Birth Control

[kbachler]

Regarding –
kbachler: By the argument you present, why would we conclude that it is ok to use the knowledge from NFP to NOT have sex during parts of the cycle? During that period are they “one flesh”?

We see in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the footnotes, that they are using a broad meaning for “one flesh” not just the conjugal act. That means both the consortium and the covenent, since they give themselves to one another definitively and totally they are no longer two. So they are one flesh throughout the entire cycle.

Reference:

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.148 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."149

1. Gaudium et spes 48 § 1.
2. Cf. CIC, Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility; in christian marriage they acquire a distinctive firmness by reason of the sacrament.
3. Mk 10:9 “Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
   Mt 19:1-12 … and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. …"
   1 Cor 7:10-11 To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.

Vico,

It doesn’t help to use circular arguments. An argument based on Church teaching which is based on Church teaching only tells us what the Church already said.

The point here is to examine the fundamental argument and see if it makes sense. I can’t see how the Church can in any meaningful logical way segregate the use of NFP from barrier ABC, for example. This happens in part because the Church’s initial arguments were made based on information which is factually questionable, and in part because some arguments appear to appeal to “natural law” arguments, which are not logically formally correct.

Consequently, the entire argument unravels.

 

[Vico]

Vico,

It doesn’t help to use circular arguments. An argument based on Church teaching which is based on Church teaching only tells us what the Church already said.

The point here is to examine the fundamental argument and see if it makes sense. I can’t see how the Church can in any meaningful logical way segregate the use of NFP from barrier ABC, for example. This happens in part because the Church’s initial arguments were made based on information which is factually questionable, and in part because some arguments appear to appeal to “natural law” arguments, which are not logically formally correct.

Consequently, the entire argument unravels.

The decision to use of birth control is an independent decision from which kind of birth control to use. Each is based upon different laws. It is logical if you know the laws.

 

[AToughSpot]

Has anyone gotten to the point of calling a halt to marital relations on a permanent basis over the issue of ABC or health reasons? It may be best for me to go that route, but I wanted to hear from others who have gone that route.

Thank you

 

[Vico]

The decision to use of birth control is an independent decision from which kind of birth control to use. Each is based upon different laws. It is logical if you know the laws.

I should elaborate, usually people begin by saying that all marital relations must be procreative, in the spirit of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, however if the canons are other teachings are inspected an understanding will come to the foreground: all marital acts do not have to produce children, the bonum prolis. As Pope Pius XII explained in his talk to Midwives,
The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951
So the question arises as to what are allowable forms of birth control when there are grave motives allowing omission of bonum prolis. Humanae Vitae states that:
“it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it”.
When such a grave reason exists birth control may be justly used, but barriers, sterilization, abortion, and artificial birth control are not tolerable methods due to violation of the unitive principle and additionally, sterilization, abortifactants, devices (preventing implantation), and use of hormones (risking prevention of implantation) violate against charity. What remains are continuous or periodic abstinance.

Some people will scoff at condoms being a violation of the unitive principle, yet sexual sins are always grave so it must not be considere a trifle. The marital covenant includes as an essential the granting of the right to conjugal act, apt for generation of children, regardless of fertility, which of course is the reason that impotence is an impediment but sterility is not.

Additionally faithfullness to God’s design has been emphasized especially by the USCCB in one of their documents. From Humanae Vitae we read of this:
“But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source.”

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[kbachler]

The decision to use of birth control is an independent decision from which kind of birth control to use. Each is based upon different laws. It is logical if you know the laws.

Not when the laws are deduced incorrectly, using faulty logic, from faulty facts.

 

[kbachler]

I should elaborate, …SNIP…

[/INDENT]So the question arises as to what are allowable forms of birth control when there are grave motives allowing omission of bonum prolis. Humanae Vitae states that:
“it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it”.
When such a grave reason exists birth control may be justly used, but barriers, sterilization, abortion, and artificial birth control are not tolerable methods due to violation of the unitive principle and additionally, sterilization, abortifactants, devices (preventing implantation), and use of hormones (risking prevention of implantation) violate against charity. What remains are continuous or periodic abstinance.
[/INDENT]

Please explain how abstinence is less of a violation of the unitive principle than a barrier.

Please do not go off on another tangent.

 

[Vico]

Please explain how abstinence is less of a violation of the unitive principle than a barrier.

Please do not go off on another tangent.

By mutual consent, they are united in that.

1 Corinthians 5: Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

 

[kbachler]

By mutual consent, they are united in that.

1 Corinthians 5: Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

They could have mutual consent in using barrier ABC, therefore mutual consent is not a differentiating factor.

Moreover, abstinence is implicitly less physically unifying.

So you’ll have to offer a better explanation.

 

[Sillara]

When you use some form of artificial birth control, of whatever type, you are doing violence to the act of marriage.

When you are abstaining, you are not doing violence to the act of marriage; you are not participating in the act at that time.

 

[Vico]

They could have mutual consent in using barrier ABC, therefore mutual consent is not a differentiating factor.

Moreover, abstinence is implicitly less physically unifying.

So you’ll have to offer a better explanation.

The marital covenent includes granting the right to the marital act apt to the generation of children (“per se aptum ad prolis generationem” – Canon 1061); this is mutual self-donation. With barriers the mutual self donation is incomplete, but must by covenant be complete when given. The couple has the right to abstain by mutual consent or individually when certain conditions exist. There is a difference between abstinance (to choose to refrain) and indulgence (something granted as a favour or privilege).

 

[Good_Daughter]

How can a form be procreative if the people performing it are intentionally doing so only during a period when the woman is infertile?

Because the procreative form is independent of fertility. When I use the term “procreative form”, I mean the physical form sex must take in order for a couple to procreate (reproduce). In order to be procreative (reproductive) a couple needs both sex in the procreative form and fertility. They are two separate factors.

A couple who are expecting a baby, and therefore infertile, are capable of engaging in the same physical act as a fertile couple who conceive a baby. The form of their relations is identical even though only the second couple is actually procreative (reproductive).

How is this form any more procreative than a form that involves a physical barrier?

It isn’t necessarily. The word procreative in “procreative form” relates to the form necessary for, but not ensuring procreation (reproduction).

I contend that to argue that when couples are CHOOSING an infertile period, that the form cannot be any more procreative than a form that involves a physical barrier. Both the comparative intent seems to create and issue, and the actual comparative probability of pregnancy.

I agree, couples who have relations during an infertile period, whether they know they’re infertile or not, are no more procreative (reproductive) than those using a physical barrier.

Sorry, I’m not following your second sentence.

 

[Consecrated]

Of course, it doesn’t help that the Church’s teaching may be factually incorrect on some key points.

The Church’s teaching in this matter (one of faith and morals) is infallible. That is, we can trust that it is, in fact, correct. ABC by any means including withdrawal is always intrinsically wrong. Periodic continence is not intrinsically wrong, although it may be practiced with wrong intent.

First, there are strong arguments that the primary end of sex is not procreation. It may be for animals, but humans are in many ways different. The bonding element is likely the most important element.

The Church teaches (in Casti Connubi, Humanae Vitae, Address to Midwives) that the primary end of the marital act is procreation. Any arguments to the contrary are human, and fallible. The “bonding element” is also a necessary part of the marriage act, because it lends to the proper bonding and health of the family as a whole. These two together (procreation and bonding) are violated by the use of ABC, but kept intact by the practice of periodic continence. The purpose of marriage is so each spouse may aid the other and all children conceived on the way to Heaven.

Second, since humans, unlike animals, are basically always available for sex (physically), the use of NFP to adjust the timing/frequency of the marital act disorders it.

This is *your *contention. You have arrived at this by your own fallible logic. The Church teaches Infallibly that the use of periodic continence based on charting methods in a marriage does NOT disorder the marriage act. It in no way adds to the conversation to compare the marital act between two human persons with eternal souls with the mating act of dumb animals. The two are worlds apart.

Third, yes, we can create things that are sinful. On what basis would be not say that NFP is sinful, since it disorders the act? But the point here was to deal with the “natural law” argument, and to demonstrate that it is a poor argument, not to argue whether or not ABC is in fact ok.

Again, it is *your *contention that “NFP disorders the act”. The Church’s teaching on the matter comes from Divine Revelation which can always be conformed to the physical world even if we don’t see how that can be true. If you believe as a Catholic that the Church has infallibility in these matters, then you will approach all misunderstandings with the idea that the Church holds the Truth on the matter, and you must pray for understanding and Faith in spite of not clearly understanding.

The problem is that logically, NFP appears to be equivalent to ABC. Someone better look for a way out of that infallible teaching. Perhaps one can argue that we now have more knowledge of human -sex, and that that changes the impact within society.

It is by your own logic that you have concluded that “NFP appears to be equivalent to ABC.” You have declared this your own infallible teaching, and so set yourself in opposition to God speaking through the Church. Since the Church has spoken definitively on the subject of periodic continence and all forms of ABC, we must conclude that your logic is faulty. You have invented what you call a “time barrier” in the practice of periodic continence and demonstrated how you believe that to be equivalent to the actual material barrier of ABC. But the Church does not teach that the “time barrier” is the same as the material barrier. She teaches that the material barrier is intrinsically wrong, and that timing the marital act is NOT intrinsically wrong. Since this teaching is from God, we can trust that it is infinitely logical, and we can even seek to understand His logic. But we do not and have not and will not ever have “more knowledge of human sex” than God does, who created it. Just because we know more about the mechanics of sex and the origins of life than we did X number of years ago does not change the Truth of the matter that was there from the beginning when God created us. We cannot arrive at Timeless Eternal Truths from simply acquiring more information or knowledge. To attempt to do so is to place your (human) self in a position to make great error. (see the Enlightenment) It is a modern heresy to believe that the acquiring of more information or knowledge or facts can change a Truth already revealed.

 

[kbachler]

When you use some form of artificial birth control, of whatever type, you are doing violence to the act of marriage.

When you are abstaining, you are not doing violence to the act of marriage; you are not participating in the act at that time.

On what basis would you make this claim?

Natural law has been used to argue for NFP (versus ABC) where abstention is used during a woman’s fertile times and the act is concentrated on her infertile times.

Using the same natural law argument, we would point out that unlike many animals, and nearly all land mammals, God made human’s in a way that they can have sex at basically any time and not have to wait to be “in heat”. Based on the same natural law argument used to defend NFP, the concept of abstention is, in fact, somewhat abhorrent.

Then there is the point that a couple that is intentionally using knowledge from NFP to abstain during a woman’s fertile time is subverting BOTH the unitive and procreative act.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread now, simply blindly repeating a condensed version of the Church’s opinion doesn’t address the important crux issue: In what meaningful way does NFP differ from (some forms of ABC, mostly barrier forms) such that NFP is supposedly “moral” while ABC is “immoral”? Based on the logic presented in this thread (numerous times) it appears that either BOTH NFP and barrier ABC need to be considered moral, or both immoral. Further, it appears that NFP violates essentially the same principles as are raised as issues for barrier ABC. It has further been pointed out that when the Church’s basic analysis of the situation was performed, less was understood about human sexuality than is understood today, particularly with respect to the benefits of hormones and other chemicals released during the marital act - chemicals that in turn affect sleep, health, bonding and intimacy. This lack of knowledge and the impact of what is now known significantly undermines portions of the Churches argument, especially portions that are reliant upon procreation being (far and away) the primary purpose of the marital act.

What violence do you argue that a barrier ABC does to the act of marriage?

 

[kbachler]

The marital covenent includes granting the right to the marital act apt to the generation of children (“per se aptum ad prolis generationem” – Canon 1061); this is mutual self-donation. With barriers the mutual self donation is incomplete, but must by covenant be complete when given. The couple has the right to abstain by mutual consent or individually when certain conditions exist. There is a difference between abstinance (to choose to refrain) and indulgence (something granted as a favour or privilege).

With NFP, the mutual self-donation is also incomplete, but NFP is allowed. Moreover, barriers existed in some Biblical times, there is evidence they existed PRIOR to the time of Christ, yet there is nothing mentioned of a problem with barriers in the Bible.

If the couple has a right to abstain fully, why don’t they also have a right to abstain incompletely by using a barrier?

Again, the arguments presented as presented make no sense.

 

[kbachler]

My reply to the following: Part I:

The Church’s teaching in this matter (one of faith and morals) is infallible.

Yet some of the apparent assumptions in that teaching are demonstrably factually incorrect.

Although the purpose of the teaching is a conclusion with respect to faith and morals, the Church’s underlying argument states assumptions based on health, medicine, science and other factors which are objectively measurable.

That is, we can trust that it is, in fact, correct. ABC by any means including withdrawal is always intrinsically wrong. Periodic continence is not intrinsically wrong, although it may be practiced with wrong intent.

Then state why it is always intrinsically wrong using only correct assumptions.

The Church teaches (in Casti Connubi, Humanae Vitae, Address to Midwives) that the primary end of the marital act is procreation.

This assumption is highly questionable. It is certainly an important end. That it is PRIMARY is at best, highly doubtful.

This is demonstrated by observing physical changes that occur with and following the marital act, and the impact of those changes on a human body. Specifically, there are important changes that significantly benefit a human, and in addition benefit bonding and intimacy in a marriage, WHETHER OR NOT there is conception.

Consequently, it is fairly clear that these beneficial changes are “more primary” than conception, since they are beneficial and basically occur whether or not conception does.

Therefore, the Church’s basic premise is incorrect. Any deduction from that premise is therefore also likely to be incorrect.

Any arguments to the contrary are human, and fallible.

Arguments to the contrary are based on what God actually created, and reflect the reality of that creation. Therefore, to call these arguments fallible runs the risk of calling God fallible. Are you certain this is what you wish to do?

The “bonding element” is also a necessary part of the marriage act, because it lends to the proper bonding and health of the family as a whole.

Since this occurs whether or not procreation occurs, it is not “also necessary” but is in fact primary. Procreation occurs best within a family, and without bonding, there is no family. Hence, procreation is secondary to the processes which enhance bonding.

It is therefore shown AGAIN that the Church’s argument is factually incorrect.

These two together (procreation and bonding) are violated by the use of ABC, but kept intact by the practice of periodic continence.

This argument IS ALSO factually incorrect, since the use of ABC DOES NOT block the release of hormones and other chemicals to an individual for the purposes of health, sleep, bonding and intimacy. Consequently, ABC DOES NOT violate this, but the use of abstinence with NFP DOES violate this.

The purpose of marriage is so each spouse may aid the other and all children conceived on the way to Heaven.

If so, then BONDING, health, and intimacy come first, again showing that conception is of secondary importance within the Act.

This is *your *contention. You have arrived at this by your own fallible logic.

Measurable facts are not contentions. If I observe a rock, and weigh it, and say “this is a rock that weighs one pound” and the Church infallibly teaches that it is a two-pound feather, then who is incorrect?

The Church teaches Infallibly that the use of periodic continence based on charting methods in a marriage does NOT disorder the marriage act.

And yet we have demonstrated using basic logic - logic that is part of God’s creation - that this conclusion does not follow from the stated premises.

This is a conundrum that the Church must address.

Part II coming soon…

 

[kbachler]

Reply to Consecrated, Part II

It in no way adds to the conversation to compare the marital act between two human persons with eternal souls with the mating act of dumb animals. The two are worlds apart.

It does add to the conversation, by considering the vast differences. Yes, the marital act is significantly different than the mating of dumb animals. That is the point. It is only in the world of dumb animals where the animals do not realize that the act of sex is connected to the act of procreation, and yet the Church’s argument in effect treats its parishioners as though they functioned in the same way as dumb animals, when in fact God gave parishioners a brain. We are unique in that we can have sex at any time, and can appreciate the aspects of sex, pleasure, unity, and conception, in a much different way than an animal can.

Of these, unity is the most different, due to the higher brain functions granted us by God. In a sense pleasure is pleasure – it feels good to animals and humans alike. And conception is conception. But we have unity, and love, and plan and think ahead and make informed choices based on the principles of unity.

Your own argument demonstrates ONCE AGAIN that unity is more important than conception, and your own argument undermines the Natural Law teaching provided by the Church.

Again, it is *your *contention that “NFP disorders the act”.

Not at all. It can be logically deduced using the same Natural Law argument as the Church used to defend NFP, and was done so above.

Still, there are even better arguments, but if you contend that the argument using Natural Law does not work, then you must (to be intellectually honest and consistent) throw out the Natural Law argument. But this forces you to ALSO discard the Church’s Natural Law argument.

Sorry, you are on the horns of a dilemma.

The Church’s teaching on the matter comes from Divine Revelation which can always be conformed to the physical world even if we don’t see how that can be true. If you believe as a Catholic that the Church has infallibility in these matters, then you will approach all misunderstandings with the idea that the Church holds the Truth on the matter, and you must pray for understanding and Faith in spite of not clearly understanding.

Unfortunately, I have seen the Church be wrong on matters of science before. So when the Church starts an “infallible argument” with incorrect scientific premises, I have to question.

God commanded us to love him with all our heart, soul and mind. If I fail to question something that appears so blatantly incorrect, then how would I possibly be following God’s commandment to love him with all my mind?

It is by your own logic that you have concluded that “NFP appears to be equivalent to ABC.”

This is incorrect. I did not invent logic. I have used standard logic, used by man for some time and taught in high schools, colleges, and universities.

You have declared this your own infallible teaching, and so set yourself in opposition to God speaking through the Church.

I have aligned myself with God by questioning when He told me to use my mind.

Since the Church has spoken definitively on the subject of periodic continence and all forms of ABC, we must conclude that your logic is faulty.

And yet, so many have not concluded so. There is no MUST here. We have free will, thought, and the ability to understand logic, all granted us by God.

Part III Soon!

 

[kbachler]

Part III answer to Consecrated

You have invented what you call a “time barrier” in the practice of periodic continence and demonstrated how you believe that to be equivalent to the actual material barrier of ABC.

I did not invent it. I observed it. God created a woman’s cycle. Man observed how it works and wrote the principles of NFP (the principles also created by God.) Mankind used these principles to avoid conception thanks to timing.

I did no inventing here. I observed what ACTUALLY HAPPENS. If it didn’t happen, there would be no need for NFP.

But the Church does not teach that the “time barrier” is the same as the material barrier.

Yes, and that appears to be an additional error in observing the obvious.

She teaches that the material barrier is intrinsically wrong, and that timing the marital act is NOT intrinsically wrong.

No one argued that the marital act is intrinsically wrong, so the second statement is a non sequitur. The reasons given for the material barrier being intrinsically wrong appear to be based on incorrect assumptions. Furthermore, the idea that a couple can 100% abstain from the act and be fine (even though this disorders the act of unity) and cannot partially abstain via a barrier (which therefore does less disorder to the act of unity) is logically faulty.

Since this teaching is from God, we can trust that it is infinitely logical, and we can even seek to understand His logic.

I believe God is logical. There appears to be very little in this teaching that IS logical. Therefore, I question whether this teaching is from God.

But we do not and have not and will not ever have “more knowledge of human sex” than God does, who created it. Just because we know more about the mechanics of sex and the origins of life than we did X number of years ago does not change the Truth of the matter that was there from the beginning when God created us.

It does, however, change what we understand of that truth, so this argument is yet another non sequitur.

We cannot arrive at Timeless Eternal Truths from simply acquiring more information or knowledge.

Actually, we both can, and we have. This can be demonstrated quite easily in fact.

To attempt to do so is to place your (human) self in a position to make great error. (see the Enlightenment) It is a modern heresy to believe that the acquiring of more information or knowledge or facts can change a Truth already revealed.

It is a bigger mistake to believe that the rationale as stated is truth, when it can be demonstrated to have logical flaws.

It may be that the end result teach is correct. But if so, it is not for the reasons given within the argument in which they were given.

God doesn’t lie to us. He doesn’t use logic to confuse us. If he did, He would not say to love Him with our mind. He would say “Love God with all your heart and all your spirit.” But He also says “with all your mind.” He commands us to try to understand Him. If He did this, but was always unknowable, then He would be pernicious.

Consequently, God must be knowable. I believe His commandments. I believe His logic, which can be demonstrated to have universal truths (in contradiction to what you state above.) This teaching does not flow correctly within His universal logic. Consequently, this teaching about ABC MUST be questioned, by His commandment.

 

[kbachler]

Because the procreative form is independent of fertility.
When I use the term “procreative form”, I mean the physical form sex must take in order for a couple to procreate (reproduce). In order to be procreative (reproductive) a couple needs both sex in the procreative form and fertility. They are two separate factors.

A couple who are expecting a baby, and therefore infertile, are capable of engaging in the same physical act as a fertile couple who conceive a baby. The form of their relations is identical even though only the second couple is actually procreative (reproductive).

Sorry, this doesn’t make sense. The procreative form cannot be independent of fertility because then its not the same physical form.

It isn’t necessarily. The word procreative in “procreative form” relates to the form necessary for, but not ensuring procreation (reproduction).

I agree, couples who have relations during an infertile period, whether they know they’re infertile or not, are no more procreative (reproductive) than those using a physical barrier.

Sorry, I’m not following your second sentence.

If you are agreeing with the above, then you must see that it IS NOT the same physical form.

The sentence points out that the intent of choosing an infertile time during NFP is the same as the intent in using an ABC barrier, and the second point is that the probability of conception under NFP or ABC is similar.

 

[Vico]

With NFP, the mutual self-donation is also incomplete, but NFP is allowed. Moreover, barriers existed in some Biblical times, there is evidence they existed PRIOR to the time of Christ, yet there is nothing mentioned of a problem with barriers in the Bible.

If the couple has a right to abstain fully, why don’t they also have a right to abstain incompletely by using a barrier?

Again, the arguments presented as presented make no sense.

Mutual donation pertains to the conjugal act by which the two are made one flesh. Two are not made one flesh through abstinance. This is shown in canon law concepts of ratum tantum (merely ratified) and ratum et consummatum (ratified and consummated).

Unitive is not merely mutual donation, but also persuit of a common good. But since the ends do not justify the means, and mutual donation is required in coitis, barriers are not permissible. Since there is no mutual donation in abstinance there is no violation of that requirement, yet there is mutual good in the abstinance.

 

[kbachler]

Mutual donation pertains to the conjugal act by which the two are made one flesh. Two are not made one flesh through abstinance.

Um, you just agreed with me. In other words, the two just withheld from each other.

Unitive is not merely mutual donation, but also persuit of a common good. But since the ends do not justify the means, and mutual donation is required in coitis, barriers are not permissible. Since there is no mutual donation in abstinance there is no violation of that requirement, yet there is mutual good in the abstinance.

Please provide the Biblical reference that states that mutual donations are required in coitus. Given that the Jews were so particular in their rituals and rites, and spelled things out in such great detail, I am certain that something so fundamental will be easy to provide.