Contraception and Natural Family Planning

[Michelle9]

What do you think makes things sinful?

Contraception is a direct offense against the dual purpose of the sexual act, unity of the spouses and co-creation of children. It must be sinful by definition.

But that’s the whole point. Not wanting a child is sinful? How does this affect the unity of the spouses if neither one desires a child?

 

[thewanderer]

Hmm I think you are very nice and polite in attempting to explain it. I see what you mean that it is like going against nature. Howvever, I don’t see this as sinful.

I think you have made the point very well indeed now that I think about it more. Thank you.

Like I said, it is something that is more difficult to see. I’m not really sure that I see the argument for it 100% yet. Although, even with saying that, it seems pretty clear that even if this argument were false (I tend to think it is true, even though I don’t fully understand it yet) artifical contraception would need to be used very carefully. It would be far too easy to start viewing sex in a selfish way because it helps divide the pleasure of sex from the procreative aspect of it in peoples minds and so can easily lead to the idea that sex exists simply for the sake of the physical pleasure each person gets out of it, which is removed both from the procreative and unitive aspects of sexuality and leads to casual sex. (note that I am not saying that everyone who uses contraception is ok with casual sex… but it certainly does seem to be a slippery slope that many have gone down…) I’ll be honest that part of the reason I am inclined to believe the natural law argument is correct is because of the philosophy I did in college, rather than from plain old common sense, its really not an easy topic to understand. :nope: But have an open mind about it. its not that the Church is being irrational or illogical, its just that the arguments are so danged nuanced and filled with philosophical concepts and terms that its really hard for almost anybody to actually understand the reasons the Church believes what it does, and so to be able to actually make a judgement either way.

 

[davidv]

But that’s the whole point. Not wanting a child is sinful?

It can be. It depends on what method one uses to avoid having children. Abstinence is a moral way. Artificial contraception is an sinful way.

How does this affect the unity of the spouses if neither one desires a child?

What does desire have to do with it? All sin is the result of giving in to disordered desires.

 

[Michelle9]

Like I said, it is something that is more difficult to see. I’m not really sure that I see the argument for it 100% yet. Although, even with saying that, it seems pretty clear that even if this argument were false (I tend to think it is true, even though I don’t fully understand it yet) artifical contraception would need to be used very carefully. It would be far too easy to start viewing sex in a selfish way because it helps divide the pleasure of sex from the procreative aspect of it in peoples minds and so can easily lead to the idea that sex exists simply for the sake of the physical pleasure each person gets out of it, which is removed both from the procreative and unitive aspects of sexuality and leads to casual sex. (note that I am not saying that everyone who uses contraception is ok with casual sex… but it certainly does seem to be a slippery slope that many have gone down…) I’ll be honest that part of the reason I am inclined to believe the natural law argument is correct is because of the philosophy I did in college, rather than from plain old common sense, its really not an easy topic to understand. :nope: But have an open mind about it. its not that the Church is being irrational or illogical, its just that the arguments are so danged nuanced and filled with philosophical concepts and terms that its really hard for almost anybody to actually understand the reasons the Church believes what it does, and so to be able to actually make a judgement either way.

Your explanation at the very least made me reconsider the Church doctrine as not totally irrational. As to contraception leading to a disruption in the unity aspect, i think that can happen without the contraception. Sex should not just be for a selfish pleasure.

 

[thewanderer]

But that’s the whole point. Not wanting a child is sinful? How does this affect the unity of the spouses if neither one desires a child?

I hope you don’t mind if I try and answer that. The Church is not saying here that its sinful to not want a child. This is what I mean by the teachings being widely misunderrstood… so many people take that to be what the Church is saying, its really not. The reason it sees aritificial contraception as being contrary to the nature of sex is because artificial contraception is the purposeful removal of one of the ends of sex. So the problem isn’t that the couple has sex when they aren’t fertile, its that they take some action to remove the fertility (and so the procreative end) from a particular sexual act. I know it often sounds as if the Church is saying that not wanting children is sinful etc This is partially because there are way too many Catholics who misunderstand the Church teaching and so misrepresent it as being just that:sad_yes:, and partially because people assume that the terms used by the Church mean things that they really don’t (this is the problem with having really technical and philosophical/theological terms, I mean, they’re great at conveying a precise meaning if they’re understood correctly, but boy oh boy do they often not mean what one would assume them to if just used in normal speech. )

 

[thewanderer]

Your explanation at the very least made me reconsider the Church doctrine as not totally irrational. As to contraception leading to a disruption in the unity aspect, i think that can happen without the contraception. Sex should not just be for a selfish pleasure.

Oh, I definitely agree that that can happen without contraception as well. Us humans are pretty great at coming up with ways to mess up a great thing. My point was just that I see contraception has a special danger with respect to this that doesn’t exist without it. Again, not claiming that everyone that uses contraception is going to end up with the view that casual sex is ok or that no one that thinks its wrong will end up with that view.

 

[Son_of_Jonah]

…I mean, they’re great at conveying a precise meaning if they’re understood correctly, but boy oh boy do they often not mean what one would assume them to if just used in normal speech. )

I rarely have much of a difficulty understanding what the Church teaches in its technical points, and when I do, only a little clarification is required for me to understand it fully. I see that the same is largely the case for you. You mentioned something about philosophical training that you received, and I must also admit that my own degree is in the subject of philosophy.

I bring this up because I think you are making an outstanding argument that education in the fundamentals - at the very least - of philosophy ought to be compulsory

 

[Michelle9]

I rarely have much of a difficulty understanding what the Church teaches in its technical points, and when I do, only a little clarification is required for me to understand it fully. I see that the same is largely the case for you. You mentioned something about philosophical training that you received, and I must also admit that my own degree is in the subject of philosophy.

I bring this up because I think you are making an outstanding argument that education in the fundamentals - at the very least - of philosophy ought to be compulsory

Nice Jonah so you are saying only those with a philosophy degree can understand church teaching!

 

[thewanderer]

I bring this up because I think you are making an outstanding argument that education in the fundamentals - at the very least - of philosophy ought to be compulsory

lol, I have to admit that I am at times tempted by that proposal , but then I remember my favourite saint, Therese of Lisieux, very little formal education, but ultimately got everything right that really matters. Different talnets and vocations for different people. I wouldn’t have it any other way, after all, variety is the spice of life.

 

[thewanderer]

lol, I have to admit that I am at times tempted by that proposal , but then I remember my favourite saint, Therese of Lisieux, very little formal education, but ultimately got everything right that really matters. Different talnets and vocations for different people. I wouldn’t have it any other way, after all, variety is the spice of life.

and obviously mine is not in writing.

 

[maryjk]

Why because I don’t agree with Church? You need to explain why.

No, because it seems you know nothing about NFP.

 

[fix]

I agree that abstinence to avoid pregnancy is perfectly understandable. In having sex only during the infertile times, however, is not the couple being “closed” to the transmission of life? They are deliberately engaging in sex at a period when conception is unlikely. Are they not “actively” seeking to frustrate the procreative good/end of intercourse?

Likelihood of conception is not the issue.

 

[Michelle9]

No, because it seems you know nothing about NFP.

No I don’t. I never said I did. But I don’t understand why it is sinful to avoid fertilization. Someone else here made the case that is disrupting the natural order. Ok I can see that.
If NFP works for you then more power to you.

 

[sw85]

Why is NFP allowed if one is deliberately engaging in a sex act with the intention of it being “non-procreative?” Is not this the same as contraception but without a pill or a similar device? If the end and intention in contraception and NFP are the same, namely the avoidance of children, why does the means of avoiding the pregnancy (whether natural or artificial) matter? This seems like a distinction without a difference.

First, end and intention are not necessarily the same with NFP and contraception. The “end” is what you’re doing (i.e., avoiding contraception), the “intention” is why you’re doing it. The intention can be disordered with either NFP or contraception but need not be. A good example of a well-ordered intention: “Pregnancy could harm my wife right now, so we’re temporarily using NFP until she recovers.” A disordered intention: “I hate kids.”

Second, end and intention do not exhaust all the sources of morality. Means matter, too. Contraception is a disordered means; to understand why, see Humanae Vitae. By contrast, NFP consists merely in (a) abstaining from sex temporarily by mutual agreement and (b) charting your fertility. Neither of these things are disordered in themselves, so the means cannot possibly be disordered in combination. Which means NFP can be disordered only when the intention behind it is disordered, whereas contraception, being a disordered means to an end, it is always disordered regardless of the intention.

 

[Corki]

But that’s the whole point. Not wanting a child is sinful? How does this affect the unity of the spouses if neither one desires a child?

Not wanting a child *right now *is not sinful as long as you have a good reason. Getting married but not wanting children at all would be sinful. Or rather, it could mean that the marriage isn’t valid.

The two ends of marriage are unity and procreation. They affect each other because without one, the marriage which is the framework for both is broken. If you want everything about marriage EXCEPT children, it is just as bad as wanting everything about marriage EXCEPT for the need to build a strong, faithful union.

In this way, the sin of contraception is very much like the sin of having an “open marriage”. In the former case, you want marriage but not the children. In the latter, you want marriage but not the faithfulness.

 

[sw85]

I agree that abstinence to avoid pregnancy is perfectly understandable. In having sex only during the infertile times, however, is not the couple being “closed” to the transmission of life? They are deliberately engaging in sex at a period when conception is unlikely. Are they not “actively” seeking to frustrate the procreative good/end of intercourse?

No. Openness to life is a property of the act itself, not a disposition of the couple. To be “open to life” is to have sex in the normative fashion, i.e., marital, intravaginal, noncontraceptive ejaculation.

You are clearing some things up, but I’m still not convinced. I think the intention of not having a child belongs to both actions.

When a couple knowingly has sex during the wife’s infertile time, they are intending for conception to be avoided. Sure, they also intend to love one another etc, but the only reason they are having sex when they are is because they know a child will not result. It is their intention to “love one another” as much as it is to avoid pregnancy.

The intention of not having children is not itself disordered if the reasons are sound. Suppose the father has lost his job and is temporarily unable to provide for his family – a pregnancy would be catastrophic in that case. Suppose the mother is recovering from her last pregnancy and another one so soon would be medically unwise. Suppose there is an active persecution and the risk to my unborn child is too great to bear. Etc. All of these are perfectly valid reasons not to want to have children.

What makes contraception an evil is not the intention. What makes it an evil is the means. The means themselves are disordered, therefore there is no intention that can possibly make the act of contracepting good. By contrast with NFP the means are not illicit at all. They consist entirely in temporary abstinence by mutual consent and fertility-charting, neither of which are evils. Two non-evil things don’t make an evil thing in combination. Since the means are not disordered, the only thing that can make NFP disordered is the intention, i.e., because the intention for using NFP is bad: I hate kids; I’d rather backpack through Europe; I want to maintain my beach bod so I can be featured on Girls Gone Wild next summer; etc.

What is wrong with having sex just for love and pleasure and rendering the sex act infertile? The Bible and therefore God does not say have sex only to make a baby.

And don’t get me wrong I’m not a liberal. I believe abortion is very much a sin.

The Bible is not the sole theological authority in the Church. We’re not Protestants here. Also I’m fairly sure we can all agree that God didn’t write the Bible.

No I don’t. I never said I did. But I don’t understand why it is sinful to avoid fertilization. Someone else here made the case that is disrupting the natural order. Ok I can see that.
If NFP works for you then more power to you.

A moment ago you were saying the Church’s teaching was irrational. Now you are saying you don’t understand it. If you don’t understand it, I’m sure you can see how your claim that it is irrational is premature and imprudent. I would hope that you would have some more humility going forward before summarily discarding a moral theological tradition started by Plato and Aristotle, endorsed by Augustine, perfected by Aquinas, and taught by the Church for centuries on the basis of… whatever.

Here’s the teaching in a nutshell. God created the world and saw that it was good. So the world as it is (i.e., as God made it) is good. The world as it is includes humans, and humans as they are have a reproductive system, i.e., a system ordered toward reproduction. So it is good for humans to use their reproductive system in a manner consistent with the end of reproduction. This is the way God made us; God is good; therefore the way God made us is good, and respecting His creation is good for us.

Contraception flatly contradicts that system. That’s why it’s called contra-ception, i.e., “against conception” (i.e., reproduction). NFP doesn’t, because the act still respects the natural, normative order of human sexuality, i.e., marital, intravaginal, noncontraceptive ejaculation. NFP is allowed because sexuality, by virtue of its procreative end, also has a unitive element: couples are united more closely by sex, which assists them in caring for their children. Thus NFP still requires grave reason – i.e., not using NFP would be imprudent, reckless, or injurious to the unity of the family. We don’t get to exploit the marital right while ignoring the marital duty without grave reason.

 

[Michelle9]

First, end and intention are not necessarily the same with NFP and contraception. The “end” is what you’re doing (i.e., avoiding contraception), the “intention” is why you’re doing it. The intention can be disordered with either NFP or contraception but need not be. A good example of a well-ordered intention: “Pregnancy could harm my wife right now, so we’re temporarily using NFP until she recovers.” A disordered intention: “I hate kids.”

Second, end and intention do not exhaust all the sources of morality. Means matter, too. Contraception is a disordered means; to understand why, see Humanae Vitae. By contrast, NFP consists merely in (a) abstaining from sex temporarily by mutual agreement and (b) charting your fertility. Neither of these things are disordered in themselves, so the means cannot possibly be disordered in combination. Which means NFP can be disordered only when the intention behind it is disordered, whereas contraception, being a disordered means to an end, it is always disordered regardless of the intention.

Um no this is not disordered. Some people simply don’t like kids very much; doesn’t mean they hate them either.

And there is no need to be so sanctimonious about it either. God may not have created contraception because He knew humans would figure it out on their own. There are a lot of things God left to humans. I think we work alongside Him as part of his plan. The bad part about contraception is that people have taken it as a way to have easy access to casual sex. But if they followed God’s word they would clearly see that sex should be reserved for marriage.

If you look at Church history, you will see that they have made changes! I mean at one time women were required to wear a head covering to attend Church! After Vatican II, this requirement was thrown out.

 

[Michelle9]

Not wanting a child *right now *is not sinful as long as you have a good reason. Getting married but not wanting children at all would be sinful. Or rather, it could mean that the marriage isn’t valid.

The two ends of marriage are unity and procreation. They affect each other because without one, the marriage which is the framework for both is broken. If you want everything about marriage EXCEPT children, it is just as bad as wanting everything about marriage EXCEPT for the need to build a strong, faithful union.

In this way, the sin of contraception is very much like the sin of having an “open marriage”. In the former case, you want marriage but not the children. In the latter, you want marriage but not the faithfulness.

It is in no way like an open marriage! Where do you see that? You can very much be faithful in your marriage but not necessarily want children.

 

[sw85]

Um no this is not disordered.

What isn’t?

Some people simply don’t like kids very much; doesn’t mean they hate them either.

I’m not saying any particular person hates kids. I’m saying that’s a disordered intention with respect to exploiting the marital right while ignoring the marital duty. You don’t get to do that except in very limited circumstances, i.e., there’s active persecution going on, medical risk, financial difficulty, etc. Even then the means have to be licit, because the ends never justify the means on their own.

And there is no need to be so sanctimonious about it either.

Huh? Sanctimony means exhibiting false piety. Now what in the post you quoted even exhibits piety of any sort, as opposed to simply straightforwardly explaining a basic philosophical/theological principle in response to a question concerning it – much less does so falsely? I think you think that word means something other than what it actually means.

God may not have created contraception because He knew humans would figure it out on their own. There are a lot of things God left to humans. I think we work alongside Him as part of his plan.

His plan consists in us achieving holiness. Holiness consists, at a bare minimum, in us not transgressing against the moral law He built into our natures. The moral law He built into our natures includes a reproductive system that is ordered toward reproduction. If he wanted us to contracept He’d have given us some way of doing that.

Oh wait, he did! It’s called NFP. So NFP isn’t as foolproof as we like – who cares? He designed it for His purposes, not for ours.

If you look at Church history, you will see that they have made changes! I mean at one time women were required to wear a head covering to attend Church! After Vatican II, this requirement was thrown out.

Disciplines are not doctrines. The former can change because they’re prudential and cultural; the latter cannot because they are eternal, truthful, and revealed by the Church which God protects from error. Again, you should have some humility here. You are accusing generations upon generations of theologians, thinkers, holy men, sainted doctors of the Church, etc., of error on an issue which, by your own admission, you are confused and ignorant, on the grounds of a simple cultural change a few decades ago. God didn’t promise us that His church would never change anything. He promised us that He would be with His Church always, with respect to its teaching mission. So to say the Church is wrong re: contraception is to say that God, who is truth itself, doesn’t care about truth – i.e., that He’s a liar.

 

[Michelle9]

You forgot I am a Catholic too and your attempt to me sounds like a way to prove your superiority over me as better Catholic. A sin of lack of humility on your part.

The Bible says women should wear a head covering. This is not cultural; its doctrinal.

God did not give us cars. Did He mean to intend having a car is against what He did? I know your defending Church doctrine. The problem with it is that the argument is weak.

I think the Church is scared of contraception because of its misuse. But guess what most Catholics are using contraception and even having premarital sex.

Also there is nothing wrong with seeing a religion’s faults. There is no such thing as a perfect religion because human beings are not perfect either.

I have battled atheists who are just as rigid in their thinking as you are. Ironic that I would find the same inflexibility here.