Contraception question...again

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

…

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)

The reason is the crossing of subjects “gastric bypass, weight loss drugs, plastic surgery,” are therapies while ABC is not a therapy Humanea Vitea has a section specifically addressing therapy

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).

“Reliability/effectiveness” play no part in the teaching withdraw is also a sin and is very ineffective

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)

Yes this is correct

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)

No, the emphases in this post is in the result not the method. The statement refers to sinning then accepting the consequences verses not sinning. The NFP couple understands first that children result from this action and are a natural outcome. The earlier couple work to alter the natural process to prevent the natural outcome(the sin). Then attempt to enjoy the side effects of the natural process. This desire and work to separate the natural outcome from the natural design has many implications. These implications lead to that separation of male and female which is at the core of the problem

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).

This is one of the downstream implications from the paragraph above. This man and woman want to separated from responsibility of marriage to the point the marriage itself is in question.

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)

Effort is not a factor, when the man and woman married children are a natural result of marriage. Again the posts repeat the idea we want relations without responsibility.

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)

Unity is continually being misunderstood in this thread. Unity in part means the man and the woman share the responsibility. The man and woman together manage the responsibility. ABC is a method to block much of the unity by separating the natural responsibility thus removing a united need to manage in a natural way a natural process.

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).

Really, is he scheduled to leave after the act regardless of the outcome? Do these men you speak of have no responsibility to any child produced by his action? Catholic men have a lifelong responsibility to the children they produce, thus they share great responsibility in NFP

……………And yes, the Church does teach that if it will rupture my uterus and kill me to have another child, then I either need to use NFP and pray that I don’t die, or never have sex again until I am 55 and no longer able to have kids.

This could be in an array of conditions for example no woman can be assured that pregnancy is without risk. Second woman who need therapeutic means can pursue these means even when sterilization is a side effect of the therapy( see Humanea Vitea)

hope that helps

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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

Not sure if you read post 51, I included a quote by Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The reason is the crossing of subjects “gastric bypass, weight loss drugs, plastic surgery,” are therapies while ABC is not a therapy Humanea Vitea has a section specifically addressing therapy

A boob job is a medical therapy???

The statement refers to sinning then accepting the consequences verses not sinning. The NFP couple understands first that children result from this action and are a natural outcome. The earlier couple work to alter the natural process to prevent the natural outcome(the sin). Then attempt to enjoy the side effects of the natural process. This desire and work to separate the natural outcome from the natural design has many implications. These implications lead to that separation of male and female which is at the core of the problem

Thanks! You are one of the only people who has even attempted to address my concerns

 

[Bookcat]

Oh oh…I see you are misunderstanding here the term “Natural Law”. (easy enough to do)

It is not meaning per se "because this is “how created nature works”…this is what is “natural”.

By saying for instance that God intended mothers to breast feed …is not an argument that such is from “natural law”…

CCC (1955)

“The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature…”

Compendium CCC:

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Oh oh…I see you are misunderstanding here the term “Natural Law”. (easy enough to do)

It is not meaning per se "because this is “how created nature works”…this is what is “natural”.

By saying for instance that God intended mothers to breast feed …is not an argument that such is from “natural law”…

CCC (1955)

“The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature…”

Compendium CCC:

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

I don’t see how sex would fall under Natural Law but breastfeeding wouldn’t. If anything breastfeeding is a better example of something that should fall under natural law.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

But having plastic surgery does nothing to enhance anything except for appearances for the sake of vanity and yet it is not illicit. I don’t get it. Obviously the prohibition isn’t in changing a part of the body that works perfectly already for purely selfish reasons with no health benefit or nose jobs would be sinful.

No, you’re right it is normally not sinful to alter a bodily function.

I don’t know if it helps, but I view the prohibition on non-procretive sex as the base to a house of cards. If you remove the base, then the whole deck of cards comes tumbling down. And if contraceptive sex is ok then so are all forms of sexual activity (provided of course it is between consenting adults). Unless you’re willing to abandon Christian sexual ethics then you shouldn’t be willing to abandon the teaching on contraception.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It was specifically a reference to two spouses having intercourse - the marital act. From this document. It is a paper you might want to read, Thoughtfulone. ……………………………

Samiam1611 What is the purpose of the read? The document will echo catholic teaching, so what can I find in it?

“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? **

What part are you giving, the body? This is what Humanea Vitea is all about. The church teaching is one should not separate giving the body from a total giving (which is unity) simply meaning IF it is better to refrain jointly refrain, if it is better to bond then bond.

It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely!

And thus the problem, what is being suggested is giving the body in place of the full woman, this will lead to a long term break in unity. The result will be intimacy is replaced by physical action.

…
Ok I kind of get what you’re saying. It’s the statement I highlighted in red that I am still not quite getting (I mean basically, I disagree with it, not that it is literally confusing.)

In differentiating NFP from ABC, the whole lust/restraint makes sense; that part of the issue is relatively clear to me. What I’m still struggling to understand (among other things ) is this:
The unitive aspect is not just about lust. Or not necessarily about lust. For instance, sometimes I’ll do it even if I don’t feel like it at first, bc I love him and want to please him and make him happy. Therefore - not lust (on my part anyway). It’s the gift of myself - self-giving. (borrowing that phrase from HV). Another instance - if we are having a spat, a little tension and discord that evening - neither of us might not feel like it but we do it anyway - and immediately, our bond is strengthened, our love reaffirmed.
Why is that so bad?

I would suggest physical actions are not the ratification of spats, it is hard for me to believe a money spat goes away from a romantic encounter

Why would the Church/God want to deprive of us that just because it’s a fertile time of the cycle and we’re trying to avoid pregnancy?

Again how does a romantic encounter change money, car decisions, chores, etc? maybe the encounter is being used to temporarily hide the real issues?

It’s statements like “total mutual self giving between spouses,” “give themselves fully to one another,” “inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality” that make me not understand why preventing/reducing fertility is so bad - if we mutually give ourselves totally and fully and lovingly, how can that be a sin, just bc we are using ABC?

because the responsibility of this action is missing

The popes, bishops, Church fathers, etc who wrote this stuff were not married, correct?

actually some surely were, but many were not. PPIV used a council

Maybe they did not fully understand the dynamics within a marriage? How come unmarried people got to make the rules?

the teaching is based on human nature not any particular individual’s desires.

The thing that may help me understand why NFP is licit and ABC is not is to grasp the idea that love should be expressed through other ways when pregnancy is not desired, and that lust is not okay; giving into lustful feelings is not okay. You see, I am not Catholic, so that is not something I was taught. (And reading something written long ago isn’t exactly enough to change my mind just like that; just because it’s tradition does not convince me.) So before I can really embrace the whole thing, I think I need to first change my thinking on lust, and the value of restraint.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me guys, and for teaching me about your faith in a way the CCC and HV cannot. It’s all just a bit of food for thought for me. Sorry Thoughtfulone if I hijacked your thread a bit.

believe it or not I am trying to help. It seems really clear that the physical actions are being held to high on the priority list, thus it is how to hold physical relations as a high point while practicing Catholicism. I like many others (probably older) people understand that through the years the physical part will fade with age. If the physical part is diminished by age what becomes of the marriage? A that point many look back and understand however at that point changes have huge implications.

I hope that helps

 

[Thoughtfulone]

No, you’re right it is normally not sinful to alter a bodily function.

I don’t know if it helps, but I view the prohibition on non-procretive sex as the base to a house of cards. If you remove the base, then the whole deck of cards comes tumbling down. And if contraceptive sex is ok then so are all forms of sexual activity (provided of course it is between consenting adults). Unless you’re willing to abandon Christian sexual ethics then you shouldn’t be willing to abandon the teaching on contraception.

Yes, I think this is the real reason the magisterium refuses to budge on the issue even for women who will die if they become pregnant. They see it as a slippery slope. We’re not trusted to be able to tell the moral difference between a woman with 5 kids contracepting because her uterus will rupture and kill her and a gay man having anonymous sex in a rest-stop bathroom.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Samiam1611 What is the purpose of the read? The document will echo catholic teaching, so what can I find in it?
What part are you giving, the body? This is what Humanea Vitea is all about. The church teaching is one should not separate giving the body from a total giving (which is unity) simply meaning IF it is better to refrain jointly refrain, if it is better to bond then bond. And thus the problem, what is being suggested is giving the body in place of the full woman, this will lead to a long term break in unity. The result will be intimacy is replaced by physical action.

I would suggest physical actions are not the ratification of spats, it is hard for me to believe a money spat goes away from a romantic encounter Again how does a romantic encounter change money, car decisions, chores, etc? maybe the encounter is being used to temporarily hide the real issues? because the responsibility of this action is missing actually some surely were, but many were not. PPIV used a council the teaching is based on human nature not any particular individual’s desires.

believe it or not I am trying to help. It seems really clear that the physical actions are being held to high on the priority list, thus it is how to hold physical relations as a high point while practicing Catholicism. I like many others (probably older) people understand that through the years the physical part will fade with age. If the physical part is diminished by age what becomes of the marriage? A that point many look back and understand however at that point changes have huge implications.

I hope that helps

I think it’s the opposite. The magisterium doesn’t seem to take into account at all what the mental and emotional state of the persons engaging in the act of sex are, as long as Tab A goes into Slot B and the sperm is left to do its work unhindered. The physical aspect is all that matters, not the mutual enjoyment/bonding/intimacy of the spouses. So what if the woman feels like a brood mare?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Yes, I think this is the real reason the magisterium refuses to budge on the issue even for women who will die if they become pregnant. They see it as a slippery slope. We’re not trusted to be able to tell the moral difference between a woman with 5 kids contracepting because her uterus will rupture and kill her and a gay man having anonymous sex in a rest-stop bathroom.

Do you think it is a coincidence that the first Christian denomination to accept contraceptive intercourse is also the the most accepting towards homosexuality? They gave up the logical underpinning behind the teaching and were only left with the eww!!! reaction. Which is pretty strong in most people but will only last for so long.

And can you tell me why exactly homosexual acts are disordered if not because they are non-procreative sex acts?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think it’s the opposite. The magisterium doesn’t seem to take into account at all what the mental and emotional state of the persons engaging in the act of sex are, as long as Tab A goes into Slot B and the sperm is left to do its work unhindered. The physical aspect is all that matters, not the mutual enjoyment/bonding/intimacy of the spouses. So what if the woman feels like a brood mare?

As opposed to perhaps feeling used and objectified when the husband just wants sex, no strings attached?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I think it’s the opposite. The magisterium doesn’t seem to take into account at all what the mental and emotional state of the persons engaging in the act of sex are, as long as Tab A goes into Slot B and the sperm is left to do its work unhindered. The physical aspect is all that matters, not the mutual enjoyment/bonding/intimacy of the spouses. So what if the woman feels like a brood mare?

That used to bother me as well. But then I realized what is important is not how this teaching makes me feel - would you reject a mathematical formula because it wasn’t personally engaging? - but if it is logically consistent. But yes, it does seem to make people into little abstractions and reduce them to their piping and their genitals.

 

[markomalley]

No, you’re right it is normally not sinful to alter a bodily function.

1. Furthermore, Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no other power over the members of their bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends; and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body.

Pius XI, Casti Cannubii (1931)

The Magesterium does not agree with your statement.

Something to keep in mind.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

As opposed to perhaps feeling used and objectified when the husband just wants sex, no strings attached?

Why should this be? If neither spouse wants children at that time, and they wish to come together and bond intimately, why should anyone feel used or as if there are “no strings attached”? They are married for crying out loud, this isn’t some stranger they picked up at a bar. They are perfectly capable of coming together sexually while mutually agreeing that it is not the right time to have children, just like with NFP.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Do you think it is a coincidence that the first Christian denomination to accept contraceptive intercourse is also the the most accepting towards homosexuality? They gave up the logical underpinning behind the teaching and were only left with the eww!!! reaction. Which is pretty strong in most people but will only last for so long.

And can you tell me why exactly homosexual acts are disordered if not because they are non-procreative sex acts?

For the same reason that the majority report at the council of Paul VI stated that the MARRIAGE ITSELF should be oriented toward procreation and having a family, not each individual act. A marriage should be open to life, but a woman shouldn’t have to be open to having a litter if she doesn’t want one. It’s just dehumanizing.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t see how sex would fall under Natural Law but breastfeeding wouldn’t. If anything breastfeeding is a better example of something that should fall under natural law.

Ok your still misunderstanding what natural law is…

it is NOT …“the law of nature” or “the biological processes of nature” or “the way things work in nature” or “how God programmed the birds and the bees”…or “it is good to breastfeed cause it is natural and that is the way God designed the initial mother child relationship for nutrition” etc.

 

[Bookcat]

I think it’s the opposite. The magisterium doesn’t seem to take into account at all what the mental and emotional state of the persons engaging in the act of sex are, as long as Tab A goes into Slot B and the sperm is left to do its work unhindered. The physical aspect is all that matters, not the mutual enjoyment/bonding/intimacy of the spouses. So what if the woman feels like a brood mare?

Such would not be a correct understanding of the Teachings of the Church here…nor the theology of the marital act…Theology of the Body etc…

 

[Bookcat]

For the same reason that the majority report at the council of Paul VI stated that the MARRIAGE ITSELF should be oriented toward procreation and having a family, not each individual act. A marriage should be open to life, but a woman shouldn’t have to be open to having a litter if she doesn’t want one. It’s just dehumanizing.

Actually Pope Paul the VI taught each and every marital act must must be open to life…such is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

he actually said the opposite of the idea that one could look at the marriage as a whole…such he said is not correct…it is a serious error to do so.

Each marital act must be open to life…

 

[KostyaJMJ]

1. Furthermore, Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no other power over the members of their bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends; and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body.

Pius XI, Casti Cannubii (1931)

The Magesterium does not agree with your statement.

Something to keep in mind.

I think the passages I put in bold are key. It is normally not sinful to alter a bodily function. If it were you would not be able to take advil or drink coffee or do take many kinds of medicine. It is only sinful if you alter your body in some way that pertains to its natural ends or renders it unfit for its natural function. Breast enhancement or rhinoplasty wouldn’t do either of those things, which I think is what I responding to when I said it is normally not sinful to alter the body.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think it’s the opposite. The magisterium doesn’t seem to take into account at all what the mental and emotional state of the persons engaging in the act of sex are, as long as Tab A goes into Slot B and the sperm is left to do its work unhindered. The physical aspect is all that matters, not the mutual enjoyment/bonding/intimacy of the spouses. So what if the woman feels like a brood mare?

You could not have missed it more. Once tabs are slots are used less and the the other 99% of marriage becomes the daily life the teaching is abundently clear. However it is what you practice now that places you in the situation then.