Is artificial contraception really evil while natural is good?

[Rico_S]

Hi gardenswithkids:

I’m bit confused Rico because *you *are the one who writes that intent doesn’t matter.

Sorry for the confusion, I don’t think I explain things very well. Personally, I do think intent matters, and that judging an act right or wrong without context is a bad idea. However, in this thread, I have been trying to point out that intent…that is the “openness to life” (using a face value definition to which most would ascribe). argument …falls short in determining why NFP is good and ABC is evil.

My little example and rant is a slight detour from the thread topic. It seems quite wrong that using NFP with bad intentions is objectively a less serious sin than using ABC. And while I understand that the author points out that venial sin can lead to mortal sin…that does little to satisfy the wrong that I see in the original sentiment expressed by the author. What a huge injustice is done if I die (in my above example), before coming to my senses and repenting, and have my soul tainted with mortal sin, while the other couple, who completely denied God;s gift of children, the fruits of married love, spend a little time in purgatory for their venial sin. Imo, Kimberly statement is clearly wrong.

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.

Absolutely. The whole contraception issue is secondary to changing people’s hearts to be open to the gift of children, imo. The church rails against contraception b/c contraception has made it easy to reject life…but it in and of itself contraception doesn’t make us reject life. It is merely a tool we use.

-Rico

 

[brandymmiller]

Firstly, I cannot understand why intercourse which is only for unity with spouse and pleasure and not for procreation is intrinsically evil. Does anybody really know why (except ‘because Church teaches so’)? Secondly, methods of birth regulation based on self-observation (NFP) are for me contraception as well as e.g. condoms or alternative techniques (ABC), so both methods should be considered as good or bad. I cannot find any difference in essence between them. In following points I try to explain my point of view. If somebody is able to write precisely what’s wrong in it, I’ll be very grateful. And not only me, but every person who sees the whole issue similary.

Understand that when you and your wife engage in sex, you are participating in one of the highest forms of prayer that you can. You, as a couple, are praying that God bless your marital union by increasing your love for one another and bringing Godly children to that union. It is not a sin to refrain from offering that prayer. You do not feel ready for children, and so you do not pray for them. It’s nt a sin to refrain from praying for rain when you’re in the middle of a flood.

It IS a sin, though, to pray that God bring you the gift of children and then do something deliberately to block the children from being created. It’s like sending an invitation to God to come to your wedding and then getting really angry that He bothers to show up!

 

[Coder]

To the O.P. what would be the purpose of engaging in relations with a spouse while using means to prevent conception? The sins of the flesh is death. Our bodies are to be temples of the Holy Spirit.

 

[hadassahjones]

Hi. I’m new here, and this thread caught my eye. I am in the process of becoming a new Catholic, currently in RCIA, went to Mass for the first time last Sunday, etc…

This issue is one of the few tenets of Church teaching that I have a huge problem with. I’ve read through all the posts, and while all the supporters very thoroughly explain the Church’s position, I haven’t seen anything to convince me of why.

My problems with it are this: I believe that sex within marriage is to strengthen the bond between the couple and share in that which was naturally created by God: sexual desire. When I see an attractive man, my first thought isn’t that I want to have babies with him!

That is a minor concern compared to my two biggest ones, however, which are these:
Firstly, I can see how this teaching would have been feasible a hundred years ago, when a woman’s purpose was considered to be marriage and family. This has changed. I am in my first year of college, and I intend to go forwards and get my doctorate. I also intend to spend some time excavating and traveling before I “settle down” and become a professor (my degree is in archaeology). It will take me roughly seven years to get my doctorate, and I don’t know that I will go straight into teaching. A child at any point in this time would completely ruin my plans for my education and career. Yet my boyfriend is twenty-seven, and he wants to get married in his early thirties. I too want to be married sometime in the next few years. Why should I have to wait to share the unity of marriage with a man I love, and all that that contains, simply because a child is not desirable before the next ten years or so?

Secondly, I believe that the foundation for the argument against some contraception (specifically the Pill, which is the one I am most familiar with) is shaky. I have read literature that claims that the basis for the argument against contraception is that it kills a potential human life. If the Pill did indeed kill potential human life (destroy a woman’s egg) then I would be concerned, especially since women have only a limited number. But the Pill, if taken correctly, actually prevents ovulation, retaining the woman’s eggs for a time when she is ready to have children. In this way, it is more effective for life than NFP, which allows ovulation. Depo-Provera does the same, as does an IUD. All of these methods prevent ovulation, and ovulation begins again within three to six months after the method is removed or ceased.

In summary, my main concerns are that a) I don’t see why I can’t be married, and intend to have children, without using a 99% viable method to “schedule” it, and b) it is not scientifically sound.

 

[nablaise]

I think any contraception is evil and many people have explained this clearly already. It is evil because it holds something back, thus pretending to be total love while it is not, thus a lie.

However, I realise that people can use NFP and still be contraceptive too and this would be equaly evil. If a couple scans their charts trying to find a spot where they can enjoy sex with HOPEFULLY no child, they are being contraceptive as well. It does not matter if they are willing to accept this child if he come as a surprise. I think the desire to have sex without a desire for a child is a contraceptive desire and sin start from the heart.

Simply have sex when you want a child. Have sex when you are READY for a child. This would be the real no contraceptive love making.

Marry teach us alot with her perpetual virginity. The reason she remained virgin is because she did not want an other biological child. The reason she did not want an other biological child is because Jesus being the fullness of life and love himself, she had nothing to add. Jesus was more than what parents are looking for in trying to have a child. So in her pure heart, she could conclude that she has more than enough, in fact in Jesus she had all childreen, all humanity as her childreen. So both her and Joseph since they did not need a child, they did not have sex. And this was it.

This is the explanation of marriage. God made sex so we can have childreen. Sex is a prayer for childreen so if you don’t need them you don’t make this particular prayer.

At the end Marital chastity is not much different than chastity of priest and nuns and other consacrated persons. It is all about sex for kids, or no sex.

Well, this is my understanding and I am sure this is what the Church teaches. The idea that if we can’t hold ourselves for long time we can make love during unfertile period, I think is one of those things we are allowed to do because of our ‘hardness’ of heart, but from God fondemental plan it is not so.

God bless

 

[hadassahjones]

How do you reconcile the idea of being chaste in marriage unless ready for children with the verse in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that speaks of the following: (not exact words but the gist)

“Husbands, give yourselves to your wives, and wives likewise to your husbands. Do not deny each other except for a time, and with consent of the other, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again.”

It says nothing about children. I believe that sex is a blessing from God, for the pleasure and increasing of love and unity between husbands and wives, a sacred and special act, and that while children are one result, they need not be the only result. This is what I glean from that Scripture.

I guess my biggest question is—and maybe I should have posted this on another thread–but since I agree with most of the theology and the interpretation of the Scriptures of the Catholic Church, and feel more at home during Mass than I ever have during any Protestant service, is it realistic to think that I cannot become Catholic simply because I cannot reconcile contraception being evil?

 

[RMRilke]

Another aspect of NFP that hasn’t been specifically mentioned yet (or I missed it) is ecological breastfeeding. Basically, it means that mom is with the baby and breast feeding as much as possible. Good for bonding between baby and mom, but also delays the return of menstruation.

This is part of God’s design for how we are meant to faithfully space out children. Plus, it is so much healthier for mom and baby.

I think that the real gift of NFP is that women really learn about their bodies and their reproductive systems, things that have been withheld from us throughout time. I remember being amazed the first time I actually felt that little pinch inside me that meant that the egg had left the wall and was ready to be fertilized. Has anyone else experienced this? I’m past child bearing age now, but it was a real eye opener to me that I could actually feel myself ovulating!

 

[nablaise]

How do you reconcile the idea of being chaste in marriage unless ready for children with the verse in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that speaks of the following: (not exact words but the gist)

“Husbands, give yourselves to your wives, and wives likewise to your husbands. Do not deny each other except for a time, and with consent of the other, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again.”

It says nothing about children. I believe that sex is a blessing from God, for the pleasure and increasing of love and unity between husbands and wives, a sacred and special act, and that while children are one result, they need not be the only result. This is what I glean from that Scripture.

I guess my biggest question is—and maybe I should have posted this on another thread–but since I agree with most of the theology and the interpretation of the Scriptures of the Catholic Church, and feel more at home during Mass than I ever have during any Protestant service, is it realistic to think that I cannot become Catholic simply because I cannot reconcile contraception being evil?

Well, that verse does not say anything about childreen just as it does not say anything about sex. Both of these we are only derivating them from the verse because we think we know the meaning. That’s why we need to study the Church teachings and also try to understand the why of things if we can.

Spouse can deprive each other in other ways too not just in sex. A spouse can refuse to talk, or to share a meal while accepting sex. In this case I think a person is still depriving their spouse, because they are not giving themselves fully. Fully is not just sex.

I truly believe that Mary and Joseph gave themselves full to each other, otherwise they would not have been called spouse validly. But how do we supposed they did it without sex? This is because sex is not a thing in itself, it has a reason of being. I believe that having all people (who will be saved; past, present, and future) as their childreen in Jesus, they were satisfied enough not to plan an other child. As a result they simply did not have sex. Nothing says that sex was forbidden for them for any reason. They chose not to have it because they want to be perfect.

I think this is the message we should get from her perpetual virginity. And this is what the Church is trying to tell us by asking us to follow her example. The Holy Family is our standard of living.

Yes, sex is a blessing. God gave us pleasure in all activity. Eating is one example. But God also says that if we want to be perfect, we eat what is necessary for our health and we give the rest to the poor. People like St. Francis are a good example for this. So we don’t abuse food just because eating is pleasurable.

For sex. I can see that if couple decide to have sex only when they plan to have a child, life would be much better. Women who struggle with their life because of those ‘surprise’ pregnancy would not suffer. They can look at the health of the mother or economic situation and act accordingly. This is how we can reconcile God goodness and blessings. I have heard many women who seem to complain about NFP because they failed somewhere and got pregnant when they were not ready, or when their body can not handle an other child so they wonder why the Church wouldn’t allow them to use contraception or sterilize themselves. But the Church would not do that. It expect them to practise self control. This is what God expect of us. And the best solution is simply not to have sex. May be they could pray to Mary and Joseph for guidance on how they can give each other fully without sex. It is not a miserable life unless they make it one. I don’t think Mary was miserable or consacrated people are miserable.

God bless

 

[gardenswithkids]

Hi. I’m new here, and this thread caught my eye. I am in the process of becoming a new Catholic, currently in RCIA, went to Mass for the first time last Sunday, etc…

This issue is one of the few tenets of Church teaching that I have a huge problem with. I’ve read through all the posts, and while all the supporters very thoroughly explain the Church’s position, I haven’t seen anything to convince me of why…

Hello Hadassajones.:tiphat: Welcome to Catholic Answers Forum and thank you for exploring the Catholic Church and her teachings.

Your interest in Archeology may assist you as you explore the teachings of the Catholic Church. Ancient civiliations held information and knowledge that get buried under dirt and debris. Archeologists dig to discover things that were known and that existed long before our present civilization.

I’m one who thinks in metaphores, and this metaphore came to me because of your interest in Archeology. Consider that buried beneath a landfill of waste from contraception lies the answer and a treasure that you seek. Our current culture is buried in contraception. It’s everywhere. You probably don’t even realize that you view life through layers of latex and artificial hormones designed to prevent the conception of life.

In order to understand the Church teachings on marriage and family, carefully remove the dirt that clouds you from discovering the beauty that existed since God created marriage and family. You need to dig for the truth through the layers of sin from the past. (The sin is not just your sin or my sin, but the collective sin of many.) Think of it as “spiritual archeology”.

The Catholic Church holds ancient truths and wisdom. For example you quoted Corinthians, which comes from an ancient document, the Bible, which the Catholic Church carefully preserved through the centuries. Not everyone can read and fully understand ancient documents. The Holy Spirit helps us understand the Bible, and the Holy Spirit also works through the Catholic Church to helps us more fully understand ancient wisdom and truth.

My problems with it are this: I believe that sex within marriage is to strengthen the bond between the couple and share in that which was naturally created by God: sexual desire. When I see an attractive man, my first thought isn’t that I want to have babies with him!?..

You uncovered part of an ancient truth. Yes, sex within marriage strengthens the bonds between the couple. Yes, sex also allows the couple to share with each other sexual desire. Dig deeper. Why did God create sexual desire? What other kinds of bonds does sex create? (hint: think genetics.)

Firstly, I can see how this teaching would have been feasible a hundred years ago, when a woman’s purpose was considered to be marriage and family. This has changed. I am in my first year of college, and I intend to go forwards and get my doctorate. I also intend to spend some time excavating and traveling before I “settle down” and become a professor (my degree is in archaeology). It will take me roughly seven years to get my doctorate, and I don’t know that I will go straight into teaching. A child at any point in this time would completely ruin my plans for my education and career. Yet my boyfriend is twenty-seven, and he wants to get married in his early thirties. I too want to be married sometime in the next few years. Why should I have to wait to share the unity of marriage with a man I love, **and all that that contains, **simply because a child is not desirable before the next ten years or so?..

Until you are ready to accept children in marriage, you will not have all that marriage contains. Many in our culture are confused about the definition of marriage.

The original poster in this thread asked earlier about the possible consequences of his thinking. That is one consequence: contraception in marriage breeds confussion about what marriage really is. People stop thinking about marriage as being the building block of society for the creation and protection of children. They get confused and they forget one of the primary purposes of marriage and human sexuality.

This thread is already long. It would probably serve you better to start a new thread to explore more of your specific concerns. As you can see from the original post, this topic is one that many Catholics struggle with. I struggled with it.too. I hope your concerns won’t keep you from exploring the Catholic Church, and I hope that you will keep digging for the truth.

 

[LittleDeb]

I know, I know, I’m late to the party…Sorry. But at least I showed up!

Gardenswithkids is doing an excellent job explaining, (as usual.) Good job dear friend! But I think we have not taken advantage of a very unique situation in this thread. For the OP English is not a first language…HOW COOL!! We have the opportunity here to really understand *Catholic *(universal) teaching. WOO HOO!!

What I see in this thread is an attempt to define a few terms like procreative. That is great, yet we are still leaving other terms hanging in the wind. The term NFP, or “natural family planning” is a misnomer too! It was coined for one purpose, to distinguish from unnatural family planning.

What the documents in question (HV, TOB) actually refer to is an “exclusive use of the infertile phase.**” As was rightly pointed out, breastfeeding is part of natural family planning. We contradict ourselves if we say a couple must have serious/grave reason to use NFP if in fact breastfeeding is an aspect of NFP. Well I guess I had very serious reason to breast-feed my babies. They were hungry!

Where many of these discussions go off track is that they begin with children and work backwards. This leads right into confusion because we are trying to back up the train. We instead must always work as Scripture does, “In the beginning…” Many people have tried in this thread to start at the foundation of marriage but then it jumps the tracks.

Gardens and others have done an excellent job of trying to explain from the beginning. In order to answer the question of artificial birth control vs. natural birth regulation we have to begin with the marriage act and move forward. We must actually use our reason. Beginning with babies as a result does not use reason. It appeals to emotional responses.

 

[bquinn]

I apologize if this was mentioned, as I did not read through the entire thread. Christopher West does an awesome job of explaining the Theology of the Body.

Basically, In our marrige vows (a vow is much stronger than an ordinary promise -scriptural theology) we promise to give ourselves completely to ur spouse. This is done to the fullest extent when we give ourselves to each other in the ‘marriage act’. If using artificial contraception, we are holding back a part of ourselves from our spouse. With Natural Family Planning, we are giving ourselves to each other, completely, as we are at the time of coming together, whether it is a fertile time or not.

This is the main reason contraception is intrinsically evil, because it breaks our marriage vows to one another.

But contraception also harms all of society. Do you know that the hormones from birth control pills, released through waste into our waterways, has reduced the fish population and caused many species of aquatic life to come near extinction.

Contraception also makes it much easier for people to have extramarital affairs, because they don’t have a fear of being ‘caught’. Contraception has led to a huge increase in the number of abortions, because again, people esp out of wedlock believe they can have sex without the chance of getting pregnant, but oops, it fails and now they have to ‘hide what they did’, so abort the child.

I know these reasons sound far fetch IF you are using contraception within a valid marriage, and trust your spouse not to have an affair. But what it does to society in general, make it something that again is intrinsically eveil. In addition to the reasons above (breaking of marriage vows, harm to environment…)

Look up Janet Smith: Contraception, Why Not? You can order a free CD. It is very compelling.

 

[Jude_Smith]

How do you reconcile the idea of being chaste in marriage unless ready for children with the verse in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that speaks of the following: (not exact words but the gist)

“Husbands, give yourselves to your wives, and wives likewise to your husbands. Do not deny each other except for a time, and with consent of the other, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again.”

It says nothing about children. I believe that sex is a blessing from God, for the pleasure and increasing of love and unity between husbands and wives, a sacred and special act, and that while children are one result, they need not be the only result. This is what I glean from that Scripture.

True, St. Paul doesn’t address the issue of birth control. But I know I have read that early Christians stood out in their refusal to use birth control. So it would seem that St. Paul didn’t feel a need to address that issue.

I guess my biggest question is—and maybe I should have posted this on another thread–but since I agree with most of the theology and the interpretation of the Scriptures of the Catholic Church, and feel more at home during Mass than I ever have during any Protestant service, is it realistic to think that I cannot become Catholic simply because I cannot reconcile contraception being evil?

The question here is whether you believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church founded by Christ and given authority to teach. If so, you need to join this Church, and follow its guidance whether you fully understand a teaching or not; of course, you should be praying to be able to understand and accept all of the teachings of the Church.

 

[Rico_S]

Hi Coder:

To the O.P. what would be the purpose of engaging in relations with a spouse while using means to prevent conception?

For the same purpose that those who pracitce NFP want to egage in the marital embrace without producing children.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

I apologize if this was mentioned, as I did not read through the entire thread. Christopher West does an awesome job of explaining the Theology of the Body.

Basically, In our marrige vows (a vow is much stronger than an ordinary promise -scriptural theology) we promise to give ourselves completely to ur spouse. This is done to the fullest extent when we give ourselves to each other in the ‘marriage act’. If using artificial contraception, we are holding back a part of ourselves from our spouse. With Natural Family Planning, we are giving ourselves to each other, completely, as we are at the time of coming together, whether it is a fertile time or not.

This is the main reason contraception is intrinsically evil, because it breaks our marriage vows to one another.

I never found this argument compelling. I mean, am I really giving myself completely to my spouse if I say, “I would love to engage in the conjugal act without altering the act itself, but only on the 3 days before your period” Hmmm.

But contraception also harms all of society. Do you know that the hormones from birth control pills, released through waste into our waterways, has reduced the fish population and caused many species of aquatic life to come near extinction.

So a contributing factor to the pill’s intrinsic evil is that its improper disposal has negative effects on our environment?

Contraception also makes it much easier for people to have extramarital affairs, because they don’t have a fear of being ‘caught’. Contraception has led to a huge increase in the number of abortions, because again, people esp out of wedlock believe they can have sex without the chance of getting pregnant, but oops, it fails and now they have to ‘hide what they did’, so abort the child.

I will grant you that ease and availability of contraception has made it easier for people to engage in extramarital affairs and premarital sex with much less fear of consequences than in times past. But just b/c something can be misused does not mean that it is intrinsically evil. Misuse of alcohol causes a large number of deaths and the destruction of an enormous number of families. Is alcohol evil?

Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that ABC is not intrinsically evil (I definitely lean that way though), but I am saying that your arguments as to why it is aren’t very compelling…at least not to me.

–Rico

 

[Jude_Smith]

So a contributing factor to the pill’s intrinsic evil is that its improper disposal has negative effects on our environment?

–Rico

This is not a matter of improper disposal, but of the hormones passing through the systems of all the women taking “the pill.” No, this reason isn’t proof that the pill itself is wrong, but it’s yet more evidence of what happens when we play around with nature. Unlike things we do to fix problems with the body (such as correcting vision or repairing handicaps), in the case of contraception we’re interfering with the normal functioning of the body.

 

[bquinn]

I never found this argument compelling. I mean, am I really giving myself completely to my spouse if I say, “I would love to engage in the conjugal act without altering the act itself, but only on the 3 days before your period” Hmmm.
–Rico

Well, first you misunderstand NFP if you think there are only 3 days of infertility. In reality there is only 3-5 days of fertility. Trye love does mean being able to control oneself, for the good of the other. If your spouse was sick with the flu, would you say, but I can’t wait 3 days? I would hope you would see that it is more loving to wait the 3 days, receive greater fulfillment, because you put your spouse’s needs above yours. Isn’t that true love?

 

[mpernot]

I apologize if this was mentioned, as I did not read through the entire thread. Christopher West does an awesome job of explaining the Theology of the Body.

I completely agree, I spent the first few pages of this thread explaining some of the main points of Theology of the Body and how it answers the OP’s question. It is the best resource I have found on the subject because it comes straight from Pope John Paul II and the explanation by Christopher West (or Jason and Crystallina Evert in the Theology of the Body for Teens version) is so clear. The whole point of this thread has to do with the way God designed marriage and how we change that plan when we contracept and/or misuse NFP vs. how the plan is unchanged when NFP is used properly, as you point out with the significance of the marriage vows. This is a “hard teaching” (where have you heard that before; hint - John 6), and I think many people are just not open to it regardless of the arguments presented on its behalf.

Look up Janet Smith: Contraception, Why Not? You can order a free CD. It is very compelling.

This is a great resource, she does an excellent job. Christopher West also has a free tape titled “Marriage and the Eucharist”, which is similar but takes the Theology of the Body angle instead of the statistical evidence like Janet Smith does.

 

[bquinn]

So a contributing factor to the pill’s intrinsic evil is that its improper disposal has negative effects on our environment?
Answered above, thanks.

I will grant you that ease and availability of contraception has made it easier for people to engage in extramarital affairs and premarital sex with much less fear of consequences than in times past. But just b/c something can be misused does not mean that it is intrinsically evil. Misuse of alcohol causes a large number of deaths and the destruction of an enormous number of families. Is alcohol evil?

Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that ABC is not intrinsically evil (I definitely lean that way though), but I am saying that your arguments as to why it is aren’t very compelling…at least not to me.

–Rico

Ahh, but the proper use of contraception is an intrinsic evil in and of itself, the harm it does to society as a whole leads to a greater spread of evil.

 

[Rico_S]

Jude:

This is not a matter of improper disposal, but of the hormones passing through the systems of all the women taking “the pill.” No, this reason isn’t proof that the pill itself is wrong, but it’s yet more evidence of what happens when we play around with nature.

Thanks for the clarification. Since I am obviously ignorant on the matter, I did a cursory google search and read a couple of articles. It seems that the problem is not limited to sex hormones. Antibiotics, anti-dpression drugs, pain relievers, are also showing up in trace amounts water sources across the country.

–rico