NFP and contraception

[razredge]

So you are comparing active abortion via Pill to a natural miscarriage??? Again you are completely ignorant of morality and biology.

I see you’ve changed your tune quite quickly there:

There is a mechanism in the pill that could cause an early (before implantation) abortion of a fertilized egg.

In NFP, the egg is not fertilized so in no way is letting an egg pass unfertilized immoral and thus cannot be even compared to an abortion.

So when the Pill did it it was ‘abortion’ but since you now know that NFP does the same thing except more often it’s ‘miscarriage’

No I believe he is saying that if a blastocyst does fail to implant it is not due to any action of the pill but is rather simply a natural occurrence. And given that NFP never suppresses ovulation like the Pill more blastocysts will fail to implant with NFP than the Pill.

Yes

So really something like using a condom is paradoxically a more moral choice here as it will prevent these ‘miscarriages’ from happening (unless you don’t really care that embryo’s are dying unless it’s intentional).

 

[jilly4ski]

I see you’ve changed your tune quite quickly there:

So when the Pill did it it was ‘abortion’ but since you now know that NFP does the same thing except more often it’s ‘miscarriage’

Yes

So really something like using a condom is paradoxically a more moral choice here as it will prevent these ‘miscarriages’ from happening (unless you don’t really care that embryo’s are dying unless it’s intentional).

And how is a natural death an abortion? Clearly an embryo dying, because of the pill and one dying naturally are completely different. (“ends don’t justify the means”). Just like an old person dying because you overdosed them on morphine is not the same as that person dying naturally. (As you see, in the hypothetical intent is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter if you were trying to kill them, suppress their pain, or etc.)

And I did not change my tune, with NFP, an egg is not fertilized, thus there is nothing to kill, if the couple messes up or decides not to follow the rules, the a pregnancy may occur, and that pregnancy may or may not end in miscarriage. The pill actively creates conditions which cause miscarriage, but this is not a natural miscarriage. We don’t know how many would have been natural.

 

[Warrior1979]

The pill actively creates conditions which cause miscarriage,

No…it actively creates the conditions to prevent ovulation.

but this is not a natural miscarriage. We don’t know how many would have been natural.

The results of an off-cycle fertilization are the same regardless of whether the pill is used or not.

 

[Abu]

chrono13 (#97)
Augustine’s approach is that NFP is used in order to satisfy one’s lust, since he sees sexuality only for procreation.

False on both counts, since no women’s infertile cycles were known which is why magic and drugs were recommended, and St Augustine specifically stated that “Husband and wife owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children—which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality—but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse. (12)
See: jesus-logos.blogspot.com/2010/12/marriage-and-prophylactic-use-of.html

#100
*Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae are not infallible documents. Their teachings-maybe.
Am I right if I stress that Casti Connubii never allowed NFP?

That is precisely why post #94 stated “you can study the infallible declaration in Casti Connubii of Pius XI which counteracted the fall of the Anglican church in the U.K. to the contraceptive mentality, and the infallible statement in Humanae Vitae after the advent of the Pill. Yes, infallible teaching.
Periodic continence simply was not the issue in 1930, and Pius XI did not address that issue in Casti Connubii.

 

[Abu]

Muze
This would seem to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. If sex is to be both unitive AND procreative, then ANY effort to avoid the procreative, whether by artificial means or by choosing to seek out and avoid sex on procreative days and only engage in sexual activity on non-procreative days would seem to violate this teaching directly.

The Church does not and never has taught any doctrine which is against reason and thus self-contradictory. She cannot because She is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in doctrine.

The remedy is to get the facts.

The difference in using NBR versus condomistic intercourse is simply:

1. As the natural marital act will be open to procreation as normal, by deliberately placing a barrier to conception in the act the perpetrator has personally thwarted the procreative end of the act and therefore acted against his nature created by God. This is against the natural moral law which law even pagans like Cicero and others acknowledged.
2. God has provided the infertile periods in His wisdom without commanding us NOT to use them. So, we CAN use them virtuously.
3. Obviously, if only the infertile periods are used, this is thwarting the nature created by God for procreation and is very wrong – unless in those circumstances that indicate the virtual certainty of grave (life-threatening) harm to the wife through conception. Apart from that case, as provided by God, the infertile periods may be virtuously used for grave reasons. Hence NBR, in which the couple can cooperate with God‘s Plan as created in the wife, without choosing to deliberately place a barrier regardless.

From Humanae Vitae #16:
“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”

The insurmountable difference is that the non-use of marital rights during the fertile period, which also assists self-control, is a free and worthy decision for serious reasons, while the use of marital rights during fertile periods and deliberately frustrating the effects with a barrier is an abuse of nature and directly opposed to the dictates of the natural moral law.

 

[razredge]

The Church does not and never has taught any doctrine which is against reason and thus self-contradictory. She cannot because She is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in doctrine.

The remedy is to get the facts.

The difference in using NBR versus condomistic intercourse is simply:

1. As the natural marital act will be open to procreation as normal, by deliberately placing a barrier to conception in the act the perpetrator has personally thwarted the **procreative end of the act **and therefore acted against his nature created by God. This is against the natural moral law which law even pagans like Cicero and others acknowledged.
   .

You define ‘procreative’ so as to make NFP the only logical outcome of your argument. Such ‘begging the question’ is fallacious reasoning.

Choosing to have intercourse on days where conception is basically impossible is also thwarting the procreative end of the act (but of course you explicitly define ‘procreative’ to allow NFP while denying everything else - which is circular reasoning at it’s finest)

1. God has provided the infertile periods in His wisdom without commanding us NOT to use them. So, we CAN use them virtuously

That argument is easily refuted by evolution - God did not design our bodies.

And how is a natural death an abortion? Clearly an embryo dying, because of the pill and one dying naturally are completely different. (“ends don’t justify the means”). Just like an old person dying because you overdosed them on morphine is not the same as that person dying naturally. (As you see, in the hypothetical intent is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter if you were trying to kill them, suppress their pain, or etc.)

It isn’t - but you act like it altogether becomes a trivial matter, most people who held that life started at conception would be concerned that embryo’s are being killed - accidently or intentionally.

Indeed, the Church’s stance on euthanasia is completely opposite to this where artifical methods of life support & modern medicine is encouraged - for example you aren’t allowed to reject treatment and try to survive by ‘natural’ means.

So similarily, why wouldn’t using a condom (or indeed even the Pill) be the more moral choice here since it results in less miscarriages?

And I did not change my tune, with NFP, an egg is not fertilized, thus there is nothing to kill, if the couple messes up or decides not to follow the rules, the a pregnancy may occur, and that pregnancy may or may not end in miscarriage. The pill actively creates conditions which cause miscarriage, but this is not a natural miscarriage. We don’t know how many would have been natural.

Yes, you did - i’ts the same situation where a fertilised egg fails to implant in the uterine lining regardless of whether you’re on the Pill or on NFP.

Read KostyaJMJ’s post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7875079&postcount=109

 

[Abu]

Jschutzm
Thank you for your reasoned contributions, showing faith.

razredge
You define ‘procreative’ so as to make NFP the only logical outcome of your argument. Such ‘begging the question’ is fallacious reasoning.

Trying to ridicule the Magisterium of Christ’s Church is futile and totally out of place in Catholic Answers – as the Holy Father is clear in HV #16, post #125. It is pathetic to see a self-styled Catholic producing feelings, views, opinions and desires without faith, against the Magisterium.

God did not design our bodies

This is the sort of myopia, of fantasy, that reveals the shallow “thinking” so prevalent in some.

Further the persistent, now willful, misrepresentation over St Augustine that “Husband and wife owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children—which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality—but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse(12) [See: Logos: Marriage and the Prophylactic Use of Condoms - by Luke Gormally], is by implication extended to St Paul.

For on conjugal relations, St Paul taught: “Do not refuse each other except by mutual consent, and then only for an agreed time, to leave yourselves free for prayer; then come together again in case Satan should take advantage of your weakness to tempt you.” (1 Cor 7:5).

 

[Chrono13]

False on both counts, since no women’s infertile cycles were known which is why magic and drugs were recommended, and St Augustine specifically stated that “Husband and wife owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children—which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality—but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse. (12)
See: jesus-logos.blogspot.com/2010/12/marriage-and-prophylactic-use-of.html

How many times must one must quote St. Augustine of Hippo and his mentioning, analyzing and prohibiting abuse of woman’s infertile period? I believe the point has been made, and truth revealed. We won’t gain much with ignoring the obvious. Apart from providing enemies of the Church with powerful arguments.

Augustine sees desire for marital hug as a “weakness”, and spouses are expected to “bear the burden” of- what? That other spouse wants to present himself/herself as a gift? Oh, come on! He speaks of “marital debt”, not of unitive end sexuality.

Periodic continence simply was not the issue in 1930, and Pius XI did not address that issue in Casti Connubii.

Thank God. I usually hear conservatives speaking otherwise. Interesting enough, Casti Connubii is the first Church document which concluded that sexuality is connected with love. Now why is that?

 

[Chrono13]

1. As the natural marital act will be open to procreation as normal, by deliberately placing a barrier to conception in the act the perpetrator has personally thwarted the procreative end of the act and therefore acted against his nature created by God. This is against the natural moral law which law even pagans like Cicero and others acknowledged.

The whole idea of NFP is to thwart the procreative aspect of sexuality, and destroy the semen. The only way to see “procreative” in it, is by the fact that it can fail.

Natural law depends on interpretation of nature. As was proven, Augustine forbid NFP, since his interpretation of nature was different then the one we see today. And most saints agreed with his.

1. God has provided the infertile periods in His wisdom without commanding us NOT to use them. So, we CAN use them virtuously.

Did He create them for systematic use in order to control fertility? Why He created them for animals?

1. Obviously, if only the infertile periods are used, this is thwarting the nature created by God for procreation and is very wrong – unless in those circumstances that indicate the virtual certainty of grave (life-threatening) harm to the wife through conception. Apart from that case, as provided by God, the infertile periods may be virtuously used for grave reasons. Hence NBR, in which the couple can cooperate with God‘s Plan as created in the wife, without choosing to deliberately place a barrier regardless.

This is difficult to accept. You are suggesting that infertile periods are some kind of “final resort” in nature and that nature considers them a mean in “extreme cases”. Nothing in nature and it’s laws suggest that. How can one conclude that something in nature was created to be used *only *for grave situations?

“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period

Apart from 19 centuries of teaching the opposite, nothing is inconsistent.

The insurmountable difference is that the non-use of marital rights during the fertile period, which also assists self-control, is a free and worthy decision for serious reasons, while the use of marital rights during fertile periods and deliberately frustrating the effects with a barrier is an abuse of nature and directly opposed to the dictates of the natural moral law.

Now, what happened to nature in 3rd century that we didn’t come to this conclusion?

 

[razredge]

Trying to ridicule the Magisterium of Christ’s Church is futile and totally out of place in Catholic Answers – as the Holy Father is clear in HV #16, post #125. It is pathetic to see a self-styled Catholic producing feelings, views, opinions and desires without faith, against the Magisterium.

I am not ridiculing the Magisterium - you completely ignore my point and try to appeal to my motive - which is again fallacious.

Since you don’t seem to be able to defend the validity of the ‘unitive and procreative’ argument I shall take that as there being one less argument for NFP.

This is the sort of myopia, of fantasy, that reveals the shallow “thinking” so prevalent in some.

Accepting modern science is hardly ‘shallow thinking’ - if you believe God designed us to be fertile and infertile, did he also design cancer? Alzheimers disease? all the various birth defects? If so he is a pretty poor designer.

Further the persistent, now willful, misrepresentation over St Augustine that “Husband and wife owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children—which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality—but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse(12) [See: Logos: Marriage and the Prophylactic Use of Condoms - by Luke Gormally]

, is by implication extended to St Paul.

Chrono is correct.

‘Mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness’ is hardly what I’d call ‘unitive’ - it is readily apparent that St Augustine viewed sex other than for purposes of procreation as a venial sin as best.

The mental gymnastics you have to do to turn that ‘burden of weakness’ statement to the ‘unitive’ sex positive nature of intercourse espoused by the Church today is beyond me.

 

[razredge]

Apart from 19 centuries of teaching the opposite, nothing is inconsistent.

Now, what happened to nature in 3rd century that we didn’t come to this conclusion?

Chrono, you do know the real reason behind the Church’s stance on contraception, right?

 

[Good_Daughter]

I am well aware of this. However, I still do not understand how something can be ordered to procreation if it is objectively not procreative (i.e., “to conceive,” “beget,” etc.) in the first place. Clarity is needed, otherwise you get exactly what is occurring in this thread…people’s opinion’s trying to fill in the gray areas.

Using this definition of procreative, no couple is capabale of intentionally having procreative sex, because we can`t know if it is truly procreative for weeks after the fact. Catholicism then, would be giving us a rule that’s impossible to follow.

In reality, Catholic teaching uses procreative to mean simply, “favouring creation”. It’s a more literal use of the term. By way of analogy, Canada recently held a federal election. I voted for my local Conservative candidate, as did a majority of Canadians, a victory for Conservative prime ministerial candidate, Stephen Harper. My ballot was pro-Harper, even though I didn`t actually vote for him.

Procreative sex, with no physical impediments to conception introduced by the couple, is a requirement of physical form, like bread and wine for the Eucharist.

Catholicism does not teach that couples must be open to having a baby with every marital embrace. The only absolute requirement for every embrace is the proper physical form.

 

[Good_Daughter]

… it is readily apparent that St Augustine viewed sex other than for purposes of procreation as a venial sin as best.

I lack the ability to delve *too *deeply into St. Augustine, but I would like to point out that Catholicism considers sex divorced from procreation to be sinful to this day.

Chrono, you do know the real reason behind the Church’s stance on contraception, right?

Please, enlighten us!

 

[Joel_PF]

Catholicism does not teach that couples must be open to having a baby with every marital embrace. The only absolute requirement for every embrace is the proper physical form.

And what is the moral relevance of a strictly physical form, which can be, as you say, dissociated from any intention or internal disposition of the couple?
Why is a particular “physical form” a moral imperative?

 

[BRZ]

Perhaps…
Or perhaps I see this as an area where there is a widespread error that needs correcting; an error with grievous consequences for many members of the Church, who are told they can’t contracept and are offered no rational support for this commandment.

When we look at the past, at the history of usury, for instance (a moral teaching which did change), we forget that for centuries honest businessmen were condemned as immoral, and sometimes denied Sacraments, for a perfectly honest practice which we nowadays see for what it is.

As a member of the Church, it is even my duty to help correct what I think, so far with good reason, is an error of the bishops.

It will get me nowhere, but it might give other people, those who value reason and see it as an integral part of being Catholic, a new light on these very important matters.

Have you thought for a moment that maybe I am not trying to lead people astray, but to lead the to the truth?

Are you Catholic? Are you aware that we are all members of the Church, that it is not a metaphysical entity but a group of people here, in Purgatory and in Heaven? I’m not arguing with the Church. I’m arguing within the Church against other equally, perhaps even more so, faithful Christians on a point I think they are mistaken.

I find the attitude of some laymen strange. Whereas the bishops and popes are always giving arguments, reasons, for the teachings they propose, you are only stomping your feet and trying to shut off all debate. “Submit mindlessly or leave us alone”. That is the attitude of Islam, not of Christianity.

Sorry, but you are wrong. And as you can see, I am a Catholic as it says in my profile, which I am sure you saw. Are you a Catholic? Because honestly you sound like a protestant. I know exactly what the Church is, but the Church is not only the people that make it up, it is also the buildings, the ministry and administration and the authority from God that goes with it. You have the free will to choose to question what you like, but in reality as Catholics we are not to question the truth that is revealed to us through the Holy Spirit by our Pope and Bishops. You are in no place to question in all honesty. It is up to the Bishops and Pope to determine these things, not up to us. Jesus teaches us to be obedient, not proud and dissident. Perhaps you should practice a little humility and you can ask any priest, ask the apologists on Catholic answers, ask your Bishop and I guarantee that they will tell you that you need to accept what the Pope and Bishops, the catechism, etc. teaches us even if you do not agree. You must accept it is truth and pray that you will come to understand the revealed truth in time. There is another post which a priest started on these forums which explains this very well, you should read it.

 

[Joel_PF]

That would be outrage to Augustine, who claimed- more then once-that sex is evil even in marriage.

Do you have a direct quotation to back this claim?
As far as I know, St. Augustine taught there couldn’t be a sexual act without at least some venial sin, on account of excessive desire. In other words, sex in itself was not evil, but our desires were so disordered on account of original sin that sex couldn’t anymore happen without our desires going out of their correct bounds. St. Thomas famously disagreed with this, saying that between married individuals sex can take place with no sin, and that therefore it is good and virtuous.

He had a very rationalistic conception of the proper functioning of man. For him, in the state of original justice, the male member would become erect by a conscious decision of the man to engage in sexual activity with his wife, and never on its own on account of physical desire.

Augustine, under influence of stoicism, claimed that only rational use of sexuality is procreative. Thus, every act which is not, by intent, procreative, is “seeking pleasure”. This is why NFP is forbidden by his logic. If you wish to beget a child, and begetting is *only * rational reason for sexuality, you are certainly not going to seek infertile periods.

You are yet to show that he condemned NFP in itself. Your quotation shows he condemned NFP used as a means to not having children at all, as the gnostics who did it because they considered child-bearing was evil. This use of NFP is condemned (rightly, in my opinion) even today.

And you have also yet to show that the Church tradition made such a sharp separation between the marital embrace and the mutual support and unity which is one of the goods of married life. After all, according to your reading of Catholic tradition the “mutual support” of married couples would not differ from the support of friends, brothers and parents. The distinguishing mark of the married friendship is sex, so I find it strange that it would not be considered to be a part of the union which Catholic writers always applauded in marriage.
Do you have direct evidence that they divided sex and marital friendship in this way?

 

[Joel_PF]

The difference in using NBR versus condomistic intercourse is simply:

1. As the natural marital act will be open to procreation as normal, by deliberately placing a barrier to conception in the act the perpetrator has personally thwarted the procreative end of the act and therefore acted against his nature created by God. This is against the natural moral law which law even pagans like Cicero and others acknowledged.

This is against the stoic moral law, which fallaciously saw nature (the world-soul), that is, the course that things spontaneously follow, as having some kind of moral force. If our ideal of morality is to be a cog in the natural flow of the universe, then I guess contraception (and all uses of human reason, too) will be seen as immoral.

I thwart the locomotive end of walking (our legs are also created by God) when I use a treadmill. So what? Isn’t that unnatural, to walk forward and yet not leave the same spot?

 

[Warrior1979]

Sorry, but you are wrong. And as you can see, I am a Catholic as it says in my profile, which I am sure you saw. Are you a Catholic? Because honestly you sound like a protestant. I know exactly what the Church is, but the Church is not only the people that make it up, it is also the buildings, the ministry and administration and the authority from God that goes with it. You have the free will to choose to question what you like, but in reality as Catholics we are not to question the truth that is revealed to us through the Holy Spirit by our Pope and Bishops. You are in no place to question in all honesty. It is up to the Bishops and Pope to determine these things, not up to us. Jesus teaches us to be obedient, not proud and dissident. Perhaps you should practice a little humility and you can ask any priest, ask the apologists on Catholic answers, ask your Bishop and I guarantee that they will tell you that you need to accept what the Pope and Bishops, the catechism, etc. teaches us even if you do not agree. You must accept it is truth and pray that you will come to understand the revealed truth in time. There is another post which a priest started on these forums which explains this very well, you should read it.

Posts like this drive me nuts. When people run of of arguments, the dictatorial, pompous, judging stance is taken.

Did it ever occur to you that people take their positions to determine if there is a coherent reasoning behind a particular stance? Did it ever occur to you that people in these discussions might actually be obedient to the Church on these matters, whether or not they disagree with it?

 

[BRZ]

Posts like this drive me nuts. When people run of of arguments, the dictatorial, pompous, judging stance is taken.

Did it ever occur to you that people take their positions to determine if there is a coherent reasoning behind a particular stance? Did it ever occur to you that people in these discussions might actually be obedient to the Church on these matters, whether or not they disagree with it?

That could very well be true Warrior, and if it is, than I apologize. I wasn’t judging either. I just don’t feel there is a need to argue this point. If the Bishops determine something to be truth, I humbly follow their advice because they have a far greater understanding of these matters then you or I. I suppose I shouldn’t assume that because you take a stance, that you are not being obedient but I feel like some may be taking that stance and not being obedient or they may be criticizing people who choose to follow what the Church has taught on this matter and I have seen posts where people have said the Church is flat out wrong and I believe that it is unwise to say that.

 

[samiam1611]

That could very well be true Warrior, and if it is, than I apologize. I wasn’t judging either.** I just don’t feel there is a need to argue this point**. If the Bishops determine something to be truth, I humbly follow their advice because they have a far greater understanding of these matters then you or I. I suppose I shouldn’t assume that because you take a stance, that you are not being obedient but I feel like some may be taking that stance and not being obedient or they may be criticizing people who choose to follow what the Church has taught on this matter and I have seen posts where people have said the Church is flat out wrong and I believe that it is unwise to say that.

Or they have come here to debate it to, to raise questions, to point out the problems with the teaching, **to try to gain understanding of this teaching by getting other people, who do understand it, to explain it to them **if God has not yet answered their prayers to help them understand it. As a non-Catholic, many things about NFP and being against contraception seemed dumb to me (dumb like, unnecessarily strict, not dumb like made no sense.) I didn’t expect to have my mind changed, but I did gain some understanding of why people would follow this when it seems so unnecessary to me. My suggestion is letting people ask all the questions they want, dissing it even if they want (while staying respectful of course) and maybe, just maybe, you can impart your understanding of the matter onto them, if they are open to learning.

If they’re not, oh well, there are probably other people reading but not responding that may learn something. When you explain, argument by argument, why people who dissent are wrong (or what they are not getting), it makes a big difference. Having it personally explained, having specific questions addressed has been helpful to me and I’m sure there are others like me. It’s a lot easier to obey something if you fully understand why that rule was made.

Why do you say it’s unwise to call the Church wrong? Do you think they could go to Hell for that or something? What did you mean by unwise?