Humanae Vitae Debate

[BruceK]

Thank you so much for this link.

I hope BruceK has a chance to read it, as it seems he and his friend need to reach an agreement in defining the term procreative (as used in Catholic teaching on marital sexuality) before they can proceed in their discussion.

BruceK’s friend, in saying a married couple who is expecting a baby would be incapable of procreative sex, shows his misunderstanding of the term as used in HV.

**He’s definitely misunderstanding term the alright. Here’s an example of his logic:
“Most women feel the strongest desire for conjugal intercourse during their fertile period. In a strictly natural process, married couples would have conjugal intercourse at a higher rate during the fertile period than during the infertile period. The practice of NFP is designed to interfere with this natural process in order to close the conjugal acts under the practice of NFP to the transmission of life.” Does anyone here care to comment about this and this conclusin might be faulty?
**

 

[Janet_S]

**He’s definitely misunderstanding term the alright. Here’s an example of his logic:
“Most women feel the strongest desire for conjugal intercourse during their fertile period. In a strictly natural process, married couples would have conjugal intercourse at a higher rate during the fertile period than during the infertile period. The practice of NFP is designed to interfere with this natural process in order to close the conjugal acts under the practice of NFP to the transmission of life.” Does anyone here care to comment about this and this conclusin might be faulty?
**

Celibate woman have fertile periods too, and for them it’s natural not to have sex during these times.

Having intercourse, except in cases of rape, is an act of the will. If the opportunity presents itself, each of us can say either yes or no. Humans are not animals and don’t operate strictly on instinct.

And furthermore, if a woman is on hormonal contraception (the pill, shot, patch, vaginal ring, implant, etc,) and if the contraception is working effectively, there won’t be any fertile periods or associated “increases in desire”. It’s not a natural process any more, is it?

 

[Chancellare]

**
“Most women feel the strongest desire for conjugal intercourse during their fertile period. In a strictly natural process, married couples would have conjugal intercourse at a higher rate during the fertile period than during the infertile period. The practice of NFP is designed to interfere with this natural process in order to close the conjugal acts under the practice of NFP to the transmission of life.”
**

This logic assumes that when a woman is fertile, she must have conjugal intercourse, like a robot that is hot-wired. But we all know that this is not the case.
When a couple decides not to have conjugal intercourse during fertile period, they are exercising their freedom of choice and not interfering with natural processes.

If they are not interfering with a natural process, there is no moral question.

The attempted argument has 2 main fallacies:

1. Am fertile, must have intercourse.
2. Freedom of choice = interference.

It’s a no-brainer reasoning exercise but I’m a bit surprised with the subtle presumptions used for the above argument that I am actually making this explanation.

 

[PennitentMan]

**He’s definitely misunderstanding term the alright. Here’s an example of his logic:
“Most women feel the strongest desire for conjugal intercourse during their fertile period. In a strictly natural process, married couples would have conjugal intercourse at a higher rate during the fertile period than during the infertile period. The practice of NFP is designed to interfere with this natural process in order to close the conjugal acts under the practice of NFP to the transmission of life.” Does anyone here care to comment about this and this conclusin might be faulty?
**

Celibate people aside, (why bring them into an NFP debate?) he is exactly right.
I have experienced that exact same thing.
It frustrates the living daylights out of our marital life.

NFP’s only method of working is to withhold the married couple from each other when the woman is fertile. It definitely interferes with the **natural process of procreation **in every sense.
By it’s very nature it also interferes with the unitive aspect of marital sex.

I agree 100% and can vouch for it in my own life.

 

[fix]

**
"Most women feel the strongest desire for conjugal intercourse during their fertile period. In a strictly natural process, married couples would have conjugal intercourse at a higher rate during the fertile period than during the infertile period.**

He is not using “natural” in the sense the Church does. By natural we mean:

…The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral…

**

The practice of NFP is designed to interfere with this natural process in order to close the conjugal acts under the practice of NFP to the transmission of life."

Again, the problem is misunderstanding what we mean by natural.

Does anyone here care to comment about this and this conclusin might be faulty?

**Basically, he substitutes his incorrect teaching for Church teaching, then tears down his wrong teaching and declares the Church is wrong. If he wants to refute Church teaching he first needs to state correctly what She teaches.

 

[Polaris]

I have always had a problem with NFP. It does not make any sense to me.

Use natural within the churches definition to explain how having children is wrong and immoral and goes against our conduct.

Our nature is to be fruitful and multiply not to embrace sterility.

 

[paperwight]

I don’t understand the argument that an evil ‘means’ negates a good ‘end’, necessarily.

Take this example. Sticking a needle into a young baby and causing pain - everyone would agree to be horrible and evil.

Add the element of an injection - let’s say an anaesthetic injection so we don’t get into any dispute about immunisation - the end renders the process ‘good’.

So a good ‘end’ justifies an evil ‘means’.

Everything depends on the motive.

 

[fix]

I don’t understand the argument that an evil ‘means’ negates a good ‘end’, necessarily.

Take this example. Sticking a needle into a young baby and causing pain - everyone would agree to be horrible and evil.

Add the element of an injection - let’s say an anaesthetic injection so we don’t get into any dispute about immunisation - the end renders the process ‘good’.

So a good ‘end’ justifies an evil ‘means’.

Everything depends on the motive.

The evil means are contraception which are intrinsically evil. Meaning they are never, ever, justifed. The injection is not intrinsically evil.

And an injection may be a physical “evil”, but it is not a moral evil.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Here’s an example of his logic:
"Most women feel the strongest desire for conjugal intercourse during their fertile period.

Agreed. That gives NFP husbands (seeking to avoid pregnancy) an opportunity to help their wives build desire for conjugal intercourse during their infertile periods. This is an incredibly loving, sacrificial thing to do.

In a strictly natural process, married couples would have conjugal intercourse at a higher rate during the fertile period than during the infertile period.

I understand what your friend is trying to say and I agree in a limited way. I think fix explained well how he misuses the term natural though, in a theological sense.

** The practice of NFP is designed to interfere with this natural process in order to close the conjugal acts under the practice of NFP to the transmission of life."
**

Contraception and complete abstinence are also designed to interfere with some “natural” process in order to close the conjugal acts to the transmission of life. If your friend opposes the “unnatural” aspect of NFP, surely there is no method of family planning with which he agrees. No family planning means awfully large families for most couples. Is that his ideal?

No one is arguing the term natural in NFP refers to the process happening naturally. Using NFP, families are planned by a couple’s participation in the conjugal act during times of natural fertility (vs. the “fake” fertility of IVF) or natural infertility (vs. the “fake” infertility of contraception, such as the pill, withdrawl, etc.)

 

[Polaris]

9I am one that does not agree with any sort of family planning.)

How are the ends intrinsically good? How is not having a child Intrinsically good or greater good or right or what ever language you want to use?

 

[fix]

9I am one that does not agree with any sort of family planning.)

How are the ends intrinsically good? How is not having a child Intrinsically good or greater good or right or what ever language you want to use?

I am not sure I understand your question but does this help?:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

 

[Polaris]

No sorry and I read it many times trying to.

What are the desired ends of NFP used as a contraceptive?

The desired ends is not to have children.

Is this a natural and good?

Is God a slave to nature? He creates a human soul because of biology not because He desires its exsitence? To me the answer to this is No.

What right do we have to decide when is good and when is bad and then justify it by what means we use?

 

[fix]

No sorry and I read it many times trying to.

What are the desired ends of NFP used as a contraceptive?

First, the term contraceptive is confusing as you use it here. NFP is not a contraceptive act. NFP may be used to space births for serious reasons. The “end” of not having a child is not intrinsically evil. It is a prudential decision. There is nothing contrary to the moral law in deciding not to have children if there is a good reason.

The desired ends is not to have children.

Yes, that may be the intent.

Is this a natural and good?

Yes, depending on circumstances. God ordained the cycle for a reason.

Is God a slave to nature? He creates a human soul because of biology not because He desires its exsitence? To me the answer to this is No.

When does God not desire a soul he created?

What right do we have to decide when is good and when is bad and then justify it by what means we use?

We are procreators. We do have an obligation. What we do not have authority over is any means we want to use.

 

[Polaris]

What is NFP, if not a contraceptive act? You say it is used to space births for 'serious" reasons. Well how does it space births if it does not go against conception?

What is natural about man having sex without the purpose with what it is designed for having children.

If every soul is desired why would God give that family a child it could not handle.

Procreators in no way equates me to God and I have no right to tell him when a child is Good or Bad because I think this is 'serious".

 

[Good_Daughter]

Celibate people aside, (why bring them into an NFP debate?) he is exactly right.
I have experienced that exact same thing.
It frustrates the living daylights out of our marital life.

NFP’s only method of working is to withhold the married couple from each other when the woman is fertile. It definitely interferes with the **natural process of procreation **in every sense.
By it’s very nature it also interferes with the unitive aspect of marital sex.

I agree 100% and can vouch for it in my own life.

If NFP is so “unnatural”, what would you consider “natural” for the sex life of a married couple?

 

[Janet_S]

Celibate people aside, (why bring them into an NFP debate?) he is exactly right.
I have experienced that exact same thing.
It frustrates the living daylights out of our marital life.

NFP’s only method of working is to withhold the married couple from each other when the woman is fertile. It definitely interferes with the **natural process of procreation **in every sense.
By it’s very nature it also interferes with the unitive aspect of marital sex.

I agree 100% and can vouch for it in my own life.

We bring up celibate people to show that humans always have control over their decision to have sex or not to have sex and that we don’t strictly follow instincts the way animals do. When a woman decides not to have sex, even in a fertile time, that in no way goes against nature. That is just a woman operating her free will.

Increased desire is a very subjective experience and is not at all an accurate predictor of a woman’s fertile period. If it were, I suppose there would be a method of NFP that would utilize this response as an indicator. But there is not. Women can have increased desire for a number of reasons, and usually it’s because their husbands were simply thoughtful enough to do the dishes or help put the kids to bed.

Look, I’m a woman. There may be some increased desire during fertile times, but it is either very subtle or unnoticeable for the most part. There is certainly no irresistible, overwhelming urge to copulate at this time. For the most part, we women have no idea when we are ovulating. That is unless we are charting our temperatures, analyzing our cervical mucus, or checking our urine.

And, for those women who are unable to copulate except during fertile times, I guess it will ruin their sex lives if they ever take the pill, since they will have no fertile periods then.

 

[Good_Daughter]

What is NFP, if not a contraceptive act? You say it is used to space births for 'serious" reasons. Well how does it space births if it does not go against conception?

What is natural about man having sex without the purpose with what it is designed for having children.

If every soul is desired why would God give that family a child it could not handle.

Procreators in no way equates me to God and I have no right to tell him when a child is Good or Bad because I think this is 'serious".

NFP is not contraception. A contraceptive is something that is against conception. When couples use NFP (to postpone pregnancy), they engage in the marital act at a time when there is no conception to be against. That is also how NFP spaces births.

Sex creates children on very few days in a woman’s monthly cycle. Is sex on those less fertile days pointless or unnatural? Infertility comprises the bulk of a woman’s cycle by (God’s) design.

I agree, God never gives us more children than we can handle.

God could give us offspring in any way he chooses and His choice is to involve us in the process through sexual union. Part of our participation in procreation involves right judgement. For a couple who would have serious difficulty handling another baby, sex during the more fertile time is somewhat like crossing a busy intersection without looking. God is capable of provididng, but let’s not abdicate our own responsibility. In using NFP, we don’t tell God not to give us a baby, we ask Him to tell us when we should sacrifice sex during the fertile time for a greater good.

 

[Janet_S]

I don’t understand the argument that an evil ‘means’ negates a good ‘end’, necessarily.

Take this example. Sticking a needle into a young baby and causing pain - everyone would agree to be horrible and evil.

Add the element of an injection - let’s say an anaesthetic injection so we don’t get into any dispute about immunisation - the end renders the process ‘good’.

So a good ‘end’ justifies an evil ‘means’.

Everything depends on the motive.

Pope JP discusses this in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

Starting with section 71, The Moral Act–Teleology and teleologism

Consequently, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, **“there are certain specific kinds of behaviour that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil”.**127 And Saint Thomas observes that “it often happens that man acts with a good intention, but without spiritual gain, because he lacks a good will. Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused. **‘There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8)”.128 **

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

 

[Chancellare]

What is NFP, if not a contraceptive act? You say it is used to space births for 'serious" reasons. Well how does it space births if it does not go against conception?

What is natural about man having sex without the purpose with what it is designed for having children.

If every soul is desired why would God give that family a child it could not handle.

Procreators in no way equates me to God and I have no right to tell him when a child is Good or Bad because I think this is 'serious".

If we follow the above logic, skipping meals at night ( a period when nutrients from food intake are easier stored in the body) is immoral because it interferes with nutritional processes of the body.

Same with other bodily functions like going to toilet, sleeping, even breathing… etc.

 

[TMC]

If we follow the above logic, skipping meals at night ( a period when nutrients from food intake are easier stored in the body) is immoral because it interferes with nutritional processes of the body.

Same with other bodily functions like going to toilet, sleeping, even breathing… etc.

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.