Struggling to Understand Church Teaching on Contraception

[ClemtheCatholic]

Here’s what I’m struggling to understand. Using artificial contraception is immoral because the couple in question is trying to get the pleasure of sex without the “risk” or pregnancy. But couples using NFP do the exact same thing when they have sex in the knowledge that the wife is infertile. I’m unmarried myself, but presumably Catholic couples feel pretty pleased about this, in the same way that contracepting couples feel pretty pleased about what they’re doing. I’m struggling to see the moral difference here, even though I intuitively there there’s something perverse about artificial contraception.

 

[pensmama87]

Here’s what I’m struggling to understand. Using artificial contraception is immoral because the couple in question is trying to get the pleasure of sex without the “risk” or pregnancy. But couples using NFP do the exact same thing when they have sex in the knowledge that the wife is infertile. I’m unmarried myself, but presumably Catholic couples feel pretty pleased about this, in the same way that contracepting couples feel pretty pleased about what they’re doing. I’m struggling to see the moral difference here, even though I intuitively there there’s something perverse about artificial contraception.

The bolded is false.

What makes contraception immoral is that it changes the act or the people in it. NFP, when used to avoid, is simply non-action. There is no requirement for couples to have sex when fertile.

NFP is difficult for many couples because it involves a great deal of sacrifice. Nobody is just peachily getting away with anything.

I frequently recommend Simcha Fisher’s The Sinner’s Guide to Natural Family Planning.

 

[Rau]

…Using artificial contraception is immoral because the couple in question is trying to get the pleasure of sex without the “risk” or pregnancy.

As Pensmama states, this is incorrect. Would you also conclude that sex after menopause is immoral? Or between a sterile husband and his wife? You won’t find these ideas in Humanae Vitae.

It is permissible to take steps to avoid a conception for a period of time, in some cases indefinitely. There is no requirement to avoid sexual intercourse for the whole of that period.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

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?

No.

But the distinction between NFP and other birth regulating methods seems rather empty.

The act in NFP is careful monitoring of the reproductive cycle and then making decisions on whether to have sex based on that monitoring. In so doing a couple can be just as “unopen” to new life as a couple using the pill who are also making decisions influenced by knowledge about fertility and the appropriateness of a conception at a give time.

Make no mistake action is taken in NFP.

I realize this is NOT Church teaching. But Like Vera I have a hard time appreciating it.

 

[pensmama87]

No.

But the distinction between NFP and other birth regulating methods seems rather empty.

The act in NFP is careful monitoring of the reproductive cycle and then making decisions on whether to have sex based on that monitoring. In so doing a couple can be just as “unopen” to new life as a couple using the pill who are also making decisions influenced by knowledge about fertility and the appropriateness of a conception at a give time.

Make no mistake action is taken in NFP.

I realize this is NOT Church teaching. But Like Vera I have a hard time appreciating it.

There are LOTS of factors that go into deciding whether or not to have sex. This is one of many.

The difference between the contracepting couple and the NFP couple is that the NFP couple sacrifices something. The contracepting couple does not.

How often should a couple engage in relations to be sure they aren’t sinning?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

There are LOTS of factors that go into deciding whether or not to have sex. This is one of many.

The difference between the contracepting couple and the NFP couple is that the NFP couple sacrifices something. The contracepting couple does not.

How often should a couple engage in relations to be sure they aren’t sinning?

So “sacrifice” makes one moral and the other not?

The question you ask, “How often should a couple engage in relations to be sure they aren’t sinning?” is an open question for everyone.

 

[Rau]

Consider the couple who uses NFP extensively. Do they commit the moral evil of contraception? By definition - no.

Do they do anything wrong? Potentially, yes. Their behaviour may be selfish in that they refuse to bring children into the world despite that being the primary purpose of marriage. Alternatively, they may do nothing wrong, given their circumstances may make it reasonable, wise, prudent or even important to defer a pregnancy for a time of even indefinitely.

Michael - the church does teach that one should have just reasons to use NFP.

 

[Rau]

But the distinction between NFP and other birth regulating methods seems rather empty

Only if “intention” is focused upon. But the “intention” to avoid a pregnancy (while continuing marital relations) is not wrong itself, whereas contraceptive means are always wrong.

NFP practitioners may potentially go off the rails in that their intention is born of self-centered considerations, and any wrong they are doing is born of that.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

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.

First of all, I talk to YOU, personally, not to the catholic church. Second, I don’t think that you qualify to be a spokesperson for the church. The words you used were: “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 meaning of the phrase can all be procreative is very simple: “it is possible that the act performed by those people can end in a pregnancy”. So my question was accurate: “how can a couple achieve pregnancy without the necessary body parts?”.

Instead of admitting your error, you started to quibble about the different meaning of these simple words. That is NOT how an honest conversation is supposed to happen. It is very unfortunate that you (both personal and generic) resort to twisting words out of their meanings, and then accuse the other party of not “understanding” the catholic meaning of those words.

Of no relevance or application in this discussion.

I think otherwise, but that if you don’t want to answer, then so be it.

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. 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.

Changing the goalposts, again. The only valid analogy concerning the God-human relationship is the adult-small child relationship - and even that could be considered incorrect. And no one, ever was able to substantiate that giving the ability and the weapons to some toddlers is a good, loving idea. Only a fully irresponsible person (or parent) would give lethal weapons in the hand of small children. So the free will allegedly granted to humans makes God uncaring and irresponsible. This contradiction cannot be explained away.

As a matter of fact, of all the attempts to solve the problem of evil the “free will defense” is the worst one.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Only if “intention” is focused upon. But the “intention” to avoid a pregnancy (while continuing marital relations) is not wrong itself, whereas contraceptive means are always wrong.

NFP practitioners may potentially go off the rails in that their intention is born of self-centered considerations, and any wrong they are doing is born of that.

So NFP may or may not be wrong depending on intention.
Contraception is ways wrong regardless of intention.

Intention is important factor for NFP.

It still seems to me that NFP is a manipulation of the fertility cycle for the purpose of birth regulation. Why is the use of a chemical or device so much worse than manipulation?

You say because NFP requires “sacrifice”. Sacrifice makes it right?

 

[Rau]

So NFP may or may not be wrong depending on intention.

Correct - this is self-evident isn’t it? Unless you require that a couple not ready for a child must cease sexual intercourse until they are ready. The Church does not teach that.

Intention is important factor for NFP.

Intention is important in assessing the morality of all acts.

It still seems to me that NFP is a manipulation of the fertility cycle for the purpose of birth regulation.

Birth regulation is not itself wrong! It can be reasonable, wise or important to regulate births. The cycle is not “manipulated” - it is what it is and persons observing NFP justly work with it for good motives. There is no basis to say we must act ignorant of the state of the cycle. There is no basis to say that we may not moderate the timing of sexual intercourse in light of that knowledge.

You say because NFP requires “sacrifice”. Sacrifice makes it right?

I didn’t say that. It’s not what the Church teaches, nor is it my view.

 

[Rau]

First of all, I talk to YOU, personally, not to the catholic church.

Your critique of catholic teaching precedes our conversations Vera.

The words you used were: “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 meaning of the phrase can all be procreative is very simple: “it is possible that the act performed by those people can end in a pregnancy”.

Vera - what does the Church teach? Does it teach that every act of sexual intercourse must be capable of ending in pregnancy? No Vera, it does not. It teaches that all acts must be unitive and procreative - and it explains “procreative” as about the ordering of the act: NOT about possibilities nor desires.

… twisting words out of their meanings…

That is precisely what you just did Vera. I assume you do know the sense in which the Church is (and I am) using “procreative” but you pretended to understand a different meaning. You turned the discussion into a word game. We can all do that…for if you check dictionaries, you can find other meanings of procreative eg. “Producing new life or offspring”. So tomorrow you might tell us that a certain act could not have been procreative because conception did not occur! And in the relevant context, that could be correct. Just not our context here, and also - not even using the meaning of “procreative” that you cherry-picked.

…The only valid analogy concerning the God-human relationship is the adult-small child relationship - and even that could be considered incorrect.

I agree - incorrect (certainly imperfect). So why try to use it?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Correct - this is self-evident isn’t it? Unless you require that a couple not ready for a child must cease sexual intercourse until they are ready. The Church does not teach that.

Intention is important in assessing the morality of all acts.

Birth regulation is not itself wrong! It can be reasonable, wise or important to regulate births. The cycle is not “manipulated” - it is what it is and persons observing NFP justly work with it for good motives. There is no basis to say we must act ignorant of the state of the cycle. There is no basis to say that we may not moderate the timing of sexual intercourse in light of that knowledge.

I didn’t say that. It’s not what the Church teaches, nor is it my view.

Right, that was Pensmama

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Your critique of catholic teaching precedes our conversations Vera.

In those cases I tried to have conversation with THOSE posters. I can only talk to actual people, not the “church”. The expression: “the church teaches” is simply a shortcut to express that many people in the church accept or agree. But the church is just a human institution, not the “body of Christ”.

Vera - what does the Church teach? Does it teach that every act of sexual intercourse must be capable of ending in pregnancy? No Vera, it does not. It teaches that all acts must be unitive and procreative - and it explains “procreative” as about the ordering of the act: NOT about possibilities nor desires.

Something cannot be “procreative” if it CANNOT lead to procreation. Procreation is a physical occurrence. If the act MAY end in having the sperm and the ovum to fuse, it can be correctly called: “the act is potentially procreative”. To demand that the act must be “potentially” procreative is at least not a logical nonsense. On the other hand to demand that the couple must play dumb, and pretend that the act CAN end in procreation, even when it is physically impossible, is simply ridiculous.

I agree - incorrect (certainly imperfect). So why try to use it?

It is the habit of the apologists to use the father-child analogy. I simply picked up their usage. No sane and caring human father - analogical or actual - would allow the unlimited free will for his children.

Anyhow, this is getting boring, since it cannot lead anywhere. You try to manufacture new meanings to well-defined words.

Wishing you the best.

 

[Rau]

In those cases I tried to have conversation with THOSE posters. I can only talk to actual people, not the “church”. The expression: “the church teaches”…

…refers to what the Church teaches. Which is the subject of the thread!

Something cannot be “procreative” if it CANNOT lead to procreation

To be clear, you’ve now abandoned commentary on the catholic teaching and chosen to discuss what a word means. The Church does not require that sexual acts be able to lead to conception.

It is the habit of the apologists to use the father-child analogy. I simply picked up their usage.

All analogies have limited application Vera.

Anyhow, this is getting boring, since it cannot lead anywhere. You try to manufacture new meanings to well-defined words.

Ive explained to you countless times why your threads cannot lead anywhere. The utterly incompatible premises are fatal. Ive manufactured nothing - I’ve explained the meaning of the teaching in question. Rather than learn, you prefer to argue about the meaning of a word.

 

[AiyanaS]

The Church does not require that sexual acts be able to lead to conception.

Yes it does. That’s the basis of what Catholics argue all the time.

“Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” (No. 11, Humane Vitae)

Translation: all sexual acts must be have potential of leading to conception, even if conception is impossible or highly unlikely.

That’s why homosexuals, the impotent and those (like me) who don’t want to procreate biological kids are barred from marriage, under Catholic law.

 

[Rau]

Translation: all sexual acts must be have potential of leading to conception, even if conception is impossible or highly unlikely…

If something is impossible, then it has no potential to the relevant end.

The requirement is that the act be “ordered” to procreation. When one partner is sterile:

• conception is impossible as a result of their act;
• their act has no potential of leading to conception;
• BUT: their act may be ordered to procreation.

I suspect we understand the same meaning even if there is variation in expressing it.

 

[Rau]

…That’s why homosexuals, the impotent and those (like me) who don’t want to procreate biological kids are barred from marriage, under Catholic law.

Homosexual persons are not barred from marriage (assuming you acknowledge marriage requires 1 man + 1 woman). And yes, persons permanently incapable of sexual intercourse are ineligible to marry, as are persons with an intention to permanently avoid children.

 

[AiyanaS]

Homosexual persons are not barred from marriage (assuming you acknowledge marriage requires 1 man + 1 woman). And yes, persons permanently incapable of sexual intercourse are ineligible to marry, as are persons with an intention to permanently avoid children.

You just reiterated what I already said In my post, though. I know that the people in those 3 categories (one includes me) are barred from marriage under Catholic law, because we do not fit the qualifications the Catholic Church says we must for marriage. Not even if those who fit in the same category as me have a good reason for forgoing biological kids (called hereditary diseases) and would’ve adopted instead. And Homosexuals who don’t want to live a lie by marrying a heterosexual person in order to fit society norms are barred from marriage too.

 

[Rau]

…And Homosexuals who don’t want to live a lie by marrying a heterosexual person in order to fit society norms are barred from marriage too.

I don’t believe there is any Canon that bars marriage to a person on account of sexual orientation.

I agree with you that it is a highly improbably scenario that a person who’s sexual attractions are exclusively “same sex” would or should propose marriage.

A homosexual person who marries can’t be assumed to be doing so in order to live a lie. Certainly to conceal one’s attractions from a would-be spouse would be wrong, and to marry *merely *to fit “societal norms” (ie. “for appearances only”) would also be wrong (and may well invalidate the marriage). A priest suspecting such behaviour would certainly be at liberty to decline to marry the candidates - but this is not the “barring” to which you refer.

Persons experiencing same sex attraction do so to varying extents. Yes, I know, you’ll probably insist that persons with less than a 100% same sex orientation should not be called homosexual (though the catechism does use that one word to cover both those whose exclusive or *predominant *attraction is to the same sex). If one can enter into marriage with the proper commitment and intention, same sex attractions are not in themselves a bar, though obviously very careful discernment is required.