Birth Control

[jilly4ski]

1. Is it immoral to change the timing of relations?

This has been answered several times, the mere changing of the timing cannot be immoral, because otherwise illness, postpartum, military deployments, business trips, etc. would be immoral. Not to mention there is no indication any particular couple would be having relations on the fertile days anyways. (the whole timing thing to me is confusing, because it seems like it assumes couples are having relations on a schedule).

Maybe an example will help here. My husband works 3rd shift (12am-8am) and I have class during the days, and when I get home he goes to sleep. So we plan* on abstaining during his work week. So we changed the timing of our relations based not on fertility but on work schedules and tiredness. We do this for the good of our family. It seems pretty illogical to call this planned abstinence immoral, so what is the difference in planning abstinence around fertility?

*Plan means here that we realize it is better for us not to seek relations from the other during this time, so we don’t.

1. Is it immoral to have the intent to space children or plan a family?

This one is more complicated, as some intents to space children (ie selfish reasons) are immoral and others are not (serious medical conditions being one).

Using this logic, it is difficult to say that NFP is immoral, unless there is an immoral intent to using NFP.

 

[PassingThru]

Actually, Vico’s right… that quote is not about “teaching” children. It’s about putting consideration toward the children. It’s a quote from Casti Connubii…

You are absolutely right. I did misread.

Now, that still misses my point. Can you explain how this distinguishes the two? Without an assumption that ABC causes this, and NFP does not. No circular logic…

 

[Em_in_FL]

You are absolutely right. I did misread.

Now, that still misses my point. Can you explain how this distinguishes the two? Without an assumption that ABC causes this, and NFP does not. No circular logic…

I don’t know that he was using that quote to distinguish the two… I don’t think that was the purpose of the quote…

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I honestly think that what this issue boils down to for many Catholics is trust. I’m going to be honest here: I don’t understand or agree with the church’s stance on NFP vrs ABC. I see them as both having the same intent: to space births. At least, that’s how everyone I know (non catholics) are using it. You are only changing the physical way that it is being done. For whatever reason, the ABC and the NFP couple have the exact same intent in their hearts for what they are doing - they are purposefully making sure that sex isn’t procreative. I am a more “intent” kind of person. When Jesus says that anyone who lusts after a woman has committed adultery in his heart, or basically that thinking about killing someone is just as bad as doing it, I see an emphasis on how sin injures and hardens your own heart because of your intent. I know NFP couples and I know ABC couples, and both have the same intention.

However, all of that being said, I trust that the church knows better than I do. it’s far older and far wiser than I can ever be. It is a long-held tradition that has never changed. I am not a betting person, but I guess in this case I am. I intent to hold to church teaching on this issue because my money is on the church being right, because it has been right in everything else. Many other catholic couples I know feel the same way. We have our money on the church, and we’re gunna let it ride.

 

[PassingThru]

I don’t know that he was using that quote to distinguish the two… I don’t think that was the purpose of the quote…

Thats the entire question, and the point. Its what we have been asking for this entire time…

 

[PassingThru]

I honestly think that what this issue boils down to for many Catholics is trust. I’m going to be honest here: I don’t understand or agree with the church’s stance on NFP vrs ABC. I see them as both having the same intent: to space births. At least, that’s how everyone I know (non catholics) are using it. You are only changing the physical way that it is being done. For whatever reason, the ABC and the NFP couple have the exact same intent in their hearts for what they are doing - they are purposefully making sure that sex isn’t procreative. I am a more “intent” kind of person. When Jesus says that anyone who lusts after a woman has committed adultery in his heart, or basically that thinking about killing someone is just as bad as doing it, I see an emphasis on how sin injures and hardens your own heart because of your intent. I know NFP couples and I know ABC couples, and both have the same intention.

However, all of that being said, I trust that the church knows better than I do. it’s far older and far wiser than I can ever be. It is a long-held tradition that has never changed. I am not a betting person, but I guess in this case I am. I intent to hold to church teaching on this issue because my money is on the church being right, because it has been right in everything else. Many other catholic couples I know feel the same way. We have our money on the church, and we’re gunna let it ride.

Awesome.

This is the best answer I have heard yet. Not a single thing for me to disagree with.

Thank you for your honesty…

 

[jilly4ski]

I honestly think that what this issue boils down to for many Catholics is trust. I’m going to be honest here: I don’t understand or agree with the church’s stance on NFP vrs ABC. I see them as both having the same intent: to space births. At least, that’s how everyone I know (non catholics) are using it. You are only changing the physical way that it is being done. For whatever reason, the ABC and the NFP couple have the exact same intent in their hearts for what they are doing - they are purposefully making sure that sex isn’t procreative. I am a more “intent” kind of person. When Jesus says that anyone who lusts after a woman has committed adultery in his heart, or basically that thinking about killing someone is just as bad as doing it, I see an emphasis on how sin injures and hardens your own heart because of your intent. I know NFP couples and I know ABC couples, and both have the same intention.

Except that morality contains both means and ends(intent). Indeed both those using ABC and NFP have the same end of not having a child at that time (Though reasons for not having a child may be either moral or immoral).

Lets change this a little, lets say it is an unmarried couple, and they want to avoid a pregnancy out of wedlock. They could either abstain or use birth control. The end is moral, but would you agree that the means, using birth control (ABC or NFP) is immoral while abstinence is fine. See actions or means do matter, it cannot only be about intent. “Hell is paved with good intentions.”

 

[Em_in_FL]

I honestly think that what this issue boils down to for many Catholics is trust. I’m going to be honest here: I don’t understand or agree with the church’s stance on NFP vrs ABC. I see them as both having the same intent: to space births. At least, that’s how everyone I know (non catholics) are using it. You are only changing the physical way that it is being done. For whatever reason, the ABC and the NFP couple have the exact same intent in their hearts for what they are doing - they are purposefully making sure that sex isn’t procreative. I am a more “intent” kind of person. When Jesus says that anyone who lusts after a woman has committed adultery in his heart, or basically that thinking about killing someone is just as bad as doing it, I see an emphasis on how sin injures and hardens your own heart because of your intent. I know NFP couples and I know ABC couples, and both have the same intention.

However, all of that being said, I trust that the church knows better than I do. it’s far older and far wiser than I can ever be. It is a long-held tradition that has never changed. I am not a betting person, but I guess in this case I am. I intent to hold to church teaching on this issue because my money is on the church being right, because it has been right in everything else. Many other catholic couples I know feel the same way. We have our money on the church, and we’re gunna let it ride.

Awesome.

This is the best answer I have heard yet. Not a single thing for me to disagree with.

Thank you for your honesty…

I agree - that’s a fabulous response and I think* a lot of people on this thread* were trying to say similar things about “trusting” their faith and looking to the church for guidance - even when the logic may seem unclear at times. But we don’t have just rely on blind faith here. The Church’s logic is sound.

However, you (PassingThru) already agreed that the form of NFP is morally correct. You seem to have an issue with the intent.

I’ll requote myself from above in case you missed this post:

This is a two part problem. It’s both a “means” issue and and “ends” issue.
Both have to be within moral form.
We agree on the means - each individual act of sex must be ordered towards life.
The ends issue is in regard to intent. The church teaches (and logic shows) that we have free will and have the ability to regulate procreation, but that free will must be tempered with just cause. Just like we have the free will to eat when we are hungry, we can also abuse that in gluttony… we have the free will to regulate procreation (for just reasons such as emotional, physical, and mental health, financial reasons, etc), we can also abuse that by unjustly deciding for selfish reasons to avoid having children. It’s something that should be morally weighed and prayed over.
Therefore - if someone uses ABC with correct intent (ends), but not correct form (means) it’s wrong. It’s also wrong for someone to use NFP (correct means) with selfish intent (incorrect ends).
It’s a two part problem that needs to be prayerfully evaluated.
If it’s determined, prayerfully, that avoiding children is necessary (ends is good), then the only moral means to achieve this is through total abstinence or periodic abstinence (NFP). NFP is a *gift *to marriages for the sake of reuniting and recommitting to one another during a challenging time (obviously because logically a just/grave REASON is necessary to purposefully avoid conception in the first place.)
This is all addressed in the teachings of the church that I have pointed out before and is completely logical on all fronts. I hope it answers your question.

 

[agapewolf]

I honestly think that what this issue boils down to for many Catholics is trust. I’m going to be honest here: I don’t understand or agree with the church’s stance on NFP vrs ABC. I see them as both having the same intent: to space births. At least, that’s how everyone I know (non catholics) are using it. You are only changing the physical way that it is being done. For whatever reason, the ABC and the NFP couple have the exact same intent in their hearts for what they are doing - they are purposefully making sure that sex isn’t procreative. I am a more “intent” kind of person. When Jesus says that anyone who lusts after a woman has committed adultery in his heart, or basically that thinking about killing someone is just as bad as doing it, I see an emphasis on how sin injures and hardens your own heart because of your intent. I know NFP couples and I know ABC couples, and both have the same intention.

However, all of that being said, I trust that the church knows better than I do. it’s far older and far wiser than I can ever be. It is a long-held tradition that has never changed. I am not a betting person, but I guess in this case I am. I intent to hold to church teaching on this issue because my money is on the church being right, because it has been right in everything else. Many other catholic couples I know feel the same way. We have our money on the church, and we’re gunna let it ride.

If you base your understanding on “intent” , then how do you explain these scenarios?

Someone’s intent is to lose weight. She can start eating a healthy diet and exercise more. Or she can starve herself and purge anything she eats.
Same intent, different process. One is right, one is wrong and harmful.

A person intends to increase their income. They can get a job and earn the money, or they can rob a bank. Same intent (ends), different process. One is right, the other is harmful.

Intent, also being the “ends”…is having an elderly person who is close to death. We can wait until she dies naturally or kill her. Same intent, different process, one is right, one is harmful.

The church didn’t randomly select abc as an issue, she teaches it is wrong because it is harmful. There is nothing wrong with wanting to space births (intent-- ends). How its done, the means, can be wrong, or can be right.

 

[PassingThru]

As an exercise, lets try this.

List all the reasons that ABC does violate whatever principals/rules you feel it breaks. And not just “one flesh” or “separates unitive from procreative”. That is not a full thought, its just an unsupported statement. I want to understand HOW ABC breaks a principal, and HOW NFP does not. And no falling back on “only during the act” rules. If ABC breaks a principal during the act, the potential exists to break it outside the act. Even if you are not sold on this, if NFP is accepted, it is good at all times, right?

I want to see if this is possible…

Oh, and no one answered my question from earlier:

I gave an example of sitting on a bench, which is a neutral action. If one were to sit passively while i child is riding into the path of a bus, it is now a negative. Same neutral action, different result.

Not having sex is a moral neutral. Not having sex, systematically, in order to remove any chance of procreation and to avoid fertility is potentially (I say yes) a different matter.

WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE TWO EXAMPLES? The only, ONLY reason the NFP couples chooses to engage or not engage is to remove fertility, or procreating, or whatever term you wish to use. What is wrong with my proposition?

 

[Vico]

Well, thats true. I will not read a few hours of documents in hopes of finding an explanation.

Your definitions are so far off of our discussion, I do not trust you understand the question. The chances are therefor poor that your links would cover our questions.

Here is the first point you made about ABC:

First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.

Are you saying this is not about teaching kids? Really? Now, in my haste I mistakenly said teaching kids to use ABC, where it more likely is teaching kids to not marry due to use of ABC, but that is a small difference.

So, you did quote about what you teach to children, so no, I can read. Thanks.

As to yet another list of definitions. That is fine. I dont really have a problem with them. They are definitions. Not explanations. I do not think we speak the same language…

I urge you to be patient, because there are people on this forum are not studied in formal logic. The authority of the Magisterium is most important, rather than proving something based upon inductive or deductive reasoning, which can be false in its assumptions.

No, that sentence includes nothing specifically about teaching kids but about the practices of avoiding children.

At that time, in another thread, (May 5, 2010) I came up with:

(Merriam Webster) contraception (noun): deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation.

Basis: is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes. This must allow for preservation and promotion of life, for example an amputation to save a life is not intended to cause a disorder but to preserve life.
ABC: artificial birth control disorders the physical constitution or physical processes.
NFP: natural family planning does not disorder the physical constitution or physical processes.
Conclusion: of the two ABC and NFP, only ABC is immoral on this basis, due to intentionally disording the physical constitution or physical processes.

It remains to show how the ABC disorders the physical constitution or physical processes. They way some work are shown below.

Hormones: prevent ovulation, fertilization,or implantation
Barriers: prevent fertilization
IUD: prevent implantation
Poisons: destroy reproductive cells
Abortifactants: destroy zygote

Note the word disorder. People can argue that changing timing of coitis is a disorder, however that is not what is taught by the Magisterium, nor is that taught by St. Paul in 1 Cor 7 where we may abstain. What can make abstinance unacceptable is intention invalidating the marital covenent or incorrect motives.

All the above is backed by statements from the Magisterium: Pope Pius XI (casti cannubii), Pope Pius XII (allocution to midwives), Pope Paul VI (humanae vitae), Pope John Paul II (many statements 1978-1996).

CC
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

ATM
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

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

JPII catholicsagainstcontraception.com/statements_by_john_paul_ii_1978_1996.htm

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m not ignoring your question PT… I have to run to a meeting… I’ll be back.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

If you base your understanding on “intent” , then how do you explain these scenarios?

Okay

Someone’s intent is to lose weight. She can start eating a healthy diet and exercise more. Or she can starve herself and purge anything she eats.
Same intent, different process. One is right, one is wrong and harmful.

It all depends on where we start defining intent. In this instance, the intent is to lose weight, but that is an over all thing. I go a little deeper. One person’s intent is to be healthy and look good - beased out of self-love and respect. As a person recovering from eating disorders, I can say with confidence the other person’s intent is based out of self-loathing as if losing weight will somehow make them not hate them self as much.

A person intends to increase their income. They can get a job and earn the money, or they can rob a bank. Same intent (ends), different process. One is right, the other is harmful.

Again, this is a broad term of intent. Look deeper - one person want their own money, another wants to deprive others of their as he or she feels they are entitled to it.

Intent, also being the “ends”…is having an elderly person who is close to death. We can wait until she dies naturally or kill her. Same intent, different process, one is right, one is harmful.

This is actually two different things. One intent is to die as God intends, the other is to kill ones self. I see these as two completely different actions.

The church didn’t randomly select abc as an issue, she teaches it is wrong because it is harmful. There is nothing wrong with wanting to space births (intent-- ends). How its done, the means, can be wrong, or can be right.

I totally agree with this…well, sort of. I mean, I know the church is right because I trust the church. I just…well, frankly don’t see the logic. Now, keep in mind I am not talking about permanent sterilization. I am totally on board with all marriage being open to life and instruct young. TOTALLY onboard. It’s just it seems like NFP is just catholic “birth control” It’s splitting hairs as I see it. Granted, I also agree that abortifacient methods are also wrong (killing a child)…but I hope I make my point. I’ve read all the books, discussed it at length here for YEARS. I just dont’ get it, but I know that the church has her reasons even if I disagree. The church doesn’t do things arbitrarily, and they know what is best. I will follow what they command even if it doesn’t make any sense to me. I have faith in Christ, his church, and the authority he gave that church.

Keep in mind, I admit that my logic has to be wrong at some point. Because it’s not in line with church teaching. I am only explaining my thought process. I trust the Church and I trust God. And, honestly, sometimes that’s what he asks of us. He asks people to do things all the time that doesn’t make sense to them at first (like asking Abraham to sacrifice his son! ) but he makes it all clear in the end. I hope someday, when God deems it time to bless us with a child or even later, that it will all become clear as so many other things in my life has. It just hasn’t yet. I trust God. I know he won’t leave me out to dry. I also thank him for the opportunity to be obedient even when it doesn’t make sense.

 

[Jennifer_J]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8474
Just found this by Alice Von Hildebrand, it might be helpful in this discussion

 

[PassingThru]

I urge you to be patient, because there are people on this forum are not studied in formal logic. The authority of the Magisterium is most important, rather than proving something based upon inductive or deductive reasoning, which can be false in its assumptions.

No, that sentence includes nothing specifically about teaching kids but about the practices of avoiding children.

At that time, in another thread, (May 5, 2010) I came up with:

(Merriam Webster) contraception (noun): deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation.

Basis: is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes. This must allow for preservation and promotion of life, for example an amputation to save a life is not intended to cause a disorder but to preserve life.
ABC: artificial birth control disorders the physical constitution or physical processes.
NFP: natural family planning does not disorder the physical constitution or physical processes.
Conclusion: of the two ABC and NFP, only ABC is immoral on this basis, due to intentionally disording the physical constitution or physical processes.

It remains to show how the ABC disorders the physical constitution or physical processes. They way some work are shown below.

Hormones: prevent ovulation, fertilization,or implantation
Barriers: prevent fertilization
IUD: prevent implantation
Poisons: destroy reproductive cells
Abortifactants: destroy zygote

Note the word disorder. People can argue that changing timing of coitis is a disorder, however that is not what is taught by the Magisterium, nor is that taught by St. Paul in 1 Cor 7 where we may abstain. What can make abstinance unacceptable is intention invalidating the marital covenent or incorrect motives.

All the above is backed by statements from the Magisterium: Pope Pius XI (casti cannubii), Pope Pius XII (allocution to midwives), Pope Paul VI (humanae vitae), Pope John Paul II (many statements 1978-1996).

CC
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

ATM
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

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

JPII catholicsagainstcontraception.com/statements_by_john_paul_ii_1978_1996.htm

I already agreed I messed up my reading of your statement.

For the rest: I am not Catholic. Sorry. That is the only way I would just take what you quote and stop using my reasoning and logic. Again, another huge list of definitions and statements. Not a single explanation. Dont know what to tell you…

 

[Vico]

What I don’t understand is why the Church seems to say that natural is good and artificial is bad with regards to sex and not much else. Catholics use penicillin and they avoid poison ivy although the former is artificial and the latter is natural. They live in homes with central heating, air conditioning, and running water, in the developed world, and drive cars, use electricity and etc. I truly don’t understand, not wanting to be offensive, why Catholics don’t reject technology like the Amish if they are claiming that natural only is good for sex and to regulate births, and artificial (even non-abortifacient) is bad. I always wonder, why are you driving a car and using electricity in your home, that’s not natural?

Can anyone explain this? I don’t mean to be hostile I really don’t understand. A lot of the impact of artificial substances and new technology has been to substantially redefine the boundaries of life and death, such that for example people who would not have survived an illness 100 years ago will today. I don’t know if that relates to being open to life at all. For example are you open to life if you can afford life-saving medical treatment for your child but don’t get it? What I’m saying is, issues of life and death, not just convenience or ease of living, are raised by technology and artificial substances so I don’t see why the Church singles out sexuality.

Why does religious faith permit the use of electricity and not the use of ABC?

There are immoral uses of technology. But God has dominion over the sexual faculties.

The explainations for use of NFP vs ABC from the Magisterium are not based upon pregnancy occuring or not, or of how one feels in the marital relationship. The basis given by Pope Paul VI in (1968) Humanae Vitae 13 is our relationship with God, respecting God as having dominion over the sexual faculties, where we are the ministers of His design:

“…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.”

 

[Jennifer_J]

As an exercise, lets try this.

List all the reasons that ABC does violate whatever principals/rules you feel it breaks. And not just “one flesh” or “separates unitive from procreative”. That is not a full thought, its just an unsupported statement. I want to understand HOW ABC breaks a principal, and HOW NFP does not. And no falling back on “only during the act” rules. If ABC breaks a principal during the act, the potential exists to break it outside the act. Even if you are not sold on this, if NFP is accepted, it is good at all times, right?

I want to see if this is possible…

Oh, and no one answered my question from earlier:

I gave an example of sitting on a bench, which is a neutral action. If one were to sit passively while i child is riding into the path of a bus, it is now a negative. Same neutral action, different result.

Not having sex is a moral neutral. Not having sex, systematically, in order to remove any chance of procreation and to avoid fertility is potentially (I say yes) a different matter.

WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE TWO EXAMPLES? The only, ONLY reason the NFP couples chooses to engage or not engage is to remove fertility, or procreating, or whatever term you wish to use. What is wrong with my proposition?

The couple does nothing to remove the fertility. The couple may systematically choose to not have sex for a very long time to not have children IF THERE IS A SERIOUS/JUST REASON. This is moral. The couple may systematically choose to have sex during known infertile times to not have children IF THERE IS A SERIOUS/JUST REASON. In these cases, the couple is doing nothing to change the fertility of an act, because they are choosing to NOT ACT.

If I were sitting on a bench and saw a child about to be run over, I would act. However, if I had a child strapped to my chest, or had a broken leg or some other JUST REASON, I would not be morally obligated to do something I couldn’t do. (btw, what a horrible proposition).

 

[Vico]

I already agreed I messed up my reading of your statement.

For the rest: I am not Catholic. Sorry. That is the only way I would just take what you quote and stop using my reasoning and logic. Again, another huge list of definitions and statements. Not a single explanation. Dont know what to tell you…

Give an example of an explaination for something, anything, as an example of the format you require, please.

 

[PassingThru]

In these cases, the couple is doing nothing to change the fertility of an act, because they are choosing to NOT ACT.

So, if a person does nothing to help the child, are they responsible for any consequences? After all, they did nothing to change it, correct?

I say they are, because it can reasonably be inferred what the result will be.

Similarly, a couple practicing NFP is intentionally acting/not acting to remove procreation from sex, or sidestep fertility, or what ever term you wish. The neutrality of the act is irrelevant.

Dont worry about the whether what happens to the boy is good or bad. Thats not the point. The issue is whether a result matters if through a non act versus an act.

Again, my whole point is the the act of ABC has certain properties attached that make it a no-no. The usual way NFP avoids this is by saying the act or non act is neutral, therefor the whole process is neutral. We never make such leaps of logic with anything else. Ever. Think about it for a minute…

 

[PassingThru]

Give an example of an explaination for something, anything, as an example of the format you require, please.

Best I can do right now is ask you to look at all your posts and quotes, and imagine someone saying “why” after each of your statements. And the why means, why only ABC, or why only NFP. Maybe ill return to this point in a bit…