The Case Against Contraception

[alfred14]

the Church teaching.

this is why i have a problem with the whol argument. “the Churches teaching” this is one interpritation of “THE BIBLES TEACHING”. I dont fallow everything the first teaches because you mean the catholic church and i am not catholic but i do my best to follow everything in the second.

and you say contraception avoids kids which it does, but the thing i dont understand is then catholics say NFP is ok. how can you say no to one and not to the other? they both avoid kids.

 

[Wardog]

the female reproductive system is no less ordered toward procreation than the male’s. For her to use it for some contrary purpose (i.e., merely for pleasure) is therefore no less a sin.

The intent of Natural Family Planning (NFP) is to have sex without getting pregnant. Based on your statement, it sounds as if sex for any other reason than procreation is a sin. I don’t think that this is the Church position, but if it is, then nothing other than abstinence should be used to avoid getting pregnant. Since sin is based on intent, this would prohibit the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy.

 

[ahs]

this is why i have a problem with the whol argument. “the Churches teaching” this is one interpritation of “THE BIBLES TEACHING”. I dont fallow everything the first teaches because you mean the catholic church and i am not catholic but i do my best to follow everything in the second.

and you say contraception avoids kids which it does, but the thing i dont understand is then catholics say NFP is ok. how can you say no to one and not to the other? they both avoid kids.

Just to note, the Bible was written and complied by the Church Fathers of what today is called the Catholic Church. If you step back and look at the history, you’ll find that the teachings (the Doctrine, the Dogmas of the Faith) of the Church that assembled the Scriptures is the same as those in what we today call the Catholic Church. Because it was the Church that assembled the Scriptures into what we know as the Bible, and they were interpreted the Scriptures to determine what was to be in teh Bible or not, it is the “Church teaching” that led to the “Bible’s teaching”. In other words, you don’t have an accurate “Bible Teaching” wihtout the “Church Teaching”.

You can get a clearer picture by reading a book called “A Popular History of the Catholic Church” which is a condensed version of a 3 volume work by Philip Hughs delving into the history of Christianity and the Church.

But that’s perhaps something for a separate thread…

 

[PJM]

=sw85;8265650]In response to the abundance of pro-contraception threads that keep popping up here, I offer a defense of the Church’s teachings on contraception, and an explanation of how that teaching is utterly inextricable from the rest of its teachings regarding sexual morality – and indeed, from morality in general.

===

1. Everything in nature can be said to have a “form” or “essence” which it “instantiates” or “participates in.” To borrow an example from Edward Feser, a triangle can be said to be a closed-plane figure consisting of three straight lines; this is the essence of triangularity which all triangles approximate to varying degrees.

1. Because not all instances of a thing instantiate its essence equally well, there necessarily exist gradations of goodness in nature. For instance, a triangle painstakingly drawn with a ruler on a flat surface is more likely to approximate the essence of triangularity than one scrawled with crayon on the plastic seatback of a moving bus. We can meaningfully say that the former is a “better” triangle than the latter; this is not an arbitrary and subjective preference but the product of a rational and objective evaluation of the facts.

1. Distinctly related to the idea of essence is the idea of telos, the end which a thing serves. Many things in nature naturally act toward an end; pens are meant for writing, chairs for sitting, eyeballs for seeing, etc. Because of this we can meaningfully talk about “birth defects,” a judgment that would be meaningless if there were not norms arising from nature from which certain features of a person may deviate. Here, to, value judgments come into play; the “goodness” of a thing can be said to represent the extent to which it acts according to its end, so that a good pen is one that writes well (since writing is the pen’s telos) and a good chair is one that supports your weight when you sit on it (since sitting is the chair’s telos).

1. These principles, applied to human behavior, furnish a basis for moral judgments.

1. For instance, the various faculties which a person has are possessed of varying telos’. If the goodness of a thing consists in the degree to which it instantiates its essence, and if essence necessarily informs telos, then goodness necessarily means using one’s faculties in a manner consistent with their respective ends, and sin or disorder in using them in some contrary manner. For instance, our communicative faculty exists for the purpose of expressing what’s on our minds and communicating perceived truths; therefore it is good for us, when we speak, to do so in a manner consistent with the end of speech, and bad for us to do so in some contrary manner (e.g., by lying).

1. The human sexual faculty points toward the end of procreation; we know this because of the distinct sexual configuration of men and women and because conception occurs in principle as a result of sex (in other words, the essence of the sexual faculty points toward the end of procreation). Therefore, goodness consists in using this faculty in a manner consistent with its end (i.e., intravaginal ejaculation) and sin/disorder in using it in a manner contrary to that end.

1. Because procreation results in pregnancy, and because pregnant women are generally vulnerable and in need of care and support, and because newborn children are likewise in need of care, support, and proper instruction during the formative years of their lives, the sexual act entails a degree of continuing commitment (and therefore also a unitive aspect to sex) that gives rise to the institution of marriage.

1. This principle pays no regard to the outcome of the act: it is merely considered with the proper use or ordering of our faculties. Thus chronically infertile couples can marry, provided they can complete the sexual act in a manner consistent with its end; but same-sex couples may not, because they cannot. Likewise, it remains licit to have sex during (even exclusively during) natural periods of infertility, provided the sex act is completed in a manner consistent with its end.

1. Contraception is naturally contrary to the end of procreation, hence why it is called contraception; therefore, it is illicit. So is any sexual act which is, on principle, incapable of procreation, including masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. Polygamy violates this principle because it violates the commitment which the sexual act naturally demands of couples.

===

Pretty straightforward, I think. If the Church is in error in its teaching, it should be a relatively simple task for dissenters to point out the flaw in the reasoning here – and to explain how that flaw does not likewise invalidate all the rest of the Church’s moral teachings.

THANKS,

VERY WELL DONE,

God’s continued Blessings,
Pat

 

[Wardog]

I found it ironic that our NFP counselors at church claim a higher efficiency rate than condoms or the pill to avoid pregnancy. If the purpose of sex is procreation, then it seems as if NFP is more efficient in voiding God’s intent.

 

[ahs]

The intent of Natural Family Planning (NFP) is to have sex without getting pregnant. Based on your statement, it sounds as if sex for any other reason than procreation is a sin. I don’t think that this is the Church position, but if it is, then nothing other than abstinence should be used to avoid getting pregnant. Since sin is based on intent, this would prohibit the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy.

NFP involves abstinence. A couple abstains during the fertile time. It also does involve having sex when a coulpe is not fertile. The Church has never condemned having sex during the infertile period so long as the couple fully presents themselves to each other and completes the act in the natural way (because, while conception is still unlikely during that infertile period, it is not impossible).

Perhaps this reference from Casti Conubii may help:

1. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Further, in Theology of the Body (Pope John Paul II) references Humanae Vitae:

Mastery over drives by one’s reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascesis so that the affective manifestations of conjugal love may be in accord with the right order, in particular with regard to observing periodic continence. Yet this discipline, which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife develop their personalities integrally, enriching each other with spiritual values…It favors attention to one’s partner, helps both parties to drive out egoism, the enemy of true love, and deepens their sense of responsibility. (Paul VI, HV 21 via Theology of the Body 59:6)

 

[Warrior1979]

It’s all really quite simple. People just want to find loop holes or use wait for it…“logic and reason” to go around Church teaching.

I’m glad someone finally brought this up. It is my opinion that NFP exists in the first place because of “loopholes.”

If you read about and research the Church’s position on various matters, you’ll see that they do it in a very methodical and legalistic manner. The Church’s position is extremely carefully worded. It also must be, especially on matters of faith and morals, because they claim authority and/or infallibility on such matters.

I’ll give some examples of careful wording. There is plenty of Biblical support, especially from Christ and His Disciples, on marriage. Matters pertaining to marriage are discussed in great detail. You’ll note that the Church’s position is that sacramental marriage can’t be dissolved…by man. It never states that God can’t dissolve a marriage…that, my friends, quite frankly, is very good legalistic type research and writing.

Same with mortal sin. Most people believe that death in a state of mortal sin equals eternal damnation. However, the section on suicide clearly leaves final judgement in the hands of God. The section on martyrdom also leaves that possibility open, though the wording and reasoning are more vague.

OTOH, this is far less true of matters pertaining to sex in marriage. Yes, it is blatantly obvious to all in the Bible, Tradition, and common sense what the true purpose is about, i.e., raising children. But when it comes to the issue of handling family jewels, the support is extremely weak and very open to various interpretations. The word redefining/twisting/spinning is truly stunning, and likely the reason why even those that support it eventually have to throw down the Magesterium/Infallibility gauntlet because reason does not suffice. Loopholes is the way NFP has become to exist…easy to do because the support is vague…that is as clear as the day is long.

 

[ahs]

I’m glad someone finally brought this up. It is my opinion that NFP exists in the first place because of “loopholes.”

If you read about and research the Church’s position on various matters, you’ll see that they do it in a very methodical and legalistic manner…that is as clear as the day is long.

So, is this going back to the OP (see post #204 above) to support that contraception is indeed contrary to God’s natural law, or are you using this to defend a position that contraception is not contrary to God’s natural law?

By the way, did you see that I posted a youtube link to that video that explains the link between contraception use and abortion (and explains the contraception mentality)?

 

[Poor_Soul]

Casual sex has been going on for a long time. Here’s an example of how it was handled prior to contraception, by one of the Founding Fathers:

swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/51-fra.html

Yes thank you for not reading carefully what I wrote. Note I said the INCREASE of casual sex. Nice try though.

I haven’t, just like I don’t hear the Church advertising NFP for getting pregnant.

Mary Gail answered this.

woomb.org/bom/rules/index.html

This is from billings, it contains mature content be advised.

One side of the chart shows instructions on how to avoid…the other on how to achieve pregnancy.

I’m glad someone finally brought this up. It is my opinion that NFP exists in the first place because of “loopholes.”

Thank God opinions aren’t facts.

I’ll give some examples of careful wording. There is plenty of Biblical support, especially from Christ and His Disciples, on marriage. Matters pertaining to marriage are discussed in great detail. You’ll note that the Church’s position is that sacramental marriage can’t be dissolved…by man. It never states that God can’t dissolve a marriage…that, my friends, quite frankly, is very good legalistic type research and writing…

Actually Jesus Christ said this and since He is God I think He would know best.

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 10:9[/BIBLEDRB]

Same with mortal sin. Most people believe that death in a state of mortal sin equals eternal damnation. However, the section on suicide clearly leaves final judgement in the hands of God. The section on martyrdom also leaves that possibility open, though the wording and reasoning are more vague.

The reason for why it’s so vague is because Catholics believe in God’s mercy and thus believe if a person makes a perfect act of contrition (even if they were in mortal sin) then they would receive God’s mercy and be saved. Since we don’t know the persons thoughts or hearts at the time of death we cannot make a judgment on them.

 

[Poor_Soul]

The word redefining/twisting/spinning is truly stunning, and likely the reason why even those that support it eventually have to throw down the Magesterium/Infallibility gauntlet because reason does not suffice. Loopholes is the way NFP has become to exist…easy to do because the support is vague.

Unfortunately Catholics have to throw infallibility down when fellow Catholics in the room could not be swayed by common sense.

Taken from Priests For Life priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html
Birth Control and NFP: What’s the Difference?

Morally speaking, then, what is it that makes NFP acceptable while artificial birth control is wrong?

1 ) NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be “open” to life as long as the spouses do nothing to “close” it. Here’s the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately “close” the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body’s fertility and infertility – patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman’s cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act – they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.

1. NFP is not just a “method” based on physiology. Rather, NFP is based on VIRTUE. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy marriage. There are times in any marriage when spouses have to put aside their desire for sex because of sickness, fatigue, travel, or other reasons. In a healthy marriage, love is shown in many ways, and not all these ways of showing love are physical. In fact, to refrain from sex when necessary is itself an act of love. Why? Because in effect the spouses then say to each other, “I did not marry you just for sexual pleasure. I married you because I love you. You are a person, not an object. When I have sex with you, it is because I freely choose to show you my love, not because I need to satisfy an urge.” Using NFP requires abstinence from intercourse during the fertile days if a pregnancy has to be avoided. This actually can strengthen the couple’s sexual life. When the spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons, they also come to trust each other more, and avoid the risk of treating each other primarily as objects of sexual pleasure rather than persons. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, gives free reign to the temptation to make pleasure the dominant element, rather than virtue. It encourages couples to think that sexual self-control is not necessary. It can encourage them to become slaves to pleasure.

1. NFP puts the responsibility for family planning squarely on the shoulders of both partners, because it requires communication and cooperation. Both spouses need to know when the fertile days of the woman’s cycle have arrived, and then decide together what to do (depending on whether they are trying to avoid or achieve pregnancy). To think that such communication and cooperation make the sexual act less pleasurable (because less spontaneous) is simply not true. To know with certainty what stage of the cycle one is in can increase the pleasure and spontaneity of the act, since the spouses can ignore worries about contraceptive failure or side-effects of the pill. Artificial birth control, besides introducing these worries, also puts the “contraceptive burden” on the shoulders of ONE, not both, spouses. It makes it possible for a spouse to cut off the fertility of the act, even without the consent of the other spouse. It can introduce division into the marriage.

1. NFP is not just a means of avoiding pregnancy, as artificial contraception is. Rather, it can also be used to ACHIEVE pregnancy since it p(name removed by moderator)oints ovulation. It is a wholly positive approach to the sexual life of the spouses. It is clean, inexpensive, morally acceptable, and reliable.

As with anything good, NFP can be misused, if a couple has the wrong motives. Married couples are called by God to cooperate generously in bringing forth and educating new life. For a couple to decide that “we don’t want children at this time”, there need to be serious, objective reasons (health, finances, etc.). If the reasons are not objective but selfish, then the couple cannot justify the avoidance of pregnancy just because they are using NFP to do it. In this case they are not practicing “family planning”, but “family avoidance”!

There are differences between NFP and artificial birth control, but let these suffice for now. As Pope John Paul II has explained, the difference really rests on a person’s answers to some very basic questions like, “What is marriage?” What is sex? What is the human body? What is love?" Artificial contraception distorts the meaning of all these things. It sees the body and its sexual faculties as something to be “used”, and it fails to acknowledge God’s place in love and marriage. NFP, instead, is a practice of virtue, resting upon self-control, inner freedom, respect, trust, communication, and reverence to God’s plan for love and marriage. It enriches both love and marriage. Every couple owes it to themselves to learn more about it!

 

[Nate13]

its actually nothing like that. baptism is for one perpouse, sex has 2.

haha actually it does have two purposes. It removes the scar of original sin and we are renewed in the Holy Spirit. I guess contraception would be like allowing the scar of orginal sin to be taken away but blocking the Holy Spirit? I mean if we can screw with the sacrament of marriage why not the others unless you are arguing having sex has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage

 

[Nate13]

this is why i have a problem with the whol argument. “the Churches teaching” this is one interpritation of “THE BIBLES TEACHING”. I dont fallow everything the first teaches because you mean the catholic church and i am not catholic but i do my best to follow everything in the second.

and you say contraception avoids kids which it does, but the thing i dont understand is then catholics say NFP is ok. how can you say no to one and not to the other? they both avoid kids.

The Church defends the purpose of the sexual act. Every act of sex while using NFP fits to what the Church and Bible teaches. People get their pants in a bundle because they feel that by purposefully avoiding having sex during fertile times we are contradicting ourselves. The whole point though is that if you are not prepared to accept the other person and their fertility during the sexual act at that point and time why are you having sex? Is it not better to not have sex during that time instead of covering a part of the other person up so that sex can happen? NFP is accepting the reality of the human situation. Contraception is a refusal to see the humanity of the other person.

 

[louis91766]

I found it ironic that our NFP counselors at church claim a higher efficiency rate than condoms or the pill to avoid pregnancy. If the purpose of sex is procreation, then it seems as if NFP is more efficient in voiding God’s intent.

Would that mean then, that condoms or the pill are more open to life than NFP?

 

[Debora123]

Would that mean then, that condoms or the pill are more open to life than NFP?

“Open to life” as in the actually LITERAL meaning of the phrase “open to life?”

YES.

…Because there is a higher possibility of life being brought into the world when a couple uses condoms as opposed to NFP.

However, there is apparently an alternate meaning to the phrase “open to life” that I have yet to fully comprehend. And according to THAT meaning, the answer would somehow be “NO.”

 

[Nate13]

“Open to life” as in the actually LITERAL meaning of the phrase “open to life?”

YES.

…Because there is a higher possibility of life being brought into the world when a couple uses condoms as opposed to NFP.

However, there is apparently an alternate meaning to the phrase “open to life” that I have yet to fully comprehend. And according to THAT meaning, the answer would somehow be “NO.”

I would disagree. If a person is using a condom during the times which a couple using NFP would be having sex the person is even less likely to conceive. If a person is using a condom during the fertile time, they are a lot less fertile then you would be if they were having sex then while using NFP. I guess you could say they at least showed up to the show, but why are they showing up to the show if they don’t want a kid at that time? They showed up and weren’t ready to accept everything that goes with it.

 

[Debora123]

I would disagree. If you using a condom during the times which a couple using NFP would be having sex your even less likely to conceive. If your using a condom during the fertile time you a lot less fertile then you would be if you were having sex then while using NFP. I guess you could say you at least showed up to the show, but why are you showing up to the show if you don’t want a kid at that time? You showed up and weren’t ready to accept everything that goes with it.

This is some weird, twisted logic.

Bottom line is, using NFP to avoid is more effective in preventing pregnancy than using a condom to avoid. That is why NFP promoters boast about NFP being more effective than condoms.

For the sake of argument however, I will say that my husband and I have unprotected sex during my infertile time, and sex with a condom during my fertile time. Again, using the literal definition of “open to life,” this is in fact more “open to life” than ONLY having sex during the infertile time.

 

[Debora123]

I guess you could say they at least showed up to the show, but why are they showing up to the show if they don’t want a kid at that time? They showed up and weren’t ready to accept everything that goes with it.

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[louis91766]

This is some weird, twisted logic.

Bottom line is, using NFP to avoid is more effective in preventing pregnancy than using a condom to avoid. That is why NFP promoters boast about NFP being more effective then condoms.

For the sake of argument however, I will say that my husband and I have unprotected sex during my infertile time, and sex with a condom during my fertile time. Again, using the literal definition of “open to life,” this is in fact more “open to life” than ONLY having sex during the infertile time.

I thought it was a mortal sin to use a condom.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

“Open to life” as in the actually LITERAL meaning of the phrase “open to life?”

YES.

…Because there is a higher possibility of life being brought into the world when a couple uses condoms as opposed to NFP.

However, there is apparently an alternate meaning to the phrase “open to life” that I have yet to fully comprehend. And according to THAT meaning, the answer would somehow be “NO.”

If you come to my house while I’m having a dinner party, I look out the window and lock the door, and not open the door when you knock am I “open” to your visit?

Say you find the spare key and let yourself in, would you feel welcomed? If I do all that to not let you in, I’m going to be absolutely welcoming and not the slightest annoyed?

That is sex with a condom—or any contraception.

 

[Debora123]

I thought it was a mortal sin to use a condom.

According to the Church, it is.