The Case Against Contraception

[Nate13]

Actually Nate we are aware that our minds might change, hence we would never sterilize ourselves. We’ve gone back and forth about having one more, but if we do it will most likely be a surprise. At least in this economy and our current finances etc we probably wouldn’t plan it.

I’m sure you have just reasons probably better reasons than most even for not pursuing pregnancy, but the question is how do we act on them? Also, I’m confused how practicing contraception results in no fear of birth but practicing NFP results in fear of birth and is a great yoke that God places on us? They have very similar success rates and the only thing I can see fear wise is NFP makes it a little harder to forget about our fertility. I feel like the differences between the two are mostly a mental thing not a practical thing. Fear shouldn’t be the reason behind our choices.

 

[Bookcat]

Contraception is evil.

Ok…next thread.

 

[Nate13]

Contraception is evil.

Ok…next thread.

Haha Bookcat woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning I wonder how much progress we would make if that is all we posted on each contraception thread haha. I was hoping we could make this thread another 50+ pager

 

[EternalJade]

I’m sure you have just reasons probably better reasons than most even for not pursuing pregnancy, but the question is how do we act on them? Also, I’m confused how practicing contraception results in no fear of birth but practicing NFP results in fear of birth and is a great yoke that God places on us? They have very similar success rates and the only thing I can see fear wise is NFP makes it a little harder to forget about our fertility. I feel like the differences between the two are mostly a mental thing not a practical thing. Fear shouldn’t be the reason behind our choices.

Yes, I agree with you that the difference is mental. Fear and stress shouldn’t be a reason, which is why I probably wouldn’t choose straight NFP in a very long term situation. Other methods are definitely less stressful, for many people. Plenty of people love church appoved methods of NFP and that is great for them. But if you don’t have the viewpoint of unitive and procreative being inseparable then it seems like it wouldn’t necessarily be the first choice, especially when you know you wouldn’t be planning children anytime soon.

 

[Bookcat]

Haha Bookcat woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning I wonder how much progress we would make if that is all we posted on each contraception thread haha. I was hoping we could make this thread another 50+ pager

twas a wee jest. (though also bearing truth …)

 

[Calliso]

I’m not suggesting that NFP doesn’t incidentally include the notion of sex without babies - it does. I’m saying the culture of ABC promotes sex without babies, and this promotion is typically absorbed and internalized in the ABC user. And yes, as I mentioned in the post above, I concede that there might be a few ABC users who use it during the fertile period only (and for grave reasons)…in this instance, ABC still possesses the inherent immorality of disordered methodology. But that is not the norm, in fact I would be shocked to find any ABC users out there that reserve their use of contraceptives for just the fertile period. No, the prevailing usage (even for those with grave reasons to avoid conception) is during all sexual encounters, in both infertile and fertile periods. Again, the primary immorality here is disordered methodology.

Yes, the sex during infertile periods for NFP users is an incidental reality that stems from the primary purpose of NFP, which is to abstain during fertile periods. I don’t deny that. And yes, you can even say that “for THOSE acts, the primary intent of their sex is unitive and not procreative”…but this does not diminish the fact that the prevailing culture of NFP is a cooperation with the divine dual-purpose of sex, while ABC’s prevailing culture is sex without babies. And in all instances, whether the ABC user has proper intentions and grave reasons, or the NFP user has improper intentions and non-grave reasons, the former has sexual relations that are not ordered to procreation, and the latter has sexual relations that are always ordered to procreation. This fact makes ABC usage always immoral, and NFP usage conditionally moral (immoral in the case here).

Oh I wasn;t talking about ABC users just using it during the fertile period I was more talking about the idea that ABC users can welcome any child that might result of their actions as well. I agree that I doubt many ABC users reserve their contraceptive use for just the fertile period. Unless you are talking about people who use condoms conbined with NFP but not sure how common that method is. I was talking about being open to life, not when they use the ABC or not.

Ok I admit this ordered towards procreation stuff has always confused me on one hand I can understand how ABC is not ordered towards procreation. But then how is NFP specifically during the infertile period ordered towards procreation? I mean with both NFP and ABC the acts can be completed in the same way. Is it simply that NFP does nothing to alter the body or place barriers or is it something else?

 

[PJM]

=alfred14;8269396]i agree 100%. We as humans have become more advanced. one of the biggest reasons there was no need for couples to have only 2 or 3 kids back in bible times was that kids were needed to work and put food on the table. In todays world having more kids means more mouths to feed thus a couple is only able to support so many kids. This is why using birth controle or condoms are used today. they are nonviolent ways of preventing couples from having to many kids yet still allowing them to have a sexual life together.

So God is wrong?

Faith in God’s Divine providence is no longer mandatory?

God help us!,

Pat

 

[SteveGC]

But, if you consider non-abortifacient bc to be on the same footing as NFP, then it makes no difference. As for prudence. I have a medical condition and while pregnancy wouldn’t kill me, it would be hard on me, and I have a lot of fatigue even when not pregnant. 4 children are what my dh and I can comfortably handle emotionally, physically and financially. However- I don’t think there need be a grave reason to stop. The be fruitful and multiply is a blessing, not a harsh order that yokes you into constantly being frightened you might be pregnant for all of your fertile years.

birth control is never on par with NFP, regardless of it’s “abortifaciency”. It’s always immoral, because it actively blocks conception, working against the natural design of the body.

Sounds like your reasons for stopping would be sufficiently grave. But the reasons do need to be serious, for if not, then it would be reasonable for no one to ever have children. Implausible, sure enough. But still logical. It is indeed a blessing to be able to cooperate with God in new creation. But it is also a duty for those of us called to married life, insofar as it is reasonable and prudent to build and sustain a robust family.

 

[Good_Daughter]

As I’ve repeated numerous time, abstinence is not the issue. There is no sin in abstinence…barring situations such as that as Onan, where he was ordered to have children. Even if you believe in contraception, and you abstain for the rest of your life, you haven’t sinned.

I’m no expert on ‘marital debt’, but yes, Catholicism teaches abstinence can be a problem. (“Do not deprive each other…”)

…having sex during the infertile period suppresses (not eliminates, but suppresses) the primary function of sex.

Would you explain that a bit more in depth? Exactly who does the suppressing, and how do they do it, physically?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Oh I wasn;t talking about ABC users just using it during the fertile period I was more talking about the idea that ABC users can welcome any child that might result of their actions as well. I agree that I doubt many ABC users reserve their contraceptive use for just the fertile period. Unless you are talking about people who use condoms conbined with NFP but not sure how common that method is. I was talking about being open to life, not when they use the ABC or not.

Ok I admit this ordered towards procreation stuff has always confused me on one hand I can understand how ABC is not ordered towards procreation. But then how is NFP specifically during the infertile period ordered towards procreation? I mean with both NFP and ABC the acts can be completed in the same way. Is it simply that NFP does nothing to alter the body or place barriers or is it something else?

Well that would be part of it. I feel the NFP use respects the body, fertile days have their purpose, infertile days have their meaning. The NFP couple works with the body designed by God.

It takes away “objectifying” the spouse. Any act of intimacy has to take into account the possibility of a child. Even on infertile days, there is an element of trust. "Is my spouse being truthful? Am I reading my signs correctly? "

With contraception, the couple says, we will be intimate, but fertility is a problem. We don’t like it, we’ll make it go away. We will take the act that God allowed us to use to participate in His creative powers and make it sterile.

Dietrich Von Hildebrand described it as desecration.

 

[EternalJade]

birth control is never on par with NFP, regardless of it’s “abortifaciency”. It’s always immoral, because it actively blocks conception, working against the natural design of the body.

Sounds like your reasons for stopping would be sufficiently grave. But the reasons do need to be serious, for if not, then it would be reasonable for no one to ever have children. Implausible, sure enough. But still logical. It is indeed a blessing to be able to cooperate with God in new creation. But it is also a duty for those of us called to married life, insofar as it is reasonable and prudent to build and sustain a robust family.

I wish I didnt feel differently than the RCC on this issue, but I do. The Orthodox church is just as old (or maybe older) than the RCC and they have the Real Presence as well and yet they have a much more well-rounded view of marriage and it’s purpose and children within marriage. The RCC’s view on the purpose of marriage is very narrow and cold. Children are the fruit of marriage, not the entire purpose, you guys! Anyhow, it’s a shame that I feel this way because otherwise the RCC is a good fit for us. We are catholic leaning Anglicans. However the orthodox church may end up being better for our family, I’m not sure yet. We have lots of research and praying to do I guess! I feel like if it can’t be a matter of conscience, maybe we shouldnt bother to convert. All of our RC friends and family are moderates on this issue so I know this forum isn’t reflective of reality but im not sure i want to convert as a moderate. IDK. Believe it or not my family is a very conservative Christian family which is why we aren’t thrilled with the Anglican church right now. We will definitely bring our concerns to a priest and see what he says before making a decision.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Is it simply that NFP does nothing to alter the body or place barriers or is it something else?

It is simply that NFP does nothing to alter the body or place barriers. You seem to understand the issue well, Calliso. NFP is licit because Catholicism prohibits physical contraception.

 

[Calliso]

It is simply that NFP does nothing to alter the body or place barriers. You seem to understand the issue well, Calliso. NFP is licit because Catholicism prohibits physical contraception.

Ok glad to have that cleared up maybe I can understand this stuff a little better now!

 

[Good_Daughter]

The RCC’s view on the purpose of marriage is very narrow and cold. Children are the fruit of marriage, not the entire purpose, you guys!

I’d just like to point out Catholicism actually teaches that marriage is ordered to the good of the spouses (ultimately heaven!). Catholic teaching truly appreciates that some couples will not have children, while others prudently limit the size of their family. I’d hate for you to get the wrong impression.

 

[EternalJade]

I’d just like to point out Catholicism actually teaches that marriage is ordered to the good of the spouses (ultimately heaven!). Catholic teaching truly appreciates that some couples will not have children, while others prudently limit the size of their family. I’d hate for you to get the wrong impression.

That may be but its certainly cold and narrow to not allow 2 married people to share the marital embrace just for unitive purposes no matter what the circumstance. The Orthodox church recognizes that contraceptives are certainly not the ideal but it can end up being damaging to marriages to allow no separation of unity and procreation.

 

[SteveGC]

I’d just like to point out Catholicism actually teaches that marriage is ordered to the good of the spouses (ultimately heaven!). Catholic teaching truly appreciates that some couples will not have children, while others prudently limit the size of their family. I’d hate for you to get the wrong impression.

Yes indeed. And I would just add that discussions like this will always make it appear that the Church is narrow and cold, because what debates do is highlight extremes in order to make a point. The Church does not teach that children are the only reason for marriage. Most priests I hear talk about marriage tell me that one of the primary purposes of marriage is to give us a taste of, and ultimately prepare us for, the marriage banquet in heaven, when Christ takes the Church (and us as Her members) as His rightful Bride. I’ve heard others stress that marriage also exists for two souls to come together and assist one another in Gracefully achieving heaven. Yet another is to procreate, if it is physically possible and otherwise prudent (which it normally is). So, it’s not an exclusivity of function in Catholicism, it is ordered toward unity, stability, procreation if possible, salvation, and on and on. Sorry if our extreme examples and scenarios made you think otherwise.

 

[Wardog]

the problem in telling the difference can be found in a common nuance which you included here in your premise, as follows.
The bolded part is the subtle difference, yet it is critical to understand why it is different. The Church does not teach that NFP is a way to have sex without conceiving. She teaches that it is a morally permissible (if grave reasons exist) way to abstain from sex during fertile periods. That’s it. End of story. When you add in, “but still have sex”, it departs from the spirit of the teaching. It’s inferring that there exists some validity in primarily seeking unitive sex without procreative outcomes, when the real teaching is that it is seeking procreative and unitive sex at all times, unless for grave reasons through prudent and prayerful discernment, sex should be avoided during fertile periods.

It’s a subtle, but important, difference. The ABC culture fits nicely into your statement, and hence, users of ABC typically possess that mentality, even if their intentions are not entirely selfish. But it is a misrepresentation of NFP and Church teaching to suggest that the mentalities are the same.

I went to my diocese webpage (Charleston SC); this is the first line in the site on NFP:

<<Natural Family Planning (NFP) Fertility Appreciation empowers couples to accurately identify their days of fertility and infertility either to achieve or to avoid pregnancy.>>

So yes, the Church does in fact say that NFP is a way to have “sex without conceiving”. Which, as other posters have pointed out. is the same intent with ABC.

 

[ahs]

I went to my diocese webpage (Charleston SC); this is the first line in the site on NFP:

<<Natural Family Planning (NFP) Fertility Appreciation empowers couples to accurately identify their days of fertility and infertility either to achieve or to avoid pregnancy.>>

So yes, the Church does in fact say that NFP is a way to have “sex without conceiving”. Which, as other posters have pointed out. is the same intent with ABC.

It is simply that NFP does nothing to alter the body or place barriers. You seem to understand the issue well, Calliso. NFP is licit because Catholicism prohibits physical [and chemical] contraception.

words in brackets added by me…

 

[SteveGC]

I went to my diocese webpage (Charleston SC); this is the first line in the site on NFP:

<<Natural Family Planning (NFP) Fertility Appreciation empowers couples to accurately identify their days of fertility and infertility either to achieve or to avoid pregnancy.>>

So yes, the Church does in fact say that NFP is a way to have “sex without conceiving”. Which, as other posters have pointed out. is the same intent with ABC.

It says what you quoted, which is that it can be used for both. But as a Catholic, you already know that the “avoid pregnancy” part requires grave matter, regardless of the fact that your diocese allowed it to be written without that qualifier. So it doesn’t infer that Church teaching is that NFP is primarily for enjoying sex without conceiving. The only way I would not argue with your insistence on that position is IF you always add the qualifier “for grave reason” after you say “without conceiving”.

I agree some Catholic explanations of NFP can lead Catholics astray, and perhaps some do so purposefully. Maybe your diocese is doing that. But the overall body of teaching is clearly that sex is to be procreative and unitive at all times, unless for grave reason it can be unitive only for a time. And this simply isn’t at the same level of “teaching” as ABC, which tells us to close ourselves off to life as the default position, to do so artifically (against the nature of the body), and only temporarily open up to life when it suits us to have children.

The bottom line is just that I think it is disingenuous to partially define NFP, to do so by focusing on an incidental (and not primary purpose), and omit one of the most important qualifiers that the Church never omits.

 

[Abu]

EternalJade
The RCC’s view on the purpose of marriage is very narrow and cold.

The prejudice that Christ’s Church has merely a VIEW indicates clearly that the holder of this fallacy is not ready to welcome Christ in His Church.
The seeker has to want to really follow Christ and thereby know and try to live the fullness of His truth. That truth is nowhere else than in His Church:
Jesus gave four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

All of our RC friends and family are moderates on this issue so I know this forum isn’t reflective of reality but im not sure i want to convert as a moderate. IDK. Believe it or not my family is a very conservative Christian family which is why we aren’t thrilled with the Anglican church right now.

The only faithful Catholics are those who assent to all of Her doctrine and dogma – that’s reality, not dissenting views, opinions, feelings, prejudices. Terms like moderate, conservative, liberal, have no place in a discussion of truth and fidelity to Christ

…its certainly cold and narrow to not allow 2 married people to share the marital embrace just for unitive purposes no matter what the circumstance.

Natural Birth Regulation does precisely encourage the married to express their love completely and for serious reasons to enable them to abstain for a short time thus promoting self-control, and avoiding the grave error of deliberately placing a barrier to conception in order to seek the pleasure at any time. God created women with fertile and infertile periods and has never commanded that the infertile periods may not be used – the same God that built the Catholic Church through His dear Son.