Contraception question...again

[Thoughtfulone]

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.

The difference is that a mathematical formula can never be anything other than what it is. We as human beings have the ability to alter our fertility so as not to have 16 kids. My grandmother had 8 kids, was pregnant ALL the time, and DREADED sex with a passion because it always meant getting pregnant for her. She hated it. There was nothing intimate or bonding or spiritual about it for her. Every time she found out she was pregnant she cried herself to sleep. She got maybe 4-5 hours of sleep a night and worked full-time, while caring for 8 kids and doing 3 loads of laundry and ironing every single day on top of cleaning the house and cooking for 10. They were dead broke and looked down upon by the other families. The kids had no supervision. How could they? The parents had to work and there was no child care, so most of them ended up addicted to drugs/alcohol, becoming pregnant/getting people pregnant out of wedlock, spending time in jail, 1/2 of them are outright atheists, etc. They fought like cats and dogs. My grandmother felt like a breeder.

Where on Earth is the dignity in this?

I’m sorry, but I think that how we FEEL matters a great deal, and I think God would agree.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

Could you please point to me what church document says that women must have a litter? (by the way a litter usually refers to one gestation of an animal, where multiple offspring come forth… women do not naturallyhave litters.)

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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.

Um, I follow the Church’s teaching on contraception…frankly, I just don’t get it.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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.

That’s not what I said. Show me how sex and contraception fall under natural law and breastfeeding is not if you think I am misunderstanding.

 

[Bookcat]

That’s not what I said. Show me how sex and contraception fall under natural law and breastfeeding is not if you think I am misunderstanding.

go back and read my posts …and read your posts on Natural Law

You are misunderstanding natural law.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The difference is that a mathematical formula can never be anything other than what it is. We as human beings have the ability to alter our fertility so as not to have 16 kids. My grandmother had 8 kids, was pregnant ALL the time, and DREADED sex with a passion because it always meant getting pregnant for her. She hated it. There was nothing intimate or bonding or spiritual about it for her. Every time she found out she was pregnant she cried herself to sleep. She got maybe 4-5 hours of sleep a night and worked full-time, while caring for 8 kids and doing 3 loads of laundry and ironing every single day on top of cleaning the house and cooking for 10. They were dead broke and looked down upon by the other families. The kids had no supervision. How could they? The parents had to work and there was no child care, so most of them ended up addicted to drugs/alcohol, becoming pregnant/getting people pregnant out of wedlock, spending time in jail, 1/2 of them are outright atheists, etc. They fought like cats and dogs. My grandmother felt like a breeder.

Where on Earth is the dignity in this?

I’m sorry, but I think that how we FEEL matters a great deal, and I think God would agree.

Sorry, if she dreaded sex with a passion, and had serious reasons to avoid…what about Grandpa? He couldn’t have a bit of self control, I’m sure he knew where babies come from.

What is more loving? abstaining because your wife is exhausted…or saying to the wife, your exhaustion means nothing, I’ll just use a condom (which, if you are fertile might not work, because genital activity during fertility could still result in a contact pregnancy )

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Could you please point to me what church document says that women must have a litter? (by the way a litter usually refers to one gestation of an animal, where multiple offspring come forth… women do not naturallyhave litters.)

Yes, I know this…I was simply making a point. For women who can’t use NFP because of medical conditions or irregularities, having several more children than one desires is extremely common.

 

[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.

As I noted above…each and every martial act must be open to life…

“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.”

“it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Sorry, if she dreaded sex with a passion, and had serious reasons to avoid…what about Grandpa? He couldn’t have a bit of self control, I’m sure he knew where babies come from.

What is more loving? abstaining because your wife is exhausted…or saying to the wife, your exhaustion means nothing, I’ll just use a condom (which, if you are fertile might not work, because genital activity during fertility could still result in a contact pregnancy )

I don’t think you understand how fertile my grandmother was. I’m sure she would have LOVED to have been able to use birth control or condoms, and she wouldn’t have been so exhausted if they hadn’t had 8 kids.

“The “marriage debt” means that a married person is obliged, under penalty of mortal sin, to give his (or her) married partner sexual intercourse whenever it is reasonably asked for.
Lawful excuses for refusing: Adultery, sickness, drunkenness, insanity, non-support, danger to an unborn baby.”

catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/smarige.htm

 

[Bookcat]

Natural Law:

www2.franciscan.edu/plee/natural_law.htm

From one of my Professors at Franciscan University of Steubenville

 

[Thoughtfulone]

As I noted above…each and every martial act must be open to life…

“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.”

“it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae

Yes, I am aware that Paul VI went against the beliefs and studies of the vast majority of the council to arrive at this conclusion.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

I don’t know where you get you info but the Pope has not come around on this. NFP is not the same as condoms because even using NFP the couple is still open to life and to God’s direct involvement in their lives. Condoms are a direct action against God by imposing the individual’s will over God’s will.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

Unless I missed something, your 8 points seem pretty reasonable.

For Catholics, the procreative requirement in the marital embrace is a requirement of physical form. Form is important in Catholicism and essential for sacraments (ie. Eucharist under the form of unleavened bread and wine). Sex that is physically “open to the transmission of life” (regardless of fertility) is the basis for a loving marital embrace.

O.K., so when the Magisterium describes “total self-giving”, what they are referring to is on a strictly physical level, yes?

No. No one’s total self is strictly physical.

Basically, for total self-giving, the spouse has to be 1.) There and 2.) Not using ABC/sterilization/withdrawal.

No, that’s physical self-giving, a part of total self-giving.

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?

Any act that inflicts that kind of suffering on another person is potentially gravely sinful.

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”.

We can talk about the physical aspect of sex in and of itself but ultimately, it is enmeshed with all the other aspects.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, I am aware that Paul VI went against the beliefs and studies of the vast majority of the council to arrive at this conclusion.

Humm…this response here does not fit. You asserted that Pope Paul VI stated something…and I proved that he did not …but rather stated the opposite.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t think you understand how fertile my grandmother was. I’m sure she would have LOVED to have been able to use birth control or condoms, and she wouldn’t have been so exhausted if they hadn’t had 8 kids.

“The “marriage debt” means that a married person is obliged, under penalty of mortal sin, to give his (or her) married partner sexual intercourse whenever it is reasonably asked for.
Lawful excuses for refusing: Adultery, sickness, drunkenness, insanity, non-support, danger to an unborn baby.”

catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/smarige.htm

It doesn’t mean Grandpa has an excuse to be greedy though. And selfish…if he could not provide for the ones he had, maybe he should have shown restraint. Considering Grandma was tired, overwhelmed and hated sex with a passion.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, I am aware that Paul VI went against the beliefs and studies of the vast majority of the council to arrive at this conclusion.

And no he did not.

But I imagine that you are referring to the opinions of some on the “advisory body” …

(for example they were looking into if the pill was contraceptive or not…)

Oh and what he did is…he fulfilled is responsibility as Pope…

an advisory group is just that. Even if there is “majority” that think one thing…that has nothing to do with anything…he reviewed everything…and then decided to look personally into the matter more…

Contraception has been found to be wrong since the beginning…

THAT was not going to change. Nor is it.

however with the advent of the pill…the question arose…is it contraceptive? (and like questions)

Yes it is.

(and since then we have found other problems with it…like it can function abortively too! and is bad for the takers body etc)

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Natural Law:

www2.franciscan.edu/plee/natural_law.htm

From one of my Professors at Franciscan University of Steubenville

Good article. So wouldn’t it fall under the natural moral law to provide your newborn with the best source of health and nutrition known to man? A source which is God-given, free, and will affect the health of that child for the rest of his/her natural life? Isn’t this something written in the heart of every mother? Isn’t this God’s will for us?

Here is a quote from the article: Pope John Paul quotes in Veritatis Splendor: “The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body.” (Veritatis Splendor, #50)

Wouldn’t breastfeeding fall directly under this statement?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

And no he did not.

But I imagine that you are referring to the opinions of some on the “advisory body” …

(for example they were looking into if the pill was contraceptive or not…)

Oh and what he did is…he fulfilled is responsibility as Pope…

an advisory group is just that. Even if there is “majority” that think one thing…that has nothing to do with anything…he reviewed everything…and then decided to look personally into the matter more…

Contraception has been found to be wrong since the beginning…

THAT was not going to change. Nor is it.

however with the advent of the pill…the question arose…is it contraceptive? (and like questions)

Yes it is.

(and since then we have found other problems with it…like it can function abortively too! and is bad for the takers body etc)

They were debating for years whether the Church teaching on contraception in general should be revised. And you speak as if it was just some panel of random people. They were cardinals and bishops and married lay catholics, scientists, doctors and theologians, and the OVERWHELMING majority voted in favor of changing the catholic teaching on the matter. They did this much to the surprise of Paul VI, who then immediately ordered a minority report to be written so that he could support that.’

"After John’s death in 1963, Pope Paul VI added theologians to the commission and over three years expanded it to 72 members from five continents (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and five women without medical credentials, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including seven cardinals.)

The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[1][2][3][4] According to the majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:

“The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman–that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives–makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values.”

However, Paul VI explicitly rejected his commission’s recommendations in the text of Humanae Vitae, noting the 72 member commission had not been unanimous (4 theologian priests had dissented, and 1 cardinal and 2 bishops had voted that contraception was intrinsically evil–significantly Cardinal Ottaviani, the commission’s president and Bishop Colombo, the papal theologian).[1][2][4] Humanae Vitae did, however, explicitly allow the modern forms of natural family planning that were then being developed."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control

The problem is, if the Church ever did that, it would call infallibility into question.

 

[Bookcat]

Good article. So wouldn’t it fall under the natural moral law to provide your newborn with the best source of health and nutrition known to man? A source which is God-given, free, and will affect the health of that child for the rest of his/her natural life? Isn’t this something written in the heart of every mother? Isn’t this God’s will for us?

Here is a quote from the article: Pope John Paul quotes in Veritatis Splendor: “The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body.” (Veritatis Splendor, #50)

Wouldn’t breastfeeding fall directly under this statement?

The natural law would lead one by reason to know that one is to provide for the nutrition etc of ones child. However that can be met in various ways. There are various means. One must of course choose good means…but one is not obligated by it per se to the means of breastfeeding (though for some mothers their judgment will be to do so!)…but yes NL would indicate that one should take care of your child and not feed them instead beer.

 

[davidv]

They were debating for years whether the Church teaching on contraception in general should be revised. And you speak as if it was just some panel of random people. They were cardinals and bishops and married lay catholics, scientists, doctors and theologians, and the OVERWHELMING majority voted in favor of changing the catholic teaching on the matter. They did this much to the surprise of Paul VI, who then immediately ordered a minority report to be written so that he could support that.

The problem is, if the Church ever did that, it would call infallibility into question.

Who is the “they” in your first sentence?

Thank you for showing us clear evidence that majority vote is a highly unreliable method for determining the truth, as this majority is clearly wrong about the Church teaching on contraception.