Rhythmic contraception

[ematouk]

People have always asserted that the Roman Catholic view on contraception has not changed. It has always been unanimously condemned. But isn’t today’s condemnation far less strict?

This passage is often quote to support the Catholic stance on contraception:

Genesis 38:7-10
“But Er, Judah’s first born was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. Then Judah said to Onan [Er’s brother], “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went into his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.”

My question is, if this is referring to contraception - then isn’t Onan practicing a “rhythmic method” of contraception known as “withdrawal”? But the Roman Catholic church uses this passage to condemn unnatural forms of contraception (and affirms natural forms of contraceptions are accepted).

Is “withdrawal” accepted today?

If a patient is using Diane-35 (an oral contraceptive) for hormone-related acne, should they then abstain from any sex? Or is it only condemned when a person is using it for the purpose of contraception?

Thankyou and God bless.

 

[1ke]

My question is, if this is referring to contraception - then isn’t Onan practicing a “rhythmic method” of contraception known as “withdrawal”?

Withdrawing and the rhythm of the cycle are two different things.

Yes, Onan practiced contraception by withdrawing.

But the Roman Catholic church uses this passage to condemn unnatural forms of contraception (and affirms natural forms of contraceptions are accepted).

This is inaccurate. Contraception is always gravely disordered. The Church allows no “natural forms of contraception”. There isn’t any such thing as “natural contraception.”

The Church states that if one has a just reason to avoid pregnancy at a particular time, one may abstain from sexual relations.

Is “withdrawal” accepted today?

No

If a patient is using Diane-35 (an oral contraceptive) for hormone-related acne, should they then abstain from any sex? Or is it only condemned when a person is using it for the purpose of contraception?

The Church teaches that a valid medical treatment for a disease that has the *unintended *side effect of sterility may be tolerated.

However, such treatment must conform to the norms of the Principle of Double Effect.

Whether or not acne is a sufficiently *serious *condition is doubtful. Also, it seems to fail other areas of the Principle of Double Effect particularly because there are other treatments available. And, these other treatments do not have abortifacient properties. The oral contraceptive pill is not *merely *contraceptive, it also has *abortifacient *properties.

 

[ematouk]

Im not attack the Catholic view point, but just trying to understand it better.

Are you saying a Catholic can not use natural family planning except by abstinence? For instance, is it also condemned to plan when to have sex during a cycle such as to avoid pregnancy?

God bless.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Im not attack the Catholic view point, but just trying to understand it better.

Are you saying a Catholic can not use natural family planning except by abstinence? For instance, is it also condemned to plan when to have sex during a cycle such as to avoid pregnancy?

God bless.

Catholics practicing NFP use it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

It is not “condemned” to have sex during an infertile time. You must understand that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is given to us from God for procreation and to unite the husband and wife. (Hence the unitive and procreative aspect of the marital embrace) Each and every time a married couple engages in the marital embrace they will not create new life, but through using NFP they are open to new life each time.

From the Catechism:

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “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:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”

(bold and italic mine)

 

[1ke]

Im not attack the Catholic view point, but just trying to understand it better.

No one said you were attacking the Catholic faith. I merely answered your questions and corrected erroneous statements. My intent is to help you understand better as well.

Are you saying a Catholic can not use natural family planning except by abstinence?

Natural family planning is abstinence. Either total or periodic.

In your OP you categorized withdrawing as rhythm of the cycle. Can you see that it is not?

For instance, is it also condemned to plan when to have sex during a cycle such as to avoid pregnancy?

Couples can choose to have intercourse or not. When they choose to have intercourse it is a completed act of intercourse with no action to twart its natural end. If they want to avoid a pregnancy, they can choose not to have intercourse on any particular day or days.

 

[graceandglory]

Whether or not acne is a sufficiently *serious *condition is doubtful. Also, it seems to fail other areas of the Principle of Double Effect particularly because there are other treatments available. .

good point. But taking oral contraceptives for facial hair growth might be permissible; with the unfortunate side effect of sterility.

 

[Joe_5859]

My question is, if this is referring to contraception - then isn’t Onan practicing a “rhythmic method” of contraception known as “withdrawal”? But the Roman Catholic church uses this passage to condemn unnatural forms of contraception (and affirms natural forms of contraceptions are accepted).

As 1ke said, there is no such thing as “natural contraception.” By its very nature, cointraception is unnatural. Withdrawal stops the sexual act from reaching its natural end.

Natural Family Planning (NFP) does no such thing. It simply enables the couple to know when the woman is fertile and when she is not. They can then use this information to make decisions on when to have sex and when to abstain. It is very helpful in figuring out when to have sexual relations when you want to have children.

In any case, NFP does nothing to change or disrupt the sexual act. All it does is provide information to decide when to engage in it.

If a patient is using Diane-35 (an oral contraceptive) for hormone-related acne, should they then abstain from any sex? Or is it only condemned when a person is using it for the purpose of contraception?

1ke gave an excellent answer to this as well. I would just add, that, most people that are worried about acne are not old enough to be married, so it’s probably not an issue.

 

[1ke]

good point. But taking oral contraceptives for facial hair growth might be permissible; with the unfortunate side effect of sterility.

Again, “facial hair growth” would not seem to be sufficiently grave.

Cancer, now that would be sufficiently grave to warrant treatment-- radiation for example-- that can render you sterile.

 

[Seatuck]

My question is, if this is referring to contraception - then isn’t Onan practicing a “rhythmic method” of contraception known as “withdrawal”? But the Roman Catholic church uses this passage to condemn unnatural forms of contraception (and affirms natural forms of contraceptions are accepted).

Is “withdrawal” accepted today?

Don’t see the connection between withdrawal and NFP if that is the connection you are trying to make.

Withdrawal is contraceptive because it interferes with the natural conclusion of the marital act.

NFP is not contraceptive. It does not cause any interference with any marital act. A couple merely abstains some days.Catholic couples are not required to participate in the marital act every day of their marriage.

 

[Newbie2]

When I first heard of the “rhythm” method as a kid, I thought it referred to the…um…pace at which the act was perfomed. I couldn’t figure out why that would make a difference.

 

[kage_ar]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it dealt with having a drummer move in upstairs who makes such noise you are not in the mood

 

[ghaybyers1]

When I first heard of the “rhythm” method as a kid, I thought it referred to the…um…pace at which the act was perfomed. I couldn’t figure out why that would make a difference.

ME TOO! :ROTFL: