Contraception question...again

[Bookcat]

Remember too that while NL is able to be understood and found by reason etc…natural law is not always clear to us…

CCCC:

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

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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.

I disagree entirely. I think the natural law would lead one by reason to choose breastfeeding, which is done using our God-given faculties and is now proven to be irreplicable even in a laboratory. In fact, up until about 100 years ago or so, breastfeeding was the ONLY option for newborns because formula wasn’t even invented and nothing else is even digestible by an infant. The antibodies and immunities present in breast milk cannot be synthesized anywhere but the human body, and it is OBVIOUS that it is God’s will for us to nourish our children in this way.

Breastfeeding certainly falls under Natural Law as you yourself have described it.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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.

See edited post above…

 

[Bookcat]

I disagree entirely. I think the natural law would lead one by reason to choose breastfeeding, which is done using our God-given faculties and is now proven to be irreplicable even in a laboratory. In fact, up until about 100 years ago or so, breastfeeding was the ONLY option for newborns because formula wasn’t even invented and nothing else is even digestible by an infant. The antibodies and immunities present in breast milk cannot be synthesized anywhere but the human body, and it is OBVIOUS that it is God’s will for us to nourish our children in this way.

Breastfeeding certainly falls under Natural Law as you yourself have described it.

Well perhaps I am I am missing it due to:

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



But no …natural law is not doing what you are suggesting. Though yes natural law though does lead us to do “what is good for our children”…so often the a very good choice will be the breastfeed…which would thus fulfil NL in this regard. For the parent is doing what they judge is good for their child…and indeed even what is “best”.

But just cause someone does not choose to breastfeed does not mean they have sinned against natural law per se.

 

[Bookcat]

They were debating for years whether the Church teaching on contraception in general should be revised. …
The problem is, if the Church ever did that, it would call infallibility into question.

I do not really have the time to answer all of this…

Contraception has been condemned from the beginning…and still is and will be.

The evil of Contraception is not a teaching that can change.

 

[Bookcat]

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, emphasis added] (Vatican website).

 

[samiam1611]

How come unmarried people got to make the rules? Each couple is different, what’s good for one’s marital peace might not be for another. (or what’s bad for one might not be for another.) If neither person wants children, if they have a harmonious marriage and feel or know that children would negatively affect their lives and cause marital strife, why does the Catholic Church think they know better? Why do they get to dictate such a life-altering decision?

And I still don’t get why using contraception is automatically considered to be not open to life since nothing’s 100% effective
“spouses need not explicitly intend procreation”
“[sex during] infertile periods was the equivalent of not explicitly intending procreation, but still accepting it and intending it, at least implicitly, as a purpose of the marital act.”
**If they promise to each other and to God that they would not abort a baby if they become pregnant, isn’t that implicitly being just as open to life **as an NFP using couple risking pregnancy but hoping it doesn’t happen? (bc it is also not 100% effective.)

It seems to me that the only truly closed to life is if you get your reproductive organs removed for the specific reason for preventing pregnancy (and a dr would not do such a drastic thing for that purpose alone anyway)
If you promise (and mean it, not just verbalize) not to get an abortion, aren’t you being implicitly open to life? If you’re pro-life, you’re open to life!!! It seems to me that people using ABC just don’t want to be restricted to certain times of the cycle (which raises the issue of lust) but that is not the same as not being open to life, no more so than those using NFP!

These questions may be rhetorical…I don’t think I will ever be convinced. But I am interested in hearing your arguments on these points.

 

[davidv]

How come unmarried people got to make the rules?

Because the married ones couldn’t get it right?

Each couple is different, what’s good for one’s marital peace might not be for another. (or what’s bad for one might not be for another.) If neither person wants children, if they have a harmonious marriage and feel or know that children would negatively affect their lives and cause marital strife, why does the Catholic Church think they know better? Why do they get to dictate such a life-altering decision?

The marital embrace, unemcumbered by chemicals, barriers and other methods of artifical infertility, is good and right for all married couples, no matter how different they are. Contraception is sinful for all married couples, no matter how different they are.

And I still don’t get why using contraception is automatically considered to be not open to life since nothing’s 100% effective
“spouses need not explicitly intend procreation”
“[sex during] infertile periods was the equivalent of not explicitly intending procreation, but still accepting it and intending it, at least implicitly, as a purpose of the marital act.”
**If they promise to each other and to God that they would not abort a baby if they become pregnant, isn’t that implicitly being just as open to life **as an NFP using couple risking pregnancy but hoping it doesn’t happen? (bc it is also not 100% effective.)

How does “I still don’t get why” has any bearing on the truthfulness of Church teaching?

It seems to me that the only truly closed to life is if you get your reproductive organs removed for the specific reason for preventing pregnancy (and a dr would not do such a drastic thing for that purpose alone anyway)
If you promise (and mean it, not just verbalize) not to get an abortion, aren’t you being implicitly open to life? If you’re pro-life, you’re open to life!!! It seems to me that people using ABC just don’t want to be restricted to certain times of the cycle (which raises the issue of lust) but that is not the same as not being open to life, no more so than those using NFP!

These questions may be rhetorical…I don’t think I will ever be convinced. But I am interested in hearing your arguments on these points.

The CCC related teaching begins at article 2366. Read this as well as the footnoted references.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Well perhaps I am I am missing it due to:

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



But no …natural law is not doing what you are suggesting. Though yes natural law though does lead us to do “what is good for our children”…so often the a very good choice will be the breastfeed…which would thus fulfil NL in this regard. For the parent is doing what they judge is good for their child…and indeed even what is “best”.

But just cause someone does not choose to breastfeed does not mean they have sinned against natural law per se.

`

But it is not just what the parent judges to be good for the child, but what is ALWAYS, objectively BEST. Best for the baby’s health (protects the baby against disease and allergies while strengthening their immune system for the rest of their lives), best for bonding (releases hormones responsible for a sense of well-being in both mother and child), best for the health of the mother (reduces the chances of some kinds of cancer for the mother and causes her uterus to spring back into shape). It is the way we were designed by God, the way God intended for us to feed our children, and up until 100 years ago, breast milk was the ONLY thing a newborn was even capable of digesting without vomiting. The first and only thing a baby knows how to do at birth is to suckle…it is instinct.

How can choosing to do anything else not be contrary to natural law, especially when something as vague as practicing contraception is?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, emphasis added] (Vatican website).

This is the real heart of the teaching I think. It has always been so, and it WILL always be so because it has always been so. For the Church to change its position now would call the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium into question and the Church will never do that, no matter what.

 

[Bookcat]

`

But it is not just what the parent judges to be good for the child, but what is ALWAYS, objectively BEST. Best for the baby’s health (protects the baby against disease and allergies while strengthening their immune system for the rest of their lives), best for bonding (releases hormones responsible for a sense of well-being in both mother and child), best for the health of the mother (reduces the chances of some kinds of cancer for the mother and causes her uterus to spring back into shape). It is the way we were designed by God, the way God intended for us to feed our children, and up until 100 years ago, breast milk was the ONLY thing a newborn was even capable of digesting without vomiting. The first and only thing a baby knows how to do at birth is to suckle…it is instinct.

How can choosing to do anything else not be contrary to natural law, especially when something as vague as practicing contraception is?

Not getting into arguing the pros and cons of breast feeding…my son was breast fed.

If we can we will do so again.

If we choose for whatever good reason to do otherwise in the future it is not contrary to natural law

Contraception is not something “vague” the Church is quite clear on the matter.

But as to someone arriving at the fact that contraception is sinful via recourse to natural law without the benefit of the Church …well as I noted above…not everyone will arrive there…Natural Law things are often obscured by our darkened intellect post-original sin…society blindness…sin in general etc…

 

[Bookcat]

This is the real heart of the teaching I think. It has always been so, and it WILL always be so because it has always been so. For the Church to change its position now would call the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium into question and the Church will never do that, no matter what.

(there is more to infallibility via the universal ordinary magisterium …but that would take us far afield)

…if something* is* infallible via the universal ordinary Magisterium…

it IS infallible.

Same as if something is infallible via the Extraordinary Magisterium.

Sort of like if something is a rock it is a rock

 

[samiam1611]

Because the married ones couldn’t get it right?

good one

The marital embrace, unemcumbered by chemicals, barriers and other methods of artifical infertility, is good and right for all married couples, no matter how different they are. Contraception is sinful for all married couples, no matter how different they are.

How does “I still don’t get why” has any bearing on the truthfulness of Church teaching?

I am not Catholic so feel zero obligation to live my life by Catholic teachings; at the same time, I am also not trying to assert that they are wrong. (I apologize if it came across that way). Since I am not Catholic, merely reading the teachings of the Church doesn’t make me accept it as truth though. My [mis?]perception of Catholicism is largely that “because the Church says so” tends to be why rules are followed. I am trying to understand first of all, why the Church says so (when it is not readily apparent to me), and also, do Catholics tend to do it out of obedience or agreement?

That being said, statements such as “contraception is sinful for all married couples” don’t really help me much. I am aware that this is the teaching and I disagree with it wholeheartedly, but I also don’t want to be ignorant of the other side’s views. For instance, Bookcat did a more than adequate job of explaining the lust thing. There are other issues I am still not quite getting. I am seeking a bit more “commentary,” do you know what I mean?

 

[davidv]

good one

I am not Catholic so feel zero obligation to live my life by Catholic teachings; at the same time, I am also not trying to assert that they are wrong. (I apologize if it came across that way). Since I am not Catholic, merely reading the teachings of the Church doesn’t make me accept it as truth though. My [mis?]perception of Catholicism is largely that “because the Church says so” tends to be why rules are followed. I am trying to understand first of all, why the Church says so (when it is not readily apparent to me), and also, do Catholics tend to do it out of obedience or agreement?

I didn’t expect that reading the documents would convince you, necessarily. It was meant to help you understand why. And as has been pointed out by the OP, some Catholics don’t use the actual teaching to explain the why of the teaching.

To me, the best Catholic obeys out of reverence for the Church that God instituted. Only secondarily does one seek to understand to satisfy their intellect.

That being said, statements such as “contraception is sinful for all married couples” don’t really help me much. I am aware that this is the teaching and I disagree with it wholeheartedly, but I also don’t want to be ignorant of the other side’s views. For instance, Bookcat did a more than adequate job of explaining the lust thing. There are other issues I am still not quite getting. I am seeking a bit more “commentary,” do you know what I mean?

Unless you understand the basis for the teaching your disagreement is on the shaky ground of uninformed personal opinion. Hopefully the references contained in the prior post provide the commentary that you seek.

 

[samiam1611]

I didn’t expect that reading the documents would convince you, necessarily. It was meant to help you understand why. And as has been pointed out by the OP, some Catholics don’t use the actual teaching to explain the why of the teaching.

To me, the best Catholic obeys out of reverence for the Church that God instituted. Only secondarily does one seek to understand to satisfy their intellect.

Unless you understand the basis for the teaching your disagreement is on the shaky ground of uninformed personal opinion. Hopefully the references contained in the prior post provide the commentary that you seek.

I see. I was indeed uninformed of the reasons up until recently (a few months ago). I guess for me, satisfying my intellect is primary, not secondary. Thanks for the refences, I will follow up on that.

 

[Good_Daughter]

How come unmarried people got to make the rules?

You mean guys like Jesus? Seriously, it’s God who makes the rules. The unmarried guys (not all of whom were unmarried) are there to help us in our knowledge and experience of God so we might have the best possible relationship with Him.

Each couple is different, what’s good for one’s marital peace might not be for another. (or what’s bad for one might not be for another.) If neither person wants children, if they have a harmonious marriage and feel or know that children would negatively affect their lives and cause marital strife, why does the Catholic Church think they know better? Why do they get to dictate such a life-altering decision?

Catholics believe marriage is ordered to the good of the spouses and the bearing and educating of children (it’s in the vows). The number and spacing of the children, however is up to the couple to decide prayerfully.

And I still don’t get why using contraception is automatically considered to be not open to life since nothing’s 100% effective
“spouses need not explicitly intend procreation”
“[sex during] infertile periods was the equivalent of not explicitly intending procreation, but still accepting it and intending it, at least implicitly, as a purpose of the marital act.”
**If they promise to each other and to God that they would not abort a baby if they become pregnant, isn’t that implicitly being just as open to life **as an NFP using couple risking pregnancy but hoping it doesn’t happen? (bc it is also not 100% effective.)

It seems to me that the only truly closed to life is if you get your reproductive organs removed for the specific reason for preventing pregnancy (and a dr would not do such a drastic thing for that purpose alone anyway)
If you promise (and mean it, not just verbalize) not to get an abortion, aren’t you being implicitly open to life? If you’re pro-life, you’re open to life!!! It seems to me that people using ABC just don’t want to be restricted to certain times of the cycle (which raises the issue of lust) but that is not the same as not being open to life, no more so than those using NFP!

These questions may be rhetorical…I don’t think I will ever be convinced. But I am interested in hearing your arguments on these points.

Catholic married couples aren’t required to be “open to life”, although it’s highly encouraged, if possible. They are required to keep the marital embrace (sex) open to the transmission of life. In other words, couples must not do anything to deliberately, physically block their fertility in any given embrace. They don’t necessarily have to procreate, but their embrace must take a procreative form. NFP can be acceptable to Catholics because it doesn’t interfere with the procreative form.

I think your questions are great. As long as you’re cautiously open-minded you’ll probably be convinced of all you really need to know.

 

[mark_a]

This is the real heart of the teaching I think. It has always been so, and it WILL always be so because it has always been so. For the Church to change its position now would call the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium into question and the Church will never do that, no matter what.

This teaching was so before Jesus started the Catholic Church.

rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

 

[sidbrown]

Contraception has been condemned from the beginning…and still is and will be.

The evil of Contraception is not a teaching that can change.

I think that the Eastern Orthodox Church allows married couples to use artificial contraception under certain limited conditions, such as when the couple have many children already and their finances are strained. Of course this would have to be worked out with their Ortrhodox priest. But according to Ropman Catholic teaching, they are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church, is it not so, according to the rules posted in the missalette at Mass?

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi thoughtfulone,

Sorry for the delayed reply, I’m not able to keep up with the pace of discussion here!

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?

Unless there was something defective with your nose, then yes I believe this would be against the natural law. God chose for you to have the nose you have, and spending a considerable amount of money to alter it would be a violation of his Will I believe. However, the sin being committed here (if freely with full knowledge) would be vanity and self-love and not necessarily mortal.

Is everything that goes against Natural Law a mortal sin?

No, first the matter has to be grave, with full consent and knowledge. Not all actions contrary to natural law would be grave. However, my understanding is that ABC is a grave matter because it interferes with one of the greatest gifts God gives to mankind, the ability to co-operate in bringing into being of a new human being with an immortal soul. That is essentially an infinite gift, and any obstruction with God’s will in this area is clearly very serious.

I always found the Natural Law argument to be tenuous, but I should probably read more about it before discounting it altogether.

It is a massive topic, with countless volumes written on it, and I have only just scratched the surface. I would recommend Edward Feser’s books for a good introduction to the concept.

With regards to your breastfeeding point, I would agree that not breastfeeding is potentially against the natural law - I believe Pope John Paul II spoke of it’s moral goodness. However, whether not breastfeeding is necessarily a sin is another matter. If formula feeding is undertaken due to sheer laziness, I would probably think it would be sin, though not necessarily a grave one, as the more fundamental natural law of feeding your infant is still met. However, if there are severe problems with the breastfeeding process causing distress to both mother and infant, then there is some deficiency here (either physical or mental/emotional) and therefore alternatives can probably be sought if available and almost equivalent. I don’t believe this is necessarily a sin.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, I hope they are of some help. My prayers are with you.

 

[mark_a]

But according to Ropman Catholic teaching, they are allowed to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church, is it not so, according to the rules posted in the missalette at Mass?

Aren’t the Orthodox forbidden under normal circumstances by their own Churches from receiving communion in a Catholic Church?