NFP and contraception

[sacredcello]

We are clearly not reading the same documents. This is clearly addressed in “Unlawful Birth Control Methods.”

Yes, we are. I have my own copy of Humanae Vitae and I looked at the Vatican site as well. They are worded a little differently, but the meaning is not changed.

The Pill would most definitely fall under this description, especially if one wants to argue that it is an abortificient. There is simply no way around it.

Yes, but Humanae Vitae does not even specifically mention the Pill. There are many pro-life gynecologists and endocrinologists who have written about the abortifacient action of the Pill, but it is not mentioned in Humanae Vitae. This letter “to all men of good will” is leading us to understand the difference between licit and illicit methods of regulating birth. It is clear that the Pill is illicit, but this document does not outline the details of how the Pill actually works.

Many people will argue that the Pill is an abortifacient, but the Church leaves those detailed discussions to doctors. Also, to the credit of Paul VI, he asked theologians to continue to work on this topic. Nevertheless, the immorality of the Pill and all other forms of contraception, does not rest on the abortifacient action. If you read Humanae Vitae with a heart and mind that is open to God, it is clear that these things are an offense against God, against the dignity of the human person and against the unborn.

Do you really believe that abortifacients are acceptable by the Church?..this discussion is getting more amusing with each post.

No, all forms of contraception are illicit and Humanae Vitae plainly states it. There is nothing amusing about this topic. Many souls are in mortal sin due to their rejection of Humanae Vitae. Although, many are in a state of inculpable ignorance, but it is our duty as Catholics to learn our faith and to dispel ignorance.

 

[sacredcello]

“Is NFP Good?” by Father Richard M. Hogan:

Humanae Vitae (On Human Life)

Of course, we all know the outcome. The commission reported to Pope Paul VI and he issued the famous encyclical, Humanae Vitae. The encyclical clearly reaffirms the teaching of the Church that the procreative purpose of the marital act cannot be excluded physically or intentionally. Anti-procreative intercourse is seriously sinful. But non-procreative intercourse is permitted. Thus, Paul VI allows couples to have recourse to the infertile times for “serious motives.” in allowing couples to engage in non-procreative intercourse, he acknowledges that the implicit openness to children is sufficient intention. In these positions, Paul VI is in complete conformity with the Catholic tradition. However, before the Holy Father introduces these doctrinal points, he speaks of marriage as the personal gift of the two spouses to one another. He teaches that all marriage finds its origins in God. He recognizes that marriage is a total gift, a very special friendship. In other words, the Holy Father accepts and makes his own, that is, the Church’s own, some of the new personalism which had developed over the previous decades. Paul Vi is responding to some of the criticism leveled against Pius XI. He clearly points to the conjugal friendship purpose of the marital act. (continued…)

 

[Abu]

The reality on contraception and abortion:
tinyurl.com/8d0z
“But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real- life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God’s law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

“The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious. It is being demonstrated in an alarming way by the development of chemical products, intrauterine devices and vaccines which, distributed with the same ease as contraceptives, really act as abortifacients in the very early stages of the development of the life of the new human being.”
Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Blessed John Paul II, 1995, 13]

 

[Warrior1979]

This letter “to all men of good will” is leading us to understand the difference between licit and illicit methods of regulating birth.

After all this discussion, I have concluded that if a “licit” method is found to increase miscarriages, it is acceptable. As long as the procreative and unitive aspects are in place, the increase in miscarriages is not relevant.

 

[Warrior1979]

Yes, but Humanae Vitae does not even specifically mention the Pill. There are many pro-life gynecologists and endocrinologists who have written about the abortifacient action of the Pill, but it is not mentioned in Humanae Vitae. This letter “to all men of good will” is leading us to understand the difference between licit and illicit methods of regulating birth. It is clear that the Pill is illicit, but this document does not outline the details of how the Pill actually works.

Maybe it didn’t mention mention the manner the Pill works because it wasn’t understood at the time?

Nevertheless, the immorality of the Pill and all other forms of contraception, does not rest on the abortifacient action.

That may be true, but that fact alone would be enough to make it illicit. If you can think of licit examples of abortifacients, I’d like to know what they are, and why they are licit.

If you read Humanae Vitae with a heart and mind that is open to God, it is clear that these things are an offense against God, against the dignity of the human person and against the unborn.

Maybe that’s why I’m in this discussion in the first place? I can’t reconcile why actions that can create a statistical increase in miscarriages is licit. Especially when it appears that this wasn’t understood when the “rules” were written.

 

[davidv]

After all this discussion, I have concluded that if a “licit” method is found to increase miscarriages, it is acceptable. As long as the procreative and unitive aspects are in place, the increase in miscarriages is not relevant.

the reasoning for you conclusion is not obvious, nor does it seem to have any bearing on the immorality of contraception or NFP for that matter.

What teaching would ever support the increase in miscarriages? As near as I can tell from the evidence given in this thread, NFP is not a factor in cause of miscarriages.

 

[LaSainte]

After all this discussion, I have concluded that if a “licit” method is found to increase miscarriages, it is acceptable. As long as the procreative and unitive aspects are in place, the increase in miscarriages is not relevant.

This is my understanding as well.

Sacredcello, so Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae and then told theologians to continue to study the matter? Sounds to me like he knew that the total ban on ABC is not an infallible doctrine. Didn’t someone also mention earlier that he originally included language in HV that would have made it infallible and then changed his mind and crossed it out?

Would a Pope say “Of course Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but by all means, continue to study and debate the matter”???

 

[Warrior1979]

What teaching would ever support the increase in miscarriages?

Exactly.

As near as I can tell from the evidence given in this thread, NFP is not a factor in cause of miscarriages.

The data cited by both sides in this debate shows that miscarriages occur more in non-optimally timed sex. Non-optimally timed sex, by definition, is more common in NFP, as compared to intentionally having sex during an optimum time, or simply random sex. Thus, statistically more miscarriages will occur with non-optimally timed sex.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Exactly.

The data cited by both sides in this debate shows that miscarriages occur more in non-optimally timed sex. Non-optimally timed sex, by definition, is more common in NFP, as compared to intentionally having sex during an optimum time, or simply random sex. Thus, statistically more miscarriages will occur with non-optimally timed sex.

Among women with previous miscarriage.

Miscarriage risks rise after each miscarriage.

Creighton has shown causes of miscarriage, many of which can be medically adressed.

So use of Creighton method of NFP would result in fewer miscarriages.

Creighton actual use success to avoid is about 96%.

 

[Warrior1979]

Among women with previous miscarriage.

Miscarriage risks rise after each miscarriage.

Creighton has shown causes of miscarriage, many of which can be medically adressed.

So use of Creighton method of NFP would result in fewer miscarriages.

Creighton actual use success to avoid is about 96%.

This is referring to specific circumstances. It doesn’t address the statistical increase, plus your scenarios assume that this miscarriage is known, which is rarely the case when the fertilized egg doesn’t implant.

 

[davidv]

This is referring to specific circumstances. It doesn’t address the statistical increase, plus your scenarios assume that this miscarriage is known, which is rarely the case when the fertilized egg doesn’t implant.

The statistics don’t apply because NFP users don’t engage in intercourse during the “fringes of fertility” spoken of in the study.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This is referring to specific circumstances. It doesn’t address the statistical increase, plus your scenarios assume that this miscarriage is known, which is rarely the case when the fertilized egg doesn’t implant.

Umm…if the miscarriages are unknown, how could they be studied and shown to occur more frequently at the “fringes of fertility”?

 

[Warrior1979]

Folks, you really have to read and interpret the data, not put the data in a box so that it can conveniently be tossed away. Your starting with the conclusion and forcing the data to fit.

 

[davidv]

Folks, you really have to read and interpret the data, not put the data in a box so that it can conveniently be tossed away. Your starting with the conclusion and forcing the data to fit.

What box have you put the data in?

Extrapolating the results of a study beyond to range of parameters tested is unacceptable and is scientifically unjustified. Any conclusions this way are based on speculation not fact.

 

[sacredcello]

What box have you put the data in?

Extrapolating the results of a study beyond to range of parameters tested is unacceptable and is scientifically unjustified. Any conclusions this way are based on speculation not fact.

Indeed, the data is being misused to promote an agenda here. I have looked carefully at the abstract. While the purpose of the study was to look at the timing of conceptions, it does not propose a causation for these miscarriages. As someone said earlier, “correlation is not causation.”

In fact, I would like to propose an alternate reason for the increase in miscarriages at the “fringes of fertility.” You all have heard me say many times that I am currently seeing a NaPro physician for my infertility. Infertility, you may know, is often connected with early miscarriages. Anyway, at my last appointment, my doctor explained to me that ovulation can take place as early as 3 days before or after Peak day (I already knew this), and that if it happens very early before or after Peak day, it is very often a sign of ovulation defect. The protocols she is treating me with are intended to make ovulation healthier i.e., for the egg to release not too early (before it is fully developed) or too late (when the mucus is already dried up, so the sperm doesn’t have a chance to fertilize it). Many of the OPK’s on the market nowadays will predict an “ovulatory event”, but not necessarily ovulation itself. This would require ultrasound. In any case, daily ultrasound was not conducted in the study that we are discussing, and there is also no mention of this very common phenomenon of ovulation defect which is strongly associated with repeat miscarriage…even though the group who has repeat miscarriages was cited as most likely to have another.

To make a long story short, there are very good reasons to believe that there are health problems which are underlying these non-optimally timed conceptions, as indicated by my doctor, and for which I am being treated. There is no need for women to suffer miscarriage without receiving medical care. Even if they are without insurance, there is often support that can be received from various sources, from one’s own parish, to Catholic Charities, etc.

 

[sacredcello]

After all this discussion, I have concluded that if a “licit” method is found to increase miscarriages, it is acceptable. As long as the procreative and unitive aspects are in place, the increase in miscarriages is not relevant.

No, this is not the case. Please see my previous post about ovulation defect (early or late release of an egg). This condition is very common and accounts for the millions of women who are taking Clomid and other interventions to deal with defective ovulation.

NFP does not “cause” miscarriages. Ill health causes miscarriages. The study you cited only looked at timing, but not underlying health problems associated with ovulation defect (early or late release of an egg).

 

[sacredcello]

Maybe it didn’t mention mention the manner the Pill works because it wasn’t understood at the time?

I think doctors knew very well about the abortifacient action of the Pill. In fact, the early literature about the Pill refers to it as an “anti-implantation drug”. I am sure this was discussed during the commission.

That may be true, but that fact alone would be enough to make it illicit. If you can think of licit examples of abortifacients, I’d like to know what they are, and why they are licit.

Yes, the fact of the Pill being an abortifacient, alone, would be enough to make it illicit. But, then you would have people like LaSainte screaming that it has never been proven. Then, we’d have to go and undertake a study which would collect every single drop of menstrual fluid, urination, etc. to prove it. You would have to have a large group of women who were willing to practically live at the medical clinic for the duration of her menstrual cycle. And, this would defeat the purpose of the Pill, which was supposed to “liberate” us. :shrug:The Holy See, very wisely and prudently, left all of this discussion out of Humanae Vitae. And, really, it was not the central focus. The main idea was about marital love and licit means to plan one’s family.

Maybe that’s why I’m in this discussion in the first place? I can’t reconcile why actions that can create a statistical increase in miscarriages is licit. Especially when it appears that this wasn’t understood when the “rules” were written.

The “rules” have been consistent over the last 2,000 years. Procreation may not be thwarted by drugs, potions, surgeries, devices. Humanae Vitae was not written in a vacuum. You are misusing the data in that study that you cite. NFP is a study of the fertile signs in a woman’s body. The application of the NFP rules, when used to avoid pregnancy, does not cause miscarriage. I’ve looked at the study, I’ve thought about it intensely, and I’ve applied critical thinking skills. There is not enough information included in the study to show what you are wanting it to show. They would have to include daily ultrasound to study the defects of ovulation (which causes an early or late release of an egg, and thus a non-optimally timed conception), but this has not been done. Nor has a study to show early miscarriages before implantation (which you are trying to use as a “proof” for your agenda…but, this has not been done.)

 

[sacredcello]

Sacredcello, so Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae and then told theologians to continue to study the matter? Sounds to me like he knew that the total ban on ABC is not an infallible doctrine. Didn’t someone also mention earlier that he originally included language in HV that would have made it infallible and then changed his mind and crossed it out?

Would a Pope say “Of course Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but by all means, continue to study and debate the matter”???

LaSainte, Pope Paul VI asked theologians to continue to study the topic of sexuality and marital love. There was never any doubt that ABC was illicit, nor did he suggest otherwise. The prohibition on contraception is indeed infallible through the universal magisterium, not by papal infallibility.

What Pope Paul VI meant by his request to continue studying marital love, was that he hoped the topic could be explained more satisfactorily by further exploration. This call was answered by Blessed John Paul II, which brings me to my next post…

 

[sacredcello]

Is NFP Good? by Father Richard M. Hogan (continued)

Humanae Vitae

Still, when he comes to give reasons for his doctrinal points he relies heavily on natural law principles, for example, “the conjugal act…capacitates them (the spouses) for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman…” For some, the law arguments was most frustrating. In defense of Paul VI, it must be remembered that the encyclical was written at a time when the personalistic arguments were not as developed as they are today. What would we have had him write? Also, it must be remembered that, to his credit, he asked theologians to continue to work on this problem. He viewed the encyclical as a beginning of a new dialogue regarding the defense of the Church’s teaching. He did not see the arguments he presented as the last words on the subject.
Humanae Vitae suffered from the same context as Casti Connubii. The encyclical, especially with the development of the birth control pill, was centered on the question of anti-intercourse. Therefore, the Pope emphasized that the procreative purpose of the marital act could not be excluded. But in his attempt to recognize the other purpose of sexual intercourse (a response to the critics of Casti Connubii), the Pope spoke of conjugal friendship and procreation as “two meanings.” The necessary emphasis of the encyclical on procreation and its language of “two meanings” led many to separate, at least in thought, the the two purposes of the marital act. But the entire tradition testifies to the gradual understanding that conjugal fidelity and procreation are inseparable in the one act. The irony is that Paul VI’s very point (that the procreative purposes could not be eliminated) depended on the entire Catholic tradition of the inseparability of the two purposes. But the previous tradition did not answer the new question. The previous tradition had responded to the questions: “What is included in the purposes of the marital act?” and “What must the spouses intend explicitly and implicitly?” The new question was: “Is it possible to exclude procreation from the marital act in reality and in the intentional order?” A new theological framework was necessary to answer the exclusion question and still preserve the integral unity of the marital act. This new theological framework was not yet in place when Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. The Pope was in an impossible position.

A New Theological Construct
(continued…)

 

[Good_Daughter]

If it is assumed to be abortifacient, then it is most definitely one of the reasons it is prohibited. Taking the position that it is not means that abortifacients can be permitted under certain circumstances.

The pill is contraceptive and contraceptives are prohibited by Catholic teaching. That makes the pill’s possible abortifacient properties a moot point. Catholicism does permit abortifacients under certain circumstances. A woman who treats an illness using a drug that is abortifacient/potentially abortifacient is not required to abstain from sex with her husband.

That’s a leading question, putting the situation in the wrong perspective.

Not at all. LaSainte seemed to be indicating that NFP users always have sex immediately before and after fertility. I just wonder what led her to that conclusion.

Look at it this way. Assume the following. Let’s say two people person run across the street four times a month without looking. Two weeks of the month there is no traffic.

Person #1 runs across the street once a week.

Person #2 runs across the street twice a week, but only during the two weeks that there is traffic.

Statistically, who will get hit more by traffic?

The exact same reasoning can be applied to the situation at hand.

Sorry Warrior, but you’re comparing NFP users to people who don’t look before they cross the street. I’ve found NFP users in general to be some of the most informed people around. I appreciate the effort, but I can’t work with your analogy.