Struggling to Understand Church Teaching on Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter ClemtheCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ClemtheCatholic

Guest
If natural family planning is a legitimate extension of God’s design for fertility and procreation, then why isn’t contraception a legitimate extension of natural family planning?

I realise there are very valid concerns about abortifacients, lack of commitment in relationships, devaluing of children, and so on. But in principle, how is the principle at work in contraception any different from the principle at work in natural family planning? It seems like they both operate on the principle of being able to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex without the “risk” of pregnancy.

Please help clear this up for me! I 100% believe in Catholic teaching, it’s just on this particular issue I’m a little puzzled. Thanks!
 
My first question would be, what do you know about the Catholic moral concept of Ends and means? Also called the fonts of morality.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Contraception artificially separates the “unitive” aspect from the “procreative” aspect. So a couple can have sex (unitive) while avoiding pregnancy (procreative). The Church teaches that they are intended to be inseparable. NFP does not involve this kind of artificial separating.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/catholic-teaching/upload/Unitive-and-Proc-Nature-of-Interc.pdf
Click to expand...
If you would remove everything that is “artificial” from our life, you would have almost nothing left. (Water to drink, raw vegetables to eat, maybe a few maggots and small animals… raw, of course. Fire is “artificial”.) Just because something is artificial it is not a rational argument to consider it “unacceptable”. I would love to see the proponents of such life to actually practice what they preach. 🙂
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
If you would remove everything that is “artificial” from our life, you would have almost nothing left. (Water to drink, raw vegetables to eat, maybe a few maggots and small animals… raw, of course. Fire is “artificial”.) Just because something is artificial it is not a rational argument to consider it “unacceptable”. I would love to see the proponents of such life to actually practice what they preach. 🙂
Click to expand...
“Artificiality” isn’t the problem. The separation by any means of the two aspects or as the bishops say “natures”, is the problem.
 
Okay, Clem, I’ll try to make this as easy as I can, while keeping it G-rated.

There are two basic means of artificial contraception. The first is placing a mechanical or chemical barrier (condom, diaphragm, spermicide) between part A and part B. Said barrier prevents the ovum and sperm from getting together, or kills the sperm before it can get together. The second is interfering with the woman’s natural four-part cycle to prevent an ovum from ripening and making its way through the Fallopian tubes. No egg, no baby. This involves, essentially, turning off the ebb and flow of her natural hormones and substituting a straight-line, consistent level of hormones. Sorry, not how God created the female homo sapiens. Plus, pill-form (“artificial”) estrogens and progesterones can lead to multiple physical problems, including gall bladder disease, cholesterol deregulation, emotional changes, and, in more potent treatments such as Depo-Provera injections, brittle bones, strokes, and early death. The most powerful drugs of this sort include a favorite called Premarin. It is manufactured from horse urine.

By using any of these methods, the couple has made a decision: not open to reproduction.

Now, take the “no egg, no baby” argument a different direction. The ovum is only there once a month. The other three weeks, no ovum. Taking advantage of the infertile times which nature provides? Open to reproduction, but it doesn’t happen for perfectly natural reasons.

I don’t include such things as the “loop” or other IUD mechanical means, or the “morning after pill”, which actually induce abortion after conception has occurred, as methods of birth control. They are methods of fetal homicide.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
“Artificiality” isn’t the problem. The separation by any means of the two aspects or as the bishops say “natures”, is the problem.
Click to expand...
Not a good argument. The NFP is also separating the two aspects. 🙂 And yet it is acceptable, because it is “natural”. You can’t have both ways.
venite_adoremus said:
There are two basic means of artificial contraception.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are more. Do not allow the semen get close to the egg - without any artificial barriers. The sex is there, the unitive aspect is there. By the way, the principle of “to be open to reproduction” is not violated. If God so desires, he can override our attempts to avoid procreation. After all “with God everything is possible”, he can simply negate all our attempts if he so chooses. The easiest one would have been to fashion us like the rest of the animal kingdom - with the notable exception of the hominids 🙂 - and every act would have been “open” to procreation.

I keep wondering, why do you all want to second-guess God’s decision. If God allows something, then God approves - implicitly. If God disapproves something explicitly, he simply disallows it - just like any rational being would. Would you approve of your children to play with poisons? I bet you do and that is why to lock them away where they cannot get to it.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Not a good argument. The NFP is also separating the two aspects. 🙂 And yet it is acceptable, because it is “natural”. You can’t have both ways.
Click to expand...
NFP does not separate the two natures. Or perhaps you mean because of the careful timing and abstenance, having sex only on infertile days, the separation takes place and the intention is the same, avoide conception. Well, I tend to agree with you.
 
“Therefore, the moral difference between NFP and contraception is that contraception deliberately interrupts, sterilizes, and works against (contra) conception, while NFP respects the way God ordained conception to occur. In no way does NFP interrupt or sterilize an act of intercourse. NFP couples are not acting against the way God has designed fertility but are working with it.”

“Despite all these differences between contraception and NFP, it can be abused. Because NFP is so effective in regulating births, a couple could take on a contraceptive mentality and close themselves off from the gift of life. Therefore, it must be practiced responsibly and only when there is just reason to do so.”

chastityproject.com/qa/whats-the-big-difference-between-nfp-and-contraception/
 
Grossly over-simplified:
  1. Continence avoiding conception: OK.
  2. Incontinence avoiding conception: Not OK.
Genesis 38 does not define, but gives a clue as to how God views our sexuality.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
The NFP is also separating the two aspects.
Click to expand...
No Vera, it does not. You may as well say that one “aspect” is lost the moment the wife enters menopause. To say that however only reveals the aspects are not understood.
If God so desires, he can override our attempts to avoid procreation. After all “with God everything is possible”, he can simply negate all our attempts if he so chooses.
Click to expand...
Arguably, that’s quite true. But it is not God’s actions that are in question.
I keep wondering, why do you all want to second-guess God’s decision. If God allows something, then God approves - implicitly. If God disapproves something explicitly, he simply disallows it - just like any rational being would. Would you approve of your children to play with poisons? I bet you do and that is why to lock them away where they cannot get to it.
Click to expand...
Children who are short on wisdom are incapable of good decision-making - so they are restricted in many, many ways. That’s the duty of parents. God creates us free. What we choose to do carries no implications for God. Once again Vera - you start from a different premise - even when you postulate the God you don’t believe in, you get the premise wrong!
 
Rau said:
No Vera, it does not. You may as well say that one “aspect” is lost the moment the wife enters menopause.
Click to expand...
I say exactly that. Just like having a hysterectomy or tubal ligation removes one of the aspects. The strange thing is that even if the possibility of conception disappears, the couple is “required” to pretend that conception is still possible. In other words, they must “play stupid”. It is totally irrational.
Rau said:
Arguably, that’s quite true. But it is not God’s actions that are in question.
Click to expand...
Sure they are. Just like questioning the actions of the parents who allow their SMALL children to play with loaded guns, or poisonous drinks, and other dangerous substances, which will lead to undesirable outcomes. And then blame the children for making wrong choices with the tools available to them. A loving parent only allows those “tools” to be available which cannot lead to harm.
Rau said:
Children who are short on wisdom are incapable of good decision-making - so they are restricted in many, many ways. That’s the duty of parents.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. As long as they “love” their children. They do not allow the children to commit fatal errors.
Rau said:
God creates us free.
Click to expand...
And that is the problem. Of course our ability to will, want, wish, desire is only hindered by our imagination, but our ability to ACT on those wills is limited - but sometimes not limited ENOUGH. A loving parent only allows limited freedom to their children.
Rau said:
What we choose to do carries no implications for God.
Click to expand...
I agree. But according to many apologists, our actions “cause” God to be upset, sad, vengeful, angry and other human-like emotions and actions. You can’t have it both ways. Allegedly our payers sometimes cause the “immovable” God to change his mind.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
I say exactly that. Just like having a hysterectomy or tubal ligation removes one of the aspects.
Click to expand...
Do you make this stuff up in order to wage strawman arguments, or do you really not understand the Church’s statements? The sexual acts of the elderly, the sterile and others unable to conceive due to health reasons, or due to “time of month” considerations, can all be procreative. The word (as used in this context) does not refer to the practical potential for conception, but to the form of the act as chosen by the couple. To “remove” the procreative aspect requires an act of the person, not infirmity.
Sure they are. Just like questioning the actions of the parents who allow their SMALL children to play with loaded guns, or poisonous drinks, and other dangerous substances, which will lead to undesirable outcomes. And then blame the children for making wrong choices with the tools available to them. A loving parent only allows those “tools” to be available which cannot lead to harm.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to believe God’s has the same duty to control us as parents have to control children. And btw, do you anticipate allowing your children to drive a car one day?
I agree. But according to many apologists…
Click to expand...
Perhaps that’s a debate for you to have with those people rather than here?
 
Rau said:
Do you make this stuff up in order to wage strawman arguments, or do you really not understand the Church’s statements? The sexual acts of the elderly, the sterile and others unable to conceive due to health reasons, or due to “time of month” considerations, can all be procreative. The word (as used in this context) does not refer to the practical potential for conception, but to the form of the act as chosen by the couple. To “remove” the procreative aspect requires an act of the person, not infirmity.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with Vera. The procreative aspect is effectively removed by the person when they intentionally abstain during fertile periods and have sex only during the natural infertile periods. they are gaming the system. The intention is to avoid pregnancy. The act is carefully studied timing and inaction.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I tend to agree with Vera. The procreative aspect is effectively removed by the person when they intentionally abstain during fertile periods and have sex only during the natural infertile periods. they are gaming the system. The intention is to avoid pregnancy. The act is carefully studied timing and inaction.
Click to expand...
One cannot remove something from an act when the act is not happening. And when it does happen, it is not removed either. [Just as it is not removed for sexual acts after menopause.]

Your statement in an earlier post to the effect that actions to “avoid conception” are wrong is also in error. There is nothing in the teaching of the Church to that effect. It is only the means to which objection is made, not its purpose.

Is it your intention to argue that in making a decision about whether to have sex, one should not be influenced by any knowledge one has about fertility nor about the appropriateness of a conception at the present time?
 
Rau said:
The sexual acts of the elderly, the sterile and others unable to conceive due to health reasons, or due to “time of month” considerations, can all be procreative.
Click to expand...
How could it be “procreative”, if it is physically impossible (missing uterus, missing ovaries)? Just don’t say that a miracle from God could achieve it… because such a miracle is possible even if there is no sperm, no ovum, no intercourse, or sexual act of any kind.

God is still supposed to do whatever he wants. Even if the couple uses a barrier method, AND chemical agents AND no intravaginal penetration, they can assert that they are “open” to procreation, since they have no problem with a miraculous conception where the ovum and sperm are miraculously created and “IVF”-ed by God and implanted into the female incubatory system, which does not even have to be a uterus… just something that is able to provide the nutrients. The couple “chooses” to become parents, “Insh’Allah” - God willing.
Rau said:
The word (as used in this context) does not refer to the practical potential for conception, but to the form of the act as chosen by the couple. To “remove” the procreative aspect requires an act of the person, not infirmity.
Click to expand...
What name would you like to chose for someone who pretends to be able to achieve something that is physically impossible? And what name would be appropriate for someone who insists that one must pretend to behave as if such an act is possible? (Because accepting reality and acting accordingly is a “mortal sin”?) I might have a few suggestions, but they would not be excessively “charitable”.
Rau said:
There is no reason to believe God’s has the same duty to control us as parents have to control children. And btw, do you anticipate allowing your children to drive a car one day?
Click to expand...
Why not? Protecting someone by limiting their actions IS a sign of caring, or “love”. Of course if God does not “love” us, then there is no duty, no obligation. Once the children become adults, they will cease to be under the parents’ jurisdiction. By the same token, if and when we shall be as advanced as God, we shall become independent.
Rau said:
Perhaps that’s a debate for you to have with those people rather than here?
Click to expand...
You were the one who asserted that our actions do not carry an implication for God. I simply answered.
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
How could it be “procreative”, if it is physically impossible…
Click to expand...
Vera - if your goal is to criticique (or even just to pass comment on) Catholic teaching, you first need to do enough study to understand it. On this topic, you are criticising some fiction which you believe, or pretend, is what the Church teaches. I’m fairly sure the meaning of procreative - as the Church uses the term - has been explained to you on this thread and others.
What name would you like to chose for someone who pretends to be able to achieve something that is physically impossible?
Click to expand...
Of no relevance or application in this discussion.
Why not? Protecting someone by limiting their actions IS a sign of caring, or “love”. …Once the children become adults, they will cease to be under the parents’ jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
But they are not ceased to be loved. They have their freedom because they are adults, not because they are as clever as their parents.
By the same token, if and when we shall be as advanced as God, we shall become independent.
Click to expand...
That is not our reality - and to to require or expect it is to say we should be denied freedom till death - which is at odds with a premise of Christian faith - we are given free will.
You were the one who asserted that our actions do not carry an implication for God. I simply answered.
Click to expand...
No - you didn’t. You parroted the alleged response of others (and a response you entirely reject anyway). What a strange thing to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top