NFP and contraception

[samiam1611]

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…

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Great points! I was thinking about commenting on the arguments in that post individually but didn’t feel like it, thanks for doing it for me lol!
One thing to add: a couple can use artificial contraception AND show restraint by practicing NFP in addition to ABC. I know I personally anyway, would not rely on condoms or withdrawal, but if I did choose one of these methods, I would probably follow some sort of fertility awareness method, and abstain completely on those days known or suspected to be fertile. Artificial contraception can be augmented with periodic abstinence, which invalidates the argument that using contraception permits a man to view his wife as a passive receptacle for his own passions.

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)

Exactly. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[samiam1611]

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’!

Thanks LittleDeb! Not too chatty at all - very helpful for sorting it out.

 

[Warrior1979]

The actual wording in documents like Humanae Vitae is that “**exclusive **use of the infertile time must be only for serious reason.”

Exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Abstinence isn’t the issue, since there is nothing about it that is particular to marriage. However, what you’ve quoted is.

That said, there is no getting around the fact that use of the infertile period is an attempt to avoid procreation.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Someone can take any quote from anyone and interpret it any way they’d like.

With that being said, the quotes from St Augustine (and many others who wrote about sex before the 20th century) have proven to not really prove anything either way, bc someone can always claim “oh he means only for serious reasons” or “oh he means it’s only wrong if no children are intended at all…” etc etc…

If we can’t look to any of these quotes as reliable sources, then lets look at the next fact:

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??

Why is it that no Pope or Saint ever mentioned that married couples could use women’s cycles as a way to have sex without intending to procreate?

I mean, they all said plenty of times “don’t have sex unless you are open to procreation” but not a single one bothered to mention “…except if using knowledge of the woman’s natural cycle.”

Hmmm, seems odd to me. Odd and fishy.

I’m glad to see you’re using caution when reading the Early Fathers’ teaching. I think that’s wise.

Catholic teaching on periodic abstinence isn’t really that odd or fishy (did you intend the pun? ). By comparison, consider the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The official statement on that issue was made in the 1800s as well, probably almost two thousand years after Mary’s conception actually took place! I think that’s because the Church tends to make official statements when disputes arise.

 

[copperblade]

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.

Great! Then it should be extremely easy to show where my reasoning is faulty. Seriously, how does calling my comments shallow help? I’m afraid this kind of posturing has not helped me understand better.

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.

You’re right, there are other reasons based on doctrine why the Church might not be able to allow contraception. Before I go back to the original context of my response, I have other questions related to this:

1. Is there any authoritative declaration that indicates which presumed infallible teachings are in fact doctrine or infallible with regards to contraception?
2. Are the details commonly taught about when it’s not ok to use contraception infallible? I ask this separately because it seems that allowing contraception in the case of rape seems to indicate there may be other detailed situations for the allowance of contraception that somehow can be declared not to contradict with doctrine.
3. Is the teaching to allow NFP likewise infallible?

Ok back to my point…

My original response was to: “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.”

Within that context, I meant 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.”

Anyway thanks for strengthening my point: 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.

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.

It’s only true if you make the assumption that bestiality is wrong only because it’s not procreative. Do you admit that the only thing that is wrong with bestiality is that it’s not procreative?

Another way to put it is that by saying allowing contraception allows for things like bestiality is the same as saying contraception is just as wrong as bestiality. Again, is this what you or the Church says?

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.

I’m not sure what the point is. Just because someone claims bestiality is ok doesn’t mean that someone else can’t think that contraception is ok but bestiality is not. The morality of bestiality can’t be based solely on whether or not you accept contraception, while at the same time being more obviously wrong than contraception. God implanting moral law within human nature supports this on both logical and empirical terms:

1. Logically if I can determine that bestiality is more obviously wrong, then I have more reasons to think so than I do for contraception.
2. Empirically since (if I may presume) most people consider bestiality worse than contraception, this would be evidence that the natural law indicates the morality bestiality is not dependent on contraception.

Please note that I’m not arguing that contraception is or should be allowed, or that the Church doesn’t have other reasons to think contraception is wrong. All I’m saying is that these arguments should not be used when trying to explain to people why contraception is wrong. Contraception is not wrong “because otherwise you’d have to allow homosexuality.”

 

[copperblade]

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.

I understand.

‘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.

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.

I agree, but I contend that the point here is whether or not the rendering of the act sterile is deliberate. And I think purposefully having sex when and because you know you can’t have a child is a deliberate act that makes sex sterile. I’m willing to admit I could be wrong that this is always the case, but I think it’s probably very often the case that NBR is misused.

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

My original response was to: "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. "

I didn’t assume condoms only, rather I was pointing out the obvious error in the assertion that contraception without medical side-effects was a myth. This is known as a “red herring.” The insinuation that all contraception has medical side effects and use that as an argument in favor of NFP is disingenuous. Due to the possibility of sexually transmitted disease, NFP in fact has more potential for medical side-effects than condoms.

Also the reason I focus on condoms when discussing contraception because it’s a popular widely used contraception that doesn’t carry with it the baggage of other issues not pertinent to the discussion. Why should the discussion about contraception be about abortion when we can all agree to rule out things that cause abortion?

I apologize if this entire discussion has been exclusively about chemical contraception… the possibility of abortion sort of stops me from even wanting to explore that issue.

 

[copperblade]

What the Church does teach is that each act of intercourse, to be properly ordered, must be *objectively *both unitive and procreative. This means it is ordered to both, and these elements cannot be separated. Contracepted acts and other types of acts that are not completed acts of vaginal intercourse render the act objectively disordered.

I like this explanation. It’s simple and consistent.

However, then I cannot understand allowing contraception in the case of rape. (Or in any case where the intent is to prevent conception.)

 

[Debora123]

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

Abu,

This has already been clarified on this thread.

*“NFP” in the sophisticated sense that we know it today, didn’t exist back at that time.
*
HOWEVER, using the women’s cycle to regulate birth, DID.

We know this for a fact, bc, as others have already pointed out numerous times, Augustine made reference to it back in the 300’s AD.

 

[Debora123]

I’m glad to see you’re using caution when reading the Early Fathers’ teaching. I think that’s wise.

Catholic teaching on periodic abstinence isn’t really that odd or fishy (did you intend the pun? ). By comparison, consider the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The official statement on that issue was made in the 1800s as well, probably almost two thousand years after Mary’s conception actually took place! I think that’s because the Church tends to make official statements when disputes arise.

The thing that I was refering to as being odd wasn’t just the teaching on periodic abstinence in itself, it was this:

(and i quote myself again)

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??

Why is it that no Pope or Saint ever mentioned that married couples could use women’s cycles as a way to have sex without intending to procreate?

I mean, they all said plenty of times “don’t have sex unless you are open to procreation” but not a single one bothered to mention “…except if using knowledge of the woman’s natural cycle.”

Hmmm, seems odd to me. Odd and fishy

THAT^ to me is very strange.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

As I said, rape is not the marital act. I think it was Abu that pointed out Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception only applies to the marital act. It sounds like the contraception your wife had prescribed wouldn’t be licit according to Catholic teaching, but I do wish you all the best in that situation and I pray her medical care is effective.

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?

If you had no choice in the matter, you’d probably have to take the contraceptive. Given a choice, Catholics would likely have to forgo the contraceptive.

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?

I’d say lusting after a spouse is easy to do, especially when we let our spiritual health slide. Sex with a spouse can actually quench lust (St. Paul mentions this in scripture). Provided we love God, obey the teaching of His Church and treat our spouse with care, we can trust God will make up for anything we might lack. Attitude matters a great deal but ultimately I think the most important thing to do is cooperate with God’s will for us.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I agree, but I contend that the point here is whether or not the rendering of the act sterile is deliberate. And I think purposefully having sex when and because you know you can’t have a child is a deliberate act that makes sex sterile. I’m willing to admit I could be wrong that this is always the case, but I think it’s probably very often the case that NBR is misused.

A couple using condoms to avoid pregnancy deliberately make themselves sterile. A couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy have sex when it’s already been made sterile. They don’t do any deliberate sterilizing because they don’t have to.

I like this explanation. It’s simple and consistent.

However, then I cannot understand allowing contraception in the case of rape. (Or in any case where the intent is to prevent conception.)

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

 

[sacredcello]

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.

Homosexual couples can adopt children and also give birth through artificial insemination. So, the idea that homosexuality is wrong because they can’t bear children, is an incomplete argument. It comes back to to the infallibility of Sacred Scripture, on which Church teaching is based.

It is not correct to just link contraception with homosexuality in a circular fashion, but there is, indeed, a connection in that both are disordered acts and both are against the Natural Law which has been infallibly interpreted by the Magisterium.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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):

Thank you for that quote. I thought it was interesting that neither the Catechism nor the relevent papal encyclicals use the term “open to life”. It certainly is confusing that the USCCB does, so thanks also to Little Deb for lending clarity to the issue.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Why is it that no Pope or Saint ever mentioned that married couples could use women’s cycles as a way to have sex without intending to procreate?

I mean, they all said plenty of times “don’t have sex unless you are open to procreation” but not a single one bothered to mention “…except if using knowledge of the woman’s natural cycle.”.

You’ve already discounted the saints as unreliable, because their teachings can be interpreted in different ways. Which pope said, “don’t have sex unless you are open to procreation” without bothering to mention “…except if using knowledge of the woman’s natural cycle.”?

 

[Abu]

Debora123
“NFP” in the sophisticated sense that we know it today, didn’t exist back at that time.
The constructed references to “NFP” before the 19th century were all false.
HOWEVER, using the women’s cycle to regulate birth, DID.
We know this for a fact, bc, as others have already pointed out numerous times, Augustine made reference to it back in the 300’s AD.

Elizabeth Anscombe names the Manicheans, against whom St Augustine taught, saying that they “first aimed to restrict intercourse altogether to what they thought were infertile times and also to use contraceptive drugs.”

She refers to the earliest recorded Christian observation in the third century on the use of contraceptives by the freeborn Christian women of Rome married to slaves as the children were slaves under Roman law which was a deterrent to having children. She explains that “the author writes like a person mentioning a practice which Christians at large must obviously regard as shameful. From then on the received teaching of Christianity has been constant.”

Elizabeth Anscombe states that St Augustine’s teaching was a “landmark” standing as a “signpost” in Christian teaching. She shows that St Augustine’s teaching against base ways of copulating is “perfectly in line” with St Thomas’s definition of the “sin against nature” – deviant acts such as bestiality and sodomy, which definition has been “colossally important

Elizabeth Anscombe is one of the foremost scholars of philosophy in the second half of the twentieth century, and her article on Contraception And Chastity gives the reality of the arguments on sex in marriage in Why Humanae Vitae Was Right, Ignatius, 1993, p 125-127.

 

[Debora123]

You’ve already discounted the saints as unreliable, because their teachings can be interpreted in different ways.

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

Which pope said, “don’t have sex unless you are open to procreation” without bothering to mention “…except if using knowledge of the woman’s natural cycle.”?

Pope Pius XI

… 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??

 

[Abu]

Debora123
Which pope said, “don’t have sex unless you are open to procreation” without bothering to mention “…except if using knowledge of the woman’s natural cycle.”?
Pope Pius XI

False. The confusion and misrepresentation are endless.

In Casti Connubii, 1930, in infallibly defining against contraception Pope Pius XI taught specifically: “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. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.” (II, 59).

“Our mouth proclaims anew: 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).

 

[joshman1]

A couple using condoms to avoid pregnancy deliberately make themselves sterile. A couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy have sex when it’s already been made sterile. They don’t do any deliberate sterilizing because they don’t have to.

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.

 

[Abu]

copperblade, #500

1. Is there any authoritative declaration that indicates which presumed infallible teachings are in fact doctrine or infallible with regards to contraception?
2. Are the details commonly taught about when it’s not ok to use contraception infallible? I ask this separately because it seems that allowing contraception in the case of rape seems to indicate there may be other detailed situations for the allowance of contraception that somehow can be declared not to contradict with doctrine.
3. Is the teaching to allow NFP likewise infallible?

The confusion at this stage is surprising from a Catholic.

1. As the doctrine against contraception pertains to morals, the infallible dogma in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I reaffirmed in Vatican II (Lumen Gentium), declares the infallibility of the Pope in such teaching to the whole Church.
2. 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).
3. 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.

 

[samiam1611]

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.

Doing those things doesn’t render one infertile, it isn’t deliberately (or unintentionally for that matter) sterilizing. It just determines IF she’s in the naturally occurring infertile stage of the cycle.
They make a distinction between the method used to prevent pregnancy - observations vs taking action