Is artificial contraception really evil while natural is good?

[mpernot]

But I’ve read Genesis 38 a couple of times and for me God punished Onan because he didn’t do what he should have done, not especially because he used withdraw technique.

Catholic Answers has done a great write-up on this very thing:

THE SIN OF ONAN
By MARK BRUMLEY

WHAT DOES the Bible say about contraception? “Nothing!” reply many today–including some Catholic theologians and biblical scholars. Yet traditional manuals of moral theology cite Genesis 38:6-10 as an argument against contraception. Does this passage have anything to offer on the question? Let’s look at the text:

"Judah got a wife named Tamar for his firstborn, Er. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, greatly offended the Lord, so the Lord took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.’

“Onan, however, knew that the descendents would not be counted as his; so, whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too.”

Onan was supposed to marry his deceased brother’s childless widow. This practice, known as the Levirate law (from the Latin levir, meaning “a husband’s brother”), was required by the Law of Moses (Deut. 25:5-10) and was intended to insure an unmarried brother would “raise up seed for the deceased brother that his name be not blotted out of Israel.”

The argument against contraception, specifically coitus interruptus, based on this passage used to be considered straightforward. In recent years, both Protestant and Catholic commentators have downplayed, if not outright rejected, the anti-contraception interpretation of this text. Their argument goes like this: **Onan’s sin consisted solely in his abandonment of his familial obligations to his dead brother. Onan performed the act which bears his name because the child which might have resulted would have been counted as his brother’s, rather than his own–something Onan found intolerable.

The difficulty with this argument is that violation of the Levirate law was not a capital offense. If a man didn’t fulfill his obligations to his deceased brother’s wife, she was to take the matter to the elders, who would counsel him and try to persuade him to change his mind. If he persisted, the widow was to “go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’” (Deut. 25:9).

While such a punishment might be embarrassing, it falls short of the death sentence Onan received for his act. This suggests he sinned not only by violating the Levirate law, but also by the way in which he did so. The kind of act he committed was so despicable that, in the Old Testament context, it was punishable by death. **
John Kippley, in Covenant, Christ and Contraception (New York: Alba House, 1970, page 19), explains it this way:

“Onan went through the motions of the life-giving act but refused to accept the consequences. He withdrew in order that the act could carry no reproductive consequences . . . [H]e went through the motions of the Levirate covenant, but he denied the reality of that covenant.”

Catholic teaching regards marriage as a covenant which has as one of its constituent elements an openness to new life and the procreative good. Sexual intercourse involves a renewal of the marriage covenant. Contraceptive intercourse is a violation of that covenant because it acts directly against procreation, one of the basic goods of marriage.

By acting contraceptively, Onan robbed sexual intercourse of its life-giving meaning and acted against the good of his potential offspring’s life. Both his intent and his concrete actions were against life. As a result, Onan received the Old Testament penalty for his crime.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107chap.asp

 

[mpernot]

So you can see by this link that procreative does not mean “resulting in life.” Also, it is clear that the “open to life” arguments are merely distractions from the real issue at hand and are basically irrelevant.

I don’t know if it will help you feel more comfortable with the Church’s teaching (didn’t really do it for me), but I think it should help you understand it a bit better.

The “open to life” argument is the real issue at hand, whether you are talking about it from a contraception perspective (which I have been) or from an NFP perspective (which I have shyed away from to let more knowledgeable posters address), as the OP’s question included both. This original question centers around this very intention more than anything else. Your statement is also not reflective of what the Catholic Church teaches…

CCC 2370: Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, **proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil: **

CCC 2399: The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

I would tend to trust the Catechism of the Catholic Church over the article you cited, which seems to come from a good site but does not include an imprimatur or nihil obstat and could be simply reflecting the author’s personal interpretation of Humanae Vitae. Not saying I know it all, just siding with the Catechism.

By the way, I know that the OP was looking for an answer to the question aside from “the Church said so”, but here are the Catechism passages where She is saying just that.

 

[Rico_S]

mpernot:

Your posts have been thoughtful and well intentioned, and I can appreciate that.

The “open to life” argument is the real issue at hand, whether you are talking about it from a contraception perspective (which I have been) or from an NFP perspective (which I have shyed away from to let more knowledgeable posters address), as the OP’s question included both. This original question centers around this very intention more than anything else. Your statement is also not reflective of what the Catholic Church teaches…

I completely disagree with you. Neither my comments, nor the opinion in the article, contradicts anything that the CCC says about birth control, NFP, etc. Being open to life is certainly an important part of the marital union, but when trying discern why ABC is intrinsically evil and NFP is not, the open to life argument doesn’t apply and only serves to confuse those looking for truth.

Let me try and explain it with an example. My wife and I have 4 children…and after much thought, discussion, and prayer, we have decided that we should not have more children at this time. We have chosen to not be open to life–and the Church is fine with this!!! Yes, Yes, if for some reason, while we were trying to avoid conception, we conceived anyway, we would of course accept the child and all that that entails…but that is completely independent of our method of contraception. We would be equally willing (or unwilling depending on how you look at it) to accept a child no matter what method failed us…NFP, condoms, oral contraception,etc. So you see, we are no more open to life in this situation with NFP than we are with using condoms, but the Church teaches that NFP is ok and ABC is not. Well clearly, the whole “open to life” argument falls woefully short in trying to explain why…it just doesn’t make any sense…it doesn’t hold water.

between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Basically, the motive doesn’t matter here…whether we are open to life or not is not the issue, the mere act of abc itself is evil, independent of intent. Why!!! Thi**s is what the op is looking for. **

The answer lies in the Church’s understanding of the procreative aspect of the union. It is this aspect that is almost always misunderstood (at least, people misunderstand what the church now intends by this teaching). The article to which I linked tries to explain the what the church means by “procreative.” The op must realize that “procreative” does not mean “leading to life”, or even “potentially leading to life.” Otherwise, the church’s position will always seem contradictory and wrong to him.

-Rico

 

[LilyM]

Because with everything else generally I agree in my mind, heart and conscience or it doesn’t influence directly my life, so I don’t think much about it (like e.g. Holy Mary virginity). The Church teaching is like signposts which lead us to God and to understanding His will. But I think, God don’t want to have slaves who are obedient but against in their hearts. He wants to develop our souls to such a level that in our free decisions, thinking, behavior we’ll be in complete agreement with Him. The reason I started this discussion is because I know how significant is to follow Church teaching.

No - the Church isn’t a mere ‘signpost’ which ‘leads us’ to understanding but much more important. The Church is God’s mouthpiece - He speaks to us through its teachings. There’s no question but we must obey, understand or not.

Did Adam and Eve really fully understand WHY they shouldn’t eat the fruit, or was it instead sufficient that they just understood that God commanded them not to eat??

Did all the Israelites understand WHY each and every one of their 613 different dietary and other commands were given to them, or did they just understand that God, through Moses, gave them these commands? Did Abraham understand why God asked him to sacrifice Isaac? Did Job understand why he suffered?

Did Martha understand what Jesus said to her at the raising of Lazarus? Did anyone, even the Apostles, understand Jesus’ teaching about the Eucharist in John chapter 6? Didn’t the bad servant in the parable decide that he knew better than the master what to do with the talent that was given him?

Of course they didn’t fully understand. Not in any of those cases. Did those who accepted and obeyed even without intellectual understanding become accounted righteous because of it? Undoubtedly.

Did their lack of intellectual understanding, or intellectual acceptance, excuse them from obeying? Not a bit of it. Look at what happened to those who didn’t accept and obey. Weren’t Aaron’s sons killed for offering incense when they hadn’t ben commanded to do so, and wasn’t Uzziah killed for touching the Ark when God commanded that no-one should touch it?

Didn’t Jonah question God’s request for him to go to Nineveh and wasn’t he swallowed by a whale and made to go anyway? Didn’t Zechariah doubt God’s ability to give him and Elizabeth the gift of John the Baptist and wasn’t he punished with muteness? Didn’t the servant who failed to invest the parable as his master told him to do - because of course he thought he knew better - end up having it taken away from him?

There’s no disputing when God tells you to do something - you obey first, and then pray as the man did who said ‘Lord I believe, help my unbelief!’

 

[mpernot]

Hi Rico,

I understand your point and respect your thoughts, and they do seem very similar to the OP’s. I have posted much more on the contraceptive portion of the OP’s question to try and explain that side of it, as I know much more about it. I was hoping someone very knowledgable about NFP (someone who teaches it perhaps?) would be able to tackle the other end.

ILet me try and explain it with an example. My wife and I have 4 children…and after much thought, discussion, and prayer, we have decided that we should not have more children at this time. We have chosen to not be open to life–and the Church is fine with this!!!

My understanding of NFP is that this is simply not true. NFP as the church teaches it is not a contraceptive, but it can be misused by using it as a contraceptive, as you are describing here. Again, my understanding of NFP as the church teaches it is that you have to have a compelling reason to use NFP to prevent the birth of a child. Compelling reasons include things like medical issues, financial hardships (real financial hardships, not “I want to be able to afford a new jet-ski” type hardships), etc. As you describe it in your example, a couple using NFP simply because they are “done” is using it as a contraceptive, and if this is the understanding of how NFP works than I can understand the confusion.

So you see, we are no more open to life in this situation with NFP than we are with using condoms, but the Church teaches that NFP is ok and ABC is not. Well clearly, the whole “open to life” argument falls woefully short in trying to explain why…it just doesn’t make any sense…it doesn’t hold water.

I agree with you because a couple can use NFP as a contraceptive; this is a misuse of NFP. The Holy Spirit is the author of life (we say this every Sunday in the Nicene Creed - “… I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord. giver of life…”). When we use NFP as the church intended, the Holy Spirit is allowed into the marital act, because we are willing the possiblity of life. When we do not will the possiblity of life by contracepting, the Holy Spirit is not allowed into that consummation of the marriage. Likewise, a couple practicing NFP deciding that they are “done”, even though they are not explicitly using contraception, are in their hearts telling the Holy Spirit that He is no longer invited into the marital act. Even though the physical possiblity of life still exists, using NFP in this manner excludes the author of life, and this intention is the same as when contraception is used. Just as the end doesn’t justify the means, the means don’t justify the end either. Both the means (physicality of the marital act) and end (intent of the couple) must be pure.

Basically, the motive doesn’t matter here…whether we are open to life or not is not the issue, the mere act of abc itself is evil, independent of intent. Why!!! This is what the op is looking for.

The answer to “why” is because the intent of contraception conflicts with God’s plan for sex. It is not independent of intent, intent is expressed by the language of the body whether the person realizes it or not. Sex is intended for two married people to express their love freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully by reflecting the love that Jesus demonstrated for His church. Any time this full gift of love is taken out of this context, the plan is no longer being followed. Think about what would have happened if our Blessed Mother told the angel Gabriel “no”, that she was not open to life. She would have been contracepting because of her intent, not because she took a pill or used any other contraceptives. Thanks be to God for our Blessed Mother’s fidelity to His plan! Contraception intends to exclude the Lord of Life, and without Him sex is a distorted, diminished version of the gift that it was meant to be. This is why I spent so many posts talking about Theology of the Body to explain God’s plan for sex. This act is so much more than I understood it to be before teaching this stuff. This is why I still firmly believe that the heart of the question is being open to life and not any other issue.

It’s not always easy to explain/understand, and I know there are people who understand it better than I (if only Pope John Paul II were here posting on these boards…), but this intent is of paramount importance because of the way God designed sex as a reflection of His purest love and creation. Again, I’m not an NFP expert so anyone can correct me if I’m wrong. As I’ve tried to explain, the real difference between contracepting and using NFP as it was meant to be used boils down the couple’s intention to be open to life. You may not agree, but I appreciate the respect and I’m open to what you’re saying.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Hi Rico,

I understand your point and respect your thoughts, and they do seem very similar to the OP’s. …Again, my understanding of NFP as the church teaches it is that you have to have a compelling reason to use NFP to prevent the birth of a child. …Likewise, a couple practicing NFP deciding that they are “done”, even though they are not explicitly using contraception, are in their hearts telling the Holy Spirit that He is no longer invited into the marital act. …This is why I spent so many posts talking about Theology of the Body to explain God’s plan for sex. This act is so much more than I understood it to be before teaching this stuff. This is why I still firmly believe that the heart of the question is being open to life and not any other issue.

It’s not always easy to explain/understand, … Again, I’m not an NFP expert so anyone can correct me if I’m wrong. As I’ve tried to explain, the real difference between contracepting and using NFP as it was meant to be used boils down the couple’s intention to be open to life. .

Hi Mpernot,

I’m not an “expert” either. LIke most on this board, I simply try to explain the Church teachings as I understand them. I appreciate your attempts to explain this as you understand them too. You seem to have a fairly good understanding, but I think you miss a very important aspect of this if you think Rico’s viewpoints are similar to the original poster’s.

Rico is correct that the phrase “openess to life” confuses many people. Some people even mistakenly suggest that a condom with it’s 70% effectiveness rate is more “open to life” than NFP, (which has a much higher success rate for postponing pregnancy than condoms.) I know couples who want and plan to have more babies but who use contraception to space pregnancy. On the other hand, I have known faithful Catholic couples for who don’t plan to have any more children because another pregnancy places a serious health risk to the mother–and they therefore use NFP very strictly.

"Openess to life" is about keeping the marriage act oriented towards pro-creation, as the article Rico posted tried to explain. By God’s very design, the marriage act is pro-creative and “open to life". Contraception places barriers between the husband and wife during the marriage act–thus changing the marriage act from the way God designed it. By attempting to remove baby-making from love-making, contraception alters God’s design of “two become one” in the marriage act, (also removing some of the “unitive” aspect of the act.) In contrast, NFP does nothing to change the marriage act. NFP works by abstaining from the marriage act; contraception works by *changing *the marriage act.

NFP can be used with a “contraceptive mentality,” meaning the couple using it may have the wrong motives or less than noble reasons, but NFP itself is not contraceptive. Contraception literally means “against conception”. Contraception takes *direct *action to prevent conception. NFP takes no direct action to prevent conception. All the charting and temperture taking in the world won’t prevent pregnancy unless the couple abstains from sex during the woman’s fertile time.

The Church doesn’t tell couples that they must engage in relations every time the wife is fertile. The Church doesn’t tell us how many children we should have. (Unlike those who push contraception and sterilization when they think we have “too many children”. ) The Church states that couples can use NFP for grave/serious/just/compelling reasons, but the Church has not clearly defined what constitutes a grave/serious/just reaons. The Church reminds us that children are blessing, and the Catechism calls children “the supreme gift of marriage.” Couples should prayerfully decide such important family matters with each other and God.

 

[Rico_S]

Hi mpernot:

My understanding of NFP is that this is simply not true. NFP as the church teaches it is not a contraceptive, but it can be misused by using it as a contraceptive, as you are describing here. Again, my understanding of NFP as the church teaches it is that you have to have a compelling reason to use NFP to prevent the birth of a child. Compelling reasons include things like medical issues, financial hardships (real financial hardships, not “I want to be able to afford a new jet-ski” type hardships), etc. As you describe it in your example, a couple using NFP simply because they are “done” is using it as a contraceptive, and if this is the understanding of how NFP works than I can understand the confusion.

Well, I was assuming my example is a justifiable instance where NFP can be used to avoid conception. If you reread my post, just assume that me and my wife have a justifiable reason to avoid conception.

When we use NFP as the church intended, the Holy Spirit is allowed into the marital act, because we are willing the possiblity of life.

I just don’t see how this is true. There are people on this forum whose very life would be in danger if they were to conceive. They practice NFP diligently (and with just cause) to avoid pregnancy and have done so for years upon years. Everytime they engage in the marital union, they do so with full knowledge that the possibility of life is next to zero.

Sex is intended for two married people to express their love freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully by reflecting the love that Jesus demonstrated for His church. Any time this full gift of love is taken out of this context, the plan is no longer being followed. Think about what would have happened if our Blessed Mother told the angel Gabriel “no”, that she was not open to life. She would have been contracepting because of her intent, not because she took a pill or used any other contraceptives.

Where do the people who use NFP for appropriate reasons stand in this assessment? They are saying no to the gift of life…they are saying no to their expression of love being fruitful… and yet they are doing so according to Church teaching. We cannot judge contraception as unacceptable based on “being closed to life” on one hand, and then sanction the practice of NFP to avoid conception on the other! That is my point.

I am not trying to argue that contraception is ok…or that NFP is bad…or that Theology of the Body is wrong.

–Rico

 

[Przemek]

Cattitude:

You have made some good points, and received some good answers.

Yes, I’m closer and closer to conclusion that you cannot understand Church teaching concerning contraception and NFP by arguments. And very queer, both sides regard their arguments to be irrefutable arguments for their righteous. Very similar like in discussions about much more serious matter: does God exist or not. Is every atheist slow-witted? Not at all. So probable the most important is divine grace. However, I don’t want to finish discussion yet. Because grace “may speak” just through arguments. For example, what LilyM wrote in the post #24 (I mean mainly examples from the Bible) was known to me but the way she wrote it or merely because she wrote it caused me to think about it a lot and I must admit that it’s very sensible and strong.

Cattitude:

For me, it came down to accepting or rejecting the authority of the Church. That authority was given to the Church by Christ himself. If one trusts Christ, then one must trust his Church, and therefore all of the Church’s teaching.

Yes, my disagreeing is really a big challenge. Why I dared to do it I have described below.

1. Jesus said (Mt 16,19): “So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”. He didn’t said: “you will be infallible”. And look, He said “whatever you bind will be bound”, not “you will bind on earth what is bound in heaven”. For me it means that if pope bind or loose something and people are following this, they will be judge as they follow God’s will. But God’s will can be at least slightly different. Probably it’s heresy, but I want to know what do you think about it.
2. Similar words said Jesus to his disciples (so not only to Peter) (Mt 18,18): “In truth I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”. And we know that Pope John XXIII established and Pope Paul VI extended the commission of 72 members (among them 16 theologians, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including seven cardinals), which produced a report proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil. And who they were? Answer: current Jesus disciples from the Catholic Church and among them apostle’s successors.
3. I follow my conscience what is in agreement with Church teaching.
4. John Henry Newman (Roman Catholic priest and Cardinal who converted to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism) wrote in the book “Conscience and pope” (it’s my own translation of polish title, I don’t know the original title): “…Thus, for example, if pope command to organize, in every parish, a lottery for some church purpose/need and some priest beliefs that a lottery is morally wrong, this priest will commit a sin if he is obedient to pope…”

Rico S:

Where you are likely confused is in what “procreative” actually means…

If the whole argument hinge on appropriate understanding the word ‘procreative’ which is understood quite plainly by average people and you have to write two pages what this word “really” means – it looks like creating new theories to prove that previous are true.

mpernot:

When one contracepts, they are in fact telling God that they don’t want to share in His creative power, that they “know better”. … logic dictates that altering any part of that plan (removing the possibility of conception) must be interpreted as rejection of it. … We should always be open to all possibilities of God’s will because we never know what form it may take. This includes the babies one is trying to prevent from being born while contracepting. … I think the most important part is making sure that God’s will as a possibility is not prevented, even if it’s a possibility we don’t understand or agree with.

Look, you can go through fire believing that God will rescue you if He wants. But doing such thing you must be sure that it’s really good, that the good is worth such risk, otherwise you challenge God. So, I think if I’m making love without contraception in a period I belief it’s wrong to conceive a baby – I commit a sin (wow, I concluded that luck of contraception is a sin ). It’s like thinking: I don’t care, God will steer it Himself.
I don’t say that I “know better” but I assume that I must try to read His will in my heart, mind and conscience and not treat marital acts like “Kinder surprise eggs”.

LilyM:

There’s no disputing when God tells you to do something - you obey first,…

And God say to you primarily through conscience, Church teaches so…

gardenswithkids:

Contraception places barriers between the husband and wife during the marriage act–thus changing the marriage act from the way God designed it. … NFP does nothing to change the marriage act.

This is what I have been afraid, that people anti-ABC&pro-NFP think NFP is good, because physically an intercourse looks exactly the same like really procreative one.

gardenswithkids:

Contraception takes direct action to prevent conception. NFP … the couple abstains from sex during the woman’s fertile time.

But you abstain to prevent conception. So you cannot say that you do nothing. You abstain.

Once again space limit… so I’ll continue in next post

 

[Przemek]

I appreciate to all of you. Thank you very much indeed for your words and prayer. Mostly I point what I’m contrary to, but I admire your comments, cleverness and piety. Maybe I wish you more often and explicit say: here you are wrong, because… or …such thinking leads to… or … in this point you contradict yourself … etc. Because to change somebody’s mind, who has very firm and carefully thought out standpoint, mere describing another point of view can be insufficient.
I’ve already read Humanae Vitae and most of suggested articles.

By the way, my wife and I want to conceive our third child in five months time and we have very strong reason to not do it now .

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Where do the people who use NFP for appropriate reasons stand in this assessment? They are saying no to the gift of life…they are saying no to their expression of love being fruitful… and yet they are doing so according to Church teaching. We cannot judge contraception as unacceptable based on “being closed to life” on one hand, and then sanction the practice of NFP to avoid conception on the other! That is my point.

I am not trying to argue that contraception is ok…or that NFP is bad…or that Theology of the Body is wrong.

Hi Rico, I’ll try to address what you wrote and hopefully clarify the issues for others.

As Humanae Vitae says, “the Church has always provided…a coherent teaching concerning both the nature of marriage and the correct use of conjugal rights and the duties of husband and wife.”

These Church teachings are very consistent with other Church teachings. John Paul II wrote a long document called “Mulieris Dignitatem” (on the dignity and vocation of women) Buried deep within it is a description of “spiritual motherhood” relating to women who take vows of virginity for the sake of the Kingdom. Mother Teresa is a fine example of “spiritual motherhood”–notice the entire world calls her “Mother”.

God usually calls married couples to physical parenthood, not spiritual parenthood like priests and nuns. Yet like priests and nuns who abstain from sexual relations for the sake of the Kingdom, couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy can enrich their families through times of abstainance. Couples using NFP justly and chastely are not truly saying “no” to new life–they are saying “yes” to life in a way somewhat similar to how priests and nuns say “yes” when they keep vows of chastity. Abstinance can be *spiritually *fruitful.

Catholics often hear the phrase, “offer it up”. We spend Advents and Lents fasting from various things like sweets and between meal snacking. NFP to avoid pregnancy is a periodic “fast” from sexual relations. If we believe fasting beneficial to the spiritual life, then we should recognize that chaste couples produce spiritual fruits.

God designed our reproductive organs to reproduce–that’s what they do. Chaste couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy for just reasons produce good spiritual fruits for their families and for society.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes, I’m closer and closer to conclusion that you cannot understand Church teaching concerning contraception and NFP by arguments. And very queer, both sides regard their arguments to be irrefutable arguments for their righteous. Very similar like in discussions about much more serious matter: does God exist or not. …

Yes, I think these discussions are often similar to trying explaining the benefits of prayer to an atheist. I did not really understand these teachings until I took a step of faith and stopped using contraception. (or more accurately, I didn’t resume using contraception after the birth of a child.)

I appreciate to all of you. Thank you very much indeed for your words and prayer. Mostly I point what I’m contrary to, but I admire your comments, cleverness and piety. Maybe I wish you more often and explicit say: here you are wrong, because… or …such thinking leads to… or … in this point you contradict yourself … etc. Because to change somebody’s mind, who has very firm and carefully thought out standpoint, mere describing another point of view can be insufficient.
I’ve already read Humanae Vitae and most of suggested articles.

By the way, my wife and I want to conceive our third child in five months time and we have very strong reason to not do it now .

I appreciate your openess to trying to understand the Church teachings. Since you want more specifics, here’s some of my thoughts on where your thinking goes wrong.

This is what I have been afraid, that people anti-ABC&pro-NFP think NFP is good, because physically an intercourse looks exactly the same like really procreative one.

But you abstain to prevent conception. So you cannot say that you do nothing. You abstain.

You wrote that in response to something I wrote earlier. First of all, let me clarify that I’m not “pro-NFP”. I don’t currently use it, nor do I believe that NFP is good for *every *marriage. Couples don’t always have to be in a constant state of extremes between trying to have babies then trying to avoid them!

An uncontracepted marital act “physically looks exactly like a really procreative one” because physically*** it** is* exactly the same. Conception might not even take place until a day or so after the act if the women ovulates later. The very same act sometimes produces a child and sometimes it doesn’t–the act is still a procreative act by God’s design. I can tell you from personal experience, not every uncontracepted marital act results in pregnancy. Despite the term “birth control” we do not have ultimate control over birth.

Infertile couples often realize more than the rest of us that we can’t completely control birth and that fertility and children are blessings. Infertile couples do nothing to *remove *the procreative powers from the marital act. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy likewise do nothing to change marital act by engaging in relations only during times of infertility. Notice the wording carefully–I didn’t say that the couple using NFP does nothing, (because as you point out they abstain) I wrote they do nothing to change the marital act.

 

[Rico_S]

gardenwithkids:

I agree with that abstinence may bear spiritual fruit, much like fasting and other physical sacrifices.

However…

Couples using NFP justly and chastely are not truly saying “no” to new life–they are saying “yes” to life in a way somewhat similar to how priests and nuns say “yes” when they keep vows of chastity.

You completely lose me here. NFP couples are indeed saying no to new life. I was one of those NFP people and we were most definitely saying no. To say that the true intent of NFP is really saying “yes” to life in some spiritual and mystical sense seems like an enormous stretch at best. . It takes some serious mental gymnastics to arrive there, and I am not capable of bending and stretching in that way.

My whole point in this thread was to point out that intent is not the difference between NFP and ABC. Being open to life is not the scale by which we measure the morality of the 2 choices…it cannot be.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

. Notice the wording carefully–I didn’t say that the couple using NFP does nothing, (because as you point out they abstain) I wrote they do nothing to change the marital act.

Yes!!!

Intent is not the issue…it is altering the marital act that the church teaches is intrinsically evil. The link I gave earlier does a pretty good job of desribing how the procreative aspect is altered with abc. (Not related to intent).

–Rico

 

[mpernot]

Rico is correct that the phrase “openess to life” confuses many people. Some people even mistakenly suggest that a condom with it’s 70% effectiveness rate is more “open to life” than NFP, (which has a much higher success rate for postponing pregnancy than condoms.) I know couples who want and plan to have more babies but who use contraception to space pregnancy. On the other hand, I have known faithful Catholic couples for who don’t plan to have any more children because another pregnancy places a serious health risk to the mother–and they therefore use NFP very strictly.

"Openess to life" is about keeping the marriage act oriented towards pro-creation, as the article Rico posted tried to explain. By God’s very design, the marriage act is pro-creative and “open to life". Contraception places barriers between the husband and wife during the marriage act–thus changing the marriage act from the way God designed it. By attempting to remove baby-making from love-making, contraception alters God’s design of “two become one” in the marriage act, (also removing some of the “unitive” aspect of the act.) In contrast, NFP does nothing to change the marriage act. NFP works by abstaining from the marriage act; contraception works by *changing *the marriage act.

NFP can be used with a “contraceptive mentality,” meaning the couple using it may have the wrong motives or less than noble reasons, but NFP itself is not contraceptive. Contraception literally means “against conception”. Contraception takes *direct *action to prevent conception. NFP takes no direct action to prevent conception. All the charting and temperture taking in the world won’t prevent pregnancy unless the couple abstains from sex during the woman’s fertile time.

The Church doesn’t tell couples that they must engage in relations every time the wife is fertile. The Church doesn’t tell us how many children we should have. (Unlike those who push contraception and sterilization when they think we have “too many children”. ) The Church states that couples can use NFP for grave/serious/just/compelling reasons, but the Church has not clearly defined what constitutes a grave/serious/just reaons. The Church reminds us that children are blessing, and the Catechism calls children “the supreme gift of marriage.” Couples should prayerfully decide such important family matters with each other and God.

I agree with you on all of this. That’s why intent has to be factored in, because NFP itself doesn’t distort the marriage act in any way but it can be used to do so. From Kimberly Hahn’s book “Life Giving Love”:

*“Can NFP be misused? Yes, any good gift can be misused. We need to double-check our motives. The Catechism cautions couples in relation to licit regulation of births: ‘It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.’
No matter how flawed our motives for practicing NFP, our sin will at worst be venial, as opposed to the sin of contraception, which involves objectively grave matter. Why is there a distinction? NFP is abstaining from rather than entering into the act of marriage during the time the couple is mutually fertile; contraception is the deliberate thwarting of the life-giving nature of the act of marriage.
The fact that our misuse of NFP is only venial should not necessarily comfort us. After all, time is spent in purgatory for venial sins. And venial sins can beat a path to mortal ones. So how do we sort through our motives for legitimate use of NFP?
We need a strategy. First, we must guard our hearts from our weaknesses and sins through prayer. Next, we must develop our consciences according to truth. This includes renewing our hearts so that we are genuinely open to life with each marital act. We willl have to struggle to replace our culture’s indoctrination with God’s truth; it takes effort. And finally, we must bolster our resolve to live with our spouse for God, continually filling our hearts and minds with truth about marital love, and trusting our marriage in the trustworthy providence of God.” *

Keep in mind that this book does have an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, so it is free from all doctrinal and moral error. Kimberly is very clearly saying here that we must keep our intentions pure while using NFP; if our intentions are not pure, than we are misusing it and sinning (though not as severely as if we were contracepting). I agree that the church doesn’t define “good” reasons for using NFP postponing/avoiding pregnancies - tha’s why it’s up to the user’s intentions to keep NFP pure. If the church doesn’t regulate this, then by necessity, the users must regulate themselves. This is where intent comes in, and this is why I explained to poster Rico that his statements ultimately boiled down to the OP’s initial question.

 

[gardenswithkids]

gardenwithkids:

I agree with that abstinence may bear spiritual fruit, much like fasting and other physical sacrifices.

However…

You completely lose me here. NFP couples are indeed saying no to new life. I was one of those NFP people and we were most definitely saying no. To say that the true intent of NFP is really saying “yes” to life in some spiritual and mystical sense seems like an enormous stretch at best. . It takes some serious mental gymnastics to arrive there, and I am not capable of bending and stretching in that way.

My whole point in this thread was to point out that intent is not the difference between NFP and ABC. Being open to life is not the scale by which we measure the morality of the 2 choices…it cannot be.

–Rico

HI Rico
Again, I agree with you that the phrase “open to life” confuses many, including many of those who support Church teachings. Regardless of what we think of the phrase, some Church documents use the phrase “open to life”, (or some similar translation), as well as the term “pro-creative”. The article you posted said, “To be ‘open’ in this context is to be open to or to accept something specific. The document (Humanae Vitae) does not state that the conjugal act is to be open to the possible conception of a person.”

Those who follow the Church teachings are open to something. They may not be open to creating a baby, but they leave themselves open to something. Jesus said, “I have come to give you life that you may have it more abundantly”. The New Testament speaks in several places about “new life in Christ”. Those who follow Jesus and His Church are “open to life” in a spiritual and mystical sense.

My previously post might sound like mental gymnastics, but your word choice of “mystical” was more appropriately expresses what I tried to convey. I doubt that everyone who practices NFP also meditates upon the deeper spiritual meaning behind it, but spiritual elements still exist even when we don’t realize it. Marriage is a Sacrament. The Eastern Church calls Sacraments, “Mysteries.” There is something mystical about the union of “two become one.” Marriage represents an even greater mystery of the relationship between Christ and His Church. (Ephesians 4:21-32)

I repeat that I agree with you that the phrase “open to life” confuses people. Most people don’t think about the spiritual aspects of human sexuality. Most people don’t think in mystical terms about most things, yet the Church* is* the Mystical Body of Christ. Church teachings include the mystical and spiritual elements of life in Christ.

 

[mpernot]

Well, I was assuming my example is a justifiable instance where NFP can be used to avoid conception. If you reread my post, just assume that me and my wife have a justifiable reason to avoid conception.

I understand, fair enough. As I just recently posted with an excerpt from Kimberly Hahn’s book “Life-Giving Love”, misusing NFP is indeed a sin. There are times where one is justified by using NFP to prevent conception and there are times when one is not. What can be the difference between the two instances that decides which is sin and which is not? I don’t know of a way to differentiate the two instances aside from user intent. If the church will not come out and give us a specific list of instances where it is OK to use NFP to prevent conception (I have not been able to find one), then it is up to users of NFP to make sure they are not misusing it.

I just don’t see how this is true. There are people on this forum whose very life would be in danger if they were to conceive. They practice NFP diligently (and with just cause) to avoid pregnancy and have done so for years upon years. Everytime they engage in the marital union, they do so with full knowledge that the possibility of life is next to zero.

Agreed, I have no issues with what you’ve said here. If there are “good” reasons to avoid conception, NFP can serve to fulfil that purpose in good, moral conscience. Here are some excerpts from papal encyclicals on the subject:

Humanae Vitae:

• “If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of the husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.”*

Note that Humanae Vitae respects both spouses’ conditions and allows for the kind of grave exceptions we are talking about, while making it clear that NFP must not be casually used as a way of refusing to bear life. Contrast this with Pope John Paul II’s L’Osservatore Romano from 12/17/90:

• “It is not possible to practice natural methods as a “licit” variation of the decision to be closed to life, which would be substantially the same as that which inspires the decisions to use contraceptives: only if there is a basic openness to fatherhood and motherhood, understood as collaboration with the Creator, does the use of natural means become an integrating part of the responsibility for love and life.”*

Pope John Paul II says that using “natural methods” illicitly is essentially the same mentality as contraceptives. There must be a mentality change, a “basic openness” as he describes it. He is clearly indicating that intention differentiates right from wrong, just as it does for most of our sins.

Where do the people who use NFP for appropriate reasons stand in this assessment? They are saying no to the gift of life…they are saying no to their expression of love being fruitful… and yet they are doing so according to Church teaching. We cannot judge contraception as unacceptable based on “being closed to life” on one hand, and then sanction the practice of NFP to avoid conception on the other! That is my point.

You are absolutely right if the couple’s intentions don’t matter. Contraception isn’t intrinsically evil solely because it is closed to life, though that it is a big part of it. Contraception actually changes the marital act from how God created it to a perversion of something less. It is necessarily much, much more evil than misuse of NFP, which is keeping God’s plan intact but “missing the point”. NFP carries a lot of responsibility, the couple using it really has to be committed to God’s plan. It is certainly not easy to use, but it is morally correct when used correctly.

Also keep in mind the church’s applicable teachings on marriage as stated in the Catechism:

CCC 1652-1654: The Openness to Fertility
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#1652

CCC 2366-2372: The Fecundity of Marriage
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2366

CCC 2373-2379: The Gift of a Child
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2373

CCC 2398: Fecundity is a good, a gift and an end of marriage. By giving life, spouses participate in God’s fatherhood.

CCC 2399 “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”

Again, I’m not an NFP expert. If someone has a church document indicating that I’m wrong about something that I’ve said, I’ll be happy to admit it. I’m not here to fight with anyone or change people to my way of thinking, but I do try to help others understand where the church stands. From what I can understand of the Catechism, papal encyclicals, and other church-approved documents (Theology of the Body, works like Kimberly Hahn’s book as referenced, etc.), the church outlines a pretty clear answer to the OP’s question.

 

[Scottgun]

Pius XII affirms that legitimate use of natural methods are quite discretionary:

“But if, according to a rational and just judgement, there are no similar grave reasons of a personal nature or deriving from external circumstances, then the determination to avoid habitually the fecundity of the union while at the same time to continue fully satisfying their sensuality, can be derived only from a false appreciation of life and from reasons having nothing to do with proper ethical laws.” - Pius XII, Apostolate of the Midwife

“Therefore, in our late allocution on conjugal morality, We affirmed the legitimacy, and at the same time, the limits — in truth very wide — of a regulation of offspring, which, unlike so-called ‘birth control,’ is compatible with the law of God.” - Pius XII, Morality in Marriage (emphasis mine), from Papal Pronouncements on Marriage and the Family, Werth and Mihanovich, 1955

 

[Rico_S]

 No matter how flawed our motives for practicing NFP, our sin will at worst be venial, as opposed to the sin of contraception, which involves objectively grave matter.

Really?

Another example. My wife and I have 6 children and due to legitimate financial and emotional reasons, decide that we should avoid pregnancy for a while (assume we have a just reason for avoiding conception). We practive NFP as best we can but for whatever reason, we end up with 2 more children while we were trying to avoid pregnancy. So now we suppliment our NFP practice with condoms.

Now another couple decides after marriage that they do not want children b/c it would hinder both of their careers. In addition, they love to travel around the world and having childen would curtail their travels, if not end them altogether. So, they decide to practive NFP from the onset of their marriage and have done so successfully throughout their marriage.

My sin >>>> then their sin!!! Really? If that is the Church’s understanding of that situation, then I think they got it wrong. Of course, it would explain why the Church does so little about the fact the today’s Catholics are not open to life as they once were…but spends its energy promoting NFP as a beautiful and wholesome way to be closed to life.

–Rico

 

[mpernot]

Really?

Another example. My wife and I have 6 children and due to legitimate financial and emotional reasons, decide that we should avoid pregnancy for a while (assume we have a just reason for avoiding conception). We practive NFP as best we can but for whatever reason, we end up with 2 more children while we were trying to avoid pregnancy. So now we suppliment our NFP practice with condoms.

Now another couple decides after marriage that they do not want children b/c it would hinder both of their careers. In addition, they love to travel around the world and having childen would curtail their travels, if not end them altogether. So, they decide to practive NFP from the onset of their marriage and have done so successfully throughout their marriage.

My sin >>>> then their sin!!! Really? If that is the Church’s understanding of that situation, then I think they got it wrong. Of course, it would explain why the Church does so little about the fact the today’s Catholics are not open to life as they once were…but spends its energy promoting NFP as a beautiful and wholesome way to be closed to life.

–Rico

Using contraceptives amounts to rewriting God’s plan for sexuality as He made it. The “end” here is intrinsically evil regardless of the “means”. Condoms are contraceptives, whether you use them because NFP didn’t work, you hate babies, or any reason in between. I can’t find any language in any church document that says that there are any circumstances where contraceptives are morally allowable. I think I’ve provided enough proof of this, but I’m open to truth so let me know if you can find something to the contrary. We are not to rewrite God’s plan, it’s as simple as that.

And the second couple you described haven’t successfully practiced NFP, they have successfully misused it. Yes, according to the church, this is less grave than using contraception. The act of contraception is so impure as to be labeled “intrinsically evil” that user intent isn’t even an issue - it is evil no matter what the intent. NFP, however, is a morally acceptable process that can be misused by individuals - individual misuse isn’t a deficiency of the process. Misuse of a morally acceptable process is better than proper use of an inherently evil process? You betcha, every time.

Today’s Catholics are so much less open to life because their catechesis is generally poor compared to older generations, and the “culture of death” is very strong and persuasive (in my opinion). The church is not wrong just because lots of people don’t like what she says, so she’s definitely not wrong just because Rico disagrees with what she says. NFP is not closed to life, but those who use it can be.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Really?

Another example. My wife and I have 6 children and due to legitimate financial and emotional reasons, decide that we should avoid pregnancy for a while (assume we have a just reason for avoiding conception). We practive NFP as best we can but for whatever reason, we end up with 2 more children while we were trying to avoid pregnancy. So now we suppliment our NFP practice with condoms.

Now another couple decides after marriage that they do not want children b/c it would hinder both of their careers. In addition, they love to travel around the world and having childen would curtail their travels, if not end them altogether. So, they decide to practive NFP from the onset of their marriage and have done so successfully throughout their marriage.

My sin >>>> then their sin!!! Really? If that is the Church’s understanding of that situation, then I think they got it wrong. Of course, it would explain why the Church does so little about the fact the today’s Catholics are not open to life as they once were…but spends its energy promoting NFP as a beautiful and wholesome way to be closed to life.

–Rico

I’m bit confused Rico because *you *are the one who writes that intent doesn’t matter. Some of us think intent plays a part, although good intent does not justify immoral action. Nevertheless, I’ll address what you wrote. Look at what follows the part you quoted.

“…The fact that our misuse of NFP is only venial should not necessarily comfort us. After all, time is spent in purgatory for venial sins. And venial sins can beat a path to mortal ones. ….”

The quote that mpernot attributed to Kimberly Hahn earlier also points out that repeated venial sins eventually can lead to mortal sin. A further point I wish to make is that not all persons who commit mortal sin *die *in a state of mortal sin. God is perfectly just and merciful. That’s part of Catholic teachings too that we should remember as we try to sort through these teachings.

In the first example you give, it is likely that the couple with a large family that in desperation turns to contraception may come to repent. That may not happen until after the woman has reaches menopause. Nevertheless, I do not recommend commiting mortal sin–sin has serious consequences.

In the second example of the couple using NFP for entirely selfish reasons while traveling the world, I suspect it is highly likely that they will either fall into mortal sin at some point due to their selfishness and/or that our loving and merciful God will bless them with a child in spite of their efforts to prevent birth. If they manage to live their entire married life avoiding children, I suspect they will come to regret and repent that decision at some point. (Don’t underestimate the power of a woman’s biological clock. )

Lastly, I see your final point about the promotion of NFP. I wish individuals within the Church did do a better job of promoting openess to life by encouraging people to be generous in accepting more children from God. (That’s a pet peeve of mine. Even a good priest suggested my husband and I use NFP when we hadn’t solicited his opinions.) Kimberly Hahn, whom was quoted earlier, does a particularly good job of promoting large families and generosity to life. Her book “Life Giving Love” is in my opinion one of the best written books available to explain the Church teachings in full context that children are blessings.