Morality of Family Planning

[fix]

Here are some examples of the earlier post these are interpretations neither God nor the scriptures inform man how to avoid pregnancy through the female cycle, or are clear in regard to contraception. The contraception references are vague at best and were written in a very different social circumstance. The Church has set several rules on the issue and could change such.

No, the Church bases these interpretations of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. When has the Church ever taught contraception was licit?

Either the Church is the authority from Christ or She is not.

 

[valient_Lucy]

This is where I observe several contradictions in Church teaching:

1. Fertility is not an requirement for marriage; however, you are required to have children in order to have a valid marriage, unless you’re infertile.

I very much doubt that’s true. If it is, then every bride and groom at the reception are invalidly married, and their marriage won’t be valid until they have children.

 

[valient_Lucy]

My simplified point is that the sex act within marriage is to be “unitive and procreative” if conception of a child if feasible for the family to support in a responsible manner. Simply put, I fail to see how NFP is procreative when, on certain days, the couple can almost be guaranteed to not conceive. This is a willful intention on the part of the couple to avoid procreation and to engage in sex at a time that they clearly know will not produce offspring. Using NFP in this manner is simply not procreative. It’s birth control folks. No amount of circumlocution or circular reasoning will obfuscate this simple fact.

If there’s no difference between NFP and birth control, then why not use NFP?

 

[setter]

usually, yes, but it is not a requirement per se. I certainly won’t argue with the fact that a married couple should always consider the possibility children, even if it turns out in the end they never do have any, since it would not make sense to say “well I know for sure I will never have children” when in fact you CANT say that for sure since your thinking 10 years from then can be completely different.

Can you put a little reality on such a hypothetical situation by providing a possible real life situation in which two childbearing individuals in a valid Catholic marriage have serious reason to indefinitely defer childbearing throughout their marriage?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Timothy, Here were your questions, I believe that I have come up with acceptable answers.

How is NOT wanting something selfish?! And while I wont use argue this in this particular case, I must ask how come everyone uses the phrase “selfish” in negative context?

Not wanting to take up one’s cross for Jesus is selfish, is it not? And we use selfish in the negative context because that is its primary use. From the dictionary.

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself
   Notice that this does not leave room for God and neighbor. The negative context is the correct context.

I did not mean that children were always burdens, I simply meant that forcing something on someone when they did not ask for it is a burden (and in this case we are talking about something which can be optional)

Entering the marriage covenant is asking for the blessing (and the sacrifice) of children. Attempting to get ‘married’ otherwise is marrying only in the civil case, not in reality (as God sees.) The thought of it being injustice when God ‘forces’ something on us is perplexing to me.

What if it is God’s will that they remain childless? How can you say what God’s will is for any couple, or person for that matter?

Because it is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church marriage is intended for children. It is in the catechism. If you need the reference, I will provide it. If a couple does not intend to conceive children at the time of marriage, they do not enter into a valid marriage.

I was talking about a just married couple living in city versus less urbanized region. And yes I agree even in places like Alaska the tax rates are still too high.

For grins, I told turbo tax that my wife and I were not married and did not have children. Wow! My taxes almost doubled! And I live in the city.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Here are some examples of the earlier post these are interpretations neither God nor the scriptures inform man how to avoid pregnancy through the female cycle, or are clear in regard to contraception. The contraception references are vague at best and were written in a very different social circumstance. The Church has set several rules on the issue and could change such.

You believe the Church to be much more powerful than she is. She is a servant of God. She cannot do what God does not will. God calls us to serve him in the way that is most fitting to our love for Him. He made us the way that we are. NFP accepts God’s design. Contraception does not. Contraception inherently says “we are not happy with the way that our bodies function. We are not able to enjoy the benefits without the natural results unless we poison our bodies and break natural function.” And yes, for those who want to rationalize that this can be good, they will find a way, when looking at it from what they want to do. But if you look at it from God’s view, there is no way. That is why the Church simply can’t ‘just change the rules.’ God makes the rules.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

usually, yes, but it is not a requirement per se. I certainly won’t argue with the fact that a married couple should always consider the possibility children, even if it turns out in the end they never do have any, since it would not make sense to say “well I know for sure I will never have children” when in fact you CANT say that for sure since your thinking 10 years from then can be completely different.

These are your conclusions. Not the Catholic Church’s. You can choose to disagree, but please do so knowing that you disagree. There is so much to support this, but here is the basis, from the first sentence on the topic of marriage.

1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

If marriage is such, then intending not to having children is to reject its natural purpose. Attempting to marry with the intent of not becoming parents is disordered. Disordered marriages are not ordained by God, by definition.

Dan

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That has nothing to do with natural moral law.

Maybe or maybe not, however they clearly changed the interpretation

 

[fix]

Maybe or maybe not, however they clearly changed the interpretation

Please read the tract about Galileo on CA. The Church changed no teaching on faith or morals.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, the Church bases these interpretations of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. When has the Church ever taught contraception was licit?

Either the Church is the authority from Christ or She is not.

When it allowed NFP, & Rythm to be used to allow sex while preventing pregnancy. BTW if the Church changes the interpretation is She still the authority?

 

[fix]

When it allowed NFP, & Rythm to be used to allow sex while preventing pregnancy.

The Church uses specific language. These are moral distinctions. We have argued this to no end. Having sexual intercourse when one cannot conceive without altering any part of the act through chemical, or devices, or withdrawing, or the like is not contracepting. As I type this I am not having relations with my wife. Am I contracepting? Not having sex is not contracepting. Having sex when one is not ovulating is not contracepting. Pulling out during the act, using a pseudovagina, supressing ovulation, using a barrier, ect is all contraception. It is mutual masturbation.

BTW if the Church changes the interpretation is She still the authority?

If She reversed Herself She would not be the Church of Christ. She would be a fraud. The entire enterprise would be a fraud.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

When it allowed NFP, & Rythm to be used to allow sex while preventing pregnancy. BTW if the Church changes the interpretation is She still the authority?

This clarification may be within your intended meaning, but the clarification is necessary for some who may misinterpret you.

The Catholic Church has never taught that NFP (of which the rhythm method is a type) could be used to ‘prevent pregnacy’. Its licit (moral) use is for the spacing of children (more accurately, delaying pregnancy) for unselfish reasons (generally for the benefit of existing children). Some have used NFP to prevent pregnancy, but the use of periodic abstinence (the only ‘action’ of NFP) for that intention does not serve the glory of God, is not in the best interest of the spouses in their common goal of attaining heaven, and is therefore not moral behavior.

Dan

 

[Timothy_486]

Because it is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church marriage is intended for children. It is in the catechism. If you need the reference, I will provide it. If a couple does not intend to conceive children at the time of marriage, they do not enter into a valid marriage.

First off, it does not say the couple MUST conceive, that is not a teaching of the church, furthermore to say that a marriage is invalid if there is no children is ridiculous. To use one example, a priest when offering the eucharist, if we could look in his mind and see that he no longer believes in the real presence (or even Jesus himself), we still know that the body and bread is still valid and so is that sacrament, even if the ordained priest offering it does not believe in it.

 

[Timothy_486]

I just realized I think we are shooting blanks at each other here. Re reading what you and I said, I realize we actually agree on the same thing, it’s just that our wording was different and I think me misunderstood each other. You believe that a couple should, when getting married, not say that children will never be an option for them, and I also agree with that. Hope that clear some issues.

 

[eponymic]

I very much doubt that’s true. If it is, then every bride and groom at the reception are invalidly married, and their marriage won’t be valid until they have children.

To an extent, that is true. The couple must at least try to have children, and a marriage that isn’t consummated isn’t generally considered to be official. The church doesn’t consider infertility to be an impediment to marriage, but impotency can be. The couple must be able to “complete the marital act” (as the popular euphemism goes around here), or file for a Josephite marriage.

However, assuming the plumbing works properly, and the couple does not have “just reasons” to avoid a pregnancy for the entirety of their marriage, the chances that a couple will not have a child over the course of their marriage is pretty small. Therefore, the church can classify all married couples into one of two groups: infertile or parents.

The church obviously doesn’t make you prove your infertility if you do not have children, but morally, is there another way to be married and not have children?

 

[LittleDeb]

Therefore, the church can classify all married couples into one of two groups: infertile or parents.

The church obviously doesn’t make you prove your infertility if you do not have children, but morally, is there another way to be married and not have children?

I think in here you are getting to the crux of your original question. So what is marriage with intentional absence of procreation? Isn’t that just sexual companionship? What then is sexual companionship?

I would suggest using the distinct definitions I presented earlier. A post-menopausal couple has not lost their procreation in marriage. They have passed their reproduction years. But the purpose of marriage doesn’t change no matter how old you are.

When I was struggling with this issue I really took some time to look at what the words meant and how their definitions applied. Pro-creation is exactly that, *for creation, or in Catholic terms Pro-Life. *One is either totally procreative or is one not. One cannot be for-life sometimes and not others. That kind of thinking has a different kind of name. One cannot be faithful to their marriage most of the time and not faithful just a few times while still holding the vow of fidelity.

Procreation is an each and every time thing. It cannot be an “over the lifetime of the marriage” they were generally procreative. Just as it cannot be, “over the lifetime of the marriage” they were generally faithful.

What is/are the purpose(s) of marriage. There is a reason procreation is always listed first on Church documents. Unity has always been second. (Personally I think the Church has downplayed unity for the simple reason that it is a, “Well duh!” sort of thing.)

So it boiled down for me to a few questions. Is there purpose for marriage? Can that (or those) purposes be known? If so who on Earth knows, or has the authority to know? Is that knowledge absolute? Each of these questions led me right back to the Church.

God bless you in your journey.

 

[eponymic]

That is understandable if you believe the Church says what you say it does. Let us examine…

Physical fertility is not a requirement for marriage, True. But what you say next is false. You are NOT required to succeed at having children to have a valid marriage. Nowhere is that an official teaching of the Church. What IS the teaching is that youintend (at the time you enter into the marriage covenent) to have children. There is a difference. It is also not true that if fecundity is an end to marriage that marriage requires children. That’s bogus logic. Intent matters. A lot. More than ability. An analogy; A priests intent (end) is to get all of his flock to heaven. If he does not succeed, does that mean he’s not a priest? Of course not. He is still required to intend to get his whole flock to heaven.

There was an extra clause in my statement that you seemed to miss. I said that children appear to be a requirement, unless you’re infertile. Children are not an absolute requirement. I agree with this. However, my point was that if a married couple is physically able* to have children, there is no moral way for them not to have children. A couple cannot have “just reasons” for the entirety of their marriage.

*“Physically able” not only means fertile, but as in your example of a woman having health problems where she would not survive through childbirth, includes other medical issues as well.

Mostly correct. Couples are allowed to properly discern when and how many children to have, even if this number is zero, as long as the true intent when the marriage covenant was entered into was that they would have a family. A situation where a couple marry, and shortly afterwards finds that childbirth would probably bring a result of death to the mother, this couple could probably discern God’s will that they not concieve.

This is almost exactly my point. A couple must “discern” what God has in store for them, and this implies a complete lack of “choice”. A married couple is not allowed to choose not to have children, but they may discern that God does not want them to have children. By analogy, this is expandable to a couple choosing vs. discerning having 2, 5 or 20 children. Therefore, it is God deciding the number of children to have, not the couple.

A follow up question, do you think God ever leaves the decisions up to us? Does God ever want us to have somewhere between 2 and 5 children, and it’s up to us to decide the exact number?

Again you are ignorning intent and/or confusing what a couple wants versus what they achieve. Intent is one of three fundamental aspects of morality. It can’t be ignored. What we actually achieve has very little to do with morality. Perhaps you confuse civil law with moral law. Civilly, you can’t be charged with murder if you tried with all your will but did not succeed. However, morally your just as culpable as if you had succeeded.

There is more that must be said, but this post is probably too long already.

Dan

First off, you can be charged with attempted murder if you attempted, but did not succeed, at killing somebody. There are many civil laws on the books for attempted crimes, or even for the intent. Just ask those guys they catch on “To Catch a Predator” whether they were charged with actually having sex with children, or just that they wanted to. Secondly, this is just the converse of statement 2. My point is that the church states that God decides whether a couple has children, and it is not up to the couple to decide. The couple has no say in the matter: if they do not have children, it is because God decided against it.

Upon further review, I think that this misunderstanding may come about through a fundamental disagreement of human freedom:

“Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary.” (CCC 1734)

We are responsible for the outcomes of our actions. Since having sex is a voluntary action geared to creating a child, then man, not God, is responsible for the creation of children conceived through sexual acts. I’ve said this before in this thread, and it bears repeating now: God makes you fertile, but He does not make you pregnant. I’m getting the message from several people here that since God is the creator of life, then He is responsible for the creation of every child. This somehow removes the creation of a child from the result of a sexual act, to the result of an act of God. Obviously, every sexual act does not result in pregnancy, as evidenced by NFP users, but that does not mean that sex and pregnancy are unrelated events from a human standpoint.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If She reversed Herself She would not be the Church of Christ. She would be a fraud. The entire enterprise would be a fraud.

Maybe this is closer to the real problem? Our faith has overcome many, many problems. The issue at hand would not even rate high on that scale. Faith and Morals can be twisted into any event, but it does not have to be twisted into such. Certainly killing the unborn is an issue of faith and morals however eating meat on Fridays does not have to be an issue of morals, and is questionable if it can become an issue of faith?

 

[LittleDeb]

We are responsible for the outcomes of our actions. Since having sex is a voluntary action geared to creating a child, then man, not God, is responsible for the creation of children conceived through sexual acts. I’ve said this before in this thread, and it bears repeating now: God makes you fertile, but He does not make you pregnant. I’m getting the message from several people here that since God is the creator of life, then He is responsible for the creation of every child. This somehow removes the creation of a child from the result of a sexual act, to the result of an act of God. Obviously, every sexual act does not result in pregnancy, as evidenced by NFP users, but that does not mean that sex and pregnancy are unrelated events from a human standpoint.

[emphasis mine] I think you are really on to something here. If you wouldn’t mind expanding on this impression [bolded] it would help me understand. I wouldn’t use the term “responsible” in relation to God, so I am not sure I understand your perspective. (Edit: Impression from us.) I would say that He allows the creation, or that it is in within His full knowledge, consent and will. Although as an NFP user I would have to say that we cooperate with God in the creation of a child. I have often said, “we make the body, but God makes the soul.” My other phrase is, “creating a baby is the closest we can get to heaven on Earth.”

I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I find it worthy of discussion and understanding if you are willing.

 

[eponymic]

[emphasis mine] I think you are really on to something here. If you wouldn’t mind expanding on this impression [bolded] it would help me understand. I wouldn’t use the term “responsible” in relation to God, so I am not sure I understand your perspective. (Edit: Impression from us.) I would say that He allows the creation, or that it is in within His full knowledge, consent and will. Although as an NFP user I would have to say that we cooperate with God in the creation of a child. I have often said, “we make the body, but God makes the soul.” My other phrase is, “creating a baby is the closest we can get to heaven on Earth.”

I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I find it worthy of discussion and understanding if you are willing.

The last part really wasn’t directed at anybody in particular, so I don’t mind addressing it.

What I mean by “God is responsible” is that it was entirely God’s decision. I mean this like “God is responsible for the creation of the universe” in that it was His doing, not like it was His obligation. This is not to say we have no moral obligation to provide welfare for children, but that the couple had no say in becoming pregnant. The most obvious example in this thread I think is on page 1 (emphasis mine):

Whenever a couples wishes to “renew their wedding vows”, that is considered “going into the ice fishing house.” They can go in the house anytime they want. The only rule with this ice fishing house is that the front door needs to be kept unlocked because the owner of the house (God) wants free access. If he is there when you decide to “go into the ice fishing house”, then He can choose whether or not to make a baby. That is His perogative, but He wants that privilege. If He is not there, you cannot conceive a child.

The couple “renews their wedding vows”, and then God decides to create a baby. (As an aside, I’ve found the euphemisms for ‘having sex’ very entertaining.) The couple appears to have no control over pregnancy, and this is really not the case. So when people say, “You have as many children as God wants you to have”, it sounds as if it’s because God creates children, not due to an egg and sperm meeting, dividing, etc. that is the direct result of a sexual act. It somehow absolves people from having to make the decision, because it’s God’s decision and we just have to figure out what he decided.

If I can go back to the concept of freedom and free will:

“God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”(CCC, 1730)
As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach. (CCC, 1732)

I’ve also gotten the impression that God’s Will is, or can be, very specific, and in order to do good we must follow this “script” that God has made for our lives. If we do not follow the script, we turn our back on God and do evil. Personally, I will argue day and night against any form of destiny. We are “left in the hand of our own counsel” and our lives have not been predetermined for us. In this vein, I would argue that God has not decided that we should have three kids, or ten, or twenty, or none at all. While most people on this board would argue that having a child is a good thing, that does not directly imply that the converse, not having a child, is evil or out of line with God. Choosing to have a child is not a “good vs. evil” decision. The moral question should come from “Can I properly raise this child within my abilities and within the support I receive from my spouse, my family, my friends, and most importantly, from God?”