Protestant wants to understand Catholic position on Birth Control

[Aslan10]

The “deviation from the natural order” argument does not fit at all. Just because an act does not take place in a natural sense, does not make it immoral. That would make all medicine to extend life immoral because one deviated from the natural process and didn’t “let God’s purposes come to be” or whatever. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any moral difference in NFP from condoms or non-abortifacient contraceptives.

 

[clem456]

The “deviation from the natural order” argument does not fit at all. Just because an act does not take place in a natural sense, does not make it immoral. That would make all medicine to extend life immoral because one deviated from the natural process and didn’t “let God’s purposes come to be” or whatever. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any moral difference in NFP from condoms or non-abortifacient contraceptives.

The form of the sex act is ordered to a good; procreation.
The form of medical procedures is -usually- ordered to a good also-saving a life, or alleviating suffering. (hideous things can be done as well, thereby using something designed for the good in a disordered way).

 

[Aslan10]

The form of the sex act is ordered to a good; procreation.
The form of medical procedures is -usually- ordered to a good also-saving a life, or alleviating suffering. (hideous things can be done as well, thereby using something designed for the good in a disordered way).

But clearly, procreation is not always the reasons for having sex, or else NFP would not be practiced or be an option. And to only list procreation as the ordered good for sex, is limiting the act, in my opinion.

 

[clem456]

But clearly, procreation is not always the reasons for having sex, or else NFP would not be practiced or be an option. And to only list procreation as the ordered good for sex, is limiting the act, in my opinion.

Procreative and unitive. Must be both.

The act is properly ordered to procreation if it is not interrupted by artificial means.
I like the hammer analogy.
Hammer is designed to drive a nail to build something.
I can also use it to hit someone. Disordered.
I can also not use it. Like NFP, not using is different than mis-using,

Free will is always in play.
There is nothing wrong with a couple planning a family. God gives us free will. How we cooperate in that matters. Bodies matter, actions matter. Both are real.

 

[manualman]

The following link gives some background on the papal commission, originally set up by John XXIII, the same man who also set up Vatican II. …

The Catholic position is based on natural law, and church tradition, which tends to be regarded as “infallible” (and frankly, I don’t believe it is).

In the meantime, the world population keeps growing as per the following clock -

worldometers.info/world-population/

And not a word from the church on how we are supposed to cope with this burgeoning population growth.

A few myths here need popping.

1. The commission was created with the mission of articulating the BEST arguments on both sides of whether the newly developed pill was truly a form of artificial contraception or whether it was legitimate medicine. They were never asked to make a recommendation, they took it on themselves to do that. Paul VI was using best practices for intellectual honesty by populating the commission with people that nobody could accuse of being shills for the church, but he never saw coming that they would attempt to hijack that distinction into an attempt at creating a sort of alternative magisterium of experts. Their recommendation means nothing because they were never tasked with producing one.
2. As for catholic teaching leading to runaway global population growth, that’s a canard. Explosive population growth occurs ONLY during the transition period between poor agrarian society and wealthy industrial society. Even as far back as the mid 1800’s it was already observed that middle class and wealthy urbanites had small families (2ish kids). It appears that humans have a pretty much self-stabilizing mechanism built-in that is only disrupted temporarily by outside stimulus. But a major outside stimulus is, itself contraception. Go to the CIA world factbook website and goodle “total fertility rates.” Now observe closely. Every single nation on Earth where contraception is cheap, available and socially respectable has a BELOW replacement total fertility rate. It’s only the countries still in industrializing transition that are keeping global population growth positive. Even the perennial alarmists at the UN population division now recognize that global population will peak somewhere between 2050 and 2100 and then go on a LONG, steady decline. Few demographers yet admit it, but it appears that contraception fundamentally breaks a self-regulating mechanism God built into humanity that tends us towards relatively stable populations. Those who practice it rarely have enough kids for society to replace itself.

 

[clem456]

It may seem as though the insistence on a completed sex act is an overly rigid reading of the matter.

The conjugal act is an image of the sacrifice of Christ, giving himself for his body out of love (Ephesians). By image, we are not talking about an idea, or a “look-alike”, but a real participation in this love by the conjugal act.

Contracepting the act is like claiming that Christ loved us completely, but did not actually come to the shedding of his blood.
Is it important that he gave himself for us in this complete way? Or would an “almost” act of redemption suffice?
No, he gave himself completely so that we might have …new life.
His act of love is real, it is complete, it unites us, and most definitely open to new life.

 

[ProudUU]

Procreative and unitive. Must be both.

But if a couple has sex KNOWING that the woman is not fertile at the time, then it’s not procreative. It’s simply not. And those who practice NFP (properly) are VERY aware of this. So, I have to echo Aslan10’s question of: how is it any different?

I should know - my husband and I practice NFP for now (and we practiced it when we were cohabitating before we got married, by the way, for the person who said cohabitating couples never use it). And we have had ZERO unintended pregnancies (and two intended ones) in the past 8 years.

I will grant that we are not Catholic, and thus are not bound to NFP for any religious reasons, but it does work pretty well when practiced 100% properly. We do not want any more children, so we’re planning on getting him snipped soon (again: not Catholic). But, until then? NFP.

 

[tm21]

I personally know cohabitating couples who use NFP. Non-Catholic and non-religious, although took course. Reason: “It’s natural.” so, NFP is not just used by married Catholic couples.

BTW, this type of mindset is very common in the circles in which I travel. (Health-concious, enviranmentalist, vegetarian, etc.)

OK…I stand corrected…couples who care about their bodies and who are in long term co-habitation relationships (at least long enough to take a course together) also use NFP. Do you know anyone who “hooks up” or has multiple short term relationships and uses NFP? I would guess not…so my point remains. Try to picture a guy who is “hooking up” and who cares enough about his partner to encourage her not to use contraceptives but instead use NFP. I suggest that would “ruin the moment” and be so contrary to the behavior as to practically never happen.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Applause for the natural!!! I’m always surprised tha so many people obsess over what they put in and on their body but fail to apply this to medicine and other things like condums (petroleum, chemicals, ect).

However, “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”
Love and Life in the Divine Plan Family (2011)
Sister Jane Dominic O.

Got a car? Do you only put natural products in it?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

A few myths here need popping.

Even as far back as the mid 1800’s it was already observed that middle class and wealthy urbanites had small families (2ish kids). It appears that humans have a pretty much self-stabilizing mechanism built-in that is only disrupted temporarily by outside stimulus. But a major outside stimulus is, itself contraception.

The reason families in the 1800’s probably had “small families” was that most of the kids died during infancy.

understandingyourancestors.com/wea/death.aspx

Even in the middle of the 1800s, a quarter of all babies born in many European countries died before their first birthday. At the start of the nineteenth century in France, less than one half of children lived to be ten years old. In Sweden as a whole, the infant mortality rate in the late 1700s was about twenty percent.

In fact, in the mid 1800s, life expectancies were only in the high thirties or early forties. Despite this, some people, of course, did live to be quite old.

In fact one of the problems now for social security reasons is that people are living into their eighties in Western countries. Apparently Bismarck was the first statesman to bring in pensions, payable at 65. But at that time the average age in Germany was 45. So they didn’t have to pay much.

But with the control of infectious diseases, the mortality rate plummeted.

This means not only could people live longer, but so could their kids, hence bigger surviving families.

Going to advocate infant mortality and short life expectancies as birth control measures?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Applause for the natural!!! I’m always surprised tha so many people obsess over what they put in and on their body but fail to apply this to medicine and other things like condums (petroleum, chemicals, ect)…

What’s the meaning of “artificial”?

google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=ECM9VOzyPMyN8QfomIGYDA&gws_rd=ssl#q=definition+of+artificial

…made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.

You drive on artificial roads, in artificial cars, to artificial buildings, heated and lit by artificial means. You wear clothes with artificial fibres, made on artificial machines, and transported by artificial machines.

You argue n the net with an artificial computer, over an artificial telecommunications, by virtue of artificial power, controlled by artificial software.

You eat at an artificial table, with artificial tableware, cook on an artificial stove, eat artificially packaged food, and throw the leftovers in an artificial bin, which is disposed of in an artificial food tip.

You go to a doctor who examines you using artificial equipment, writes out a prescription with an artificial pen or on an artificial medical network, and you then go the chemist who prescribes you an artificial drug.

But when it comes to the sex act, suddenly all mention of artificial is taboo.

What a hypocritical stance.

 

[clem456]

But if a couple has sex KNOWING that the woman is not fertile at the time, then it’s not procreative. It’s simply not.
And those who practice NFP (properly) are VERY aware of this. So, I have to echo Aslan10’s question of: how is it any different?

Open to procreation, not “must conceive”.
Stop and think for a second. God does not mandate a child with each and every sex act, right? So there are many times when a couple has sex that a child will not be born. So the discussion about openness to procreation is not about “must have a child every time”. It is about keeping holy the act itself.

The act itself has an objective form, and very deep theological meaning (Ephesians). It has an order.
Contra-cepting the act is, in itself, the problem, not the fact that a child is not conceived each and every time. Contra-cepting interrupts the God-given form and order.

Again, not doing an act is different than using an act in a disordered way.
I should know - my husband and I practice NFP for now (and we practiced it when we were cohabitating before we got married, by the way, for the person who said cohabitating couples never use it). And we have had ZERO unintended pregnancies (and two intended ones) in the past 8 years.

I will grant that we are not Catholic, and thus are not bound to NFP for any religious reasons, but it does work pretty well when practiced 100% properly. We do not want any more children, so we’re planning on getting him snipped soon (again: not Catholic). But, until then? NFP

So you are using your free will to plan a family. So? God gave us all free will. Free will is a gift!
If a couple uses NFP to intentionally sterilize a marriage, that would be an issue.

 

[manualman]

The reason families in the 1800’s probably had “small families” was that most of the kids died during infancy.

Nope. This is a hobby horse of mine that I’ve read up on extensively. From the very beginning of the industrial revolution it’s been true that women in third or later generation middle class and up households have had under 2.5 children born to them over their lifetimes. Today that figure is about 1.6. Rural folks, immigrants and their kids still tended to have bigger families, which boosted the overall numbers, but the science of demography has pretty conclusively shown that urban living tends toward long term native no growth outcomes, even before the advent of modern contraception.

Reasons vary, but include the fact that urban living flips the economic situation from one in which kids are an economic help to one in which kids are an economic burden, so urban women tend to WANT fewer kids. What women want has been shown to be THE largest determinant in how many they actually have. Also urban life tends towards later marriage due to education and training requirements, which tends to eat up much of the most fertile time and increases the incidence of infertility (can’t have kids at all). But also, it turns out that humans are mammals and mammals ALL produce readily discernible symptoms of fertility. It’s not like NFP is rocket science. At minimum, you need toilet paper and the ability to count to three to practice it. Earlier societies just did so informally rather than pretending that it’s a complex issue that only trained medical staff can instruct you in.

And, for the record, “natural” doesn’t mean forests, bugs and bunnies. It means “according to one’s nature.” The velocity at which I travel from point A to B doesn’t affect my nature as a person. But intentionally sterilizing my wife (or myself) so that I can have sex with her without a baby resulting DOES affect my nature as a person. It changes what that encounter IS.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Nope. This is a hobby horse of mine that I’ve read up on extensively. From the very beginning of the industrial revolution it’s been true that women in third or later generation middle class and up households have had under 2.5 children born to them over their lifetimes. Today that figure is about 1.6. Rural folks, immigrants and their kids still tended to have bigger families, which boosted the overall numbers, but the science of demography has pretty conclusively shown that urban living tends toward long term native no growth outcomes, even before the advent of modern contraception.

Reasons vary, but include the fact that urban living flips the economic situation from one in which kids are an economic help to one in which kids are an economic burden, so urban women tend to WANT fewer kids. What women want has been shown to be THE largest determinant in how many they actually have. Also urban life tends towards later marriage due to education and training requirements, which tends to eat up much of the most fertile time and increases the incidence of infertility (can’t have kids at all). But also, it turns out that humans are mammals and mammals ALL produce readily discernible symptoms of fertility. It’s not like NFP is rocket science. At minimum, you need toilet paper and the ability to count to three to practice it. Earlier societies just did so informally rather than pretending that it’s a complex issue that only trained medical staff can instruct you in.

And, for the record, “natural” doesn’t mean forests, bugs and bunnies. It means “according to one’s nature.” The velocity at which I travel from point A to B doesn’t affect my nature as a person. But intentionally sterilizing my wife (or myself) so that I can have sex with her without a baby resulting DOES affect my nature as a person. It changes what that encounter IS.

That’s very interesting. Tell me, are your statistics drawn from the United States or wider? And can you give me a simple-ish definition of middle class, because I suspect you may be using it in a different way from the way an Englishman would use it. Thanks.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Nope. This is a hobby horse of mine that I’ve read up on extensively. From the very beginning of the industrial revolution it’s been true that women in third or later generation middle class and up households have had under 2.5 children born to them over their lifetimes. Today that figure is about 1.6. Rural folks, immigrants and their kids still tended to have bigger families, which boosted the overall numbers, but the science of demography has pretty conclusively shown that urban living tends toward long term native no growth outcomes, even before the advent of modern contraception.

Reasons vary, but include the fact that urban living flips the economic situation from one in which kids are an economic help to one in which kids are an economic burden, so urban women tend to WANT fewer kids. What women want has been shown to be THE largest determinant in how many they actually have. Also urban life tends towards later marriage due to education and training requirements, which tends to eat up much of the most fertile time and increases the incidence of infertility (can’t have kids at all). But also, it turns out that humans are mammals and mammals ALL produce readily discernible symptoms of fertility. It’s not like NFP is rocket science. At minimum, you need toilet paper and the ability to count to three to practice it. Earlier societies just did so informally rather than pretending that it’s a complex issue that only trained medical staff can instruct you in.

And, for the record, “natural” doesn’t mean forests, bugs and bunnies. It means “according to one’s nature.” The velocity at which I travel from point A to B doesn’t affect my nature as a person. But intentionally sterilizing my wife (or myself) so that I can have sex with her without a baby resulting DOES affect my nature as a person. It changes what that encounter IS.

Infant mortality rates USA 1800’s.

https://ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/preventinginfantmortality/PDFs/Lecture1.pdf

Infant Mortality in the Mid-1800s
������Industrial Revolution brought about rapid urbanization
������IMR were very high
−New York City—248 infant deaths per 1,000 live births
������Viewed as a consequence of an unsanitary environment on its disadvantaged residents
������Prevention strategies focused on foul air and water of the urban environment

For a detailed article and table of fertility rates, mortality etc. I refer you to the following.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/fertility-and-mortality-in-the-united-states/

Look at Table 1 - Fertility and Mortality in the United States, 1800-1999

I can’t reproduce the table here, unless someone can show me how to do so without it just bunching up.

I’d like to know where you got the low family figures from. The average fertility in 1850 for whites was 5.42, and for blacks 7.9.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Infant mortality rates USA 1800’s.

ocw.jhsph.edu/courses/preventinginfantmortality/PDFs/Lecture1.pdf

For a detailed article and table of fertility rates, mortality etc. I refer you to the following.

eh.net/encyclopedia/fertility-and-mortality-in-the-united-states/

Look at Table 1 - Fertility and Mortality in the United States, 1800-1999

I can’t reproduce the table here, unless someone can show me how to do so without it just bunching up.

I’d like to know where you got the low family figures from. The average fertility in 1850 for whites was 5.42, and for blacks 7.9.

Manualman stated there were low rates of fertility amongst

“later generation middle class and up households”

who tended to have lower birth rates.

I notice even in the table I quoted above, there was a decline in white births from 5.42 in 1850 to 3.56 in 1900 in the USA. Now this is long before the pill, but women “wanting fewer kids” is not going to make much difference unless they’re using some sort of contraceptive.

From medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52188

Incidentally the last paragraph shows why the notorious Margaret Sanger thought the way she did. I agree abortions is murder, but at the same time, one can see how her circumstances may have influenced her thinking.

What’s clear is that if there was a declining birth rate, it wasn’t just the consequence of women “wanting fewer kids”. They and their husbands or partners were actively using birth control, even back in the 1800’s, and particularly since 1844 when Mr. Goodyear opened the door to more than just tyres.

1844
Charles Goodyear patents vulcanization of rubber. Soon, rubber condoms are mass produced. Unlike modern condoms – made to be used once and thrown away – early condoms were washed, anointed with petroleum jelly, and put away in special wooden boxes for later reuse. British playwright and essayist George Bernard Shaw called the rubber condom the “greatest invention of the nineteenth century.”

1844-1873
The U.S. contraceptive industry flourishes. In addition to condoms (immediately known as “rubbers”), there’s widespread sale and use of intrauterine devices or IUDs, douching syringes, vaginal sponges, diaphragms and cervical caps (then called “womb veils”), and “male caps” that covered only the tip of the penis.

1873
The U.S. Congress passes the Comstock laws. Written by dry goods merchant and anti-obscenity crusader Anthony Comstock, the law makes all forms of contraception illegal. The contraceptive industry continues to flourish – but the devices are now sold to promote “feminine hygiene.”

1880s
Penniless New York City immigrant Julius Schmid gets extra sausage casings from butcher shops and makes them into skin condoms. It becomes a big business by 1890. By the 1930s, his condom empire is making millions. His Ramses and Sheik brands are still popular.

1898
Nineteen-year-old Margaret Sanger’s mother dies at age 50, exhausted from giving birth to 11 children. Sanger becomes a nurse and aids survivors of botched abortions. Later she turns her attention to the development of better contraceptives. Her dream: A birth control pill.

 

[TxGodfollower]

Open to procreation, not “must conceive”.
Stop and think for a second. God does not mandate a child with each and every sex act, right? So there are many times when a couple has sex that a child will not be born. So the discussion about openness to procreation is not about “must have a child every time”. It is about keeping holy the act itself.

So, with NFP you are open to a conception, but you are essentially stacking the deck against it happening. I still don’t see how artificial Preventive means get a different treatment. Like NFP, they aren’t 100% effective, but they reduce the likelihood. So, if you are open to conception either way, I am not sure I see the distinction.

 

[clem456]

So, with NFP you are open to a conception, but you are essentially stacking the deck against it happening. I still don’t see how artificial Preventive means get a different treatment. Like NFP, they aren’t 100% effective, but they reduce the likelihood. So, if you are open to conception either way, I am not sure I see the distinction.

Compare it to this:
Christ mounts the cross and goes through all the motions of crucifixion, but does not “really, truly, and substantially” shed his blood and die. He contra-cepts the tree of life.

Why is this not an acceptable act of redemption? If we say he died, and he goes through all the motions, with the exception of really completing the act, why is this not an act (key word) of redemption?

 

[TxGodfollower]

Compare it to this:
Christ mounts the cross and goes through all the motions of crucifixion, but does not “really, truly, and substantially” shed his blood and die. He contra-cepts the tree of life.

Why is this not an acceptable act of redemption? If we say he died, and he goes through all the motions, with the exception of really completing the act, why is this not an act (key word) of redemption?

Are you comparing artificial birth control to Christ pretending to sacrifice Himself for us? If that is the case (sorry if I am wrong), that would be an argument against any attempt at preventing conception, including NFP. NFP would be us going through the motions of being open to life, while acting in such a way to make it impossible.

Someone recently suggested I read the Catechism, and one part I found interesting was: “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil” (2370). I had heard this used against artificial preventive birth control before, but reading it, it doesn’t say that. Preventive birth control isn’t 100% effective, it doesn’t make procreation “Impossible”.

I hear the Catholic position of being staunchly pro-life ( Ya’ll Rock) and against artificial birth control; yet when I read the Catholic literature (Catechism and Humanae Vitae), I don’t see the same position clearly laid out; I see phrases like the one I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

If I am missing something, please let me know.

 

[clem456]

Are you comparing artificial birth control to Christ pretending to sacrifice Himself for us? If that is the case (sorry if I am wrong), that would be an argument against any attempt at preventing conception, including NFP. NFP would be us going through the motions of being open to life, while acting in such a way to make it impossible.

No, it’s a proposition that an action PER SE is real, that it means something, it has a form, given to us by God. It’s form is real, as we have male and female bodies made to work in a real way.

Forget results for a second. Everyone gets hung up on a “mandate to conceive”. There is no mandate to conceive in every single sex act. There is an act that takes place. And every single act PER SE must be ordered to procreation.