Contraception question...again

[Thoughtfulone]

The “WHY” has been explained to you a number of times on other threads. Are you sure you want to understand? Through all of theses discussions the Church’s official teaching has not changed, and most of the inconsistency you see is due to your misunderstanding of individuals emphasizing specific aspects of these teachings.

If you truely want to understand I strong suggest you read Pope John Paul II’s book, Male and Female He Created Them.

How is the special circumstance above any different the a women, who due to accident or injury is no longer able to enjoy the marital embrace? We all have our cross to bear.

It is one thing if you are not ABLE to enjoy the marital embrace. I honestly don’t believe that God requires abstinence or death as an either/or scenario for someone who will die if they have children when it is a problem that is so easily remedied by medical science.

Of course I want to understand this. But the answer ALWAYS comes down to “Because the Church says so”, something I find hard to swallow.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’m sorry, I just don’t get this. “Withholding my fertility”? What? By showering am I “withholding my scent”? This doesn’t make any logical sense.

Why would a couple approach each other when the wife is fertile if they don’t want kids?

 

[samiam1611]

Why would a couple approach each other when the wife is fertile if they don’t want kids?

Ummm…bc they want to have sex?

 

[davidv]

It is one thing if you are not ABLE to enjoy the marital embrace. I honestly don’t believe that God requires abstinence or death as an either/or scenario for someone who will die if they have children when it is a problem that is so easily remedied by medical science.

Of course I want to understand this. But the answer ALWAYS comes down to “Because the Church says so”, something I find hard to swallow.

If you think all you have heard is “Because the Church says so”, I have a hard time believing you when you say you want to understand. So much more than that has been offered for your consideration. However, given what you “honestly don’t believe”, its not surprising that it has been rejected it out of hand.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Why would a couple approach each other when the wife is fertile if they don’t want kids?

Some people can’t tell when they are fertile and when they are not, especially those with health issues. It’s not like a bell goes off.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

If you think all you have heard is “Because the Church says so”, I have a hard time believing you when you say you want to understand. So much more than that has been offered for your consideration. However, given what you “honestly don’t believe”, its not surprising that it has been rejected it out of hand.

Out of hand? No-one has been able to refute successfully any of the 8 points I brought up earlier as reasons given for the validity of NFP vs.ABC.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why every single act must be open to conception, and why NFP is a licit form of birth control while other methods are not.

Hey, thank goodness my husband likes hot-tubbing as much as he does…that helps things a bit

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Thoughtfulone,

Here is another angle. I don’t pretend to be an expert here, so hopefully I don’t end up spouting any heresies!

My understanding is that the opposition to ABC is due to a natural law argument. Natural law is a philosophical concept, and is tied up with the idea of Aquinas’ (and Aristotles before him) four causes. The idea is that every change involves four types of causality, one of these being what’s called “final” causality. A final cause is the end towards a certain change is directed. For instance, the final cause of an acorn is an oak tree. If something obstructs the flourishing of an acorn into an oak tree, then something has gone wrong. Without this concept of a final cause, it is very difficult to talk about things going wrong, or being bad, deficient etc.

Now, God, in his infinite wisdom has written this natural law (i.e. these final causes) into the world and any obstruction of them is a form of imperfection. Because we live in a fallen world, these imperfections abound. We can examine the workings of the world to try and deduce these final causes and therefore God’s natural law, his Will for the world.

That brings us to morality. We have two sources of moral law, the natural law and revelation. Where-ever the natural law deduced by ourselves contradicts the moral law revealed in revelation, we are to defer to the latter. For instance, from natural law, we know it is wrong to injure someone, as this impedes the final cause (or end) of a part of their body. We know it is wrong to tell a lie, because the end of our communicative faculties is to reveal what we think about this or that, and to tell a lie is to purposely not reveal what we actually think and therefore we obstruct the end of our faculties. There is a massive volume of literature about natural law, and I would refer you to that for a more complete (and no doubt more accurate) explanation.

Finally, this brings us to sexuality. It is clear that one of the natural ends of intercourse is the creation of new life. It is also clear that, by examining the effects of loving intercourse on a couple, it deepens and strengthens their relationship. Via natural law, it is objectively wrong to “mess with” either of these two ends to sexual intercourse, in the same way it is objectively wrong to injure someone because it “messes with” their normal bodily functions.

I have to stop here for the time being, but hopefully that will help a little. I can expand further regarding the natural law theory with respect to medicines etc.

May God truly and deeply bless you.

 

[davidv]

Out of hand? No-one has been able to refute successfully any of the 8 points I brought up earlier as reasons given for the validity of NFP vs.ABC.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why every single act must be open to conception, and why NFP is a licit form of birth control while other methods are not.

Hey, thank goodness my husband likes hot-tubbing as much as he does…that helps things a bit

Your 8 points are a strawman of the Church’s position and do not need to be refuted.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Your 8 points are a strawman of the Church’s position and do not need to be refuted.

Not true. These are the arguments I get when asked why the Church teaches against ABC and I have refuted them all. So again, WHY is ABC wrong and NFP o.k.?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Hi Thoughtfulone,

Here is another angle. I don’t pretend to be an expert here, so hopefully I don’t end up spouting any heresies!

My understanding is that the opposition to ABC is due to a natural law argument. Natural law is a philosophical concept, and is tied up with the idea of Aquinas’ (and Aristotles before him) four causes. The idea is that every change involves four types of causality, one of these being what’s called “final” causality. A final cause is the end towards a certain change is directed. For instance, the final cause of an acorn is an oak tree. If something obstructs the flourishing of an acorn into an oak tree, then something has gone wrong. Without this concept of a final cause, it is very difficult to talk about things going wrong, or being bad, deficient etc.

Now, God, in his infinite wisdom has written this natural law (i.e. these final causes) into the world and any obstruction of them is a form of imperfection. Because we live in a fallen world, these imperfections abound. We can examine the workings of the world to try and deduce these final causes and therefore God’s natural law, his Will for the world.

That brings us to morality. We have two sources of moral law, the natural law and revelation. Where-ever the natural law deduced by ourselves contradicts the moral law revealed in revelation, we are to defer to the latter. For instance, from natural law, we know it is wrong to injure someone, as this impedes the final cause (or end) of a part of their body. We know it is wrong to tell a lie, because the end of our communicative faculties is to reveal what we think about this or that, and to tell a lie is to purposely not reveal what we actually think and therefore we obstruct the end of our faculties. There is a massive volume of literature about natural law, and I would refer you to that for a more complete (and no doubt more accurate) explanation.

Finally, this brings us to sexuality. It is clear that one of the natural ends of intercourse is the creation of new life. It is also clear that, by examining the effects of loving intercourse on a couple, it deepens and strengthens their relationship. Via natural law, it is objectively wrong to “mess with” either of these two ends to sexual intercourse, in the same way it is objectively wrong to injure someone because it “messes with” their normal bodily functions.

I have to stop here for the time being, but hopefully that will help a little. I can expand further regarding the natural law theory with respect to medicines etc.

May God truly and deeply bless you.

Thanks! I need to think about this. I mean, wouldn’t it be against natural law to let a doctor cut off a piece of your face with a knife as in rhinoplasty, or to cut off your nipples and cram a pouch full of silicone into your chest? Is everything that goes against Natural Law a mortal sin? I always found the Natural Law argument to be tenuous, but I should probably read more about it before discounting it altogether. May God bless you as well

 

[raikou]

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.

There’s a misunderstanding. It’s not the effort itself, but where the effort is directed.

In NFP, the effort is directed towards OBSERVING when the nature of sex allows that one may not conceive a child. There is no effort whatsoever to decrease one’s capacity to give life. One’s fertility remains in accord with one’s nature. While the couple may in fact be hoping that one may not conceive, they only hope this PROVIDED THAT nature allows it. Their intention is limited by and ultimately submitted to the provisions of the natural properties of the sexual act. This reveals a certain objective openness to life.

In contraception, the effort is directed towards RENDERING one to be infertile. One deliberately places barriers or prevents ovulation so that no life may be transmitted. Hence, anyone practicing contraception may ONLY CLAIM to be “open to the possibility that life can also result from this marital act,” but in actuality, the couple is objectively not open to life. This is ALL-OUT, in the sense that there is no respect whatsoever to the nature of sexuality because one ACTIVELY ALTERS AND DIMINISHES one’s capacity to transmit life. It has crossed the line.

 

[raikou]

“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!

Sex is supposed to be an authentic expression of love between spouses which entails TOTAL mutual self-giving. If the couple engages in the marital act but corrupts the act by being not true to its authentic meaning, then it’s better not to have done it at all. It’s like expressing a lie with your spouse rather than true love.

Now, I think it’s not true that NFP means refusing to give oneself to the other because NFP is a JOINT decision. The couples agree to abstain from sex. It’s not that the other is asking to but the spouse refuses. The couples have a perfect right when or when not to engage in the marital act. Abstinence per se shouldn’t be interpreted as a refusal to give oneself to another, otherwise, it’s like saying they need or ought to have sex all the time.

 

[raikou]

I think it is really crucial to distinguish between the object chosen and the intention to appreciate the difference between NFP and contraception. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

So far, we have established that:

1. There is nothing wrong with NFP in terms of the objective criterion of morality. a) it is legitimate to observe one’s fertile periods and b) the spouses have a legitimate right to agree when or when not to engage in the marital act.
2. Contraception is ALWAYS WRONG in terms of the objective criterion of morality. Here one alters the nature of the sexual act to render one incapable of transmitting life, thus violating the procreative meaning of sexuality. It is also opposed to the unitive meaning of sexuality because here, one actively diminishes one’s fertility. The spouse withholds himself to be a parent of the child that could result from the marital act and is thus integrally opposed to the language of total mutual self-giving that should be expressed by the act.
3. The intentions of NFP and contraception can both be legitimate: ex. avoiding pregnancy for health reasons.
4. At times, the intentions of NFP can be illicit (ex. ABSOLUTELY being closed to the possibility of life), hence, in these situations, NFP practice can be immoral.
5. But since only NFP can BOTH be licit in terms of the objective criterion AND the intention while contraception is already illicit by the objective criterion, it is ONLY in NFP that couples can practice family planning licitly. No matter how good the intentions of those who practice contraception are, contraception has already failed in the objective criterion and thus, cannot be licit.

 

[sidbrown]

For one thing contraception is contrary to the very nature of the marital act. NFP is not …

I thought that God gave us the commandment to increase and multiply. Now would it not be wrong to use any method, NFP or ABC which goes against this commandment?

 

[sidbrown]

1. Contraception is ALWAYS WRONG in terms of the objective criterion of morality. Here one alters the nature of the sexual act to render one incapable of transmitting life, thus violating the procreative meaning of sexuality.

Not exactly true since there is a failure rate with ABC and this failure rate is greater than the failure rate with NFP. If NFP is used to prevent children, then the intention is the same with NFP and ABC and therefore why do not both go against the commandment of God to increase and multiply?

 

[davidv]

Not exactly true since there is a failure rate with ABC and this failure rate is greater than the failure rate with NFP. If NFP is used to prevent children, then the intention is the same with NFP and ABC and therefore why do not both go against the commandment of God to increase and multiply?

Failure rates are a red herring and are irrelevant to the objective immorality of deliberately interfering with one’s fertility during intercourse.

 

[Holly3278]

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.

Observer, why are you saying things like this? The Church will not “say anything to justify anything as long as it serves their best interest”. Quite frankly, I am offended that you have said this. It reeks of anti-Catholicism. The Catholic Church is God’s Church. It is the Church that God Himself, Jesus Christ, founded on earth. He promised us that it would never succumb to the gates of Hell and if the Church was teaching something that was untrue, that would mean that it had succumbed to the gates of Hell.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(Matthew 16:18 DRB)

 

[Thoughtfulone]

There’s a misunderstanding. It’s not the effort itself, but where the effort is directed.

In NFP, the effort is directed towards OBSERVING when the nature of sex allows that one may not conceive a child. There is no effort whatsoever to decrease one’s capacity to give life. One’s fertility remains in accord with one’s nature. While the couple may in fact be hoping that one may not conceive, they only hope this PROVIDED THAT nature allows it. Their intention is limited by and ultimately submitted to the provisions of the natural properties of the sexual act. This reveals a certain objective openness to life.

In contraception, the effort is directed towards RENDERING one to be infertile. One deliberately places barriers or prevents ovulation so that no life may be transmitted. Hence, anyone practicing contraception may ONLY CLAIM to be “open to the possibility that life can also result from this marital act,” but in actuality, the couple is objectively not open to life. This is ALL-OUT, in the sense that there is no respect whatsoever to the nature of sexuality because one ACTIVELY ALTERS AND DIMINISHES one’s capacity to transmit life. It has crossed the line.

O.K., so this comes down to the Natural Law argument.

Doesn’t the Natural Law also say that women must breastfeed their babies? In the article "Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood, Kippley states, “In claiming that breastfeeding is a part of God’s plan, Kippley establishes her position as one in agreement with traditional understandings of natural law (i.e., normative order of nature as God created it). For in breastfeeding a child a woman conforms to natural law as a creature of God. She thereby submits herself to divine authority, accepts her responsibility as a mother, and acknowledges both her own dignity and her child’s as human persons.”

After a baby is born, a woman’s breasts fill with milk. That milk contains antibodies and immunities that will affect the baby’s health (and ultimately the health of the baby’s offspring) forever. All mammals in nature breastfeed. If a woman doesn’t breastfeed for a time and allow the baby to go through the natural weaning process, she will cause herself considerable pain and discomfort. Breastfeeding also helps a mother to bond emotionally with her child and causes the uterus to contract back to its normal size.

AND YET, it is not a sin for a woman to go against Natural Law and refuse to breastfeed and feed her baby sub-standard formula just based on selfishness alone.

So we are not morally obligated to follow the Natural Law under all circumstances, which means that Natural Law cannot be the basis for the sinfulness of artificial contraception.

 

[Bookcat]

I thought that God gave us the commandment to increase and multiply. Now would it not be wrong to use any method, NFP or ABC which goes against this commandment?

No… NFP would not be going against what God said in Gen.

We must always read Sacred Scripture within the whole and within the Church. There is no problem here. (not saying you are not seeking this …but we have to remind ourselves of this …)

Anymore than say the husband going away on a business trip during what happens to be the fertile time of his wife would be going against Genesis…

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Sex is supposed to be an authentic expression of love between spouses which entails TOTAL mutual self-giving. If the couple engages in the marital act but corrupts the act by being not true to its authentic meaning, then it’s better not to have done it at all. It’s like expressing a lie with your spouse rather than true love.

Now, I think it’s not true that NFP means refusing to give oneself to the other because NFP is a JOINT decision. The couples agree to abstain from sex. It’s not that the other is asking to but the spouse refuses. The couples have a perfect right when or when not to engage in the marital act. Abstinence per se shouldn’t be interpreted as a refusal to give oneself to another, otherwise, it’s like saying they need or ought to have sex all the time.

O.K., so when the Magisterium describes “total self-giving”, what they are referring to is on a strictly physical level, yes? Basically, for total self-giving, the spouse has to be 1.) There and 2.) Not using ABC/sterilization/withdrawal.

Whether or not a spouse spends the entire experience wracked with worry, guilt and dread about possibly becoming pregnant, completely unable to enjoy this time with his/her spouse either physically, spiritually or emotionally, has no real bearing on this “total giving of self”, and does not render the act itself sinful, correct?

So again, what we are talking about is strictly the physical aspect of sex without artificial contraception, and this is considered to be a “total giving of self”.