Hypocritical Contraception?

[mets]

I am a young Catholic, not near any point in my life of having sex mind you, but I have nonetheless found myself researching the topic recently, and I have a few questions regarding what the Church teaches on contraception.

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 opinion, NFP is also birth control when used to prevent pregnancy. You are intentionally having sex for the purposes of pleasure in a way that has a low probability of conception. I.e., how is this any different than a condom? I do not buy into some argument that “if God wills it” the woman will become pregnant with NFP regardless, because unlike abortifacients, condoms fail 10%-20% of the time, so it could happen this way too. You are “spilling the seed” in both cases; in one case on a Fallopian tube, in the other case on a rubber tube.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but when used outside of the purpose to help find when a woman can become pregnant, I don’t see any difference. I feel like the Church supports this because it assumes people need sex in a marriage, and this is some kind of “less evil” approach. If this were the case, then what is wrong with a condom?

Thanks for your answers.

 

[1ke]

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.

 

[1ke]

Oh, and let me add that if you go to www.omsoul.com they will send you one free copy of Janet Smith’s excellent talk entitled “Contraception, Why Not?”

 

[LittleDeb]

Welcome mets!

Your questions are good and are asked by many to understand Church teaching on contraception. 1ke has given you a fabulous answer. Researching it will take you far.

I would like to further elaborate specifically on condom usage and other methods know as “barriers.” Janet Smith in her ‘Contraception, Why not?’ talk goes into this a little but I would like to give you a married person’s perspective too.

How are we united as a married couple if there is something called a barrier between us? It seems you might be looking only toward warding off reproduction. What is a married couple saying, with their bodies, by using a condom? They are saying, “I need protection from you!” Protection from what? Obviously fertility right? What is so wrong with fertility?

Isn’t our fertility a natural normal part of a healthy body? A healthy man is always fertile 24/7. A healthy woman is fertile cyclically (meaning in cycles of fertility and infertility.) Why are we built the way we are? Why aren’t we all of fertile 24/7? Why aren’t both men and women cyclically fertile? What is the design of fertility? Do you know that a female rabbit ovulates every time she has sex? The barbs on the male rabbit’s penis stimulate ovulation. Rabbits have a lot of natural predators. They need to reproduce at a very high rate to ensure their survival.

So why are humans made the way we are? Why are one half of the species fertile only a very small portion of the time? If females were fertile 24/7 we would produce like rabbits. Only then with the overpopulation myth actually be true! Or what if males were only fertile cyclically too? Then the pickup line in a bar wouldn’t be, ‘what’s your sign?’ It would be ‘what’s you cycle?’ Why are we designed the way were are? What is wrong with a barrier in marriage?

The answer lies in our human sexuality. We are designed to have both fertile *and *infertile sex. Many people come to the conclusion that barriers are necessary because of an erroneous conclusion about procreation. Many people use the term procreation interchangeably with the term reproduction. Procreation means, “ordered towards life.”

So if the Church is right and procreation really is the primary reason for sex and unity flows secondarily from that primary reason how does a condom affect both? If a condom prevents procreation doesn’t it then by its very nature prevent unity?

What if the Church is wrong and unity can happen while thwarting procreation? How does a condom accomplish this? We read in scripture about being ‘one flesh.’ Is this merely a metaphor? We’re only one flesh except those times that we have put a barrier to one flesh? I might be misunderstanding scripture here but my body is one flesh. I have contours all over, but nowhere on my body does my flesh end, and latex begin.

So what if our design of human sexuality is that we are both fertile and infertile, naturally? What if we are able to understand that natural design and make decisions accordingly? What if we aren’t rabbits and can instead show self control? Why else are we designed the way we are? Isn’t God a perfect, all-knowing God? Why would He design a system that doesn’t work perfectly just the way it is? Is a condom really part of His plan for unity?

Welcome to CAF! Just a “few” questions to get the ball rolling.

I hope your stay here is a good one.

 

[hasikelee]

I am a young Catholic, not near any point in my life of having sex mind you, but I have nonetheless found myself researching the topic recently, and I have a few questions regarding what the Church teaches on contraception.

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 opinion, NFP is also birth control when used to prevent pregnancy. You are intentionally having sex for the purposes of pleasure in a way that has a low probability of conception. I.e., how is this any different than a condom? I do not buy into some argument that “if God wills it” the woman will become pregnant with NFP regardless, because unlike abortifacients, condoms fail 10%-20% of the time, so it could happen this way too. You are “spilling the seed” in both cases; in one case on a Fallopian tube, in the other case on a rubber tube.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but when used outside of the purpose to help find when a woman can become pregnant, I don’t see any difference. I feel like the Church supports this because it assumes people need sex in a marriage, and this is some kind of “less evil” approach. If this were the case, then what is wrong with a condom?

Thanks for your answers.

I’m curious what your answer is to this question:

What’s the difference between killing Grandma now to get her inheritance instead of waiiiiiting until she dies?

Do you feel that sexual intercourse should be rare in marriage, as if only a necessity to breed? Do you believe that the Church commands us to have as many kids as possible, as quick as possible? These are common misconceptions about Catholicism.

I invite you to visit www.christopherwest.com and learn of the good news about sex and marriage.

 

[Seatuck]

Mets, I think it is great that you are exploring these questions now when you are young and not already married. You pick up on a very important element. That is the understanding that the contraceptive mentality is what is problematic here.You will want to take the time to dig deep and understand the meaning of the sexual relationship within marriage. What it’s place in our relationship with God means. You will see how it makes so much more sense that we may not use artificial contraceptives which distort the meaning of our marital relations.

Christopher West has a pretty good book out called Good News about Sex and Marriage which I think you will find helpful. If you want more meatier fare then you can go on to his studies on Theology of the Body or right on to the actual text of Theology of the body.

It would be good to read the actual document Humana Vitae which is the hallmark document we use for understanding the justness of family planning by natural methods and not using artificial methods.
Here you go-

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

You will want to explore the relationship between marriage and the Eucharist.

Here’s a free talk you can get on that topic.

catholicity.com/cds/west.html

John Martignoni has one you can get at Bible Christian Society.
You can get it by CD or free mp3 download.

biblechristiansociety.com/

You can get a fairly inexpensive 10 CD set by Christopher West called Naked Without Shame which really goes deep into the philosophy and theology behind the churches sexual teaching.

giftfoundation.org/

Keep asking the questions and looking for the answers.

Happy Easter!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am a young Catholic,…

The logic is any attempt to change the natural action of relations is disallowed. So the Church rules that pills, condoms, etc, etc are things brought in to change the natural action or course of the actions. NFP may itself be equivalent if performed without proper reason. The marital relation should not be thought of as pleasure but bonding, the Church uses the word “unitive” meaning the uniting of the husband and wife. This teaching can be difficult and often takes some time to understand.

 

[JMBNH]

I do think NFP use has got away from why it was originally allowed. I do question using it to reduce your number of children to 1 or 2 without a good reason (either genuinely can’t afford to look after more or medical reasons) as seems to be used sometimes

 

[StCsDavid]

I am a young Catholic, not near any point in my life of having sex mind you, but I have nonetheless found myself researching the topic recently, and I have a few questions regarding what the Church teaches on contraception.

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.

Let’s dispel a huge myth. Condoms, the pill, IUDs, tubal ligations/vasectomies and the like were never invented to prevent pregnancy. There already existed 100% fool proof way of not getting pregnant. It’s called abstinence. ABC was invented to allow one to have sex anywhere, anytime, any place for any reason. It views the creation of life as a problem associated with sex versus the logical, natural outcome of the act. It is a completely selfish act.

Contrast that with NFP which is a cooperation with Divine design of human sexuality and recognition that God is the ultimate author of life. It is an embracing of what it means to be fully human and to love every part of one’s spouse, including and especially his/her fertility. Creation of life is a blessing not a problem for the NFP couple, even if that pregnancy wasn’t planned by them, but instead determined by God. NFP is a completely selfless act of the couple giving of themselves in cooperation, and acceptance of God’s will.

 

[mets]

Thanks for all of your replies and your warm welcome

I think I might not have phrased my question as well as I could have. I understand the importance of abstinence in a marriage, and I’m not really asking that. I think JMBNH has hit on what I speak of the best.

I do think NFP use has got away from why it was originally allowed.

and as Texas Roofer has pointed out

The logic is any attempt to change the natural action of relations is disallowed.

This is why I would disagree with StCsDavid’s statement

NFP is a completely selfless act of the couple giving of themselves in cooperation, and acceptance of God’s will.

While in theory this may be true, this is not the case in practice. Many people who use NFP deliberately look at when they won’t become pregnant and use that as a time for sex, while they abstain during times in which they could become pregnant. To me, this seems like it is very obvious contraception. God cannot allow an egg to be fertilized if there is no egg present. The Church knows of this “loop whole” if you will, and I think it turns a blind eye to it. To go on what LittleDeb said earlier, there is just as much of a barrier to the production of life and to each other in this case as in the cases of over-the-counter contraception.

From what I’ve read, many married couples who practice NFP deliberately use it as the very opposite to what you have all pointed out - they use it strictly as some kind of “Catholic contraception.” Their purpose has nothing to do with sharing themselves or uniting with their spouses. It’s to have sex, but sex that is somehow more “acceptable.” Thus, I don’t see why something like NFP is allowed when it’s intentions are very obvious, whereas something like a non-abortifacient condom is not. I feel like they are essentially the same thing. If we disallow one, we should disallow both, and if we allow one, we should allow both, no?

 

[rlg94086]

Thanks for all of your replies and your warm welcome

I think I might not have phrased my question as well as I could have. I understand the importance of abstinence in a marriage, and I’m not really asking that. I think JMBNH has hit on what I speak of the best.

and as Texas Roofer has pointed out

This is why I would disagree with StCsDavid’s statement
While in theory this may be true, this is not the case in practice. Many people who use NFP deliberately look at when they won’t become pregnant and use that as a time for sex, while they abstain during times in which they could become pregnant. To me, this seems like it is very obvious contraception. God cannot allow an egg to be fertilized if there is no egg present. The Church knows of this “loop whole” if you will, and I think it turns a blind eye to it. To go on what LittleDeb said earlier, there is just as much of a barrier to the production of life and to each other in this case as in the cases of over-the-counter contraception.

From what I’ve read, many married couples who practice NFP deliberately use it as the very opposite to what you have all pointed out - they use it strictly as some kind of “Catholic contraception.” Their purpose has nothing to do with sharing themselves or uniting with their spouses. It’s to have sex, but sex that is somehow more “acceptable.” Thus, I don’t see why something like NFP is allowed when it’s intentions are very obvious, whereas something like a non-abortifacient condom is not. I feel like they are essentially the same thing. If we disallow one, we should disallow both, and if we allow one, we should allow both, no?

Hi mets,

Welcome to the forum. NFP is a licit use to space births and/or avoid pregnancy for serious reasons. However, you are not required by the Church to use NFP - there are families that don’t. If you are so compelled, then that is great. Large families are a blessing from God.

 

[JMBNH]

St Augustine said that having sex for purposes other than childbirth is pardonable if using natural methods (pretty much venial sin I think the way he says it) but damnable if using unnatural methods (artificial birth control and perverted sexual methods), which to me seems to make more sense, unless there’s a very good reason to A) not have children and B) to not abstain

“For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman” (St Augustine’s The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

 

[Seatuck]

St Augustine said that having sex for purposes other than childbirth is pardonable if using natural methods (pretty much venial sin I think the way he says it) but damnable if using unnatural methods (artificial birth control and perverted sexual methods), which to me seems to make more sense, unless there’s a very good reason to A) not have children and B) to not abstain

“For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman” (St Augustine’s The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

I don’t think the church follows this line of thinking. God created sex in marriage procreative and unitive .It is good not sinful when ordered correctly. Augustine seems to leave out the unitive .

 

[catholic2]

Hey mets. You are a young man and I am an older person somewhat jaded from all the rhetoric regarding contraception. You are touching on, from the point of view of a young person somewhat undiluted by hypocrisy, a subject that is used and misused by people with an agenda.

The long and the short of this is that all contraception is wrong. This is the logical conclusion if one is not to thwart God’s working in our lives. Where is the trust in God in contraception NFP or otherwise?

God bless the purist in trusting in Him to take care of all of us.

 

[homeloan]

St Augustine said that having sex for purposes other than childbirth is pardonable if using natural methods… but damnable if using unnatural methods…

And we know St Agustine liked to dally with the girls; eventually he wanted purity, “…but not right now…”

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children]
is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust.

Interpretation. Do your duty. Be submissive to your husbands, Lord knows his needs are great…

. . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.

No naughtiness, please…

For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife.

Notice how the female is the culprit. This seems to be a recurring theme in Scripture. Must have something to do how easily Eve was seduced… The serpents pick-up line was so weak, …“Hey Eve, how 'bout an apple?” Eve: “Munch, munch, gobble, gobble…!” Welcome to the Fall of Man!

Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (St Augustine’s The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

Notice, no one iota of wrath against the man, who wants to have fun with his monogamous wife, but let it get just a teeny-weeney naughty, and BAM!,… the man’s wife would have been better to let him stray with another woman or harlot.

Now you know why St Augustine has a special place of favortism held by RC men!

After reading all of this, Mets, perhaps its not too late to consider becoming a nun…

 

[JMBNH]

I don’t think the church follows this line of thinking. God created sex in marriage procreative and unitive .It is good not sinful when ordered correctly. Augustine seems to leave out the unitive .

Yeah I do think the teaching of St Augustine leaves out that part (he also considered lust the main component of Original Sin), but I do still think use of NFP as long term contraception is questionable at least (though if uses to have 5 or 6 rather than 10 children I wouldn’t disagree with it, though think abstinence is the ideal)

 

[Seatuck]

Thanks for all of your replies and your warm welcome

I think I might not have phrased my question as well as I could have. I understand the importance of abstinence in a marriage, and I’m not really asking that. I think JMBNH has hit on what I speak of the best.

and as Texas Roofer has pointed out

This is why I would disagree with StCsDavid’s statement
While in theory this may be true, this is not the case in practice. Many people who use NFP deliberately look at when they won’t become pregnant and use that as a time for sex, while they abstain during times in which they could become pregnant. To me, this seems like it is very obvious contraception. God cannot allow an egg to be fertilized if there is no egg present. The Church knows of this “loop whole” if you will, and I think it turns a blind eye to it. To go on what LittleDeb said earlier, there is just as much of a barrier to the production of life and to each other in this case as in the cases of over-the-counter contraception.

From what I’ve read, many married couples who practice NFP deliberately use it as the very opposite to what you have all pointed out - they use it strictly as some kind of “Catholic contraception.” Their purpose has nothing to do with sharing themselves or uniting with their spouses. It’s to have sex, but sex that is somehow more “acceptable.” Thus, I don’t see why something like NFP is allowed when it’s intentions are very obvious, whereas something like a non-abortifacient condom is not. I feel like they are essentially the same thing. If we disallow one, we should disallow both, and if we allow one, we should allow both, no?

No. Food is good. But if some people over eat and are gluttonous does that mean that food is now bad or that we should not be eating. Of course not. Some people will always sin when given the opportunity. We fail. That’s what we do. The church teaches what the proper disposition marriage people should have with generosity and having children. It is up to the couple to carry it out. Yes some people abuse NFP and use it as a contraceptive but many others do not and use it because they have grave reason to do so.

I agree with you that many seem to be misusing it but really we do not have the same view inside that marriage to always make that judgement so we better be careful when accusing a couple of misusing NFP.

You are correct that there seems to be a decrease in tolerance for living without certain things and this has caused a certain decrease in the number of children couples seem to be having.

We married couples need to be wary of putting on a contraceptive mentality.This is trie. However, there is still a world of difference though in the unitive aspect of marriage with a condom on and without one and having marital relations during an infertile period. Condomistic sex damages the unitvie aspect of marital relations as well as the procreative and that is why it is not permitted. Couples using a condom to do not form the one flesh union and therefore alter the meaning of the marital act and turn it sinful.

 

[mark_a]

In my opinion, NFP is also birth control when used to prevent pregnancy. You are intentionally having sex for the purposes of pleasure in a way that has a low probability of conception. I.e., how is this any different than a condom?

Because using a condom is like washing your feet with your socks on.

 

[mlchance]

From what I’ve read, many married couples who practice NFP deliberately use it as the very opposite to what you have all pointed out - they use it strictly as some kind of “Catholic contraception.” Their purpose has nothing to do with sharing themselves or uniting with their spouses. It’s to have sex, but sex that is somehow more “acceptable.” Thus, I don’t see why something like NFP is allowed when it’s intentions are very obvious, whereas something like a non-abortifacient condom is not. I feel like they are essentially the same thing. If we disallow one, we should disallow both, and if we allow one, we should allow both, no?

You’re confusing things by comparing two immoral actions and then conflating them both with moral action. If someone abuses NFP, that does invalidate NFP itself. Instead, the persons abusing NFP are in error. So, sure, for the sake of argument, grant that NFP can be used with the same sort of contraceptive mentality which accompanies condom use. How does this abuse of NFP make the practice itself immoral?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[StCsDavid]

This is why I would disagree with StCsDavid’s statement
While in theory this may be true, this is not the case in practice. Many people who use NFP deliberately look at when they won’t become pregnant and use that as a time for sex, while they abstain during times in which they could become pregnant. To me, this seems like it is very obvious contraception. God cannot allow an egg to be fertilized if there is no egg present. The Church knows of this “loop whole” if you will, and I think it turns a blind eye to it. To go on what LittleDeb said earlier, there is just as much of a barrier to the production of life and to each other in this case as in the cases of over-the-counter contraception.

From what I’ve read, many married couples who practice NFP deliberately use it as the very opposite to what you have all pointed out - they use it strictly as some kind of “Catholic contraception.” Their purpose has nothing to do with sharing themselves or uniting with their spouses. It’s to have sex, but sex that is somehow more “acceptable.” Thus, I don’t see why something like NFP is allowed when it’s intentions are very obvious, whereas something like a non-abortifacient condom is not. I feel like they are essentially the same thing. If we disallow one, we should disallow both, and if we allow one, we should allow both, no?

I suppose if the couple using NFP was using it with the mindset of, “Honey, we can’t have any more children right now and that darned oppressive Catholic Church won’t let us use birth control, but I guess we can use NFP and hope for the best…” then I would agree that there’s sparse difference between NFP and ABC. I would also posit that the couple in question had been poorly catechized on the meaning of sexuality and human dignity in marriage. It’s not simply a theory. Thousands of Catholic couples use NFP with great success and use it in the spirit in which it is intended.

It’s also not something the Catholic Church requires. I have a Protestant friend with 5 kids. People accuse of him of being Catholic because of his large family. He and his wife have never used ABC or NFP and consider each of their kids as a gift from God. They leave the size of their family and the ability to care for the kids completely in God’s hands.

It is western materialism that has placed economic comfort and success as the prime determinant of family size.