Birth Control

[Em_in_FL]

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.

That doesn’t make any sense. Those who are smarter are not necessarily capable of greater spirituality.
The reference to Christ’s commandment is irrelevant.

 

[kbachler]

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

We’re commanded to work to understand. We are given dominion and a brain to use. Even the Church has changed the fundamental reason for its arguments. This may well be because the old arguments really don’t work.

And no, just because something is good for our brains doesn’t mean it is good. The point is that the Church made an argument based on Natural Law using assumptions that were incorrect because they didn’t know it was good for our brains. The modern argument is different. This is from the site I reference previously: dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/Issue2/John_Flanagan.htm

"Pope John Paul II has continued to defend the teaching that “every act must remain open to the transmission of life” [42] and to condemn contraceptive acts as intrinsically evil [43] . However, he has changed the basis of that ruling from a classical Natural Law approach to a new more personalist approach based on a further development of his philosophical treatise The Acting Person. In a series of Wednesday audiences from December 1979 to April 1980 [44] he drew on the Genesis stories of the creation of man and woman, taking them almost literally. He developed his theme further in Familiaris Consortio (1981) and in a further series of addresses from 11 July through 28 November, 1984 [45] (mostly in defence of Humanae Vitae)… He has developed a theology of the body [46] in which man and woman come to fulfil “the very meaning of their being and existence” through chaste marital intercourse which constitutes a special language of love in which the two persons give themselves totally to each other. "

 

[kbachler]

That doesn’t make any sense. Those who are smarter are not necessarily capable of greater spirituality.
The reference to Christ’s commandment is irrelevant.

I didn’t say they were capable of greater spirituality. I said the brain matters. Of course Christ’s commandment is relevant. If the mind did not matter, he wouldn’t have told us to love God with all our mind.

If anything, the greater the mind, the greater the responsibility to understand God and love him with your mind. That doesn’t necessarily make the person more spiritual - it just means they have a greater burden of responsibility. They may not fulfill it. Their degree of spirituality will be dependent - at least - on how well they fulfill that responsibility.

 

[kbachler]

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.

Have I once said - in my perhaps hundreds of posts in this thread - to IGNORE the teachings? I have said there is a responsibility to question them, especially when the underlying assumptions appear to be incorrect.

 

[Vico]

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

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.

Negative to: “the two just withheld from each other”.

I would like verify that you really understand what was said: the two are made flesh through the consummation of the matrimonial covenant. If you understand, you will see that two are one flesh from the moment of consummation and they remain that way as long as they both live. Mutual donation is the gift we make to each other, fulfilling our duty towards each other, as we do not have authority over our own body with regard to our sexuality. Mutual abstinance is not defrauding the marital covenant, as you can see from 1 Corinthians 7:3-6:
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. 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.
Easy to provide or not, Our Lord brought the New Covenant, we do not observe the Old Covenant and the 300+ laws of the Pharisees but the law of love as taught to us through the Magisterium, scripture, and tradition. It is not logical to assume that the act to be gifted is anything other than what occurs without any contraceptive device or potion, as union is to be fruitful. (See: Genesis 1:28)

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Well, yes, of course: the possibility of combining poultry and dairy in the same meal did exist when the Torah was first put to paper. They had domesticated cows and chickens back then, not just sex.

My point is that most of the rituals and specific interpretations of moral law that Jews observe are not specifically spelled out in Torah. The details were and are deduced from careful and exhaustive (and I do mean exhaustive) study and discussion of the Torah. Besides: We are not Jews.

I looked at the citation you provided. I am more prone to recommend the bibliography in Humanae Vitae (vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html) than essays by Catholics who think it is a crisis when the faithful aren’t thrilled to find that moral law is not up for a vote. You might particularly look at the Holy Father’s references numbered (16), which includes a citation from the catechism of the Council of Trent. This issue is not considered a discipline, but a matter of morals. Do not look for the teaching of the Church to be changed in response to a sense of “crisis” among those who don’t agree. Disciplines change, yes, but the fundamentals of moral law do not.

As for the piece itself, it doesn’t include any objections the Church has not been badgered with for the last 45 years. I’m particularly irritated by the author’s contention that the issue of contraception constitutes a “crisis” in the Church.

If there is a crisis in the Church, it is not in what the Church teaches. Rather, what has grown to crisis proportions is the number of Catholics who think Church teaching is in the same category as legislative matters they encounter in the secular sphere, and that the precept of the Church that requires material support is dependent upon the satisfaction the lay faithful has with the various aspects of Church leadership. The Church isn’t a democracy, and–this may be news to many people–it is not moral to use the material or volunteer support that we justly owe the Church as a bargaining chip to make our displeasure felt when things don’t go the way we like. Yet how many Catholics talk as if they have every right to let the collection basket go by if they’re mad about something?

There is such a thing as a conscience that is objectively right. There is such a thing as an individual “journey of faith”, but that doesn’t include each soul coming up with a brand new definition of moral law to suit his or her own intellectual satisfaction. To use a Biblical example, that is the kind of thinking that lead to the Babylonian Exile.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Let me cut the Humanae Vitae quote down to smaller size:
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. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae

First of all, you’re taking the term “natural law”, which has a specific theological history and meaning, and deciding that it means no more than what you personally attribute to the individual meanings of the words “natural” and “law”. Your first clue should have been the word “law”.

There are two kinds of law: those that enforce themselves and those which require a judge. There is no subset of the law in which those being judged get to decide for themselves what the law says. The case you are making has been made to those who have the authority to decide what it is that moral law says. It has been decided in terms you don’t like, but as many a lawyer will tell you, it does no good to keep arguing the point after the case has been decided.

If you want to know how it is that ABC defies moral law and proper use of NFP does not (because there are ways to misuse NFP in order to reach selfish ends), then there is Humanae Vitae, there is Theology of the Body, and there are many scholarly commentaries on those two that exist to answer your questions. If, instead of getting your honest intellectual questions answered, you want to argue the point that these explanations of moral law are wrong and you are right, such that the Church teaching on this point should be overturned by some sort of juridical avenue or popular vote, then you are beating a very dead horse.

If you won’t believe the Popes, you aren’t going to believe us.

 

[Vico]

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.

This seems to be correct to me, as abstainence in Merriam Webster means “2b : abstention from sexual intercourse” and to abstain means**: “**to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice <abstain from drinking>”.

So it is self-imposed meaning the spouse voluntarily refrains from exercising the marital right.

 

[EasterJoy]

This seems to be correct to me, as abstainence in Merriam Webster means “2b : abstention from sexual intercourse” and to abstain means**: “**to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice <abstain from drinking>”.

So it is self-imposed meaning the spouse voluntarily refrains from exercising the marital right.

This is an important point. Natural Family Planning requires that both spouses agree to periodic abstinence.

 

[kbachler]

Let me cut the Humanae Vitae quote down to smaller size:
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. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae

First of all, you’re taking the term “natural law”, which has a specific theological history and meaning, and deciding that it means no more than what you personally attribute to the individual meanings of the words “natural” and “law”. Your first clue should have been the word “law”.

There are two kinds of law: those that enforce themselves and those which require a judge. There is no subset of the law in which those being judged get to decide for themselves what the law says. The case you are making has been made to those who have the authority to decide what it is that moral law says. It has been decided in terms you don’t like, but as many a lawyer will tell you, it does no good to keep arguing the point after the case has been decided.

If you want to know how it is that ABC defies moral law and proper use of NFP does not (because there are ways to misuse NFP in order to reach selfish ends), then there is Humanae Vitae, there is Theology of the Body, and there are many scholarly commentaries on those two that exist to answer your questions. If, instead of getting your honest intellectual questions answered, you want to argue the point that these explanations of moral law are wrong and you are right, such that the Church teaching on this point should be overturned by some sort of juridical avenue or popular vote, then you are beating a very dead horse.

If you won’t believe the Popes, you aren’t going to believe us.

I’m using the traditional definition of Natural law, dating back through Summa Theologica to Aristotle. There is a reason why philosophers and theologians gave up arguments based on Natural Law - the arguments don’t work. They don’t work for several reasons: one is that the duality of mind/body as pictured is not really correct - i.e. we are not separate from nature in the way that was assumed and so an argument based on the concept that we should not interfere with what is natural doesn’t make sense. Another argument is that it is generally the case that natural processes serve multiple functions simultaneously, and often what appears to be the most apparent function very often is not.

Are you arguing that we can, in fact, determine which process God intended as primary, and that we would always be right? And what happens, as has happened here, that our observations of the world change, calling into question our initial assumptions?

I am not inventing these faults with Natural Law arguments - the faults were discovered by men smarter than me long before me. That an argument was based on Natural Law initially is frankly an error to begin with.

In the instances where a case has been decided, but the logic used in the case was incorrect, it often does good to continue to raise the case and similar cases, so that the Court gets another bite at the apple, and eventually can get it correct.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t fundamental beliefs which Aristotle and Thomas attributed to Natural Law/Natural Justice - much in the same sense as Cicero did.

Yet, fundamentally, the concept of natural law is as mistaken as the Newtonian concept of an objective universe, separate from ourselves. We know only what we observe, such a separate universe (and consequently separate Natural Law derived from such a universe) cannot be known. Today we know that the observer is in fact part of the observation. (Heisenberg, Polyani)

We do not reveal God. God reveals Himself.

I will read again the pieces you suggest. However, to this point, they are unconvincing for the reasons previously stated. Eventually, this untenable position will change, not because of a vote - but because it is right.

 

[kbachler]

Negative to: “the two just withheld from each other”.

I would like verify that you really understand what was said: the two are made flesh through the consummation of the matrimonial covenant. If you understand, you will see that two are one flesh from the moment of consummation and they remain that way as long as they both live. Mutual donation is the gift we make to each other, fulfilling our duty towards each other, as we do not have authority over our own body with regard to our sexuality. Mutual abstinance is not defrauding the marital covenant, as you can see from 1 Corinthians 7:3-6:

The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. 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.
Easy to provide or not, Our Lord brought the New Covenant, we do not observe the Old Covenant and the 300+ laws of the Pharisees but the law of love as taught to us through the Magisterium, scripture, and tradition. It is not logical to assume that the act to be gifted is anything other than what occurs without any contraceptive device or potion, as union is to be fruitful. (See: Genesis 1:28)

Yes, I understand the meaning of the two becoming one flesh. The quotes you give are appear to be reasons to use ABC rather than NFP, so that the two do not have to deprive one another. Since NFP is allowed, it is not assumed that the act must always be fruitful, contrary to your latter statement. Thus, by the arguments you give, ABC should be allowed.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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

Physically, what is the difference between an infertile couple engaging in the marital act and a fertile couple engaging in the marital act? Does it make any difference if a couple believes they’re fertile but don’t conceive a child?

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.

I agree.

Just out of curiosity, what would you say it means for two to become one flesh, in the biblical sense?

 

[Em_in_FL]

From the Catechism:

1958
The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

    Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11

1959
The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960
The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

…

1978
The natural law is a participation in God’s wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

1979
The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.

 

[Em_in_FL]

More from the Catechism:
2036
The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78

2037
The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.79 They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.

2038
In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life “in Christ,” who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God.80 Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.

2039
Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

2040
Thus a true filial spirit toward the Church can develop among Christians. It is the normal flowering of the baptismal grace which has begotten us in the womb of the Church and made us members of the Body of Christ. In her motherly care, the Church grants us the mercy of God which prevails over all our sins and is especially at work in the sacrament of reconciliation. With a mother’s foresight, she also lavishes on us day after day in her liturgy the nourishment of the Word and Eucharist of the Lord.

…

2050
The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, as authentic teachers, preach to the People of God the faith which is to be believed and applied in moral life. It is also incumbent on them to pronounce on moral questions that fall within the natural law and reason.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Pope Benedict XVI on Natural Law:
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=4089

 

[Vico]

Yes, I understand the meaning of the two becoming one flesh. The quotes you give are appear to be reasons to use ABC rather than NFP, so that the two do not have to deprive one another. Since NFP is allowed, it is not assumed that the act must always be fruitful, contrary to your latter statement. Thus, by the arguments you give, ABC should be allowed.

What I wrote was:

“It is not logical to assume that the act to be gifted is anything other than what occurs without any contraceptive device or potion, as union is to be fruitful. (See: Genesis 1:28)”

There is no assumption that each instance will be fruitful, rather matrimony tends to be fruitful, as expressed in the Catechism 2366.

The marital act that is gifted in the marital covenent is of the form that is apt to the creation of children, which therefore excludes barriers, etc.

Canon 1061 defines the coital act is “per se aptum ad prolis generationem” and performed “humano modo” which consummates marriage.

 

[barb_finnegan]

I remember a bumper sticker that said, ‘If You Can’t Feed, Don’t Breed!’

I don’t like artificial means of birth control because they can have bad after-effects (like cancer). And I sure as heck don’t advocate abortion.

But couples should use common sense (that’s what a brain is for) in deciding how many children to have.

A woman shouldn’t be made into a ‘brood mare’ or a ‘baby machine’. That’s lunacy…

 

[Vico]

I remember a bumper sticker that said, ‘If You Can’t Feed, Don’t Breed!’

I don’t like artificial means of birth control because they can have bad after-effects (like cancer). And I sure as heck don’t advocate abortion.

But couples should use common sense (that’s what a brain is for) in deciding how many children to have.

A woman shouldn’t be made into a ‘brood mare’ or a ‘baby machine’. That’s lunacy…

A woman should not be made into a ‘baby machine’ or a ‘pleasure machine’. Fortunately we have abstinance as a solution.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I remember a bumper sticker that said, ‘If You Can’t Feed, Don’t Breed!’

I don’t like artificial means of birth control because they can have bad after-effects (like cancer). And I sure as heck don’t advocate abortion.

But couples should use common sense (that’s what a brain is for) in deciding how many children to have.

A woman shouldn’t be made into a ‘brood mare’ or a ‘baby machine’. That’s lunacy…

Has anyone said that on this thread? That bumper sticker is just rude, btw. Children are ALWAYS a gift. No matter the circumstances. We are called, as Christians to help others. This includes families that you think have too many children.

And I wonder how many children it takes to be considered a brood mare or a baby machine? Hmmm?

 

[Vico]

Pope Benedict XVI on Natural Law:
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=4089

Thank you for this link, I had not read this yet. A striking comment:

“The capacity to see the laws of material being makes us incapable of seeing the ethical message contained in being, a message that tradition calls lex naturalis, natural moral law.
This word for many today is almost incomprehensible due to a concept of nature that is no longer metaphysical, but only empirical. The fact that nature, being itself, is no longer a transparent moral message creates a sense of disorientation that renders the choices of daily life precarious and uncertain.”