay a little more generic than that.

I believe that human life definitely begins within a short period following conception and may begin as early as conception, but that we don’t have definite science on the latter yet, and therefore, as a matter of prudence, we should treat it as beginning at conception until or unless proven otherwise. I am not in favor of using an embryo’s self-viability as a determining factor.

Actually there is good science.
At the moment the sperm combines with the egg, the DNA combines at the first cell division. At that moment, a new and unique set of HUMAN DNA exists. It’s not the parents’ anymore - it’s a new human being - fully human from that first cell division.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium of the Catechism (issued by Pope Benedict XVI)

It will be a good short text to read…

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

1. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?

2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.

1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

[catharina]

…

I believe that human life definitely begins within a short period following conception and may begin as early as conception, but that we don’t have definite science on the latter yet, and therefore, as a matter of prudence, we should treat it as beginning at conception until or unless proven otherwise. I am not in favor of using an embryo’s self-viability as a determining factor.

Again, I don’t get it.
You are Catholic.
The Church presents the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception
as an absolute article of faith.

At the moment of her conception, MARY LIVED.

“O Mary, conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to thee.”

Life begins at conception.
… or only the life of Mary?

 

[catharina]

Timing is altered.

**Some on this board have argued that infertile people cannot marry because such a marriage is not valid. ** But if fertility plays no role, why does NFP exist?

Similarly, the information that blocking sperm from fertilizing and egg is just information. We can choose to use a Pill that will change the timing of the availablity of an egg or not. Nothing is changed in the marital act. The choice is still free will.

But how is this any less valid or more valid if a different family planning method is chosen? Couple should do so prayerfully in any circumstance.

If anyone believes that, he/she is in error.