Humanae Vitae Debate

[fix]

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.

I think that is a separate issue than what TMC is arguing. In any event, I would say refraining with good reason is being responsible as we are called to be.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

How do you know fertility is not an absolute good? (Please consider Gen 1:28-31, not a proof-text, just food for thought.)
How do you know procreation is good?
Consider the many people (likely including babies) killed directly by God in the flood of Noah’s time? Is God always good? Are His works?

Avoiding good is not always wrong.

Agreed. Thwarting good is always wrong. All birth control (ABC and NFP) avoids the good of creating new life. Contraception does this by thwarting fertility, NFP by avoiding it. (I understand you have no problem with avoiding or thwarting something you consider neutral.)

How is it open to procreation to have sex at the precise time, and only at the precise time, that procreation is impossilble?

You can be open to procreation (cooperating with your natural fertility cycle) while having sex at the precise time, and only at the precise time, that procreation (creating a baby) is impossible.

Like BruceK’s friend in the OP, you are using two different definitions of “procreation” here, portraying the Church’s position as inconsistent, which it is not.

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.

You are obliged to be in your boss’s office when you think he will be there. No Catholic is obliged to unite egg and sperm when they have prayerfully discerned they are not being called to parenthood.

 

[TMC]

How do you know fertility is not an absolute good? (Please consider Gen 1:28-31, not a proof-text, just food for thought.)
How do you know procreation is good?
Consider the many people (likely including babies) killed directly by God in the flood of Noah’s time? Is God always good? Are His works?

Yes, God is always good. If you believe otherwise we have differences that go much deeper than this issue.

Agreed. Thwarting good is always wrong. All birth control (ABC and NFP) avoids the good of creating new life. Contraception does this by thwarting fertility, NFP by avoiding it. (I understand you have no problem with avoiding or thwarting something you consider neutral.)

You can be open to procreation (cooperating with your natural fertility cycle) while having sex at the precise time, and only at the precise time, that procreation (creating a baby) is impossible.

This is merely double speak. What is “open to procreation” about having sex only when you know procreation is impossible. This is the boss in the office example, see below.

Like BruceK’s friend in the OP, you are using two different definitions of “procreation” here, portraying the Church’s position as inconsistent, which it is not.

I don’t know if I would say inconsistent, I would say disingenuous. To take a word that means “capable of reproducing” and redefine it to include acts that are not capable of resulting in reproduction is disingenuous.

I understand that there is a definitional problem for the Church here. For many years the Church could always say that sex that ended with sperm in the birth canal was acceptable because it was procreative, this understanding used (and uses) a flawed idea of how reproduction actually works, but it was sort of interally consistent. Then the pill came along. Now how do you define procreative to include the kind of sex you want to allow, and still disallow this new-fangled birth control method. So the definition is bent out of whack, the common sixth grade knowledge of where babies come from is ignored, and procreation takes on a new meaning.

You are obliged to be in your boss’s office when you think he will be there. No Catholic is obliged to unite egg and sperm when they have prayerfully discerned they are not being called to parenthood.

This is the problem, isn’t it? Your statement actually states my own position well. Catholics are not obliged to unite the egg and the sperm. But the Church’s position is that they must at least pretend that they are open to doing so. Deliberately avoiding your boss and even measuring external indicators to give great confidence that you are successfully avoiding him is not being “open” to meeing with him. Deliberately avoiding procreating and even measuring external indicators to ensure that no procreation actually occurs in not “open” to procreation. I agree that if after prayerful discernment a Catholic couple determines it is not the right time to have a child, they are not obliged to. So why does the Church want us to pretend to be “open” to it?

 

[BruceK]

TMC: 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.
**What it boils to is this question; Do you think ABC is moral under any circumstance? **

 

[TMC]

TMC: 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.
**What it boils to is this question; Do you think ABC is moral under any circumstance? **

Not sure how to read your question. If you mean “Do you think there are any circumstances under which ABC is moral?” the answer is yes.

If you mean “Do you think that ABC is always moral under every circumstance?” I think the answer is no, but I am not sure if you have particular circumstances in mind. I think that there are measures that some term ‘birth control’ that are immoral, if that is what you mean. I think that couples should be open to procreation in their marriage (although that does not, to me, mean in every single act). Its hard to make blanket statements beyond that.

 

[Janet_S]

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.

Reason tells us that lovemaking is life giving. That’s inherent in our design. How is that bad reasoning?

I doubt that the Church is unaware of the biology of reproduction, but you seem to disagree. What is the “middle ages understanding of how human reproduction works” that you claim the Church is insisting on .

This teaching will never change.

 

[Janet_S]

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.

“Hardly prescient,” that’s easy to say now, but Paul VI was the lone voice in the wilderness back in 1968. Who else predicted these consequences of ABC back then?

–increase in marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.

–elimination of the incentive for the young to keep the moral law.

–increase in the tendency of women being used by men as instruments of pleasure.

–institution of forced contraception by public authorities.

I thought the sexual revolution brought about by ABC (particularly the pill) was supposed to bring us happiness and unbridled freedom. At least that’s what we were told in the '60’s. Well, actually we were told that by everyone but one person–Pope Paul VI.

 

[BruceK]

Not sure how to read your question. If you mean “Do you think there are any circumstances under which ABC is moral?” the answer is yes.

If you mean “Do you think that ABC is always moral under every circumstance?” I think the answer is no, but I am not sure if you have particular circumstances in mind. I think that there are measures that some term ‘birth control’ that are immoral, if that is what you mean. I think that couples should be open to procreation in their marriage (although that does not, to me, mean in every single act). Its hard to make blanket statements beyond that.

**Let me rephrase the question for the sake of clarity; Under what circumstances do you think ABC is moral? **

 

[Good_Daughter]

Yes, God is always good. If you believe otherwise we have differences that go much deeper than this issue.

Of course, God is always good. My question for you is, are His works and creations always good?

What is “open to procreation” about having sex only when you know procreation is impossible.

HV does not teach that sex has to be “open to procreation” (the generative process). HV teaches sex must include “the natural human inclination or tendency toward procreation”, in other words, no thwarted fertility. (From a link provided by fix, referenced below.) The “natural inclination” during ovulation is high, during pregnancy practically nil but, in uncontracepted sex, that natural inclination is included.

TMC, if you want to understand how Catholic teaching makes correct and consistent use of the term “procreative”, please take the time to read the excellent link provided by fix in post #119. In it, author Peter J. Cataldo gives “…a basis upon which to distinguish the natural human inclination or tendency toward procreation from the generative process of procreation in Humane Vitae”.

BruceK, I hope you can provide your friend with this link as well.

Catholics are not obliged to unite the egg and the sperm…

…So why does the Church want us to pretend to be “open” to it?

No one unites the egg and sperm except God, but that’s my mistake from a previous post. I should have said, Catholics are not required to be open to procreation (the generative process).

The Church doesn’t want us to pretend to be “open” to procreation (the generative process).

The Church requires each marital act to be, as Cataldo states, “aimed at procreation” (the natural human inclination or tendency toward procreation), never thwarting natural fertility.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.