Humanae Vitae Debate

[mercygate]

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.

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.

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

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?

The mentality that takes procreation out of the marital act has led lead to the idea that the “act” is NOT essentially “marital” at all. How often do we hear abortion justified as a remedy for contraceptive failure?

One can well imagine a rationale that non-procreative sex with someone other than your spouse would be OK because you limit your “procreative” sex to your husband or wife.

While many babies are born to women who have not provided that baby with a father, many babies are killed before birth because the mother engaged in an act (contracepted or not) that is intirnsicallly ordered to procreation, yet is somehow surprised when procreation results.

 

[BruceK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK
"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.

HV talks about recourse to non fertile periods. It actually states clearly how NFP and contracpetion are different morally.

As usual we find people think open to life means exclusively likelihood of conception

Quote:
HV’s prohibition of ABC has been rejected by the sensus fidelium and will join other doctrines taught for centuries that were reversed, e.g., slavery, usury, freedom of religion, etc…

Sensus fidelium would not contradict the magisterium. None of the examples he gives have been reversed. Ask for citations.

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

The act, with NFP, is not altered in anyway. Nothing is done to impede the act.

Quote:
HV14 contradicts its sanction of NFP. In Casti Connubii, Pius XI stated that there was no objection to those who engaged in the marital act at times when conception was thought impossible. He did not, however, address use of the marital act solely at times when conception was thought impossible in a systematic attempt to avoid conception… …

What?
**That was my reaction too. **
Quote:
HV’s “inseparable connection”, the basis of its “open” edict, is false. And not only is it false, but since we know from God’s act of creation that he willed it otherwise, HV’s assertion that the ‘inseparable connection’ is a rejection of God’s will.’ Quoting all of HV cannot alter the fact that HV’s “open” edict in HV11 condemns NFP and contradicts HV’s sanction of NFP. If NFP were not closed ot the transmission of life, it could not prevent the transmission of life. One can also quote HV13 and HV14, both of which contradict HV’s sanction of NFP."

??

**Perhaps you can express this more clearly?
I wish I could but I’m not the one who said, it was one who I’m debating with that said it. **

 

[Newbie2]

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.

“Natural” means vs. “Artificial”. The couple is doing nothing to alter the natural reproductive cycle. Although the couple may not want children at that time, the idea is that they are still open to conception if it should occur.

NFP adherents love to say that NFP is more effective in preventing pregnancy than condoms and at least as effective as the pill. How then does the act “retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life”? And if people on the pill are about as likely to have children as people using NFP, why is that not equally related to procreation?

That’s actually a pretty good point. I’d challenge the notion that NFP is as effective as oral contraceptives, especially those that prevent embryonic implantation, as well as being as effectives as barrier methods especially when used with spermacides.

My guess is that it’s diffucult to accurately compare NFP and ABC effectiveness, as there are far fewer NFP “numbers”, statistically speaking.

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.

If they’re more open to life when using it, why not use NFP? Why risk potentially serious effects of oral contraception? I believe your conclusion to be a non-sequitur.

This idea that NFP is more “natural” because it does not involve taking a pill makes absolutely no sense. All contraception is based on using the body’s reproductive design. Evading conception by a complex system rather than a chemical or a barrier is no more or less “natural”. Each is an application of our understanding of reproduction in an attempt to avoid it.

You don’t see a difference in not taking or using anything vs. not? Complex system?

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.

The things you’ve mention may very well be offensive to God’s design.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The mentality that takes procreation out of the marital act has led lead to the idea that the “act” is NOT essentially “marital” at all. How often do we hear abortion justified as a remedy for contraceptive failure?

One can well imagine a rationale that non-procreative sex with someone other than your spouse would be OK because you limit your “procreative” sex to your husband or wife.

While many babies are born to women who have not provided that baby with a father, many babies are killed before birth because the mother engaged in an act (contracepted or not) that is intirnsicallly ordered to procreation, yet is somehow surprised when procreation results.

My comments were limited to a discussion of HV. Any sex with someone other than your spouse is condemned by the Church. Someone who fails to grasp why would probably benefit from Catholic sources more basic than HV.

Every couple has two mutually exclusive choices regarding the type of sex they have. They may choose to have either procreative or contracepted sex. Whether that sex creates a baby is ultimately up to God, however the couple stacks the odds. I’m not sure that contracepted sex can ever be called “intrinsically ordered to procreation”, as it is couples themselves who choose whether or not to include the procreative aspect in their sexual encounters. I would agree that sex is intrinsically ordered to reproduction.

 

[BruceK]

This disident Catholic whom I’m debating had this say to in regards to JPII’s book Love and Responsibility"
“There are two facets to JP II’s Love and Responsibility the anthropological perspective and facts that he presents and the restatement of the Church’s position on ABC. The two are not only unrelated, but the anthropological perspective refutes the Church’s position. Taken alone, it strongly supports the Natural Law argument that ABC is consistent with and supports God’s design constitutive of marriage.”
Anyone familiar with this book? and what would be the most effective rebuttal to this disident’s off-the-wall interpretation of L&R?

 

[rlg94086]

Again, I don’t get it. How can they be inseperable if you know and plan for the procreative part to be impossible?

Impossible? Do you believe that NFP (or ABC, for that matter) is 100% effective manner for preventing births? Of course not!

The difference is in the actions. There is not a sinful action involved in using NFP. Abstaining is not a sin. Doing something physical to disrupt the procreative process - using a barrier, suppressing ovulation, frustrating sperm migration, frustrating implantation - is sinful.

Complete self-giving during a time of infertility is not the same as physically blocking or frustrating that self-giving.

For me, the bottomline is very simple. The Church teaches and allows NFP. Those who believe in a more restrictive view (i.e. no artificial contraception and no NFP) are free to take that view. However, those who take the view that NFP and ABC are equivalent and therefore both should be allowed, are in serious error.

I don’t know if that helps with the OP’s original question, but it is my take on the matter. Perhaps this resource will help:
nfpandmore.org/understandinghumanae.shtml

 

[BruceK]

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. 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

Welcome aboard John it’s good to have some of your caliber to weigh in on this issue. The one whom I’m having this debate with well his thesis is not all that original, he got it from some disenting catholics who rejected HV:<From Turning Point:

(pg 140) …"on August 1 [1968], two members of the Birth Control Commission, Dr. Andre Hellegers and Thomas Burch, along with John Noonan, who had been the Commission’s expert on the history of contraception, appeared at a news conference in Washington. Noonan, speaking for all three, said the encyclical suffers from “internal inconsistency” since the central teaching that every marriage act must remain “open to the transmission of life” contradicts the encyclical’s parallel teaching that the “rhythm system of contraception may be used for appropriate reasons”.

(pg 157) [This contradiction is] a point that Commission member Andre Hellegers made in 1968. If natural family planning were to become 100% effective (as Church officials have long hoped) [and HV24 calls for], a Catholic couple could practice conjugal relations in good faith and with the blessing of the Church even though they do not intend to conceive and know there is not the slightest possibility of doing so. They could do this because the church would regard their conugal acts to be theoretically “open to the transmission of life” and “possessing a baby-making orientation”. Hellegers and most of his collegues viewed this rationale as absurd at the time, and despite the volumes on the library shelves, the debate hasn’t moved any distance since."

“On Responsible Parenthood”: The Final Report [Of the Birth Control Commission] Taken from The Birth Control Debate by Robert G. Hoyt,

(pg 91) The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile period of the woman – that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives – makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded."
His words:
So the contradictions in HV between its edicts and its sanction of NFP were pointed out in the Final Report of the Commission that went to Pope Paul VI and articulated by Commission members and the Commission’s expert on the history of contraception. These contradictions are just glaring today to an objective reader of HV as they were to Commission mebers 40 years ago.>

Any commnets about the book Turning Point and also about John Noonan, Andre Hellegers, and Thomas Burch, in particular?

 

[CatholicMC]

There is no debate on this issue, only dissent. The dissenters must be presented the teaching in the correct light, which it sounds like you are doing.

 

[Good_Daughter]

(pg 140) …"on August 1 [1968], two members of the Birth Control Commission, Dr. Andre Hellegers and Thomas Burch, along with John Noonan, who had been the Commission’s expert on the history of contraception, appeared at a news conference in Washington. Noonan, speaking for all three, said the encyclical suffers from “internal inconsistency” since the central teaching that every marriage act must remain “open to the transmission of life” contradicts the encyclical’s parallel teaching that the “rhythm system of contraception may be used for appropriate reasons”.

The rythm system is not contraception.

I would love to ask thinkers like Noonan (or your dissenting friend) if they consider the marriage act between a couple who is expecting a baby to be “open to the transmission of life”. If you would ask your friend what he thinks about this, I’d be interested in his reply. (My guess is he’d answer “no”, in which case he’d be wrong. Explaining why he’s wrong might convince him of the truth and consistency of HV.)

(pg 157) [This contradiction is] a point that Commission member Andre Hellegers made in 1968. If natural family planning were to become 100% effective (as Church officials have long hoped) [and HV24 calls for], a Catholic couple could practice conjugal relations in good faith and with the blessing of the Church even though they do not intend to conceive and know there is not the slightest possibility of doing so. They could do this because the church would regard their conugal acts to be theoretically “open to the transmission of life” and “possessing a baby-making orientation”. Hellegers and most of his collegues viewed this rationale as absurd at the time, and despite the volumes on the library shelves, the debate hasn’t moved any distance since."

Viewing this rationale as absurd is like viewing God’s design as absurd. We choose if a sexual act is procreative (oriented toward baby-making). God chooses if a sexual act is reproductive (actually baby-making).

“On Responsible Parenthood”: The Final Report [Of the Birth Control Commission] Taken from The Birth Control Debate by Robert G. Hoyt,

(pg 91) The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile period of the woman – that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives – makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded."

Can it be shown where the Church prohibits the separation of the sexual act from reproduction (a.k.a. birth control)? Of course not, because the Church doesn’t prohibit birth control. Besides, try as we might, humans have never managed to completely exclude reproduction (baby-making) from sex.

 

[tmeier45]

My wife and I are probably proof that NFP isn’t 100% effective. We’re expecting a child soon, who was conceived on the safest day of my wife’s cycle, and we hadn’t had sex in 2 months before that, so we knew when we conceived.

However, we committed the act knowing full well that God can do what He wants. Did not Elizabeth conceive John the Baptist when she was thought to be “inconceivable”? Did this not happen with Sarah and Abraham as well? God does have his hand in these occasions and that is what we need to be open to, even if all logic and calculation leads us to our will, and not His.

Also, St. Anne was thought to be past the age of conceiving a child when she conceived Mary. Need I go on from what happened because of that?

 

[BruceK]

Originally Posted by BruceK
“On Responsible Parenthood”: The Final Report [Of the Birth Control Commission] Taken from The Birth Control Debate by Robert G. Hoyt,

(pg 91) The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile period of the woman – that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives – makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded."

Can it be shown where the Church prohibits the separation of the sexual act from reproduction (a.k.a. birth control)? Of course not, because the Church doesn’t prohibit birth control. **??! The Church doesn’t prohibit birth control? This needs a little more clarification. Surely you don’t mean to suggest the Church somehow condones contraception? **

 

[IvanKaramozov]

“Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” (John 6:60)

“After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66)

“Wait, wait, come back! I didn’t realize eating my body and drinking my blood would be so unpopular - I take it back.” (John nothing:nothing-never)

alright, and if the Pope explaines that cat’s have an intrinsic desposition towards hats you can put up those same quotes, but the claim will make no more sense.

equatings an encyclica with Sacred Scripture is not a fair parallel

 

[IvanKaramozov]

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

Well, if you are going to lecture on the importance for truth, I think you should mentioned that, as far as I remember, Hahn says him and his wife also came to reject NFP.

I have asked again and again for people, all of whome have supported the distinction between ABC and NFP to explain the difference, and to be honest I have yet to hear one response that makes sense.

Now perhapse that is because I am just a tenager, however I first asked when I was 15 and three years latter of studying logic, philosophy the answers still make absolutly no more sense.

While this is not a good argument, perhapse consider this, a great phycist once said that if you can’t explain a theory to any given fellow you meet in a pub, it’s probably not worth a damn. I think that applies here, no simple or comprehensiable difference between taking the pill and carefully regulating the cycle can be given in relation to the intention of the acts, all explination are long, derived, utterly unintuitional, and usually just sill.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

marci;3112554:

I think the Church is “afraid” to be bold in helping couples understand and actually UNDERSTAND how to manage NFP. People who organize pre-Cana are mostly dealing with semi-practicing Catholics (if that), who are rock-hard-dead-set on using ABC, and who actually sneer at you in public for mentioning NFP.

BTW, NFP is very effective with irregular cycles. You need to know what to look for. God love you. This should not be a cross but an opportunity. “Providentialism” – accepting whatever chidren may come into your marriage without EVER abstaining during fertile times is often unworkable for very real reasons. Hv puts those reasons under the headings: psychological, financial, health.

I don’t think the Church is afraid, they just have no really coherant explination. Perhapse Benedict should rewrite an explination, he’s a brilliant, and starkly intelectually honest man.

However so far as I can see, most theologians, layity, and toddlers reject the distinction as it makes no sense, even looking at the responses, all those defending NFP are either non-sensical, contradictory, or just dodge the issue.

 

[BruceK]

alright, and if the Pope explaines that cat’s have an intrinsic desposition towards hats you can put up those same quotes, but the claim will make no more sense.

equatings an encyclica with Sacred Scripture is not a fair parallel

I think what the OP was trying to say is that just as Jesus said some hard truths that were hard to swallow the Catholic Church reiterates some hard truths the modern find hard to swallow. The parallel is quite apt.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

I think what the OP was trying to say is that just as Jesus said some hard truths that were hard to swallow the Catholic Church reiterates some hard truths the modern find hard to swallow. The parallel is quite apt.

the paralle is apt in that both are difficult to accecpt, the circumstances are quite different, one being infalible, the other not.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Originally Posted by BruceK
“On Responsible Parenthood”: The Final Report [Of the Birth Control Commission] Taken from The Birth Control Debate by Robert G. Hoyt,

(pg 91) The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile period of the woman – that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives – makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded."

Can it be shown where the Church prohibits the separation of the sexual act from reproduction (a.k.a. birth control)? Of course not, because the Church doesn’t prohibit birth control. **??! The Church doesn’t prohibit birth control? This needs a little more clarification. Surely you don’t mean to suggest the Church somehow condones contraception? **

Birth control may be either contraceptive (ie. the pill, condoms, withdrawl, sterilization) or non-contraceptive (ie. abstinence, fertility awareness/NFP). It’s contraception that the Church teaches against in all circumstances. Non-contraceptive birth control may be used, according to Catholic teaching, in circumstances when a married couple has serious reason to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I have asked again and again for people, all of whome have supported the distinction between ABC and NFP to explain the difference, and to be honest I have yet to hear one response that makes sense.

A couple using ABC create a “fake” infertility in order to have sex with lower risk of pregnancy.

A couple using NFP make use of the natural infertility that occurs during a woman’s menstual cycle, pregnancy, breastfeeding, etc. in order to have sex with lower risk of pregnancy.

That’s the difference from my perspective.

A couple with serious reason to avoid pregnancy is still called to respect fertility as natural, healthy and useful. Because they appreciate the huge impact of fertility, they may wish to avoid it all together (complete abstinence) or limit sex to times when fertility is naturally at a minimum (periodic abstinence).

What a couple with serious reason to avoid pregnancy may never do is replace natural fertility (which is healthy and useful) with man-made, “fake” infertility. This contraceptive approach treats fertility like a menace or disease to be fought when, in reality, it is one of our greatest gifts and ought to be used with care and gratitude.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

A couple using ABC create a “fake” infertility in order to have sex with lower risk of pregnancy.

A couple using NFP make use of the natural infertility that occurs during a woman’s menstual cycle, pregnancy, breastfeeding, etc. in order to have sex with lower risk of pregnancy.

That difference seems utterly frivolous, “pulling out” does not use artificial or fake means either.

The end of the two is (ideally) the same, the intention is the same, the only difference is the means, and that distinction is slight.

A couple with serious reason to avoid pregnancy is still called to respect fertility as natural, healthy and useful. Because they appreciate the huge impact of fertility, they may wish to avoid it all together (complete abstinence) or limit sex to times when fertility is naturally at a minimum (periodic abstinence).

So a couple taking the pill can’t still respect fertility? I don’t understand how manipulating chemicals and manipulating the cycle is substantively different

This contraceptive approach treats fertility like a menace or disease to be fought when, in reality, it is one of our greatest gifts and ought to be used with care and gratitude.

How in the world do you get here though?

I don’t see how NFP treats the cycle any differently than ABC.

I think the whole absolute ban on ABC is misguided, but if we must be so extreme let’s at least be consistent.

It seems like the argument essentially comes down to, “NFP and ABC are distinctly different because they clearly are”

 

[BruceK]

the paralle is apt in that both are difficult to accecpt, the circumstances are quite different, one being infalible, the other not.

**Even there I would have to take issue with that. The fact is that the condemnation of artificial birth control(ABC) was universally held by all christian sects and denominations until the early 20th century. Granted that this was not declared Ex Cathedra by the Catholic Church it is considered to be an infallible teaching. ****