The Case Against Contraception

[Good_Daughter]

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.

Or, maybe the unitive and procreative aspects can’t be separated within the marital embrace and Catholicism offers the protection of truth.

Is the marital embrace unitive when a couple uses barrier contraception? I have a hard time understanding how a couple can become “one flesh” (as per God’s will in Genesis 2:24, reiterated in Matt 19:5 and Eph 5:31) while introducing a barrier to their emrace whose purpose is to separate their flesh.

What if two Orthodox couples, both believing they have legitimate reason, seek permission to contracept and one is approved while the other is denied. Would that be cold?

 

[EternalJade]

Abu and Good daughter,

This particular debate has no place in this thread at all, but from what I gather Rome broke away from the Orthodox church and the two churches became different over time. So if both churches had the same rule then it wouldn’t be an issue, but since they are different they must indeed be “views”. I agree with Abu when he says that I’m not ready to accept the RCC as the “full truth”. I am ready to say however that the Orthodox and Catholic churches are are the only churches that are actually still intact from the beginning, thus if you want to experience true Christianity those churches are the best. I don’t believe the RCC view on unity and procreation though

As for 2 orthodox couples asking permission and one being denied, I don’t care about that. My concern is about U&P ever being separable or not.

Thanks everyone for your insights

 

[Good_Daughter]

Abu and Good daughter,

This particular debate has no place in this thread at all, but from what I gather Rome broke away from the Orthodox church and the two churches became different over time. So if both churches had the same rule then it wouldn’t be an issue, but since they are different they must indeed be “views”. I agree with Abu when he says that I’m not ready to accept the RCC as the “full truth”. I am ready to say however that the Orthodox and Catholic churches are are the only churches that are actually still intact from the beginning, thus if you want to experience true Christianity those churches are the best. I don’t believe the RCC view on unity and procreation though

As for 2 orthodox couples asking permission and one being denied, I don’t care about that. My concern is about U&P ever being separable or not.

Thanks everyone for your insights

God bless you on your journey, Eternal Jade.

 

[SteveGC]

Abu and Good daughter,

This particular debate has no place in this thread at all, but from what I gather Rome broke away from the Orthodox church and the two churches became different over time. So if both churches had the same rule then it wouldn’t be an issue, but since they are different they must indeed be “views”. I agree with Abu when he says that I’m not ready to accept the RCC as the “full truth”. I am ready to say however that the Orthodox and Catholic churches are are the only churches that are actually still intact from the beginning, thus if you want to experience true Christianity those churches are the best. I don’t believe the RCC view on unity and procreation though

As for 2 orthodox couples asking permission and one being denied, I don’t care about that. My concern is about U&P ever being separable or not.

Thanks everyone for your insights

A few questions that arise from this…

Do you think that the procreative aspect of sex should be separate because of an apprehension of having more children? If you have grave reasons for having that apprehension, and are therefore not sinning by using NFP to abstain during fertile periods (and continue with sexual relations during infertile periods), do you think that this method is significantly more likely to result in conception than using ABC every time?

And finally, if it could be shown to you that NFP is just as effective as ABC…or in other words, it could be shown to you that having non-contraceptive sex during infertile periods is just as effective as contracepting during those periods, which of those methods do you think is more appropriate to use, considering God’s design of the human body? Not that effectiveness necessarily determines appropriateness, but I’m just going down a hypothetical with you to see how strongly ABC is ingrained, and/or how well exposed you are to NFP.

thanks.

 

[Nate13]

I think the biggest proof that we can depend on the seat of Peter for guidance is by looking at the passage where Jesus was walking on the water during the storm. Peter got out of the boat at the Lord’s command and began walking on water towards him, however we see his humanity come through when he begins to lose faith and starts sinking. But then we see Jesus reach out his hand and save him. For me this is all the proof I need that God is right there to make sure Peter and his successors will never fall despite his humanity.

 

[Wardog]

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.

The quote from the diocese clearly means that NFP is a way to have sex and avoid pregnancy. That is the intent of NFP, which seems to escape a lot of posters here. I think my bishop has it right. The only difference between NFP and ABC is that NFP does not use any artificial means of avoiding pregancy. The ways and means are different, but the end result (no pregnancy) is the same in each case.
The people I have talked with who are using NFP have all said that there intent was to have sex without getting pregnant so they can space out their kids to at least two years apart. The NFP counselors have 6 kids 14 and under, and this is what they managed to accomplish.

Edit: and now that I have read what I just posted, it dawned on my that I have not ready any postings by people actually using NFP; would like to hear from them on what they think about this issue using their own experience.

 

[EternalJade]

A few questions that arise from this…

Do you think that the procreative aspect of sex should be separate because of an apprehension of having more children? If you have grave reasons for having that apprehension, and are therefore not sinning by using NFP to abstain during fertile periods (and continue with sexual relations during infertile periods), do you think that this method is significantly more likely to result in conception than using ABC every time?

And finally, if it could be shown to you that NFP is just as effective as ABC…or in other words, it could be shown to you that having non-contraceptive sex during infertile periods is just as effective as contracepting during those periods, which of those methods do you think is more appropriate to use, considering God’s design of the human body? Not that effectiveness necessarily determines appropriateness, but I’m just going down a hypothetical with you to see how strongly ABC is ingrained, and/or how well exposed you are to NFP.

thanks.

I think they can be separated when people don’t want to have children. Whether they are spacing them, or are finished childbearing for whatever reason. Having 4 children I personally think it’s really selfish to want no children, but on the other hand forcing really self centered people to have them could be a bad idea. So, I’m not of the mind of " dint get married if you don’t want kids" but I also agree it’s not natural to not want children in a marriage. Rambling a bit but wanted to clear that up. As for NFP and abc effective rates, no idea. I know it’s extremely effective post ovulation because I’ve used the fertility awareness method for years. I do know that with my health I would never use NFP pre-ovulation, and why would I bother abstaining more than half the month if I didn’t see any value in it?? Seems needless. As for Gods design of the body, yes we were designed to be blessed with children. We were also designed with basic intelligence to be able to separate P&U when pregnancy isn’t prudent. As another poster said, we are not cats and dogs, thank goodness!

 

[EternalJade]

“if you have grave reasons for having that apprehension, and are therefore not sinning by using NFP to abstain during fertile periods …”

@Steve, I meant to add that I don’t think it’s a sin at all to decide you are finished having children. By the way you phrased that it seems like the church is saying that if you are healthy and have good finances you are sinning unless you keep popping out babies you don’t want. If this is true its creepy, I must admit.

 

[ahs]

I think they can be separated when people don’t want to have children…We were also designed with basic intelligence to be able to separate P&U when pregnancy isn’t prudent…

But God has told us, through the Vioce of His Church, that seperating “P&U” is an intrinsic evil, gravely contrary to His Natural Law. We cannot override God’s Design with our “basic intelligence”. That places us above God.

 

[EternalJade]

But God has told us, through the Vioce of His Church, that seperating “P&U” is an intrinsic evil, gravely contrary to His Natural Law. We cannot override God’s Design with our “basic intelligence”. That places us above God.

This is circular because I’ve already stated that the view of the RCC on this issue doesn’t ring true for me. As far as I’m concerned it’s suspicious that the church that Rome used to be a part of doesn’t have the same view, and everything else that could endanger your soul is clearly outlined in the Bible. I have a feeling no matter what I say things will always circle back to Papal encyclicals and Catechism quotes so this is probably pointless. But, thank you everyone for your views, I appreciated hearing them.
~Jade~

 

[ahs]

This is circular because I’ve already stated that the view of the RCC on this issue doesn’t ring true for me. As far as I’m concerned it’s suspicious that the church that Rome used to be a part of doesn’t have the same view…

They had the same view until the Orthodox Church changed its view. I’ve begun reading some history, and at least up to the 700’s, the Eastern (Greek) and Western (Rome) Church had the same view that is still upheld today by the Western Church. That’s as far as I’ve gotten in the book so far. We also know that NO Christian Religion approved of contraception under any circumstance until 1930.

So, who is more likely to be suspicious? The Church that still maintains the beliefs that have been in place sine the very beginning? Or the Church that has only recently (after 1930) changed its mind?

For 1,900 years of Christianity (and how many more years prior?) contraception had been proclaimed as an intrinsic evil. How then, after all this time, can an intrinsic evil suddenly become not evil?

 

[EternalJade]

They had the same view until the Orthodox Church changed its view. I’ve begun reading some history, and at least up to the 700’s, the Eastern (Greek) and Western (Rome) Church had the same view that is still upheld today by the Western Church. That’s as far as I’ve gotten in the book so far. We also know that NO Christian Religion approved of contraception under any circumstance until 1930.

So, who is more likely to be suspicious? The Church that still maintains the beliefs that have been in place sine the very beginning? Or the Church that has only recently (after 1930) changed its mind?

For 1,900 years of Christianity (and how many more years prior?) contraception had been proclaimed as an intrinsic evil. How then, after all this time, can an intrinsic evil suddenly become not evil?

Throughout history it was frowned upon but not forbidden, even in Biblical times. Heck there was even a pope way back when (Peter Hispano or something like that) who recommended different types of birth control before becoming pope. Fast forward in history a little and birth control was taboo among society, the same way that wearing make up was taboo. Decent people did not do those things, and people who did were of ill repute. And now, and its above board for decent married couples to space births with contraception, and you can even wear make up in church!! And don’t get me started on clothes lol. People walk around in public now dressed in ways that would have been considered scandalous, shocking and definitely not approved by society or any church. In short (or long, I mean) I agree it was taboo but not that it was forbidden.

 

[ahs]

Throughout history it was frowned upon but not forbidden, even in Biblical times. Heck there was even a pope way back when (Peter Hispano or something like that) who recommended different types of birth control before becoming pope. Fast forward in history a little and birth control was taboo among society, the same way that wearing make up was taboo. Decent people did not do those things, and people who did were of ill repute. And now, and its above board for decent married couples to space births with contraception, and you can even wear make up in church!! And don’t get me started on clothes lol. People walk around in public now dressed in ways that would have been considered scandalous, shocking and definitely not approved by society or any church. In short (or long, I mean) I agree it was taboo but not that it was forbidden.

Frowned upon but not condemned? Can you support that? And where do you read about this pope who recommended it before coming a pope? Please provide some support for these claims.

 

[Abu]

EternalJade
This particular debate has no place in this thread at all, but from what I gather Rome broke away from the Orthodox church and the two churches became different over time.

How strange – the misconceptions are endless. “The word Catholic means ‘general’ or ‘universal’. The title was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch in A.D. 107, in his letter to the Smyrneans, ‘where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.’ ” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, p 217).

“Since Apostolic times, the faithful have professed in the liturgy their belief ‘in the holy catholic Church’, where the original Greek is never capitalized.” The “Eastern schism, [was] finalized in 1054, when oriental Christians isolated the term ‘Orthodox Church’ to identify themselves as distinct both from the Nestorians and Monophysites.” (Ibid p 218).

As far as I’m concerned it’s suspicious that the church that Rome used to be a part of doesn’t have the same view, and everything else that could endanger your soul is clearly outlined in the Bible.

It should be of vital importance that the New Testament was written by Catholics, and no one would have a Bible if the Catholic Church had not infallibly defined what books comprise the Word of God, and no others, and had them laboriously copied by hand until the invention of the printing press. It is the same Bible that declares that “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15).

Heck there was even a pope way back when (Peter Hispano or something like that) who recommended different types of birth control before becoming pope.

Fantasy. Why write such chatter?

 

[Abu]

Wardog, #346
NFP is a way to have sex and avoid pregnancy. That is the intent of NFP, which seems to escape a lot of posters here.

Contraception gravely immoral; NFP praiseworthy for serious reasons

Clear cut:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Frowned upon but not condemned? Can you support that? And where do you read about this pope who recommended it before coming a pope? Please provide some support for these claims.

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

I don’t see a Pope by that name…

 

[Nate13]

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

I don’t see a Pope by that name…

I googled and he is probably referring to Pope John XXI. I have yet to check the back story.

 

[Nate13]

The theory is based on conjecture that the person who wrote Thesaurus Pauperum was this Pope. However this Pope also died when his apartment in the Vatican collapsed on him. He was rumored to be a magician and supposedly the apartment crashing down on him was an act of God that prevented him from writing a heretical treatise. This is from Wikipedia of course mind you haha. If anything the supposed death of this Pope would make me wonder if you really want to trust him on whether to use birth control or not haha. Wow yeah and to add to all this he was Pope from August 18, 1276 to May 14, 1277…

The Pope was born with the name Pedro Julião.
Supposedly was also know as Pedro Hispano who wrote Thesaurus Pauperum.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The only difference between NFP and ABC is that NFP does not use any artificial means of avoiding pregancy.

The real difference between NFP and ABC is that NFP does not use any physical means of avoiding pregnancy.

 

[SteveGC]

The quote from the diocese clearly means that NFP is a way to have sex and avoid pregnancy. That is the intent of NFP, which seems to escape a lot of posters here. I think my bishop has it right. The only difference between NFP and ABC is that NFP does not use any artificial means of avoiding pregancy. The ways and means are different, but the end result (no pregnancy) is the same in each case.
The people I have talked with who are using NFP have all said that there intent was to have sex without getting pregnant so they can space out their kids to at least two years apart. The NFP counselors have 6 kids 14 and under, and this is what they managed to accomplish.

Edit: and now that I have read what I just posted, it dawned on my that I have not ready any postings by people actually using NFP; would like to hear from them on what they think about this issue using their own experience.

Round and round we go. Oh well.

The moral difference between NFP and ABC is more than methodology. Sure it could stand on that alone, but it stands on more. People use NFP to GET pregnant, for starters. That is one of THE primary purposes of NFP…it is the reason for using NFP for virtually all of the couples that I know who use it (and I know several). These couples have prudently planned families with children spaced almost precisely according to a carefully and prayerfully planned outlook for responsible parenthood and family structure. NONE of these couples has the primary intent of using NFP so they can have sex without babies…despite the fact that this is an incidental reality of their plan to prudentially space children.

Furthermore, ABC is employed as a barrier during ALL sexual relations. NFP abstains during very brief periods of fertility. ABC takes a default position of “NO”, no matter what God wants! NFP allows always for God’s providence. NFP is married to the Church’s understanding and teaching of the conjugal act. ABC is divorced from it.

You can believe it is reduced to just methodology if you want. I’m done trying to emphasize other moral differences which I believe are crystal clear, and I thought, go without saying.