Humanae Vitae Debate

[fix]

It is not clear to me why one aspect of human life, sex, must be performed in the way that is believed to be in accord with its biological function, procreation, but this standard is not applied to any other aspect of human life. Setting aside the Church’s tortured definition of “procreative”, why must sex be procreative but eating need not be nutritious?

First, the Church use of open to procreation is not tortured at all. It is used it in a specific philosophical way. Why must people impute their monolithic use of the term as the only way to understand it?

Many, probably all, human activities have multiple purposes. Meals have a social (even “unitive”) purpose, a nutritional purpose, a pleasure or entertainment purpose, and probably more. But no one says that eating meals with friends for social and pleasurable purposes while deliberately avoiding absorbing nutrients is a sin, let alone intrinsically evil. It may well be a sin to abuse food to any extreme - obesity or its various opposites - but each consumption of each morsel need not be nutritive.

Why is sex different? I can think of only two reasons. The one heard most often is because the Church says so, which is a non-answer answer, but has some honesty to it. The other is because sex is dirty and wrong and must be justified by something more than pleasure and unity, but that is not a reason the Church has given, as far as I know.

Because the sex act has a moral aspect to it.

Contraceptive intercourse, as we have seen, is contra-ceptive because it
necessarily includes the choice to set aside or destroy the openness of the
act of sexual union to the good of transmitting life. The person who
chooses to have intercourse contraceptively is saying that it is not good
that this act is open to life, that it is not good that he or she is
fertile. Rather the contraceptor is saying that his or her procreative
power, his or her fertility is, here and now, not something good, but to
the contrary a disvalue or disease or evil. He or she is saying that
fertility is not a wonderfully good power of the human person, something
participating in the goodness of the human person. It may be a useful good,
or “bonum utile,” something good for something other than itself, a
“functional” good that can and indeed ought to be destroyed when it comes
into conflict with what is really humanly and personally good, namely the
unitive good of human sexuality…

…To put it briefly, those who accept contraception recognize that it
requires an anti-procreative choice, the choice to set aside or get rid of
or destroy fertility and the openness of the act of coition to the good of
transmitting human life. Yet they argue that this choice is morally good
“because” the procreative aspect of our sexuality is not, for them, a
personal good but rather a merely functional good dependent for its “human,
personal” goodness on other aspects of the human person.32…

 

[TMC]

First, the Church use of open to procreation is not tortured at all. It is used it in a specific philosophical way. Why must people impute their monolithic use of the term as the only way to understand it?

The problem I have with the Church’s definition is two-fold.

First, it is problematic to take a term that means something, redefine it to mean something else, and then use it as if it has not been redefined. The way the Church uses “procreative” has little or no relation to the word that means “capable of reproducing.” Redefining it, but continuing to use it in the context of discussing reproducton is what confuses people. We can discuss what the Church means by “procreative” but that is a long discussion in itself.

Second, I believe that the definition of procreative was arrived at by reasoning from conclusion. Rather than ask “what does this mean”, the question was “what meaning will result in the rule I have already decided on.” That kind of reasoning is sometimes appropriate. But it should be admitted and explained in that way. That is not what was done in this case.

Because the sex act has a moral aspect to it.

Is there not a moral aspect to other human activities? Or is this simply another way to say “because the Church says so”?

 

[Good_Daughter]

But no one says that eating meals with friends for social and pleasurable purposes while deliberately avoiding absorbing nutrients is a sin, let alone intrinsically evil.

And no one says that married people engaging in the marital act for unitive and pleasurable purposes while deliberately avoiding pregnancy is a sin or intrinsically evil.

In your analogy, the way we choose not to take in nutrients is important. If I don’t want nutrients in my body, I can either avoid them by drinking something with no nutrients in the first place, (like Diet Coke) or I can reject them by drinking something full of nutrients (like a milkshake) which I then make myself vomit.

NFP enables us to avoid conception like Diet Coke enables us to avoid nutrient absorption. Contraception enables us to reject conception like purging enables us to reject nutrient absorption.

If we eat all we like while purging unwanted nutrients, can we really call it a “moral” use of this biological function?

 

[Good_Daughter]

The problem I have with the Church’s definition is two-fold.

First, it is problematic to take a term that means something, redefine it to mean something else, and then use it as if it has not been redefined. The way the Church uses “procreative” has little or no relation to the word that means “capable of reproducing.” Redefining it, but continuing to use it in the context of discussing reproducton is what confuses people. We can discuss what the Church means by “procreative” but that is a long discussion in itself.

Second, I believe that the definition of procreative was arrived at by reasoning from conclusion. Rather than ask “what does this mean”, the question was “what meaning will result in the rule I have already decided on.” That kind of reasoning is sometimes appropriate. But it should be admitted and explained in that way. That is not what was done in this case.

You make a good point here. While I personally believe Church teaching to be correct, I also believe terms could stand to be clarified, even simplified.

 

[fix]

The problem I have with the Church’s definition is two-fold.

First, it is problematic to take a term that means something, redefine it to mean something else, and then use it as if it has not been redefined. The way the Church uses “procreative” has little or no relation to the word that means “capable of reproducing.” Redefining it, but continuing to use it in the context of discussing reproducton is what confuses people. We can discuss what the Church means by “procreative” but that is a long discussion in itself.

Second, I believe that the definition of procreative was arrived at by reasoning from conclusion. Rather than ask “what does this mean”, the question was “what meaning will result in the rule I have already decided on.” That kind of reasoning is sometimes appropriate. But it should be admitted and explained in that way. That is not what was done in this case.

Do you mean the church “invented” this teaching in 1968?
I ask because the teaching that the sex act must be open to life is not knew. The language used is philosophical. It is like criticizing medicine or law for using exacting language and declaring it is unfit because the common person does not grasp it that way.
This is from the year 1936:

Sex intercourse is the responsible human action of a man and
woman in bodily communion; a moral fact as well as a physical
fact. This action must be of that kind from which generation can
follow, the male seed being left in the proper female organ, the
vagina. If this be done in the natural manner and there be no
attempt to impede or frustrate its consequences, then in itself
the action possesses an inherent direction towards the blessing
of fruitfulness, and is a life-giving, or more precisely a life-
offering action, whether actual generation takes place or not.

Is there not a moral aspect to other human activities? Or is this simply another way to say “because the Church says so”?

As the link I posted pointed out fertility is a personal good. It would be like suppressing friendship or loyalty for some other end and saying that is acceptable.

You draw an analogy with eating, but eating is not on the same moral plane as sex. Marital sex is more than a physical act. Do you mean to assert that the sex act is analogous to eating or drinking?

 

[TMC]

Do you mean the church “invented” this teaching in 1968?
I ask because the teaching that the sex act must be open to life is not knew. The language used is philosophical. It is like criticizing medicine or law for using exacting language and declaring it is unfit because the common person does not grasp it that way.
This is from the year 1936:
As the link I posted pointed out fertility is a personal good. It would be like suppressing friendship or loyalty for some other end and saying that is acceptable.

You draw an analogy with eating, but eating is not on the same moral plane as sex. Marital sex is more than a physical act. Do you mean to assert that the sex act is analogous to eating or drinking?

The Church did not “invent” this teaching in 1968, but I think HV laid it out in a different way. I have not seen the use of “procreative significance” and “unitive significance,” or the requirement that each act have both, before that time. If they were used before then I would certainly appreciate hearing about it.

Good Daughter’s analogy to binging and purging is a good one. We should not use any of the biological functions in a way that is calculated to, or will likely result in, serious harm.

That said, and keeping in mind why we think binging and purging is sinful, I would not say that eating and sex are the same. But the rationale behind regulating each is the same, or should be.

All law and all morality depends on Christ’s two commandments, to love God and to love one another. Sins relating to misuse of eating and drinking are sins because they violate those commandments by harming us and others. Sex is different from eating and drinking for a few reasons. One is that it can result in new life. Another is that it is such an important element in the unique intimate relationship between spouses. Misusing sex is worse than misusing food for reasons that stem from these differences – the results are potentially more serious, and the damage that can be wrought to self and loved ones is significant and serious, too. The recklessness of exposing ourselves and others to those bad results is what makes the misuse of sex sinful, in my opinion.

But the seriousness of the possible bad results of misuse says little about the definition of misuse. The specific bad results we are trying to avoid do effect the way we regulate the use of sex, however. We limit sexual expression to the marital relationship precisely to avoid the the two things I mention, the irresponsibility of bringing new life without the structure to care for that life, and the pain and damage we may cause to ourselves and others by frivilously using this most intimate bond outside of the covenant with the person we are bonded to.

But the Church adds another element. Even within the bonds of the marriage, the Church says that sex must remain open to procreation. HV says that if one reflects on the matter, he must realize that sex that is not open to procreation “frustrates His [God’s] design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.” Now I assume that this supposedly obvious “frustration” of God’s design is said to be sinful because it is thought to be a violation of the commandment to love God. But no where that I am aware does the Church explain why taking action to prevent conception necessarily and always contradicts God’s will, while in every other realm of human activity man can thwart the ‘natural results’ of his actions with no such presumption. Why would this violate the love of God by thwarting His will, when availing oneself of other medical and scientific developments is not? Why aren’t diet pills and diet foods thwarting the natural plan of how nutrients work? Why isn’t sun screen thwarting God’s mechanisms?

To make matters even murkier, open to procreation is defined in a way that allows couples to have sex while deliberately avoiding procreating. What is allowed is not measured by what the couples intend, or even by the result, but merely by the mechanical way they go about having sex. I am not aware of any other moral rule that ignores both intent and result, and focuses solely on the form of the action. Look at two hypothetical couples under these rules. One can choose and plan to have ten children, have ten children, and be sinners for the way they bring that about. The other can choose to have only one child, have only one child, and be perfectly within the Church’s moral decrees. How can this be right? Becase the Church says the amount of sex doesn’t matter, why you have sex doesn’t matter, the result of the sex doesn’t matter, only the mechanics of how you have sex matters.

We are charged to find God through Faith and Reason. This particular doctrine is offensive to Reason, in my humble opinion.

 

[Janet_S]

Look at the fruits of contraception. I can understand why people had such high hopes for artificial contraception in the 1960’s, but now that 40 years have passed, and we’ve seen the effects of the widespread use of contraception, it’s hard to deny the wisdom of the Church. Everything predicted in HV has come to pass.

I think the Church explains pretty well why contraception is evil and its connection to other moral evils–particularly abortion, euthanasia, and the push for gay marriage. I’m sure in the future the Church can improve on her explanation for why contraception is intrinsically evil. Still, even if one weren’t aware of the Church’s explanations, who can deny the grave consequences of contraception for the family in particular and for the world in general.

Also, I don’t doubt that some people promote contraception for good intentions, but historically that is not the case. Look at the founders of this family planning/birth control movement–particularly those involved in eugenics–Margaret Sanger in our country. It is clearly anti-Christian. Look at the legacy of Planned Parenthood and the damage it does today.

By their fruits you will know them.

 

[Polaris]

The Church did not “invent” this teaching in 1968, but I think HV laid it out in a different way. I have not seen the use of “procreative significance” and “unitive significance,” or the requirement that each act have both, before that time. If they were used before then I would certainly appreciate hearing about it.

Good Daughter’s analogy to binging and purging is a good one. We should not use any of the biological functions in a way that is calculated to, or will likely result in, serious harm.

That said, and keeping in mind why we think binging and purging is sinful, I would not say that eating and sex are the same. But the rationale behind regulating each is the same, or should be.

All law and all morality depends on Christ’s two commandments, to love God and to love one another. Sins relating to misuse of eating and drinking are sins because they violate those commandments by harming us and others. Sex is different from eating and drinking for a few reasons. One is that it can result in new life. Another is that it is such an important element in the unique intimate relationship between spouses. Misusing sex is worse than misusing food for reasons that stem from these differences – the results are potentially more serious, and the damage that can be wrought to self and loved ones is significant and serious, too. The recklessness of exposing ourselves and others to those bad results is what makes the misuse of sex sinful, in my opinion.

But the seriousness of the possible bad results of misuse says little about the definition of misuse. The specific bad results we are trying to avoid do effect the way we regulate the use of sex, however. We limit sexual expression to the marital relationship precisely to avoid the the two things I mention, the irresponsibility of bringing new life without the structure to care for that life, and the pain and damage we may cause to ourselves and others by frivilously using this most intimate bond outside of the covenant with the person we are bonded to.

But the Church adds another element. Even within the bonds of the marriage, the Church says that sex must remain open to procreation. HV says that if one reflects on the matter, he must realize that sex that is not open to procreation “frustrates His [God’s] design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.” Now I assume that this supposedly obvious “frustration” of God’s design is said to be sinful because it is thought to be a violation of the commandment to love God. But no where that I am aware does the Church explain why taking action to prevent conception necessarily and always contradicts God’s will, while in every other realm of human activity man can thwart the ‘natural results’ of his actions with no such presumption. Why would this violate the love of God by thwarting His will, when availing oneself of other medical and scientific developments is not? Why aren’t diet pills and diet foods thwarting the natural plan of how nutrients work? Why isn’t sun screen thwarting God’s mechanisms?

To make matters even murkier, open to procreation is defined in a way that allows couples to have sex while deliberately avoiding procreating. What is allowed is not measured by what the couples intend, or even by the result, but merely by the mechanical way they go about having sex. I am not aware of any other moral rule that ignores both intent and result, and focuses solely on the form of the action. Look at two hypothetical couples under these rules. One can choose and plan to have ten children, have ten children, and be sinners for the way they bring that about. The other can choose to have only one child, have only one child, and be perfectly within the Church’s moral decrees. How can this be right? Becase the Church says the amount of sex doesn’t matter, why you have sex doesn’t matter, the result of the sex doesn’t matter, only the mechanics of how you have sex matters.

We are charged to find God through Faith and Reason. This particular doctrine is offensive to Reason, in my humble opinion.

Thanks for this! I agree with this view one hundred percent. You stated it much better than I have tried to.

 

[Chancellare]

This is what I call the Diet Coke problem. It is not clear to me why one aspect of human life, sex, must be performed in the way that is believed to be in accord with its biological function, procreation, but this standard is not applied to any other aspect of human life. Setting aside the Church’s tortured definition of “procreative”, why must sex be procreative but eating need not be nutritious?

Many, probably all, human activities have multiple purposes. Meals have a social (even “unitive”) purpose, a nutritional purpose, a pleasure or entertainment purpose, and probably more. But no one says that eating meals with friends for social and pleasurable purposes while deliberately avoiding absorbing nutrients is a sin, let alone intrinsically evil. It may well be a sin to abuse food to any extreme - obesity or its various opposites - but each consumption of each morsel need not be nutritive.

Why is sex different? I can think of only two reasons. The one heard most often is because the Church says so, which is a non-answer answer, but has some honesty to it. The other is because sex is dirty and wrong and must be justified by something more than pleasure and unity, but that is not a reason the Church has given, as far as I know.

Your post has a way of hijacking my point:
Abstention during fertile period is not immoral because it is not interference, in the same way skipping a meal is not suicide.
You cannot use the above argument to go against the sacred and procreative/unitive dimensions of marital embrace as the Church has been trying to teach us. That is a non-sequitur.

 

[Chancellare]

The Church did not “invent” this teaching in 1968, but I think HV laid it out in a different way. I have not seen the use of “procreative significance” and “unitive significance,” or the requirement that each act have both, before that time. If they were used before then I would certainly appreciate hearing about it.

Good Daughter’s analogy to binging and purging is a good one. We should not use any of the biological functions in a way that is calculated to, or will likely result in, serious harm.

That said, and keeping in mind why we think binging and purging is sinful, I would not say that eating and sex are the same. But the rationale behind regulating each is the same, or should be.

All law and all morality depends on Christ’s two commandments, to love God and to love one another. Sins relating to misuse of eating and drinking are sins because they violate those commandments by harming us and others. Sex is different from eating and drinking for a few reasons. One is that it can result in new life. Another is that it is such an important element in the unique intimate relationship between spouses. Misusing sex is worse than misusing food for reasons that stem from these differences – the results are potentially more serious, and the damage that can be wrought to self and loved ones is significant and serious, too. The recklessness of exposing ourselves and others to those bad results is what makes the misuse of sex sinful, in my opinion.

But the seriousness of the possible bad results of misuse says little about the definition of misuse. The specific bad results we are trying to avoid do effect the way we regulate the use of sex, however. We limit sexual expression to the marital relationship precisely to avoid the the two things I mention, the irresponsibility of bringing new life without the structure to care for that life, and the pain and damage we may cause to ourselves and others by frivilously using this most intimate bond outside of the covenant with the person we are bonded to.

But the Church adds another element. Even within the bonds of the marriage, the Church says that sex must remain open to procreation. HV says that if one reflects on the matter, he must realize that sex that is not open to procreation “frustrates His [God’s] design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.” Now I assume that this supposedly obvious “frustration” of God’s design is said to be sinful because it is thought to be a violation of the commandment to love God. But no where that I am aware does the Church explain why taking action to prevent conception necessarily and always contradicts God’s will, while in every other realm of human activity man can thwart the ‘natural results’ of his actions with no such presumption. Why would this violate the love of God by thwarting His will, when availing oneself of other medical and scientific developments is not? Why aren’t diet pills and diet foods thwarting the natural plan of how nutrients work? Why isn’t sun screen thwarting God’s mechanisms?

To make matters even murkier, open to procreation is defined in a way that allows couples to have sex while deliberately avoiding procreating. What is allowed is not measured by what the couples intend, or even by the result, but merely by the mechanical way they go about having sex. I am not aware of any other moral rule that ignores both intent and result, and focuses solely on the form of the action. Look at two hypothetical couples under these rules. One can choose and plan to have ten children, have ten children, and be sinners for the way they bring that about. The other can choose to have only one child, have only one child, and be perfectly within the Church’s moral decrees. How can this be right? Becase the Church says the amount of sex doesn’t matter, why you have sex doesn’t matter, the result of the sex doesn’t matter, only the mechanics of how you have sex matters.

We are charged to find God through Faith and Reason. This particular doctrine is offensive to Reason, in my humble opinion.

Is this essay still towards proving NFP=ABC?

 

[TMC]

Your post has a way of hijacking my point:
Abstention during fertile period is not immoral because it is not interference, in the same way skipping a meal is not suicide.
You cannot use the above argument to go against the sacred and procreative/unitive dimensions of marital embrace as the Church has been trying to teach us. That is a non-sequitur.

Didn’t mean to hijack your point. I guess I was confused by your point, which I took to mean the opposite of what you intended. Re-reading it now, the failing was my reading and not your writing. My apologies.

 

[Chancellare]

Didn’t mean to hijack your point. I guess I was confused by your point, which I took to mean the opposite of what you intended. Re-reading it now, the failing was my reading and not your writing. My apologies.

Apologies accepted.
Although I tried to understand your argument against Church teachings on NFP, I am not convinced that NFP is immoral nor double standard.
IMHO, the Church is consistent in other areas where it teaches abstention and other forms of self-denial such as:

• Fasting
• Avoiding occasions of sin
• Denying one’s self of worldly pleasures
• Mortifications
  I cannot imagine going to confession to say that I have sinned because I abstained from sex for 1 week and in the process failed to procreate this month.
  In the same manner, I find it intellectually dishonest to equate NFP with ABC simply because both don’t produce a baby. It’s just like saying dying of old age is the same as committing suicide because both result in death.

 

[Polaris]

Apologies accepted.
Although I tried to understand your argument against Church teachings on NFP, I am not convinced that NFP is immoral nor double standard.
IMHO, the Church is consistent in other areas where it teaches abstention and other forms of self-denial such as:

• Fasting
• Avoiding occasions of sin
• Denying one’s self of worldly pleasures
• Mortifications
  I cannot imagine going to confession to say that I have sinned because I abstained from sex for 1 week and in the process failed to procreate this month.
  In the same manner, I find it intellectually dishonest to equate NFP with ABC simply because both don’t produce a baby. It’s just like saying dying of old age is the same as committing suicide because both result in death.

I think you should be a little more honest with your intentions.

I think mortification is the best example. If you do it for God it is Good. Now say I do it because I hate my body, I dispise it and want nothing, but to cause it pain and scar it.

Is this Good? No because the intention is not serperation from the physical but to damage a creation of God.

NOW

Did you abstain from sex for a spiritual reason?

I find that suspect. Since you abstained from sex for a relatively short time period during a certian week that just happened to correspond to your fertile time period that you purposely tried to discover. What was your actual intention. Your intention was
NOt to have a child. Your intention was not to be open to life.
It was not for God, it was to avoid a small chance that life can occur.

NFP=ABC when it is used as birth control, is evil because by your actions of discovering your fertile time period, you are purposely seperating unity from the procreative aspecet of the act. You are reducing your wife or your husband to sex object.

Time is a physical reality we know this and you are using that physical reality to stop egg from meeting sperm. A condom is also a physical reality where you seperate the egg from meeeting the sperm.

 

[Good_Daughter]

But no where that I am aware does the Church explain why taking action to prevent conception necessarily and always contradicts God’s will, while in every other realm of human activity man can thwart the ‘natural results’ of his actions with no such presumption. Why would this violate the love of God by thwarting His will, when availing oneself of other medical and scientific developments is not? Why aren’t diet pills and diet foods thwarting the natural plan of how nutrients work? Why isn’t sun screen thwarting God’s mechanisms?

From the beginning, God created us out of love, but instead of keeping the creation of each individual human person to Himself, God allows us to participate with Him in this incredible act by giving us the gift of fertility. Fertility itself is always good. Even when pregnancy will potentially kill you, fertility itself is still good.

Taking action to prevent conception is necessarily and always an assault on human fertility. (Herein lies the reason for the Church’s ban on contraception.) The use of NFP to avoid pregnancy, poses no such assault on fertility. Instead, with NFP, fertility is allowed to rise and fall according to natural design. (Herein lies the reason for the Church’s acceptance of NFP.) A couple, respectfully aware that their fertility is a gift, may choose to use it or save it, but they are wise, the Church teaches, never to thwart or destroy such a beautiful gift.

Outside of contraception, I can’t think of any medical or scientific developments that seek to thwart or destroy something good, can you? Thwarting obesity or skin cancer, to use your examples, is fine because these things, unlike fertility, are intrinsically harmful.

To make matters even murkier, open to procreation is defined in a way that allows couples to have sex while deliberately avoiding procreating. What is allowed is not measured by what the couples intend, or even by the result, but merely by the mechanical way they go about having sex. I am not aware of any other moral rule that ignores both intent and result, and focuses solely on the form of the action. Look at two hypothetical couples under these rules. One can choose and plan to have ten children, have ten children, and be sinners for the way they bring that about. The other can choose to have only one child, have only one child, and be perfectly within the Church’s moral decrees. How can this be right? Becase the Church says the amount of sex doesn’t matter, why you have sex doesn’t matter, the result of the sex doesn’t matter, only the mechanics of how you have sex matters.

We are charged to find God through Faith and Reason. This particular doctrine is offensive to Reason, in my humble opinion.

The intent of couples seeking to plan their families is important to the Church, as are the results. Parents are often praised for their generosity in having children. Infertile couples also deserve praise for their openness to life and respect for the fertility God may choose to give them. I think the mechanics of procreative vs. contracepted sex are what we’ve gotten so wrong, (especially in this century) therefore the Church is devoting much effort to correcting this particular error.

No matter how many children you have, the intention to thwart or destroy human fertility, a priceless gift from God, is always wrong. That’s the lesson the Church is trying to teach us (mercifully, painfully) to keep us in God’s favour.

Do you really believe ten children makes a couple more virtuous than one child? Why do you think the amount of sex we have, reason we have sex, and results of that sex don’t matter to the Church? I’ve heard all those things mentioned as important. The one thing I’ve never heard mentioned as important is having a set number of children.

 

[TMC]

From the beginning, God created us out of love, but instead of keeping the creation of each individual human person to Himself, God allows us to participate with Him in this incredible act by giving us the gift of fertility. Fertility itself is always good. Even when pregnancy will potentially kill you, fertility itself is still good.

Taking action to prevent conception is necessarily and always an assault on human fertility. (Herein lies the reason for the Church’s ban on contraception.) The use of NFP to avoid pregnancy, poses no such assault on fertility. Instead, with NFP, fertility is allowed to rise and fall according to natural design. (Herein lies the reason for the Church’s acceptance of NFP.) A couple, respectfully aware that their fertility is a gift, may choose to use it or save it, but they are wise, the Church teaches, never to thwart or destroy such a beautiful gift.
QUOTE]

Your post (which I shortened in this quote to stay under 5000) demonstrates some of the basic problems I have with the Church’s teachings in this area.

1. Your entire argument begins with the premise that fertility is good, and always good.
2. I think you also are asserting that thwarting a good is always wrong.
3. And you say that ABC thwarts fertilty and NFP does not.

I think that each of these statements is wrong.

Fertility is not an abolute good. I would agree that procreation - bringing new life into the world - is good. I am not comfortable with saying that anything is ‘always’ good or evil, but I will grant that procreation is very good. Fertility is good only in the sense that it is a means to get to procreation. Fertility is simply the state of being able to participate in procreation, any good it has derives only from its use for procreation. In and of itself it is nothing. A fertile celibate person is not better or worse than an infertile celibate, for example. Fertility is meaningless to that person because fertility is not inherently good or bad.

Avoiding good is not always wrong. It would be wrong to always reject the good things that are available to us. But it is not always wrong to avoid things that are good. It it were, that would turn most human life into a series of sins of avoidance. If calling your mother is good, is not calling your mother every chance you get a sin? This goes back to the non-nutritious food examples that have already been belabored.

Finally, I understand the zillion arguments made over and over for the proposition that ABC thwarts fertilty and NFP does not. I think they are really no more than rhetoric. Here is how I see it. Conception occurs when a sperm penetrates and fertilizes an egg in an environment that is conducive to growth. This normally happens in a woman’s fallopian tube. The goal of all birth control is to prevent the sperm from encountering an egg in the fallopian tube. Procreation is simply not accomplished, or honored, or ‘open to’ merely by depositing sperm in the birth canal. There may have been a time when people believed that this kind of ‘seed planting’ was the key to procreation, but we have known for hundreds of years that this is not how conception occurs. When we know that there is no chance that a sperm will meet an egg in a manner that allows for growth, the act is not open to procreation. In fact, it has nothing to do with procreation at that point. This is true whether the reason the sperm will not meet an egg is because a) the woman has no eggs, b) the man has no sperm, c) the woman has taken steps to ensure an egg will not be there, or d) either party has taken steps to ensure the sperm will not get there. A and B cover infertile couples. C includes NFP and the pill. D includes condoms, other barriers, and spermicides.

Timing the sex to ensure an egg is not there is no more open to procreation than doing something else to ensure the egg is not there. How is it open to procreation to have sex at the precise time, and only at the precise time, that procreation is impossilble?

Here is an analogy. Your boss says he wants to speak to you and tells you to come to his office. You don’t want to speak to him, but you believe you are obliged to respect him. You know he leaves every day at 5 and comes in every day at 9. So you got to his office everyday at 8:30 and at 5:30. In fact, you even check the parking lot first to make sure his car is not there before you go. If you believe that doing that means that you were open to meeting with him, then I suppose you can believe that NFP is open to procreation.

I am not saying that NFP is not moral, I think its fine. I just don’t think its any different from other forms of birth control.

 

[Chancellare]

I think you should be a little more honest with your intentions.

I think mortification is the best example. If you do it for God it is Good. Now say I do it because I hate my body, I dispise it and want nothing, but to cause it pain and scar it.

Is this Good? No because the intention is not serperation from the physical but to damage a creation of God.

NOW

Did you abstain from sex for a spiritual reason?

I find that suspect. Since you abstained from sex for a relatively short time period during a certian week that just happened to correspond to your fertile time period that you purposely tried to discover. What was your actual intention. Your intention was
NOt to have a child. Your intention was not to be open to life.
It was not for God, it was to avoid a small chance that life can occur.

NFP=ABC when it is used as birth control, is evil because by your actions of discovering your fertile time period, you are purposely seperating unity from the procreative aspecet of the act. You are reducing your wife or your husband to sex object.

Time is a physical reality we know this and you are using that physical reality to stop egg from meeting sperm. A condom is also a physical reality where you seperate the egg from meeeting the sperm.

Here we go again.
When a person skips a meal and loses nutrients for one night, what moral rule did he violate? Is it immoral to keep one’s weight at 140 lbs?
When a person decides to skip sex and skip conception in the process, tell me what moral rule did he violate? Is it immoral to keep a spacing of 2 years between 2 siblings?
Even TMC is complaining of a double standard of you treat skipping meals differently from skipping sex.
Having said that:
The ability to skip sex requires a spiritual exercise that uses mastery of the spirit over animal urges. As in fasting and other self-denial, it entails spiritual mastery. The more spiritually mature a person, the more he can reign in his animalistic urges. For such a person, there is no such thing as sex object. In contrast, for a person using ABC, everything is reduced to objects: you plug something into something in order to have sex anytime you want. Now how can you equate these two?

Having said that, the morality of deciding not to have a baby during a certain period of time is a separate matter. Tell me: when you decide not to have a baby this year, what moral dictum are you violating?
Prove it by specific principles, citations and references please.

Failure to prove your claim means your honesty is the one in doubt.

 

[fmagill]

All: I’ve not taken the time to read every single post in all the multiple threads the OP generated, so perhaps I missed it. But in all this thoughtful and usually cordial and charitable discussion of Humanae Vitae, has anyone mentioned the uncanny accuracy of the predictions Paul VI made about the likely results of the widespread use of contraception? More adultery, more fornication, more abortions…and the ultimate breakdown of the family.

By all means, parse the words and argue the theological and linguistic minutiae all you want, but to me the bottom line is: HE WAS RIGHT. Someone did mention in an earlier post the fact that until the Episcopalians broke ranks in the 1930’s, EVERY Christian doctrine held artificial contraception to be sinful. Once the dam really broke in the 60’s, and the obsession with sex for its own sake overtook Western civilization, Paul VI was (and remains in many circles, including far too many Catholics) vilified for standing up for the traditional sense of ALL Christian institutions in this regard. He predicted what would happen if this tradition were to be abandoned. It has all happened and continues to grow worse. If HV bothers you, what about 50 million aborted babies, a 50 percent divorce rate, the saturation of popular culture with sex, “gay marriage”, the “morning after” abortifacient pill, public schools teaching 10 year old kids about oral and anal sex, and all the rest? (By the way, according to Barbara McWiggin on EWTN Radio Open Line earlier this week, the divorce rate among couples who use NFP is LESS THAN 5 PERCENT.) By their fruits shall you know them.

I don’t want a Church that changes fundamental doctrine in order to be more “in tune” with the world. Thank God for Paul VI, for JP II’s Theology of the Body, and for all those who defend the traditional morality taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning.

May God have mercy on us all.

 

[TMC]

All: I’ve not taken the time to read every single post in all the multiple threads the OP generated, so perhaps I missed it. But in all this thoughtful and usually cordial and charitable discussion of Humanae Vitae, has anyone mentioned the uncanny accuracy of the predictions Paul VI made about the likely results of the widespread use of contraception? More adultery, more fornication, more abortions…and the ultimate breakdown of the family.

By all means, parse the words and argue the theological and linguistic minutiae all you want, but to me the bottom line is: HE WAS RIGHT. Someone did mention in an earlier post the fact that until the Episcopalians broke ranks in the 1930’s, EVERY Christian doctrine held artificial contraception to be sinful. Once the dam really broke in the 60’s, and the obsession with sex for its own sake overtook Western civilization, Paul VI was (and remains in many circles, including far too many Catholics) vilified for standing up for the traditional sense of ALL Christian institutions in this regard. He predicted what would happen if this tradition were to be abandoned. It has all happened and continues to grow worse. If HV bothers you, what about 50 million aborted babies, a 50 percent divorce rate, the saturation of popular culture with sex, “gay marriage”, the “morning after” abortifacient pill, public schools teaching 10 year old kids about oral and anal sex, and all the rest? (By the way, according to Barbara McWiggin on EWTN Radio Open Line earlier this week, the divorce rate among couples who use NFP is LESS THAN 5 PERCENT.) By their fruits shall you know them.

I don’t want a Church that changes fundamental doctrine in order to be more “in tune” with the world. Thank God for Paul VI, for JP II’s Theology of the Body, and for all those who defend the traditional morality taught by the Catholic Church since the beginning.

May God have mercy on us all.

Come on, predicting the rise in divorce, the increase public discourse on sexuality and all the rest in 1968 is like predicting World War II in 1943. Hardly prescient. I have never understood the supposed link between birth control and divorce, or birth control and homosexuality. What is the mechanism?

On your last point, I would hardly call the rules on correct sexual technique “fundamental” to Christianity. Hotly debated right now, sure, but not fundamental to what we believe. I also do not want a Church that swings with the public sentiment, which is why I have always advocated patience when it comes to change. I do want a Church that teaches Truth. The currently teachings on birth control are the current doctrine of the Church, but they are not part of the Revealed Truth, and they are not even well founded in Scripture. They are a theological construct based on bad reasoning and stubborn insistence on maintaining a middle ages understanding of how human reproduction works. They can change, they should change, and I am sure in time they will change.

 

[fix]

But the Church adds another element. Even within the bonds of the marriage, the Church says that sex must remain open to procreation. HV says that if one reflects on the matter, he must realize that sex that is not open to procreation “frustrates His [God’s] design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.” Now I assume that this supposedly obvious “frustration” of God’s design is said to be sinful because it is thought to be a violation of the commandment to love God. But no where that I am aware does the Church explain why taking action to prevent conception necessarily and always contradicts God’s will, while in every other realm of human activity man can thwart the ‘natural results’ of his actions with no such presumption. Why would this violate the love of God by thwarting His will, when availing oneself of other medical and scientific developments is not? Why aren’t diet pills and diet foods thwarting the natural plan of how nutrients work? Why isn’t sun screen thwarting God’s mechanisms?

The design by God has been expalined by Rome and specfically JPII. You ask why things like diet pills are ok but not altering the marital act is a must? Because the end of dieting is to fix a fault. What fault is being fixed by suppressing fertility? Fertiity is a good in and of itself.

It seems to me to be that the gift of fertility is something that is so precious to God we have no authority to alter it for any reason. That is true of other things as well.

To make matters even murkier, open to procreation is defined in a way that allows couples to have sex while deliberately avoiding procreating. What is allowed is not measured by what the couples intend, or even by the result, but merely by the mechanical way they go about having sex. I am not aware of any other moral rule that ignores both intent and result, and focuses solely on the form of the action. Look at two hypothetical couples under these rules. One can choose and plan to have ten children, have ten children, and be sinners for the way they bring that about. The other can choose to have only one child, have only one child, and be perfectly within the Church’s moral decrees. How can this be right? Becase the Church says the amount of sex doesn’t matter, why you have sex doesn’t matter, the result of the sex doesn’t matter, only the mechanics of how you have sex matters.

Morality involves intent, means, and result. That applies to all moral actions. You have heard it a million times a good end is never justified by an evil means. That is as old as Augustine, maybe older.

 

[Greg72]

…Morality involves intent, means, and result. That applies to all moral actions. You have heard it a million times a good end is never justified by an evil means. That is as old as Augustine, maybe older.

Yes, but a fair amount of this debate seems to be questioning whether a Christian couple depriving the universe of a human being is a good end, regardless of the means.