But, lets be specific. To understand Gods will w.r.t. conjugal morality through His creation of humans, humans first had to reach an adequate understanding of the human reproductive system in all of its aspects (physiological, psychological and spiritual) as God created it. Christiandom was not competent to do so until the first half of the 20th century. While their knowledge is not complete, in the first half of the 20th century, they arrived at a sufficiently comprehensive understanding, to also appreciate that God did not will that procreation be the only or even the primary purpose of conjugal intercourse, or that the two ends of conjugal intercourse be inseparably connected. Hence, Pope Pius XII in 1951 reversed the Churchs 2,000 year old teaching against any form of birth control and sanctioned rhythm to exclude (separate) procreation from conjugal intercourse.
I know there’s a least a few flaws in his arguments, specifically what are the flaws and what is rebuttal to his arguments?
Don’t let him lead you around. He is arguing dishonestly and expecting you to chase him and argue on his terms. Everytime you answer one of his objections satisfactorally, he will drop it (not concede it) and persue another that he believes will have more success. It is a cowardly technique that a fool can use to convince himself that he is intelligent. It is a game not worth playing.
I would call him on it and tell him he is dancing around and that if he wants to have an intelligent debate, he can pick any one claim he wants to make (instead of a dozen unsupported claims) and I would reply. Then he would have to acknowledge my response and have the decency to reply to it. Otherwise, he is just toying with you.
In that spirit, I will reply to this quoted objection, though I’m not sure he’s honest enough to try to argue both of these at the same time.
He is making 2 claims here that I’ll take in turn:
1st Faliscious Claim: Paul VI taught something contrary to the previous teaching of the Church.
Basic Response: Find any teaching in the history of the Church that is contradicted by Paul VI. The burden of proof is on him, and though he talks a big game, he is not bringing documents to the table.
In depth:
He is making a claim that the lack of definite teaching contradicts definite teaching by Paul VI. It is a silly argument. The closest example I can think of is this: My 3 year old just wants to eat ice cream, but we tell her that she has to eat her dinner first. When she’s older, we explain nutrition to her, and she still has to eat her dinner first. It would be absurd to argue, that this new “knowledge of nutrition” contradicted the rule (ie. teaching) that you eat your dinner before ice cream. This is exactly the argument he is makeing.
In the Old Testement, we can see Onan using a form of birth control and God killing him for it. He was clearly trying to sepparate the pleasure of sex from the possibility of conception. This is something that humans have known how to do for thousands of years. We didn’t invent contraception in the 1920’s. This is also something that the Church has condemned perpetually. Paul VI just wrote an eloquent explaination of why it was condemned.
2nd Faliscious Claim: NFP separates Procreation from conjugal intercourse.
Basic Response: He does not understand that even though “the procreative and unitive goods of conjugal love are insepperable,” it does not follow that all acts of conjugal love must result in a baby. The real problem is trying to actively frustrate one of these goods.
In depth:
We are talking about acts that are sinful here. The Church has always stated that contraception (the active frustration of the procreative good of sex) is inherently evil. An act that pretends to be an act of conjugal love but slams the door on life is not an act of conjugal love. That act is a sin. Every time you have contracepted sex, you are sinning (Each act is a sin). He needs to understand this pricipal before you can explain how NFP is different.
Now, this is going to take some logic, which presuposes intelectual honesty. If you don’t think he’s going to be honest, then there isn’t much point in trying to explain it to him as he will willfully misunderstand you. But, I won’t let that stop me from laying out the truth here.
Before we dive too deeply here, let’s define “inherently wrong.” Something that is inherently wrong is intrinsically evil. It can never be good. An act that is inherently wrong can never be participated in “in good conscience.”
- An act of conjugal love during the woman’s natural time of infertility is still an act of conjugal love (ie: it is not a sin, it is licit behavior for spouses.)
This should be self evident, otherwise, you would have to confess every time you made love to your spouse without concieving a child. The Church has never taught that this was a sin. The Church has also never taught celibacy after menopause, which must logically follow if you do not accept 1.
- Obstaining from conjugal love is not a sin.
Again, this should be self evident. If it were a sin, then you would have to confess every night that you didn’t make love to your spouse.
If we can establish 1 & 2, and put them together, we have proven NFP is not “inherently wrong.” It’s not exactly rocket science but so many people try so hard to misunderstand it.
Now, he may start arguing NFP can be abused, and he would be right. Like almost anything else, It can be abused, but it is not inherently wrong.
You would have to be an idiot to argue that Ice Cream is inherently evil just because some people are gluttons.
I would encourage everyone to read Humanae Vitae for good guidelines of how to use NFP in a morally acceptable way.
God bless,
~ Red_Beard
></o
Peace in Christ