But what if she just doesn't like children?

[monina]

DreadVandal:

It seems to me that all of this really boils down to one thing; obedience to the Church. QUOTE]

Yes. Absolutely. Which is why my husband and I practice NFP.

But I still have questions and seek to understand Church teaching. And I want to be able to defend critics’ objections with rational, lucid answers.

So when I ask: why can’t procreation mean more than biological fertility, it’s because someone has proposed that to me and I had no good answer. I think it makes very good sense to think that the marital embrace need not be considered un-procreative if one contracepts.

I reject the answer that it’s the way God made our bodies so we can’t mess with it. With that logic we could not interfere with any body system–

Still loyal to the Magisterium…still questioning…
monina

 

[NFPfamily]

monina:

DreadVandal:

It seems to me that all of this really boils down to one thing; obedience to the Church. QUOTE]

Yes. Absolutely. Which is why my husband and I practice NFP.

But I still have questions and seek to understand Church teaching. And I want to be able to defend critics’ objections with rational, lucid answers.

So when I ask: why can’t procreation mean more than biological fertility, it’s because someone has proposed that to me and I had no good answer. I think it makes very good sense to think that the marital embrace need not be considered un-procreative if one contracepts.

I reject the answer that it’s the way God made our bodies so we can’t mess with it. With that logic we could not interfere with any body system–

Still loyal to the Magisterium…still questioning…
monina

Procreation is the exact opposite of contraception. Procreate means to bring forth life (in any form you would like to think of, biological, renewing marital covenant, etc.). Contraception is the direct opposite, a deliberate attempt to prevent life from coming forth. This would mean biological, but it also prevents intercourse from allowing spouses to give themselves completely to each other. As CCL class notes say, “I take you for the better, but not for the possible worse of having a child.” Contraceptive sex pretends to be what it isn’t, therefore it will not bring forth any sense of procreation, including your ideas that *it can renew the family, the life of the couple, re-produce familial love. * The sancitity of sex is broken when you deliberately try to prevent God’s greatest gift to us of creation, contraception closes the door that God has intended be left open.

You said:
*I reject the answer that it’s the way God made our bodies so we can’t mess with it. With that logic we could not interfere with any body system–
*
If you think about it, any other time we interfere with any body system, we are trying to fix something that is broken, or not functioning properly. Contraception and sterilization are the only examples of taking a normal, healthy, functioning part of the body and trying to make it dysfunctional.

I hope this helps shed some light. Sometimes, we just need to pray for understanding, because sometimes we’ll never be able to hear what we want to from others. Sometimes God is the only one who can flip that light switch and give you the understanding that you seek.

 

[Naomi]

When I was younger I was afraid to become a mother. I told myself that I loved children too much to risk raising them as I had been raised. But,dh really wanted children and I really wanted to please dh. The first one was frightening. He is so beautiful and totally blind to my flaws. So, I realized that God must really love me if He would entrust me with this precious gift. That was the first time that I realized He loved me. God loves me kind - of the way my infant loves me. I returned to the church. I’m finally ‘getting it’! I struggle to make myself worthy of them all, God ,dh,ds,dd & dd … ! You really don’t know where you roads will lead. As for babies… you can’t have just one.

 

[monina]

NFPfamily:

monina:

You said:
I reject the answer that it’s the way God made our bodies so we can’t mess with it. With that logic we could not interfere with any body system–

If you think about it, any other time we interfere with any body system, we are trying to fix something that is broken, or not functioning properly.

That is not true. Think of anesthesia. Nothing is wrong with our sense of pain, our nervous system, our consciousness. Yet anesthesia is a deliberate interference because we have a higher purpose and a reason to obstruct a perfectly normal functioning body system.

Or consider immunosuppressants, given to transplant recipients. There’s nothing wrong with the immune system, which was designed by God to reject any foreign substance which enters our body. It’s doing exactly what it should be doing when it rejects a transplanted organ. But because of our higher motives, we can morally suppress the system God designed, so that the transplant recipient can live with this newly implanted organ.

 

[NFPfamily]

monina:

NFPfamily:

That is not true. Think of anesthesia. Nothing is wrong with our sense of pain, our nervous system, our consciousness. Yet anesthesia is a deliberate interference because we have a higher purpose and a reason to obstruct a perfectly normal functioning body system.

Or consider immunosuppressants, given to transplant recipients. There’s nothing wrong with the immune system, which was designed by God to reject any foreign substance which enters our body. It’s doing exactly what it should be doing when it rejects a transplanted organ. But because of our higher motives, we can morally suppress the system God designed, so that the transplant recipient can live with this newly implanted organ.

Ummm, if someone is getting a transplant, it is to correct something that isn’t functioning properly- same as with anesthesia. There is something trying to be fixed for each of those examples you used. I stand by my statement because there is no underlying ailment to mess with our system when choosing to contracept or sterilize.

 

[monina]

NFPfamily:

monina:

Ummm, if someone is getting a transplant, it is to correct something that isn’t functioning properly- same as with anesthesia. There is something trying to be fixed for each of those examples you used. I stand by my statement because there is no underlying ailment to mess with our system when choosing to contracept or sterilize.

You are mixing my metaphors. I am not comparing contraception to surgery or transplants.

Someone who is suffering from, say, cystic fibrosis, may need a lung transplant. His immune system is functioning perfectly–doing exactly what God designed it to do–yet the doctor will prescribe immunosuppresants. There is nothing immoral or sinful about taking immunosuppresants; in fact the patient is morally obligated to do so.

The argument could then be made that if interfering with a woman’s fertility/reproductive system is immoral, then interfering with a woman’s immune system would also be immoral. Or interfering with a perfectly normal nervous system through an anesthetic.

Immunosuppresants/anesthesia is to artifical contraception as
the immune system/nervous system is to the reproductive system.

 

[monina]

Incidentally, I understand that the Church does not think it’s wrong for women to take the birth control pill for valid medical reasons. It’s prohibited when the intent is to contracept.

So I think a better argument against contraception is not to say that it’s wrong because it interferes with “a normal, healthy, functioning part of the body and is trying to make it dysfunctional” (quote from NFPfamily) but because it interferes with the purpose of the marital act itself. (As I have pointed out, we regularly and ethically do interfere with normal, healthy body systems through immunosuppressants and anesthesia, etc.)

Which brings me another point. If interfering with the natural end of something is wrong, then it should be wrong to shave one’s beard off, for the natural end of the beard is to grow!

Ever loyal to the Magisterium…still questioning…
monina

 

[MercedesBents]

And I hope she’s not being perfectly loving to her boyfriend now.

You have a dirty mind. Shame on you. :tsktsk:

 

[ElizabethAnne]

monina:

So when I ask: why can’t procreation mean more than biological fertility, it’s because someone has proposed that to me and I had no good answer. I think it makes very good sense to think that the marital embrace need not be considered un-procreative if one contracepts.

Other posters and I have already answered your question. Procreation can and does mean more than biological fertility, but it also means biological fertility.

Your actual question seems to be, “Why can’t procreation mean only things other than biological fertility?”

 

[monina]

ElizabethAnne:

Other posters and I have already answered your question. Procreation can and does mean more than biological fertility, but it also means biological fertility.

Your actual question seems to be, “Why can’t procreation mean only things other than biological fertility?”

I see your point. It does seem as if I am excluding biological fertility in the definition of procreation.

That’s one stumbling block that you’ve helped me overcome.

Incidentally, my 12 yr old daughter who has no idea about my struggles with understanding the Church’s teaching on contraception, seems to understand it better than I do–she’s reading the Hahns’ “Rome Sweet Home” and said, “I don’t get how Protestants can be pro-life and pro-contraception. One contradicts the other!”

And I guess I can’t be pro-life and pro-contraception. (Although I’ve never actually been “pro-contraception”. Just couldn’t really see what’s so bad about it…)

monina

 

[ElizabethAnne]

monina:

Incidentally, my 12 yr old daughter who has no idea about my struggles with understanding the Church’s teaching on contraception, seems to understand it better than I do–she’s reading the Hahns’ “Rome Sweet Home” and said, “I don’t get how Protestants can be pro-life and pro-contraception. One contradicts the other!”

That’s so sweet! I’m glad she has the opportunity to read books like that and speak with you about them.

 

[MomTo2]

monina:

Incidentally, I understand that the Church does not think it’s wrong for women to take the birth control pill for valid medical reasons. It’s prohibited when the intent is to contracept.

So I think a better argument against contraception is not to say that it’s wrong because it interferes with “a normal, healthy, functioning part of the body and is trying to make it dysfunctional” (quote from NFPfamily) but because it interferes with the purpose of the marital act itself. (As I have pointed out, we regularly and ethically do interfere with normal, healthy body systems through immunosuppressants and anesthesia, etc.)

Which brings me another point. If interfering with the natural end of something is wrong, then it should be wrong to shave one’s beard off, for the natural end of the beard is to grow!

Ever loyal to the Magisterium…still questioning…
monina

Yes, it is still interfering with the marital act, but if someone were taking it for valid medical reasons, that would be trying to fix something medically wrong. Whatever you consider a better arguement isn’t really the point, because you are trying to argue the other side, which is not coherent with Church teaching. I think the point was that the overall picture of what is happening is that contraception is throwing a wrench in what should be happening naturally and enjoyed as His act of Creation. Same as for pain numbing meds, etc, there is still something greater to be accomplished that isn’t right. Contraception has no greater purpose other than to thwart God’s plan. I think it’s easy for people to get who want to understand it, but challenging for those who feel they need an explanation for everything- sometimes life is supposed to be “over our heads” because we are so limited in our knowledge from what God can see. All we can do is pray for understanding when we struggle with teachings like this or any other we can’t seem to “get.” I think you should try to appreciate better the people who have expressed concern for trying to help you to gain a better understanding instead of making them feel they must say things perfectly and argue their valid points. It takes a lot of patience to try to defend this and people have been very charitable in offering what they think will help you, but you seem to be a bit condescending in your replies. Just remember that noone here is obligated to prove anything to you- they are only trying to help you see what you can’t. If you are truly struggling with this, the only thing you can do is pray for understanding as you practice obedience to the Church.

 

[monina]

QUOTE=MomTo2]Whatever you consider a better arguement isn’t really the point, because you are trying to argue the other side, which is not coherent with Church teaching.>>

If I can’t discuss Church teaching on birth control on this forum, then I will never be able to change the minds of family members and friends who insist that it’s ok to be practicing Catholics while taking the Pill.

Some of my arguments for contraception have been well refuted on this forum, and I now can confidently use these rebuttals to my family and friends.

Yet, some of my arguments have not been addressed. So when a pro-contraception friend tells me, “if it’s wrong to throw a wrench into something God designed, then it should be morally wrong to shave one’s beard off, for the God designed beards to grow!”, I will have nothing to refute them. In fact, everything we do can potentially “throw a wrench” into something God designed!!!

<<Same as for pain numbing meds, etc, there is still something greater to be accomplished that isn’t right. Contraception has no greater purpose other than to thwart God’s plan.>>

It could be argued that contraception does indeed promote a greater good, namely, the good of the family. By providing a healthy spacing of children contraception would promote the well-being and health of the existing family.

<<I think it’s easy for people to get who want to understand it, but challenging for those who feel they need an explanation for everything- sometimes life is supposed to be “over our heads” because we are so limited in our knowledge from what God can see.>>

I make no apologies for wanting to understand, for wanting an explanation. If “because the Church says so!” doesn’t work for me, a devout Catholic, then it will never work to convert nominal Catholics.

And what would be the point of Apologetics if we’re not supposed to question? All the Church would have to do is say, “This is what we teach. Believe it.” We wouldn’t need encyclicals, or great theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, or apologists like Scott Hahn, Tim Staples or theology books, or any kind of online discussions…

<<All we can do is pray for understanding when we struggle with teachings like this or any other we can’t seem to “get.” If you are truly struggling with this, the only thing you can do is pray for understanding as you practice obedience to the Church.

I absolutely disagree. Praying for insight and discernment is most certainly a necessity to understanding. But it’s not the only thing. Studying, reading, discussing, and asking questions are also necessary, and as far as I know, not prohibited by the Magisterium.

 

[monina]

In what way have I been condescending? I think I have been direct, and outspoken, and have not been particularly overwhelmed by the arguments that have been presented defending Church teaching, but I have not been condescending!