I accept Birth Control, and that's not gonna change!

[jmcrae]

No they do not. I don’t think they know that this website exists.

Are you absolutely certain? This web site is advertised in Catholic book stores - a favourite haunt of the “keeners” among the RCIA participants. But if your whole class is luke-warm, just in it for the beautiful Catholic wedding, or to get their kids into Catholic school, then you’re probably safe enough.

 

[RyanL]

I believe that the discipline that the Church Fathers teach concerning Birth Control is incorrect. I believe that the ethics, and natural law itself lead to the acceptance of birth control as morally neutral. As such, using Birth Control, I accept, is not a sin…

Do you find it the least bit curious that the USCCB disagrees with your analysis?

A couple need not desire or seek to have a child in each and every act of intercourse. And it is not wrong for couples to have intercourse even when they know the wife is naturally infertile, as discussed below. But they should never act to suppress or curtail the life-giving power given by God that is an integral part of what they pledged to each other in their marriage vows. This is what the Church means by saying that every act of intercourse must remain open to life and that **contraception is **objectively immoral.

Source: Married Love and the Gift of Life, USCCB, 14 Nov 2006.

Do you sincerely believe that the entire Church is wrong about this being a moral issue? What, precisely, do you think you’re bringing to the table that all the moral philosophers in the Church have missed? I’m not asking to be snarky, I assure you, so please don’t take it that way. It simply strikes me as the height of hubris, unless you can substantiate your position.

What have we all missed?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[noma]

What have we all missed?

God Bless,
RyanL

After serious consideration, I have decided to declare my beliefs about this here, with an openness to change my mind if it can be shown that my position is flawed. The more people that see what I believe, the more likely it is one can point out what I should change.

And living this dichotemy is not reasonable. It is not something I can do forever.

My reasons follow.

 

[noma]

**Question 1: Concerning Contraception

Article 1: Whether the Church’s Teaching on Contraception is Infallibly Stated**

Obj. 1: It would seem as though the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible, for it is a matter taught by the Magisterium of the Church within the realm of faith and morals, and anything within the realm of faith and morals taught by the Magisterium is infallible, and this by a matter of tradition.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves speak against contraception with respect to Onan, “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).

Obj. 3: And Tradition can be discerned from the agreement from the Church Fathers, and the Church Fathers were opposed to contraception, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

Obj. 4: Furthermore, anything contrary to nature cannot be true, and contraception is against nature, as it attempts to separate the efficient cause from its intended final cause, which is the definition of action leading to vice, as the Philosopher would declare (Nich. Eth.) So the Church, teaching from obvious nature, must be teaching infallibly.

 

[noma]

On the Contrary, the Church finds inerrancy in Her Scriptures, Her Traditions, Her Councils, and the Ex-Cathedra teachings of the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, as they concern faith and morals. The Church, however, concerning these four realms, has been absolutely silent about contraception, so Her teaching on contraception cannot be considered infallible.

I answer that, what is meant by “contraception” is a method invented by man in order to reduce the chances of pregnancy. It is agreed, and could not be denied, that the Church has taught infallibly that sexual acts are intended for the sake of producing children, and that an act divorced from its end is immoral, but though these principles have been established infallibly, the intended conclusion has not. As is shown later, this is because contraception is a matter of discipline. But if it were a matter of faith and morals, it would be considered infallible if declared as such.
The closest any two Church authorities come to declare such infallibility are the Council of Nicea and the document Humanae Vitae. Though the document Humanae Vitae is not an ex-cathedra teaching, its strongest statement concerning inerrancy does not actually make the direct claim that this church teaching is inerrant. “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997). Yet this passage does not say “This teaching is definitively or irreformably held to be definitive and irreformable”, or, more succinctly, “This teaching is definitively and irreformably held”. As such, Humanae Vitae is not claiming an inerrant teaching, but rather claiming the Pontiff’s believe that there exists an inerrant teaching; a belief that should be respected, but is in no wise definitive, or irreformable.
Secondly, we consider the Nicean council’s statement: “If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted.” (Canon 1, Nicea). This is speaking about permanent castration, which would be a clear defilement of the body, and though this is still a disciplinary teaching, as will be shown below, it is in no wise an escapable teaching. However, as this only touches tangentially, to show that contraception as above defined can be used in an immoral way, it has no bearing on the argument.

Reply Obj. 1 has been addressed sufficiently in the answer.

Reply Obj. 2 is ambiguous, as there are different scholars all the way back to Rashi, and the Talmud itself declares that “a man may do with his wife as he wishes” (Nedarim 20a; Pesachim 112b), so long as he fulfills the marriage contract and does not spill his sperm outside the woman’s body. Also, halakhah holds that any sexual act that does not involve sh’chatat zerah (spilling sperm outside the body), including birth control, is permissible. As there are open interpretations of this scripture, and the magesterium has not definitively declared, as a matter of faith, what this scripture is supposed to indicate, it cannot be considered an infallible teaching.

Reply Obj. 3 All teachings of the Church Fathers that are considered definitive within Sacred Tradition are supported by the Magesterium, the supreme authority in interpreting Sacred Tradition. As the Church has not offered a definitive interpretation of this within an Ecumenical Council, or an ex-cathedra statement, we cannot yet completely (infallibly) agree as to what has been shown by Sacred Tradition, concerning the Church Fathers, and dealing with contraception above defined.

Reply Obj. 4 Human reason, however, can at times be true, and at other times untrue, as it depends primarily on the senses. The case of contraception is even more ambiguous, as the physical effects entail effects on the soul. Such an ambiguity involves abstraction, and if such abstraction within reason does not rest on divinely revealed and infallible truths from the Sacred Doctrine, they can only be argued to be likely, and so cannot be considered infallible themselves.

 

[noma]

**Article 2: Whether the Church’s Teaching on Contraception is a matter of Discipline
**
Obj. 1 It seems as though the Church’s Teaching on contraception is not a matter of discipline, but of faith and morals, first because the Church has declared it to be so, as a matter of faith.

Obj. 2 Secondly, any statement about contraception necessarily involves seeking out happiness through virtue. So it must be, by its nature, a moral argument.

Obj. 3 Finally, the Church’s Teaching on contraception involves accepting something that cannot be proved by any amount of evidence from nature, namely that the soul finds detriment in its practice. But this is a statement of faith, as Hebrews states “faith is the evidence of unseen things.”

 

[noma]

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv. 6, 7) God is truly and absolutely simple, but the teaching on contraception is not simple, so it cannot be a matter revealed directly by God to His Church through Sacred Tradition. So it cannot be a teaching of faith and morals.

I answer that, within every teaching concerning discipline, there is both a moral teaching, and a circumstance declared by faith. For example, in the disciplinary declaration “aborting this fetus is wrong”, there is a moral declaration “killing innocent humans is wrong”, and a declaration of faith “a fetus is an innocent human”. Both of these are infallibly declared by the Church, and so the discipline of not aborting is absolutely true, though it is still a statement of discipline. As the moral declaration and the declaration of faith are presented infallibly by the Church, and lead by necessary logic to the immorality of abortion, this disciplinary teaching cannot be refuted.

We again take the moral statement, “any act which does not tend toward its natural purpose is disordered” and “any disordered act is immoral” and the statement of faith “the purpose of sex is for children”, from this progression, we can conclude that contraception is an immoral discipline. However, as contraception can be derived from a series of two or more propositions about faith and morals, it is not itself a statement about faith and morals, but a conclusion based on such statements (and, as is argued below, it is an unnecessary conclusion).

Obj. 4 It still seems as though this division between faith and morals, and discipline, is fabricated, for we can take any statement, and make it a composite of any other statement, ad infinitum. As such no statement would be a statement of faith and morals, and the Church could declare nothing as infallible. But this clearly cannot be so.

Reply Obj. 1 Any declaration of a composite statement is itself a composite statement, and so cannot be considered a statement of faith and morals. So a statement by the Church that its teaching on contraception is a moral teaching cannot be a teaching based on faith, directly because of the simplicity of God.

Reply Obj. 2 The Philosopher has indeed considered virtue such, but virtue as doing the right thing (moral principle) in the right way for the right reasons to the right person with the right method, and this is discipline. So not all actions that deal with virtue are of themselves moral principles, but can be composites of said principles.

Reply Obj. 3 As has been shown above, not all statements that cannot be evidenced are statements of faith, but can be a composite of a statement of faith, and of morals, et. cet. This is so, as we have shown with contraception, so the Church’s teaching on contraception is a teaching based in discipline.

Reply Obj. 4 There are three ways that division can be considered. Firstly, it can be thought of as an arbitrary division, as when one cuts a log in half. Secondly, it can be a division by abstraction, as one can take the idea of a rectangle from looking at a book, and divide these ideas mentally. Thirdly, it can be a division by nature, where a thing is truly a composite of two forms, or in the case of ideas, an idea is a composite of two or more distinct ideas. The divisions being made are divisions by nature, as the principles can exist apart from the conclusion, and can themselves even be used to lead to other conclusions.

 

[noma]

Article 3: Whether Contraception is Morally Neutral

Obj. 1 It would seem as though contraception is not morally neutral, for anything taught as a discipline by the Church, such as former dietary restrictions, were teachings of discipline, but carried with them a grave matter. So contraception must involve a grave matter as well.

Obj. 2 No action can be morally neutral which leads to evil acts, as contraception leads to justify homosexuality and abortion. So contraception cannot be morally neutral.

Obj. 3 Further any action that would cause harm to the body could not be moral, but contraception carries with it side-effects, and these can and do cause harm to men. So contraception cannot be morally neutral.

Obj. 4 Contraception is a medical tool. Medical tools are used to cure a so-called “malady”. But contraception “cures” fertility. yet fertility is a moral good, as has been declared in Scripture “They shall be fruitful…”, and a cure of a good is itself an evil, so contraception is evil.

Obj. 5 Contraception involves the protection of the wife from the damage to her body in bearing too many children, and from the children in being placed in a state of financial hardship against their will. As such, it is a morally positive, or good act, and cannot be considered as morally neutral.

 

[noma]

On the Contrary, says the Apostle Paul, in enumerating the cardinal virtues in his letter to the Corinthians, “Faith hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.” And contraception can be used lovingly, it cannot be evil, but must be morally neutral.

I argue that, as the teaching about contraception is a teaching concerning discipline, the absolute virtue of charity, both for a potential child and for a man’s wife, would necessitate there being a case for ethical use of contraceptives. Since this case is not too extremely unusual, one must posit contraceptive use as morally neutral.
Contraception is a human invention that can add convenience to ourselves, but also to others. When a man thinks only of himself while contracepting, he is committing an evil, for he does not want children even in the future for his selfishness. If a man thinks of God and his wife both, he may still contracept, as it may be a tool to respect his wife’s pain at further children, the child’s frustration at financial destitution and lack of time spent caring for it. If a man and his wife contracept with the goal of having children to further the growth of the Church, but the growth of a healthy Church, they are acting toward a moral good. Though this may not be the common case, it is not overly rare, and so must be considered morally neutral.
Furthermore, as contraception is not completely effective, the contraceptive act, if informed, must be an act open to life, since life is a possible effect from such an action.

Obj. 1 Contraception is always intrinsically evil and a grave matter, as a matter of discipline. As discipline, charity rules over the law. For if a man were to, during the time of necessary dietary restrictions on Fridays, eat meat with his family, for the sake of staving away offense and hurt feelings, this exception would be justified. Also, if having a child at a certain time would go against charity toward the child or toward a man’s wife, it would be morally justified to reduce the chances of having that child at that time.

Obj. 2 Homosexual acts cannot be justified using this argument because such acts involve violation of a simple moral statement “marriage is only between a man and a woman”. Also, homosexuality absolutely separates act from purpose entirely, as there is no potential in any such homosexual “union” that could, even by miracle, produce life. Contraception, though it can increase the accidental death of the child, as with many medicines used to protect the mother during pregnancy, does not justify purposefully ending the life of a human being for any reason, during any time of its life. So contraception being morally neutral would not allow one to justify abortion.

Obj. 3 There are two types of harm that must be considered, purposeful harm and accidental harm. As the purpose of contraception is, as has been shown above, morally neutral, responsible use of this preventative measure, aside from being entirely open to life, would entirely support protection of the one practicing contraception. As another example, all medicines have side effects, but the occupation of the doctor is not immoral.

Obj. 4 The purpose of contraception is not to cure fertility, but to protect from over-active fertility. Just as the immune system is a good, but must be debilitated for the purpose of transplant, though it is working perfectly naturally, so fertility can be debilitated for the sake of a healthy but regular production of children.

Obj. 5 Contraception is most often used for grave evils, for preventing children not for the financially destitute, but for those who find inconvenience in bearing children. Much of contraception is done without love for anyone but oneself, and this is no love at all. A selfish contraception is against the disciplinary declaration of the Church and is undeniably a grave matter. Given such considerations toward contraception, and their similarity to other prohibited things that are not harmful in themselves, contraception must be morally neutral.

 

[lizbkwm]

What about those who take BC pills because of medical reasons? Should I be considered sinning because I have to take it to regulate my period?

 

[RyanL]

What about those who take BC pills because of medical reasons? Should I be considered sinning because I have to take it to regulate my period?

No, you are not sinning.

From CA Apologist Peggy Frye:

One can use birth control pills for therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases (see excerpt below). To better understand the context of this teaching, I recommend you read the Encyclical Humanae Vitae.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

Source: Humanae Vitae

For information on the connection between breast cancer and the birth control pill I recommend the following website:One More Soul.

Recommended reading:

Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill
By: Dr. Chris Kahlenborn.

Also, your daughter might want to obtain a second opinion concerning the diagnosis and treatment of her medical condition. Check with One More Soul for doctor referrals.

Articles:

New Evidence of a Link…

Breast Cancer

God bless you!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

After serious consideration, I have decided to declare my beliefs about this here, with an openness to change my mind if it can be shown that my position is flawed. The more people that see what I believe, the more likely it is one can point out what I should change.

And living this dichotemy is not reasonable. It is not something I can do forever.

My reasons follow.

Dear noma,

This was a very thoughtful post, and I applaud you for taking the time to reasonably think things through. Very commendable, and very impressive. Anyone who would use the format of the Angelic Doctor has my lauds.

If you please, it might help as a preliminary matter if you would define the following things:

1. What is the ecclesial definition of a discipline?
2. What is the ecclesial definition of a doctrine?
3. What is the ecclesial definition of a dogma?

Next, a couple short questions so I can fully understand your responses:

1. What are the limits of a miracle? You cite the inability for the miraculous to accomplish something Art 3, Obj (reply) 2 – I would like to know God’s limits regarding human bodies. It seems God has done more with less (see: Incarnation and Virginal Conception).
2. Can euthanasia be employed lovingly? Is euthanasia therefore morally neutral? Is subjective intent the sole determining criteria if a particular act is moral or not?
3. If my purpose is to move a chair, despite my seeing an old woman sitting down concurrent with my desire, can the broken hip resultant be classified as “accidental”? After all, my intention was to move the chair; assume I was fully cognizant of the impending harms which were foreseeable and did follow. Is this “accidental” and therefore morally neutral?
4. Is intentionally poisoning yourself “morally neutral”, provided that the main intention is that which the poison brings about?
5. It has not been “infallibly held” that a fetus is a human being, particularly as a matter of faith. This is a matter of science, and the Church has not spoken to the period of ‘ensoulment’. Does this change your analysis of abortion?
6. Jewish authorities no longer sit on Moses’ seat. They do not have the authority. Peter (and his successors) has the keys. Why are you placing so much trust in their exegesis?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[jmcrae]

What about those who take BC pills because of medical reasons? Should I be considered sinning because I have to take it to regulate my period?

As long as you are not having sex, there is no sin.

If you get married, you will need to find an alternative therapy for your condition, so that you can be open to life in your marriage.

 

[jmcrae]

**Question 1: Concerning Contraception

Article 1: Whether the Church’s Teaching on Contraception is Infallibly Stated**

There have only been two infallible papal declarations in all of history, but these are not the only two things that are known without doubt to be true, or that are required behaviour for Catholics.

For example, not one of the Ten Commandments has ever been infallibly declared, and yet, they form the basis of our Examen, and guide us to know whether we have committed mortal sin or not, in Confession.

We have a great many other teachings, as well, that are perfectly reliable, despite never having been declared infallibly.

We know that the Apostles taught that abortion, infanticide, and artificial birth control are sinful because we find these teachings in the earliest writings of the Fathers, including the Didache.

 

[RyanL]

As long as you are not having sex, there is no sin.

If you get married, you will need to find an alternative therapy for your condition, so that you can be open to life in your marriage.

This is not my understanding of the teaching. Would you please back this up with a citation?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

There have only been two infallible papal declarations in all of history…

Not to nit-pic, but this isn’t true. All canonizations, for example, are infallible declarations by the pope. Further, there have been more than simply the Marian dogmas promulgated ex cathedra - take the beatific vision, for example (Benedictus Deus).

Sorry - that whole “only two statements” thing is a pet peeve of mine.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[fullofzeal]

What about those who take BC pills because of medical reasons? Should I be considered sinning because I have to take it to regulate my period?

just curious, are there any other means by which to regulate one’s period? Did you look into alternatives?

peace

 

[Traditional_Ang]

No they do not. I don’t think they know that this website exists.

Noma:

If they watch EWTN, they know this website exists. if they’ve seen the document, Voting for the Serious Catholic, they know Catholic Answers exists.

The only question is whether or not they’ve worked out who you are.

I’m part of a Middle East Forum. We used to once have a member who had written a top secret reports on a certain incident. when it started to become apparent who he was, he had to leave the group for various reasons.

In this case, I suspect that it’s only a matter of time…

You’re the one who has to make this decision, although I’d much rather see you accept the Church’s teaching on the isue of ABC and renounce your previous incorrect holding. The hardest thing for us to do is to admit that we’ve a mistake, and this is one where you’ve used a justification worthy of Johns Scotus. But, The doesn’t make your justification true.

Please, get on your knees and ask God to show you the error. In this instance, your soul isn’t the only one in your hands - those of the Catechumens who are in your parish’s RCIA are also in your hands. Are you that sure that you’re right and the Church and the Popes who taught this for the past 200 years are wrong?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[jmcrae]

Not to nit-pic, but this isn’t true. All canonizations, for example, are infallible declarations by the pope. Further, there have been more than simply the Marian dogmas promulgated ex cathedra - take the beatific vision, for example (Benedictus Deus).

Sorry - that whole “only two statements” thing is a pet peeve of mine.

God Bless,
RyanL

Okay - in any case, my point still stands. Things don’t have to be declared infallibly in order to be recognizably true. Also, as Catholics, we are required to obey the entire Magesterium: not only those things that have been declared infallibly from the chair of Peter.

 

[jmcrae]

just curious, are there any other means by which to regulate one’s period? Did you look into alternatives?

If I were that person, I would also want to do some research on exactly what is happening with this regulation of periods, since I was under the impression that the birth control pill actually suppresses ovulation, meaning that, strictly speaking, there shouldn’t even be any monthly bleeding.