Birth Control

[choose_to_love]

Not having sex renders the female infertile? No, the passage of time and the operation of body systems causes the female to pass from fertile to infertile. That will happen whether the hypothetical couple engages in the act or not.

On Onan: Why, then, was public humiliation the penalty for a brother who would not undertake the responsiblity? “Most” Biblical scholars - - didn’t someone post about not using ad populorum?

 

[Em_in_FL]

This next quote from HV, I think, is the most appropriate…

Concern of the Church

1. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a “sign of contradiction.” (22) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly pilgrimage “to share God’s life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men.” (23)

 

[heart4home]

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.

Can I ask a question? Would you feel better if the Church just said ALL attempts to avoid pregnancy are wrong?

You are looking for biblical reasoning. I can offer many where God tells us that Children are a Blessing.

1)Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,
the fruit of the womb a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.
—Psalm 127:3-5

2)(Gen 9:1) to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth

3)Psalm 128:3
Your wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of your house: your children like olive plants round about your table.

Then we have the verse that tells us about Onan

Genesis 38: 9-10…But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death.

Then we can add in the verse of where it tells us that a man and women should not deny each other except for a time that they should spend in prayer and then come back together.

So if we look to the Bible, we learn that Children are a blessing. Having a Quiver full of them is seen as a blessing. We also see many times throughout the Bible women being desperate to conceive a child. Having children was seen as a gift, a very good thing.

All of the above doesn’t even include the teachings and traditions passed down from the early Church which of course as Catholics we should believe have great importance.

Personally I believe that some Catholics use NFP in the way that was not really intended by the Church or approved of. It seems to me in all my study of the topic that it is allowed when a couple has a serious, SERIOUS reason to space children or to prevent them if possible for a while. I’m not sure when it ever became acceptable to get married and use it successfully for the first 4 years of your marriage as if I understand correctly, some poster said up thread. If you marry you are to be open to life right away, or you should delay getting married. If you get married and some unexpected situation arises, loss of both spouses jobs, serious illness etc, that is different but that often times doesn’t seem to be the case.

If after having a child or serveral children you then need to space your children for a time or have GRAVE or SERIOUS reason to do it long term, then you do so, still revisiting it every month and praying about it.

That’s not the message I read from many on this web site and so I can see why many really begin to see NFP as just another method of contraception. Before you start telling me I’m wrong… I"M NOT SAYING IT IS CONTRACEPTION, I"M SAYING I UNDERSTAND WHY OTHERS MAY BEGIN TO VIEW ITS EXCESSIVE USE THAT WAY!!!

 

[heart4home]

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

Hence, the Onan argument is not convincing.

Well of course it’s not valid by most Biblical contracepting scholars today.

Really, you can dismiss the death of Onan, find a different argument for it, but we will never know for sure and it’s always convenient to dismiss what we do not like.

Oh and what constitutes MOST? Show me a reliable statistic that proves that it is MOST not just you saying so.

 

[kbachler]

I understand what you’re trying to get to.

However, let’s take a step back for a second and re-look at what authority you’re going to base these reasons on. I understand you’re looking for Biblically-based answers. However, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ Himself and He set the CHURCH (leaders - Popes, Bishops, etc) as the *authority *to guide the people. The Bible is the Word of God, but it does not address each and every little moral issue that may arise throughout history. This is why we trust that the Church that Christ established is going to be guided by the Holy Spirit in it’s teachings.

So, while I haven’t researched your question about Biblical references directly, I’m just preempting a lack of response by saying it may not be there. But that doesn’t mean the Church hasn’t been guided by the Holy Spirit in discerning these topics of morality.

If it is so guided, it should be able to provide a coherent response to the question - not one that relies on “word games.”

I do agree with your note above re Church authority. But I also point out that somehow we’ve gotten back on a path that was precisely a path that Christ led us away from, and made a point of saying he was doing so. And yet, here we are doing it again anyway.

Peace.

 

[Em_in_FL]

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?

I encourage you to simply pray over the words of Humanae Vitae and ask God to open your heart and to help you understand why the Church that He established has this teaching.

If it is so guided, it should be able to provide a coherent response to the question - not one that relies on “word games.”

I do agree with your note above re Church authority. But I also point out that somehow we’ve gotten back on a path that was precisely a path that Christ led us away from, and made a point of saying he was doing so. And yet, here we are doing it again anyway.

Peace.

It’s not a matter of word games… it’s just definitions that are quite complex.

Peace to you too.

 

[heart4home]

If it is so guided, it should be able to provide a coherent response to the question - not one that relies on “word games.”

I do agree with your note above re Church authority. But I also point out that somehow we’ve gotten back on a path that was precisely a path that Christ led us away from, and made a point of saying he was doing so. And yet, here we are doing it again anyway.

Peace.

Why is it that the Church is playing word games and you are not? I’m being serious here as I think there have been some very good explanations in this thread and yet you dismiss each by playing on the semantics of words and saying things like you did above “Most biblical scholars today.”

So what about the 1930 years or so that all the scholars seemed to agree that Contraception was wrong? Could you explain why they were so wrong for all those years?

 

[ignatius777]

I’m a little scared to post this because I’ve seen a couple of rude comments in a few other threads… so try to handle with care or at the very least don’t be rude…

I am 100 percent again abortion because it is the ending of a life that has begun. However, I do not see what is wrong about birth control - it is preventing the beginning of a life, not ending a life. My husband and I are not ready to have children right now for a variety of personal reasons that I am not going to get into. Are we really supposed to remain celibate for years because of this? I find that completely absurd. And what of the couples that already have several children? Do they simply stop having sex after having a couple of kids?

Please be honest… because you don’t find a lot of Catholic families with 6 or more kids anymore… so I’m SURE I’m not the only person who feels this way.

To give you a bit of my background - I was born and raised Catholic until the age of 10. My family left the faith, and I’m now 30 years old and have just started going to church again. So I’m a new/old Catholic… or I suppose a cradle Catholic (I saw that term going around in here, and I think that would probably apply to me, though I didn’t really have any say in my family leaving Catholicism). So I’m still fairly new to some of the doctrines, customs, etc. Thanks for bearing with me!

Older high progestrone birth control pills prevented ovulation but the new lower dose birth control pills do not. That means an egg can be fertilized but when it seeks to implant itself in the uterus it cant beacuse the pill makes the uterus hostile to implantation. It is the position of the church that the fertized egg is a human life. If it cant implant in the uterus then it is passed off. The church encourages natural family planning which is as effective as any birth control pill and doesnt create the situation noted above.

 

[Jennifer_J]

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.

The act is sex–tab a in slot b–finishing in the proper place. Nothing is altered in the actual act of sex if a couple knows they are fertile or knows that they are infertile. The couple may decide to have sex or not have sex. If the couple is seeking pregnancy, they can use NFP to p(name removed by moderator)oint the most fertile time to increase their chances–no contracpetive can do this. The act is completed in a unitive way and in a procreative way. With your rules, pregnant women couldn’t have sex, women in menopause couldn’t have sex and infertile people could not get married and have sex. Total abstinence to avoid more children would also be immoral. That is NOT the case. Natural infertility does nothing to the act of sex. Contraception, all forms, alters the procreative aspect of the act–rendering it infertile. Being aware of your fertility is not sinful, immoral, and it doesn’t alter the act.

 

[HouseArrest]

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

But we are free to take sex or leave it - at any time - for any reason - including, again, the flu, my son’s basketball game, or being too tired. So if we were to not create any barriers, we must be having sex all day, every day?

 

[kbachler]

Why is it that the Church is playing word games and you are not? I’m being serious here as I think there have been some very good explanations in this thread and yet you dismiss each by playing on the semantics of words and saying things like you did above “Most biblical scholars today.”

So what about the 1930 years or so that all the scholars seemed to agree that Contraception was wrong? Could you explain why they were so wrong for all those years?

In answer to the first question - the Church is playing word games by inventing a definition in order to indicate that there is a differentional between NFP and barrier contraception, when in fact no such differential exists.

I don’t see where I’ve been playing on the semantics of words at all - rather by relying on what is self-evident. If is self-evident, for example, that NFP does change the act, because if it didn’t, there would be no reason for it to exist. That sort of logic is inescapable. A rock, I’m afraid, IS a rock.

With regard to “Most Biblical scholars today” - again, this is a situation where the evidence is the evidence. Jewish law did not prohibit the spilling of seed except to require ritual washing. This is Biblically evident. Onan was given a command. No where else is it mentioned that anyone was punished for contraception, even though contraception was used. Onan was punished, but based on the above the punishment appears to be clearly for disobedience - there is no other reason for it.

Then, by actually going out and looking at commentary on the topic, one gets a sense that, other than the very most fundamentalist of theologians, no one adheres to the view espoused about Onan, because it simply doesn’t make sense.

With respect why past scholars were wrong on contraception…

Contraception was viewed as an evil for many years because it was associated (perhaps rightly) with a concern about loosened sexual morays. Conception (and STDs) provide consequences that help to keep people moral and families strong. These things are important, and are important within religious belief.

However, life continues to evolve. For economic and health reasons, good, responsible, educated, and faithful decisions on family planning by a married couple is a reasonable and essential element of married life that should quite reasonably be between the husband and wife and no one else.

At one time it was thought morally repugnant to believe that the Earth was not the center of the universe also (or to claim that it was round! There are still flat-Earthers today!) Would it be inappropriate of me to point out that all of those past religious scholars were ALSO wrong?

 

[kbachler]

But we are free to take sex or leave it - at any time - for any reason - including, again, the flu, my son’s basketball game, or being too tired. So if we were to not create any barriers, we must be having sex all day, every day?

The above statement is true irrespective of NFP. It is not a differentiator from all other forms of contraception. Therefore, to make the statement above is really to say nothing.

The point is that for NFP to have any meaning - any reason to exist - to provide a means for family planning, the couple MUST still CHOOSE to change the act in terms of timing and frequency.

THAT is inescapable.

One is free to choose NOT to have sex when the woman is infertile. Fine. But that doesn’t change the MEANING OF NFP. One is also free to choose to use (or not use) a condom when the woman is infertile. Does that change the meaning of a condom??

 

[kbachler]

The act is sex–tab a in slot b–finishing in the proper place. Nothing is altered in the actual act of sex if a couple knows they are fertile or knows that they are infertile.

But something IS altered in the actual act of sex if they choose to change the timing/frequency of the act in order to initiate/avoid pregnancy.

Just as something is altered in the actual act of sex if they choose to not use/use a condom in the act in order to in order to initiate/avoid pregnancy.

NFP is a tool - just as a condom is a tool. The CHOICE is still up to the participants in either case, and when the choice is made the ACT is changed.

 

[kbachler]

Well of course it’s not valid by most Biblical contracepting scholars today.

Really, you can dismiss the death of Onan, find a different argument for it, but we will never know for sure and it’s always convenient to dismiss what we do not like.

Oh and what constitutes MOST? Show me a reliable statistic that proves that it is MOST not just you saying so.

Agreed. So let’s use Ockam’s Razor on Onan.

Which is more believable:

1. In a Jewish culture with laws given by God where the spilling of seed requires only ritual washing, Onan is commanded to impregnate his new wife, and spills his seed instead and is put to death by God for disobedience
2. In a Jewish culture with laws given by God where the spilling of seed requires only ritual washing, Onan is commanded to impregnate his new wife, and spills his seed instead and is put to death by God for spilling his seed.

I believe the simpler, more sensible explanation is #1. What do you choose? If you choose 2, please explain why God would choose to punish Onan for something that required only ritual washing?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But something IS altered in the actual act of sex if they choose to change the timing/frequency of the act in order to initiate/avoid pregnancy.

Just as something is altered in the actual act of sex if they choose to not use/use a condom in the act in order to in order to initiate/avoid pregnancy.

NFP is a tool - just as a condom is a tool. The CHOICE is still up to the participants in either case, and when the choice is made the ACT is changed.

What is altered?

 

[PatriceA]

What is altered?

That’s what I was going to ask as well.

 

[choose_to_love]

@kbachler - - what is your source/context for this understanding?

 

[Jennifer_J]

What is altered?

Yes, what exactly is altered in the actual ACT of the Marital Embrace of a couple who records temps, or mucus or cervix or pees on a strip? The physical essence of the act is intact. The act is not MADE infertile or fertile, it just IS. The couple choose to act or not.

 

[kbachler]

Older high progestrone birth control pills prevented ovulation but the new lower dose birth control pills do not. That means an egg can be fertilized but when it seeks to implant itself in the uterus it cant beacuse the pill makes the uterus hostile to implantation. It is the position of the church that the fertized egg is a human life. If it cant implant in the uterus then it is passed off. The church encourages natural family planning which is as effective as any birth control pill and doesnt create the situation noted above.

Actually, my understanding is that the Pill is designed to prevent ovulation, whether it is the older pill or not. It does this by preventing a leutinizing hormone spike, which triggers ovulation.

There is still a very small chance that ovulation can occur. In this case, combination pills also create a barrier that prevent the man’s seed from getting to the egg.

IF in spite of these two steps, somehow ovulation still occurred and the egg were still fertilized, based on the hormones released it is theorized that there are changes in the uterine wall that would make implantation of an embryo highly difficult. (I do not know if there are any studies that give any indication one way or the other whether this reasonable theorization is fact.) However, if this last unlikely phase were to happen, it would be by Church definition abortive. This certainly makes sense on a conservative, “benefit of the doubt” approach. (Which I believe in, BTW.)

Hence, the Pill is frowned upon.

Statistically, I would not be surprised if the possibility of an abortive act under Pill usage is less than the possibility of an abortive act without Pill usage, since the likelihood of pregnancy in the first place is much less.

 

[kbachler]

@kbachler - - what is your source/context for this understanding?

This is off the top of my head as I am at work. Check Leviticus, I think chapter 15. If not there, check chapters 11-16 on ritual cleansing.