K
KevinK
Guest
Succinct and perfect.
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
From the National Catholic Bioethics Center.
https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/7114/4916/3491/NCBCsummFAQ_NaturalFamilyPlanning.pdf
https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/7114/4916/3491/NCBCsummFAQ_NaturalFamilyPlanning.pdf
B
BlackFriar
Guest
As I say, when you can provide a candid response to my candid question we can take your analysis further.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
So “contribute” with a quick summary and apply it to the point under discussion.
Even a parrot can blindly just throw something out there
Even a parrot can blindly just throw something out there
G
Genesis315
Guest
I don’t see how that is the case. Under that logic, so would perfect continence since you are always abstaining during a fertile period and therefore frustrating the possibility of conception.
Just to add, I think there is a moral component to each act itself, which is related to, but distinct from the general moral duty of married couples to bring forth children. Neglecting that duty without just cause is wrong no matter the means used.
Just to add, I think there is a moral component to each act itself, which is related to, but distinct from the general moral duty of married couples to bring forth children. Neglecting that duty without just cause is wrong no matter the means used.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
I’m sorry, I thought I did. I guess I don’t follow what you’re getting at.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
So twice now you have not clearly answered these two simple questions:
I forgot to mention a 3rd exception:
3. A Catholic wife may licitly engage with her condomised husband (usually a non Catholic who sincerely does not accept the Church’s teaching) when the “marital debt” is sought under certain circumstances.
So if you accept these are examples of intended medical contracepting … what are your “clear principles” that allow these valid exceptions?
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Thanks for the document, Ed. Lets take a peek.
So if NFP is only contraceptive if you plan on using it “throughout all of married life”, then shouldn’t couples with children be free to use BC since they’ve obviously performed the requisite exception this standard clearly implies?
“As long as you intend to have kids at some point” seems to be what keeps NFP from being contraception according to the document.
By that rule, contraception doesn’t seem to actually exist since most contracepting men and women either have or want to have children at some point in their lives.
So Catholic intercourse doesn’t always have to be open to life - per the NCBC.
Aside from the removal of sexual organs or abortion, there is no “birth control” method that is 100% effective and that fact is widely taught and known; making this assertion by the NCBC demonstrably incorrect.
In fact, the odds of pregnancy are roughly the same between the pill and perfectly executed NFP.
NFP IS the rhythm method; or at least its direct descendant. Any differences attributable to 1930s descriptions of rhythm method lie completely at the feet of developments in technology.
This is also why you don’t read about NFP in 13th century Church manuscripts. The science/technology to make it possible simply didn’t exist yet (precise thermometers and ovulation kits).
Good Catholics attempting NFP via cervical mucus analysis would probably have been tried as witches by the 13th century Church…
So as had been observed elsewhere, the logic behind the traditional Catholic understanding of contraception and NFP certainly seems to be less than self evident.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
The “case” is the intent.
with NFP, you are deliberately intending to withhold during fertility while intending to participate during infertility.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Well you have observed a sentence I have never seen put so candidly before in a fairly weighty document.
However I don’t think your conclusion above logically follows. It seems there are a number of conditions which renders an intent truly contraceptive. The above one is intent at time of marriage (presumably invalidating the marriage vows at root).
Then there is intent re specific conjugal acts. The reason NFP is not considered a mental act of contraception (as opposed to a medical act of contraception) is because the inherent teleology of the physical act of coitus itself is not impeded. NFP does not interfere with the physical teleology of the coitus itself - in fact it takes advantage of that teleology precisely so as to avoid pregnancy.
That is why it may well be physically “contraceptive” but not mentally so. Immorality is ultimately in the mind not the body.
So the description of what the Church defines as immoral contraceptive practise is fairly straight forward. The real difficulty is in explaining why such is so.
Until the principles are clear it is hard to understand how the three exceptions listed above are justified.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
As I respect your sophisticated views substantially, I’ll try to mind my language while still trying to be straightforward. Any perceived insult is unintentional.
The issue identified there is one that likely only exists in the theological debate chambers of older, celibate men who have never known first-hand the issues over which they rule.
Very few of the folks who contracept through NFP or any other means intend to delay children forever. As such, the intent of the Good Catholic Marriage that uses NFP and the intent of the Corrupt Catholic Marriage employing the pill or condoms are exactly the same in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Thanks for the reply.
(emphasis mine)
The issue identified there is one that likely only exists in the theological debate chambers of older, celibate men who have never known first-hand the issues over which they rule.
Very few of the folks who contracept through NFP or any other means intend to delay children forever. As such, the intent of the Good Catholic Marriage that uses NFP and the intent of the Corrupt Catholic Marriage employing the pill or condoms are exactly the same in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Two issues here;
- How is the deliberate timing of coitus based on the female fertility cycle anything other than a mental act of contraception?
- Pertaining to the physical teleology of coitus, the NFP using-couple and the pill using-couple experience the same encounter. Both engage in coitus for primarily unitive reasons and are thoroughly surprised if a pregnancy occurs.
My objection here already noted above;
I’m sure it’s straightforward to a cradle-Catholic, but to someone with an etymological understanding of the word “contraception”, NFP certainly seems to “waddle and quack” like contraception, barring submission to some philosophical school.
You certainly seem to understand it more than I do.
Thanks for the reply.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
V I think this is where we seem to see things very differently and am wondering if we can tease out the root cause of the difference in view.
Perhaps I am wrong but either you may not fully understand “virtue based ethics” thinking (and how it influences Catholic moral definitions) OR you point blank disagree that ethical definitions should incorporate them into the medical definition itself.
For the Church the evil of “contraception” is not in the simple choosing to use physical prophylactics or hormone pills. Some Catholics tend to talk in this way but when scratched I think they, and most of us, realise the evil is not simply in the chosen physical use of these things.
Rather, most realise there has to be an intent to use these technical things (or technical methods like Mr Onan) for the very purpose of preventing pregnancy. Hence taking “the Pill” for a purpose other than preventing pregnancy (eg professional runners to delay a period at an important event) would be acceptable even if that runner was married and sexually active and in fact causing an actual pregnancy not to happen.
Medically the above woman is indeed “contracepting”. She fits the medical criteria of that word…she has chosen a technique that she knows will prevent a conception that would have happened had she not.
However, morally, this choice does not meet the Catholic definition of “contracepting.”
You may disagree. Medically you are correct.
Nevertheless, whether we agree or not, the Church does not define human actions in a post-enlightenment “physicalist” way.
It operates from a pre-enlightenment manner of defining human actions, one based on the virtue ethics of Aristotle, such definitions also embed the agent’s purpose to some extent.
So when we speak of NFP is that “contracepting”?
The Church says it isn’t.
Medically, perhaps it is … its a sort of physical technique, although even at a physical level it is perhaps a borderline predication. No chemicals are involved, no physical barrier is involved. Even “the sin/technique of onan” (withdrawal) is more obvious physically (a form of “barrier”?).
We can certainly say the couple is exploiting a natural contraceptive opportunity built into nature itself I suppose. That is quite different from withdrawal of course.
SO there is the difference I see between NFP and say onanism. The former respects the inherent teleology of coitus, the latter does not.
I accept both can, from a physical/medical point of view validly may be called “contracepting”.
Regardless the Church sees the former as acceptable while the latter is not. Therefore, from a virtue based ethics nomenclature POV, the former is NOT “contracepting” but the latter is.
The intent to “contra” the coital teleology (not the “coeptum”) is the real issue.
Perhaps we should really speak of the immorality of contracoitum not contracoeptum.
(Yes I know “coitus” is masculine not neuter
).
Last edited:
P
pensmama87
Guest
While not strictly theological, there are dangers to contraceptive use (especially hormonal methods) that make people with no religious beliefs want to avoid contraception. It could be an opportunity to tie in the Church’s teaching on the dignity of the human person and support of good science and medicine.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I took those two examples you gave as given (I’m not sure how much the Congo one has been substantiated, but it seems logical given the other example which many bishops have approved) and explained how those acts were not conjugal and therefore the person doing the act was not intending to engage in the conjugal act while frustrating its primary purpose. The Church’s condemnations of contraception from the Roman Catechism on clearly and explicitly put it within the context of marriage (there are also farther reaching discussions of the contraceptive mentality’s harmful effects).
Roman Catechism: “…married persons who, to prevent conception…”
Casti Connubii: “…any use whatsoever of matrimony…”
Pius XII, Address to Midwives “…every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act…”
Humanae Vitae: “We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage…”
A rape victim has not consented to engage in a conjugal act, but instead are engaged in an act of self-defense from an unjust aggressor. I believe this is the analysis put forth by bishops who have passed judgment in this area.
That may raise the academic question as to whether using contraception during consensual fornication is an additional sin (I don’t think the Church has formally addressed this question). I could see arguments either way, but it’s a moot point since the Church is not in the business of telling people how to sin well.
I don’t know much about the third case you mention, or what the certain circumstances are or where the Church has passed judgment or provided guidance, so I can only speculate. I can imagine circumstances where the arguments could be made either way–akin to where someone borrowing under condition of usury is not sinning, even while the usurer is–in this case, the husband is still committing the sin of contraception, so it is not being approved (it would be a matter of toleration versus consent).
In any event, the Church has passed judgment that the use of contraception in marriage as a grave sin and this has been definitively confirmed at least twice through the ministry of the successor of St. Peter–the whole point of which is so Catholics of good will do not have to go round and round circles, but can go forth living virtuously.
Roman Catechism: “…married persons who, to prevent conception…”
Casti Connubii: “…any use whatsoever of matrimony…”
Pius XII, Address to Midwives “…every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act…”
Humanae Vitae: “We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage…”
A rape victim has not consented to engage in a conjugal act, but instead are engaged in an act of self-defense from an unjust aggressor. I believe this is the analysis put forth by bishops who have passed judgment in this area.
That may raise the academic question as to whether using contraception during consensual fornication is an additional sin (I don’t think the Church has formally addressed this question). I could see arguments either way, but it’s a moot point since the Church is not in the business of telling people how to sin well.
I don’t know much about the third case you mention, or what the certain circumstances are or where the Church has passed judgment or provided guidance, so I can only speculate. I can imagine circumstances where the arguments could be made either way–akin to where someone borrowing under condition of usury is not sinning, even while the usurer is–in this case, the husband is still committing the sin of contraception, so it is not being approved (it would be a matter of toleration versus consent).
In any event, the Church has passed judgment that the use of contraception in marriage as a grave sin and this has been definitively confirmed at least twice through the ministry of the successor of St. Peter–the whole point of which is so Catholics of good will do not have to go round and round circles, but can go forth living virtuously.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
OK, now I understand where you are coming from.
This is the usual response of those who do accept the two examples above are in fact examples of contracepting.
Unfortunately the official line here is also confused. Catholic Latin scholars disagree with this translation of the latin for “conjugal act”. It is simply a delicate euphemism for male/female coitus in general. While it is clearly talking of coitus within marriage it is in fact simply speaking simply of sexual intercourse.
To take the line you are taking would mean that cohabiting couples or those in irregular marriages are not additionally sinning by contracepting. The Church tends to teach the opposite from what I understand.
That’s a great turn of phrase re a concerning, messy human situation that sincere people often find themselves in. Did you borrow it from our a police campaign in our country ("Everyone thinks they drive well…but I’ve never seen anyone crash well).
But seriously, I think this indifferent attitude to unfreedom’s that we all face sometime in our lives when caught between a rock and a hard place, is not the true attitude of the Church or a follower of Christ.
Yes, in the last few hundred years the Church (following a narrow “manualist” moral tradition) has been officially somewhat indifferent. Once you cross the line in one thing we give up on you because you are damned anyway. We have nothing further to advise you.
In fact this is surely a gross distortion that Pope Francis is reversing thank God.
People often cross that first line due to specific unfreedoms but may well still remain in grace all the same (FI speaks of irregular relationships). That does not mean people are immoral and we don’t need to worry about further sinning. They may well be in grace but this second level of sinning may be within an area of freedom and so we must still advise them of what is right or wrong.
I believe graced couples in irregular marriages may well be seriously sinning by contracepting.
The teaching is applicable outside of marriage.
The Church certainly is in the business of teaching sinners how to grace well.
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Is this actually allowed then? So if the intent is to stop a financial burden that you just cannot support is bad, how can it justify to go for a very important run?
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I believe so.BlackFriar:
Is this actually allowed then?
I suggest we can see that in one case the temp negative result has nothing to do with attaining the good result. It is but an unintended side effect of supressing a single period. The intent is to suppress her period not pregnancy. The medical contraception (which is perhaps a risk rather than a certainty) is not itself the means to achieving the positive gain sought.
In the other, the negative result (ongoing avoidance of pregnancy) is the very means of achieving the positive result (financial security).
Last edited:
M
MichaelP3
Guest
No I am sorry but this doesn’t add up.
The intent in both can be very temporary. A single period or that a guy will get some good job in a year after he finished some internship or something.
The intent in both can be temporary and not “not to have a child”. And for many more reasons. To put an extra step in between is just playing with words.
The intent in both can be very temporary. A single period or that a guy will get some good job in a year after he finished some internship or something.
The intent in both can be temporary and not “not to have a child”. And for many more reasons. To put an extra step in between is just playing with words.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
If I speed to the hospital because my wife is in labour, my intent is to get her safely there and for my child. But because of my recklessness I kill a pedestrian? That was surely not my intent. It was even good. That is what I am getting you are saying. (This assumes contraception is bad to begin with)
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
If you are not aware of the exceptions this is why I am politely challenging your original assertion:
If we cannot explain the exceptions then your assertion is weakened.
Its very easy to blame people and assume insincerity rather than admit there are actually possible exceptions and in fact the matter on the ground is not as clear as imposed rules lead us to believe.
Its a very complicated area and many good people do lead complicated lives.
Of course. But then the Church reversed its original OT position on Usury (taking of any interest on a loan) as always and everywhere immoral didn’t it! This is exactly the point some of us here are observing re the absolutist position on medical contracepting. There are in fact exceptions.
Toleration is a choice. The problem is the wife is being advised to willingly consent to engage in contraceptive acts for the greater good of the marital debt she vowed to give. Acts that are supposed to be intrinsically evil always and everywhere cannot be freely “tolerated” under any conditions. She should really quit the marriage rather than have truck with an intrinsically evil act she consents to be involved with surely.
I don’t deny this. It was my stated position above - the Church’s disciplinary views on the matter are very clear since HV.
What is not at all clear even 50 years later are the principles which make sense of the teaching as more than disciplinary but is in fact an intrinsic moral evil - and how it explains approved exceptions.
Last edited:
- Status