The Big C Word . . . Contraception

[Mattjstead]

Here is a question I have always wanted to ask. (By the way, I’m not new to the board. I had the username Aggieman1211, but it somehow got lost).

Contraception. When my wife (Fiance at the time) and I came into the church in 2010; it was something we grappled with. And, I still do.

First,
let us tackle history first. Now, it was not really until 1968 that the Catholic Church condemned contraception and birth control (at least to the extent that it is today). It was not as if this was some new thing that had popped up. Contraception has been dated back past 2000 B.C. And for those that may feel that isn’t relevant, the first Condom was created in 1844 (which made of rubber, hence the old term you hear even though they are now made of latex). And the research and development of the pill form of birth control started being invented in 1951 and was FDA-approved and on the market by 1960.

Second,
It was not until 1968 that Pope Paul VI in his encyclical condemned birth control. Up until that point, there was no issue. So, all in all, until almost 50 years ago the Church had said nothing specifically condemning about contraception. Again, to the blatant extreme that it is today.

Third,
I will use myself as an example although there are millions of other cases and scenarios that could be utilized.

Currently, my wife is a school teacher (anyone knows, it isn’t bringing in the dough). And I had to resign from my job in 2014 due to health issues and have decided to go back and get my Masters. And so I am a part-time student and part-time stay at home dad to our 2 1/2 (3 on March 13) son.

I just can’t imagine…

If my wife and I did not use a form of birth control, I would feel that I was being reckless. Because even though we plan on having more kids in the future, if it happened right now between the medical bills of a pregnancy and another child, we would quickly be homeless. Right now we scrape by each month, but we make it work. I just can not see and accept that God would expect me as an intelligent human being to not take precaution when I know it is there.

And one aspect I have always found a bit . . . odd.

I did research on NFP and the methods of mucus, temperature, and such. I find it strange that one crucial aspect is the part of taking the temperature. Does this not completely contradict the entire thing? The quote from the encyclical was, “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” Is the act of checking body temperature (not even taking into account that thermometors is a modern day invention) and curving the process not just another form of going against the teaching? Because a wife (a) checking mucus, (b) taking temperature, (c) tracking days, not just another way of an “action” which “before” sexual intercourse is done to “prevent procreation?”

It seems all rhetorical and beating around the bush to me. And it all comes down to, does anyone think if you get to Heaven, God is going to say, “Ehh…Well…Susie and Johnny…You used Condoms. Sorry, off you go to Hell.” Come on. Really?

I would love some insight into this as I have always found it to be the only strange and perplexing topic that I just can not agree with that the Church teaches.

Blessings,
Matt

 

[hadulzo]

Most, if not all of your questions will be answered by spending the time prayerfully reading Humanae vitae. You will find the everything mentioned in this document is true.

 

[bitterhope]

Actually Humanae Vitae just reaffirmed the teaching. It isn’t new at all. There are tons of writing and documents condemning contraception before Pope Paul VI. He just put an end to continuous gossip the priests, bishops and church members were doing in the wake of other Christian denominations beginning to allow the use of condoms, the pill, and other forms of contraception. Look back in history and you will find many documents and writings from the church fathers condemning it’s use.

 

[Todd977]

Pope Pius IX’s 1930 encyclical, Casti Connubii, says in part:
54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

1. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
2. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. (source)

[45] St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.

Notice that he cites St Augustine and Sacred Scripture.

 

[hydin]

This is a popular situation for newly married or almost married.

First, take another pass at church history concerning contraception… here is a taste followed by links…

History

Catholicism, and Christianity in general, has a long history of opposing contraception—as well as any form of recreational sex that does not lead to procreation. For centuries, any form of contraception was considered sinful. The sin was dubbed “Onanism,” after the Biblical story of Onan, who was killed by God for ejaculating on the ground rather than impregnating his dead brother’s wife. The prohibition on contraception was articulated by several early Catholic thinkers: Clement of Alexandria wrote that “the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted,” and St. Augustine said that couples who use contraception “are not [husband and wife]; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame.” Early Protestants such as Martin Luther and John Calvin were also strongly against contraceptive practices.

hbgdiocese.org/family-life/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/history-of-the-church-contraception/

catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=5703 - about 20th century Protestant changes in thought.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HISTCONT.HTM from Priest at EWTN

You should also know in advance that “the pill”, while designed to stop the egg from dropping fails to do that at a certain rate. No measurement for that but the Drug Manufactures DO measure breakthrough ovulation - egg drops and is fertilized by the sperm. = Catholic Baby… life begins at conception. Now “the pill” is designed to prevent pregnancy, not conception alone, so it acts to make implantation in the uterus impossible as a second method of stopping pregnancy. This gives you a fertilized egg (conceived baby) that now can’t implant so it is “washed out” or really aborted. This happens 8% to 12% of the time. 8% = 1 of 12 months or an abortion each year. (Hate to think of that because in the 1980’s before they had the technology to see such things a priest at our engaged encounter told us the pill was OK to use if we were going to have kids at some point… He was wrong, we knew no better… still aborted 1 a year) It is IRONIC that the Pope for some reason spoke against a pill that prevented conception by restricting the egg and 35 years later technology catches up to the Pope and proves why… Holy Spirit protected our church. Protestant churches can’t go back and tell their members they have been aborting…

druginserts.com/lib/rx/meds/ortho-evra-1/page/4/ drug maker site… see section 12.1

3rd thing, it just personal thought… If you use contraception the only reason you do not have sex is one of you doesn’t want to for some reason (valid or not in your mind). If the two of you are not a perfect match for frequency then it pressures the less interested party… it also gives the feeling that they are being used for pleasure… since they really didn’t want to do it. First thought should always be for partner, not oneself. With no risk there is a loss of closeness.

One thing many ignore about NFP is the use is approved for serious reasons. As newly married with the situations you describe this is not an issue. You have them. Many Catholic couples forget this as they get older and have two kid and decide not to have a 3rd so they can travel, buy a nicer car, nicer house, or maybe a lake house. Serious is defined by a Pope so google serious reasons and you will see what they are. Many who are using NFP are in violation of this requirement and may be in risky territory. Informed conscience = in line with church teaching… 100%… Catechism also goes on to say not checking when you have an idea (if NFP it says it in all info) no matter what the mortal sin, does not remove the Mortal issue. Of the 3 things needed to be Mortal sin, not knowing does not apply if you should have known better or at least had an idea (like divorce for selfish reasons - not following canon law, as a mortal sin… all Catholic vows say marriage is for life… final blessing at all Marriage Masses says the same thing. Hard to say you didn’t know when you said the words…) God understands putting off kids due to what you are going through. The couple who says they can’t afford another kid but joins a golf club for 30K a year and drives BMW’s might have an issue.

Funny thing about our church. Most of the things we see as restrictions are really to protect us from cracks in morality that cause sin. The extra gap for NFP, when a serious issue, may be the gap a partner needs to be really interested in the other days of the month. NFP is also just as reliable as any other form if directions are followed.

Talk it over with your spouse to be or spouse. Many medical issues also pop up with the pill. They are doing studies about relationships and the affect of the pill on attraction to a mate and other areas of science. Huge change in divorce either pre or during menopause filed by females. Scary since the high usage of the pill really took hold in the 80’s or with women now in that age group. More to come. Pray… Trust… Remember, and this really stinks… When one thinks their thinking is better than God’s on a subject, that is sin. God knew all of this when he guided our leadership to stick to their historical position in the 1960’s. Our Catholic Church was protected… Peace!

 

[hydin]

Here is a link to address your last question… The exact one I had and lived for years… no man wants to abstain so isn’t the same? Now I can see the leap in logic. If you use the example of lust and adultery… Honey, I looked at her and my human brain took over… so I imagined it but stopped. It was the same thing as doing it so, I decided to go ahead and do it with her. Or lying… I thought about it but stopped… not a sin.

You can also say that if you ever decide not to do it… at her parents or something, then that would be a sin… you must do it every time you get a chance or you are concepting…

Stunk when I realized their was a difference in deciding not to have sex and swallowing a pill or putting something on that you knew stopped all chance with a pill or thing outside of the two humans during the act… not before or after.

crisismagazine.com/2012/why-is-nfp-not-contraception

 

[GEddie]

How is taking the body temperature equivalent to contraception?

And, FWIW, your question about condoms and the day of judgement seems TTASM somewhat of a red herring. Using the same line of thought, one could dismiss all but the most egregious mortal sins. (Going to Hell for shoplifting?? For a one-night fling??? For using recreational drugs??? Really!!!)

Yet belief in mortal sin, as a possibility for everybody and not just the worst evildoers, is a core teaching of the Church.

God Bless, Blessed Lent, and ICXC NIKA.

 

[runningdude]

Here is a question I have always wanted to ask. (By the way, I’m not new to the board. I had the username Aggieman1211, but it somehow got lost).

Contraception. When my wife (Fiance at the time) and I came into the church in 2010; it was something we grappled with. And, I still do.

First,
let us tackle history first. Now, it was not really until 1968 that the Catholic Church condemned contraception and birth control (at least to the extent that it is today). It was not as if this was some new thing that had popped up. Contraception has been dated back past 2000 B.C. And for those that may feel that isn’t relevant, the first Condom was created in 1844 (which made of rubber, hence the old term you hear even though they are now made of latex). And the research and development of the pill form of birth control started being invented in 1951 and was FDA-approved and on the market by 1960.

Second,
It was not until 1968 that Pope Paul VI in his encyclical condemned birth control. Up until that point, there was no issue. So, all in all, until almost 50 years ago the Church had said nothing specifically condemning about contraception. Again, to the blatant extreme that it is today.

You are missing a huge part of the history. In 1968, Pope Paul did not condemn “birth control” for the first time, but rather ruled that the ancient prohibition against contraception applied to hormonal contraception (the Pill, injections, etc). Hormonal forms could not be addressed until they were invented. When they were invented, there was a question as to whether they might be morally different in kind than previous barrier forms. Pope Paul simply determined there was not.

Every Christian denomination explicitly prohibited contraception (condemns, barriers, withdrawal, etc) up until the 1930’s, when the Anglican church permitted it in so call extreme circumstances.

Third,
I will use myself as an example although there are millions of other cases and scenarios that could be utilized.

Currently, my wife is a school teacher (anyone knows, it isn’t bringing in the dough). And I had to resign from my job in 2014 due to health issues and have decided to go back and get my Masters. And so I am a part-time student and part-time stay at home dad to our 2 1/2 (3 on March 13) son.

I just can’t imagine…

If my wife and I did not use a form of birth control, I would feel that I was being reckless. Because even though we plan on having more kids in the future, if it happened right now between the medical bills of a pregnancy and another child, we would quickly be homeless. Right now we scrape by each month, but we make it work. I just can not see and accept that God would expect me as an intelligent human being to not take precaution when I know it is there.

And one aspect I have always found a bit . . . odd.

I did research on NFP and the methods of mucus, temperature, and such. I find it strange that one crucial aspect is the part of taking the temperature. Does this not completely contradict the entire thing? The quote from the encyclical was, “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” Is the act of checking body temperature (not even taking into account that thermometors is a modern day invention) and curving the process not just another form of going against the teaching? Because a wife (a) checking mucus, (b) taking temperature, (c) tracking days, not just another way of an “action” which “before” sexual intercourse is done to “prevent procreation?”

It seems all rhetorical and beating around the bush to me.

Checking temperature does not affect fertility in the least. Neither would urinating on an ovulation test. Such actions are not contraceptive in the least.

And it all comes down to, does anyone think if you get to Heaven, God is going to say, “Ehh…Well…Susie and Johnny…You used Condoms. Sorry, off you go to Hell.” Come on. Really?

That is a simplistic way of looking one’s relationship with God.

I would love some insight into this as I have always found it to be the only strange and perplexing topic that I just can not agree with that the Church teaches.

Blessings,
Matt

It always helps to start with a solid understanding of the facts. Yes, what you present would be absurd, if any of it were true.

I sympathize with your plight. To get better answers, however, you need to frame your questions in a less accusatory manner.

 

[Tomdstone]

Checking temperature does not affect fertility in the least. Neither would urinating on an ovulation test. Such actions are not contraceptive in the least.

It depends. If you are using these artificial man made instruments, such as thermometers, charts, calendars, etc. with the specific intention of avoiding children, then your intention is against (contra) conception. You are using these artificial, man made tools, methods and strategies so that your wife will not become pregnant.

 

[edwest2]

To the OP.

There is ample evidence that the Church has condemned artificial contraception.

However, in 1960, when the FDA approved The Pill, the majority of the population in the US lived on farms and in urban areas. It was available only by prescription. But makers of The Pill had to move product. That meant a marketing campaign that, like most marketing campaigns, contained a false message. An appeal to the emotions based on the fear that if you didn’t drive, wear or have something, then there would be negative consequences.

This fear went against everything men and women knew about families and babies since antiquity. Time magazine, cover story, April 7, 1967. “Contraception: Freedom from Fear.”
Fear of what? That gift from God? That blessed event? Fear of Babies.

content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html

Pope Paul VI, aware of all this nonsense, created a panel to advise him, and they recommended loosening the Church’s restrictions on artificial contraception. He disagreed.

So, in the middle of the Sexual - without love - Revolution, he had Humanae Vitae published. What was the reaction at the time?

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

That ad was an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…"

In the 1960s, the nuns told us young men to keep it in your pants until you got married. And most of us followed their teaching.

And what did The Pill pushers keep telling you? You can’t control your sexual urges? Who decides when you have sex? The Church? The State? No, you do. And if anyone thinks a Pill or IUD or Barrier or Spermicidal Foam or other money-making gimmick is more important than self control, please, reconsider who controls your body.

Ed

 

[edlinked]

{’
Whoever does not want the effect, avoids the cause. Since the cause of conception in the biological sense is sexual intercourse of the spouses, if they exclude conception, they should also exclude intercourse itself; they should refrain from it. The principle of conjugal abstinence under the ethical aspect is clear. Now, the point is the problem of so-called periodic abstinence.*

[Note*: Periodic abstinence: This phrase could also be rendered as “periodic continence,” although without suggesting that the virtue of continence is to be practiced only periodically. The virtue of continence is to be practiced at all times, and only sometimes as abstinence.
Continence is the habit of restraining the concupiscence of the flesh by the will, the ability to moderate effectively the sensations connected with the reactions]

It is generally known that the biological fertility of a woman is periodic. By nature the periods of infertility that occur in her can be relatively easily discerned. Difficulties arise in the case of applying general rules to particular women. This, however, is a separate issue, for at this point we are interested in the purely ethical problem: if a woman and a man conform their conjugal abstinence to the aforementioned periods of infertility, so that they have conjugal relations precisely when they foresee on the basis of biological laws that they will not become parents, can it be then stated that they bring into their conjugal intercourse parental readiness, precisely this “I can be a father,” “I can be a mother”? After all, they have conjugal relations precisely with the thought of not becoming a father and a mother, and therefore they choose the period of presumed infertility in a woman. Do they do not then “positively” exclude the possibility of procreation? Why does the natural method in the moral aspect differ from artificial methods since all aim at the same end: to exclude procreation in conjugal life?

In order to answer this question, it is necessary above all to be freed from many associations r=that accompany the expression “method.” When speaking of the natural method, the same point of view is often applied to it as to the “artificial methods” thus, deriving it from utilitarian presuppositions. In this perspective, the natural method would also be merely one of the means aiming at securing maximum pleasure, but using a different way than the artificial methods. Here lies the fundamental error. It turns out that it is not sufficient in this case to speak of a method, but it is absolutely necessary to attach its appropriate interpretation. Only then can we answer the question posed above. And so, periodic abstinence as a way of controlling conception (1) is permissible on the grounds that it will respect the demands of the personalistic norm, and (2) its permissibility presupposes certain qualifications

Regarding the first point (1), the demands of the personalistic norm, as has been stated previously, go hand in hand with preserving the order of nature in conjugal intercourse. As opposed to artificial methods, the natural method in striving to regulate conceptions takes advantage of the circumstances in which biological conception cannot naturally occur. Hence, the very “naturalness” of conjugal intercourse is not violated, whereas artificial methods violate the very “naturalness” of intercourse. In the former case, infertility is derived from the very principles of fertility; in the latter case it is imposed against nature*.

[Footnote*: It is worthwhile to recall that nature here is not understood biologistically. Thus, the point here is above all that the initiative of human persons falls within the framework of the “initiative” whose expression is the creative order established by God. The initiative of people “technically frustrating” conjugal intercourse does not, quite clearly at that, fall within that framework.]

Let us add that this issue is closely linked to the problem of justice with respect to the Creator (this problem will be further analyzed in order to explicate its personalistic sense). This personalistic asset of periodic abstinence as a method of regulating conceptions is manifested not so much in preserving the “naturalness” of intercourse, but in the fact that its basis in the will of the involved persons must be an appropriately mature virtue. Precisely here the significance of interpretation is made visible: the utilitarian interpretation distorts the essence of what we call the “natural method.” For the essence of this method is its reliance on abstinence as a virtue, which —as has been demonstrated in the previous chapter — is very closely connected with love of the person.
The essence of abstinence as virtue is linked to the conviction that the love of a man and a woman loses nothing by temporarily relinquishing amorous lived-experiences; on the contrary, it gains: the union of persons becomes more profound, grounded fundamentally on affirmation of the value of the person, and not merely on sexual attachment. Abstinence as a virtue cannot be comprehended as a “contraceptive.” The spouses who practice it are ready to refrain from sexual intercourse also from other motives (e.g., religious ones), and not only for the purpose of avoiding offspring.
"} From Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla Chapter 4 Justice with respect to the Creator, Part One Marriage

 

[edlinked]

{"
Self-interested, “calculated” abstinence raises doubts. Just like any other virtue, it should be disinterested, concentrated on “honorableness” itself and not only on “utility.” Without this it will find no place in the true love of persons. As long as it is not a virtue, abstinence represents an “alien being” to love. The love of a man and a woman must reach maturity with respect to abstinence, and abstinence must acquire for them a constructive meaning as a love-forming factor. Only then does the “natural method” find justification in persons, for its secret lies in practicing virtue; “technique” alone solves nothing here.

We have indicated above (in the second point) that the natural method can be permitted only with certain qualifications. What we mean here is the relation to parenthood. If abstinence is to be a virtue and not merely a “method” in the utilitarian sense, it cannot contribute to the destruction of parental readiness itself in a man and a woman who as spouses have conjugal relations. For this “I can be a father,” “I can be a mother” justifies the fact of conjugal intercourse, raising it to the level of a true union of persons. Therefore, we cannot speak of abstinence as a virtue when the spouses take advantage of the periods of biological infertility only for the purpose of not having children at all, when for the sake of convenience they have intercourse only and exclusively in these periods. This would amount to using the “natural method” against nature —both the objective order of nature and the very essence of love oppose positing the matter this way.*

[Footnote*: This concerns conduct deprived of a sufficient moral rationale, that is, without objectively important reasons dictated by the dignity of the person, This condition is worthy of being underscored, for it protects a hasty conclusion that conjugal intercourse of infertile persons cannot be virtuous. ]

Therefore, if we can treat periodic abstinence as a “method” in this case, we can do so only and exclusively as a method of regulating conceptions, and not as a method of avoiding a family. Without understanding the essence of the family there is no way of grasping the ethical rectitude of this problem. The institution of the family is closely connected with the parenthood of a man and a woman who have conjugal relations. The family is a natural community, which in its being and acting remains directly dependent on parents. Parents create the family as a complement and expansion of their love. To create a family means to create a community, as by nature the family is a community —indeed a society, for it is not a society, it is not itself. But in order to be a society, the family needs a certain size. This is manifested the most with regard to the education of children. For the family is an educational institution within which a new man forms his personhood.*

[Footnote: In this case, the family is not only a place where man’s character or temperament is molded, but where a new person is formed in love and to love. In other words, according to Wojtyla, personhood is not a static reality, but “grows” with the person, and thus needs to be properly cultivated in the proper environment.]

In order to form this person hood correctly, it is of utmost importance for him not to be alone but to dwell in a natural society. It is said sometimes that “it is easier to raise a few children rather than an only child,” and also that “two children are not yet a community but two only ones.” In education the parents possess a leading role. However, under their parents’ guidance the children educate themselves, especially by the fact that they dwell and develop within a community of children, a cluster of siblings.

This moment must be taken into account above all with regard to the regulation of conceptions. Every society —the state, the nation, in which the family happens to exist —should take care so that the family can truly be a community. At the same time, the parent themselves should take care that by limiting conceptions they do not harm their family and society, which after all, also has an interest in an appropriate family size. A minimalistic attitude of the spouses, the principle of convenient life, must harm morally both their family and the whole society. In any case, limiting conceptions in conjugal life cannot be equivalent to canceling the parental attitude. From the viewpoint of the family, periodic abstinence as a method of regulating conceptions is permissible insofar as it does not clash with a genuine parental attitude.
"} From Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla Chapter 4 Justice with respect to the Creator, Part One Marriage

 

[edlinked]

{"
Nonetheless, circumstances occur in which precisely this attitude demands a relinquishment of parenthood, and a further increase of the family would be incompatible with that attitude. In that case, moved by true concern for the good of their family and by a full sense of responsibility for the procreation, support, and education of their children, a man and a woman limit their conjugal intercourse; they refrain from it in the periods when it could bring a new conception that would be inadvisable in the concrete conditions in which the marriage and family exist.*

[Footnote*: “Avoiding parenthood in a concrete fact of intercourse cannot be equivalent with avoiding or even canceling parenthood in the perspective of the whole marriage. This should be above all taken in consideration”(K. Wojtyla Love and Responsibility, 1st edition Lublin, 1960, 185).]

Parental readiness is also expressed in the fact that the spouses do not attempt to avoid conception at any price, but they are ready to accept it if it takes place contrary to expectations. This readiness of “I can be a father,””I can be a mother” permeates their consciousness and will even when they do not wish for conception, when they decide to have intercourse precisely in the period in which it is expected that conception will not occur. This readiness within the scope of a concrete conjugal act in connection with the general (i.e., within the scope of the whole marriage) parental attitude determines the moral value of the “method” of periodic abstinence. Here we cannot speak of some mendacity, a falsification of the true intention. One cannot claim that a man and a woman do not want to be a father and a mother in opposition to the Creator, since they do not do anything to positively exclude this possibility on their part (and it is evident that they could do that). In this case they do not employ any means aimed at a given end, namely those that explicitly clash with the parental attitude, thereby depriving conjugal intercourse of the value of love, and leaving only the value of “use”.
"} From Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla Chapter 4 Justice with respect to the Creator, Part One Marriage

 

[edlinked]

Just wanted to correct an error on post #12 in paragraph 4 the correct sentence should be:

"To create a family means to create a community, as by nature the family is a community —indeed a society, for if it is not a society, it is not itself. "

 

[fisherman_carl]

Actually Humanae Vitae just reaffirmed the teaching. It isn’t new at all. There are tons of writing and documents condemning contraception before Pope Paul VI. He just put an end to continuous gossip the priests, bishops and church members were doing in the wake of other Christian denominations beginning to allow the use of condoms, the pill, and other forms of contraception. Look back in history and you will find many documents and writings from the church fathers condemning it’s use.

Exactly. In fact, I was just reading a book describing how in the 3rd and early 4th century the Christians did not practice birth control and upheld the value of life. They did not commit abortion or any of the other practices of the Roman pagans. And, as a result the Christian population was blooming while the pagans were killing themselves off with all their contraception and abortions. This was actually a factor in contributing to the persecution of Christians. Paganism was dying and the political powers that be saw this. Decades ago they stopped persecuting the Christians because all it was doing was having the opposite effect that they wanted. Instead of killing it, Christianity was growing all the more because of it. So, they stopped the persecutions and allowed the Christians to go about their business for many decades. This did slow the rate of new converts. However, the Christian population kept growing and growing. And, pagans kept decreasing and decreasing. So this final and greatest persecution that eventually came about at the end of the third century was a fight to save paganism itself. They were trying to eliminate Christians altogether to save their religion.

 

[fisherman_carl]

“you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten”
Didache, AD 70

 

[inocente]

The Big C Word . . . Contraception

In the past there was a widespread belief that the woman only supplies an incubator and the passive bodily matter of a baby, while the man’s semen contributes the active component:

“If, then, the male stands for the effective and active, and the female, considered as female, for the passive, it follows that what the female would contribute to the semen of the male would not be semen but material for the semen to work upon.” - Aristotle, Generation of Animals

“In perfect animals, generated by coition, the active force is in the semen of the male, as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. ii, 3); but the foetal matter is provided by the female.” - Aquinas newadvent.org/summa/1118.htm

By that belief it would be important not to waste an ejaculation of semen, as it was thought to contain all the important ingredients of a person. Whereas we now know that the vast majority of potential persons are never conceived - one woman has a potential two million eggs, and a man produces 500 billion sperm in a lifetime, one billion every month, tens of millions of in one ejaculate. - livescience.com/32437-why-are-250-million-sperm-cells-released-during-sex.html

I don’t know to what extent, if any, that mistaken old belief had to do with things.

 

[ericc]

In condensed form, for NFP and artificial birth control (ABC) , the intent is the same. Avoid pregnancy. Whether avoiding pregnancy in itself is intrinsically immoral, that may be a topic for another post. The question is whether the methods of avoiding pregnancy are immoral.

In NFP, the couple doesn’t place any restriction other than choosing the timing. God has never placed a restriction as to when sex is engaged except for certain OT cases where the prophets are planning to commune with God or when temple priests are engaged in certain rituals. I believe even the ancients knew that sex right after a woman’s menses has almost zero chance of pregnancy.( I don’t have any reference to back this up for now). For the Israelites, their rule book does not prohibit sex during this period. Their rule book also doesn’t prohibit abstention. That is really NFP in a nutshell; i.e. procreation within natural parameters.

In ABC, man made items are actively placed/consumed to prevent pregnancy. The man-made devices actively disrupt the fertilization of the egg via physical methods or by chemically downgrading the natural potential of the egg, sperm or their environment.

In NFP, the couple is resigned to God’s will be done. In ABC, man’s will be done.

Now I am going to twist the NFP a bit. If technology marches on and scopes or scanners can be employed , urine indicator tests, blood tests, breath tests, etc to check on the condition of the womb /ovum, will this be considered licit? Of course nothing artificial to prevent fertilization is used. Where should the line be drawn? Imagine a Star Trek medical tricorder that can scan and analyse one’s body and tell you what stage is the body ready for fertilization.

 

[TomFromMD]

God has never placed a restriction as to when sex is engaged except for certain OT cases where the prophets are planning to commune with God or when temple priests are engaged in certain rituals.

Sex during menses (presumably unintentional) made the man unclean for 7 days. - Lev 15:24
Sex during menses (presumably intentional) cut both man and woman from the people.- Lev 20:18.

 

[runningdude]

It depends. If you are using these artificial man made instruments, such as thermometers, charts, calendars, etc. with the specific intention of avoiding children, then your intention is against (contra) conception. You are using these artificial, man made tools, methods and strategies so that your wife will not become pregnant.

That is not true. Contraception is the sum of the actions and intent. Niether checking temperature, nor observing mucus is sinful. Writing numbers on a chart is not sinful. Having sex when one cannot become pregnant is not sinful. Even the intent to delay children for a just reason is not sinful!

The components and intent of Natural Family Planning are not sinful. However, Natural Family Planning could be abused if the intent it were to permanently or otherwise unjustly avoid conception.

In the OP’s case, he likely has just intent to delay pregnancy (financial difficulty). The issue is the use of artificial barriers or hormones to achieve that just end.