Natural Law

[WhatIf]

Catholic2003:

WhatIf,

You’re going too quickly for me to follow. Okay, couple B and C are committing the same sin. So which of the four principles is couple C violating? You seem to be jumping in and explaning how they are violating the principles, but I am still unsure as to which principle or principles couple C is violating.

Well, in a way, I think couple C violates all of them, but to pin it on one, then I think it would be 4. He knows what is good for us better than we do, so while we think it is good to seek pleasure that results in “non-procreative ejaculation”, it is not how God designed us. I know that may sound wacky, but we can easily see the problems caused when we do seek sexual pleasure apart from the procreative act. There is evidence that it is harmful to us (humans). It tempts us to do other acts that are sinful. I’m trying not to go into too much detail, but whenever we are sexually gratified in ways that are not open to life, we have perverted the sexual act. Do you agree?

 

[Chris_W]

Catholic2003:

I think I’m beginning to see, and I have one more very specific question: Which of your four principles (from post #3) is couple B violating?

I will address the initial example of Couples A, B & C first, then I’ll address 1&2 in another post, k?

First another distinction: Couple A & B have the same goal; to postpone a pregnancy. The reason for either NFP or contraception is the same as well; to achieve the goal of postponing the pregnancy. The means of achieving the goal is obviously different. My objective in presenting my initial post is to shift the focus away from the actual act of contraception and onto the reason for that decision, because it is the reason for that decision where I find the seriousness of the sin.

The choosing of contraception over NFP is an indicator of couple B’s faith. Couple B has no reason to use contraception over NFP unless they reject one of the principles I outlined…usually #4. I say usually #4 because most people have no problem accepting the first three, and truly believe those things. But most people who use contraception, in my experience, admit finally that it is #4. They have a plan for their life, and ultimately it is a rejection of the possibility that God may have a plan very different from their own. They simply cannot trust God to accomplish their happiness, when they think they see so clearly what they want and need in their lives.

Therefore, I see value in addressing the reason for the choice between NFP and contraception, rather than focusing on the actual act of contraception, since usually focusing on the act of contraception raises more grey areas, and usually leaves the person who uses contraception feeling like it is just one more Catholic “rule”.

I hope I have addressed your question?

Couple C is really another question altogether, and I hesistate to address it here, as it will get this conversation even more confusing. In essense, I think Couple C is an issue of the purpose for the marital act, which is related but a bit different than what we are discussing.

Catholic2003:

I’m now thinking that it is important to take the definition of sin as “doing your own will instead of God’s”. Thus any sin is in itself a violation of principle #1. And next we need to understand that the Church has defined the use of contraception as a sin, while the Church approves of the use of medicine.

Indeed I personally almost always address the issue of sin from the aspect of that which is contrary to the will of God. We can act contrary to the will of God in many ways, but there are few ways in which we can act in such a way that we literally prevent God’s will (the two that come to mind are the taking of life, and contraception).

 

[Chris_W]

Catholic2003:

Now consider couples 1 and 2, each of whom have a small child with the flu. Couple 1 prays for God to heal their child, while couple 2 goes to the doctor for treatment.
Why is what couple 2 is doing not a sin, but what couple B is doing is a sin, when both seem to be trying to invervene with God’s will? Looking at the four fundamental principles of faith, the only one that appears to apply differently to couple 2 (versus couple B) is principle #2 “God is the creator of life.” Since God is not the creator of death, couple 2 isn’t going against God’s will as couple B is…

However, from your explanation, I think that couple B is instead violating principle #1, “God wills only what is good for us.” But wouldn’t that also apply to couple 2?

Good question. And this very issue was brought up by a nurse with whom I was discussing the contraception issue. You hit the nail on the head when you said God is not the creator of death. Death, and the illnesses that lead to death are not of God’s design, but are the result of Original Sin. Therefore, to treat illness does not contradict or interfere with the will of God, because God does not will the illness, but merely allows it to occur.

Additionally, there is another difference between treating illness and the use of contraception: We can treat or try to prevent illness and death, but just like NFP, our efforts cannot, and do not even intend to, remove God from the equation. In contrast, contraception actually removes, or attempts to remove God’s intervention, thus indicating the person’s faith (or lack of it).

I would argue that Couple 2 commits no sin. Thier actions do not indicate any deficiency in faith. They are protecting and cherishing God’s gift to them.

I am enjoying our dialogue, Catholic2003 I hope I am making more sense.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Chris_W]

Catholic2003:

So to complicate matters, consider couple C, who use NFP to chart the cycle of the female, but who practice non-procreative (and thus sinful) sexual practices during the fertile period. To me, couples B and C are committing the same sin, that of abusing their sexual facilities to obtain pleasure in ways contrary to natural law. It is the means that is sinful here for both couples, not necessarily the end…

Hmmm. I am not aware that the a married couple who engages in marital relations, without the intent of procreation, would be committing a sin. I do not think one must have the intent of procreation, but rather, just be open to precreation.

In fact, I am reminded of a fellow who’s spouse uses contraception without his approval. He asked his confessor if he should abstain from relations with his wife even if she wants it, and the priest said “no, the act of intimacy is important to the marriage…the sin is not your sin. You merely have an obligation to make her aware of the Church’s teaching on the matter, as well as how you feel about it”. This exact scenario was played out again on Catholic Answers Live last week, and Jimmy Akin said the same thing.

Why do I bring this up? Well, it is obvious by those answers that it is understood the act would not be procreative in nature, because the wife is using contraception. Yet both parties said the husband was still permitted to engage with his wife. This confirms my belief (granted, merely trusting the priest and Jimmy Akin) that the Church does not teach one must have the intent of procreation in order to have that intimacy.

Sexual intimacy serves other purposes than just procreation. Obviously intimacy, the release of sexual tension for the man (I say the man because men frequently feel a need beyond the woman’s need), the showing the other person that his/her needs are important, and to make sure we are fulfilling our spouse’s needs, to name a few.

The key is to not abuse the gift, or else risk sinful behavior…much like food or alchohol: Food is for the purpose of nourishment, but can we say that to eat for the mere enjoyment of eating, not necessarily out of hunger, is sinful? Alchohol is medicinal, but shall we say to drink and be merry is sinful? I don’t think so.

In the context of a marriage open to the will and grace of God, sexual intimacy that is for reasons other than procreation is not necessarily inappropriate or sinful. It can be, but it isn’t *necessarily * sinful.

 

[Catholic2003]

Chris W:

Hmmm. I am not aware that the a married couple who engages in marital relations, without the intent of procreation, would be committing a sin. I do not think one must have the intent of procreation, but rather, just be open to precreation.

I guess I was being too delicate in my choice of words. When I wrote, “non-procreative (and thus sinful) sexual practices during the fertile period,” I was referring to sodomy, e.g., oral sodomy.

 

[otm]

Two things come to mind. The first is that, while the natural law argument has its merits, its base is in Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy, and tends to end up somewhat short as it applies to human beings. That is why you may find that Theology of the Body seeems so much more integrated with the human experience; it sounds more in Phenomenology and Personalism.

The second is that it is possible to get lost in a legalistic, and rather mechanisitic approach to the topic, particularly as it applies to sin. Sin at it’s very essence is a rejction of God and God’s will for us. God wants to be a part of the marriage covenant; it is not you and your spouse, but you, your spouse and God. God gave you a time of fertility during this month of marriage. To be using the Pill is to override that gift, to reject it, and to place your sexual pleasure as a primary right; to put your self-seeking as more important than self-giving.

Our world has become so supersaturated with sexual pleasure, and with the insistence that this pleasure is our “right”, that it overrides any consideration of what being truly human is. Part of what our relation with God is about is self-giving; and it is exemplified most clearly by the self-giving of Christ, even unto death. Many people find it impossible to talk about sexual relations in terms of Christ’s death and Resurection; but that is largely due to the fact that self-giving doesn’t seem to be much in the dictionary any more.

Something more subtle in the conversation: why is it that the Pill, which was supposed to free men and women to bond so much more deeply through the removal of the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy, has resulted in so many women feeling that they are used, that they are not valued as individuals, and so unhappy in marriage? The Pill by removing the threat of unwanted pregnancy now makes the woman sexually available at any and all times, and the subtlety is that it has been equated (by both parties, I would argue) as sex on demand, rather than a sharing of a loving embrace. It has turned what was supposed to become a giving act into a taking act; from sef-giving to self-taking. I am reminded of a blues song who’s line is “The thrill is gone”. How true it has become; and so we seek newer and different sexual thrills; and eventually adultery rears its ugly head, as the marriage isn’t “fulfilling” and one or both seek that vague “something” that is lacking in the marriage.

The connection between the Pill and the increase in the divorce rate is dramatic.

 

[Chris_W]

Catholic2003:

I guess I was being too delicate in my choice of words…

Ahhh. Yes…I was clueless as to what you meant.

I guess I kinda feel like if the couple avoids contraception, chances are, they are open to God’s will for them. They are likely prayerful folks who are trying to live a life of grace. So I tend to think the “extra-curricular” activities in a couple like that are less likely to be grevously sinful. Maybe that’s a cop-out for discussing Couple C further, but I’m just explaining why I haven’t really developed my thoughts on it…at least not enough to present my thoughts for others to read.

Peace,
Chris

 

[WhatIf]

I had a pamphlet from the Couple to Couple League that explained the “extra-curricular” acts as being sinful, if the “session” didn’t end in a manner that is open to life (regular sex).

I’ve read some other stuff on it and can post it later if your interested in Church Teaching on it. It was a hang up for me, too. I figured, we are married, so anything goes that is consentual and monogamous. Not that I’m wild and crazy, ya know, but I didn’t see the sin, but I read up on it and now I do see that it is a misuse of sex, similar to Onan’s actions in the Bible. Sex is unitive, but we shouldn’t separate the acts from the procreative way of doing things, even if we can’t be procreative for whatever reason (vasectomy, menopause etc.), I think.

 

[Chris_W]

WhatIf:

I had a pamphlet from the Couple to Couple League that explained the “extra-curricular” acts as being sinful, if the “session” didn’t end in a manner that is open to life (regular sex).

I’ve read some other stuff on it and can post it later if your interested in Church Teaching on it.

Yes, I’m interested. I have led some apologetics classes at my parish, and I present this kind of stuff as the questions come up, so I should be read up on it. Perhaps it will be better to email it to me, if the possibility exists that the subject matter would offend anyone herein.

Thx,
Chris

 

[Catholic2003]

I’m still thinking about this issue in the back of my mind. One question: Is the difference between God’s perfect will and God’s permissive will a part of Catholic theology?

For example, take the case of a wife who has a medical condition such that she will die if she gets pregnant. Is it possible that it is God’s perfect will that the couple abstain from marital relations during fertile periods, yet should the couple have marital relations during a fertile period anyway, that God’s permissive will could allow the wife to get pregnant?

 

[Chris_W]

Catholic2003:

I’m still thinking about this issue in the back of my mind.

Yah, me too.

Catholic2003:

One question: Is the difference between God’s perfect will and God’s permissive will a part of Catholic theology?

Wow. What a question. My hunch is to say yes, but that’s a pretty deep question.

Catholic2003:

For example, take the case of a wife who has a medical condition such that she will die if she gets pregnant. Is it possible that it is God’s perfect will that the couple abstain from marital relations during fertile periods, yet should the couple have marital relations during a fertile period anyway, that God’s permissive will could allow the wife to get pregnant?

I do not understand the first part of your question. The second part though I would have to disagree with. I can’t see God’s active participation in the creation of a soul at the time of conception being described merely as permissive. He doesn’t allow it, He causes the creation of a soul.

Peace,
Chris

 

[Catholic2003]

Chris W:

I do not understand the first part of your question. The second part though I would have to disagree with. I can’t see God’s active participation in the creation of a soul at the time of conception being described merely as permissive. He doesn’t allow it, He causes the creation of a soul.

Here’s a related issue to ponder over. Critique the following argument:

The Church’s teaching on the immorality of IVF is wrong. To see this, notice that God causes the creation of a soul even when IVF is used. If IVF were truly immoral, then God would never create a soul in the articificially created combination of sperm and egg formed in the test tube.

 

[WhatIf]

Catholic2003:

Here’s a related issue to ponder over. Critique the following argument:

The Church’s teaching on the immorality of IVF is wrong. To see this, notice that God causes the creation of a soul even when IVF is used. If IVF were truly immoral, then God would never create a soul in the articificially created combination of sperm and egg formed in the test tube.

So, are you also saying that adultery and pre-marital sex are moral because babies are created in these circumstances? Don’t think this logic is gonna work.

 

[WhatIf]

Chris W:

Yes, I’m interested. I have led some apologetics classes at my parish, and I present this kind of stuff as the questions come up, so I should be read up on it. Perhaps it will be better to email it to me, if the possibility exists that the subject matter would offend anyone herein.

Thx,
Chris

TAke a look at this 5 page link from the Couple to Couple League, especially page 5.
ccli.org/mag/contraception05.shtml

The pamphlet that I am referring to though doesn’t seem to be posted. It is called Marital Sexuality. I got it free with the Natural Family Planning Home Study course, but I think it can be ordered, as well. Check out the website. We have to keep Onan in mind to help us understand the seriousness of misusing our “sexuality”. I struggle with it often, myself, but I do see the consistency in the Church’s Teachings and I see confusion each time we take a step from it on some part of this issue.

For example, a poster just posted the possibility of IVF being moral because of a soul being created. IVF isn’t moral according to the Church’s Teachings. What happens when you justify IVF? Then, you can justify children out of wedlock as being moral. You can justify self gratification as well as mutual acts. Basically, it pulls you completey away from Church Teaching on everything. I like the consistency of the Church’s Teachings. There are so many ethical questions coming up with cloning and use of embryos for research that I think it is good for all of us to think hard about the Church’s Teachings and learn to accept them as truths, so that we are better prepared to defend the dignity of life when it comes to the complex issues that we are beginning to face as technology advances.

I hope you don’t mind my butting in on your conversation. I see it is sort of a two-way, but I just can’t help but comment sometimes. I, also, find this to be an interesting conversation. It is a subject that was a huge stumbling block for me as I entered the Church.

 

[Catholic2003]

WhatIf:

So, are you also saying that adultery and pre-marital sex are moral because babies are created in these circumstances?

No, what I personally believe is that because babies are created in situations of IVF, adultery, and so on, this fact proves that God sometimes infuses a zygote with a soul against His perfect will, but in accord with His permissive will.

In other words, when people act in a manner that results in sperm and egg uniting, God will comply with their actions and infuse a soul even against His perfect will.

Thus, if a married couple have relations whenever they feel like it, it is likely they will end up with many more children than intended by God’s perfect will. (It is undisputable that if an unmarried couple have frequent relations during fertile periods, they will end up with more children than intended by God’s perfect will, which in this case is zero. So why should married couples be subject to supernatural intervention in their fertility when unmarried couples clearly aren’t?)

WhatIf:

Don’t think this logic is gonna work.

Of course the logic doesn’t work. The point of this “paradox” is to explain why the logic doesn’t work. I have my theory, but I think that Chris W believes that God only infuses zygotes with souls when it is in accord with His perfect will. Thus Chris W must find a different flaw in the logic.

Just things to think about.

 

[Chris_W]

WhatIf:

TAke a look at this 5 page link from the Couple to Couple League, especially page 5…

…I hope you don’t mind my butting in on your conversation. I see it is sort of a two-way, but I just can’t help but comment sometimes. I, also, find this to be an interesting conversation. It is a subject that was a huge stumbling block for me as I entered the Church.

Thanks for the link. I’ll give it a read. and of course you are welcome in this conversation. I can only speak for myself, but I think more minds are better than fewer minds. I’m here (particularly in this thread) to learn.

Peace,
Chris

 

[Chris_W]

Catholic2003:

No, what I personally believe is that because babies are created in situations of IVF, adultery, and so on, this fact proves that God sometimes infuses a zygote with a soul against His perfect will, but in accord with His permissive will.

In other words, when people act in a manner that results in sperm and egg uniting, God will comply with their actions and infuse a soul even against His perfect will.

I have never heard this kind of thinking before, Catholic2003. It sounds as if you are saying we can force God’s hand and make Him do something against His will. What a strange idea when we believe in an all powerful God. God will comply with our will? Where do you find support for that belief in the Bible or Church teaching?

Catholic2003:

Thus, if a married couple have relations whenever they feel like it, it is likely they will end up with many more children than intended by God’s perfect will. (It is undisputable that if an unmarried couple have frequent relations during fertile periods, they will end up with more children than intended by God’s perfect will, which in this case is zero. So why should married couples be subject to supernatural intervention in their fertility when unmarried couples clearly aren’t?)

How can you say it is undisputable that an unmarried couple will have more children than God intends? I am just one person, but I dispute that assertion, (so it can’t be undisputable). It is certain that God does not intend for unmarried couples to have intimate relations, but what logic dictates that God would not intend for an unmarried couple to have children? In fact, I would bet we could find a saint somewhere in our history who resulted from that kind of relationship.

A child is always good. It may result from an inappropriate relationship, but it is always a gift from God. How would you like to be the child of an unwed couple and hear someone say, “yah, but God didn’t really want to create you…” How absurd! We know God can cause good to come from any bad situation.

The creation of every soul that has ever existed or ever will exist is an act of love on God’s part, regardless of the situation in which it occurs.

Catholic2003:

Of course the logic doesn’t work. The point of this “paradox” is to explain why the logic doesn’t work. I have my theory, but I think that Chris W believes that God only infuses zygotes with souls when it is in accord with His perfect will. Thus Chris W must find a different flaw in the logic.

Just things to think about.

Indeed the logic doesn’t work. And Yes, I believe God wills the creation of a soul in every single instance, without expection, even in a test tube. But this does not mean that God approves of the circumstance in which the egg and sperm meet!

Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me? Have I said something in this thread that contradicts Church teaching, or that would lead you to believe my motives in this discussion are less than honest? Are we playing a game here?

 

[Chris_W]

WhatIf:

TAke a look at this 5 page link from the Couple to Couple League, especially page 5.

I read the link. It was interesting, and insightful, although most of it I have already read elsewhere. Thank you though.

I couldn’t help thinking while reading it: “I wonder if Whatif thinks I am in disagreement with this.” So I must ask the following question, as I believe you have a good grasp of this issue:

Has what I have posted in this thread indicated to you that I am misunderstanding the Church’s teaching regarding contraception? Obviously I did not give a thoughtful or particularly meaningful resonse to the question about what I called “extracurricular activities”, but aside from that, does what I’ve said make sense in light of the studies you have done on this subject? …or are you concerned I would be giving out erroneous info in my apologetics classes at church? If so, what in particular?

My interest in this thread is primarily for the sake of ensuring I am not giving out bad info to others, and I have a feeling I can trust your feedback.

Thx,
Chris

 

[Catholic2003]

Chris W:

I have never heard this kind of thinking before, Catholic2003. It sounds as if you are saying we can force God’s hand and make Him do something against His will. What a strange idea when we believe in an all powerful God. God will comply with our will? Where do you find support for that belief in the Bible or Church teaching?

This is the fundamental idea of God’s perfect will (what God really wants to happen) and God’s permissive will (what God will allow to happen because of the free will of His created beings). Thus, it was God’s permissive will that allowed Adam and Eve to sin, not God’s perfect will.

That’s why I was asking about whether God’s perfect will and God’s permissive will were concepts in Catholic theology. I learned about them in Protestant Sunday school, so I don’t know.
Chris W:

How can you say it is undisputable that an unmarried couple will have more children than God intends? I am just one person, but I dispute that assertion, (so it can’t be undisputable). It is certain that God does not intend for unmarried couples to have intimate relations, but what logic dictates that God would not intend for an unmarried couple to have children?

Because God means what He says. And when He tells us, though the Sixth commandment no less, not to commit adultery, that means that it is God’s perfect will that we not commit adultery. Our God is not a God of tricks, telling people not to commit adultery when what He really wants is for us to commit adultery because that is where He plans for a future saint to be born.

In God’s perfect will, all children would be born into a family with a mother and a father who are married to each other.
Chris W:

A child is always good.

Is this the same thing as saying that God wants everyone to have as many children as physically possible?
Chris W:

The creation of every soul that has ever existed or ever will exist is an act of love on God’s part, regardless of the situation in which it occurs.

This is exactly true. It’s just that I personally don’t reason from this true statement to the conclusion that God supernaturally intervenes in situations where humans have seen fit to cause to the combination of sperm and egg.
Chris W:

Why do I feel like you are trying to trap me? Have I said something in this thread that contradicts Church teaching, or that would lead you to believe my motives in this discussion are less than honest? Are we playing a game here?

Sorry, I don’t mean to trap you. I’m just putting forth ideas, and trying to learn from your ideas. I don’t claim to know any of the answers; I’m just contributing my thoughts.

At first, I thought we might be saying the same thing in different ways. After further discussion, I can see that we are in fact saying different things. I don’t know who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Catholic2003]

I again apologize if the manner that I have stated my ideas has caused offense. I don’t always pick the best way to say things.

Here is a section from Christoper West’s website on Theology of the Body that relates to my beliefs, but with what I am sure is a better presentation:

Trusting in Providence

So what constitutes a “serious reason” for avoiding a child? Here’s where the discussion typically gets heated. Correct thinking (ortho-doxy) on the issue of responsible parenthood, like all issues, is a matter of maintaining important distinctions and carefully balancing various truths. Failure to do so leads to errors on both extremes.

An example of one such error is the “hyper-pious” notion that if couples really trusted in providence, they would never seek to avoid a child. This simply is not the teaching of the Church. As Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II’s pre-papal name) observed, in some cases “increase in the size of the family would be incompatible with parental duty.”[10] Therefore, as he also affirmed, avoiding children “in certain circumstances may be permissible or even obligatory.”[11]

We are certainly to trust in God’s providence. But this important truth must be balanced with another important truth if we are to avoid the error of a certain “providentialism.” When the devil tempted Christ to jump from the temple, he was correct to say that God would provide for him. The devil was even quoting Scripture! But Christ responded with another truth from Scripture: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (see Lk 4:9-12).

A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test. Today, knowledge of the fertility cycle is part of God’s providence. Thus, couples who make responsible use of that knowledge to avoid pregnancy are trusting in God’s providence. They, no less than a couple “who prudently and generously decide to have a large family,”[12] are practicing responsible parenthood.