Church Documents on Contraception

[Vonsalza]

I don’t think the distinction I observed above between Mr NFP and Mr Onan is imagined though I await your response.

The notion that Philosophical walls can be thin if even extant wasn’t aimed at NFP vs Onanism per se. It was in response to your “contracoitum not contracoeptum” line which I interpreted as alluding to whether these couples are even completing the sex act at all - a la m.m. in my reply.

I believe the description of coitus is “sex acts suitable for the generation of offspring.”

Mr Onan fairly clearly neither did this nor intended this.

Mr NFP gets the big tick.

Mr Condo or Mrs Pill …the jury is still out. These look like they meet the definition, though if seed is not deposited the Mrs may have met requirements but the Mr may not.
(But the intent of both is clearly contra regardless of whether they met the definition of coitus).

Hahaha, very fair. And surprisingly honest and openly analytical relative to most of the Catholics who are willing to engage on the topic.

Although, you might guess that I’m a tad more hesitant to give Mr. NFP the big tick as these generations are accidental.

Its complicated when seed is not deposited because the outward “two become flesh” description is met but the exchange of BF is not.

Any Church documents you know of that address this specific thing?

 

[BlackFriar]

Then in fairness, the Church doesn’t seem to require that the marital act be open to life.

I have found the phrase, especially amongst conservative Catholics, to be somewhat simplistic and ambiguous and so unhelpful in serious ethical discussion. The Magisterium doesn’t actually use it from what I can make out.

But like I was suggesting, it is deceptive to believe the immorality of contraception is about intending to avoid pregnancy. It clearly isn’t.
It really has nothing to do with “not being open to life” at all.

Rather, it has much to do with intentionally thwarting the “aptness” of coitus (or subsequent biological mechanisms).

I do find it interesting, though, that our Protestant friends don’t think Onan…

Agreed. I was just using it as an abbreviation for a well known ethical scenario.

It can be as closed to life as humanly possible with full, unveiled intent - so long as no artifice is used and climax occurs fully and properly coupled. Which is fine, I suppose. But that’s not the line we typically hear “out in the world”.

Yes I believe that’s a fair summary - though the “full and unveiled intent” would not include a permanent intent and even if temporary it must be for a proportionate reason.

 

[Dhc8_Type]

As a non catholic who married a catholic no one has given me a straight answer for this not the woman from the weeks of classes they made us take or the weekend retreat or the premarriage counseling. We are able to convince but we both carry a recessive gene defect that will result in infant death in 1 out 3 pregnancies. why would we want to put her family through that and my family through it again.

 

[pensmama87]

Have you contacted the National Catholic Bioethics Center?

The National Catholic Bioethics Center

Ordinary Catholics aren’t typically equipped to answer these difficult questions, in part just because they’re so rare.

 

[Anicette]

In an historical perspective, it is false that contraception was just debated before HV.

We are plainty of exemples, Castii Conurbinii, but also in the XIXth century answers of the Secred Penitanciary to some bishops.
It’s just a few exemples.

And many exemples since the first centuries on the meaning and end of sexuality

 

[Vonsalza]

I have found the phrase [open to life], especially amongst conservative Catholics, to be somewhat simplistic and ambiguous and so unhelpful in serious ethical discussion. The Magisterium doesn’t actually use it from what I can make out.

This gets reasonably close; (CCC)

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

But like I was suggesting, it is deceptive to believe the immorality of contraception is about intending to avoid pregnancy. It clearly isn’t.
It really has nothing to do with “not being open to life” at all.

With respect, this seems to be a very common deception among the remnant of more devout Catholics. If the description of deception is accurate, then this is certainly a spur that needs to be filed down.

Rather, it has much to do with intentionally thwarting the “aptness” of coitus (or subsequent biological mechanisms).

Which I find interesting. Is there any Catholic publication on why coitus must be free of artifice while a Catholic is free to explore artificial means to solve a number of other biological problems (or mere inconveniences)? Something rational; beyond fiat?

As an example, if you follow the now “Traditional American Diet”, you’re going to naturally develop high blood pressure. But taking a statin pill to “frustrate” this predictable, completely natural reaction isn’t contested by the Church on moral grounds.

Additionally, must coitus also be free of artifice meant to assist in its successful function? Like “the little blue pill” or other substances employed by men and women to assist sexual encounters as our bodies age?

Where’s the “fence”, if you will?

Yes I believe that’s a fair summary - though the “full and unveiled intent” would not include a permanent intent and even if temporary it must be for a proportionate reason.

Of course. I hoped that went without saying.
But I think the message here is an important one; an NFP couple is likely no less surprised by a pregnancy than a couple using less human-error-prone methods of contraception. Ergo their intents are probably more identical than most devout Catholics are willing to realize.
So as an issue of virtue, the situation becomes uncomfortably cloudy for the devout end of the discussion. Or at least that’s how I see it.

 

[Vonsalza]

In an historical perspective, it is false that contraception was just debated before HV.

To some degree you’re right.

But to some degree you’re also clearly wrong.

The problem is that the Catholic understanding of “contraception” seems to be very nebulous and difficult to define with precision. And when an acceptable Catholic definition of the word is yielded, it clearly clashes with secular, more etymologically precise definitions of the word.

This is simultaneously a strength and a weakness for the devout Catholic wishing to debate the issue. And there isn’t much you can do about it other than patiently try to explain.

We are plainty of exemples, Castii Conurbinii, but also in the XIXth century answers of the Secred Penitanciary to some bishops.
It’s just a few exemples.

And many exemples since the first centuries on the meaning and end of sexuality

Sure. And as stated above, it requires the conflation of obvious (and maybe mythical) ancient abortifacients like silphium and ancient barrier methods like inserting honey or sponges into a woman with modern, everyday pills that contain the same hormones found in a woman’s own body.

Some would consider this very clear cut-and-dry logical fallacy.

Moreover, there is no shortage of scholars that would zealously debate that ancient contraception references per Catholic teaching are more accurately interpreted as prohibitions on abusing drugs and the like.

In fairness, the “ancient, Catholic case against contraception” only looks remarkably consistent if you’re already a happy, devout Catholic and thus predisposed to already believe it.

To the moderators, I say that with as much charity as possible.

 

[Anicette]

Because you oppose of it, you don’t want to see any consistancy in the current catholic doctrine, but she is pretty clear.

**And contraception, whereas you are in the VIth or XXVITh century are always the same thing: things that can prevent conception that will follow a natural intercouse. **
- it don’t depends of efficiency: coitus interuptus, condom, sponges, pills and many others devises are contraception.

• this definition don’t clash with medical one
  -the pill does not contain real female hormone, but imitation of them. And even if, what would that will be different from a barrier?

To the OP:
St Augustin
Noonan.
And at least in the XIXth century the sacred penitanciary had answers questions on coitus interruptus (conjugal onanism, and condoms). But condoms are very popular at that time, withdrawal were much more commom.
I can provide you bibliography on request on this topic by private message, but In French. Sorry.

 

[BlackFriar]

In an historical perspective, it is false that contraception was just debated before HV.

??? I have no axe to grind on this small point. Can you quote where you think I said otherwise?

 

[BlackFriar]

Because you oppose of it, you don’t want to see any consistancy in the current catholic doctrine, but she is pretty clear.

??? I don’t oppose the Church’s teaching on the immorality of contraception.
Can you quote where you think I said that?

I do observe the principles are not at all clear to the laity in general - yourself included by the looks of things.

If you believe the principles are clear (as opposed to specific prohibitions) would you care to explain your take on why the above three or four examples are accepted as licit?

 

[BlackFriar]

Rather, it has much to do with intentionally thwarting the “aptness” of coitus (or subsequent biological mechanisms).

I am not sure you have fully grasped my small point (excuse the double entendre). Let me be a little more explicit using your own terms then: coitus must be free of thwarting artifice. Obviously there is nothing wrong with artifice itself if it assists nature (as in surgery, Viagra etc).

I believe I have mentioned that I find “au naturel” arguments unhelpful in most theological discussions as it is a form of “physicalism” which cannot fully transport a virtue (intention) based ethical discussion - though it comes close.

The basic principle behind all Catholic moral argument is that the specific physical acts we choose also reveal personal intent and its quality. We may not even be aware of that intent (it doesn’t mean consciousness of intent). There are some chosen physical acts that contradict a conscious intent - and therefore influence us as moral persons for the worse even if we think they don’t.

The principle also seems to work in reverse.
So the Church is observing that NFP can be chosen, even harbouring conscious intent “I am not open to life at the moment” as you rightly observe. And because the coitus itself is allowed to retain its biological teleology (the physics is “open to life”), even if chosen when biological blanks are in play, then the human act as a whole is still considered “open to life”.

Is NFP medical contracepting? I am easy on the point as its irrelevant to a virtue based approach to the meaning of use of such an artifice. Though it makes rational ethical discussion extremely difficult I accept.

 

[Anicette]

BlackFriar,

I am sorry for the confusion.
I want to answer to Vonsalza.

 

[MichaelP3]

The principle also seems to work in reverse.

So the Church is observing that NFP can be chosen, even harbouring conscious intent “I am not open to life at the moment” as you rightly observe. And because the coitus itself is allowed to retain its biological teleology (the physics is “open to life”), even if chosen when biological blanks are in play, then the human act as a whole is still considered “open to life”.

This seems like a case of “the means justify the ends”.

 

[BlackFriar]

I accept the Church’s teaching that couples may wilfully intend no more pregnancies (for a sufficient proportional reason) by purposely intending to take advantage of the narrow non-procreative potentialities of biology provided their sex is itself procreatively apt for the generation of life.

You don’t?

 

[MichaelP3]

You don’t?

I don’t what? Accept the Catholic Church teaching on Contraception? The short answer is “no” and the long answer will get me banned.

 

[BlackFriar]

So what do you see as the difficulty with NFP, which is what I was addressing to you above?

 

[MichaelP3]

For one, the post I replied to today. It is a case of “the means justify the ends”. As you explained it, the ends would be the same but the means differ.

Whether the Catholic Church say it is okay is irrelevant to my point (as that was your reply). Otherwise there is no need for any discussion.

 

[BlackFriar]

For one, the post I replied to today. It is a case of “the means justify the ends”. As you explained it, the ends would be the same but the means differ.

You will have to tease that out further sorry.
Instead of just rolling out a platitude (which doesn’t make sense by just saying it without applying explaining) can you detail your point better?

You seem to be saying NFP should be immoral too according to the Church’s principles re the immorality of contraception.

 

[MichaelP3]

End: not have a child.

Means 1. Use NFP
2. Use ABC (not abortive before that
comes into play)

Different means. Same end. One good and one bad. Hope that is clear.

 

[pensmama87]

I am not an expert in philosophy. But I have heard and have used (because it makes sense to me) the following analogy:

Say you want to lose weight, and have a good reason to. You can chew your food to get the taste then spit it out, or you can just eat less.

The first behavior is disordered, the second is not.