Natural vs Artifical contraception

[budgie2]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

Barrier methods such as non-spermicidal condom and diaphragm are only a little less ethical than natural methods.

However, all birth control drugs aswell as IUDs are mortal sin. Hormonal contraceptives are forms of anabolic steroids, they cause cancer and can also cause abortion and may be linked to genetic abnormality in children such as Down Syndrome. Encouraging all women to become steroid junkies means women have very little rights in society.

Spermicide has been banned by the World Health Organisation as it damages the lining of the vagina and increases transmission of Sexually Transmitted Infections. Spermicide is also mortal sin.

 

[Christopher1956]

Artificial contraception puts something into the marital act that doesn’t belong there.

Pajamas are not natural either. Beds, for that matter, are not natural.

What about women who are infertile or have had hysterectomies or men or infertile. Can they have sex. If so, how much?

 

[rotlex]

It is because the couple is intentionally separating the love-giving aspect of sex from the life-giving aspect of sex. That is the entire reason why ANY form of birth prevention is immoral unless it maintains this integral link. NFP is moral because it respects and maintains the link – if the couple wants to avoid pregnancy, they simply forego BOTH aspects of sex, unlike withdrawal, where the couple goes ahead with the “love-giving” but then abruptly reneges on the “life-giving.”

Thanks for the response. I do understand how you are putting it, but I have a really hard time agreeing with that view. I openly admit, I have almost as hard a time seeing why barrier methods of BC are shunned as well, but that’s something I need to work out on my own, as it seems no one can change my mind on it as of yet.

Again, this is a personal struggle, as many have I’m sure, and I’m not saying that I think the Church is 100% wrong on it, but I do question it from time to time.

Thanks again.

 

[Christopher1956]

Pajamas are not natural either. Beds, for that matter, are not natural.

What about women who are infertile or have had hysterectomies or men or infertile. Can they have sex. If so, how much?

Should read:

What about women who are infertile or who have had hysterectomies or men who are infertile. Can they have sex? If so, how much?

 

[Abu]

Why all forms of contraception are objectively mortal sins

Christopher1956
What about women who are infertile or who have had hysterectomies or men who are infertile

.

rotlex
I have almost as hard a time seeing why barrier methods of BC are shunned as well
WHY is withdrawal also considered a “sin”?

bugie2
Barrier methods such as non-spermicidal condom and diaphragm are only a little less ethical than natural methods

.

surritter
It is because the couple is intentionally separating the love-giving aspect of sex from the life-giving aspect of sex. That is the entire reason why ANY form of birth prevention is immoral unless it maintains this integral link. NFP is moral because it respects and maintains the link

surritter gives the complete answer in a nutshell. There is no question of any contraception being “a little less ethical” – all are objectively mortal sins.

No one can be a faithful Catholic and dissent in statement or action from the infallible definitive teaching against contraception in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) or Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968).

Those who are past child bearing age, are infertile, or have had hysterectomies engage in moral sexual intercourse because what is moral is the intention and moral action – no human barrier is placed to thwart the act. Withdrawal is using intercourse for stimulation and then refusing to cooperate with God by flunking out – akin to masturbation.

It is evident that serious study and contemplation of Christ’s teaching through His Church is much needed.

 

[Vincent]

Pajamas are not natural either. Beds, for that matter, are not natural.

Artificiality in and of itself isn’t the problem.

Again, to quote Janet Smith,

But the fact is that the artificiality of contraception figures not at all in the Church’s condemnation of contraception. Certainly, the Church teachings that contraceptives commonly known as “artificial birth control” are morally impermissible, but it is not because of their artificiality that they are condemned.

The Church approves of what is artificial when it facilitates nature and disapproves of it when it violates nature. The distinction between facilitating nature and violating nature is key – “artificial” forms of contraception violate nature. So do some natural means that have historically been used as contraceptives, such as seaweed and natural sponges; these too fall under the condemnation of the Church.

The natural law upon which the Church much of its moral teaching has a very specific understanding of “nature” that unfortunately eludes many. The “nature” referred to in “natural law” is not biological nature but the nature of the human being; our nature as a rational, free, and relational creatures. Acts that violate the rational free, and relational nature of the human being are thereby immoral . . . .

**t falsifies and trivializes the Church’s teaching to reduce it to a rejection of the “artificial.”
​

What about women who are infertile or have had hysterectomies or men or infertile. Can they have sex. If so, how much?

Consider this: most women are infertile most of the time. Natural infertility, whether temporary or permanent, is a non-behavioral condition. Anyone with the condition is not morally prevented from engaging in marital relations.

What’s immoral is to do something before, during or after the conjugal act to deliberately impede procreation as an end or a means. The non-behavioral condition of infertility does not apply.

Frequency is not an issue, either.**

 

[StillWondering]

Consider this: most women are infertile most of the time. Natural infertility, whether temporary or permanent, is a non-behavioral condition. Anyone with the condition is not morally prevented from engaging in marital relations.

What’s immoral is to do something before, during or after the conjugal act to deliberately impede procreation as an end or a means. The non-behavioral condition of infertility does not apply.

Frequency is not an issue, either.

This is a great explanation to the question about women who are infertile.

Here is a different way to look at it on the covenant level. Marriage is a covenant. No matter what people call marriage nowadays nowadays, covenant is the original and lasting meaning of it. It is a covenant between the man and woman and God. Now every covenant has a ritual of renewal. Think in terms of biblical language. In marriage, it is self-giving conjugal love.

With that in mind, think about what withdrawing means. It means backing off on renewing the covenant. Sure both partners may want to do it, but unless you are hardened of heart, there is a part of your soul that would feel some doubt in the love making. Furthermore, God is the patient and quiet partner in the relationship. What are we saying to God when we cannot even renew the vows between ourselves and whom we promise to love and cherish all the days of our life here on earth.

This same covenant understanding can be applied to all modes of pregnancy prevention. When we apply it and really think about it, we can see why NFP is good and why condemns or other selfish contraception are bad.

Remember the parable of the talents? The master says to the good servants, “Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.”

 

[budgie2]

Some couples have “infertile” sex lives because they destroy the child following conception and use abortifacients. This is no way in accordance with the teaching of the Church. Others prevent contraception more ethically using natural birth control, barrier methods or sterilisation. There are also couples who are naturally infertile or have had to be sterilised for serious medical reasons and these couples are committing no sin at all.

 

[Christopher1956]

"… The natural law upon which the Church much of its moral teaching has a very specific understanding of “nature” that unfortunately eludes many. The “nature” referred to in “natural law” is not biological nature but the nature of the human being; our nature as a rational, free, and relational creatures. Acts that violate the rational free, and relational nature of the human being are thereby immoral . . . "

Yes, I am familiar with Natural Law and not just mistaking it for nature. But there is also Theory and Practice. Laws and People.

“… Consider this: most women are infertile most of the time.”

I can consider this statement. In a healthy world, of twenty (thirty, forty) years ago this would more often than not be true. But in the real world of the '90s and 2000’s natural hormonal development has been found to be effected (by technology and its byproducts) in some rather alarming ways. Young girls menstruating at 10 or 11. Boys developing breasts.

I would not hedge my bets that frequency of women’s fertility is not being effected by modern developments. Not a concrete answer to Janey Smith’s point but ideas for her to keep in mind while she is making her statements with such certitude.

Natural infertility, whether temporary or permanent, is a non-behavioral condition. Anyone with the condition is not morally prevented from engaging in marital relations.

I think this underestimates particularly male sexual imperatives. Whether consciously or unconsciously men can choose female mates who are infertile (through “disorder” or age), thus making much of the argument moot, but still putting themselves in position of satisfying their sexual desires at their whim.

What’s immoral is to do something before, during or after the conjugal act to deliberately impede procreation as an end or a means. The non-behavioral condition of infertility does not apply.

Yes, in a perfect world that could be true. Absolutely. But in this modern world, it depends on whether you believe that God’s plan for the wholly uneducated and wholly unsophisticated poor people of Africa, India (name your country) to be able to reproduce at levels which will insure their suffering through disease and starvation.

Shouldn’t there be a plan to address both issues?

Frequency is not an issue, either.

Really? So people can find ways to rationaize unbridled or obsessive sexual behavior and do so completely with in the bounds of the Church?

 

[mark_a]

Whats the real moral difference between using natural or artifical contraception?

Jarrod

If a couple is contracepting (naturally or artificially) for selfish sinful reasons, artificial contraception is more fun more often.

 

[Vincent]

I would not hedge my bets that frequency of women’s fertility is not being effected by modern developments. Not a concrete answer to Janey Smith’s point but ideas for her to keep in mind while she is making her statements with such certitude.

If you were referring to “most women are infertile most of the time”, that wasn’t Smith’s point.

I think this underestimates particularly male sexual imperatives. Whether consciously or unconsciously men can choose female mates who are infertile (through “disorder” or age), thus making much of the argument moot, but still putting themselves in position of satisfying their sexual desires at their whim.

What argument are you referring to?

Yes, in a perfect world that could be true. Absolutely. But in this modern world, it depends on whether you believe that God’s plan for the wholly uneducated and wholly unsophisticated poor people of Africa, India (name your country) to be able to reproduce at levels which will insure their suffering through disease and starvation.

Shouldn’t there be a plan to address both issues?

The immorality of doing something before, during or after the conjugal act to deliberately impede procreation as an end or a means does not suddenly cease being valid if you are “the wholly uneducated and wholly unsophisticated poor” persons of the countries you mentioned.

Really? So people can find ways to rationaize unbridled or obsessive sexual behavior and do so completely with in the bounds of the Church?

I’m not sure how you’re reading that into my statement. You had asked, “What about women who are infertile or have had hysterectomies or men or infertile. Can they have sex. If so, how much?”

 

[StillWondering]

I can consider this statement. In a healthy world, of twenty (thirty, forty) years ago this would more often than not be true. But in the real world of the '90s and 2000’s natural hormonal development has been found to be effected (by technology and its byproducts) in some rather alarming ways. Young girls menstruating at 10 or 11. Boys developing breasts.

When we say “consider that women are infertile most of the time” we literally mean they are infertile. If you learned NFP or other details about fertility, you will recognize that we are talking about the fact that women are literally only fertile about 3-7 days out of their period of 28-36 days. That means they are infertile 80-90% of the time even when they are having regular periods. And they are 100% infertile during other periods of their lives. We are literally referring to women being infertile most of their lives.

 

[StillWondering]

Yes, in a perfect world that could be true. Absolutely. But in this modern world, it depends on whether you believe that God’s plan for the wholly uneducated and wholly unsophisticated poor people of Africa, India (name your country) to be able to reproduce at levels which will insure their suffering through disease and starvation.

I do not have the quote but maybe someone can find it. In NFP classes my future spouse and I were instructed on the effectiveness of NFP. An startling example was where Mother Theresa worked. Over a 5 years period or was it 15 years, she taught thousands of women NFP. These women had a 0.0001% number of unwanted pregnancy. I guess this example does not count cause it’s in India and in this modern where world wholly uneducated and wholly unsophisticated poor people. Just for your information, these women had the number of children they wanted, was able to support, and could support them back when they are grown. Looks like the promiscuous and overly sexuality wealthy countries like America that are really the ones that are “wholly uneducated and wholly unsophisticated”.

 

[Christopher1956]

When we say “consider that women are infertile most of the time” we literally mean they are infertile. If you learned NFP or other details about fertility, you will recognize that we are talking about the fact that women are literally only fertile about 3-7 days out of their period of 28-36 days. That means they are infertile 80-90% of the time even when they are having regular periods. And they are 100% infertile during other periods of their lives. We are literally referring to women being infertile most of their lives.

I am familiar with Natural Family Planning. I’ve heard the statistics you cite, but I don’t know where they come from. Honestly, they sound like idealized and “old” statistics.

What I was referring to to that these are changing conditions and changing numbers in the real world due to the effects of environmentally introduced toxins (Bisphenol A, BPA; sex steroids, heavy metal in waste water and subsequently farm soil) which contribute to the increasingly shocking phenomenon of precocious puberty and other reproductive and sexual disorders.

The world is changing much more rapidly than a one set of rules can cover. One-size-fits-all-dogma might be easier to teach and easier to understand and easier to enforce, but it does not address the modern mess humanity has got itself into.

Woman are “infertile 80-90% of the time” is a compact way of making a statement to support your argument, but I think either highly idealized and/or culturally hyper- focused and/or outdated.

Btw, just for sake of further interaction on any of these “hot-button” issue forums, I have no hardline ideological 'dog in this fight". Chastity is the ideal. Absolutely. Positively. It is the most sane and peaceful and compassionate of options. It’s what we strive for and what we would like to see for our family members and indeed all humanity to practice.

 

[Christopher1956]

I do not have the quote but maybe someone can find it. In NFP classes my future spouse and I were instructed on the effectiveness of NFP. An startling example was where Mother Theresa worked. Over a 5 years period or was it 15 years, she taught thousands of women NFP. These women had a 0.0001% number of unwanted pregnancy. I guess this example does not count cause it’s in India and in this modern where world wholly uneducated and wholly unsophisticated poor people. Just for your information, these women had the number of children they wanted, was able to support, and could support them back when they are grown. Looks like the promiscuous and overly sexuality wealthy countries like America that are really the ones that are “wholly uneducated and wholly unsophisticated”.

"Looks like the promiscuous and overly sexuality wealthy countries like America that are really the ones that are “wholly uneducated and wholly unsophisticated”. I couldn’t agree with you more and I think the same challenges apply in this country. Even here though, the challenges are multi-leveled. The wealthy and the middle-classes need more effective moral education and the entrenched lower classes and immigrant people more education (effective and creative education).

Your citings of Mother Theresa are lovely and encouraging. Anyone but an idiot would criticize her sincerity or intent or sanctity. To have over the course of many years, (5 or 15), tens of thousands of women with those results is wonderful. But in a country on 1 billion, 100 million-plus people (1,139,964,932) that seems like a very small number even if each of those tens of thousands of women were able to successfully teach 10 other women the method. Time and entrenched cultural norms are not on the side of remedy – which is the goal.

How big is the Catholic mission in India?

Then there is the problem of HIV-AIDS. A whole other awful and critical mess especially in Africa. But these are issues and “arguments” are too broad for one or two posts. (“Arguments” here is used as a form of logical or philosophical discourse, however practically applied).

I actually came on to the forum to explore other educational avenues for myself. How I walked into “birth control” and “abortion” (a topic thread which was closed for “declining charity” shortly after I joined in) can only be attributed to my predilection (or perhaps weakness) for examining tough issues. I’m not a “stealth” agent of anti-Catholicism or anti-Vatican-ism or anything else. It’s too bad the “abortion” thread was closed. I think I conducted myself fairly, so I’m safe to understand it wasn’t closed on account of me, it just may be that topic threads on the subject are not possible to discuss civilly on this web site. I do not know.

In the meantime, I’ll be praying for all of us. Pray for me too. Pray that all of us can openly discuss even the difficult topics with as much Charity as we can muster.

– Chris