Is the Church's Ban on Non-Abortive Artificial Birth Control a Doctrine or Discipline?

[frindro]

Thoughtfulone, the Church’s position on contraception is infallibly defined.

See these:
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=2508

Contraception is evil not based on circumstances. The act itself is evil, and this is infallibly taught by the Church. If you disagree with this, then you are standing opposed to the very authority of the Catholic Church (Matthew 16:18-19).

I invite anyone to correct me if I’m understanding this wrong, but I’m pretty sure if a Catholic knowingly denies this on their own free will, then they commit heresy. Heresy is something one should steer clear from, so I ask you to please reconsider your position.

Also, Thoughtfulone, your situation of poor people is a false dichotomy: if this were true then every baby in Africa would either die of starvation or be infected with HIV from birth.

Finally, I am a bit uncertain about willofgods’ comment, since contraception in the hypothetical situation of absolutely no possibility of pregnancy would still prevent the natural completion of the marital act, though I am ready to be corrected if some documentation from the Holy See is found on the matter.

 

[Alan55]

SF, Abortion aside, contraception alters the very foundation of sex from being a self-giving act to a mutually taking one. When one couple avoids pregnancy (for serious reason) by sacrificing sexual intimacy for a time, sex for them remains very much emotionally and spiritually tied to baby-making!

When another couple (for whatever reason) resorts to contraception to avoid pregnancy, they (perhaps unknowingly) CHANGE the nature of sex to something entirely peripheral to the subject of children. Without that link, human nature pushes extremely hard to debase the sex into a selfish experience instead of a giving one.

These, of course, are deep principles, not necessarily what is at the front of anyone’s mind at the moment in question! But God established our passions for a reason within healthy parameters. As with any passion, when it becomes unbalanced, it becomes self destructive.

I’ve never bought that argument. If a couple takes steps to prevent pregnancy, such as by using NFP, the fact remains that they want to have sex but they don’t want to conceive. I don’t think that a Catholic couple who uses artificial contraception (e.g., birth control pills) for a time to prevent pregnancy, and who later stops using artificial contraception in order to have a baby, can be said to have “giving” sex before and “selfish” sex after making that decision. The Augustinian notion that the only legitimate, sinless sexual activity involves the intention to conceive is unrealistic. Married people have sex for lots of reasons – to express love, to feel closer to their spouse, because it is fun and feels good, just because they desire to, and, occasionally because they want to make a baby – and their sexual activity is not “debased into a selfish experience instead of a giving one” just because they use artificial contraception. To say that sex somehow magically becomes loving and giving and “unitive” just because a couple complies with Church teaching makes no sense to me whatsoever. Lots of couples have loving, giving sexual relations while using artificial contraception, and other couples have selfish, unloving sexual relations while complying (at least formally) with Church teaching.

 

[Carlan]

Not only is ABC a sin against chastity,it also closes the mind to the openness of life and if unsuccessful will in most case lead to the killing of life in the womb, abortion.

ABC is an evil practice.
Peace, Carlan

 

[manualman]

I’ve never bought that argument. If a couple takes steps to prevent pregnancy, such as by using NFP, the fact remains that they want to have sex but they don’t want to conceive. I don’t think that a Catholic couple who uses artificial contraception (e.g., birth control pills) for a time to prevent pregnancy, and who later stops using artificial contraception in order to have a baby, can be said to have “giving” sex before and “selfish” sex after making that decision. The Augustinian notion that the only legitimate, sinless sexual activity involves the intention to conceive is unrealistic. Married people have sex for lots of reasons – to express love, to feel closer to their spouse, because it is fun and feels good, just because they desire to, and, occasionally because they want to make a baby – and their sexual activity is not “debased into a selfish experience instead of a giving one” just because they use artificial contraception. To say that sex somehow magically becomes loving and giving and “unitive” just because a couple complies with Church teaching makes no sense to me whatsoever. Lots of couples have loving, giving sexual relations while using artificial contraception, and other couples have selfish, unloving sexual relations while complying (at least formally) with Church teaching.

Please don’t distort what I said. Nobody here ever claimed that obedience “magically transforms” you or your sexual relationship. It is entirely possible to be both obedient and deviant minded. But you know what? It’s bloomin rare! Catholics obedient to church teaching have a divorce rate in the low single digits. Contraceptive catholics have a divorce rate indistinguishable from the general populace! (couple to couple league data).

Contraception isn’t the uber sin that tops all others. Nobody here is saying that. Some guys view porn and manage to stay married too. Sometimes the guy who was the notorious lecher ends up happily married in the end. But not usually. Sins usually hollow you out slowly. Often so slowly that people don’t even notice the cause. Grace, of course, is offered to all sinners. Those who practice contraception through invincible ignorance aren’t necessarily damned and God often has mercy on the ignorant. But it is always harmful to sin. That’s the definition!

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone, the Church’s position on contraception is infallibly defined.

See these:
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=2508

Contraception is evil not based on circumstances. The act itself is evil, and this is infallibly taught by the Church. If you disagree with this, then you are standing opposed to the very authority of the Catholic Church (Matthew 16:18-19).

I invite anyone to correct me if I’m understanding this wrong, but I’m pretty sure if a Catholic knowingly denies this on their own free will, then they commit heresy. Heresy is something one should steer clear from, so I ask you to please reconsider your position.

Also, Thoughtfulone, your situation of poor people is a false dichotomy: if this were true then every baby in Africa would either die of starvation or be infected with HIV from birth.

Finally, I am a bit uncertain about willofgods’ comment, since contraception in the hypothetical situation of absolutely no possibility of pregnancy would still prevent the natural completion of the marital act, though I am ready to be corrected if some documentation from the Holy See is found on the matter.

If it was infallibly defined, the Church would just come out and say it, considering all the controversy that surrounds it. The bottom line is, it’s not. Many MANY priests agree that it has not been infallibly defined and so do many theologians.

And why should EVERY baby have to die for contraception to be morally justifiable? This “intrinsic evil” idea doesn’t fly. The bottom line is, sometimes, a person might have to choose between a dead baby, and either a condom or a life of marital celibacy. The bottom line is that these people can often support one, maybe two children and no more. When it gets to the point where there are 7, 8, 9 kids, they just die of starvation. I guess all marital relations should be suspended then so as not to bring any more children into the world? And NFP works best when ALL of the methods are used, including basal body temperature and charting, which these people cannot do because they do not have the means. Otherwise, it is just not that accurate. Also, I don’t see the Catholic Church running out and sending people into the remote areas of the African jungle who know how to speak various obscure African languages and dialects teaching these people NFP and giving them the tools to use it.

 

[casey_zia]

This is where I get a little shaky on the matter. The reason being because although the official church teaching has always been against any form of artificial contraception, the bishops have not always been in agreement on the subject. So while one can say that the Church has always taught ABC is wrong, they have often done so out of pure submission to the Supreme Pontiff, not out of the belief that it is intrinsically wrong. So does this affect the infallibility of the doctrine? It’s a weighty question. The infallibility of the magisterium’s teachings implicitly rests upon the idea that there is a general consensus on the morality or immorality of the doctrine in question. When there is no consensus, but merely faithful submission, how does this affect the infallibility of a specific doctrine?

Belief in something doesn’t affect the teaching authority of the Church. This teaching authority, the Magisterium, is comprised of the pope and all the bishops in communion with him. Consensus has nothing to do with doctrine.

Also, when debating this topic, we must take into consideration those from underdeveloped, starving countries. NFP (natural family planning) is very scientific and requires the use of thermometers, charts, LOTS of education regarding the science behind the practice and other tools used in conjunction with each other in order to produce an accurate representation of female fertility. Clearly, those most affected by poverty and starvation do not have these means available to them. While NFP might be more or less as effective as ABC, it is a fact that those who are most affected by this issue do not have the means to practice it.

This statement is completely unfounded. First, NFP, although it has the backing of science and research, does not require lots of education or charts or thermometers, or even literacy. When methods like the Billings (mucus only) are taught in the poorer nations, they are quickly accepted because the women are so much more aware of their fertility signs than we are in the developed world. It makes sense to them, and they already have a sense of what’s happening in their cycles. The most important factor is effective teaching. Two huge studies done for the Billings Ovulation Method in China and India have shown an over 99% efficacy rate for avoiding pregnancy.

It is a patronizing and condescending attitude to assume that “the poor” cannot understand or live out natural family planning practices. They embrace it and live it, without arguing theology or bishops’ concensus. It just makes sense.

 

[Carlan]

So some governments should perhaps advocate the Chinese law of making it illegal to have more than one child?
Wonder how long it would take to exterminate world population.
T he country of Australia, at one time, would pay married couples an endowment for the children they have.That country may still have that provision. Peace, Carlan

 

[casey_zia]

And why should EVERY baby have to die for contraception to be morally justifiable? This “intrinsic evil” idea doesn’t fly. The bottom line is, sometimes, a person might have to choose between a dead baby, and either a condom or a life of marital celibacy. The bottom line is that these people can often support one, maybe two children and no more. When it gets to the point where there are 7, 8, 9 kids, they just die of starvation. I guess all marital relations should be suspended then so as not to bring any more children into the world? And NFP works best when ALL of the methods are used, including basal body temperature and charting, which these people cannot do because they do not have the means. Otherwise, it is just not that accurate.

“These people” are your brothers and sisters, born into a different world that you apparently have never been part of, except to watch the starving babies on TV. Most of the third world doesn’t work like that, most babies don’t starve, most women do not have huge families. And NFP doesn’t “work best” when “all methods” are used. Google Billings Ovulation Method, you’ll learn enough to provide an educated response to some arguments here.

Also, I don’t see the Catholic Church running out and sending people into the remote areas of the African jungle who know how to speak various obscure African languages and dialects teaching these people NFP and giving them the tools to use it.

What are you talking about here? The Catholic Church has missionaries in every corner of the world, religious and lay, nurses and teachers and priests and doctors and lab techs and well-builders (and etc.), who do speak various obscure African languages and dialects, teaching NFP in the hinterlands and most isolated places. The world is big, and there’s lots of work yet to be done, but don’t think it isn’t being done.

 

[Corki]

This is where I get a little shaky on the matter. The reason being because although the official church teaching has always been against any form of artificial contraception, the bishops have not always been in agreement on the subject. So while one can say that the Church has always taught ABC is wrong, they have often done so out of pure submission to the Supreme Pontiff, not out of the belief that it is intrinsically wrong. .

It has nothing to do with submission to the Supreme Pontiff. The teaching about the sanctity of marriage and the marital act, including the teaching about artificial contraception has been part of the teaching of the Magesterium of the Church for millenium. The constant teaching of the Church is the way MOST of the truths of our faith are transmitted, not ex cathedra prounouncements.

So does this affect the infallibility of the doctrine? It’s a weighty question. The infallibility of the magisterium’s teachings implicitly rests upon the idea that there is a general consensus on the morality or immorality of the doctrine in question. When there is no consensus, but merely faithful submission, how does this affect the infallibility of a specific doctrine?

No a Bishop who speaks out in defiance of Church teaching is not teaching within the Magesterium but in spite of it. The consensus of the bishops doesn’t mean a poll of current opinion. It means the constant teaching of the Church over time.

Also, when debating this topic, we must take into consideration those from underdeveloped, starving countries. NFP (natural family planning) is very scientific and requires the use of thermometers, charts, LOTS of education regarding the science behind the practice and other tools used in conjunction with each other in order to produce an accurate representation of female fertility. Clearly, those most affected by poverty and starvation do not have these means available to them.

Only if you want it to be. We westerners like our gadgets and technology so we gravitate toward the more technical applications of NFP. In developing countries, other methods are taught. Mother Theresa successfullly taught NFP to the poorest of the poor in Calcutta.

So I guess people in impoverished drought-ridden countries like Africa should just never marry and live lives of complete chastity according to the Church? It’s that or watch their children die horrible deaths because of disease or starvation.

EVERYONE should live in complete chastity according to their state in life. I think it is sad to think that someone in Africa would rather spend money on condoms than on food for their children - but that’s just me.

 

[Julia1996]

NFP doesn’t have to be scientific and require thermometers etc.

NFP is actually good for poor people. It doesn’t require anything. Condoms, Birth Control Pills, Implants etc. These all cost money. NFP is FREE. All that you need for NFP is to remember when your last period was.

 

[manualman]

Actually, thoughtfulone, your NFP data is drastically outdated. My wife and I down even own a thermometer, nor have we touched a chart in years. And we’re VERY fertile. Yet there’s never been an oops.

NFP actually works BEST in underdeveloped countries. People there, contrary to condescending setreotypes, ARE capable of observing mucus symptoms and counting to three days. It’s not rocket science! And people there have far fewer pharmaceuticals running through their systems screwing up their hormones. And they eat far fewer refined sugars and starches (which also screw up the hormones that regulate cycles via wild insulin swings).

You also need to learn up on how doctrine is taught. Things that have been consistantly taught by the Magisterium through the ages are part of what is called the “ordinary magisterium” (look it up). The pope and the bishops do not stamp everything constantly with the extraordinary infallibility stamp because doing so would undermine the apparent authority of the ordinary magisterium.

Good thing you weren’t alive in the days of the Arian heresy. By your logic and thinking, you’d have been an Arian (at one point the majority of priests went Arian).

 

[frindro]

Alan55, you may want to read this.

Thoughtfulone, it doesn’t matter if you have found priests and (apparently) liberal theologians since it has been infallibly defined: for centuries it was opposed by popes and bishops (any who have disagreed have been the exception rather than the rule), it is condemned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as in a papal encyclical (Humanae Vitae). I have the proof of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, while you have the objections of a few people who don’t have the authority to make the decision. Your proof is very week.

On the argument you have tediously re-offered, I assure you that not every large family in poor African countries dies off from starvation. I’m pretty sure the population of Africa is growing, and, since it is not a hotspot for immigration, it must be that not everyone is dying off as much as you think they are.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

First of all, I am well-aware of how the Ordinary Magisterium works. My point is that the REASON it has been consistently taught over the years is in part because the heads of the Church decided that was to be taught and many bishops (themselves part of the Magisterium) who disagreed with this taught it despite their objections. The crux of the infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium is the idea that there is something of a consensus. When there is no consensus, but something is taught anyway out of fear of repercussions or excommunication, then it can safely be said that no real consensus ever existed, which weakens the case for the infallibility of the teaching significantly. Also Humanae Vitae was only written to officially stamp out ABC despite the objections of the bishops and theologians and scientists who convened to study it. The very reason they convened in fact was because the Pope responsible for the document brought these individuals together and asked them to figure out a way to allow ABC without undermining the authority of the Church. While over 80% of these individuals (Cardinals included) agreed that ABC should be allowed in ertain circumstances, they couldn’t find a way to present it to the Catholic public without making the Church look bad. Hence, Humanae Vitae.

Also, I am not disparaging those in underdeveloped countries at ALL. What I am saying is that it takes a good amount of education to practice NFP effectively. Unless and until the Church can educate ALL of these individuals on how to practice this method effectively, then it is not right for them to tell these people they cannot use ANY form of ABC whatsoever. They need to provide the alternative, not just tell them not to use it.

Also, for those who think I am ignorant of the practice, I am recently married and have taken NFP and have all the supplies and I do NOT use ABC.

 

[Julia1996]

Also, I am not disparaging those in underdeveloped countries at ALL. What I am saying is that it takes a good amount of education to practice NFP effectively. Unless and until the Church can educate ALL of these individuals on how to practice this method effectively, then it is not right for them to tell these people they cannot use ANY form of ABC whatsoever. They need to provide the alternative, not just tell them not to use it.
I am sorry but I fail to see why it would take a good amount of education to practice NFP effectively. The concepts are pretty basic. The Church can’t really educate ALL of the individuals on how to practice this method, but people can’t give condoms to ALL of the people in underdeveloped countries, either. There are just too many people. Another benefit of NFP is that once it has been taught, they can use it for life. With ABC then once they use up the condoms (or whatever else they are using) they will need more.
Also, for those who think I am ignorant of the practice, I am recently married and have taken NFP and have all the supplies and I do NOT use ABC.
Its great that you are using NFP and not ABC. And if you want to use all the “supplies” then by all means do so. But I don’t see how it is necessary to use thermometers, charts and what not. Aren’t eyes and a brain good enough. As manualman said, it isn’t really that hard to observe mucus symptoms and count.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I agree that when NFP is done right, it can be very effective, but there are certain things that really bother me.

AIDS for one. If someone has AIDS prior to entering into matrimony, but their partner does not, I simply cannot justify the Church’s position on ABC. I know the sexual act is supposed to be one of giving and sharing, but giving and sharing AIDS is where I draw the line. And I simply cannot justify intentionally having children who are born with this horrible disease when it is so easy to prevent it. Of course, if everyone saved themselves for marriage and then practiced NFP, the world would be a great place, but what are we supposed to do in the meantime? It is morally reprehensible to spread this disease, and to children!

I just honestly feel that the Church was wrong in labeling ABC INTRINSICALLY evil. It’s almost like they chose this path centuries ago, and now that there are STDs that can actually KILL people, they still don’t want to admit that maybe intrinsically was too strong a word.

My other main problem is that NFP is very difficult to use when breastfeeding because cervical mucous is just not the same at all and ovulation, if and when it occurs, is sporadic at best. Breastfeeding is only a truly effective method of birth control for the 1st 6 months, if that, so if you want to space your kids more than that
(which I certainly do) you’re really rolling the dice. My doctor says he can’t count the number of patients he has who have gotten pregnant while breastfeeding.

 

[choose_to_love]

thoughtful, are you saying that centuries ago STDs did not kill people?

 

[bingbang]

thoughtful, are you saying that centuries ago STDs did not kill people?

Well it certainly isn’t an epidemic like it is today. Aids is killing millions of people. Syphilis and things of that nature killed people but not like aids.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Well it certainly isn’t an epidemic like it is today. Aids is killing millions of people. Syphilis and things of that nature killed people but not like aids.

Exactly.

 

[Corki]

I agree that when NFP is done right, it can be very effective, but there are certain things that really bother me.

AIDS for one. If someone has AIDS prior to entering into matrimony, but their partner does not, I simply cannot justify the Church’s position on ABC. I know the sexual act is supposed to be one of giving and sharing, but giving and sharing AIDS is where I draw the line. And I simply cannot justify intentionally having children who are born with this horrible disease when it is so easy to prevent it. Of course, if everyone saved themselves for marriage and then practiced NFP, the world would be a great place, but what are we supposed to do in the meantime? It is morally reprehensible to spread this disease, and to children!

I just honestly feel that the Church was wrong in labeling ABC INTRINSICALLY evil. It’s almost like they chose this path centuries ago, and now that there are STDs that can actually KILL people, they still don’t want to admit that maybe intrinsically was too strong a word.

My other main problem is that NFP is very difficult to use when breastfeeding because cervical mucous is just not the same at all and ovulation, if and when it occurs, is sporadic at best. Breastfeeding is only a truly effective method of birth control for the 1st 6 months, if that, so if you want to space your kids more than that
(which I certainly do) you’re really rolling the dice. My doctor says he can’t count the number of patients he has who have gotten pregnant while breastfeeding.

Well, I have a problem with AIDS too. Here’s the problem. If one partner has AIDS before he/she gets married, the only even partially acceptable protective sex is with a condom. But that’s only about 80-90% effective aginst the transmission of the HIV virus. Is it acceptable to marry someone knowing that you are pretty likely to pass the HIV virus to him/her if you have sex more than 10 times in your married life? 90% is only 9/10!

Not to mention the theological position that barrier sex is not fully consumated. So a couple who married and never has sex without a condom never really consumates their marriage. Yes, I have a problem with that.

As for breastfeeding, ecological breastfeeding works very well to space children in other countries. The question is what are Westerners doing that makes it unreliable here? [not to mention that your math is off. Even if breastfeeding only worked to delay ovulation for 6 months, the next baby would be spaced 15 months from the first if a couple gets pregnant on the first try]

I don’t think intrinsicallly is too strong a word at all. If anything, it is too easy for some people to misinterpret and look for loopholes.

 

[Carlan]

Well, I have a problem with AIDS too. Here’s the problem. If one partner has AIDS before he/she gets married, the only even partially acceptable protective sex is with a condom. But that’s only about 80-90% effective against the transmission of the HIV virus. Is it acceptable to marry someone knowing that you are pretty likely to pass the HIV virus to him/her if you have sex more than 10 times in your married life? 90% is only 9/10!

Not to mention the theological position that barrier sex is not fully consumated. So a couple who married and never has sex without a condom never really consumates their marriage. Yes, I have a problem with that.

As for breastfeeding, ecological breastfeeding works very well to space children in other countries. The question is what are Westerners doing that makes it unreliable here? [not to mention that your math is off. Even if breastfeeding only worked to delay ovulation for 6 months, the next baby would be spaced 15 months from the first if a couple gets pregnant on the first try]

I don’t think intrinsicallly is too strong a word at all. If anything, it is too easy for some people to misinterpret and look for loopholes.

Good heavens, what is wrong with teaching human beings from day one chastity, and the pit falls of promiscuity. After all you are not going to die of keep the pants buttoned up!!! Carlan