NFP and contraception

[Abu]

joshman1, #513
How is is that taking temperatures, charting, and examining mucus don’t fall under “deliberate sterilizing”?
this is my main sticking point with NFP

1. Like another function of the human body – the blood pressure, which can be measured and treated for abnormal conditions – the fertile period can similarly be identified due to our God-given reason and developed scientific knowledge.
2. Then, for serious reasons, intercourse in marriage may be restricted to these periods. It is abstinence, which is not harmful but helpful to the soul, body and mind.
   Neither the act nor the couple is frustrated with NBR – the act is fully normal, the couple does what comes naturally. The misuse of NBR would be unnatural because to use the infertile periods only without serious reasons would be thwarting the purpose of procreation, obviously.
   It’s not rocket science.

The world is in chaos because of this dichotomy between the precepts of natural moral law and the flight from reason. The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

 

[copperblade]

Sorry to repeat, but I suspect Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception applies exclusively to the marital act and not rape.

I see. I guess I’m taking “marital act” to be more of a euphemism for sex. Does this mean contraception between unmarried couples isn’t asserted as sinful in itself?

The confusion at this stage is surprising from a Catholic.

I figured since I’ve seen you give specific information about what is infallible you would know the answer to something I don’t. I don’t know why this makes me confused. Maybe you could say you’re surprised at my ignorance, but frankly I think you’re in a severe minority who know this level of detail. Thanks for answering.

1. Pope Pius XI in *Casti Connubii *teaches infallibly: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (II, 56).

So has my assumption that the same morals apply to sex outside of marriage incorrect? For example, is contraception outside of marriage intrinsically evil?

1. While the use of NBR requires a serious reason which depends on a correctly formed conscience and advice from a faithful confessor if necessary, a preoccupation with infallibility may indicate a misunderstanding of the doctrine in Vatican II which mandates that non-infallible doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”) – Vatican II, *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium), 25.

I guess my question isn’t about infallibility per se, but rather if the policy is changeable. I honestly don’t know. Maybe you thought I already knew the answers and was trying to make a point.

 

[Abu]

copperblade, #500
there’s no reason based on logic that the Church can’t both hold homosexuality as immoral and contraception as not always evil. The argument was, “if you think contraception can be ok, you must allow every sexual activity.”….if the only reason contraception is wrong is because of doctrine, then likewise it’s possible that things like homosexuality or bestiality could be declared wrong because of doctrine. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that allowing contraception means you must allow the others.

Contraception is not wrong “because otherwise you’d have to allow homosexuality.”

The reason is: Using the sexual function while the individual blocks that function by Onanism, by chemicals or by condoms defeats the purpose of that natural human function. Pagans like Cicero could identify the natural moral law.

Morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. If you can disregard the purpose of the function and only experience the pleasure, you may do anything.
So the fact 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, it is easy to see that this opens the door to using sex with anyone or anything, such as masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, IVF, cloning. We are left with the pleasure and anything goes – that is the fact. No one has assumed that any poster here would do these things, but the logic is irrefutable. Is anyone else naïve enough to suppose that some people don’t do these things? Why do they? Because they choose to ignore the natural law, and follow selfism – anything goes.

This is the reason that Peter Singer of Princeton can approve of bestiality, but the disconnect between human living and the natural order that has shaped most of human life on this earth needs to be rediscovered. And it is the natural law which Christ’s Church upholds.

 

[Abu]

copperblade,#517
So has my assumption that the same morals apply to sex outside of marriage incorrect? For example, is contraception outside of marriage intrinsically evil?

Here, I think the following by Dr Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture is helpful:
He states that while “many moralists have argued (I believe correctly) that contraception is morally neutral in itself when considered outside of marriage” he asserts that “even morally neutral acts can have good or bad consequences and should be selected or avoided accordingly.”

Dr Mirus explains that the bad consequences of contraception outside of marriage are:

"First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. This clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.

"Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness to pleasure. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the “contraceptive mentality”. Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup procedure based on the expectation that contraception should render sex child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order.

“Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning). But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception itself becomes intrinsically disordered.”
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=179

 

[LittleDeb]

There are some really great discussions happening. Though, I am struggling to follow where each person stands, at times.

For clarity sake I tend to avoid the term “sterile” except under the most precise definition. An infertile person can be infertile or sterile. It depends. It is a contraceptive act that is always sterile, but not necessarily the person.

Another clarifying point: If the Church at some point in history “cleared NFP for use” (though I don’t believe She ever needed to do so,) it would follow the normal Church practice of clarifying something that has always been part of constant and consistent teaching. I am interested in reading, in context, any document that seems to give the impression that continence during fertility was a new thing.

Finally, the clarifying point that I struggle to explain each time: The term “procreation” has confusingly been used interchangeably with conception, reproduction, and many other terms that mean a baby was actually made. Procreation has always meant “for creating” and “towards creation.” The word is a very precise word. I am very interested in the history of the word, because to use it to mean “conception or reproduction” is imprecise.

Sex makes babies. The *design *is procreation. To *act *on the design is to act procreatively. To say that a couple has sex “for procreation” just doesn’t make sense. That would mean they had sex “for, for creating,” or they had sex “for, towards creation.” Neither makes sense. It appears for centuries, people have been using the term “procreation” as a euphemism for the *actual *conception. “Look, we procreated!” This has been one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to listening to anyone, even modern theologians, discuss procreation.

As a person who has struggled with infertility, and now being called to a small family even though we are still fertile, it is almost an actual slap in the face to read that those of us in that situation “aren’t being procreative,” or that we are, “purposefully separating the act of sex from procreation.” Infertile couples are some of the most procreative people I know. They are proven infertile, yet they keep having sex!

It could *seem *like procreation has to do entirely with intent. “I hope we make a baby!” has to be replaying in their minds the entire time in order to be so-called “procreative.” Or even that each and every time the couple begins their act, an acknowledgment must be made in hope of conception. That is an impossible idea!

That has never been what the Church has taught. It would defy natural law! It would be forcing the couple to the ridiculousness of deciding that, “We know that at this time we are infertile, but we are going to hope that a baby will be made anyway, despite the natural design.” That is absurd! But homilies over the centuries have led many people to this erroneous conclusion. Those theologians were acting on their own, without papal infallibility. Again, theologians are *not *a mini-magesterium.

What the Church *has *taught for 2000 years, constantly and consistently, is that the design of sex is so we don’t die out in one generation. As long as that purpose stays intact, then unity and a cure for sin can follow. Some theologians (like St. Augustine) felt that all sex (including “for procreation”) could too easily become lustful. Given the playboy, promiscuous background of St. Augustine, that is not a huge leap. So, we have always been cautioned to keep our desires properly ordered.

Contraception is unique in its attack on the purpose of sex. It says that the *design *is faulty. That is the single point that finally got through to me. The design is perfect, because the Designer is perfect.

Yes, in real life I have been called “Chatty Cathy.”
Thanks for reading!

 

[Good_Daughter]

… ultimately, yes, I guess we’ve all come to the conclusion here that we can’t rely on them completely,

You’re the only one who mentioned the quotes from Church Fathers being unreliable, I think they’re rock solid.

but that still doesn’t take away the fact that it’s kind of strange that “NFP” was never mentioned during their talks about sex being licit only if procreation was intended.

Church Fathers tended to write about issues that were relevent in their time. If rudimentrary forms of NFP had been an issue for their audience, we would have heard about it.

Pope Pius XI

He wrote about procreation after the Church officially approved periodic abstinence. So the qustion remains, which pope said, “don’t have sex unless you’re open to procreation” without bothering to mention, “except if using knowledge of the woman’s natural cycle”?

… And what about my other point? (see below)

The church didn’t clear the rhythm method as acceptable until only 200 years ago.

The thing that I find interesting is, 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??

I thought I addressed this already. Catholics believe Mary was conceived immaculately but it wasn’t until almost two thousand years later that the Church made an official statement on the matter. The belief was always held, it was just ‘carved in stone’ in the 1800s, like Catholic teaching on periodic abstinence. I suspect that’s beacuse the reliability and widespread use of periodic abstinence as birth control is a fairly recent thing.

 

[Good_Daughter]

This is my issue- “deliberate sterilizing”. How is is that taking temperatures, charting, and examining mucus don’t fall under “deliberate sterilizing”? Especially if the numbers demonstrated by NFPers claim that these methods are more effective?

Sorry to keep bringing this up- its just that this is my main sticking point with NFP, and most supporters fail to give me acceptable answers on this. Thanks copperblade, however, for really making sense.

Please, don’t apologize, you’re trying to clear up a really important point. samiam1611 beat me to an answer and I think she explains it well.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I see. I guess I’m taking “marital act” to be more of a euphemism for sex. Does this mean contraception between unmarried couples isn’t asserted as sinful in itself?

Right, there can be a big difference between ‘sex’ and ‘the marital act’. Hopefully knowing that difference will add clarity when you look at Catholic teaching. Contraception between unmarried couples seems like a moot point to me, so I could only speculate about its sinfulness, which is probably not what you want.

You sure like to get to the bottom of issues, copperblade. (That’s a good thing. )

 

[samiam1611]

Right, there can be a big difference between ‘sex’ and ‘the marital act’. Hopefully knowing that difference will add clarity when you look at Catholic teaching. Contraception between unmarried couples seems like a moot point to me, so I could only speculate about its sinfulness, which is probably not what you want.

You sure like to get to the bottom of issues, copperblade. (That’s a good thing. )

Yeah he asks good questions doesn’t he?

I have one for you guys. It is more of an opinion question though.

The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever

~HV #15

“Whatsoever:” could use some clarification …If a woman is using ABC to cure a bodily disease (i.e. my blessed Mirena for menorrhagia) BUT is very very VERY thankful that she can “licitly” use a highly effective birth control that is much easier than NFP, is that really licit? Thankful = intent = sin?
Already pretty much know the answer to this one, but what is your opinion on someone who barely has a disease…like her periods kind of suck more than average but are not causing her anemia or anything like that…and she secretly is like HAHA I thwarted that rule!
Is being essentially thankful for a disease (or “disease” depending on how honest she is being) equivalent to intending contraception? Is any degree of relativism allowed?

 

[copperblade]

For myself, I like to use the “would you have done it anyway” test. I guess if you’re purposefully looking for ways to find a loophole, that would be different… usually doctors tell you what to take, not vice versa. (Or is that true anymore these days?)

 

[Corki]

I see. I guess I’m taking “marital act” to be more of a euphemism for sex. Does this mean contraception between unmarried couples isn’t asserted as sinful in itself?

It is more the converse. It means that forgoing artificial contraception while engaging in premarital sex doesn’t make the fornication less sinful.

Using contaception when unmarried is still “deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life” but the bringing of new life is already being perverted since that power naturally belongs to marriage. The blessings on union and fecundity are given through marriage. Contraception blocks those blessings.

 

[copperblade]

It is more the converse. It means that forgoing artificial contraception while engaging in premarital sex doesn’t make the fornication less sinful.

Using contaception when unmarried is still “deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life” but the bringing of new life is already being perverted since that power naturally belongs to marriage. The blessings on union and fecundity are given through marriage. Contraception blocks those blessings.

So where does that leave the rape issue?

 

[Corki]

So where does that leave the rape issue?

The same. Objectively speaking, rape is a mortal sin and fornication is a mortal sin. Putting on a condom for either sinful activity doesn’t get a person off the hook for the mortal sin. Nor does raping without a condom make the rapist less of a sinner.

A condom is not a relevant item for someone committing a rape.

 

[copperblade]

The same. Objectively speaking, rape is a mortal sin and fornication is a mortal sin. Putting on a condom for either sinful activity doesn’t get a person off the hook for the mortal sin. Nor does raping without a condom make the rapist less of a sinner.

A condom is not a relevant item for someone committing a rape.

I understand that, but where does that leave the sinfulness of the contraception part? Or maybe I’m not understanding it.

 

[Corki]

I understand that, but where does that leave the sinfulness of the contraception part? Or maybe I’m not understanding it.

I think it was pointed out earlier in the thread that a condom by itself is just a thing - it’s not sinful in and of itself. It’s how you use it. If you use it to commit rape - it’s a sin whether it’s for contraception or not. (chances are the rapist isn’t using it for contraception but to hide evidence or to avoid disease)

It’s a little like saying “is it better to commit murder with a stolen gun or one you own?”. It doesn’t matter where you got the gun if you are using it to commit murder.

 

[LaSainte]

But for confession purposes, would the rapist using a condom be committing another mortal sin on top of the rape? Would he have to confess them both? Or if say, the victim were somehow able to convince the rapist to wear a condom, would the victim be guilty of sinning, as a wife who convinces her husband to wear a condom would be?

 

[copperblade]

But for confession purposes, would the rapist using a condom be committing another mortal sin on top of the rape? Would he have to confess them both? Or if say, the victim were somehow able to convince the rapist to wear a condom, would the victim be guilty of sinning, as a wife who convinces her husband to wear a condom would be?

Also, I was coming from the angle that the victim had been taking contraception to protect against rape while abstaining from sex.

 

[Corki]

Also, I was coming from the angle that the victim had been taking contraception to protect against rape while abstaining from sex.

You can’t “take” contraception to protect against rape. It doesn’t work that way. A rapist doesn’t chose his victims based on whether they are taking contraception or not.

There has been a moral argument made, not at all universally agreed upon, that a person who knows she will be raped could be morally justified in taking contraception to protect against pregnancy. There is that whole rumor about nuns in Africa who were supposedly given the “ok” to take the pill (by a single Bishop, acting alone) because they were in danger of being raped. I have read the arguments and am not convinced. Evidently neither is the Church since she has never tried to carve out this exception to the teaching against the use of contraceptives. The arguments for this exception seem a little too close to treating the baby as a punishment rather than as a victim.

If a woman was in such imminent and severe danger, there would probably be diminished culpabilty in her decision but that would be worked out with her confessor or spiritual director.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Is being essentially thankful for a disease (or “disease” depending on how honest she is being) equivalent to intending contraception?

It certainly could be, but that’s pretty subjective. God’s laws don’t exist as an end unto themselves, but as a tool for us to live in good relationships with Him. He doesn’t just want our heads, He wants our hearts.

Or if say, the victim were somehow able to convince the rapist to wear a condom, would the victim be guilty of sinning, as a wife who convinces her husband to wear a condom would be?

Respectfully, is this a serious question?

 

[LaSainte]

It certainly could be, but that’s pretty subjective. God’s laws don’t exist as an end unto themselves, but as a tool for us to live in good relationships with Him. He doesn’t just want our heads, He wants our hearts.

Respectfully, is this a serious question?

Yes. If using ABC is intrinsically evil, then there is never a circumstance in which it could be justified, correct? Doesn’t the Church teach that we may never do evil so that good may come of it?