NFP and contraception

[Abu]

Debora123
if the rhythm method existed during the entire history of the Catholic Church, then how come it wasn’t until the 1800’s that is was finally approved as being licit??

It didn’t – there was no known “method” of NBR (NFP).

“In fact, there had been medical speculation about an infertile time of the woman’s cycle since the mid-nineteenth century. Questions about the morality of confining relations to the infertile time had been addressed to the Vatican during the last half of the 1800s, and the practice had been approved.

“Thus, long before calendar rhythm became a practical possibility, its theoretical possibility had been foreseen and had been approved. This is all part of the context for this statement in Casti Connubii: ‘Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner, although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth’ (II, 59).”
See: catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea1.asp

 

[Abu]

copperblade
This is why I have a hard time with the moral logic that the ends doesn’t justify the means when taken to the extreme. It’s good 99% of the time, but I think the severity of evil does matter in extreme cases. The allowance of birth control in rape scenarios seems to acknowledge this fact.

Notice how the rule is “before the woman ovulated” which I’m guessing means it’s ok to contracept in the case of rape, but not ok to abort. I’ll agree to that, but this is in contradiction to either:

1. Contraception is intrinsically evil
2. The ends cannot justify the means.

There is no contradiction.
Abortion is the killing of a human being, who exists from the moment of conception, so it is always objectively gravely wrong. That’s why there should be no steps taken to abort after conception even in the case of rape.

A condom in rape is “morally irrelevant”. It’s not technical it is moral. A condom is not “evil”. The use of a condom in marriage is intrinsically wrong because the intention is to thwart the procreative end of the marital act in marriage.

As Dr Jeff Mirus explains:
“The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.”

Since Christ gave us His Church to teach the truth infallibly on faith and morals, we know for certain that the use of condoms to prevent conception is gravely wrong.

The simple and loving way is to learn Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) usually called Natural Family Planning. We know also that this is moral for serious reasons, so anyone who insists on condomistic intercourse is:

1. Unfaithful to Christ and His Church
2. Unreasonable and unfaithful to their spouse
3. Needs real help in understanding and the meaning of real love.

 

[Warrior1979]

Notice how the rule is “before the woman ovulated”

I believe this is a position of the USCCB, not the Vatican. As such this position on morals is not infallible, and could change at a later date.

 

[Warrior1979]

Catholicism teaches that marriage is supposed to be for the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children. If, at any time, a couple has serious reason to avoid children, abstinence is allowed. Sometimes abstinence is required for other reasons too, so no, it wouldn’t necessarily be a sin to abstain your whole marriage.

I have to admit, the backward argument drive me nuts. Abstinence is allowed basically anytime by anybody, barring specific circumstances (e.g., refusal of marital relations when other spouse insists). It has nothing to do with NFP.

OTOH, what is specific to NFP, and NFP alone, is having marital relations with full knowledge that it is during the infertile period and with the intent to not have children.

The argument is like this. I see and acorn on the ground. I state it’s an acorn. Another person doesn’t state it’s an acorn, but rather goes through the list of every existing object and states what it is not, implying it is an acorn. Marital relations during the infertile period is the former (the specific circumstance), while abstinence is the latter (includes everything else; nonspecific).

 

[sacredcello]

well, the procreative meaning IS thwarted though if NFPers’ numbers are to be believed. You can’t tout higher success rates than ABC, and then say that it doesn’t thwart the procreative meaning of marriage. That leaves periodic abstinence as the only reason for NFP, which to me seems a bit silly to be honest.

The procreative meaning is no more thwarted during phase III than it is during pregnancy or menopause. Chastity is the virtue by which NFP can claim success. By procreative meaning, we mean that the marital act has not been corrupted by drugs, surgery, devices, etc. These are degrading to the human person (spouses) and are hostile to a vulnerable baby in the womb. The latter is much more likely to be aborted, due to his being viewed as “a mistake” or failure of ABC. Those who practice NFP, but find themselves with a surprise pregnancy are fare more likely to keep the baby because their marital behaviors were always open to life.

 

[Good_Daughter]

You’d think so, but the Church teaches that one evil cannot be used to stop another evil. My understanding was that contraception was “intrinsically evil” and therefore you could never use contraception as a means to an end. If contraception is only an unintended side-effect, then it’s ok. But that’s not the case when the intention is to prevent pregnancy.

This is why I have a hard time with the moral logic that the ends doesn’t justify the means when taken to the extreme. It’s good 99% of the time, but I think the severity of evil does matter in extreme cases. The allowance of birth control in rape scenarios seems to acknowledge this fact.

Notice how the rule is “before the woman ovulated” which I’m guessing means it’s ok to contracept in the case of rape, but not ok to abort. I’ll agree to that, but this is in contradiction to either:

1. Contraception is intrinsically evil
2. The ends cannot justify the means.

This kind of problem comes up in other areas like lying. Is it ok to lie to prevent someone from being murdered? If lying is evil, and the ends can never justify the means, then the answer is no. However it seems a bit extreme. So if you look at the example in the Catholic encyclopedia they come up with what seems to be contorted explanation to get around the issue without admitting that sometimes an end is so evil that you should commit a much lesser evil to avoid it. You cannot lie but you can mislead someone by using ambiguous terms that lead to the same result (which in any other situation you would have to confess as lying). Or you can lie as long as you make a “mental reservation.” (In the example given if someone comes to the house to kill someone else, you can say “he is not at home” while completing the sentence in your mind “for you.” I cannot agree that this is somehow not lying.)

These problems happen when you try and make the world an absolute black/white situation.

So in addition to cases like rape and a malformed baby, I’d like to submit my own situation: the doctors have told us my wife shouldn’t get pregnant again for a year after her C-section. They prescribed her birth control too and told her she had to use that or a condom. The goal is, again, to prevent conception. Therefore, I would opt to use a condom because it would guarantee no chance for an abortion. However, I don’t think according to Catholic teaching we are allowed to use contraception.

Sorry copperblade, I’m having a little trouble following your point (it may be entirely my fault, not yours).

When a woman is raped and contracepts, what evil has been stopped, really? I think you’re looking to disuss a difficult and fairly obscure moral issue. I suggest you find someone with expertise in moral theology for a more satisfying answer. You may even get better feedback by starting a new thread, if you’re so inclined.

I mean the rules seem to ignore the pleasure aspect almost entirely. Pleasure is not taken into account when determining whether or not a sexual act is sinful. There may be a case where if the act is not pleasurable, it can be presumed that there were other reasons for it, which may in turn reduce culpability.

What’s the basis for lust though? I thought it was pleasure of the flesh just like gluttony.

Couples who follow Catholic teaching on marital love can experience tremendous pleasure. Lust is based in disordered, selfish desire for pleasure of the flesh, rather than concern for the well-being of another.

 

[copperblade]

Sorry copperblade, I’m having a little trouble following your point (it may be entirely my fault, not yours).

When a woman is raped and contracepts, what evil has been stopped, really? I think you’re looking to disuss a difficult and fairly obscure moral issue. I suggest you find someone with expertise in moral theology for a more satisfying answer. You may even get better feedback by starting a new thread, if you’re so inclined.

Yeah, I don’t know what evil is stopped specifically, but this is allowed in Catholic hospitals under the guidelines set forth by the USCCB. But I have to assume the prescribed contraception due to the arthritis medication isn’t OK.

Another question I would have is: what if pharmacies started combining medications so that the arthritis medication also was a contraceptive? Then would a Catholic be required to request the non-contraceptive version of the medication?

Couples who follow Catholic teaching on marital love can experience tremendous pleasure. Lust is based in disordered, selfish desire for pleasure of the flesh, rather than concern for the well-being of another.

Yes they say disordered. But couldn’t you have disordered lust for your spouse too? If the real reason you’re having sex is from lustful desire, isn’t that wrong despite the other issues? And how would you know? What if you would have used contraception if you had it? I think it’s the “how do you know” question that begets the answer: “you know because you had sex with your wife and you were open to procreation.”

If Jesus said that looking lustfully at a woman was equivalent to adultery, then I am taking that to mean it is our desires in our hearts that matter. If I looked lustfully at my wife, without being open to life… well it sounds silly, but what I’m getting at is if we’re judged based on our hearts, isn’t our attitude what really matters?

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979
what is specific to NFP, and NFP alone, is having marital relations with full knowledge that it is during the infertile period and with the intent to not have children.

**Facing Reality
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Oct-30-2003 (EWTN): **
A number of differences between natural family planning and contraception are worth noting.
First, the evil in contraception consists essentially in its deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the love-giving and life-giving meanings of the marital act. There is no such rupture in natural family planning. Moreover, anyone who attempts to morally justify contraception must face up to the logic of that attempt: the person must also accept the moral justification of homosexual activity, genital activity with anyone or anything, in vitro fertilization, and cloning.
Second, while natural family planning nurtures total mutual self-giving between husband and wife, contraception introduces a reservation into their nuptial union. Contraception communicates the message, “I love you…but.” When husband and wife contracept, they lie to each other and to themselves. This may not be what husband and wife intend, but this is what they are objectively doing.
Thirdly, while natural family planning teaches a husband to respect his wife wholly, contraception not only does not teach this, but also permits a man to view his wife as a passive receptacle for his own passions. As noted previously, contraception imposes upon the wife the distorted masculine reduction of feminine sexuality (which includes conception, gestation, giving birth, and breast feeding) to the isolated coital act. Thus, while with natural family planning husband and wife together share the responsibilities of parenthood, with contraception the responsibility is laid on the shoulders of one or the other spouse.
Fourthly, while natural family planning includes growth in virtue, especially chastity, contraception requires no virtue at all. Moreover, while natural family planning deepens the marital bond, contraception weakens marriage’s unitive dimension.
Fifthly, while natural family planning involves a cooperation with the gift of fertility, contraception involves the manipulation and frustration of fertility.
Sixthly, while natural family planning has no adverse side effects but rather only a number of benefits, contraception has a number of serious medical side effects and is often abortifacient. As one moral theologian once put it, so called “pure” or “clean” contraception is a virtual myth.
Finally, while among couples using natural family planning child abuse and divorce are rare, historically the use of contraceptives since the 1960s has increased hand in hand with the rising divorce rate.

 

[copperblade]

Nothing directed toward you Abu… just wanted to comment on the info you posted. I know you were just trying to answer a specific question but…

There is no such rupture in natural family planning.

This is an assertion without explanation. Why is there “no such rupture” when choosing one method of birth control over another?

Moreover, anyone who attempts to morally justify contraception must face up to the logic of that attempt: the person must also accept the moral justification of homosexual activity, genital activity with anyone or anything, in vitro fertilization, and cloning.

I’ve heard this more than once, and I’ve come to realize this is a horrible argument. Basically it goes something like this: “If we said that contraception was ok, then we’d have to say that homosexuality is ok. Since that’s obviously wrong, contraception is not ok.” But why is it “obviously wrong” if you’re throwing out the assumption that contraception is wrong? Obviously because there are other reasons it’s wrong. Otherwise it’s just circular thinking. You’re asserting that contraception is wrong because homosexuality is wrong, which in turn is wrong because contraception is wrong.

Or to put it another way: the argument against homosexuality can’t both be solely dependent on contraception, and more obviously wrong than contraception.

There’s really no reason why the Church couldn’t make some allowance for contraception, while maintaining that homosexual activity is still “disordered” due to the natural inability to have children (or other reasons, such as interpretation of scripture). If homosexuality is just tantamount to using contraception, then what about straight couples that biologically can’t have children?

Yes, I know that it’s ok to use NFP and it’s ok to have sex if you biologically can’t have children. It’s just inconsistent logic applied and used to argue a point.

Second, while natural family planning nurtures total mutual self-giving between husband and wife, contraception introduces a reservation into their nuptial union. Contraception communicates the message, “I love you…but.” When husband and wife contracept, they lie to each other and to themselves. This may not be what husband and wife intend, but this is what they are objectively doing.

I think intent matters a lot, especially in this area. But anyway, NFP is also “I love you, but…” for the exact same reason. It’s just another assertion like, “NFP is love, condoms are hate (even if you don’t intend for condoms to be hate).” Uhh, ok but why? Maybe inserting little quotes like “I love you… but.” make it sound profound, but when you really think about it, it makes no point.

Thirdly, while natural family planning teaches a husband to respect his wife wholly, contraception not only does not teach this, but also permits a man to view his wife as a passive receptacle for his own passions. As noted previously, contraception imposes upon the wife the distorted masculine reduction of feminine sexuality (which includes conception, gestation, giving birth, and breast feeding) to the isolated coital act. Thus, while with natural family planning husband and wife together share the responsibilities of parenthood, with contraception the responsibility is laid on the shoulders of one or the other spouse.

There might be some truth to that in reality, but the assertion that this is necessarily always the case with contraception I think is not true and not proven. I totally understand how unfettered use of contraception would be immoral. But so would using NFP to simply selfishly avoid having kids when you could afford them. NFP isn’t always ok. Again the assertion that somehow NFP and contraception is inherently different isn’t supported. But the Church says contraception is intrinsically evil. So it can’t be simply that contraception can lead to disrespecting the sexuality of a woman.

Fourthly, while natural family planning includes growth in virtue, especially chastity, contraception requires no virtue at all. Moreover, while natural family planning deepens the marital bond, contraception weakens marriage’s unitive dimension.

Yes, NFP requires some restraint. This is really the only spiritual difference I can see in the two. The part about NFP deepening the bond, but contraception weakening it is another assertion without explanation.

So far this is one of the only reasons I can understand why the Church conceded to NFP.

Fifthly, while natural family planning involves a cooperation with the gift of fertility, contraception involves the manipulation and frustration of fertility.

… and this is the other reason. The Church basically decided that if your just timing your natural biology then it must be within the parameters God’s plan.

Sixthly, while natural family planning has no adverse side effects but rather only a number of benefits, contraception has a number of serious medical side effects and is often abortifacient. As one moral theologian once put it, so called “pure” or “clean” contraception is a virtual myth.

What are the side-effects of condom usage? A rash?

Finally, while among couples using natural family planning child abuse and divorce are rare, historically the use of contraceptives since the 1960s has increased hand in hand with the rising divorce rate.

There might be a causal link, there might not. I would think that anyone practicing NFP has got to already be taking not only their faith but their marriage seriously. But I think it’s more of a case that “the more faithful use NFP” rather than “NFP makes you more faithful” (faithful in terms of religious/moral)

 

[joshman1]

Copperblade, to add to your post under the area where NFP supporters claim that sexual abstinence strengthens marriages, etc- If you read the “Is NFP a blessing or frustration” thread, quite the opposite can equally occur. Can you not argue that sexual abstinence could weaken the bond between married people while constant lovemaking/togetherness strengthens the marriage bond?

 

[samiam1611]

My question is this:
NFP proponents say that NFP is acceptable when a couple is trying to space births because it is still open to life- but then they point to statistics that claim it is more effective than ABC.

That seriously confuses me.

That “open to life” thing sure is confusing.

Either the NFP proponents were wrong or you heard them wrong. Catholic married couples are not required to be “open to life” every time they have sex. (That would eliminate all sex during times like pregnancy and menopause.)

What you say makes perfect sense but I don’t think Josh heard wrong.
From The Moral Regulation of Birth: Roman Catholic Teaching on Conjugal Love and Responsible Parenthood (USCCB):

“every act of sexual intercourse between husband and wife must be open to life”

Then they explain:

"In respecting God’s design for married love, although every act of intercourse must be open to life, spouses “need not desire or seek to have a child in each and every act of intercourse…Pope Pius XI affirmed that “spouses could not physically or intentionally exclude procreation” but should “intend procreation at least implicitly.” In the judgment of the magisterium, recourse to the infertile periods was the equivalent of not explicitly intending procreation, but still accepting it and intending it, at least implicitly, as a purpose of the marital act.”

See the difference between NFP and ABC? NFP is implictly open to life. Makes perfect sense now right?

 

[joshman1]

See the difference between NFP and ABC? NFP is implictly open to life. Makes perfect sense now right?

This term, “implicitly” is confusing though if one believes the numbers that NFP is MORE successful at avoiding pregnancy than ABC, no? To me, that just seems like gymnastics with semantics…

 

[copperblade]

Copperblade, to add to your post under the area where NFP supporters claim that sexual abstinence strengthens marriages, etc- If you read the “Is NFP a blessing or frustration” thread, quite the opposite can equally occur. Can you not argue that sexual abstinence could weaken the bond between married people while constant lovemaking/togetherness strengthens the marriage bond?

As usual, I think it’s really all about why you’re having sex. If you’re just using each other as objects, I can understand how that’s bad for the relationship. On the other hand if you’re abstaining because of some moral obligation and it’s causing sexual frustration and arguments, I can see how that’s bad for the relationship too. For my marriage, the relationship isn’t affected by frequency, so maybe I’m not the best judge. But I’d be willing to bet it’s going to depend relationship to relationship, and on the attitudes and people involved.

I think the only way to be consistent is to either say that sex is only for procreation and rule out NFP, or to say that contraception isn’t itself intrinsically evil but may very often be indicative of the evil of lust. Given the doctrine of infallibility, only the former is an option unless the infallibility of certain documents is (re)defined.

 

[copperblade]

This term, “implicitly” is confusing though if one believes the numbers that NFP is MORE successful at avoiding pregnancy than ABC, no? To me, that just seems like gymnastics with semantics…

I think they mean implicitly to mean “by it’s very nature.” However, I think it’s irrelevant because what’s relevant is the intention of the couple. Metaphorically speaking, either you have a contracepting heart or you don’t. Either you’re trying to not have a child when you have sex, or you’re open to life.

What the Church is saying is that artificial contraception is in itself intrinsically evil. It’s very nature is evil because it’s “unnatural.” They describe its nature as being “closed to life” to try to help people understand why it’s evil.

 

[joshman1]

I think they mean implicitly to mean “by it’s very nature.” However, I think it’s irrelevant because what’s relevant is the intention of the couple. Metaphorically speaking, either you have a contracepting heart or you don’t. Either you’re trying to not have a child when you have sex, or you’re open to life.

What the Church is saying is that artificial contraception is in itself intrinsically evil. It’s very nature is evil because it’s “unnatural.” They describe its nature as being “closed to life” to try to help people understand why it’s evil.

The “unnatural” part is something that I also have a problem with- this to me seemingly is language that comes close to the line of thinking of Christian Scientists. Why is using “unnatural” things in the bedroom wrong, while we are allowed to use various forms of medicine, vitamins/supplements, etc, etc? Then we arrive at “closed to life” which starts up my whole confusion all over again.

I do agree with your broad point about “contracepting heart” though

 

[samiam1611]

This term, “implicitly” is confusing though if one believes the numbers that NFP is MORE successful at avoiding pregnancy than ABC, no? To me, that just seems like gymnastics with semantics…

yes it definitely does seem like gymnastics with semantics. hence the winky face!

 

[copperblade]

The “unnatural” part is something that I also have a problem with- this to me seemingly is language that comes close to the line of thinking of Christian Scientists. Why is using “unnatural” things in the bedroom wrong, while we are allowed to use various forms of medicine, vitamins/supplements, etc, etc? Then we arrive at “closed to life” which starts up my whole confusion all over again.

I do agree with your broad point about “contracepting heart” though

They don’t mean unnatural in the “nature vs man” sense, but unnatural in the “proper use” sense. It’s more or less “against the nature of sex” to use contraception. I guess the better word is “disordered.”

An irony just occurred to me that while a homosexual act may be immoral, involving a condom in that act is itself not immoral because it cannot possibly be used as a contraceptive.

 

[Abu]

Some may be unaware that the late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN)].
To put it mildly we are seeing the fruits of great fidelity and scholarship which cannot be countered by the usual shallow objections based on lack of knowledge of doctrine or faulty reasoning.

copperblade
There’s really no reason why the Church couldn’t make some allowance for contraception, while maintaining that homosexual activity is still “disordered” due to the natural inability to have children (or other reasons, such as interpretation of scripture). If homosexuality is just tantamount to using contraception, then what about straight couples that biologically can’t have children?

There is every reason for Christ’s Church to be true to Her mandate to St Peter from Him: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) as She teaches the evil of contraception infallibly.

That the marital act may be completely divorced from its objective of procreation by self-imposing a barrier while acting, and thus having separated the act from its consequences opens the door to using sex with anyone or anything, such as masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, IVF, cloning. That’s why God has implanted the natural moral law within human nature, so that we can use our reason from cause to effect. Bestiality is encouraged by some utilitarians, such as Professor Peter Singer at Princeton.

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/SEXSAN.TXT
(Chapter 6 of Sex And The Sanctity Of Human Life by William E. May published by Christendom Press, Ft. Royal, VA.)
'De Margerie observes that “every matrimonial act should be ‘intrinsically’ ordered to life, to the transmission of life, even if in actual fact, owing to an accidental and extrinsic reason, it must remain barren.” A conjugal act that respects the gift of fertility, of procreativity, is one that is intrinsically open to the transmission of life, even if conception, as a physical event, does not take place or cannot take place because of sterility resulting from “natural rhythms” or age or disease.

‘There is a significant “moral” difference between a conjugal act that is sterile because of natural rhythms, age, or disease and one that has been deliberately “sterilized” by the free choice of the spouses.’

The same would apply to sterility.

I totally understand how unfettered use of contraception would be immoral. But so would using NFP to simply selfishly avoid having kids when you could afford them. NFP isn’t always ok. Again the assertion that somehow NFP and contraception is inherently different isn’t supported.

The use or misuse of NBR has nothing to do with the naturalness of NBR – the misuse of NBR selfishly through not having serious reasons is mandated as evil.

What are the side-effects of condom usage? A rash?

As this is about contraception, why assume condoms only? It is obviously about the chemical contraceptives.

 

[Abu]

joshman1
The “unnatural” part is something that I also have a problem with- this to me seemingly is language that comes close to the line of thinking of Christian Scientists. Why is using “unnatural” things in the bedroom wrong, while we are allowed to use various forms of medicine, vitamins/supplements, etc, etc? Then we arrive at “closed to life” which starts up my whole confusion all over again

.
Those who don’t think clearly will be confused over everything. Since when has using normal medical aids become “unnatural”? Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being. Mankind’s correct use of medicine is to bolster health, prevent and cure disease to sustain and improve his well-being.

The natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason. If his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism – the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and it’s for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit.

Assisting nature for mankind
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on July 10 2007 (EWTN):
The art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is a wonderful thing. Human beings do it in many different ways. For example, the plumbing in your house assists nature in quenching your thirst. The moral problem arises when we oppose nature, as in the case, for example, of in vitro fertilization, so called “gay marriage,” and contraception.

The morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. As has been clearly expressed, God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.

As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is in accord with natural law.

 

[LittleDeb]

I am not sure how involved I really want to be in this thread, mostly because there are others doing a great job in the first place, so I have very little to add. But I might be able to clarify a few simple points.

For one: the euphemism “open to life.” That has come about because of bad translation abilities. The English language(s) just do not have a term for it. If you read some of the writings in Latin, they make more sense, but because many of us can’t read those languages, (me included) we are stuck with the inaccurate “open to life.” When I took a class on this whole topic, it was clear that this (bad) term requires more understanding.

I hope my “in a nutshell” summation doesn’t further complicate things, but here goes. “Open to life” is a tiny bit better expressed as “ordered towards the life giving design.” What that means is that the Designer *purposefully *built in both fertility and infertility into the human female. He didn’t have to design humans that way. AND He designed only *females *to be cyclically fertile, not males. He has his reasons, and studying more about the marital act makes those reasons very clear. It is His design and it works perfectly. It can’t be compared to glasses, or medications. They are used because something is broken. Human sexuality is very much right!

That brings me to my second point. Birth regulation isn’t about “success rates.” It is about the design being perfect, made by a perfect designer. If a woman is naturally infertile, she will not conceive, no matter how much wishing happens on the part of the couple. Saying contraception is intrinsically evil isn’t because it can successfully prevent conception. Contraception is intrinsically evil because it is about taking an act (the marital act) that is designed to be one way, by God, and corrupting it into a lesser act. There has ALWAYS been a way to prevent conception: abstinence. And because God designed females to be cyclically fertile, there has always been periodic abstinence. The idea of “a woman is forced to be a baby factory” is based on one thing: lack of self control. More sex with contraception does not make a marriage better. It has been successfully argued that the contraceptive act is not even a unitive act.

If a couple has sex every day, then that couple will probably have a baby about every 18 months or less. That is fine and wonderful! If they are in a place to accept those blessings, that is a reason for joy and happiness. If however, they are not able to accept those blessings, then they need to accept that sex every day is not a good plan for them. If one or both of the couple has a tendency towards lustful behavior, then they need to curb their lust through more chastity, not less.

Why is the above true? Because God’s design is perfect! He has made it so that even someone like me, with chronic health problems, can still be called to marriage.

The actual wording in documents like Humanae Vitae is that “**exclusive **use of the infertile time must be only for serious reason.” Nowhere has the Church ever been against understanding how and when conception works. The Church is a champion of science. What She says is that children are a blessing, and not to miss out on that unless absolutely necessary. And what she says about the marital act is HUGE. She says that the marriage act has a design and purpose. If you want a marriage that mirrors the Heavenly Banquet, then follow God’s design.

If you read this entire post, I thank you. I’m still too chatty. But Good Daughter warned ya’!