Hypocritical Contraception?

[rlg94086]

" One says something like, “Natural Familiy Planning (NFP) doesn’t work.”. The NFP defender replies that it is every bit as effective as artificial birth control (ABC). On cue, the naysayer goes, “Aha! Then they are the same thing!” "

They are the same thing when the goal is the same – to be able to have sex and not have children.

The difference is that w/ ABC, the couple can have sex a few more days a month than they could with NFP.

If those few days make NFP holy, well…

The fact is that NFP and ABC are used so that the couple can have sex without getting pregnant. With NFP and ABC, the goal is identical and is exactly what the CC teaches against–contraception. People want to call the means (NFP) holy, because the sex act itself isn’t interupted or some device isn’t used. IMO, this is just a mind game. It’s all the same thing. No sex act engaged in while calculatiing and timing via NFP is truly open to procreation. It’s just a game.

That is not what the Church teaches…just scroll up to my last post and read what the Catechism says…I even bolded the part relevant to NFP for you. If you are going to argue about what the Church teaches, you really should get to know what the Church teaches first.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

" One says something like, “Natural Familiy Planning (NFP) doesn’t work.”. The NFP defender replies that it is every bit as effective as artificial birth control (ABC). On cue, the naysayer goes, “Aha! Then they are the same thing!” "

They are the same thing when the goal is the same – to be able to have sex and not have children.

The difference is that w/ ABC, the couple can have sex a few more days a month than they could with NFP.

If those few days make NFP holy, well…

The fact is that NFP and ABC are used so that the couple can have sex without getting pregnant. With NFP and ABC, the goal is identical and is exactly what the CC teaches against–contraception. People want to call the means (NFP) holy, because the sex act itself isn’t interupted or some device isn’t used. IMO, this is just a mind game. It’s all the same thing. No sex act engaged in while calculatiing and timing via NFP is truly open to procreation. It’s just a game.

If given a perfect ABC method what would be the purpose of marriage?

 

[estesbob]

That is not what the Church teaches…just scroll up to my last post and read what the Catechism says…I even bolded the part relevant to NFP for you. If you are going to argue about what the Church teaches, you really should get to know what the Church teaches first.

To be honest I have never gotten comfortabe with the Churchs teaching on ABC, I see the point on the pill-many of them can cause an abortion but I have always struggled with the rationale behind the oppostion to barrier methods. Now dont get me wromg-I know why they teach what they teach-i just have a hard time with it. I accept it however. IIMO if I dismiss their teachings on ABC why should I accept their teachngs on the ressurection or the Eucharist? If I get to pick and choose which beliefs Ill accept why do i need the Church> In twhy would I need any Church.?

So I follow their teachings on ABC and let those wiser than I figure out the “why”

 

[rlg94086]

To be honest I have never gotten comfortabe with the Churchs teaching on ABC, I see the point on the pill-many of them can cause an abortion but I have always struggled with the rationale behind the oppostion to barrier methods. Now dont get me wromg-I know why they teach what they teach-i just have a hard time with it. I accept it however. **IIMO if I dismiss their teachings on ABC why should I accept their teachngs on the ressurection or the Eucharist? If I get to pick and choose which beliefs Ill accept why do i need the Church> In twhy would I need any Church.? **

So I follow their teachings on ABC and let those wiser than I figure out the “why”

I’m with you on that point. Like I said, I notice that the people who do back-flips regarding the equivalence between NFP and ABC are generally (not always) not arguing that no regulation of births should occur…rather, they just want to do it their way.

One of the things that I found convincing regarding contraception was not even the argument itself. Rather, it is the fact that both Catholics and Protestants were unified in their prohibition on birth control until the 1900’s. Apparently, something in the Bible changed at that point, so Protestants all-of-a-sudden determined that birth control was okay.

It’s not just Catholics that say this…here is a Protestant minister’s viewpoint:
mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/protestantprotest.htm

Historical Teaching

For too long birth control has been looked upon as a “Catholic issue”. It is fast becoming a “Protestant issue” however, as Protestant ministers like myself protest the heretical teaching of birth control that is being propagated in Protestant churches. We must understand that the Church had spoken consistently for 1900 years against birth control. Only in the last 80 years have Protestant churches begun to peddle this belief that God thinks it’s okay or wise for us to use birth control.

Listen to this quote, “The purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men or women; for they despise the blessings of God, the Creator and Author of marriage.” some Protestants would say, “This quote is obviously the mad drivelings of some medieval Pope.” It is not. Rather, it is the founder of the Reformation, Martin Luther who said this. Protestant Christians need to realize that their leaders consistently spoke against birth control up until about 80 years ago.
Who are some of the leaders besides Luther? John Calvin, John Wesley, Robert Dabney, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, Zacharius Ursinus, Heinrich Bullinger, Cotton Mather, Herbert Leupold, Johann Keil, Franz Delitszch, Matthew Henry, Adam Clark and John Machen, just to name a few, spoke against the use of birth control.

The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, once stated, “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.” This does not shock most Christians today because they agree with her and quote her daily. " I can’t handle more than two." “I can’t wait until you grow up and move out.” “Will this be your last?” (Asked in church after a couple announces they are having a third child; no congratulations of course) All of these statements and those like them parade the party line of Planned Parenthood, and are in opposition to our Protestant forefathers.

 

[ericcantona71]

You ask very good questions.

The first notion that we need to dispell is the notion that the church teaches that birth control is immoral. It does not. The Church teaches that for just reasons we can postone and/or space children.

The Church teaches contraception is an immoral *means *of birth control. Abstaining from sexual relations is not, nor ever has been.

NFP is periodic abstinence. What NFP says is “we are not ready to have a child at this time so we will refrain from sexual relations.” We serve God and respect the way he created intercourse.

What contraception says is “we are not ready to have a child right now so we will engage in the act and pervert it by using a contraceptive.” We do not serve God and respect the way in which he created the marital act, the act serves US.

Each act of intercourse must be unitive and procreative, objectively. This means any time you engage in intercourse it cannot be an altered act of intercourse.

The Church doesn’t require us to have relations every day, or with any specific frequency, or on any specific day. But, when we do choose to come together in the marital embrace we cannot alter the act.

Hey IKe,

Not trying to split hairs, but just a thought. You wrote “The Church teaches that for just reasons we can postone and/or space children.” My understanding is that it is better to say “serious reasons” since that is the words that Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii uses. I only say this because I know that liberals often use this play on words to open the floodgates for use of contraception, making out that since the Church openly endorses NFP it means we should be able to justly use contraception. My understanding is that the church does not openly endorse NFP, only that it does not contradict the procreative/unitive element in serious circumstances. It is also possible for NFP to be used as a contraceptive, which is a serious sin.

You raised some good points, feel free to correct me if I said anything wrong! I am here to learn too!

God bless,

Eric

 

[Texas_Roofer]

*The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind……….

…The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.*

Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession – PPXII (1951)

 

[Good_Daughter]

While I completely agree with the idea that abortifacients are sinful because you are effectively killing a baby, I do not understand how the Church can say something like a condom is immoral, whereas Natural Family Planning isn’t.

In my experience, people who regard human fertility as natural, healthy and useful (and for the religious, a gift from God) have the easiest time seeing the difference between barrier contraception and NFP. People who see human fertility as useful when you want a baby, but otherwise disposable, have the hardest time seeing the difference.

All contraceptives permit a couple to disregard their combined fertility at any given time and place a fake “infertile” stamp on an act of sexual intercourse. NFP, used to postpone pregnancy, is the only form of birth control that requires a couple to understand and work within the design of their own fertility.

It may be helpful when considering the barrier/NFP difference for you to decide what you think human fertility really is. (Of course I vote “precious gift from God”, better understood through NFP, not to be thwarted by contraception, but that’s just me.)

 

[Scottgun]

But abstaining that particular night functions in the same way, does it not? In fact, that would seem more of a barrier to our potential for physical bonding.

No. It isn’t.

 

[LittleDeb]

It may be helpful when considering the barrier/NFP difference for you to decide what you think human fertility really is. (Of course I vote “precious gift from God”, better understood through NFP, not to be thwarted by contraception, but that’s just me.)

Me too!!

 

[kalt]

“People who see human fertility as useful when you want a baby, but otherwise disposable, have the hardest time seeing the difference.”

People who “see human fertility as useful” only when they want a baby, use NFP–or ABC. .

 

[kalt]

"In my experience, people who regard human fertility as natural, healthy and useful (and for the religious, a gift from God) have the easiest time seeing the difference between barrier contraception and NFP. "

If people truly saw “human fertiltiy” as a healthy, useful gift from God, they wouldn’t go about calculating, plotting and engineering their actions to avoid it!

 

[kalt]

That is not what the Church teaches…just scroll up to my last post and read what the Catechism says…I even bolded the part relevant to NFP for you. If you are going to argue about what the Church teaches, you really should get to know what the Church teaches first.

What you posted is the Church’s defense of NFP. As I said, NFP and ABC are two sides of the same Contraceptive coin.

Actually, what you posted says that the act which makes conception impossible is intrinsically evil. Since no ABC method is perfect, and conception is always possible, it proves my point. NFP and ABC are two means to the same ends, and it’s the ends that the Church is against–sex that isn’t open to conception. A sex act that is engaged in only when you are very unlikely to get pregnant, either because you’re using a condom or because you’ve plotted it all out on a calendar, is not a sex act that is open to conception.

You should know that I’m not arguing in favor of ABC. I’m arguing against NFP. IMO, it’s a mind game.

No one who is using NFP to avoid getting pregnant is doing anything different than someone using a condom. Well, except that the one using the condom is much more likely to get pregnant. I guess that makes NFP closer to evil, since the evil of having sex using birth control is described as making conception “impossible”.

It’s ironic that the contraception that the CC approves of is one of the most effective, non-chemical, non-surgical methods.

 

[Good_Daughter]

People who “see human fertility as useful” only when they want a baby, use NFP–or ABC. .

Not necessarily true. I see human fertility as useful whether I’m seeking pregnacy or not. I also appreciate its tremendous power which is why I think it should be used with care.

I’ll share an analogy with you: I like to decorate our house for special events. When the time is right, I even take out my mother’s crystal vase for cut flowers. The vase is a precious gift and because I cherish it, I only use it when I know my family will be careful with it. Keeping it safe on display in a cabinet doesn’t mean I consider it disposable, quite the opposite actually.

Fertility is a far greater gift than any vase, but I don’t have to make use of it constantly to cherish it and consider it useful. Thwarting my fertility (contraception) would be like trying to give my mother’s vase back because I am not currently using it (what an insult!) or, at worst, tossing the vase in the trash after it has served my purpose. NFP is like keeping the vase in a good place, ready to use if and when the time is right.

Even when I prayerfully choose not to increase my family, I value my fertility.

 

[rlg94086]

What you posted is the Church’s defense of NFP.

You have an interesting viewpoint on the Catechism for a Catholic. You believe it was written to defend positions (some of which you don’t approve of) as opposed to instruct.

kalt:

I guess that makes NFP closer to evil, since the evil of having sex using birth control is described as making conception “impossible”.

And, since you believe NFP is “closer to evil” than a condom, you are positing that the Catechism is promoting evil. I went through RCIA in a very liberal parish, and I don’t even remember them going that far and promoting heresy such as this.

kalt:

You should know that I’m not arguing in favor of ABC. I’m arguing against NFP. IMO, it’s a mind game.

As I said, you don’t have to use NFP. It is not a requirement of the Church. In fact, the Church teaches we should be “fruitful and multiply,” so go be “fruitful and multiply.”

 

[Good_Daughter]

"In my experience, people who regard human fertility as natural, healthy and useful (and for the religious, a gift from God) have the easiest time seeing the difference between barrier contraception and NFP. "

If people truly saw “human fertiltiy” as a healthy, useful gift from God, they wouldn’t go about calculating, plotting and engineering their actions to avoid it!

Better to avoid it than to try and destroy it.

As I said before, I don’t avoid fertility because it is natural, healthy and useful, I avoid fertility because it is too powerful to be used indiscriminately.

A good first step toward respecting your fertility is to understand it. It’s fascinating, like watching the ocean. The health information revealed through my fertility signs amazes me. In appreciating the design, I have grown exponentially in love for the Designer.

If God wanted to plan our families without our (name removed by moderator)ut, I wonder why he made it so easy for us to read our fertility.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Actually, what you posted says that the act which makes conception impossible is intrinsically evil.

I mean no offense, but you’re wrong on this. You also misquoted Catholic teaching. You said conception where the teaching says procreation (which is precisely where you’ve gone wrong).

Sources like the CCC and HV do not say that the act which makes conception impossible is intrinsically evil. They do say that the act which makes procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.

The Church teaches that sex must be kept procreative. One meaning of the term procreative (the one the Church uses in her teaching) is “ordered toward life”, with no human creation of infertility. Though it can, (and I think many people assume it always does) the term procreative does not necessarily mean “creating a baby”.

The Church teaches then, that all sex between married couples must be kept ordered toward life. When this teaching is properly understood, we see how couples experiencing pregnancy, menopause, and cyclical infertility are still capable of procreative sex.

 

[mets]

These are very interesting replies, and I see both sides of the argument now much better. I understand what people are getting at in regards to NFP being somewhat different. Although I still think it looks remarkably similar.

I did some research and found this website:
members.aol.com/revising/index.html

I’m not sure if anyone has seen it, but they have a section comparing NFP vs. other forms of contraception. I’ll just highlight one part that I found that sort of summarizes what I was speaking of earlier.

Q. How can couples who use NFP claim that they are not willfully and deliberately “doing something” to avoid conception? They are charting the days, examining vaginal mucous to discern fertility–using their reason and will to make darned sure that there is a 98% chance that their intercourse will not result in conception! They are “doing something” when they choose to not have sex during the fertile period, and when they choose to have sex instead during the infertile period.

A. The key issue, as noted above, is not intentionality, but their making use of a natural rhythm. Again, the reasoning of the Magisterium is largely informed by its understanding of natural law. For a sexual act to be considered moral, it must be open to the possibility of new life, and it must express love.

Q. But couples who use NFP to avoid conception are not open to new life, and their sexual expression during the infertile period cannot be said to be open to new life! It’s as though they are saying, “OK God, we’re open to having children, but we’re going to have sex only when we’re 98% sure that conception won’t take place. See how open we are to your gift of new life, God?” Give me a break! A condom is considered only 95% effective, at best. Why not say that couples using a condom are more open to new life?

A. Your points are well-taken, but the response of the Magisterium is that NFP couples are making use of a natural cycle, and therefore their sexual expression is more in conformity with the natural law, and therefore more moral.

As a person who has no spouse and hasn’t had sex, I suppose I am able to view this from more of an “outsiders” perspective, yet one that is still Catholic. To the observer, these two things look incredible similar. These “unitive” and other propositions don’t seem very rigorous in their defense of one form over another. Even with the three criteria that Scottgun listed, I think you could make a very valid argument for either case. I’m not saying all birth control is like this, or that the Church should embrace such things, but I do feel that if you are to ban one than you should ban both, and if you are to allow one than you should allow both.

For now I think I’ll take a look at all the reading you’ve pointed me to…and actually study for my exams this week

 

[Good_Daughter]

These are very interesting replies, and I see both sides of the argument now much better. I understand what people are getting at in regards to NFP being somewhat different. Although I still think it looks remarkably similar.

I did some research and found this website:
members.aol.com/revising/index.html

I’m not sure if anyone has seen it, but they have a section comparing NFP vs. other forms of contraception. I’ll just highlight one part that I found that sort of summarizes what I was speaking of earlier.

As a person who has no spouse and hasn’t had sex, I suppose I am able to view this from more of an “outsiders” perspective, yet one that is still Catholic. To the observer, these two things look incredible similar. These “unitive” and other propositions don’t seem very rigorous in their defense of one form over another. Even with the three criteria that Scottgun listed, I think you could make a very valid argument for either case. I’m not saying all birth control is like this, or that the Church should embrace such things, but I do feel that if you are to ban one than you should ban both, and if you are to allow one than you should allow both.

For now I think I’ll take a look at all the reading you’ve pointed me to…and actually study for my exams this week

Mets, can you show me where Church teaching says married couples must be open to new life, meaning conception? I don’t think it ever says that.

I think the Church’s teaching, more accurately stated, is that sex must have its natural end left intact. The natural end of sex when a woman is fertile is a baby. The natural end of sex when a woman is infertile is no baby. The natural end of contracepted sex is…completely destroyed.

 

[rlg94086]

Mets, can you show me where Church teaching says married couples must be open to new life, meaning conception? I don’t think it ever says that.

I think the Church’s teaching, more accurately stated, is that sex must have its natural end left intact. The natural end of sex when a woman is fertile is a baby. The natural end of sex when a woman is infertile is no baby. The natural end of contracepted sex is…completely destroyed.

I think you may be splitting hairs here Good Daughter. I’m pretty certain that every couple using NFP is still “open to new life, meaning conception.” If they aren’t, what do you believe their attitude would be if/when they conceive?

CCC:

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,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "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."153

Being open to procreation, by definition, would mean you are open to conception, should God bless your family with a child.

 

[PennitentMan]

Sometimes, God’s way is a little bazaar, e.g., Gen 18;16-33 & Gen 9 (whole chapter). God decided to murder all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their homosexuality, even after Abraham pleaded mightily to spare them. Abraham specifically prayed that God spare the innocent (presumably, women & children). The exhaustive pleadings of course were in vain. So God rained down sulphurous fire on the city, murdering the homo’s, women and children. He was so PO’d, he even murdered Lot’s wife, who committed the unpardonable sin. While escaping, she turned to look. But at least the world benefitted from an extra measure of salt.

But, after Lot & his two daughters were relocated and safe, in a cave in Zoar, his daughters got him got drunk. They were frustrated (because there were no men in Zoar), so they “lay” with their father, the oldest one 1st, then, the next day, they got him drunk again and the younger daughter lay with him.

Of course, we’re told Lot was unaware of this… Yeah, I’ll bet…

Bottom line, the older one bore Moab, who became the ancestor of all the Moabites. The younger one bore Ammon, who became the ancestor of all the Ammonites.

QUESTION: Would it have been better if Lot would have used NFP, thus eliminating all of the Moabites and Ammonites forever and ever, Amen?

MORAL OF THE STORY: Incest is OK because it allows one man and one woman (well, actually two women, even though they were his daughters) to make babies.

NOW THE REST OF THE STORY: Thank God Lot and his daughters didn’t abide by NFP. Otherwise, the world would have missed out on the millions of Moabites & Ammonites, which I think are the tribes Yassar Arafat came from…

Thanks for posting this, I haven’t laughed this hard in a while.

It’s funny cuz it’s true!