Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?

[wanner47]

This is simply ignoring centuries of Catholic faith. The doctrine that sex is only for procreation has been constantly repeated by saints and doctors of the Church. No document prior to Casti Connubii claimed sexuality is sign of marital love and joy. The role of secular pressure comes to mind.

Leading figure of mentioned document, St. Augustine of Hippo, claimed heretics can be recognized by their calculation when woman is fertile after menstruation.

If Church did not teach these things, then it never teached anything.

You are incorrect. The Church has taught that the PRIMARY purpose of sex is procreation. This is different from the ONLY purpose. Read the article I linked above, noting that the Church in the 1800’s said it was acceptable for couples to abstain during fertile periods to avoid pregnancy. This ruling, in the affirmative, predates Casti Connubi by many decades.

 

[wanner47]

I am simply addressing the issue from theological point of view. Applying the view Catholic took on nature, there can’t be unwise or irresponsible acts, since their outcome belongs to God.

Case of NFP is most evident. If you are always open to life during intercourse, there is no theological explanation why you would have less children then God intends to give you.

This is not correct. You are eliminating free will, as well as God’s permissive will (in that He allows irresponsible behavior even if He does not will it.)

You are also forgetting, “Thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test.” It is irresponsible to not use our God-given intellect to discern God’s will in terms of family size. God does not will, nor does the Church require, every married couple to have as many children as they are physically capable of having.

 

[lareinatortura]

No. Using contraception is an intrinsically evil act under any circumstances.

What about for medical treatment–“therapeutic use”–of chemical imbalances and certain disorders?

 

[Chrono13]

You are incorrect. The Church has taught that the PRIMARY purpose of sex is procreation. This is different from the ONLY purpose.

You are mistaken. For Church, sexuality had two ends: procreation and ease of temptation. The second one, according to then current theology, came after the fall of Adam. The only natural reason for sexuality is procreation, and this stance was the only one prior to 19th Century. A lot of bizarre theological phenomena is linked to it, but for now, let’s just repeat that Catholic Church saw no connection between sexuality and love of the spouses. You could have loved woman, without having relations with her.

Read the article I linked above, noting that the Church in the 1800’s said it was acceptable for couples to abstain during fertile periods to avoid pregnancy. This ruling, in the affirmative, predates Casti Connubi by many decades.

As I mentioned, Church stance begun to crumble in 19th Century. Main reason is probably secular pressure. It would be difficult for Church to defend the idea that sex is only for procreation after French Revolution changed the situation in the field. The bizarre problem is that bishops simply chose to ignore the original teaching, leaving Church vulnerable to criticism.

Church taught that sex is only for procreation, and each intercourse must be done with intent of begetting a child. Relations on infertile day were not forbidden, if the intent was begetting. But if you are having intercourse on the infertile day-because it is infertile day- you are sinning. This was the teaching until 19th Century.

 

[Chrono13]

This is not correct. You are eliminating free will, as well as God’s permissive will (in that He allows irresponsible behavior even if He does not will it.)

I certainly don’t eliminate free will. Rather, one can’t ignore the obvious theological issues you are rising with your approach to subject. If you are open to life, you can’t be irresponsible, since you will have the same number of children whether they are conceived on fertile or infertile day. Or do you think relations on infertile will somehow stop Lord from doing His will?

You are also forgetting, “Thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test.” It is irresponsible to not use our God-given intellect to discern God’s will in terms of family size. God does not will, nor does the Church require, every married couple to have as many children as they are physically capable of having.

This is what I am talking about. If God doesn’t want family to be oversized, he simply won’t beget a child. The way you approach this case is that pair can be held morally responsible for oversized family, although each child was will of God.

It is difficult not to observe the standard conservative approach to the situation. In case of irresponsible parenthood- God is wise for creating new life, but people are guilty for their lack of reason or control. One must admit that this will surely make people go away from the Church, since it seems more like a construction to make them feel miserable, then encourage their modesty and praise to the Lord.

 

[Chrono13]

I missed this one.

Actually, you’re wrong on both counts. NFP has a method effectiveness of 99%, and divorce rate among NFP couples is extremely low.

As I mentioned earlier, studies are usually done in short terms, during which most women don’t experience situation which changes their body characteristics. Flu, shock, stress, exhaustion… all of these can change woman’s fertility signs. This is what makes data of effectiveness doubtful.

People practicing NFP usually do so because of their (Roman Catholic) religion, which claims divorce and second marriage is unacceptable. This is the real reason why divorce rate is low.

Deliberately frustrating conception is not morally acceptable. Avoiding conception by choosing not to engage in intercourse is not the same as frustrating conception. NFP works with God’s design for our bodies. Contraception works against it.

 

[Chrono13]

I missed this one.

Actually, you’re wrong on both counts. NFP has a method effectiveness of 99%, and divorce rate among NFP couples is extremely low.

As I mentioned earlier, studies are usually done in short terms, during which most women don’t experience situation which changes their body characteristics. Flu, shock, stress, exhaustion… all of these can change woman’s fertility signs. This is what makes data of effectiveness doubtful.

People practicing NFP usually do so because of their (Roman Catholic) religion, which claims divorce and second marriage is unacceptable. This is the real reason why divorce rate is low. Not NFP. Not abstinence.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I am simply addressing the issue from theological point of view. Applying the view Catholic took on nature, there can’t be unwise or irresponsible acts, since their outcome belongs to God.

That’s not Catholic. That’s more like a nihilistic hyper-Calvinism.

God never forces; He only invites. We have our free will, and we can absolutely use it to thwart His will. That, at it’s most basic level, is what sin is. (but it isn’t always sinful. Sometimes we just make mistakes.)

Sure, God is outside of time and knows how it’s all going to work out, but He would never force us into that framework, because He is Love, and love isn’t love anymore if it’s forced on somebody.

 

[Chrono13]

I am simply addressing the issue from theological point of view. Applying the view Catholic took on nature, there can’t be unwise or irresponsible acts, since their outcome belongs to God.

That’s not Catholic. That’s more like a nihilistic hyper-Calvinism.

God never forces; He only invites. We have our free will, and we can absolutely use it to thwart His will. That, at it’s most basic level, is what sin is. (but it isn’t always sinful. Sometimes we just make mistakes.)

Sure, God is outside of time and knows how it’s all going to work out, but He would never force us into that framework, because He is Love, and love isn’t love anymore if it’s forced on somebody.

Since I never claimed God forces anybody, I do not feel your remarks about my calvinism stand ground. My confirmation of free will makes it very clear.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I may be misreading you, but it sure sounds like you said that we might have something called free will, but it doesn’t really matter, because God will do what He wants regardless. I strongly disagree.

That’s what bugs me: the part about it not really mattering, which I’m taking from your statement about there is no responsible/irresponsible.

It might not be direct force, removing our actual choice, but it’s still force if He’s taking our choices and changing the consequences to fit His preferred outcome.

If I’m reading you incorrectly, please clarify!

 

[Chrono13]

I may be misreading you, but it sure sounds like you said that we might have something called free will, but it doesn’t really matter, because God will do what He wants regardless. I strongly disagree.

That’s what bugs me: the part about it not really mattering, which I’m taking from your statement about there is no responsible/irresponsible.

It might not be direct force, removing our actual choice, but it’s still force if He’s taking our choices and changing the consequences to fit His preferred outcome.

If I’m reading you incorrectly, please clarify!

I simply claim that system of free will has little influence when speaking of NFP.

You have free will to have relations on infertile day, but you will not stop begetting a child if God wants it to be begotten. This *theological *paradox makes NFP completely ineffective method of childbirth control. Your free will "does not matter "when there is no explanation how it influences the outcome.

It is as if we would say that people have free will to control birth wearing a hat.

 

[kcanning]

No, the church does not require a woman who uses the pill for medicinal purposes to abstain from marital relations. Some moral theologians do express that opinion , however.

Like everyone else it appears, I’m no expert, but I do think we need to make the distinction when speaking of birth control between contraceptives (condoms for example) and abortifacients (IUD, Depoprovera) for example. The “pill” is supposed to be somewhere in the middle - meaning sometimes it does cause spontaneous abortions and sometimes it acts as a contraceptive.

It is hard to believe that the Church would ever approve using something that results in spontaneous abortions some of the time and yet would still tell a married couple it is okay to continue relations as normal. I would personally have to see some Church document taking this position before I believe it.

 

[SwizzleStick]

What about for medical treatment–“therapeutic use”–of chemical imbalances and certain disorders?

See posts #56 and #57 of the thread.

Ok, so while we’re on the topic of birth control…

I have polycystic ovary sydrome (PCOS for short). Due to this, I can not have children. Because PCOS causes a hormone imbalance, my doctor prescribed birth control pills to regulate this imbalance.

Is it still wrong to take the birth control pills? In my case it’s NOT to prevent conception, but to help regulate hormone levels.

(name removed by moderator)ut please??
SwizzleStick;7834006:

It is morally acceptable to use hormone therapy to treat some medical conditions, but not to prevent conception. I suggest you speak with your confessor for guidance and also seek out the counsel of a good NFP doctor.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Dear SwizzleStick:

How is it valid?

Let’s look at the thread question: “Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?”

It’s valid because “certain circumstances”, like making life safer for women who live in countries with poor health care, warrant birth control/contraception. Countries where contraception is easily available have healthier women.

I yet again do not have much time, but I wanted to again address the above from yesterday. I quickly posted this forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7834713&postcount=80 and I have to leave again, but…

You said let’s look at the thread question “Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?” and then went on to discuss the use of birth control in “certain circumstances” from a completely secular point of view. I see your point that the world sees contraception as a good thing. But, please see mine. From a completely secular point of view, the question is “crazy” (as quoted from the post below by Question12345) because from a completely secular point of view, birth control is valid whenever, wherever, however and is seen as a very good thing. The question would not even be asked in the general population. But, it was asked on a Catholic forum by a Catholic. Therefore, it needs to be answered from a Catholic viewpoint because we already know the general viewpoint.

I never had any idea people were this crazy when it comes to birth control. Of course you should use birth control if you are going top pass on a genetic disease or even if you don’t want any more children. It’s a choice. Do you really think Jesus would object to making a choice that is GOOD?

 

[wanner47]

I missed this one.

As I mentioned earlier, studies are usually done in short terms, during which most women don’t experience situation which changes their body characteristics. Flu, shock, stress, exhaustion… all of these can change woman’s fertility signs. This is what makes data of effectiveness doubtful.

In NFP classes women are taught to account for such fluctuations. All charts have an area to mark illness, times of stress, irregular sleep patterns, etc. These are to be taken in conjunction with fertility signs.

Have you ever taken an NFP class? You seem to know pretty much nothing about the method.

People practicing NFP usually do so because of their (Roman Catholic) religion, which claims divorce and second marriage is unacceptable. This is the real reason why divorce rate is low. Not NFP. Not abstinence.

Actually, according to most studies the rate of Catholic divorce is the same as the general population. Many Catholics ignore the teachings about ABC and divorce.

There are also many non-Catholics who use NFP, and the divorce rate stays about the same whether you’re polling Catholics or non-Catholics who use NFP. It’s gaining popularity among segments of the population who wish to live more holistically without putting chemicals or foreign objects in their bodies.

 

[Chrono13]

In NFP classes women are taught to account for such fluctuations. All charts have an area to mark illness, times of stress, irregular sleep patterns, etc. These are to be taken in conjunction with fertility signs.

Have you ever taken an NFP class? You seem to know pretty much nothing about the method.

How can they chart “time of stress” or “irregular sleep” when it is not standard pattern of the month? Not to mention that they don’t know whether stress influences fertility or not.

I have researched topic of NFP quite extensively, especially it’s theological background.

Actually, according to most studies the rate of Catholic divorce is the same as the general population. Many Catholics ignore the teachings about ABC and divorce.

Since most Catholics ignore the teaching, they live as general population, and this is why they have same rates of divorce. Practical Catholics know that they can’t remarry, which is the main reason why their population has lower divorce rates. NFP has little to do with that.

There are also many non-Catholics who use NFP, and the divorce rate stays about the same whether you’re polling Catholics or non-Catholics who use NFP. It’s gaining popularity among segments of the population who wish to live more holistically without putting chemicals or foreign objects in their bodies.

I think that numbers of those using NFP out of religious reasons are too limited for a more systematical analysis. However, if pair sees value in it, they will surely increase their bond practicing NFP. But there are pairs who see this value in artificial contraception, and their bond also increases for the same reasons.

The link you provided leads to a source which doesn’t give much to this discussion. It simply says protestants should avoid contraception.

 

[wanner47]

How can they chart “time of stress” or “irregular sleep” when it is not standard pattern of the month? Not to mention that they don’t know whether stress influences fertility or not.

Because most women don’t HAVE a “standard pattern” for the month, and so we’re taught to chart anything that might affect our cycle. I ovulate any time from day 17-day 25, sometimes later. It’s not consistent at all.

I have researched topic of NFP quite extensively, especially it’s theological background.

Have you taken an NFP class? Have you read “The Art of Natural Family Planning” or “Taking Charge of Your Fertility”?

Since most Catholics ignore the teaching, they live as general population, and this is why they have same rates of divorce. Practical Catholics know that they can’t remarry, which is the main reason why their population has lower divorce rates. NFP has little to do with that.

So many Catholics divorce but don’t remarry… which affects the divorce rate how?

I think that numbers of those using NFP out of religious reasons are too limited for a more systematical analysis. However, if pair sees value in it, they will surely increase their bond practicing NFP. But there are pairs who see this value in artificial contraception, and their bond also increases for the same reasons.

If that’s the case, why is the divorce rate so high as it is? Why do Planned Parenthood’s own statistics state that 54% of abortive women were contracepting at the time they became pregnant? If contraception is the panacea that ensures happy marriages, why has it proven to be EXACTLY the opposite?

The link you provided leads to a source which doesn’t give much to this discussion. It simply says protestants should avoid contraception.

Okay, try this one: ncregister.com/site/article/nfp_catching_on_with_more_protestants/

 

[Warrior1979]

A huge problem with the Pill is that much of the time it is not merely contraceptive, but abortifacient.

This is false. Basically, the pill stops ovulation. There is a small possibility that an egg could be released, fertilized, and not implant due to the condition of the uterus…as is the small possibility of the fertilized egg implanting and the woman becoming pregnant.

Representing “a very small possibility” is not the same as “much of the time.”

The fact that there is a risk that a newly created child might be killed by the Pill is enough to decide not to use it while you are having marital relations.

This event occurs naturally. Not all fertilized eggs implant for all sorts of reasons, and the number of times this occurs can be significant depending on which source you wish to deem credible. In fact, the number of times it occurs is more likely to be greater when not using the pill, since ovulation isn’t impeded, the number of eggs fertilized will be greater, and thus the number of non-implanting eggs will be greater.

Naturally, this creates an interesting moral dilemma.

 

[wanner47]

This is false. Basically, the pill stops ovulation. There is a small possibility that an egg could be released, fertilized, and not implant due to the condition of the uterus…as is the small possibility of the fertilized egg implanting and the woman becoming pregnant.

Representing “a very small possibility” is not the same as “much of the time.”

But the fact it is abortifacent at all, small possibility or not, makes the Pill morally problematic for Catholics and others opposed to the direct killing of innocent human life.

This event occurs naturally. Not all fertilized eggs implant for all sorts of reasons, and the number of times this occurs can be significant depending on which source you wish to deem credible. In fact, the number of times it occurs is more likely to be greater when not using the pill, since ovulation isn’t impeded, the number of eggs fertilized will be greater, and thus the number of non-implanting eggs will be greater.

Naturally, this creates an interesting moral dilemma.

Are you saying that abortion and miscarriage are exactly the same thing?

As the mother of two miscarried babies, I find that flagrantly offensive. You are essentially accusing me of killing my children, and I can assure you that nothing is further than the truth.

 

[caoindealbhan]

Contraception should be implemented if predicting a woman’s period is not effective. To have more than four children is irresponsible, selfish, and abusive.