Humanae Vitae Question

[BruceK]

I’m back again, as you may recall I’ve been having an on-and-off debate with this protagonist over the issue of Humanae Vitae, NFP and ABC. He views HV as inheritly self-contradictory and ABC to be morally neutral. Well with the 40th anniversay of HV did a review of a article for the latest issue of First Things the article is titled "
The Vindication of Humanae Vitae" by Mary Eberstadt.
For reference purpose here’s a link to the article in question:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262

My progagonist’s critique is as follows:
**There are (at least) three fundamental flaws in this article (and similar arguments): 1. It confuses the sexual revolution with the issue of contraception, 2. It equates correlation with causation, and 3. it is a consequentialist argument .

1. There is a distinct difference between the sexual revolution and the issue of the morality of ABC. The sexual revolution was a moral revolution, not a technological revolution. It was a rejection of conventional moral standards and an acceptance of the idea that sex was a pleasure to be enjoyed to the fullest independent of marriage and family. The sexual revolution would have proceeded if the Pill had never been invented. Playboy Magazine and other harbingers of the sexual revolution were on the newsstands years before the advent of the Pill.

There was no contraceptive revolution, contraceptives were already available. The Pill, which happened to coincide with the sexual revolution, was an innovation in birth control technology. Did it support the sexual revolution? Absolutely! Just as a 100% effective NFP would have, and existing contraceptives did. The Pill was just significantly more convenient and reliable from a female perspective. But it was the sexual revolution that lead to the widespread use of contraceptives outside of marriage and even to their improper use within marriage

1. Any university level statistics textbook will state that correlation does not imply causation. Yet defenders of HV, having no basis for HVs edicts in right reason, truth or reality, try to assert a causality between ABC and abortion, divorce, illigitimate children, male alcoholism, etc., wherever a correlation can be found. This is a false argument
   The 50s and 60s were a time that saw the confluence of a number of sociological trends: millions of soldiers back from WWII, the rise of the sexual revolution, improving economic conditions, women entering universities and the workplace in greater numbers, a better educated laity unwilling to just pay, pray and obey, the development of the Pill, the development of NFP, etc. The causality behind the effects predicted by Paul VI lies in the sexual revolution, not in contraception per se. The availability of contraception or the Pill did not cause the sexual revolution, it was already ongoing. There was a sexual revolution following WWI the roaring 20s - but no innovation in contraceptive technology preceded or caused it. The rhythm method introduced in 1930 was an innovation in contraception methodology. Yet, no sexual revolution followed its introduction and Pius XII sanctioned its use 21 years later reversing Casti Connubii. I have seen no evidence that the 1930 Lambeth Conferences sanction of contraception led to all of the dire consequences that Paul VI predicted. That took the post-WWII sexual revolution. This articles assumption that correlation means causation is a false basis for understanding the effects of contraception on behavior.
2. This argument is a consequentialist argument. That raises two problems. First, John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (pg 41) and HV24 reject this type of argument. Second, to be valid, a consequentialist argument would have to correctly identify the causes of the consequences. This article falsely identifies contraception, instead of correctly identifying the sexual revolution as the cause of the consequences that Paul VI warned about.
   HV was about the morality of married Catholics using ABC. But this has gotten lost in the retrospectives. John Paul II says that the morality of an act must be judged by the nature of the act itself and not by its consequences. Yet HVs supporters are trying to justify its edicts w.r.t. married Catholics using ABC, by citing what it falsely claims are its consequences.

Suppose, that Paul VI had followed the advice of the Commission (Majority) Report, sanctioned the use of ABC by married Catholics for the same right reasons that Pius XII sanctioned rhythm. Then the Church might not be so divided and the last 40 years and John Paul IIs papacy could have focused on fighting the real cause of the current conditions the sexual revolution - instead of pretending that eliminating contraceptives would solve the worlds problems. The cause of the problems lies in the hearts of people, not in whether Catholic couples use NFP or ABC. The Church squandered its moral authority when it issued HV, and left itself impotent in the fight against the sexual revolution. That fight will be won or lost in peoples hearts not in the drugstores.

Suppose that the Pill didnt exist, but Dr. Hilgers had perfected NFP in the 1960s so that it was 100% effective as Pius XII and Paul VI recommended. Then the sexual revolution had adopted NFP, and women and college girls simply scheduled their adultery and fornications according to their fertility schedules. Would defenders of HV now be arguing that based on those consequences, Pius XII and Paul VI were wrong? That NFP caused these consequences? No. They would be arguing that the problem was in peoples hearts , not in the method that they used to sin**
Any feedback, counterarguments or rebuttals be appreciated.

 

[JimG]

Just a couple of comments:

The sexual revolution was a moral revolution, not a technological revolution.

Contraception made the sexual revolution possible. Sex without consequences requires contraception.

There was no contraceptive revolution, contraceptives were already available.

Yes, condoms generally. The advent of the pill meant that responsibility could be shifted from men to women, and that men could no longer be held responsible for contraceptive failure. Women would be the ones to accept the risks of long term use of oral contraceptives.

And men would be inclined to no longer accept responsibility for pregnancies, wives or children. Not only that, by making women more ‘available’ they began to lose respect for women, just as HV predicted.

 

[JimG]

You might also want to read the article in the July 2008 issue of the Catholic World Report, entitled “Humanae Vitae at 40.”

There have been a host of sociological studies and other writings recently showing how prophetic were Paul VI’s warnings about the effects of the contraceptive culture.

George Gilder published one of the first, his 1973 book entitled “Sexual Suicide.” But there are a lot more recent. Such as “The Decline of Males, The First Look at an Unexpected New World for Men and Women”, by Lionel Tiger.

The evidence for the accuracy of HV has been piling up for 40 years. It’s not consequentialism. He just turned out to me remarkably prophetic. But that’s what usually happens when you’re right about the underlying issue.

 

[1ke]

The rhythm method introduced in 1930 was an innovation in contraception methodology. Yet, no sexual revolution followed its introduction and Pius XII sanctioned its use 21 years later reversing Casti Connubii.

The rhythm method (recourse to the infertile period) is not contraception.

Pius XII did NOT “reverse” Casti Connubii.

 

[averheyen]

I’m back again, as you may recall I’ve been having an on-and-off debate with this protagonist over the issue of Humanae Vitae, NFP and ABC. He views HV as inheritly self-contradictory and ABC to be morally neutral. Well with the 40th anniversay of HV did a review of a article for the latest issue of First Things the article is titled "
The Vindication of Humanae Vitae" by Mary Eberstadt.
For reference purpose here’s a link to the article in question:
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262

My progagonist’s critique is as follows:
There are (at least) three fundamental flaws in this article (and similar arguments): 1. It confuses the sexual revolution with the issue of contraception, 2. It equates correlation with causation, and 3. it is a consequentialist argument .
Any feedback, counterarguments or rebuttals be appreciated.

Correlation does not equal causation, except when it does.

 

[jdnrite01]

I don’t mean to nitpick, but I thought I’d throw my two cents into this discussion. JimG said:

Contraception made the sexual revolution possible. Sex without consequences requires contraception.

I agree, but I think that this statement doesn’t go quite far enough. I would say that contraception and the availability of abortion on demand made the sexual revolution possible. Sex without consequences requires contraception or abortion.

I have a number of problems with the text cited in the original post. It says:

The sexual revolution was a moral revolution, not a technological revolution

The reasons for the “sexual revolution” are multiple, including the rapid technological advance in contraceptive devices and chemicals and abortion on demand following Roe v. Wade. Technology certainly had a place in the changing mores; new forms of safe contraception and the state-sanctioned (safe and secure) ability to abort babies. In any event, I wouldn’t call it a “moral revolution.” Immoral decadence is a better term.

The quoted article also says:

[The sexual revolution] was a rejection of conventional moral standards and an acceptance of the idea that sex was a pleasure to be enjoyed to the fullest independent of marriage and family.

If so, the “sexual revolution” promotes narcissism and selfishness. It completely avoids addressing the duality of human sexuality, i.e., the procreative aspect thereof, which cannot be separated from legitimate sexual expression.

Many of the statements in the article simply beg the question. When you think about it, this article seeks to argue to God why He should bend to our will. Simply ridiculous.

 

[BruceK]

Correlation does not equal causation, except when it does.

**Elaborate if you will. is the flaw in the article ofFirst Things or is in my friend’s critque of the article flawed? ****

 

[KathleenElsie]

Contraception, abortion and perceived acceptance by all of society as a whole were necessary for sexual misconduct to become the norm.

In 1968 many priests and Bishops told us that was ok to use contraception and many did not investigate because it was easier to believe the loudest voices.

It has taken years to correct this. I pray that all Catholics return to what the church says.

 

[Ruthie]

Here’s my response to your friend’s argument, Bruce.

**1. The sexual revolution was a moral revolution, not a technological revolution. **

It was not either-or. Yes, the proponents of “free sex” had been around for a while. But the prevailing morality was always that “good girls don’t.” Today, the prevailing morality in the Western world is “everybody’s doing it.”

**There was no contraceptive revolution, contraceptives were already available. **

There was nothing like the pill. As another poster pointed out, condoms put the responsibility on the man. Thus it was not acceptable for the father of an illegitimate child to say “not my problem.” Plus we girls all knew that the failure rate was high. I would never have considered becoming sexually active if not for the pill.

The Pill, which happened to coincide with the sexual revolution…

It also coincided with the new feminism. I remember Playboy pushing the notion that women were could be sexually “liberated” by the pill. Unfortunately, the feminist leaders bought it. Thanks to the pill, we could be just like men. But the real result was that now, it was all our fault if we got pregnant, and the guys could get away with saying “not my problem.” This allowed them to use us without fear of consequences, which led to the further objectification of women.

I don’t think that one can put the new feminism, the pill, and the sexual revolution into separate boxes. It’s more like a chemical reaction, and the pill was the catalyst.

But it was the sexual revolution that led to the widespread use of contraceptives outside of marriage and even to their improper use within marriage.

This is true. But the sexual revolution of the '60s can’t be separated from the pill, and it was the pill that aided the acceptance of abortion. Why? Because the pill was a medical “solution” to fertility. When the pill failed, it was logical to seek another medical solution for fertility.

2. The availability of contraception or the Pill did not cause the sexual revolution…

This is contradicted by your statement that “The rhythm method introduced in 1930 was an innovation in contraception methodology. Yet, no sexual revolution followed its introduction…”

**I have seen no evidence that the 1930 Lambeth Conferences sanction of contraception led to all of the dire consequences that Paul VI predicted. That took the post-WWII sexual revolution. **

Again – what was the difference between 1930 and 1966? The pill. Yes, contraception was used before the pill came along – but how widely? It didn’t become truly widespread until the advent of the pill. HV predicted dire consequences of widespread use of contraceptives, and they have come to pass.

This articles assumption that correlation means causation is a false basis for understanding the effects of contraception on behavior.

Ah. Again you correlate contraception with an effect on behavior. If contraception had no effect on behavior, then you could say that we argue “correlation means causation.”

Suppose, that Paul VI had followed the advice of the Commission (Majority) Report, sanctioned the use of ABC by married Catholics … Then the Church might not be so divided …

This is a straw man argument. Even if the Church had sanctioned it, the world would still be in the same moral morass it is in now. Except it would be harder to refute the so-called Catholics who support abortion and homosexual marriage.

**Suppose that the Pill didn’t exist, but Dr. Hilgers had perfected NFP in the 1960s so that it was 100% effective as Pius XII and Paul VI recommended. Then the sexual revolution had adopted NFP, and women and college girls simply scheduled their adultery and fornications according to their fertility schedules. **

Somehow, I just can’t see myself doing that back then. The point is that the pill made things easy. No having to fumble with a bit of latex at the height of passion. No having to take temperatures and the other inconveniences that go with NFP. Just take a pill every day. Sexual freedom. Which turns out to be worse than useless.

Ruthie
P.S. Bruce, feel free to quote me!

 

[JimG]

It also coincided with the new feminism. I remember Playboy pushing the notion that women were could be sexually “liberated” by the pill.

In the early years of Playboy magazine, Hugh Hefner published an interminable series of sophomoric articles called “The Playboy Philosophy.” In going through those–(I was in the Air Force at the time, and yes, I actually did read the articles!), I can recall wondering why he thought he needed a ‘philosophy’ to justify printing photos of naked women.

 

[BruceK]

And here we go again, here’s latest exchange with me and the aformentioned protagonist, his word are a follows:
“So if you want to consider the fact that 95% of married Catholics who use birth control reject HV’s edicts whereas a minority of celibate clergy support it a poll or a democratic vote, you must at least admit that the preponderence of those with experience and knowledge and who must live with the consequences reject HV, whereas the clergy who support it have no such direct experience or knowledge and in fact have a different ax to grind - authority.”
I respond: Truth and God’s will-for God is truth-is not determined by opinion polls. Whether the overwhelming majority of people support or oppose something is not a measurement of the truthfulness of what these people hold, and its certainly doesn’t mean they are necessarily right in that regard. That is why your argument is not valid and irrelevent. Thus it can only be a fallacy in argumentation.
“Between a minority of celibate clergy and 95% of married Catholics who use birth control, there is a disagreement as to just what is God’s will w.r.t. conjugal morality. We know from the human fertility cycle, as you have agreed, that God did not will that the two ends of conjugal intercourse be inseparably connected, so HV12’s “inseparable connection”, the basis for its “open” edict, is false. Married couples know this from direct knowledge and experience of the conjugal life, ie., they know the natural law through the experience, conaturality and inclinations of married life”<<
B]]**I counter, The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

X is a common action.

Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as “evidence” to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable**.
He replies: “Its still irrelevant because the point is not that a preponderance of a homogeneous population hold position X about subject S, while a small minority hold position Y. Rather it is that the preponderance of a population with direct knowledge and experience of subject S hold position X whereas, a small minority with no direct knowledge and experience of subject S hold position Y. The point is the direct knowledge and experience of conjugal life that the 95% bring to the subject of conjugal morality, and the ignorance of the small minority that holds an opposing viewpoint. Further, the position of the 95% is independently supported by Gods will as expressed through His creation of humans, whereas the position of the small minority conflicts with Gods will so discerned.”
Me: **An appeal to fair play, which might seem to be an appeal to common practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say “the men who do the same job as me get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same as them.” This would not be a fallacy as long as there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). More formally:

 1.   It is common practice to treat people of type Y in manner X and to treat people of type Z in a different manner.

1. There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z. **<<

He replies: “As explained above, this is why your argument is false. There is a significant, definitive difference between married Catholics and celibate priests w.r.t. to understanding Gods will w.r.t. conjugal life. And I have explained the relevant difference above which not even someone as stupid and dishonest as yourself can deny. So I am justified in treating married Catholics and celibate clergy differently.”

I know there are a few flaws and holes in his argumentaton so I’m asking specificlly what are they and what would be the rebuttal to them

 

[strngrnrth]

There have been many sexual revolutions, all following or during wars (which create man-shortages), economic booms (which remove the fear of having a starving baby), and innovations in contraception (the rubber or latex condom instead of sheepskin, the Pill). They normally reverse when conditions go back to normal. In 1981 people began to back away from the extremes of the 60’s, but because of herpes and then AIDS, and the recession, as well as worries about the side effects of contraception, Boomers’ biological clocks and the coming-of-age of a generation that had been born and raised in the destruction the 60’s sexual revolution had caused and wanted to heal from it.
Eleven years later “safe sex” thinking, the proliferation of Ecstasy pills and the development of virucidal products joined the Queer Nation/ACTUP drive among homosexual activists to protect themselves from AIDS and anti-gay violence. The result was rave culture, body-modification trends (legitimized by the new harm-reduction approach to risky actions), the fad for calling oneself “queer” as a point of pride regardless of actual orientation, the equation of “straight” with “old-fashioned, dull, out-of-touch and no fun”, the equation of “experienced” with “responsible, aware and useful”, for men, women and even middle-school kids, the mainstreaming of the debate over whether gender exists…Nine years after that society started backing out of that social experiment because it was a nightmare.
So, yes, sexual revolutions happen, but they are in large part a rsponse to contraceptive convenience. And they invariably result in cruelty, immaturity and confusion – and tragedies.

 

[BruceK]

What is the best estimate of Catholic Couples worldwide who practice Artificial Birth Control(ABC) and those who practice Natural Family Planning (NFP)? Any data, statistics or links for an approximate figure?

 

[BruceK]

B]Here’s the latest installment of my debate with my protagonsist on the issue of HV and Caontraception:

Him(Protagonist): it is the intention of the NFP practitioners that their practice 100% exclude procreation. The fact that NFP is not 100% effective is irrelevant. <<

Me (BruceK) >> Since you made the claim back it up: show a direct quotation from such a practitioner that NFP is 100% effective in excluding procreation. <<

Him: This is a good example as to just how stupid and dishonest ou are. I did not claim that any practitioner held that NFP is 100% effective in excluding procreation. I said that it is the intention of the NFP practitioners that their practice 100% exclude procreation. Do you realy believe that couples practice NFP intending to conceive 1 out of every 50 acts of conjugal intercourse? A third grader can understand that if NFP did not exclude procreation from conjugal intercourse, it could not prevent (births (procreation). <<

Me >> It can never 100% exclude procreation, agreed. <<

Him: Your answer is totally irrelevant to the fact that a third grader can understand that if NFP did not exclude procreation from conjugal intercourse, it could not prevent (births (procreation). HV24 calls on medical science to make it 100% effective. If it becomes 100% effective, is it then immoral? JP II in L&R states unambigiously that NFP excludes procreation. End of story.

Me: HV24:Men of Science- does not call on medical science to make NFP 100% effective. What it actually says is, “It is supremely desirable, and this was also the mind of Pius XII, that medical science should by study of natural rhythms succeed in deteriming a sufficiently secure as well as a moral basis for the regulation of birth.” That’s not exactly the same thing as sayin 100% effective in excluding procreation and you know it! <<

Him: Logically, it is the same thing. If HV24 did not mean 100%, then what was their limit? 98%? 99%? 99.999%? Whatever their limit, many forms of ABC fall within that limit. If, NFP becomes 100% effective, will the Magisterium condemn it because it is 100% effective in separating the ends of conjugal intercourse?

Me: t’s not logically the same thing and it’s a moot point because it never will be 100% effective in separating the two ends. <<

Him: You can’t credibly assert that natural family planning will never be 100% effective. There is in fact one method that claims to be 100% effective - rigorously practiced. And my point is not a moot point even if NFP could never be 100% effective. You have to dodge the issue and claim it is a moot point because it reduces your arguments w.r.t. conjugal morality to an absurdity - reductio ad absurdem.
But, even if NFP is only 98% effective, your posts still condemn it because the purpose and intent of NFP is to “slam the door on life (procreation)” and to allow couples to enjoy the good of sex for purposes other than procreation. It does so 98% of the time.

Now, if you want to argue that your posts do not condemn NFP because it fails and does not “slam the door on life (procreation)” 2% of the time, then since ABC fails to "slam the door on life (procreation) 3% of the time it is likewise not condemned by your posts.

What specifically is faultly about his reasoning in his arguments and what exactly is the best rebuttal to his arguments? Any feedback will greatly be appreciated.

 

[Scottgun]

Seems like he is trying to make ABC and NFP morally equivalent because their statistical effectiveness are equivalent. This is *consequentialism. *You have to show that they are two entirely different chosen acts. Actually one is an act and another is abstaining from an act. Doing something and using methods to thwart the natural and good consequences of that act is immoral. Not doing something is only wrong if there is a duty to do something–and while the conjugal embrace is normative, we are in general free to choose time and place, even with a view to what will likely or not likely happen. Get off stats and get into the nature of the act.

 

[BruceK]

**Here’s the latest exchange I’ve had with him on this issue, his words are as follows:**Do you deny that the Church teaches that if a married couple intentionally uses NFP to exclude procreation for the life of their marriage, then their “doing nothing” was immoral? Yes or No.
**So what would be the best reply to this? **

 

[Chancellare]

They would be arguing that the problem was in peoples hearts , not in the method that they used to sin

The problem has always been in people’s hearts.
By his own narrative he just answered his own critique.

 

[bookgirl32]

The rhythm method (recourse to the infertile period) is not contraception.

Pius XII did NOT “reverse” Casti Connubii.

There was an entire exclusive part to BruceK’s debate with this person dealing with NFP (child of the rhythm method) and how it is or isn’t BC, if not ABC, correct Bruce?

 

[bookgirl32]

What is the best estimate of Catholic Couples worldwide who practice Artificial Birth Control(ABC) and those who practice Natural Family Planning (NFP)? Any data, statistics or links for an approximate figure?

This is if you could call Catholic couples who practice AFB practicing Catholics. Please excuse the pun.

 

[bookgirl32]

Seems like he is trying to make ABC and NFP morally equivalent because their statistical effectiveness are equivalent. This is *consequentialism. *You have to show that they are two entirely different chosen acts. Actually one is an act and another is abstaining from an act. Doing something and using methods to thwart the natural and good consequences of that act is immoral. Not doing something is only wrong if there is a duty to do something–and while the conjugal embrace is normative, we are in general free to choose time and place, even with a view to what will likely or not likely happen. Get off stats and get into the nature of the act.

I like this.