Contraception Moral Dilemma

[setter]

"Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? "
The Pope here sees the issue - the questions of whether marriage should be open to life and whether each act must be open to life are different.

“This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.”

It is not an easy question. The Pope’s commission didn’t all agree.

None the less, the conclusion from the Magisterium was conclusive, unambiguous, and carries the weight of infallability.

“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. **Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it **(18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."

In this quote from Humanae Vitae, the Pope is clearly stating that there is no lesser of two evils criteria where contraceptive intercourse is ever morally licit.

Finally, the Pope rejects the idea that contraception to limit rather than avoid births may be acceptable. However he does describe such contraception as a lesser moral evil tolerated to promote a greater good, but rejects this as licit, because it is doing evil so that good may directly come of it.

So the conclusion we can draw is that contraception aimed at makingthe whole of a married life sterile is more sinful than contraception intended to limit the number of births. That’s pretty obvious really - stealing all a widow’s money is worse than taking her purse - though stealing the purse may still be gravely sinful.

I fail to see how you conclude this from your above citations (it is helpful to add source identification/links). This being said, what in the hell difference (literally) does it make anyways? Both are grave, potentially mortal sin, that will send an unrepentent soul in hell for all eternity. How about getting everyone to agree where the line in the sand divides that which is licit from that which is morally reprehensible with the stench of sin.

 

[fix]

"Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? "
The Pope here sees the issue - the questions of whether marriage should be open to life and whether each act must be open to life are different.

“This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.”

It is not an easy question. The Pope’s commission didn’t all agree.

“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong."

Finally, the Pope rejects the idea that contraception to limit rather than avoid births may be acceptable. However he does describe such contraception as a lesser moral evil tolerated to promote a greater good, but rejects this as licit, because it is doing evil so that good may directly come of it.

So the conclusion we can draw is that contraception aimed at makingthe whole of a married life sterile is more sinful than contraception intended to limit the number of births. That’s pretty obvious really - stealing all a widow’s money is worse than taking her purse - though stealing the purse may still be gravely sinful.

I cannot see how you draw the conclusions you have drawn. The Pope specficially states contraceptive acts are always wrong. He rejects the mistaken notion that an evil means is ever to be seen as just even if one thinks the end is just.

Your analogy about stealing seems misplaced.

I can see that there may be differing levels of gravity among mortal sins such as murdering one’s parents is graver than murdering a stranger, but both are wrong.

In drawing out this distinction regarding contraceptive acts perhaps we could say one act of contraception is not as bad as 400 acts of contraception? In the end, one mortal sin is bad enough.

 

[maryjk]

If I were you I’d ask him to start marriage counseling. He may still be faithful at this point, but as a guy I’ve never met a man who had a vasectomy and then remained faithful to his wife. Whether he knows it or not, this will be a serious blow to your marriage. You should start counseling now before things get out of control.

I may not be a “guy” but I know more than one that has stayed faithful to his wife.

 

[CRW]

If I were in your shoes and my husband was forcing the artifical birth control, I would encourage him to go w/ condoms over the vasectomy since those aren’t permanent and hopefully, in time and through MUCH prayer on my behalf, he’d change his mind and agree to NFP.

As several posters said, you can’t control what your husband decides so you aren’t sinning. Pray Pray Pray that God will soften his heart.

Congratulations on your upcoming arrival. What a wonderful blessing! (and don’t worry… going from 2 children to 3 was no biggie! you’ll be fine!)

CCC 2366, partial quote: “It is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life”. By all means I am not posting or forming a judgment in this post. But she controls her body and has the right, as a woman and a Catholic, to remain without sin and to keep to the Church teachings. When we engage in sin with others, we become part of the sin. If both are Catholic’s they need to see the priest. If not, she needs to see her priest and get direction from him.

 

[Ceil-1]

If I could go back, I would have threatened divorce. Nothing short of that would have changed his mind. I didn’t, however, and now I am sentenced to a life of heartbreak because I cannot live out my vocation. His repentance and attempt to “fix” the problem has come to nothing. He did not relent until I told him we were to live like brother and sister because to do otherwise is to offend the Lord, and that I loved Him more. Apparently, my husband loved me enough. It changed his heart.

There is no going back. If your husband truly loves you, and knows that it means that much to you, he will not do it. If he does it anyway, he loves himself more than you. I feel for you, my dear. You will be in my prayers. They only true happiness is knowing we are doing the Will of God.

 

[cynic]

From looking at testimonies of people who have either had sterilizations or even used artifical contraceptives, it often leaves the women feeling used and objectified.

!

so your saying that women only view sex as a procreational thing and without that there is only an empty physical act for them.
It seems to imply that women only like men for the potential to have a child by them.

If women feel used when one partner is sterilised then why wouln’t they feel used while practicing nfp - when the whole point is to have sex while reducing the chance of conception to practically zero?

 

[LittleDeb]

so your saying that women only view sex as a procreational thing and without that there is only an empty physical act for them.
It seems to imply that women only like men for the potential to have a child by them.

If women feel used when one partner is sterilised then why wouln’t they feel used while practicing nfp - when the whole point is to have sex while reducing the chance of conception to practically zero?

Again cynic, you are misunderstanding the difference. NFP follows the body’s natural cycles. Sterilization does not. Sterilization is a rejection of fertility. NFP is not. NFP embraces the cyclical aspect of fertility. Sterilization says fertility is icky. NFP says fertility is a gift to be respected and honored. Sterilization says fertility is something to throw away.

After being in thread after thread with these same objections from you, I am starting to think you don’t want to see the difference. I am a fertile woman. If my husband and I have relations during fertility it will probably result in conception. So? That is a good thing. It means our fertility is working correctly. As I type this, I am not seeking conception. Does that mean it is the same thing if I sit here sterilized? No, of course not. When I do engage in relations with my husband we are open to life.

Sterilization would be a rejection of me because it is a rejection of my fertility. That is very empty and objectifying. I am so sorry that you just don’t want to see that.

 

[Ceil-1]

Cynic,

What an apt name. You are obviously a man. A woman mainly derives pleasure through the emotional aspects of the conjugal act. Any jerk could do what you propose. A woman needs to feel important and valued. It is built into her. The man has his urges so that he will be motivated to commit to her needs in order to get what he wants. Unfortunately, these days, the guys get it all for free. Then the girls wonder why they are being abandoned. Well, why the heck not? They get their way regardless of how they act.

Deep in her soul, a woman is aware of this power to procreate. What on earth is better than co-creating a new creature? A good time in a motel room, only to be abandoned the next day? Give me a break. Yet, that is what our culture is saying to us. In fact, there is something wrong with us if we don’t do it. Even better if we are already committed to someone else. If we don’t, we are “repressed” which is more scornful to this society than being a porn-addict. It has actually become a shameful thing to be a virgin. I remember well the uncomfortable feeling I had in the company of so-called friends because I was “innocent”. It was an unbearable embarrassment. These feelings come straight from the devil, and we have been only too happy to comply. So much the worse for us.

It is no different for married women. When there is contraception he is saying: I want your body for my own pleasure, but I don’t want your children. It is too much trouble. Who cares that you will have no one to take care of you in your old age after I go ten years before you do. Who cares what you want. I want to be able to eat out any day of the week, and drive my 30,000 dollar car more than I want a screaming, smelly, grubby kid ruining my life, eating into my bank account. That is what a man says to a woman when he forces her to contracept.

 

[Krystal]

Hi there-
In reply to the nice lady posting the question, I will pray for you. You indeed are “bearing your own cross” with this issue. I do hope that your family will feel our prayers for you. I wonder if you were taught through a certified NFP counselor, the way to use NFP? At the age of 39, with a husband that still struggles with welcoming any more blessings into our home, we took our NFP class and learned that, when used correctly, it is indeed 99% effective.

It is indeed such a shame that having a child, that one’s fertility is treated like a disease. Does anyone know anyone else that went to an OB/GYN (aside from an NFP only OB/GYN), and was sat down and given instructions on the beauty of GOD’S design for us and our bodies? Not I…the quick fix, the easy remedy is a little magic pill…that could just give you cancer as well as acting as an abortifacent. I mean, people DO get pregnant while on “the pill” right?

I do hope you find peace and really just wanted to let you know that we will pray for your husband and your family. This too was always a struggle, an “issue” within our marriage. I prayed, and prayed and prayed for my third child (who was actually our fourth but our first one could not stay in this earthly place with us as an infant, GOD rest her soul), I left intentions at every shrine or Cathedral I ever visited and remember telling my husband…“I guarantee you will never regret having another child…but I will always regret having you tell us that we cannot have another one.” I was pregnant within months! That was the Holy Spirit working through me as I am not as eloquent with my words! May you find…Peace in CHRIST-krystal

 

[carol_marie]

I left intentions at every shrine or Cathedral I ever visited and remember telling my husband**…“I guarantee you will never regret having another child…but I will always regret having you tell us that we cannot have another one.”** I was pregnant within months! That was the Holy Spirit working through me as I am not as eloquent with my words! May you find…Peace in CHRIST-krystal

Wow… Krystal, that is so true. My husband and I had similar conversations prior to babies 4 & 5. He fought me so much and now he’s finally pretty much accepted that God knows best. I think it’s because he loves the last two children so much… and I’d like to think it’s also the Holy Spirit working through him.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

A few thoughts of my own.

NFP can be astoundingly effective. After our last, we were adamant that we couldn’t take anymore.
Conservative practice of NFP got us through that. The joy is it is instantly reversible, now we are ready to let God bless us with another!

We have lost sight of what being a woman is-her beautiful gift of fertility is treated like a disease to be “cured” by pills and devices.

A friend of mine has recently discovered that her husband has been having an affair with an engaged woman. He was sterilised after their last child. I am not saying that all sterilised men will have an affair, but it certainly does not help with the temptation to have an affair, if there are no “consequences” to his actions.

Like Queen Anne 78 , I also fail to understand why sterilisation after several children is more acceptable than after none. If all children are inexpressably valuable, then it is equally wrong. This implies that children lose their value the later they are born into the family, and suggest number 1 is more of a miracle than number 10.

 

[cynic]

Cynic,

What an apt name. You are obviously a man. A woman mainly derives pleasure through the emotional aspects of the conjugal act. Any jerk could do what you propose. .

This might be true to some extent, but I think it’s also a bit of a croc because Christians want to view women as pure and without desire. It makes it simpler to view lust as a man problem. Also I think a lot of women get off on the idea that they only like their spouses on a platonic level. Perhaps it gives (very religiouse) women the impression that they have the uppre hand in the relationship, or perhaps they really feel nothing when they see thier husbands… it’s quite depressing …I certainly wouldn’t want to have anything to do with a wife if she felt absolutley no attraction towards me at all. It’s a rather gross idea that the ‘urges’ a totally unreciprocated, that women just lie their waiting the ‘the man’ to do his business…yuck

Anyway all I said was that if women feel used through the use of contraception because it avoids pregnancy, then why wouldn’t they feel used while using nfp?

 

[LittleDeb]

This might be true to some extent, but I think it’s also a bit of a croc because Christians want to view women as pure and without desire. It makes it simpler to view lust as a man problem. Also I think a lot of women get off on the idea that they only like their spouses on a platonic level. Perhaps it gives (very religiouse) women the impression that they have the uppre hand in the relationship, or perhaps they really feel nothing when they see thier husbands… it’s quite depressing …I certainly wouldn’t want to have anything to do with a wife if she felt absolutley no attraction towards me at all. It’s a rather gross idea that the ‘urges’ a totally unreciprocated, that women just lie their waiting the ‘the man’ to do his business…yuck

Anyway all I said was that if women feel used through the use of contraception because it avoids pregnancy, then why wouldn’t they feel used while using nfp?

I don’t even want to go here again, but oh well. The definition of marital relations and emotions of NFP users that is presented here is so wildly off the mark it is nearly laughable. Interchanging the definition of deep desire with one of lust is insulting to our husbands. Saying we have no desire for our husbands is insulting to us.

Women feel used through contraception because the act of marital relations is taking place while simultaneously rejecting our wonderful fertility. NFP has no such problem. If it is fertility one wishes to avoid, one does not use one’s spouse for pleasure alone and reject that part.

 

[mimontice]

Does anyone know anyone else that went to an OB/GYN (aside from an NFP only OB/GYN), and was sat down and given instructions on the beauty of GOD’S design for us and our bodies? Not I…

Me neither! Quite the opposite . . . when I told my doctor that I was using NFP he proceeded to tell me how “stupid” that was and how I was going to end up having a bunch of unwanted kids (as if all kids are unwanted). It was an interesting response because he was a Christian (though, not a Catholic). He had all sorts of “are you saved?” materials around his office and clearly had a great love of God. But, when I explained my reason for not using ABC (Church teaching, love and respect of God’s plan, etc.) he went crazy! I had to hear a whole speech that started with "You Catholics are crazy . . . ".

Needlesstosay, I stopped going to him after that.

 

[FillTheVoid]

So it’s immoral for a married couple to mutually consent to have relations for pleasure?

We’re not animals, sex doesn’t always have to be for pro creation.

NFP is fine with me, I just don’t see the difference between that and other contraceptives.

This should be a personal issue between the couple.

If someone told me face to face that having relations with my wife for please was a sin I would walk away very quickly. What is next honestly? You can’t cuddle with your spouse because you might want to have sex with her for pleasure?

 

[Scottgun]

NFP is fine with me, I just don’t see the difference between that and other contraceptives.

One more time!

The goodness or badness of an act must be evaluated according to 3 criteria:

1. The objective–this is the rightness or wrongness (or indifference) of an act in and of itself. (Examples: murder is objectively bad, almsgiving is objectively good.)
2. Subjective–this is the intent of the one doing the act (called the agent). Note that a good intention does not make an objectively evil act good, and that an evil intent can render a good act evil. (Such as giving alms in order to get people to think you are pious).
3. Relative–this is all the surrounding circumstances and the actual result of the act or the end achieved. These do not change the objective goodness or badness of the act in and of themselves.

Plugging the above in it becomes abundantly clear that NFP is NOT morally equivalent to ABC and that the Church’s teaching is entirely consistent.

NFP is not really an act, it’s information. Having marital relations is the act. So:

1. Objective–Abstaining from sex is in and of itself morally indifferent. Putting barriers between couples in the marital act or rendering the womb hostile to life with chemicals is objectively wrong. NFP passes gate #1. ABC does not, so it goes down right out of the chute. NFP passes, but is not quite out of the woods yet 'till we get to:
2. The subjective–as stated above, good intentions do not make objectively evil acts good. Here we can see that with an NFP-practicing couple, there is a possibility of evil intent which would render abstinence evil, but obviously it is hard for outsiders to say, because ta-da! it is subjective. (We can have a giant debate about what constitutes bad intent, but here I’m just dismantling the NFP=ABC canard.) Big red note: The intention to not have children in a particular fertile cycle by itself is not immoral.
3. The relative–and here is the cause of much the trouble regarding this teaching. We are living in the age of a widespread mental illness that denies the existence of #1 (objective right and wrongs), that everything is #2 and #3, and says the ends justify the means (consequentialism). So people look at the ends: ABC=no pregnancy, NFP=no pregnancy, and wrongly conclude they are morally equivalent.

So while one can find all kinds of complaints against this teaching, logical inconsistency should not be one of them.

 

[FillTheVoid]

Wow, this is increadibly overly scrupulous.

Who cares which tube it goes down? It is contraception accept it or make up excuses, that’s what it is. You are preventing your wife from getting pregnant …

What is next? Honestly is it a sin for your wife to dress attractively for you? Is it a sin to think your wife is beautiful? We are not animals, and we’re not robots. This is insanity.

You guys can have 5 kids that’s good for you. Personally I will choose when I want to have children and how many, for my child’s sake. I want to be able to provide for them and plan for their future and be able to adaquetly spend time with them.

This should be between the couple and God.

I don’t think the Pope or the Church is God. I’m sorry I guess I’m going to hell for wanting to enjoy my wife and choose when I want to have children so I can best provide for them.

Listen, NFP is purposefully having relations with your wife so that she does not get pregnant. If that is not contracepting I literally do not know what is, you’ll have to deal with that however you like. If you want to get scientific and scrupulous that’s alright man. Good for you for wanting to do the right thing and God bless you. I can’t live my life in fear over something so small as that.

 

[hasikelee]

Wow, this is increadibly overly scrupulous.

Who cares which tube it goes down? It is contraception accept it or make up excuses, that’s what it is. You are preventing your wife from getting pregnant …

What is next? Honestly is it a sin for your wife to dress attractively for you? Is it a sin to think your wife is beautiful? We are not animals, and we’re not robots. This is insanity.

You guys can have 5 kids that’s good for you. Personally I will choose when I want to have children and how many, for my child’s sake. I want to be able to provide for them and plan for their future and be able to adaquetly spend time with them.

This should be between the couple and God.

I don’t think the Pope or the Church is God. I’m sorry I guess I’m going to hell for wanting to enjoy my wife and choose when I want to have children so I can best provide for them.

Listen, NFP is purposefully having relations with your wife so that she does not get pregnant. If that is not contracepting I literally do not know what is, you’ll have to deal with that however you like. If you want to get scientific and scrupulous that’s alright man. Good for you for wanting to do the right thing and God bless you. I can’t live my life in fear over something so small as that.

If I do not eat food at certain periods of time, I have no food in me for digestion.

If I eat food, then shove my finger down my throat and vomit, I have no food in me for digestion.

Both prevent digestion of food. One is considered control and can be used to maximise health (such as choosing to eat at certain times and choosing to eat certain foods) the other is known by the medical and psychological community as a disease and mental illness.

I wonder if perhaps you keep mixing the two up due to not knowing the fundamental aspects of artificial contraception and abstinence? I mean, you weren’t having sex when you were typing out your post, right? So, aren’t you like violating your own argument?

The whole point is that it isn’t wrong for a couple to plan their family and to make sure their health, mental, spiritual and physical, is taken care of. The whole point is that some methods of control are horrendously wrong and inherently disordered.

Avoiding pregnancy is not really the big issue here (although for some inividuals that may be their issue).

 

[Scottgun]

Wow. Like I am invisible.

Scott

 

[FillTheVoid]

How am I violating my argument?

Please, explain to me why contraception is “evil”