Contraception question...again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thoughtfulone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thoughtfulone

Guest
I have heard that the main reason that NFP is o.k. and ABC (not the Pill, but condoms, sterilization, etc.) is not is because NFP is natural and works with the body’s God-given natural systems.

O.K. But when you tell them that we use all sorts of unnatural things in medicine in order to make the body work the way we want (heart valves, medicine, etc.) they tell you that you are merely using these things to make the body work the way God originally intended, not thwarting a system of the body that is otherwise working normally in order to avoid children. NFP is a natural way of working WITH the body to achieve the desired result (namely, NOT becoming pregnant).

O.K., but there are artificial medical procedures and medicines that DO interrupt the way the body works (and SHOULD work) normally in order to achieve the desired results, and as far as I know, they are not sinful. Just a couple of examples of this would be gastric bypass surgery or lap-band implantation for weight loss (which causes a digestive system that functions normally to function abnormally by restricting the amount that a person is able to eat), or weight loss pills like ALLI (which cause the body to absorb less fat than normal). Even voluntary plastic surgery, while possibly frowned upon, is not considered to be a sin under normal circumstances (i.e., having a procedure on something that really bothers a person, such as their teeth).

So if the argument against non-abortive birth control methods is that they interfere with a normally perfectly functioning body to achieve results, whereas NFP is working WITH a God-given healthy body to achieve results, then why are the aforementioned medications/procedures considered licit?
 
Very good post. I think you already know this answer though. The church will say anything and justify anything as long as it serves their best interest. Do what’s in your best interest, not some priest trying to increase numbers.
 
Well such is NOT why NFP is moral to practice to avoid (for serious reasons) a new conception and contraception is not.

Go read Professor Janet Smith on this.

It is NOT because the one is natural and the other is not.

It is NOT because NFP does not interfere a body process per se (heck if interfering with all body processes was wrong we could never take an advil etc)

Such is a misunderstanding.
 
With eating we are supposed to have self restraint…or else we eat too much or too much of the wrong things.

So gastric bypass works be creating a smaller stomach and less appetite, the patient then eats less. It doesn’t work in a way that the patient can go eat all they want, and not gain weight.

The gastric bypass is forcing self restraint, because if the patient overeats it could cause discomfort or illness.

So a gastric bypass =/= ABC.
 
Bookcat said:
Well such is NOT why NFP is moral to practice to avoid (for serious reasons) a new conception and contraception is not.

Go read Professor Janet Smith on this.

It is NOT because the one is natural and the other is not.

It is NOT because NFP does not interfere with the way ones body is supposed to work.

Such is a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
Then what is it?

1.) It is certainly not intent, because intent is the same-to NOT have children (even Paul VI recognized that in both NFP and ABC, intent can be the same, but that one is licit and the other is not. I can tell you personally, that whether using ABC or NFP, my intent is the same - “I hope I don’t get pregnant, but if I do, I will accept and love any child that comes to me from God”.

2.) It is certainly not effectiveness, because NFP is MORE effective than condoms and AS effective as sterilization (99%) when used properly and NFP is licit.

3.) It is not about RESTRAINT, because there are many couples for whom NFP is less effective because of certain medical issues, who want to abstain during fertile periods, but use condoms and try to use NFP to the best of their ability during what they judge to be their “infertile” periods, and this is not licit.

4.) And, as we can see above, it is NOT because one is unnatural and works against the body and the other does not, because there are unnatural procedures that work against the body and are licit.

So if it is not INTENT, if it is not EFFECTIVENESS, and if it is not a matter of NATURAL vs. UNNATURAL, if it is not RESTRAINT, then what pray tell is the reason that NFP is a licit form of birth control?
 
Exactly. NFP can easily be proven as the same as condoms because they both share the same intention. Even the Pope has come around on this.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
With eating we are supposed to have self restraint…or else we eat too much or too much of the wrong things.

So gastric bypass works be creating a smaller stomach and less appetite, the patient then eats less. It doesn’t work in a way that the patient can go eat all they want, and not gain weight.

The gastric bypass is forcing self restraint, because if the patient overeats it could cause discomfort or illness.

So a gastric bypass =/= ABC.
Click to expand...
It is not about restraint, because even people who are absolutely WILLING and who WANT to use NFP but cannot for various reasons are not permitted to use it. Even a couple who wants to use NFP with condoms to increase effectiveness and will abstain during fertile periods is not permitted to do so, so it has nothing to do with self-restraint per se.
 
Bookcat said:
  1. No…they are not. (though one could have a bad intention in using NFP)
  2. Then you have been reading news media that did not read well the interview book with the Pope in question …it is clear that the Pope does hold what you think. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20101221_luce-del-mondo_en.html
Click to expand...
No, sorry -

" In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.*** It cannot be denied* that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.**"
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Then what is it?

1.) It is certainly not intent, because intent is the same-to NOT have children (even Paul VI recognized that in both NFP and ABC, intent can be the same, but that one is licit and the other is not. I can tell you personally, that whether using ABC or NFP, my intent is the same - “I hope I don’t get pregnant, but if I do, I will accept and love any child that comes to me from God”.

It is certainly not effectiveness, because NFP is MORE effective than condoms and AS effective as sterilization (99%) when used properly and NFP is licit.

And, as we can see above, it is NOT because one is unnatural and works against the body and the other does not, because there are unnatural procedures that work against the body and are licit.

So if it is not INTENT, if it is not EFFECTIVENESS, and if it is not a matter of NATURAL vs. UNNATURAL, then what pray tell is the reason that NFP is a licit form of birth control?
Click to expand...
For one thing contraception is contrary to the very nature of the marital act. NFP is not …

I do not have the time to get into a long discussion here. I refer you to Professor Smiths article and others…there are boat loads out there that articulate the details.

I posted one above.
 
Thoughtfulone said:
No, sorry -

" In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.*** It cannot be denied*** that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result."

This is a quote from Humanae Vitae, NOT an interview.
Click to expand...
I did not say I was quoting the interview…it is a quote from the official document from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which goes into detail regarding the misunderstandings of the media in regards to that interview.
 
Thoughtfulone said:
No, sorry -

" In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.*** It cannot be denied*** that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result."
Click to expand...
Oh I see what you were saying here…(sorry)

Told ya I can’t do long discussions here…and I was reading quickly…for I have to be about other things…

I was referring to things…1. the fact tha NFP and Contraception are simply not the same. And 2. that Pope Benedict was not saying it was ok to use contraception etc…that intention made it fine…

But yes if your looking at “avoiding a new conception” yes of course the intention to do so can be the same with both.

Just as my intention to be the president of a company can be the same as that of Joe. But still our means are totally different. Joe works hard and seeks be worthy of the job…and I as the vice president …poison the coffee of the president so I can take his place.

Anyhoo…got to run…
 
Let the Catechism of the Catholic Church answer:

"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.157 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:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the** total reciprocal self-giving** of husband and wife** is overlaid, through contraception**, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality… the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality." vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

So there.

We know that the morality of acts lie in the 1) object chosen 2) intention and 3) the circumstances. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM For an action to be moral, all three should not be evil.

The difference lies in the object chosen.

While both NFP and contraception may be licit in intention when they intend to prevent a grave evil, only NFP can remain objectively compatible with the true identity/purpose of human sexuality: that it should involve 1) “**total **mutual self giving between spouses” and it should remain 2) open to life.

In NFP, the spouses still objectively give themselves fully to one another as they are during the sexual act because there is no attempt to DECREASE one’s fertility, unlike in contraception.

In NFP, the spouses can still be objectively open to life. While they intend not to have children for grave reasons, they only desire it insofar as the the natural properties of fertility and sex allow it. In the end, they respect the fact that their intention not to have a child is to be LIMITED by the natural properties which God endowed in sexuality. They respect the possibility that this sexual act can still bring forth life according to its own properties. In contraception, one is objectively closed to life/without respect to the procreative purpose of sexuality because there is a positive attempt to decrease one’s fertility or render procreation impossible.
 
O.K., but there are artificial medical procedures and medicines that DO interrupt the way the body works (and SHOULD work) normally in order to achieve the desired results, and as far as I know, they are not sinful. Just a couple of examples of this would be gastric bypass surgery or lap-band implantation for weight loss (which causes a digestive system that functions normally to function abnormally by restricting the amount that a person is able to eat), or weight loss pills like ALLI (which cause the body to absorb less fat than normal). Even voluntary plastic surgery, while possibly frowned upon, is not considered to be a sin under normal circumstances (i.e., having a procedure on something that really bothers a person, such as their teeth).
Click to expand...
If you think about it, these interferences also work so that the body should become WHAT IT SHOULD BE. The gastric bypass surgery or weight loss pills work so that one may not become OBESE. A plastic surgery can be done to correct an “aesthetic evil,” so to speak.

However, contraception works against the body’s natural systems in order that sexuality may NOT become what it should be: a bond of total mutual self-giving between spouses and a process which is open to life.
 
I think as I said before, that a person can absolutely be open to life when using contraception. Whether one uses natural or unnatural means to avoid conception has nothing to do with that. In either case, a couple can be perfectly willing to accept and love any resulting child. Again, the use of unnatural means does not necessarily change this mindset in the slightest.
In NFP, the spouses still objectively give themselves fully to one another as they are during the sexual act because there is no attempt to DECREASE one’s fertility, unlike in contraception.
Click to expand...
But we have already established above that ABC cannot be illicit simply based on intent to avoid conception, level of effectiveness, natural vs. unnatural means, or self-restraint. So what makes it illicit then? It cannot be this idea of “total self-giving”, because I know of women with 5 or 6 kids who can think of NOTHING during sex but “Dear God PLEASE don’t let me get pregnant again!” My grandmother HATED sex for this very reason, and yet the Church would tell her to go right ahead. There is no giving of self when one’s whole mind and spirit are devoted to hoping against hope that one does not conceive…it’s just impossible. So clearly, this is not a valid reason why NFP is licit and ABC is not. Unless by “self-giving” the Church means that you just lay there physically with your mind in torment but it’s o.k. because at least the sperm are going in the right place?
 
Thoughtfulone said:
I have heard that the main reason that NFP is o.k. and ABC (not the Pill, but condoms, sterilization, etc.) is not is because NFP is natural and works with the body’s God-given natural systems.

O.K. But when you tell them that we use all sorts of unnatural things in medicine in order to make the body work the way we want (heart valves, medicine, etc.) they tell you that you are merely using these things to make the body work the way God originally intended, not thwarting a system of the body that is otherwise working normally in order to avoid children. NFP is a natural way of working WITH the body to achieve the desired result (namely, NOT becoming pregnant).

O.K., but there are artificial medical procedures and medicines that DO interrupt the way the body works (and SHOULD work) normally in order to achieve the desired results, and as far as I know, they are not sinful. t?
Click to expand...
these medical therapies to treat other conditions do not interfere with God’s plan through nature for reproduction, nor with the unitive aspects of marriage, so they are not on the same plane as ABC methods.
 
raikou said:
If you think about it, these interferences also work so that the body should become WHAT IT SHOULD BE. The gastric bypass surgery or weight loss pills work so that one may not become OBESE. A plastic surgery can be done to correct an “aesthetic evil,” so to speak.

However, contraception works against the body’s natural systems in order that sexuality may NOT become what it should be: a bond of total mutual self-giving between spouses and a process which is open to life.
Click to expand...
By this argument, a person who has had 5 c-sections could use birth control so that they don’t conceive and their uterus doesn’t rupture and kill them, just as a person who is overweight would take Alli so they don’t eat (even a normal amount) and become obese, which can kill them, but we all know that the former is illicit.

And an aesthetic evil? Huge stretch…We’re not talking cleft palates here, but crooked teeth, large noses, etc.
 
puzzleannie said:
these medical therapies to treat other conditions do not interfere with God’s plan through nature for reproduction, nor with the unitive aspects of marriage, so they are not on the same plane as ABC methods.
Click to expand...
I think we established above that with NFP there can often be NO unitive aspect to sex at all if one is spending the entire time terrified of pregnancy.

And no, those medical therapies don’t interfere with God’s plan for reproduction, but they absolutely DO interfere with God’s plan for digestion or with God’s plan for the way He made you to look. Why can we interfere with one and not the other? What is the argument here?
 
Thoughtfulone said:
I think as I said before, that a person can absolutely be open to life when using contraception. Whether one uses natural or unnatural means to avoid conception has nothing to do with that. In either case, a couple can be perfectly willing to accept and love any resulting child. Again, the use of unnatural means does not necessarily change this mindset in the slightest.
Click to expand...
I think the CCC means “open to life” in the sense that the couple ultimately respects that life can result from that sexual act, hence, one should not interfere to impede one’s fertility in the sexual act. This is different from"open to life," meaning *accepting or loving a child because it’s there already and we can’t change what’s happened.
*
Also note that your example argues purely in the level of the intention. If we examine the object chosen, the couple is not open to life by decreasing their fertility/blocking life from fruition. There are a lot of times when one intends one thing and objectively does a contrary thing, and contraception is one of them.
Thoughtfulone said:
But we have already established above that ABC cannot be illicit simply based on intent to avoid conception, level of effectiveness, natural vs. unnatural means, or self-restraint. So what makes it illicit then? It cannot be this idea of “total self-giving”, because I know of women with 5 or 6 kids who can think of NOTHING during sex but “Dear God PLEASE don’t let me get pregnant again!” My grandmother HATED sex for this very reason, and yet the Church would tell her to go right ahead. There is no giving of self when one’s whole mind and spirit are devoted to hoping against hope that one does not conceive…it’s just impossible. So clearly, this is not a valid reason why NFP is licit and ABC is not. Unless by “self-giving” the Church means that you just lay there physically with your mind in torment but it’s o.k. because at least the sperm are going in the right place?
Click to expand...
I think it is “total self-giving” in the sense that “I give to you as I am now.” An intention which is totally and absolutely closed to life is also wrong and will make NFP wrong. When Pope Paul VI said that NFP couples also “wish to make sure that (no child) would result,” that is only*** insofar** as the natural capacities of the couple permit it*. NFP practicing couples therefore in the end CAN be not closed to life by intention because it has limits. In artificial contraception, there is objectively an ALL-OUT attempt to barricade life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top