Birth Control

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

Scientifically, what hormones and chemicals are you refering to specifically?

If you are refering to oxytocin, one does not need to engage in sex to produce oxytocin. Kissing can produce oxytocin.

Also hormonal birth control surpresses the woman’s natural hormone production, and replaces it with synthetic hormones.

You haven’t proved that abstaining does this.

Look at the rituals regarding cleanliness in the OT… they seem to be required to abstain a great deal.

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=3&bible_chapter=15#33

 

[Em_in_FL]

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.

Can you share more information on this?

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.

I think you are completely ignoring the fact that much of the “bond” in marriage actually comes from raising a child together from the very moment of conception. Sometimes these two benefits are quite intertwined… the procreative leading to the unitive leading back to the procreative…

You seem to be focused on the physical.
Much of this is also reflected in the spiritual, which you have not touched on.

 

[Consecrated]

Thank you for taking the time to exhaustively reply.

I would like to know what you are ultimately saying:

1. Logic says that periodic continence or “NFP” is wrong and should not be allowed, but ABC is not wrong and should be allowed?
   OR
2. Logic says that “NFP” AND “ABC” are both wrong, and for similar reasons?

We might be at an impasse. I believe it is of utmost important to assume that the Church’s infallible teachings are always sound, and will upon scrutiny be found to be in absolute conformity to God’s logic. When seeking to understand an infallible teaching that does not seem to follow God’s logic, I believe it is imperative to come at it from the standpoint that somehow I (the human, non-divine one) am somehow wrong in the way I am following the logic. My study from that point on is to try and learn how I am wrong, and to pray for the understanding to see how I am wrong. With respect, Kbachler, it seems that you are coming at the teaching from the standpoint that you have a complete grasp on God’s logic, and that since Church teaching does not hold up against your understanding of God’s logic, it must be wrong.

I did not mean to imply that we should not even try to understand Truth, but that we should not think that mere acquiring of knowledge and facts is enough to solve every problem.

If you are referring to the case of Galileo when you say that the Church has based some teachings on faulty science, please see this article from Catholic.com for a short explanation, specifically the part headed “Infallibility”.

kbachler:

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.

The fact that the marital act brings with it “physical changes” (I assume you mean endorphins and hormones? I don’t know much about that) is not a point that the Church seeks to deny or even minimize in any way. She teaches that the reason for these ("mutual benefit of the spouses) is to contribute to the overall purpose of marriage: to bring the spouses and the children to heaven. To call procreation the primary end of the marital act is not to change this in any way. Consequently, it is not clear to me why you would deduce that the bonding is primary, and that the Church’s teachings on ABC and NFP are therefore wrong.

kbachler:

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 Church does not teach infallibly based on your idea of what God actually created, and on how you (and others who might agree with you) see the reality of God creation. It is precisely because we humans have such a hard time agreeing and seeing things correctly that God gave the Church the gift of Infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals. I call your arguments (and mine for that matter) fallible because they come from just you, a human, and they do not reflect the Church’s teaching, which we believe as faithful Catholics, comes from God. We may seek to understand that teaching. My arguments are only True insofar as the conform to the true teaching of the Church. I welcome any correction that helps me conform myself and my understandings more closely to Church teaching. Right now, I am simply repeating what I understand from Church teaching, and it makes sense to me and my observations and information and experience.

IOW, what you are claiming as obvious based on logic and science, I do not agree that it is obvious. I do not see where the Church is teaching anything in this matter that in any way contradicts science.

kbachler:

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.

Again, you’re coming at it backwards. First, we accept the infallibility of the Church in this matter. Then we seek to understand how the physical world conforms to the teaching. Because it does. God does not contradict Himself, as you have noted. Except that, following the example of the great Church fathers and Doctors, instead of attempting to conform God’s infallible teachings to our understanding of the physical world, we must instead conform our understanding of the physical world to God’s infallible teaching. We cannot afford to do it any other way, because we are so prone to error. The infallibility of the Church in matters of Faith and Morals is a great blessing that God has given us, and can only lead us to a deeper and more truthful understanding about the entirety of His creation.

kbachler:

God doesn’t lie to us…

Agreed. But we must look for God’s truth on this matter FIRST as coming from the mouth of His Church. Christ and His Church are One. So to question the Truth of the words of the Church is to question the Truth of the words of Christ.

 

[Consecrated]

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

Granted. I should have been more clear. I meant that you invented the fact that the timing causes a barrier that changes the nature of the act in the same way that a material barrier does.

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…

I do not see how the logic is faulty. There are many good reasons why a couple may choose to abstain. The mere fact of abstinence does not “disorder the act of unity”.

This is more than I had time to reply to for now…

 

[Em_in_FL]

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.

God created sex to be both unifying and procreating. God created it as pleasurable to man so that we would want to be unified often… thus providing ample opportunity for man to procreate (under the right fertility conditions).

Man steps in and says “Hey - I like this pleasure thing, but I could do without the kids.”

God created it this way - this is His Natural Law. If you are struggling with life and don’t feel you can handle a child you can bond spiritually through prayer during that time of abstaining when she’s fertile. There are *other *ways to marital unity than through intercourse. THIS is what I’m referring to when I mentioned a couple posts above that you are SO FOCUSED on the physical. You are totally ignoring the spiritual.

 

[Em_in_FL]

kbachler… I know you were wanting some biblical references…

I encourage you to read this… 1 Thessalonians Chapter 4… and be sure to read that first footnote.
usccb.org/nab/bible/1thessalonians/1thessalonians4.htm

 

[kbachler]

Scientifically, what hormones and chemicals are you refering to specifically?

If you are refering to oxytocin, one does not need to engage in sex to produce oxytocin. Kissing can produce oxytocin.

Also hormonal birth control surpresses the woman’s natural hormone production, and replaces it with synthetic hormones.

You haven’t proved that abstaining does this.

Look at the rituals regarding cleanliness in the OT… they seem to be required to abstain a great deal.

catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=3&bible_chapter=15#33

Oxytocin is one. Kissing does produce Oxytocin. But also keep in mind that women produce it in greater quantities than men, and that kissing is just the first of activities that produce it. It is quite arguable that men need more activities for comparable bonding benefits of oxytocin than women, and it has been found that certain activities produce greater levels of oxytocin in men.

That said, there is of course dopamine, vasopressin, endorphines, adrenaline, norepinephrine, phenylethylamine, prolactin, .

In fact, understanding how these things work is a great argument (outside of the direct religious argument) for VALUES.

Oxytocin helps females bond with men. Loving touches cause oxytocin released in her brain. She wants more of that that loving touch begins to feel a bond with her partner. Sexual intercourse leads releases even more oxytocin, a desire to repeat the contact, and even stronger bonding. When a short-term relationship ends, the emotional fallout can be devastating, thanks to oxytocin.

This can be very difficult especially for younger, inexperienced people, and so the the desire to create an avoidance of “oxytocin dependency” (i.e. casually going too far) provides a new and powerful reason for VALUES.

Oxytocin also produces feelings of trust which can be good or bad, depending on the situation. The effect of oxytocin is ideal for marriage, it can cause problems for the unmarried woman or girl who is approached by a man desiring sex.

Vasopressin is important for male bonding to women and seems important in male-male aggression.

Regarding the pill - the primary focus of this thread has been on barrier methods in order to avoid getting into side discussions of various possible problems with the Pill and other approaches.

I’m not arguing against abstaining; you’re misunderstanding the argument. I’m saying that the use of a barrier is not logically different from abstaining for family planning purposes.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m not arguing against abstaining; you’re misunderstanding the argument. I’m saying that the use of a barrier is not logically different from abstaining for family planning purposes.

Your logic is hung up on the physical.
You can go research as many different physical/chemical benefits to sexual unity that you want… but none of them are going to unify you spiritually.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Do we have any Talmudic scholars in the house?

It is telling that you are “certain” so fundamental that it must exist in the Torah or the other Jewish Scriptures. It is not there. What difference would it make if the passage were found there? If you won’t believe what the Magesterium says is in the deposit of faith, why would you believe a Jewish “proof text”, even if it were interpreted by Hillel himself?

As an example: You’ll not find it anywhere in the Bible that a Jew can’t put cheese or butter in her chicken casserole, only this commandment: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Deut. 14:21b) The rest came from the interpretation by the rabbis. Why would we scurry off to find the reference in the Talmud for you, to prove that it is not kosher to cook poultry and dairy together? Won’t you simply argue that any idiot can see that a chicken does not give milk, never has, and never will?

If you are not convinced by proof texts that show that the Magesterium has the authority to define what is and is not the teaching of the Church, would that be sufficient?

From the encyclical Humanae Vitae, by Paul VI, boldface & underline mine:

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out…

…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.

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.

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…

The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character…

 

[kbachler]

kbachler… I know you were wanting some biblical references…

I encourage you to read this… 1 Thessalonians Chapter 4… and be sure to read that first footnote.
usccb.org/nab/bible/1thessalonians/1thessalonians4.htm

Thank you for the reference…but I’m not getting the point you’re trying to make.

Perhaps this will clarify:

I understand that not each and every thing that we should or should not do is NOT spelled out in the Bible. That’s not my argument. In fact, I think as Catholics, we spend far too much time reinventing the Law that Jesus freed us from. That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to live Holy lives. It is to say that it frees us from nitpicking ourselves into paralysis rather than seeing the bigger picture, understanding grace, and trying to do what is right.

That said, what is clear, is that REALLY IMPORTANT things ARE in the Bible. Things like “Don’t murder”. “Don’t be an adulterer.” :Honor your parents" “Love your neighbor as yourself.” “Love God with all your heart, mind and spirit.”

So one would REASONABLY think, that if all these rules about what is and is not appropriate for married sex (and contraception) were REALLY so important, that some prophet, Jesus, apostle, SOMEONE would have taken a stab at them PRIOR to 1930. I mean, Abraham lived around 4,000 years ago - the Bible spans 2,000 years give or take from him to the end of the New Testament. Wouldn’t you think something so fundamental would come up if it was important? Look how much time they spent talking about food, menstrual cycles, etc. in the Jewish Law. And yet…no significant mention.

Is it a proof? Absolutely not. But it does create questions - it does deserve an answer.

There is a great article on the topic of the Church and contraception at dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/Issue2/John_Flanagan.htm

 

[kbachler]

Your logic is hung up on the physical.
You can go research as many different physical/chemical benefits to sexual unity that you want… but none of them are going to unify you spiritually.

Actually, its EXACTLY the REVERSE!! It is the Church’s argument that is hung up on the physical - they are the ones that argue that a physical barrier (ABC) is an issue while a temporal barrier (NFP use) is not.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Actually, its EXACTLY the REVERSE!! It is the Church’s argument that is hung up on the physical - they are the ones that argue that a physical barrier (ABC) is an issue while a temporal barrier (NFP use) is not.

The “temporal barrier” (as you have coined) is designed by God. THIS is His Natural Law.
The physical barrier is designed by man - in SPITE of God’s Natural Law.

You are hung up on the physical aspect of unity (I apparently should have been more precise).
You are ignoring the spiritual aspect of unity. This can be maintained despite a temporal need to physically abstain while using NFP.

 

[kbachler]

Do we have any Talmudic scholars in the house?

It is telling that you are “certain” so fundamental that it must exist in the Torah or the other Jewish Scriptures. It is not there. What difference would it make if the passage were found there? If you won’t believe what the Magesterium says is in the deposit of faith, why would you believe a Jewish “proof text”, even if it were interpreted by Hillel himself?

As an example: You’ll not find it anywhere in the Bible that a Jew can’t put cheese or butter in her chicken casserole, only this commandment: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Deut. 14:21b) The rest came from the interpretation by the rabbis. Why would we scurry off to find the reference in the Talmud for you, to prove that it is not kosher to cook poultry and dairy together? Won’t you simply argue that any idiot can see that a chicken does not give milk, never has, and never will?

If you are not convinced by proof texts that show that the Magesterium has the authority to define what is and is not the teaching of the Church, would that be sufficient?

From the encyclical Humanae Vitae, by Paul VI, boldface & underline mine:

OTOH, human sex existed in Jewish tradition - did chicken casseroles?

Again, I’ve stated its not a proof, but it seems unreasonable that it would be so unaddressed given that sex IS addressed (Song of Songs), menstruation is addressed, male “emissions” are addressed and so on.

Again, I think dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/Issue2/John_Flanagan.htm gives some great background on the topic.

 

[kbachler]

The “temporal barrier” (as you have coined) is designed by God. THIS is His Natural Law.
The physical barrier is designed by man - in SPITE of God’s Natural Law.

You are hung up on the physical aspect of unity (I apparently should have been more precise).
You are ignoring the spiritual aspect of unity. This can be maintained despite a temporal need to physically abstain while using NFP.

First, I haven’t made a point of this previously, but you do know that the Natural Law argument has actually been withdrawn by the Church as the reason, because Natural Law arguments don’t work.

For example: “The physical barrier is designed by man - in SPITE of God’s Natural Law.”

Wrong- God designed man’s hands and brain and gave him the ability to design the barrier. Hence the barrier is within Natural Law.

Not even the Church holds to the Natural Law argument anymore.

Second, I am not ignoring the spiritual aspect of unity, of course it can be maintained. By some more, and by some less. But the point is that abstention can negatively impact both the physical and the spiritual ability.

Our spiritual ability is impacted by our brain - this is the way God made us. And sex IMPACTS THE BRAIN. This has been a point I’ve raised all along.

 

[kbachler]

God created sex to be both unifying and procreating. God created it as pleasurable to man so that we would want to be unified often… thus providing ample opportunity for man to procreate (under the right fertility conditions).

Man steps in and says “Hey - I like this pleasure thing, but I could do without the kids.”

God created it this way - this is His Natural Law. If you are struggling with life and don’t feel you can handle a child you can bond spiritually through prayer during that time of abstaining when she’s fertile. There are *other *ways to marital unity than through intercourse. THIS is what I’m referring to when I mentioned a couple posts above that you are SO FOCUSED on the physical. You are totally ignoring the spiritual.

God created man, so we are within His natural law. Our ability to create and build is within His natural law. Thus our ability to make condoms is within His natural law.

Would you argue that tornados are within God’s natural law, and therefore we shouldn’t build tornado shelters?

Legs are within his natural law, so we should build automobiles?

Natural law arguments are notoriously bad. They do not work.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Second, I am not ignoring the spiritual aspect of unity, of course it can be maintained. By some more, and by some less. But the point is that abstention can negatively impact both the physical and the spiritual ability.

Our spiritual ability is impacted by our brain - this is the way God made us. And sex IMPACTS THE BRAIN. This has been a point I’ve raised all along.

Our spiritual ability is in NO way impacted by our brain.
We all know God is closest to those who are most *innocent * and *unwise *in a deep and profound way.

 

[Em_in_FL]

So… God’s church says “don’t do this”.

Yet, we’re smart, we know this can’t REALLY be bad for us!

See? It’s good for our brains!

Want another biblical reference?
usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm

 

[kbachler]

Can you share more information on this?

I think you are completely ignoring the fact that much of the “bond” in marriage actually comes from raising a child together from the very moment of conception. Sometimes these two benefits are quite intertwined… the procreative leading to the unitive leading back to the procreative…

You seem to be focused on the physical.
Much of this is also reflected in the spiritual, which you have not touched on.

I agree that much of the bond comes from “family life.” My point is that there has been a great deal learned in the past 50 -60 years, (and lesser periods) about what chemicals are released during sex and how they affect the brain. I’m not saying that there ISN’T bonding from family life, but I am saying that we now know that God put some of that bonding IN the chemistry of sex!

We’ve all heard the stories about couples who get so caught up in raising children that they lose time for a physical connection - and that their marriage (bonding) suffers. Now we learn, after years and years that GOD REALLY MADE IT THAT WAY. There REALLY IS bonding in sex, and that sex is physically important for this.

So, OTOH, it may seem like I’m overemphasizing the importance. But that is in part because historically, as a society, we UNDER-emphasized the importance in part because we didn’t KNOW that there was an importance!!

 

[kbachler]

Our spiritual ability is in NO way impacted by our brain.
We all know God is closest to those who are most *innocent * and *unwise *in a deep and profound way.

Wasn’t Christ the most innocent and most wise of all?

Isn’t the commandment “Love God with all your heart, all your spirit** AND all your mind?”**

God will treat the innocent and unwise graciously, and we should too.

But OF COURSE my spiritual ability is impacted by my brain. Otherwise God’s commandments would be meaningless.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I agree that much of the bond comes from “family life.” My point is that there has been a great deal learned in the past 50 -60 years, (and lesser periods) about what chemicals are released during sex and how they affect the brain. I’m not saying that there ISN’T bonding from family life, but I am saying that we now know that God put some of that bonding IN the chemistry of sex!

We’ve all heard the stories about couples who get so caught up in raising children that they lose time for a physical connection - and that their marriage (bonding) suffers. Now we learn, after years and years that GOD REALLY MADE IT THAT WAY. There REALLY IS bonding in sex, and that sex is physically important for this.

So, OTOH, it may seem like I’m overemphasizing the importance. But that is in part because historically, as a society, we UNDER-emphasized the importance in part because we didn’t KNOW that there was an importance!!

Yes, you’re right - there IS an importance. Some of it is indeed physical. Some of it is indeed spiritual. Yes, it has been under emphasized in the past.
None of that is an excuse to ignore the teachings of the church that was established by Christ and that we *trust *is guided by the Holy Spirit.