Humanae Vitae Debate

[fix]

Even if that were not true, or you were inclined to simply reject NFP instead of accepting ABC, there is no other area of Catholic teaching that preaches this so-called “natural law” limitation on the use of our bodies. Its OK to have my eybrows lifted, my eyes lasered, and butt check implants, but taking the pill is an affront to God’s design? Please.

These are all different issues. Lasering eyes would be to correct an imperfection. To restore what is missing. How does suppressing the gift of fertility restore what is lacking?

Cosmetic procedures also, at least subjectively, restore something lost. Contraception is an action to act against a personal good.

 

[BruceK]

This is a loaded question that suggests unacceptable alternatives. He was neither intellectually dishonest nor was he grossly incompetent. **I don’t either, which is all the more reason I believe he was right after all… ** However, in retrospect, Pope Paul VI and his advisors misjudged the attitudes of millions of Catholics and the church suffered a tremendous backlash. He had told many Catholics what they did not want to hear. Jesus told some things many did not want to hear, Paul VI was stunned by the repercussions and I don’t think he issued any more encyclicals during his reign.

Since the publication of Humane Vitae the use of ABC by Catholics has not abated but seems to have become more widespread.

Whether these results might have been avoided by a more nuanced approach is an open question.

What ‘nuanced approach’ could the Church have taken?

 

[LeahInancsi]

I get a kick out of people who say that a married couple shouldn’t have sex when the woman isn’t fertile because there’s no chance of conception. It amounts to not being open to life.

 

[Arnobius]

I get a kick out of people who say that a married couple shouldn’t have sex when the woman isn’t fertile because there’s no chance of conception. It amounts to not being open to life.

The logical conclusion of this (and the argument of those who would argue NFP is contraception) is it is sinful to knowingly have sex during a infertile time

 

[John_Kippley]

It seems to me that the debate about Humanae Vitae is going nowhere. That’s not surprising when the anti-HV party keeps claiming that contraception and non-contraception are the same thing because the participants in both have the same intention. The advocates of that view seem not to notice that among the various peoples of the world almost all the really big issues are not about the ends to be sought but the means to get there. The participants of these other world debates, say the desirability of reducing man’s contribution to global warming, would all agree that the end does not make all the various means to get there the same. Regarding birth control, the end also does not homogenize the means.

My experience in the birth control debate is that those on the left do not want to debate but merely want a forum for assertion. Back in the Sixties and Seventies we used to hear about the need to “debate” the birth control issue. But when I showed in a liberal theological journal, Theological Studies, in 1971 that the decision-making principles of arch-dissenter Father Charles Curran couldn’t say a firm NO even to spouse swapping, there was absolutely no response.

Arguments can be helpful in some cases, but in order for people practicing contraception to accept Catholic teaching against all unnatural forms of birth control, such folks have to have certain dispositions. First, they need to realize the importance of living the truth. Second, they need to pray for the graces to seek the truth and to accept it no matter what the practical consequences. Third, they need to realize the difference between themselves and God. That means that they have to realize that their opinions count for absolutely nothing if God has already made it sufficiently clear what He wants people to believe.

To the person who originally posted the question, I would suggest giving your friend the book “Home Sweet Rome” by Scott and Kimberly Hahn. Some readers may recall their story. They were Protestants in a seminary. Kimberly took a seminar topic of birth control or maybe it was the Catholic position on birth control. Another wife in the same married student housing gave her a copy of “Birth Control and the Marriage Covenant.” When she shared it with Scott, he grumbled a bit, started to read it, and when he got to the key concept, he threw the book across the room. So what was the idea that grabbed him? Very simple—the covenant theology of sexuality. It can be stated in 17 words: “Sexual intercourse is intended by God to be at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage covenant.” Scott was really into covenant theology, and he immediately saw how contraception contradicted the marriage covenant. The body language says it all. When married spouses engage in the natural marriage act, their body language says, “We take each other once again for better and for worse, no matter what, till death do us part.” That can be elaborated considerably, but that’s enough for now. On the other hand, when contraceptive-using spouses engage in their form of sex act, the body language says something quite different. “We take each other once again but definitely and positively NOT for the imagined worse of possible pregnancy.” Their act contradicts their original marriage covenant and is therefore invalid and immoral. It is intrinsically dishonest, to use the words of HV 14.

So what did the Hahns have going for them that enabled them to see and to accept the truth of the traditional Christian teaching against contraception? They were truth seekers. Every day they prayed a prayer given to them by Kimberly’s father, a Presbyterian pastor. In doing so, they prayed for the graces to seek for and to accept the truth no matter what the consequences. They rejected their previous contraception and started to live the truth about the marriage act. Living out the moral truths of Christian discipleship enables one to accept the dogmatic truths. Today, the Hahns are recognized as outstanding converts who have been able to articulate the Catholic faith in a way that gives insights and makes sense to many.
The book that helped them is still available in an enlarged and more complete volume titled “Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality” (Ignatius, 2005). And yes, I’m the author. You can find it at the website below. Some folks find it helpful.
John F. Kippley
www.NFPandmore.org

 

[mercygate]

It seems to me that the debate about Humanae Vitae is going nowhere. That’s not surprising when the anti-HV party keeps claiming that contraception and non-contraception are the same thing because the participants in both have the same intention. The advocates of that view seem not to notice that among the various peoples of the world almost all the really big issues are not about the ends to be sought but the means to get there. The participants of these other world debates, say the desirability of reducing man’s contribution to global warming, would all agree that the end does not make all the various means to get there the same. Regarding birth control, the end also does not homogenize the means.

My experience in the birth control debate is that those on the left do not want to debate but merely want a forum for assertion. Back in the Sixties and Seventies we used to hear about the need to “debate” the birth control issue. But when I showed in a liberal theological journal, Theological Studies, in 1971 that the decision-making principles of arch-dissenter Father Charles Curran couldn’t say a firm NO even to spouse swapping, there was absolutely no response.

Arguments can be helpful in some cases, but in order for people practicing contraception to accept Catholic teaching against all unnatural forms of birth control, such folks have to have certain dispositions. First, they need to realize the importance of living the truth. Second, they need to pray for the graces to seek the truth and to accept it no matter what the practical consequences. Third, they need to realize the difference between themselves and God. That means that they have to realize that their opinions count for absolutely nothing if God has already made it sufficiently clear what He wants people to believe.

To the person who originally posted the question, I would suggest giving your friend the book “Home Sweet Rome” by Scott and Kimberly Hahn. Some readers may recall their story. They were Protestants in a seminary. Kimberly took a seminar topic of birth control or maybe it was the Catholic position on birth control. Another wife in the same married student housing gave her a copy of “Birth Control and the Marriage Covenant.” When she shared it with Scott, he grumbled a bit, started to read it, and when he got to the key concept, he threw the book across the room. So what was the idea that grabbed him? Very simple—the covenant theology of sexuality. It can be stated in 17 words: “Sexual intercourse is intended by God to be at least implicitly a renewal of the marriage covenant.” Scott was really into covenant theology, and he immediately saw how contraception contradicted the marriage covenant. The body language says it all. When married spouses engage in the natural marriage act, their body language says, “We take each other once again for better and for worse, no matter what, till death do us part.” That can be elaborated considerably, but that’s enough for now. On the other hand, when contraceptive-using spouses engage in their form of sex act, the body language says something quite different. “We take each other once again but definitely and positively NOT for the imagined worse of possible pregnancy.” Their act contradicts their original marriage covenant and is therefore invalid and immoral. It is intrinsically dishonest, to use the words of HV 14.

So what did the Hahns have going for them that enabled them to see and to accept the truth of the traditional Christian teaching against contraception? They were truth seekers. Every day they prayed a prayer given to them by Kimberly’s father, a Presbyterian pastor. In doing so, they prayed for the graces to seek for and to accept the truth no matter what the consequences. They rejected their previous contraception and started to live the truth about the marriage act. Living out the moral truths of Christian discipleship enables one to accept the dogmatic truths. Today, the Hahns are recognized as outstanding converts who have been able to articulate the Catholic faith in a way that gives insights and makes sense to many.
The book that helped them is still available in an enlarged and more complete volume titled “Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality” (Ignatius, 2005). And yes, I’m the author. You can find it at the website below. Some folks find it helpful.
John F. Kippley
www.NFPandmore.org

For goodness sake! Are you THE John Kippley? If so, I am flabbergasted and extremely grateful that you would post here. As a former Protestant, who intuited the rightness of the Catholic position early in our marriage in the '70s, and stopped contracepting without the benefit of your reasoning on the matter, I assure you that your contribution to the literature on this subject has been a great blessing to those who have found it!

Thank you for posting here.

 

[mercygate]

What ‘nuanced approach’ could the Church have taken?

Snort. Yeah. Apparently, Humanae vitae is already sufficiently “nuanced” that people don’t get it.

I think it’s one of those things that sometimes people have to LIVE in order to understand.

 

[setter]

It seems to me that the debate about Humanae Vitae is going nowhere. That’s not surprising when the anti-HV party keeps claiming that contraception and non-contraception are the same thing because the participants in both have the same intention.

Exactly. Same intention does not equal same morality, i.e., the intrinsic evil or good of an action. One action acts directly against (ABC) the procreative good, i.e., fertility, while the other (NFP) does not – the two simply do not equate or commensurate. To claim otherwise lacks a logical basis.

The advocates of that view seem not to notice that among the various peoples of the world almost all the really big issues are not about the ends to be sought but the means to get there. The participants of these other world debates, say the desirability of reducing man’s contribution to global warming, would all agree that the end does not make all the various means to get there the same. Regarding birth control, the end also does not homogenize the means.

Often what is missing in the self-contradictory assertions of the “anti-HV party” is a most basic understanding of Catholic principles for morality, and a preference to keep the argument within a prescribed (and unchallenging, i.e., minus the cross of Christ) parameter:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The *object of the choice *can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. (CCC)

 

[marci]

I would say that the contraceptive act is the careful planning of the marital act to ensure that no conception can occur. There is little that is “natural” about natural family planning, and nothing that is procreative. On the contrary it is a carefully and scientifically designed system to avoid procreating.

 

[setter]

Why do you think most people use ABC? And people who use ABC can be just as open to life conceived while using it, and generally are, as people using NFP. There is **no intention based difference **between the two. Absolutely none.

Intention is only one of the aspects which determine the morality of a specific act.

This idea that NFP is more “natural” because it does not involve taking a pill makes absolutely no sense.

This statement makes no sense – NFP is entirely natural because is does not introduce any unnatural means of seeking to limit birth. ABC is entirely unnatural beacuse we are not born with contraceptive devises or chemical means.

All contraception is based on using the body’s reproductive design.

Using and manipulating.

Evading conception by a complex system rather than a chemical or a barrier is no more or less “natural”.

Please show me what I am missing – ABC introduces artificial means, NFP does not.

Each is an application of our understanding of reproduction in an attempt to avoid it.

Understanding the human reproductive system does not equate to a moral or amoral use of one’s reproductive system. Note: animals reproduce, humans procreate. Btw – do you know of any animal species that are instinctually programmed to artificially frustrate reproduction of their species? …does this not tell you something about God’s natural law?

 

[marci]

Is it true that NFP is only to be used for a serious reason, and when that reason no longer exists the couple is to cease it’s use?
What are they to do? Stop taking their temp, stop charting, examining, etc.?

If there is no serious reason and a couple simply wants just one child and no more, is it immoral for them to use NFP?

If the answer is Yes, why is it immoral? If NFP is natural than why is it not to be used as the norm if a couple so chooses?

This is where the intention comes into play. To say that NFP is OK simply because it is natural, is not the whole truth.

It is OK and moral only when used under certain conditions. Proponents of NFP, at least the majority of posts I have seen. Seem to forget the part about the serious reason.

 

[mercygate]

Is it true that NFP is only to be used for a serious reason, and when that reason no longer exists the couple is to cease it’s use?
What are they to do? Stop taking their temp, stop charting, examining, etc.?

If there is no serious reason and a couple simply wants just one child and no more, is it immoral for them to use NFP?

If the answer is Yes, why is it immoral? If NFP is natural than why is it not to be used as the norm if a couple so chooses?

This is where the intention comes into play. To say that NFP is OK simply because it is natural, is not the whole truth.

It is OK and moral only when used under certain conditions. Proponents of NFP, at least the majority of posts I have seen. Seem to forget the part about the serious reason.

Bingo! NFP, used with sinful intent, for selfish reasons, is not a moral option. I guess you COULD get into “degrees” of sinfulness but I get dizzy going that route.

The marriage covenant is about fruitfulness, of which a primary condition is fruitfulness in procreation.

Is it not strange that in a society, such as ours, where wealth is more abundant and widely distributed than ever before in the history of the human race, we are so in fear of impoverishing ourselves by supporting our children.

Part of this is the exaggerated emphasis we place on high-priced higher education. The majority of people who enter college are really not capable of serious academic work, and we – and they – would be much better off if with a healthier respect for the skilled trades.

 

[setter]

Is it true that NFP is only to be used for a serious reason, and when that reason no longer exists the couple is to cease it’s use?
What are they to do? Stop taking their temp, stop charting, examining, etc.?

If there is no serious reason and a couple simply wants just one child and no more, is it immoral for them to use NFP?

If the answer is Yes, why is it immoral? If NFP is natural than why is it not to be used as the norm if a couple so chooses?

This is where the intention comes into play. To say that NFP is OK simply because it is natural, is not the whole truth.

It is OK and moral only when used under certain conditions. Proponents of NFP, at least the majority of posts I have seen. Seem to forget the part about the serious reason.

From my observation, including this and your others posts, is what you, and the other NFP-rejecting or NFP-using it only because ABC is immoral, are missing is the more fundamental understanding (and acceptance) of vocation and that marriage is sacramental, i.e., a sign of the sacred. Lacking this broader and more fundamental basis, the argument for or against NFP/ABC is reduced to the pro’s/con’s of technologies and behaviors, that in themselves may be amoral, and intent becomes the sole determining criteria for what act is moral or not (when in fact, there are 3 criteria for determining if an act is moral).

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (CCC)

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. “Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby *cooperating with *the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.” (CCC)

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart. (CCC)

2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.” (CCC)

 

[mercygate]

Just a comment here, but do all of you realize what an incredible honor it is to have had JOHN KIPPLEY post in this thread?

I am making the assumption that he IS John Kippley and has not just adopted Kippley’s name for a user name.

Kippley is the foremost person in this field.

 

[setter]

Just a comment here, but do all of you realize what an incredible honor it is to have had JOHN KIPPLEY post in this thread?

I am making the assumption that he IS John Kippley and has not just adopted Kippley’s name for a user name.

Kippley is the foremost person in this field.

Yes, but frankly, he sounded a bit burned out from the debate …as in having banged his head against the illogic and inconsistency of the other side a few too many times. It requires much patience and grace to continually meet and greet each antagonist where they are at and attempt to lossen up, enlighten and move them along (the work of the Holy Spirit) a bit further toward the truth of the Church’s teaching.

 

[BruceK]

Maybe. Obviously I disagree. **well that make two of us ** I have read that both the commission and the council expected Paul to re-emphasize the requirement for marriages to be open to offspring (but not necessarily that each act must be) and to actually endorse the pill, because the pill allows completion in the ‘proper’ manner just as NFP does. HV was a surprise, and failed (and still fails) to really explain how some forms of birth regulation are wrong when other forms that have the same intent, same effect, and use the same act are acceptable.

The problem was not just that HV didn’t come out the way the council and committee expected. The problem was that it did not make sense either biologically or theologically. The faithful didn’t just not like it, they believed it was clearly wrong. It hurt the credibilty of the Church on moral matters not just because it went against what people wanted, but because it doesn’t make sense.
Would you have expected the Pope to go the way of the Anglican Church did in Lambeth1930?
I have promised myself in the past that I wouldn’t get involved in HV threads because this is one issue that annoys me and sometimes leads me to uncharitable comments. I really think that HV hurt the church. It bothers me.

Could the misundrstanding or misperception be on the part of the one who read HV and not the magisterium and the Pope? This is a “hot potato” and I don’t blame you if you feel reluctant to jump into this debate.

 

[marci]

From my observation, including this and your others posts, is what you, and the other NFP-rejecting or NFP-using it only because ABC is immoral, are missing is the more fundamental understanding (and acceptance) of vocation and that marriage is sacramental, i.e., a sign of the sacred. Lacking this broader and more fundamental basis, the argument for or against NFP/ABC is reduced to the pro’s/con’s of technologies and behaviors, that in themselves may be amoral, and intent

becomes the sole determining criteria for what act is moral or not (when in fact, there are 3 criteria for determining if an act is moral).

Setter, First I appriciate your charity in this matter, as many people struggle with this issue and compassion goes a long way in changing the hearts of those who are in turmoil.

The problem is (and this touches on another thread which you started) the church does a poor job of driving the point home to couples during marriage prep. that ABC is immoral and NFP is the only alternative and to be used only under certain circumstances. This was only briefly discussed during the pre-cana retreat that we went to and the “certain circumstances” was not discussed at all.

To be clear, we used NFP when we got married and have four children to show for it. My son was only 7 months old when I got pregnant with twins. I was exclusively breastfeeding and never had a period. Then with my youngest I thought things were going well, but I again found myself pregnant, which was fine, but not planned. Not every woman’s cycles are regular. And some are more furtile than others. I honestly believe my husband could have breathed on me and I would have gotten pregnant. But, still, I never used ABC. After my last was born, there were medical issues, I still refused TL even after my doctor was adiment.

At this point my husband, non-catholic, took matters into his own hands. This has been heart wrenching for me and I have felt massive guilt ever since. I have been to confession for this and received absolution, but I still worry about the way in which we are living out our vocation. Unfortunately, I am one of two people in a marriage. If one partner is not on board, the other is left to choose between the marriage and the wellfare of the children vs. divorce. Believe me, it is not easy for a catholic in this situation.
I understand alot more now than I did at 24, which is when we married. In hind sight there is alot I would have done differently, but, the promise was made and the moral obligation to stay in the marriage is there reguardless. It is a cross for me and many others to bare.
Which is why I think the church should be more skeptical about interfaith marriages, but that is for another thread.

 

[texapril]

The debate about artificial contraception is senseless. The Church clearly teaches that it is wrong and the reasons why. Those who argue that fact go against the Church by being disobedient to the voice of God on earth. The big issue that is weighing heavily on many Catholic’s who are trying to live according to the Church’s teaching involves the correct use of NFP. I have heard all the arguments for many years. None of them ever change. Many married couples have been confused by mixed opinions on the subject. It is hard to discern the truth amidst all of this. Periodic continence is the answer for those who have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy. Only God can judge one’s serious reason. The Church cannot do so. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the Church teaches something just because this or that person says so or the majority say this or that. It is usually the mob that is wrong. God surely judges are intentions, and only He knows what they are. For each of us, these may be very different. God wants us to be open to life. Children are gifts from a loving God. To accept that gift only on our own terms and when we want it is full of SELF. There is no trust or sacrifice in it regardless of the way we go about doing it. We always think we know what is best for us. When will we learn to stop refusing what He wants to give us. The Church has clearly spoken on these matters many times before. Some will see and listen and others will continue to cloud and confuse the subject. NFP used to space children for no good reason other than “we believe we have the right to decide how many kids we want, we’re grown-ups” is wrong. God wants our trust. He knows what couples have just or serious reasons to use periodic continence. Trust your Mother the Church, pray, and see the answer is already written in your hearts.

 

[mercygate]

Setter, First I appriciate your charity in this matter, as many people struggle with this issue and compassion goes a long way in changing the hearts of those who are in turmoil.

The problem is (and this touches on another thread which you started) the church does a poor job of driving the point home to couples during marriage prep. that ABC is immoral and NFP is the only alternative and to be used only under certain circumstances. This was only briefly discussed during the pre-cana retreat that we went to and the “certain circumstances” was not discussed at all.

To be clear, we used NFP when we got married and have four children to show for it. My son was only 7 months old when I got pregnant with twins. I was exclusively breastfeeding and never had a period. Then with my youngest I thought things were going well, but I again found myself pregnant, which was fine, but not planned. Not every woman’s cycles are regular. And some are more furtile than others. I honestly believe my husband could have breathed on me and I would have gotten pregnant. But, still, I never used ABC. After my last was born, there were medical issues, I still refused TL even after my doctor was adiment.

At this point my husband, non-catholic, took matters into his own hands. This has been heart wrenching for me and I have felt massive guilt ever since. I have been to confession for this and received absolution, but I still worry about the way in which we are living out our vocation. Unfortunately, I am one of two people in a marriage. If one partner is not on board, the other is left to choose between the marriage and the wellfare of the children vs. divorce. Believe me, it is not easy for a catholic in this situation.
I understand alot more now than I did at 24, which is when we married. In hind sight there is alot I would have done differently, but, the promise was made and the moral obligation to stay in the marriage is there reguardless. It is a cross for me and many others to bare.
Which is why I think the church should be more skeptical about interfaith marriages, but that is for another thread.

 

[Good_Daughter]

"The problem is that HV11 insists that ‘Each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life’. But, NFP (the non-artificial method) closes the marital act to the transmission of life, and so is prohibited by HV11. If NFP did not close the conjugal act to the transmission of life, it could not control births.

The transmission of life is entirely up to God. NFP is information, it doesn’t close the marital act to the transmission of life as only God may do that. NFP just shows us when He is doing it.

NFP requires taking deliberate steps in anticipation of (before) a marital act to exclude procreation from any marital acts.

God alone decides when a marital act will transmit life. We have the choice to be either closed to such transmission and create our own “fake” infertility (contraception) or open to that transmission, knowing God’s perfect design of women includes cyclical infertility which naturally allows the bonding of the marital act without the likelihood of pregnancy (NFP).

When using NFP properly, a couple may exclude reproduction from the marital act but because the marital act is still ordered to creation, they have not excluded procreation from that act.

Quoting all the rest of HV can not alter the fact that God in His act of creation separated the two functions of conjugal intercourse.

?? Can you explain this assertion? It may be an important point to examine.

If NFP were not closed ot the transmission of life, it could not prevent the transmission of life.

He comes back to this point but again he’s wrong. NFP can’t prevent the transmission of life, only God can do that. What couples may seek to do, using NFP, is to avoid conception by engaging in the marital act at times when it is highly unlikely God will be transmitting life. It’s His perfect design, these couples have just learned to work with it, rather than against it.

I wonder how your friend would apply the principles of HV to a couple who is pregnant, or a couple where the wife has entered menopause. In either case couples are able to have sex that is both unitive and procreative, just not reproductive. Do you think he would agree?