Contraception question...again

[raikou]

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.

It’s not because it attempted to save her life that it is illicit. It’s because it interfered with sexuality that it became what it was not supposed to be. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think you maybe going to many directions to quickly thus missing the important parts.

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.

I am not sure you understand “open to life” in this context.

…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”,…

I am completely sure you do not understand “level of effectiveness, natural vs. unnatural means, or self-restraint”.

…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?

Well, you’re getting closer these women did not have to have 5 or 6 kids. They did have to share the responsibility of relations a shared responsibility with their husband. This concept have sharing responsibilities of marriage verses subverting the responsibility may go a long way to assist your understanding.

 

[raikou]

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.

Yes, NFP can also be immoral if it is done with the wrong intention. As noted, all three (the object, the intention, and circumstance) should be good for an action to be morally licit.

But the point of the argument is that NFP CAN be morally licit, while artificial contraception CANNOT.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Yes, NFP can also be immoral if it is done with the wrong intention. As noted, all three (the object, the intention, and circumstance) should be good for an action to be morally licit.

But the point of the argument is that NFP CAN be morally licit, while artificial contraception CANNOT.

If NFP is being done to unjustly reduce the normal responsibility of marriage it is immoral. When the marriage responsibility is being managed for examples; spacing children, postponing children for a couple of years, reducing family size to manageable levels, etc. Then the design of Nature can be used in a shared responsibility of the couple. Artificial means thwart the responsibility and thus change the relationship between the couple, they do not need cooperation SHE and SHE alone needs to prevent pregnancy regardless of circumstances.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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.

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.

But wouldn’t you consider spending money on the best thermometers, on the Clearblue Easy fertility monitor, taking hours and hours worth of classes, taking and charting your temperature every day, testing your fertility every day, checking cervical mucous every day, putting your hand inside your own body to check cervical position every day, and then avoiding sex not only on days of fertility, but on the 5 or 6 days on either side of that fertility to be pretty much an “ALL-OUT attempt” to avoid conception? It is certainly more of an effort to avoid conception than say, throwing on a condom in the heat of the moment and hoping it works?

So the illicitness cannot come from the level of effort put into it, or to the couple’s desire to avoid conception. The couple wearing a condom may in this case be MUCH more open to life than the couple using NFP, and yet STILL, the couple using a condom is going to Hell and the couple using NFP is right on track for Heaven.

So this can’t really be the argument either.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Says who?

One couple uses nature to manage natural processes. The other couple use artificial means to hold the male and male alone responsible, but how does that work out if he fails?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

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”.

I believe that the Church must mean something different with intention than what you mean by intend in the normal sense. It must mean the intentionality of the act that you are performing. For example you’re performing this or that action on purpose vs. you are performing this or that action with the further intention of accomplishing an end. Contraception is wrong because of the intentionality of the act - the kind of act that you are performing - and not because of any further good intentions such as avoiding a pregnancy for health reasons.

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.

You’re right it has nothing to do with effectiveness. Although I would say that NFP is not effective. And I mean by that the same thing as when I say diet and exercise are not an effective way to permanently lose weight.

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.

I’m sorry I don’t follow.

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.

It is because it is unnatural in the sense that it goes against natural law.

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?

I don’t suppose you would be happy with, because the Church sez?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But wouldn’t you consider spending money on the best thermometers, on the Clearblue Easy fertility monitor, taking hours and hours worth of classes, taking and charting your temperature every day, testing your fertility every day, checking cervical mucous every day, putting your hand inside your own body to check cervical position every day, and then avoiding sex not only on days of fertility, but on the 5 or 6 days on either side of that fertility to be pretty much an “ALL-OUT attempt” to avoid conception? It is certainly more of an effort to avoid conception than say, throwing on a condom in the heat of the moment and hoping it works?

So the illicitness cannot come from the level of effort put into it, or to the couple’s desire to avoid conception. The couple wearing a condom may in this case be MUCH more open to life than the couple using NFP, and yet STILL, the couple using a condom is going to Hell and the couple using NFP is right on track for Heaven.

So this can’t really be the argument either.

For your first paragraph…you seemed to combine all the different methods of NFP . Not all women take all those steps. Also knowledge of how one’s body works is only knowledge. A single chaste woman could practice fertility awareness for the sole reason of understanding her body, knowing what day she should expect her period, noticing symptoms of hormonal imballance, etc.

There is nothing wrong with:

1. knowing how the body functions
2. avoiding intercourse
3. having intercourse on infertile days

 

[samiam1611]

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

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.

“The language of the body that is meant to express self-gift becomes mixed with another message, a contrary message—namely, the refusal to give oneself entirely”

Can I interject with a question? I mentioned this in my very first post but it was never answered to my satisfaction and y’all seem to to know your stuff. With regards to the red statements in particular:
Having sex while on birth control - I would be giving myself to my spouse - self-giving - out of love, for the unitive purpose any time I want or he wants.
I understand (well sorta) that having sex while on birth control is not giving oneself entirely, it’s the unitive without the procreative purposes, etc, and why that’s wrong. But I don’t understand how abstaining - and not just from sex, but from all sexually pleasing acts - is better. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this and I still don’t get it.

I don’t see how denying my partner the gift of my body because it is a fertile time of my cycle is preferable to using contraception. Isn’t **better to give MOST of myself than NONE of myself? **It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely!

 

[manualman]

(Edited)

Let me guess, you saw a CNN story or read an AP article, but never looked at the whole, unedited version of the pope’s comments, right? Sigh.

The pope made a statement that when, for example, a male prostitute recognizes the harm inherent to what he is doing and decides to use condoms as a means of reducing the risk of spreading disease, he is taking the “FIRST STEP” towards morality. Let’s examine a similar case, but with larger sinful outcomes:

A sadistic monster gets his kicks by picking up prostitutes, taking them somewhere remote and savagely beating them to death. One day, he proceeds as usual and just as he starts the beating, something about his victim touches his humanity. He sees her as a human being and not a thing. His compulsive rage is such that he still beats here, but stops short of killing because of that stirring of his conscience. This man, TOO, has experienced the FIRST step towards morality. Something about his victim made him confront the reality of what he was doing and he didn’t like what he saw enough to make a change! now only a complete dolt would read what I just said and summarize it by saying that I claimed that it is morally acceptable to savagely beat prostitutes as long as you don’t kill them… (Who ARE they hiring to cover religion these days?)

As to your first statement, the contrary is trivial to prove. Contraception is about being in control and having it your way. NFP is about yielding control and giving up what you want when there is something greater in the balance. People want to call them equivalent precisely BECAUSE they are nothing of the sort: people REALLY want to use ABC and desperately don’t want to be reliant on NFP. Strange scenario for two things allegedly the same…

 

[feargalmac]

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.

Sorry, but the pill is not o.k. either!

 

[Thoughtfulone]

So, thus far we have ruled out the following as reasons for NFP’s licitness vs. ABC’s:

1.) Natural vs. Unnatural means (gastric bypass, weight loss drugs, plastic surgery, ABC/sterilization ALL interfere with the proper way the body SHOULD and DOES function, but only ABC is illicit among these)

2.) Reliability/effectiveness (NFP is MORE effective than condoms and AS effective as sterilization supposedly, at 99%, yet NFP is licit and condoms and sterilization are not).

3.) Intent ( In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI declared that the intentions of couples using ABC and NFP may BOTH have the exact same intentions, and that BOTH intentions can be good, however, NFP is licit and ABC/sterilization is not)

4.) Openness to life (It is quite possible for a couple using ABC/sterilization to be just as open to loving a child resulting from a failure of their chosen method as the couple using NFP. A couple using condoms may actually be MORE open to life than a couple using NFP, and vice-versa, yet NFP is licit and ABC/sterilization is not)

5.) Restraint (whether a couple restrains or is willing to restrain from having sex during fertile periods does not make one form of birth control more licit than the next, as a couple who is serious about not conceiving may be perfectly willing to restrain from having sex during fertile periods but still want to use a condom during “non-fertile” times to decrease the chances of pregnancy even further).

6.) Effort put into the method (How much effort a couple puts into a given method has nothing to do with whether a method is licit or illicit, as NFP can and often does take MUCH more effort/time/expense than other illicit methods)

7.) Unity/the giving of self (Unity cannot be the reason that one is licit and another is illicit because a person having sex using NFP who has 8 kids could be all but incapable of engaging in the unitive aspect of sex because of worry and/or lack of enjoyment caused by the fear of becoming pregnant, and yet, the Church does not consider sex under these circumstances to be illicit even though the “unity” aspect has been severely compromised)

8.) Shared responsibility (the idea that Condoms and/or sterilization unfairly put the onus of contraception on one person in the relationship is not a reason why one method is licit and another is not, because with NFP, the onus is almost ENTIRELY on the shoulders of the woman and the man has very little involvement, aside from generally being apprised of the situation and possibly fetching a thermometer now and again).

Keep in mind of course, I am not referring here to any method that acts as an abortaficient, which of course is always wrong.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So, thus far we have ruled out the following as reasons for NFP’s licitness vs. ABC’s:

1.) Natural vs. Unnatural means (gastric bypass, weight loss drugs, plastic surgery, ABC/sterilization ALL interfere with the proper way the body SHOULD and DOES function, but only ABC is illicit among these)

2.) Reliability/effectiveness (NFP is MORE effective than condoms and AS effective as sterilization supposedly, at 99%, yet NFP is licit and condoms and sterilization are not).

3.) Intent ( In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI declared that the intentions of couples using ABC and NFP may BOTH have the exact same intentions, and that BOTH intentions can be good, however, NFP is licit and ABC/sterilization is not)

4.) Openness to life (It is quite possible for a couple using ABC/sterilization to be just as open to loving a child resulting from a failure of their chosen method as the couple using NFP. A couple using condoms may actually be MORE open to life than a couple using NFP, and vice-versa, yet NFP is licit and ABC/sterilization is not)

5.) Restraint (whether a couple restrains or is willing to restrain from having sex during fertile periods does not make one form of birth control more licit than the next, as a couple who is serious about not conceiving may be perfectly willing to restrain from having sex during fertile periods but still want to use a condom during “non-fertile” times to decrease the chances of pregnancy even further).

6.) Effort put into the method (How much effort a couple puts into a given method has nothing to do with whether a method is licit or illicit, as NFP can and often does take MUCH more effort/time/expense than other illicit methods)

7.) Unity/the giving of self (Unity cannot be the reason that one is licit and another is illicit because a person having sex using NFP who has 8 kids could be all but incapable of engaging in the unitive aspect of sex because of worry and/or lack of enjoyment caused by the fear of becoming pregnant, and yet, the Church does not consider sex under these circumstances to be illicit even though the “unity” aspect has been severely compromised)

8.) Shared responsibility (the idea that Condoms and/or sterilization unfairly put the onus of contraception on one person in the relationship is not a reason why one method is licit and another is not, because with NFP, the onus is almost ENTIRELY on the shoulders of the woman and the man has very little involvement, aside from generally being apprised of the situation and possibly fetching a thermometer now and again).

Keep in mind of course, I am not referring here to any method that acts as an abortaficient, which of course is always wrong.

If the couple is using a condom, “when in doubt” then they are not using restraint and self control, are they?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

If the couple is using a condom, “when in doubt” then they are not using restraint and self control, are they?

Of course they are. They wait, do not have sex during the fertile times or during the days leading up to and following those times, but they use a condom the rest of the time in addition to NFP. How is that not practicing restraint?

 

[davidv]

If the couple is using a condom, “when in doubt” then they are not using restraint and self control, are they?

Why are you having such a harding time understanding the difference? The differences are plainly expessed several Church documents. What you wrote above does not come close to describing the moral difference.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So, thus far we have ruled out the following as reasons for NFP’s licitness vs. ABC’s:

1.) Natural vs. Unnatural means (gastric bypass, weight loss drugs, plastic surgery, ABC/sterilization ALL interfere with the proper way the body SHOULD and DOES function, but only ABC is illicit among these)

2.) Reliability/effectiveness (NFP is MORE effective than condoms and AS effective as sterilization supposedly, at 99%, yet NFP is licit and condoms and sterilization are not).

3.) Intent ( In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI declared that the intentions of couples using ABC and NFP may BOTH have the exact same intentions, and that BOTH intentions can be good, however, NFP is licit and ABC/sterilization is not)

4.) Openness to life (It is quite possible for a couple using ABC/sterilization to be just as open to loving a child resulting from a failure of their chosen method as the couple using NFP. A couple using condoms may actually be MORE open to life than a couple using NFP, and vice-versa, yet NFP is licit and ABC/sterilization is not)

5.) Restraint (whether a couple restrains or is willing to restrain from having sex during fertile periods does not make one form of birth control more licit than the next, as a couple who is serious about not conceiving may be perfectly willing to restrain from having sex during fertile periods but still want to use a condom during “non-fertile” times to decrease the chances of pregnancy even further).

6.) Effort put into the method (How much effort a couple puts into a given method has nothing to do with whether a method is licit or illicit, as NFP can and often does take MUCH more effort/time/expense than other illicit methods)

7.) Unity/the giving of self (Unity cannot be the reason that one is licit and another is illicit because a person having sex using NFP who has 8 kids could be all but incapable of engaging in the unitive aspect of sex because of worry and/or lack of enjoyment caused by the fear of becoming pregnant, and yet, the Church does not consider sex under these circumstances to be illicit even though the “unity” aspect has been severely compromised)

8.) Shared responsibility (the idea that Condoms and/or sterilization unfairly put the onus of contraception on one person in the relationship is not a reason why one method is licit and another is not, because with NFP, the onus is almost ENTIRELY on the shoulders of the woman and the man has very little involvement, aside from generally being apprised of the situation and possibly fetching a thermometer now and again).

Keep in mind of course, I am not referring here to any method that acts as an abortaficient, which of course is always wrong.

Who is we?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Of course they are. They wait, do not have sex during the fertile times or during the days leading up to and following those times, but they use a condom the rest of the time in addition to NFP. How is that not practicing restraint?

Because they are doubtful of fertility, and having sex with a condom.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Why are you having such a harding time understanding the difference? The differences are plainly expessed several Church documents. What you wrote above does not come close to describing the moral difference.

I think you might have quoted me in error…I’m in 100% submission to the Church on this.

 

[samiam1611]

So, thus far we have ruled out the following as reasons for NFP’s licitness vs. ABC’s:

1.) Natural vs. Unnatural means (gastric bypass, weight loss drugs, plastic surgery, ABC/sterilization ALL interfere with the proper way the body SHOULD and DOES function, but only ABC is illicit among these)

2.) Reliability/effectiveness (NFP is MORE effective than condoms and AS effective as sterilization supposedly, at 99%, yet NFP is licit and condoms and sterilization are not).

3.) Intent ( In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI declared that the intentions of couples using ABC and NFP may BOTH have the exact same intentions, and that BOTH intentions can be good, however, NFP is licit and ABC/sterilization is not)

4.) Openness to life (It is quite possible for a couple using ABC/sterilization to be just as open to loving a child resulting from a failure of their chosen method as the couple using NFP. A couple using condoms may actually be MORE open to life than a couple using NFP, and vice-versa, yet NFP is licit and ABC/sterilization is not)

5.) Restraint (whether a couple restrains or is willing to restrain from having sex during fertile periods does not make one form of birth control more licit than the next, as a couple who is serious about not conceiving may be perfectly willing to restrain from having sex during fertile periods but still want to use a condom during “non-fertile” times to decrease the chances of pregnancy even further).

6.) Effort put into the method (How much effort a couple puts into a given method has nothing to do with whether a method is licit or illicit, as NFP can and often does take MUCH more effort/time/expense than other illicit methods)

7.) Unity/the giving of self (Unity cannot be the reason that one is licit and another is illicit because a person having sex using NFP who has 8 kids could be all but incapable of engaging in the unitive aspect of sex because of worry and/or lack of enjoyment caused by the fear of becoming pregnant, and yet, the Church does not consider sex under these circumstances to be illicit even though the “unity” aspect has been severely compromised)

8.) Shared responsibility (the idea that Condoms and/or sterilization unfairly put the onus of contraception on one person in the relationship is not a reason why one method is licit and another is not, because with NFP, the onus is almost ENTIRELY on the shoulders of the woman and the man has very little involvement, aside from generally being apprised of the situation and possibly fetching a thermometer now and again).

Keep in mind of course, I am not referring here to any method that acts as an abortaficient, which of course is always wrong.

These all seems like valid points to me! Anyone feel like answering my question by any chance? (Post # 39 )

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Because they are doubtful of fertility, and having sex with a condom.

They are abstaining for the same amount of days as anyone using NFP alone.