Easy to read info on morality of contraception?

[ktp]

I’ve spent some time today looking for information about exactly why the Catholic Church bans contraception. Personally, I think I understand and get it pretty well, and I’ve found some good sites (including CA’s article on it), but I don’t think these sum it up clearly and concisely for those who just want to understand scriptures, verses, precedents, basic theology, etc.

Does anyone know of any good resources?

Or, I’d be glad to hear people’s own comments on this that I could possibly organize myself into a bulleted list, something as simple and straightforward as such a concept can get.

 

[Corki]

Christopher West’s book “Good News About Sex and Mariage” and Janet Smith’s “Contraception, why not?” are, in my opinion some of the easiest to digest on the subject. Janet Smith’s is available as a cassette tape that I believe you can get for free from either the Couple to Couple League or One More Soul. It is clear, funny and basic.

 

[1ke]

I’ve spent some time today looking for information about exactly why the Catholic Church bans contraception. Personally, I think I understand and get it pretty well, and I’ve found some good sites (including CA’s article on it), but I don’t think these sum it up clearly and concisely for those who just want to understand scriptures, verses, precedents, basic theology, etc.

Does anyone know of any good resources?

Or, I’d be glad to hear people’s own comments on this that I could possibly organize myself into a bulleted list, something as simple and straightforward as such a concept can get.

There are numerous brochures, booklets, books, and CDs available at www.omsoul.com. There are some that they will send you for free, others cost a small amount for each.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

I’ve spent some time today looking for information about exactly why the Catholic Church bans contraception. Personally, I think I understand and get it pretty well, and I’ve found some good sites (including CA’s article on it), but I don’t think these sum it up clearly and concisely for those who just want to understand scriptures, verses, precedents, basic theology, etc.

Does anyone know of any good resources?

Or, I’d be glad to hear people’s own comments on this that I could possibly organize myself into a bulleted list, something as simple and straightforward as such a concept can get.

I doubt I can say anything new, but…

To use contraception during intercourse is to “trick” our bodies. It is to completely (or at least intentinally) block out one of the three purposes of sex: pleasure, unity, and procreation and it is done so on purpose. It is to say to God that sex is lovely and all that, but YOU have decided that you would rather not have the third benefit of intercourse - procreation. Contraception is the individual telling God he or she wants sex on their own terms, not God. Face it, with contraception, or at least condoms, sex becomes mutual masturbation. It is not the entire giving of one person to another because one intentionally blocks the transmission of life. NFP, on the other hand, lets users make use of the infertile times that God has given a woman so that the couple can enjoy the pleasureable and unitive aspects to sex when having a child is not feasible. It is thus to have sex so that children will not be born during a God-created time.

Does that help any?

 

[Sixtus]

My wife and I went with the church teaching and never used artificial contraception. Then after the birth of our daughter, she was advised that it would be harmful for her to fall pregnant within the 9 or so months that followed and we were advised to use artificial contraception.

We did. We did not confess it seeings we did not consider we were committing a sin. I continued to go to Communion. I would do exactly the same again.

I admire those who say they can abstain. My wife and I are now in our mid 50’s and are still very sexually active, making love at every opportunity, like young rabbits.

I think that we have to be sensible. It really does depend on the extenuating circumstances.

 

[MilesXpisti]

My wife and I went with the church teaching and never used artificial contraception. Then after the birth of our daughter, she was advised that it would be harmful for her to fall pregnant within the 9 or so months that followed and we were advised to use artificial contraception.

We did. We did not confess it seeings we did not consider we were committing a sin. I continued to go to Communion. I would do exactly the same again.

I admire those who say they can abstain. My wife and I are now in our mid 50’s and are still very sexually active, making love at every opportunity, like young rabbits.

I think that we have to be sensible. It really does depend on the extenuating circumstances.

Ah, yes…I know this melody. Sensibility and realism. By this the grossest injustices have been perpetrated throughout history and those that should speak out can by their own conscience keep their silence. There is nothing sensible about artificial contraception, and there is nothing morally licit about it, no matter your opinion on the subject. There are no extenuating circumstances that allow it, and both Humanæ Vitæ and the Catechsim both affirm the perennial teaching of intrinsic evil and moral illicitness of contraception. You say that you admire people that can abstain, but you can’t be troubled. Well enough. But if you cannot master yourself, then you must live with the consequences; it would be no different than if you had a violent, uncontrollable temper and murdered someone. If you want to practice ABC, then do so; I can’t stop you. But do not ever call it compatible with the doctrine of the Church.

 

[Creiddylad]

I doubt I can say anything new, but…

To use contraception during intercourse is to “trick” our bodies. It is to completely (or at least intentinally) block out one of the three purposes of sex: pleasure, unity, and procreation and it is done so on purpose. It is to say to God that sex is lovely and all that, but YOU have decided that you would rather not have the third benefit of intercourse - procreation. Contraception is the individual telling God he or she wants sex on their own terms, not God. Face it, with contraception, or at least condoms, sex becomes mutual masturbation. It is not the entire giving of one person to another because one intentionally blocks the transmission of life. NFP, on the other hand, lets users make use of the infertile times that God has given a woman so that the couple can enjoy the pleasureable and unitive aspects to sex when having a child is not feasible. It is thus to have sex so that children will not be born during a God-created time.

Does that help any?

Hi I’m new and all.
Umm… just a question… the point of contraception is to prevent pregnancy, right? But that’s exactly what using the Natural Family Planning method does… so isn’t that a form of contraception as well? Why is one form of contraception acceptable and not the other? Aren’t we still interfering in God’s will by having intercourse at so-called infertile times when a woman can’t get pregnant? Isn’t that, in your terms, “mutual masturbation” ? If God intended sex to be about procreation (one of the functions anyway), then why did He give women times when they were infertile?

Can you really be against one thing but not the other? As far as I see it NFP is a form of contraception. Then the only “acceptable” thing to do is to only have sex for procreation reasons and abstain from it the rest of the time. That’s how I see it, anyway.

 

[rpp]

Hi I’m new and all.
Umm… just a question… the point of contraception is to prevent pregnancy, right? But that’s exactly what using the Natural Family Planning method does… so isn’t that a form of contraception as well?

Incorrect. The point of contraception is to indulge in the pleasure of sexual contact, and use the other person as an object of personal sexual gratification. That is the point of artificial birth control, to change others, even our spouses, from *people *into things.

With NFP, each spouse says to the other, I love you and I want to give myself completely to you. However, until I can do that, I will abstain from sexual gratification in order to honor you.

These do not seem the same to me.

 

[Creiddylad]

By having sex at times of the month where the woman is infertile, isn’t that having sex merely for sexual gratification too? I mean, with NFP it’s not having sex for procreative reasons, which is what God apparently intended.
I noticed you used the term “artificial birth control” I suppose that’s a way to admit that NFP is BIRTH CONTROL, just it’s not artificial. I didn’t realize the whole issue was simply about artificial versus natural. Is that all this is truly about?

 

[rpp]

By having sex at times of the month where the woman is infertile, isn’t that having sex merely for sexual gratification too? I mean, with NFP it’s not having sex for procreative reasons, which is what God apparently intended.
I noticed you used the term “artificial birth control” I suppose that’s a way to admit that NFP is BIRTH CONTROL, just it’s not artificial. I didn’t realize the whole issue was simply about artificial versus natural. Is that all this is truly about?

Yes, it is about artificial means versus self control.

And no, excercising self control and honoring yuour spouse, while leaving open, however unlikely, the possibility of life, is not just another form of birth control, nor is it using your spouse.

What is the essential difference? Two-fold. Self-control and personal sacrifice. And with today’s pressures, it now can also include the phrase, “for the glory of God.”

 

[Creiddylad]

No, exercising self-control would be abstaining from sex unless you want to conceive a child. That’s self-control. I don’t see how those who have sex simply for pleasure (which they do when they use NFP because it’s not for procreative reasons) are exercising self-control, which according to you is the important thing here.

You ignore one of my points. If God intended sex to be only for procreation, then why are women only able to conceive at some times of the month? Why are there periods when they are infertile?
And why is there such a thing as menopause for that matter too?

 

[apricot_yogurt]

With regard to the above
*

You ignore one of my points. If God intended sex to be only for procreation, then why are women only able to conceive at some times of the month? Why are there periods when they are infertile?
And why is there such a thing as menopause for that matter too?

Exactly. NFP is working with what God has given you. ABC is you as a couple deciding you know better than God.

 

[Pug]

Can you really be against one thing but not the other? As far as I see it NFP is a form of contraception.

In my book it is not about self-control. It is about whether you do something to reduce the fertility of your acts of intercourse on next Tues. If you take the pill, apply a condom, withdraw, etc., your intent is to reduce the fertility of your intercourse on that day. If you just have sex or don’t have sex on Tues, you don’t change the fertility of those acts. You either chose to do them or you don’t. You take them as they are (or not).

I agree. God did make times when a couple is unlikely to conceive.

 

[rpp]

No, exercising self-control would be abstaining from sex unless you want to conceive a child. That’s self-control. I don’t see how those who have sex simply for pleasure (which they do when they use NFP because it’s not for procreative reasons) are exercising self-control, which according to you is the important thing here.

You ignore one of my points. If God intended sex to be only for procreation, then why are women only able to conceive at some times of the month? Why are there periods when they are infertile?
And why is there such a thing as menopause for that matter too?

Your premise is not complete. The marital has three purposes, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. These three puposes are not of equal importance, but all must be present for the complete good of the act.

(St. Thomas defines evil not as a thing itself but rather a lack of good. That is critical to understanding this entire issue.)

The premise is that the marital takes place only in the bonds of a sacramental marriage. Here are the purposes in their order of importance.

• Procreation.
• Increase and re-enforcement of marital unity and the marital bond. It requires a complete and unconditional surrender of each spouse to the other.
• Legitimate self-donating pleasure. That is you give more than you expect to receive.
  All sex acts must meet all of these purposes or the good is lost. Remember, the loss of good is evil.

NFP is used both to help couples conceive and to reduce the chances of conception. NFP used for either purpose does not inherently violate any of these three points as there is always the possibility for life. Now the rest remains with the attitude of the married couple.

NFP can be illicitly when the wrong intentions are employed, for example, the absolute exclusion of children would be an abuse of NFP.

One more thing. I cannot understand how being abstinant is not excercising self-control. Can you explain that for me.

Finally. I will say that while I am absolutely conviced that the Church’s teaching is correct here, I must admit that I am not very good at explaining it. I would highly recommend a book Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West. It covers this and all the issues regarding the Catholic teachings on human sexuality, the proper relationships between men and women and the God-given roles, gifts, and responsibilities of each gender.

 

[leonie]

Your premise is not complete. The marital has three purposes, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. These three puposes are not of equal importance, but all must be present for the complete good of the act.

(St. Thomas defines evil not as a thing itself but rather a lack of good. That is critical to understanding this entire issue.)

The premise is that the marital takes place only in the bonds of a sacramental marriage. Here are the purposes in their order of importance.

• Procreation.
• Increase and re-enforcement of marital unity and the marital bond. It requires a complete and unconditional surrender of each spouse to the other.
• Legitimate self-donating pleasure. That is you give more than you expect to receive.
  All sex acts must meet all of these purposes or the good is lost. Remember, the loss of good is evil.

NFP is used both to help couples conceive and to reduce the chances of conception. NFP used for either purpose does not inherently violate any of these three points as there is always the possibility for life. Now the rest remains with the attitude of the married couple.

NFP can be illicitly when the wrong intentions are employed, for example, the absolute exclusion of children would be an abuse of NFP.

One more thing. I cannot understand how being abstinant is not excercising self-control. Can you explain that for me.

Finally. I will say that while I am absolutely conviced that the Church’s teaching is correct here, I** must admit that I am not very good at explaining it. ** I would highly recommend a book Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West. It covers this and all the issues regarding the Catholic teachings on human sexuality, the proper relationships between men and women and the God-given roles, gifts, and responsibilities of each gender.

Well, I think you did a great job!

 

[Gwythr]

I agree. God did make times when a couple is unlikely to conceive.

And by taking advantage of those times through NFP one is saying “No” to their partner’s fertility. They are saying “No” to God’s gift of life as well. Contraception and NFP accomplish the same goal: to prevent pregnancy. So if one truly believes that sex must always be an act open to its pro-creative capabilities, then there would be no reason to track times of infertility. If a couple thinks themselves not ready for a child and they believe that sex must be open to God’s gift of life, then there is only one solution that can save them from the sin of cutting God out of the picture: They must not have sex. Abstaining from sex has a great deal to do with self control.

 

[Pug]

Abstaining from sex has a great deal to do with self control.

I think I need to explain myself. I *do *think it takes control to abstain from sex. I am not insane. I merely do not think control is the distinguishing moral factor between nfp and contraception. Just because one method takes more effort to execute does not mean that is the right method.

Contraception and NFP accomplish the same goal: to prevent pregnancy.

I concede that one might see a couple switch from the pill to nfp and seemingly keep their same overall goal, say, never to have another child. However, one goal technically ought to change. They will not intend to alter the fertility of the woman as she is. They will instead possibly choose different days of the month to have relations than they would have otherwise. But she herself will not be changed.

And by taking advantage of those times through NFP one is saying “No” to their partner’s fertility.

Not really. They are saying “yes” on Tuesday to Tuesday’s fertility. On Monday, they chose not to have relations. This is okay, to choose not to have relations? Or is that really the part that is bugging you, that they chose not to have relations on the some other days?

If a couple thinks themselves not ready for a child and they believe that sex must be open to God’s gift of life, then there is only one solution that can save them from the sin of cutting God out of the picture: They must not have sex.

So, too bad for those couples who are past menopause and think themselves not ready for a child? This seems wrong to me. It more seems to me like they are accepting the situation they are naturally in. Don’t get me wrong. I do understand feeling that nfp odd. In some cases, nfp seems like an odd thing to do, from my personal perspective. The Church teaches that nfp is okay to do. That is a fact.

 

[rpp]

I think I need to explain myself. I *do *think it takes control to abstain from sex. I am not insane. I merely do not think control is the distinguishing moral factor between nfp and contraception. Just because one method takes more effort to execute does not mean that is the right method.

How is abstaining from the marital act the same as using your spuse to pleasure yourself because you use contraception? Where is the real self control that can be distinguished from selfishness wheh using ABC.

 

[Pug]

How is abstaining from the marital act the same as using your spuse to pleasure yourself because you use contraception? Where is the real self control that can be distinguished from selfishness wheh using ABC.

I think I better understand you. You aren’t talking about self-control in a simple sense of refraining from relations. It almost sounds like you are talking about integrity here, integrity of self, integrity with who/what you are. Real control for you is to “posses your wife in honor”, that is, love her, and all that follows through in your loving relationship with her, including treating her body/nature with respect. (if that is obscure, see 1thes 4:4-5). I completely agree that this is the manly thing to do and is different from a general attitude that sees sexuality as, uh, separate from who we are as in the image of God. There is some type of division or separation that takes place within us when seeking to reduce the fertility of a sexual act.

I think, though, that a man can use his wife like a toy even if he is not altering the fertility of the act, and even if he has chosen to observe a pattern of relations via nfp. Also, a person who is altering the fertility of the act may have no understanding of it as using someone. If asked, they easily would say they have no intent to use the other person, and would be horrified at the idea. I don’t think this reaction is pretense. I’m not saying they are right, of course.

 

[rpp]

I think I better understand you. You aren’t talking about self-control in a simple sense of refraining from relations. It almost sounds like you are talking about integrity here, integrity of self, integrity with who/what you are. Real control for you is to “posses your wife in honor”, that is, love her, and all that follows through in your loving relationship with her, including treating her body/nature with respect. (if that is obscure, see 1thes 4:4-5). I completely agree that this is the manly thing to do and is different from a general attitude that sees sexuality as, uh, separate from who we are as in the image of God. There is some type of division or separation that takes place within us when seeking to reduce the fertility of a sexual act.

** I think, though, that a man can use his wife like a toy even if he is not altering the fertility of the act**, and even if he has chosen to observe a pattern of relations via nfp. Also, a person who is altering the fertility of the act may have no understanding of it as using someone. If asked, they easily would say they have no intent to use the other person, and would be horrified at the idea. I don’t think this reaction is pretense. I’m not saying they are right, of course.

First, thank you helping to keep this conversation civil, as these topics can often degenerate into unpleasentries.

I think you used and interesting expression, highlited above. You are right. For example a rapist often does not alter the fertility of the act. However, that is a bad example as most (but not all) rapists are not married to their victims. And the very nature of rape is an act of violence.

There exists a wide range of potential abuse in marriage; sex abuse being only one family of abuse. Popel John Paul II summed it up well when he decribed the marital act as one of “complete mutual self donation”. It does not matter if the spouses consent. There are many mutually consetive behaviors that are inherently sinful, even if the people involved do not think they are. The fact they think that way is a sign of an improperly formed conscience.

Can NFP be abused? Of course.

I think it is important to keep in mind that behind all sin is intent.