Catechism Question

[Michael19682]

On procreation, as opposed to sexuality (?) the Catechism reads:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

How can the rhythm method of birth control be justified? It seeks to render procreation impossible.

 

[Khalid]

It does not interfere with the teleology of the sexual act.

 

[bmullins]

It doesn’t render procreation impossible, it makes it improbable. No matter how careful you are, you can still end up having children even following that method. The difference is with NFP you are making a statement: “I don’t want anymore children right now, but your will be done.” With birth control and condoms you are saying: “I don’t want anymore children right now, and I’m going to remove my seed from the equation because I don’t care what your will is.”

 

[twoangels]

On procreation, as opposed to sexuality (?) the Catechism reads:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

How can the rhythm method of birth control be justified? It seeks to render procreation impossible.

When a couple practices Natural Family Planning (which if you want to be reliable, you need to use sympto-thermo, or Billings or some variation like that, not some calendar method like rhythm), they are preventing pregnancy through abstainance. They are not preventing pregnancy by engaging in alternative sexual acts that divert sex from its procreative meaning. To do so would be to practice fertility awareness, not NFP and would be sinful. Having sex during the infertile time is not what makes NFP work. The sexual act during their infertile times must be still oriented toward procreation even if the factors out of their control (whether their is an ovum present to fertilize) is not there. It only works solely because the couple is entirely abstaining from sexual behavior while they are fertile.

 

[twoangels]

It doesn’t render procreation impossible, it makes it improbable. No matter how careful you are, you can still end up having children even following that method. The difference is with NFP you are making a statement: “I don’t want anymore children right now, but your will be done.” With birth control and condoms you are saying: “I don’t want anymore children right now, and I’m going to remove my seed from the equation because I don’t care what your will is.”

Your logic is flawed as contraceptives do not render procreation impossible either, only improbable. Perfect use of NFP is more effective than most contraceptives. As such, if NFP were moral because its “improbable” rather than “impossible” than all a couple would have to do to make contraceptives moral would be to to change their attitude about if they got pregnant regardless that they used a contraceptive. And many couples who use contraceptives do indeed have the attitude that if they get pregnant, they will accept the pregnancy.

 

[bmullins]

Your logic is flawed as contraceptives do not render procreation impossible either, only improbable. Perfect use of NFP is more effective than most contraceptives. As such, if NFP were moral because its “improbable” rather than “impossible” than all a couple would have to do to make contraceptives moral would be to to change their attitude about if they got pregnant regardless that they used a contraceptive. And many couples who use contraceptives do indeed have the attitude that if they get pregnant, they will accept the pregnancy.

I agree that it doesn’t render it impossible. It does however attempt to render it impossible. That is the difference. Where as NFP still has sperm entering into the body, with full knowledge that if there is an egg there it will have the chance to be fertilized; using a condom or spermicide attempts to remove the natural process and prevent it; regardless to the eggs presence. Oral contraceptives go another step further, and attempt to kill the egg in order to prevent the egg from being fertilized if it is present.

ONLY in NFP do we acknowledge that if the egg is present and sperm is ejaculated then we should allow it to take it’s intended course, which is God’s plan for sex.

My logic is not flawed, just maybe not expressed well in the first post.

 

[1ke]

How can the rhythm method of birth control be justified? It seeks to render procreation impossible.

The catechism tells us that any action before, during, or after intercourse that seeks to make that act of intercours sterile (i.e. “render procreation impossible”) is an intrinsic evil.

Abstaining from intercourse is not an action. When you abstain there is no act of intercourse. You aren’t “doing” anything to an act of intercourse.

When the couple does engage in intercourse that act of intercourse is NOT altered. It is ordered to procreation and they take no action to steirlize it.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

[ahs]

2370 … “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, **to render **procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

I highlighted a couple key words for you. As 1ke has pointed out, and Bookcat as well, in the words of our Pope, it is what you do…the action you take…to remove the procreative nature from a marital act. If you purposely avoid sex, there is no marital act taking place from which to remove the procreative nature.

 

[Michael19682]

I highlighted a couple key words for you. As 1ke has pointed out, and Bookcat as well, in the words of our Pope, it is what you do…the action you take…to remove the procreative nature from a marital act. If you purposely avoid sex, there is no marital act taking place from which to remove the procreative nature.

The key word there seems to be “remove”. This must be why a couple that might be known to be medically infertile after rigorous testing, can still engage in sex even though they know a child cannot be conceived?

 

[1ke]

The key word there seems to be “remove”. This must be why a couple that might be known to be medically infertile after rigorous testing, can still engage in sex even though they know a child cannot be conceived?

Correct.

A couple who is *naturally *infertile due to age or existing pregnenacy or who are *rendered *infertile due to disease, defect, injury, etc, is taking no action, doing nothing to purposely render the act infertile, are not removing anything from the act.