Thoughts on contraception

[mpartyka]

By the way…

By the OP’s logic, IVF babies are free from Original Sin because they were not conceived through sexual intercourse.

Um…you do realize how the man contributes his share of what’s needed to perform IVF, right?

“Okay, sir, here’s a cup, and you’ll find a selection of magazines in the room. Let the nurse know when you’re done.”

–Mike

 

[rad314]

Does that make it “Church doctrine”? No, I suppose not technically . . .

Then you admit it wasn’t Church doctrine. End of discussion.

. . . but let me ask for the sake of argument: What if I finish my survey and am able to report that every ECF to whose writings I have access online preached the same way? Would that make it “Church doctrine” then?

Do you understand the concept of the magisterium? If so, please explain it.

 

[newbetx]

By all means, feel free to say, “That’s not what the Church teaches about sex in marriage! The Church teaches that sex in marriage is 100% holy and good!” I can believe that. What I cannot believe, in light of all these testimonies from the ECFs, is that the Church has always taught this.

Like it or not, the facts are the facts, and the facts say that the Catholic Church’s teaching on sex in marriage has, over the centuries, changed.

–Mike

Correct me if I’m wrong here… but the early church did not teach about the Trinity, either. The concept came later. So change is a part of the church as we come to be aware of more and more information.

Let’s face it. Sex has been misunderstood by us mear mortals through the centruries. It should be holy, but it rarely is. Hence, some might misunderstand and say all sex was sinful. Love can not be sinful. Can sex contain some level of sin. Sure. Is TOB a change? Yes, in what is taught and understood. So what? All sorts of change has happened within the church over the centuries. Is the fact that perspectives are different really undermine the authority of the church. I don’t think so. Does it make the Church “out of date.” No to that, too.

This sounds like the creation/evolution debate. Should someone think that if Genesis (pick one) isn’t taken literally, the rest of the Bible becomes open for question. Not true.

There is the Victorian view of sex and the Hefner view. Neither was EVER right.

Here are your OP questions.

1. Has the Church’s teaching on sexual relations within marriage changed over time, and should this have an impact on how the Church views ABC?

1. Is the Church’s ban on ABC partly founded upon an incomplete understanding of human biology on the part of the Fathers, and should our scientific progress in the field of human biology have an impact on how the Church views ABC?

1. Yes to the first half, No to the second. Just because we have better understanding of the science does not imply that ABC or other forms of contraception could be right. I think, based on my experience, that Humanae Vitae got it right.

2)The ban isn’t based on BIOLOGY. It’s based on theology. So your question is in error.

Just because the science exists to do something, does not automatically imply that it should be considered moral to do it.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The Church teaches and has always taught that sex is primarily for procreation. That teaching still stands. The change/development/new understanding is that sex is also unitive. Whether the ECF’s understood this at the time or not is irrelevant. Just like we know when conception happens now, we understand the mechanics of sex and relationships a bit more. Do you think the Church should ignore this? Do you think the Bible teaches against this unity. I don’t think so. If you read Genesis, you hear the words: Be Fruitful and mulitply AND the 2 shall become one. Procreation and Unity, right there in the Bible. So it took a while for the understanding to grow and codified? That doesn’t negate that procreative sex is the norm and to deviate is to loose the meaning. Neither does it mean that no one experienced unity in the time of the ECF’s.

 

[mpartyka]

Then you admit it wasn’t Church doctrine.

No, it’s just what every ECF I could find has ever taught.

End of discussion.

More like, “End of thought processes.”

Do you understand the concept of the magisterium? If so, please explain it.

I think it’s very telling that you choose to answer my question with a question rather than answering it directly. I’m asking you a very simple question: How many Church Fathers teaching the same consensus belief – in this case, that even sex within marriage is not totally free from sin – would it take before you admitted that this consensus belief was, in fact, the teaching of the Church?

I’m fairly certain at this point that the answer is, “Even if you gave me an infinite number of testimonies from the ECFs that this was their consensus belief, you will never convince me that their consensus belief was, in fact, the teaching of the Church.”

Am I wrong? Then give me a number.

–Mike

 

[rad314]

More like, “End of thought processes.”

Indeed? Perhaps more attentive readers will note that you claimed that Church doctrine changed, yet you admitted that what you claimed was doctrine was, in fact, not doctrine.

I’m fairly certain at this point that the answer is, “Even if you gave me an infinite number of testimonies from the ECFs that this was their consensus belief, you will never convince me that their consensus belief was, in fact, the teaching of the Church.”

Which just reveals that you don’t understand the magisterium. Could that be why you won’t answer my question?

(Hmm . . . this seems familiar.)

 

[mpartyka]

Correct me if I’m wrong here… but the early church did not teach about the Trinity, either. The concept came later. So change is a part of the church as we come to be aware of more and more information.

The Church has always taught about the Trinity, but it hasn’t always done so in such a way as to make that teaching clear and understood by all. By this I mean that if you go back to every orthodox teacher of Christianity prior to the Council of Nicea and read his writings, you won’t see that teacher say that Jesus is not God, or that the Holy Spirit is not God, or that there are two or four or any number of persons other than three in the Godhead, but you also won’t see that teacher make a statement as clear and concise as the Nicene Creed, either. It took time and a definite controversy for all of Christendom to come together and formulate a definition of what they all meant by what they all taught.

Take the word “Trinity” for example. It doesn’t appear in the Bible. For the first hundred or so years of Christianity it wasn’t used. But that doesn’t mean that Christians weren’t taught to worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It just means that they didn’t have a means to refer to the three Divine Persons collectively in a way that maintained their individuality while also establishing their unity. Then, one day, somebody at the bright idea to use the word “Trinity” to refer to the three Divine Persons, and it stuck, spread, and became a term commonly used in the Church.

Here’s an analogous word: “schadenfreude”. It’s a German word that basically means “a sensation of joy gained from observing the suffering of another.” Imagine we were trying to convey the notion of “schadenfreude” to somebody and weren’t aware that the word “schadenfreude” existed. We would probably have to use the long definition over and over again until, one day, somebody overheard us and said, “Oh, you mean ‘schadenfreude’!” And from then on, once we knew that “schadenfreude” conveyed the concept that we were trying to get across, we’d use “schadenfreude” instead of trying to explain ourselves in the long, drawn-out fashion.

So, basically, what all the first six Ecumenical Councils of the Church set out to do was say, “This is what we’ve always believed and taught,” in a way that more clearly described what they meant so that there would no longer be any confusion about what they had indeed always believed and taught.

That’s much, much different from saying, “Okay, we’ve always taught that sex in marriage still involves sin, but having gained new knowledge from science and the testimony of the faithful, we’re not going to teach that anymore but instead teach that sex in marriage is totally free from sin.”

This sounds like the creation/evolution debate. Should someone think that if Genesis (pick one) isn’t taken literally, the rest of the Bible becomes open for question. Not true.

Ooooh…don’t let some people on this forum hear you say that!

The ban isn’t based on BIOLOGY. It’s based on theology. So your question is in error.

The ban isn’t currently based on biology. This might not always have been the case, though…but we’ll discuss that later, hopefully.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

The change/development/new understanding is that sex is also unitive. Whether the ECF’s understood this at the time or not is irrelevant. Just like we know when conception happens now, we understand the mechanics of sex and relationships a bit more. Do you think the Church should ignore this?

Not at all. What I am suggesting is that perhaps the Church needs to follow through on this new information and change/develop/better understand their teaching on ABC.

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

Not at all. What I am suggesting is that perhaps the Church needs to follow through on this new information and change/develop/better understand their teaching on ABC.

–Mike

The teaching against ABC makes perfect sense, though. The act must be procreative and unitive. The only teaching that you say has changed (and we hold has just developed with a better understanding) is the addition of unitive. This doesn’t change the fact that the act must be procreative (done as nature intended, NOT fertile). Contraception seeks to remove the procreative aspect from every act of intercourse. We know this is wrong. The answer you seek has nothing to do with the ECF’s understanding of intercourse or the current, more developed, understanding of
the marital embrace.

 

[rad314]

Those who understand the concept of the magisterium or who genuinely are interested in what the Church teaches will profit from what The Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka The Roman Catechism, aka The Catechism of Pius V) has to say about matrimony: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-m.htm.

I don’t find the word ‘unitive’, but the concept is unmistakable.

The suggestion that marital intercourse is inherently sinful is incompatible with the honor and respect that the Catechism teaches that marriage deserves; in fact, my printed copy has footnotes, one of which refers to a section of Summa Theologica in which St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly rejects the proposition that all marital intercourse is sinful.

 

[mpartyka]

Those who understand the concept of the magisterium or who genuinely are interested in what the Church teaches will profit from what The Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka The Roman Catechism, aka The Catechism of Pius V) has to say about matrimony: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-m.htm.

I’m actually glad you posted this, because the Council of Trent’s view of a married couple’s attempt to prevent conception bears directly upon my second question from the original post:

…married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime, nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.

Preventing conception is murder? Interesting…

The suggestion that marital intercourse is inherently sinful is incompatible with the honor and respect that the Catechism teaches that marriage deserves; in fact, my printed copy has footnotes, one of which refers to a section of Summa Theologica in which St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly rejects the proposition that all marital intercourse is sinful.

Could you please cite the section of the Catechism and also cite, if possible, the portion of the Summa Theologica to which it refers?

–Mike

 

[eucharist04]

Do not have sex outside of marriage and you wil not need any.

 

[DavWan]

I am struck by the somewhat minimalistic view of the Patristics and Sexuality with no context into the times and the culture the discussion was from.

We need to remember the Greco-Roman view of sexuality tended to be hedonistic, where contraception, abortion and child exposure were practiced widely.

In this context, the emphasis on procreation was essential, with the belief that if the openness to life was rejected then the use of the marriage act would indeed be sinful.

We also need to remember that to argue that some Church Fathers solely spoke of the procreative aspect means this is the only accepted end is in fact an Argument from Silence. The speaking of one thing does not mean anything not mentioned was not believed. To build his case, mpartyka would need to show where Church Fathers condemned the mutual love of spouses as a valid part of marriage.

Third, we also need to recognize the deepening understanding of marriage. Church beliefs were not frozen at the end of the Patristic period. Throughout the medieval period, we had further insights into the teaching of the nature of marriage. This does not mean the Patristics were deficient or erroneous. It means every faithful theologian of the Church stands on the shoulders of those who came before.

So, it does not follow that because the Church Fathers in one era addressed the importance of procreation, no other aspect of marriage was seen as important.

 

[Jennifer_J]

…married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime, nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.

You missed where it said “have recourse to medicine”–which means: married couples who contracept (via drugs/potions) or get abortions are guilty of a heinous crime.

 

[mpartyka]

By the OP’s logic, IVF babies are free from Original Sin because they were not conceived through sexual intercourse.

And just to make sure everyone’s aware of the Church’s stance on IVF:

Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.” “Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union … Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.”…the child possesses…the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and “the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.” – CCC 2377-2378

Last year I heard about the case of a childless woman whose husband had his sperm frozen before he left for Iraq or Afghanistan and, tragically, was killed there. The woman sought permission from the Church to use her husband’s sperm to inseminate herself and bear him a child. The Church refused to give permission on the basis that even though the sperm used would be her husband’s, artificial insemination, for the reasons explained above, is itself an immoral process.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

We also need to remember that to argue that some Church Fathers solely spoke of the procreative aspect means this is the only accepted end is in fact an Argument from Silence. The speaking of one thing does not mean anything not mentioned was not believed. To build his case, mpartyka would need to show where Church Fathers condemned the mutual love of spouses as a valid part of marriage.

But likewise, we should keep in mind that the argument that such teaching was present in the Church in spite of there being no positive evidence for it is also an argument from silence (and one that Catholics use liberally).

–Mike

 

[rad314]

Could you please cite the section of the Catechism . . .

The link in #130.

. . . and also cite, if possible, the portion of the Summa Theologica to which it refers?

newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm. Article 2.

 

[rad314]

Preventing conception is murder? Interesting…

The quote was “conspiracy to commit murder”. Isn’t murder the deliberate and unjust deprivation of someone’s life? Isn’t that what ABCers conspire to do?

 

[mpartyka]

You missed where it said “have recourse to medicine”–which means: married couples who contracept (via drugs/potions) or get abortions are guilty of a heinous crime.

And that crime is “nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.” Again, I ask: “Murder?” So, using drugs so as to prevent a woman’s eggs from moving from the ovaries down the fallopian tubes to the uterus is murder? Vasectomies and tubal ligations (which also fall within the realm of medicine) are murder?

And let’s not overlook that at Trent the argument against contraception was tied directly to the argument that marriage was established by God for procreation:

A second reason for marriage is the desire of family,…to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture…Hence the Angel…says…Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children. It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime, nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.

Contrast the above argument with the one presented in the modern CCC:

…“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil: Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality… The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

Notice how the two arguments against contraception are entirely distinct. Trent gives one reason; the CCC gives an entirely different reason. There is great significance here. Something had to have changed between the Council of Trent and the publication of the modern CCC that invalidated Trent’s argument (“contraception is murder”) and caused the authors/editors of the CCC to switch to a more “philosophical” explanation of why contraception is wrong.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

The quote was “conspiracy to commit murder”. Isn’t murder the deliberate and unjust deprivation of someone’s life? Isn’t that what ABCers conspire to do?

But doesn’t life begin at conception?

–Mike