Birth Control

[kbachler]

You’re not going to find that “Biblically-based” argument and support for NFP because there was no such thing as NFP in the Bible. People got married in their teens and were expected to have as many children as possible. NFP was developed because it apparently follows the natural design of the body. I mean, I can get what you’re saying here, as I’ve posed this argument myself in the past but really I do think a lot of people have already posted some good responses. I also personally find the “is it explicit in the Bible” arguments slightly irritating as that seems to be a very “sola scriptura” way of going about things, and as Catholics we value scripture, reason, and tradition in our faith. The word “trinity” isn’t in the Bible either:shrug:

There isn’t any “Biblically-based” argument for the support of interracial marriages, preventing/ending abortion, and stopping gay marriage. Does that mean interracial marriages are wrong, abortion is okay, and gays should also have marriages recognized?

At first I understood the time thing as the barrier but now that I think about it, it’s really not a barrier, considering the fact that people also use NFP to get pregnant. You can’t use the contraceptive pill to get pregnant, the IUD to get pregnant, condoms to get pregnant, or the patch to get pregnant.

Thank you for a good post.

I don’t think I ever argued that it needs to be explicit in the Bible - I argued that it needs to be Biblically based. The Trinity IS Biblically-based, for example, although as you note its not Biblically explicit.

You can remove a barrier to get pregnant, as you noted above, be that a time barrier as in NFP, or a condom.

 

[Em_in_FL]

It IS impacted. The timing and frequency of the act IS impacted. I don’t understand why you continue to insist something that is so obviously incorrect? If the timing and frequency were not impacted, NFP would not even exist.

The rationalization of “the couple is free to have sex or not” makes no sense, since this is also true with or without NFP, or with or without any other form of contraception. It’s not a distinguishing factor.

Couple choose NFP for family planning. If they choose NFP, then the point is that they intend to shift the timing of their sex act from the woman’s fertile times to her infertile times.

This IS an impact. This shows that while they are “free” to have sex, they have chosen not to. Thus, decisions are made, things have changed. That IS an impact.

One could just as easily state that a couple is free to not use a condom, or free to use one.

The “licitness” of this is based solely on an interpretive statement defending NFP versus other forms. I am fundamentally questioning the logic of that statement, since the logic provided doesn’t seem to make sense.

You’re right, it does IMPACT the timing of marital relations. However, there is nothing IMMORAL about that.

NFP is the only method which does not disassociate the unitive and the procreative aspects of marital unity.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I don’t think this particular quote from the Catechism has been addressed enough:

2363
The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

 

[kbachler]

I also think it would be good to point out that up until the 1930’s, ALL denominations shared the same perspective with the CC regarding contraceptives.

Then perhaps in the spirit of this argument we should note that many (if not all) of the Apostles were married. Early Church writings indicate that all (except John) were married - although from the Bible itself we know only that Peter was married.

That means that at the time of Christ, all the denominations allowed married Priests.

I don’t think that we should rely solely on ad populum arguments in these matters.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Then perhaps in the spirit of this argument we should note that many (if not all) of the Apostles were married. Early Church writings indicate that all (except John) were married - although from the Bible itself we know only that Peter was married.

That means that at the time of Christ, all the denominations allowed married Priests.

I don’t think that we should rely solely on ad populum arguments in these matters.

Celibate priests (although an entirely different discussion) is simply a tradition, not a question of morality.

 

[agapewolf]

I see these issues as major shortcomings in what the Church has offered its people, and that there is a responsibility of the Church to address these questions.

I’m not claiming to be an expert in this area. But I think many Catholics and non-Catholics alike ask these questions - and if the issue is that clear, reasonable, understandable, Biblically based answers should be readily available - shouldn’t they?

The church HAS addressed these, and they ARE readily available. So why haven’t you read the books or documents yet? Why haven’t addressed anything that is in there?

 

[choose_to_love]

Regarding whether or not NFP is “Biblically-based”, and following up on spunjalebi’s post, in which she correctly notes that Catholic understanding of Church authority encompassses Tradition, the Onan account, it seems to me, is dispositive on this issue. Onan separated the procreative from the unitive, and was struck down. I don’t think Christ had to specifically address this point as it is contained in the Old Testament - - something about not abolishing the old law, right? My understanding is that the above interpretation of the account was consistent among Christians and Jews at the time and for a long time afterward. The point being not that “old = good”, but that those closest in time understood it that way.

Seeing as how there was a penalty, which was not death but a form of public humiliation, for those who chose not to undertake the obligation to take the deceased brother’s widow as spouse, it seems to me that the only explanation for Onan’s being struck down is that he contracepted, in the most “natural” way possible. IMO that shows that the issue is not natural/unnatural, in the sense it is being questioned here, but the intentional separation of the unitive from the procreative.

It would then seem obvious that with NFP there is no intentional separation of the unitive from the procreative aspect. Both are fully present because the act, when engaged in, is not altered by the parties. Whatever subjective fertility in the woman is present, the act is still objectively procreative, as the couple took no action to render the act sterile.

 

[kbachler]

You’re right, it does IMPACT the timing of marital relations. However, there is nothing IMMORAL about that.

NFP is the only method which does not disassociate the unitive and the procreative aspects of marital unity.

Why is there nothing IMMORAL with respect to NPR’s impact on marital relations?

Your second statement is clearly false: NFP DOES disassociate the unitive and procreative aspects - OTHERWISE NFP would not even exist.

The entire point of NFP is to allow family planning. This is accomplished by allowing people to change the timing of the act to occur when the woman is not fertile. If the act occurs when the woman is not fertile, the act is not procreative, not because fertility equates to procreativeness, but because fertility is a necessary condition for procreative-ness. (This is, in fact, the very reason NFP exists.) Hence, the two are disassociated. Q.E.D.

 

[agapewolf]

The biblical basis is in many places, but one that speaks pretty well is for Husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ gave his whole body completely, with no barriers. Body and soul are we,… we cannot separate the body and soul. What we do with the body is what we do with the soul and heart.

“i love everything about you except your fertility”. " I give you everything except my fertility"

 

[Em_in_FL]

Why is there nothing IMMORAL with respect to NPR’s impact on marital relations?

Your second statement is clearly false: NFP DOES disassociate the unitive and procreative aspects - OTHERWISE NFP would not even exist.

The entire point of NFP is to allow family planning. This is accomplished by allowing people to change the timing of the act to occur when the woman is not fertile. If the act occurs when the woman is not fertile, the act is not procreative, not because fertility equates to procreativeness, but because fertility is a necessary condition for procreative-ness. (This is, in fact, the very reason NFP exists.) Hence, the two are disassociated. Q.E.D.

Again… a basic misunderstanding of definitions.

“Procreate” means to create offspring.
“Procreative” means having sexual relations in a way that could create offspring (fertility is not mentioned in this adjective).

I know people hate dictionary references, but still… that’s what this is boiling down to…

procreative pro·cre·a·tive (prō’krē-ā’tĭv)
adj.

1.   Capable of reproducing; generative.

2.   Of or directed to procreation.

 

[Em_in_FL]

So… now that we know the definition of procreative…
ANYTHING that is done to the act to render it sterile is contraception.

The act isn’t done with NFP… nothing is rendered sterile.

 

[kbachler]

Regarding whether or not NFP is “Biblically-based”, and following up on spunjalebi’s post, in which she correctly notes that Catholic understanding of Church authority encompassses Tradition, the Onan account, it seems to me, is dispositive on this issue. Onan separated the procreative from the unitive, and was struck down. I don’t think Christ had to specifically address this point as it is contained in the Old Testament - - something about not abolishing the old law, right? My understanding is that the above interpretation of the account was consistent among Christians and Jews at the time and for a long time afterward. The point being not that “old = good”, but that those closest in time understood it that way.

Seeing as how there was a penalty, which was not death but a form of public humiliation, for those who chose not to undertake the obligation to take the deceased brother’s widow as spouse, it seems to me that the only explanation for Onan’s being struck down is that he contracepted, in the most “natural” way possible. IMO that shows that the issue is not natural/unnatural, in the sense it is being questioned here, but the intentional separation of the unitive from the procreative.

It would then seem obvious that with NFP there is no intentional separation of the unitive from the procreative aspect. Both are fully present because the act, when engaged in, is not altered by the parties. Whatever subjective fertility in the woman is present, the act is still objectively procreative, as the couple took no action to render the act sterile.

OTOH, Jewish tradition (in place at the time of Onan) only required ritual washing at the spilling of seed - not death. Although some early writers took the opinion of the Onan story given above, it is important to note that in Jewish tradition retirement (especially for woman) was provided by the family of a son. No son - no provision for retirement. No son, no heir.

Onan was commanded to provide his deceased brother with an heir. He did not do so by withdrawing early. Given the Jewish tradition in place at the time, his death can only be seen as a punishment for disobedience, not a punishment for practicing contraception.

This is, I believe, the opinion of most Biblical scholars today.

Hence, the Onan argument is not convincing.

Regarding: “It would then seem obvious that with NFP there is no intentional separation of the unitive from the procreative aspect. Both are fully present because the act, when engaged in, is not altered by the parties. Whatever subjective fertility in the woman is present, the act is still objectively procreative, as the couple took no action to render the act sterile.”

If the couple changed the timing/frequency of their act to take advantage of the woman’s infertility, then they did in fact alter the act, and thus the act is not objectively procreative since they took an action to render the act sterile.

 

[kbachler]

So… now that we know the definition of procreative…
ANYTHING that is done to the act to render it sterile is contraception.

The act isn’t done with NFP… nothing is rendered sterile.

The timing/frequency of the act is changed - thus rendering it sterile.

 

[kbachler]

Again… a basic misunderstanding of definitions.

“Procreate” means to create offspring.
“Procreative” means having sexual relations in a way that could create offspring (fertility is not mentioned in this adjective).

I know people hate dictionary references, but still… that’s what this is boiling down to…

Then by that definition, you should have no problem using a condom, since they are not perfect, and could create offspring as the result of such an act.

 

[Em_in_FL]

The timing/frequency of the act is changed - thus rendering it sterile.

“IT” isn’t done. How is “it” sterile if it’s not done.

 

[kbachler]

The biblical basis is in many places, but one that speaks pretty well is for Husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ gave his whole body completely, with no barriers. Body and soul are we,… we cannot separate the body and soul. What we do with the body is what we do with the soul and heart.

“i love everything about you except your fertility”. " I give you everything except my fertility"

When you change the timing/frequency of the act, you introduce a barrier.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Then by that definition, you should have no problem using a condom, since they are not perfect, and could create offspring as the result of such an act.

The effectivity has nothing to do with the morality.
You are doing something *TO *the act, *while *engaging IN the act (not abstaining), to render it (at whatever effectivity) sterile.

 

[agapewolf]

When you change the timing/frequency of the act, you introduce a barrier.

No, you don’t. There is no barrier when it is a non-act. Its a philosophical difference…

The act is not happening, just like all of us online right now. It is impossible to altar an act that doesn’t exist.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Here is another authoritative reference… from Humanae Vitae

Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator.** But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God. **

 

[Em_in_FL]

More from HV:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

Consequences of Artificial Methods

1. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Limits to Man’s Power

Consequently, unless we are willing that the responsibility of procreating life should be left to the arbitrary decision of men, we must accept that there are certain limits, beyond which it is wrong to go, to the power of man over his own body and its natural functions—limits, let it be said, which no one, whether as a private individual or as a public authority, can lawfully exceed. These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the “principle of totality” enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII. (21)