NFP and contraception

[Chrono13]

Christ’s Church has always required following the natural moral law and even the pagans understood it, which is why She has constantly condemned contraception.

However, the mode of natural law was different. The only natural use of intercourse was procreation, hence, the only moral intercourse was the one done with exclusive desire of begetting. Couples were allowed to preform act because of “marital debt” but this was still against the natural law.

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.” (Post #516).

No problem with this. But the moment we start talking how natural law looks like in Cicero’s philosophy and how it differs from the one used by Humanae Vitae, the problems arise.

.

The infallible condemnation in *Casti Connubii *was issued specifically due to the Anglican reversal in 1930, and there is nothing “difficult" in assenting to Christ, the Son of God, in His clear transfer of His authority to His Supreme Vicar in making four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Christ also ordered Peter to feed his ship. And this can not be done without objective approach to tradition.

Since there is only abstinence in NBR there is nothing to contracept, and those who display their prejudices by concocting such a fallacy show their lack of reason and myopia against the obvious.

Even if I would accept such logic, it would still differ from the logic of the Church Fathers who have (and would continue) to counter the practice.

 

[Chrono13]

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=11004
Pill inventor slams … pill
Published: January 08, 2009
Catholic News Agency details the claims by the president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, Dr Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, who outlined a series of scientific arguments said to confirm the prophetic nature of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on artificial contraception.
In an article published by the L’Osservatore Romano, the Spanish doctor pointed to the Federation’s recent document commemorating the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, which “irrefutably shows that the most widely used anti-ovulatory pill in the industrialised world, the one made with low doses of estrogen and progesterone, in many cases works with an anti-implantation effect; that is, abortifacient [effect], because it expels a small human embryo.”

Castellvi also pointed out that “this anti-implantation effect is acknowledged in scientific literature, which shamelessly speaks of an embryo loss rate. Curiously, however, this information does not reach the public at large.”

He also pointed to the “devastating ecological effects of the tons of hormones discarded into the environment each year. We have sufficient data to state that one of the causes of masculine infertility in the West is the environmental contamination caused by the products of the ‘pill’.” Castellvi noted as well that the International Agency for Research on Cancer reported in 2005 that the pill has carcinogenic effects.

After explaining that the “natural methods of regulating fertility are the ones that are effective and that respect the nature of the person,” Castellvi stated that “in celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man we can say that the contraceptive methods violate at least five important rights: the right to life, the right to health, the right to education, the right to information (its dissemination occurs to the detriment of information about natural methods) and the right of equality between the sexes (responsibility for contraceptive use almost always falls to the woman).”

It should be noted that professor Djerassi never intended his inventions to be used as contraception. While he is right on many fields, modern society and it’s downfall are much more complex to blame it all on pill. Modern economics, prolonged education and cultural integration, desire for higher per capita, urban living conditions… all of these influenced the birth rate in Eastern Europe. They open their gates to immigrants because they need workforce which will not ask for education or average living conditions.

 

[Chrono13]

How come that isn’t explicitly mentioned? I don’t think you can say that any of the Church Fathers simply thought you couldn’t figure out when a woman was infertile. There might be much better accuracy today, but it certainly was possible to try to have sex only on infertile days before.

Answer is rather simple. Church Fathers were stressing the intent of couple during act.
If procreation has to be intended during intercourse, fertility control, natural or artificial, is absurd to talk about. It is only used by couples who have other intent then procreation.

If couple can’t have kids, that doesn’t mean they can’t have sex. Their sex is unnatural, and satisfying only lust, but that is tolerated because of “marital debt”.

There is a catch, however. If pair doesn’t chart, this is because they don’t care about outcome of their intercourse. If they do, they have intent of having sex without conceiving, and this is unacceptable for stoic moral value.

 

[Good_Daughter]

LaSainte

I understand how NFP is birth control, but I’ve always wondered, how can it be contraception (against conception) when so many couples use it to get pregnant?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Answer is rather simple. Church Fathers were stressing the intent of couple during act.
If procreation has to be intended during intercourse, fertility control, natural or artificial, is absurd to talk about. It is only used by couples who have other intent then procreation.

If couple can’t have kids, that doesn’t mean they can’t have sex. Their sex is unnatural, and satisfying only lust, but that is tolerated because of “marital debt”.

There is a catch, however. If pair doesn’t chart, this is because they don’t care about outcome of their intercourse. If they do, they have intent of having sex without conceiving, and this is unacceptable for stoic moral value.

Imagine a married couple approach St. Augustine and tell him they don’t desire a baby, they know themselves to be naturally infertile and they’re having problems with lust. If they ask him whether sex would be licit or illicit for them, what would his short answer be?

 

[davidv]

Now THIS is an honest response and one I can certainly respect. If the only thing that really matters is what the Church says, then just say so and the argument ends right there. Refusing to acknowledge the validity of other sources or twisting their words or arguing what the definition of “is” is (a la Bill Clinton) only weakens one’s position in the end. If the only definition one will accept is one given to them by the Catholic Church, then there is nothing wrong with coming out and saying exactly that.

Regarding the bolded statement above.

As can be demonstrated throughout many threads on this forum, this is obviously not the only thing that matters. First “what the Church says” isn’t arbitrary. To claim so is to propogate the myth that faith and reason are at odds. What the Church says is based on what she was taught by Jesus, the Deposit of Faith - the truth, and can be explained in a rational way.

Second, it seems you may be the only one of a great many for whom “the Church says so” would end the argument. In some cases it seems the “the Church says so” is the principle reason for the disagreement.

In the end all must acknowledge that truth exists and is personified in the person of Jesus Christ. The Truth sets us free from the slavery of sin, even that of contraception. This Jesus established the Church to free us from sin so we can be happy, for eternity, not just for a few moments (relative to eternity) of phyical pleasure.

 

[LittleDeb]

Answer is rather simple. Church Fathers were stressing the intent of couple during act.
If procreation has to be intended during intercourse, fertility control, natural or artificial, is absurd to talk about. It is only used by couples who have other intent then procreation.

If couple can’t have kids, that doesn’t mean they can’t have sex. Their sex is unnatural, and satisfying only lust, but that is tolerated because of “marital debt”.

There is a catch, however. If pair doesn’t chart, this is because they don’t care about outcome of their intercourse. If they do, they have intent of having sex without conceiving, and this is unacceptable for stoic moral value.

I think this post gets to the heart of your argument. Those of us who make exclusive use of the infertile phase completely and totally intend to be procreative. We do not intent to beget. There is a difference, though Augustinian thought saw it from a completely different perspective than even you are holding currently. As I said, St. Augustin would have supported charting wholeheartedly… to use to have relations for conception only.

And again:
*Charting *is not sinful, under any circumstances. With your last statement you reject science. Anyone can chart, without serious reason, and remain free from sin. The couple cannot, under any circumstances, thwart the procreative design. (contraception) It is the exclusive use of the infertile phase that must be for serious reason, only (NFP). Charting is neutral. A couple can chart while not caring about the outcome. Your assertion is incorrect. Many of us chart strictly for health.

The couple is welcome to have relations on a non-fertile day without sin. Only St. Augustine would have denied that, and he was alone in his thinking. The **Church **has always held that sex could be objectively procreative while being *subjectively *infertile. (Remember that it has to apply to those who are struggling with infertility.) They aren’t “necessarily barren,” but they just *might *be.

But again, St. Augustine on some level believed that “lust-free sex was impossible.” We know that to be untrue. At least I *hope *that most people here know that to be true.

 

[LittleDeb]

I am heading out of town so I might not be around for some of the discussions. Thank you LaSainte, for your kind comments and prayers for my situation. I really appreciate what you said. Thank you! :tiphat:

I am heading to our family retreat house and neighboring hermit-Sisters community. (They are not cloistered, they are hermits.) I will offer in prayer the intentions for all those in this thread, before the Blessed Sacrament. (Especially for you, sacredcello in your difficult journey, I will petition at our shrine of Our Lady of Hope, too.)

Thank you all, for a fruitful and charitable discussion!

 

[sacredcello]

1. So, with Creighton, the couple would know when they conceive, (it would not be likely that a Creighton couple conceived on a non fertile day ie a non mucus day). It is not likely the embryo failed to implant due to a thin endometrium the way it happens or (could happen) with the pill. Early miscarriages occur due to lack of progesterone and or chromosomal abnormalities.

Hi Mary Gail,

Thank you for outlining this. I’m charting by Creighton as well as STM. I’ve never heard anything like what Warrior1979 is claiming about early miscarriage in phase III. Like you said, the sperm need mucus for a swimming medium and if it were an infertile day, the sperm would not likely make it past the cervix. In order to prove this, the same conditions for a study would apply in this situation as well. Every bit of menstrual fluid would need to be collected, etc. Even so, it is not at all logical that early miscarriages happen in phase III due to relations limited to that phase. Knowing what we do about the necessary conditions, and by applying sound logic, it is evident that conception would not take place at all. Or, if conception did occur, it would stand just as good a chance at survival as one conceived a day earlier. Remember, the egg, once it is released from the ovary, is only viable for about 12 - 24 hours. It dies if it is not fertilized during that small window of time.

 

[sacredcello]

I just wanted to present accurate facts, that’s all. I still think the pill is immoral so long as there is even a slight chance that it can cause a woman to miscarry an otherwise viable pregnancy, but let’s not pretend it happens all the time.

Okay, but let’s not pretend that it’s only a slight chance. Breakthrough ovulation at 14% on the mini-Pill is not slight.

 

[ac_claire]

Regarding the bolded statement above.

As can be demonstrated throughout many threads on this forum, this is obviously not the only thing that matters. First “what the Church says” isn’t arbitrary. To claim so is to propogate the myth that faith and reason are at odds. What the Church says is based on what she was taught by Jesus, the Deposit of Faith - the truth, and can be explained in a rational way.

Second, it seems you may be the only one of a great many for whom “the Church says so” would end the argument. In some cases it seems the “the Church says so” is the principle reason for the disagreement.

In the end all must acknowledge that truth exists and is personified in the person of Jesus Christ. The Truth sets us free from the slavery of sin, even that of contraception. This Jesus established the Church to free us from sin so we can be happy, for eternity, not just for a few moments (relative to eternity) of phyical pleasure.

Good response. LaSainte, I don’t believe that what the Church says is all that matters. But I have found time and time again that whenever I have an issue understanding or accepting a Church teaching for rational or intellectual reasons, God always, *always *gives me the grace to understand to the best of my abilities. I would argue that there is always some aspect or moment of having to take a leap of faith in these issues. Some Catholics may disagree. For instance, I can only ***explain ***the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception up to a certain point. The rest is mystery and we take on faith.

But on this particular issue (the subject of this thread), the argument for periodic abstinence using NFP not being the same thing or carrying the same sin as artificial contraception has been made to my satisfaction using reason, understanding of historical Church teaching, and an understanding of Theology of the Body. Yes, the fact that the Church can’t teach anything false is for sure a trump card in the Catholic argument for any issue for me. But it’s not the only factor. I never would have become Catholic if that were the case. As David said, it’s a myth that faith and reason are at odds.

 

[sacredcello]

Regarding the bolded statement above.

As can be demonstrated throughout many threads on this forum, this is obviously not the only thing that matters. First “what the Church says” isn’t arbitrary. To claim so is to propogate the myth that faith and reason are at odds. What the Church says is based on what she was taught by Jesus, the Deposit of Faith - the truth, and can be explained in a rational way.

Second, it seems you may be the only one of a great many for whom “the Church says so” would end the argument. In some cases it seems the “the Church says so” is the principle reason for the disagreement.

In the end all must acknowledge that truth exists and is personified in the person of Jesus Christ. The Truth sets us free from the slavery of sin, even that of contraception. This Jesus established the Church to free us from sin so we can be happy, for eternity, not just for a few moments (relative to eternity) of phyical pleasure.

Indeed, truth does exist and can be discerned through applying faith and reason. Obedience, yes. But, not blind obedience. It is only blind obedience when our conscience has been so formed by the world, by our parents’ dissent, by our friends who are not Catholic by the newspapers which represent the Church as antiquated and by the modern academic (non-Biblical) view of sexuality which presents homosexual and unnatural acts as something we should all accept, as an issue of social justice. When our conscience is formed as such, it is our obligation to put aside those outside sources, or to scrutinize them more carefully through the lens of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial sources. Only then can we say “Yes” to the Lord. The Church, after all, is not only the Bride of Christ, but is also His Mind. We are called to think and reason through our faith. Someone made a snarky comment, “well, if the Church says so, then okay…I guess I’ll just be like Bill Clinton then and twist the definition of what “is” is.” That is not what the Lord is calling us to do. We have to go deeper. During the catechumenate, candidates for confirmation go through what is called “Scrutinies”. It is a form of minor exorcism. That is perhaps what is needed if our mind is so shaped by the world. We have to scrutinize those worldly influences that are not helpful to us in practicing our faith with a pure heart.

 

[sacredcello]

I am heading out of town so I might not be around for some of the discussions. Thank you LaSainte, for your kind comments and prayers for my situation. I really appreciate what you said. Thank you! :tiphat:

I am heading to our family retreat house and neighboring hermit-Sisters community. (They are not cloistered, they are hermits.) I will offer in prayer the intentions for all those in this thread, before the Blessed Sacrament. (Especially for you, sacredcello in your difficult journey, I will petition at our shrine of Our Lady of Hope, too.)

Thank you all, for a fruitful and charitable discussion!

Have a wonderful weekend, LittleDeb. Thank you so much for your prayers. I will continue to pray for you, too. I appreciate everything you have to say, and look forward to hearing from you when you get back. I, too, will be away for work this weekend.

 

[copperblade]

Answer is rather simple. Church Fathers were stressing the intent of couple during act.
If procreation has to be intended during intercourse, fertility control, natural or artificial, is absurd to talk about. It is only used by couples who have other intent then procreation.

If couple can’t have kids, that doesn’t mean they can’t have sex. Their sex is unnatural, and satisfying only lust, but that is tolerated because of “marital debt”.

There is a catch, however. If pair doesn’t chart, this is because they don’t care about outcome of their intercourse. If they do, they have intent of having sex without conceiving, and this is unacceptable for stoic moral value.

I don’t know. Maybe. St. Thomas is pretty comprehensive in matters of questions that “might come up” for his time. I’m not really convinced either way on that.

 

[Warrior1979]

It sounds like misinformation. Can you cite anything?

Sure thing. See this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564520

Post #15 has a link. I comment in Post #19.

I specifically chose this reference because the source is a pro-life, Catholic doctor, which means bias in favor of the Catholic position. Yet his evidence still proves the point I’m making. He, of course, doesn’t make that point for obvious reasons, but the facts don’t lie.

 

[Warrior1979]

We go by what the Church teaches because the Church, as always, holds the truth. The truth of this argument and of everything else.

I’ve always said if the Church wants to take the position of “Faith Only,” there is nothing wrong with that…just stop there, and don’t go further. The micromanaging and microexplanation of issues, IMHO, creates major problems for the Church, especially when those issues fall under morals (infallibility).

 

[Chrono13]

I don’t know. Maybe. St. Thomas is pretty comprehensive in matters of questions that “might come up” for his time. I’m not really convinced either way on that.

People were trying to escape conceivement even at his time.

 

[Chrono13]

Imagine a married couple approach St. Augustine and tell him they don’t desire a baby, they know themselves to be naturally infertile and they’re having problems with lust. If they ask him whether sex would be licit or illicit for them, what would his short answer be?

“Illicit, but permitted.”

 

[copperblade]

People were trying to escape conceivement even at his time.

Right, so that’s why I’m having a hard time with silence about the immorality of sex during infertile periods not meaning that he thought it was OK. Or am I missing something? Since there’s obviously a connection between having sex during an infertile time by accident, and doing so on purpose, why isn’t the intent mentioned specifically in that case? If it was said that having sex during an infertile period is not immoral, the natural follow-up would be “unless you do it on purpose.” That’s a pretty big hole to leave people who are looking for a technicality.

 

[Chrono13]

I think this post gets to the heart of your argument. Those of us who make exclusive use of the infertile phase completely and totally intend to be procreative. We do not intent to beget.

Is this a typo? If you intend to be procreative, you can’t say you are not intending to beget.

And again:
*Charting *is not sinful, under any circumstances. With your last statement you reject science. Anyone can chart, without serious reason, and remain free from sin. The couple cannot, under any circumstances, thwart the procreative design. (contraception) It is the exclusive use of the infertile phase that must be for serious reason, only (NFP). Charting is neutral. A couple can chart while not caring about the outcome. Your assertion is incorrect. Many of us chart strictly for health.

I understand what you mean, but this is simply not what clergy taught in the past.

I wish you blessings during your trip out of town. You will be in my prayers, and I hope it is likewise.