Thoughts on contraception

[FM927]

Some forms of contraception are infact, abortofacient–meaning they don’t (always) stop ovulation and conception then occurs, however, the uterus has been made inhospitable via the hormones and the baby is aborted…

I was talking more about the use of Condoms, which in no possible way STOPS OVULATION or makes the uterus INHOSPITABLE VIA THE HORMONES AND THE BABY IS ABORTED…

 

[mpartyka]

I was talking more about the use of Condoms, which in no possible way STOPS OVULATION or makes the uterus INHOSPITABLE VIA THE HORMONES AND THE BABY IS ABORTED…

I think we can all agree that at the point sperm meets egg and an embryo is created, anything after that point which is done medically to prevent the embryo from developing is abortive and immoral. The kinds of birth control I would think do not fall into this category are:

1. Barrier methods (e.g., condoms, sponges, diaphragms).
2. Surgical sterilization (e.g., vasectomy, tubal ligation).
3. Oral contraceptives that prevent ovulation (as opposed to oral contraceptives that make the uterus inhospitable to an embryo).

In short, once sperm meets egg and conception occurs (i.e., actual human life begins), nothing can morally be done to prevent that new human being from coming to term (barring extraordinary circumstances – e.g., perhaps the embryo is doomed to miscarry anyway and the mother’s life is at stake). The only forms of contraception under consideration here, then, are those which truly prevent conception (i.e., keep sperm and egg apart).

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Alternately, you err in your interpretation of the ECF

I think it would be hard for anyone to misinterpret St. Augustine when he says:

What friend of wisdom and holy joys, being married, would not prefer, if this were possible, to beget children without this lust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat of lust, but should be actuated by his volition, in the same way as his other members serve him for their respective ends?

–Mike

 

[ForwardProgress]

I guess because for just a little while, one is not focused 100 percent on God…

 

[rad314]

I think it would be hard for anyone to misinterpret St. Augustine when he says:

Not Church teaching and you know it.

Never read that article on lust, did you?

 

[rad314]

If that’s true, then St. Thomas is dishonestly quote-mining St. Augustine to support his views. (C’mon, I’m trying to err on the side of protecting St. Thomas’ character here!)

Couldn’t be that you misunderstood St. Thomas, could it? You wouldn’t be the first.

Wouldn’t surprise me. I’ve seen Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same (e.g., cast a quote from an ECF as anti-Trinity while ignoring clear Trinitarian statements on either side of the extracted quote).

But let’s not get distracted. The Church’s teaching on the matter is in the Catechism, not necessarily in what St. Thomas said. You claim to understand the magisterium (right?), so you must realize that all that the Catechism says in praise of marriage and the complete absence of any suggestion, in the coverage of marriage and of the Sixth Commandment, that marital intercourse is necessarily sinful (or necessarily involves the disorder [or wantonness or debauchery] of lust) means that it’s not (and doesn’t).

You didn’t explain anything. You just said, “It’s conspiracy to commit murder,” without showing how a murder could happen when there’s no life to take.

I’ve said that by using ABC the couple conspires to deprive someone of life by preventing his conception. You acknowledged that at the moment of conception, life exists. We never know for certain what might have been, so it’s not ‘murder’; we don’t know that someone was, in fact, deprived of life. It’s ‘conspiracy to commit murder’ because it’s their intent to deprive a person of life. (Not everyone who conspires to commit murder goes on to commit murder.) If you’re going to accuse practitioners of NFP of conspiracy to commit murder, then the only way to acquit themselves would be to have intercourse, always and exclusively, during the fertile days. I hope you see the absurdity of that conclusion.

What can I say? Some people recognize “ridiculous” instantly.

Outrage was a tough enough argument to deal with, but ridicule, too! Wow, I’m stymied!

The text surrounding that which I quoted speaks of actions. We were speaking of intent, and the text I quoted speaks of intent.

Then you take the point that when the motives are good, it’s the act of contraception that’s evil. As has been explained multiple times, contraception disrupts the reproductive processes and the marital bond; NFP does not. In either case (ABC or NFP), the intent may be good or evil. NFP is good if the intent is good; ABC is evil regardless of intent.

Aaaaaand we’re back to ad hominem attacks! (That didn’t take long…)

Is it ad hominem to point out that someone quotes out of context and ignores arguments against his opinions? I submit to the judgment of others whether it was ad hominem or whether that charge is used to mask a lack of intellectual integrity.

You’re obviously well-rehearsed in the arguments used by dissenters. There are counter-arguments for all of them. I know it. You know it. Whether you choose to read and understand as much material defending the Church as you do material attacking her is up to you.

As for me . . . this is a time of great and exhilirating change in my life. A relatively small part of that is some admissions I’m now willing to make to myself. I’ve struggled long and hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you, a non-Catholic, are on CAF because you honestly seek to understand what Catholics believe and why. It’s very liberating to dismiss that as fantasy. I’ve concluded – I could be wrong, in which case I do you an injustice, but I’ll take that chance – that you’re here to attack the Church and her beliefs at every opportunity.

My guess is that in no more than 75 years we’ll know beyond doubt which of us was right.

In the meantime, I’m redirecting my energies to areas in which I might actually accomplish something good (or, at least, not waste my time). (My admiration to those knowledgeable and articulate members who forthrightly stated what the Church teaches and why and then moved on. There’s a lot of wisdom in John 6:60,66-69. Not to mention Mt 10:14.)

Anyone in danger of being deceived by attacks on the Church and her beliefs is welcome to send me a private message if you think I can help.

(Is this ad hominem? Make the most of it.)

 

[mpartyka]

Not Church teaching and you know it.

I know it’s not Church teaching now. How do I know it wasn’t Church teaching back then (i.e., when St. Augustine himself obviously taught it)? Because it’s not what the Church teaches now? Or because the Church now says that’s not what it taught back then? How do I or anyone else verify that, aside from taking the Church’s word for it?

Never read that article on lust, did you?

I didn’t see the need, as I’m interested in what the Church taught then (i.e., in St. Augustine’s day), not what the Church teaches now (or, in this case, 1910).

–Mike

 

[DavWan]

I think it would be hard for anyone to misinterpret St. Augustine when he says:

–Mike

Lust is not love however. Again, I see no contradiction between Augustine and later teachings. It would be better to avoid disordered sexual passion. However, you seem to confuse passion in general with lust.

Look up Lust: newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm

Whether Augustine may have emphasized procreation, your claim remains unproven, and there is no contradiction between the ECF and current teachings.

 

[mpartyka]

Again, I see no contradiction between Augustine and later teachings. It would be better to avoid disordered sexual passion…there is no contradiction between the ECF and current teachings.

If it were possible to avoid lust during procreation, you would be correct, but St. Augustine didn’t believe that possibility existed. You’re saying (1) that possibility does exist and (2) the Church now teaches that it exists, too, which means there most obviously is a contradiction between St. Augustine and what is now “official Church teaching.”

However, you seem to confuse passion in general with lust.

Am I confused, or is St. Augustine confused? You’ve got his own words right in front of you. Read them! (And remember, you’re perfectly free as a Catholic to say, “St. Augustine was wrong about this.”)

–Mike

 

[DavWan]

If it were possible to avoid lust during procreation, you would be correct, but St. Augustine didn’t believe that possibility existed. You’re saying (1) that possibility does exist and (2) the Church now teaches that it exists, too, which means there most obviously is a contradiction between St. Augustine and what is now “official Church teaching.”

Not sure where you drew those conclusions of what I “said,” but your interpretation of my words seems to be as accurate as your interpretation of Augustine.

A more logical reading:

If it were possible, a rational approach to contraception would be better to an approach with lust
This view says nothing about the proper use of passion

Am I confused, or is St. Augustine confused?

Clearly you are the one who is confused. You have a confusion over lust, you insist on your meaning and insist that normal marital intercourse is sinful apparently.

You’ve got his own words right in front of you. Read them! (And remember, you’re perfectly free as a Catholic to say, “St. Augustine was wrong about this.”)

–Mike

I do have his words and I did read them. I am also free as a Catholic to say “mpartyka is wrong about this.” Indeed it is more plausible to believe you err than the whole Church.

 

[mpartyka]

I’ve said that by using ABC the couple conspires to deprive someone of life by preventing his conception. You acknowledged that at the moment of conception, life exists.

Exactly. Therefore, you cannot “deprive someone of life” where no life exists. Until sperm meets egg, there is no “someone” to be deprived!

If you’re going to accuse practitioners of NFP of conspiracy to commit murder, then the only way to acquit themselves would be to have intercourse, always and exclusively, during the fertile days. I hope you see the absurdity of that conclusion.

I agree that it is absurd, but if you’re going to charge ABC-using couples with a crime of intent, and if Humanae Vitae says that the intent of ABC-using and the intent of NFP-using couples are identical, then logically you must accuse NFP-using couples of the same crime of intent!

Then you take the point that when the motives are good, it’s the act of contraception that’s evil.

I take the point that when it is not the intent being judged, it must therefore be the act itself being judged. But if the intent is not being judged, then it is irrational for Trent to accuse ABC-using couples of a crime of intent (i.e., conspiracy to commit murder), especially when the act itself in question doesn’t fit the criteria of the conspired-to crime (i.e., murder)!

You’re obviously well-rehearsed in the arguments used by dissenters.

Actually, apart from reading Turning Point by Robert McClory – a very good book on the inner workings Papal Birth Control Commission established by Pope John XXIII – I have very little experience with the Catholic pro-ABC lobby. The objections I’m raising here (and the one I haven’t yet had opportunity to raise) have been largely my own.

I’ve struggled long and hard to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you, a non-Catholic, are on CAF because you honestly seek to understand what Catholics believe and why.

I guess you don’t see the underlying assumption you’re making, which is, namely, that if I understand what Catholics believe and why, I will have to necessarily agree that Catholics are right to believe such. That, frankly, is manure. When I survey the available information myself and find contradictions between what I’m being told and what I can see right in front of me, I’m not going to hide my face in a corner and pretend it’s all good because “the Church says so.” That presumes the Church knows what it’s talking about, and the more I study, the less I find reason to give it the benefit of that doubt.

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

I’ll make another attempt and try not to botch it…there are a few different threads all in this one conversation…

The intent to not get pregnant is actually not sinful. One can abstain totally and it not be sinful. However, the difference is in altering the act to make it nonfertile and knowing the act is infertile and engaging in the act. It’s how we deal with that intent that’s the problem.

Contraception means the intent (procreation and unity) of that act is altered to be nonfertile/nonprocreative–and nonunitive (in the 2 shall become one sense)…

NFP means the intent (procreation and unity) of the act is kept intact because the nature of the act is not changed–the couple is naturally infertile.

 

[FM927]

You certainly prooved your point OF TOTALLY BEING AGAINST CONTRACEPTION!

 

[happymommy]

You certainly prooved your point OF TOTALLY BEING AGAINST CONTRACEPTION!

Good, since SHE IS A CATHOLIC! and I’d have to SAY THAT I AGREE WITH HER and that SHE IS RIGHT!

really, the cap thing. Not needed, we understand what you mean with out it:

 

[mpartyka]

The intent to not get pregnant is actually not sinful…It’s how we deal with that intent that’s the problem.

I agree that this is what is taught in Humanae Vitae.

…the difference is in altering the act to make it nonfertile and knowing the act is infertile and engaging in the act.

I don’t think this is quite correct, is it? Say a woman has a medically-necessary hysterectomy. I don’t believe the Church disallows her from having sex afterwards due to her knowing she is now infertile. (Does it?)

Contraception means the intent (procreation and unity) of that act is altered to be nonfertile/nonprocreative–and nonunitive (in the 2 shall become one sense)…NFP means the intent (procreation and unity) of the act is kept intact because the nature of the act is not changed–the couple is naturally infertile.

Can you phrase that in a way that doesn’t use the word “intent”? Humanae Vitae says, “It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.” So, both ABC couples and NFP couples have the intent of (1) avoiding children for acceptable reasons and (2) doing whatever they can to prevent the marriage act from being fertile (i.e., they do not intend to procreate).

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

I agree that this is what is taught in Humanae Vitae.

I don’t think this is quite correct, is it? Say a woman has a medically-necessary hysterectomy. I don’t believe the Church disallows her from having sex afterwards due to her knowing she is now infertile. (Does it?)
A hysterectomy is done as the result of a diseased organ and the removal is quite licit. Engaging in sex afterwards is also licit. The woman hasn’t had the surgery for contraceptive purposes. The act is now infertile; however, it’s infertile due to a licit medical procedure. For the same reason that couples who are infertile for any reason may continue to have relations–because to be procreative sex is not to necessarily have fertile sex.

Can you phrase that in a way that doesn’t use the word “intent”? Humanae Vitae says, “It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.” So, both ABC couples and NFP couples have the intent of (1) avoiding children for acceptable reasons and (2) doing whatever they can to prevent the marriage act from being fertile (i.e., they do not intend to procreate).

Oops, yes, I should say the NATURE of the act, not the intent…my mistake, that’s what I get for typing and cooking dinner at the same time!

Contraception means the nature or order(procreation and unity) of that act is altered to be nonfertile/nonprocreative–and nonunitive (in the 2 shall become one sense)…NFP means the nature or order (procreation and unity) of the act is kept intact because the nature of the act is not changed–the couple is naturally infertile.

 

[DavWan]

I don’t think this is quite correct, is it? Say a woman has a medically-necessary hysterectomy. I don’t believe the Church disallows her from having sex afterwards due to her knowing she is now infertile. (Does it?)

There is a difference between directly willing the artificial sterility (temporary or permanent) and it being an unintended side effect of a medically necessary surgery.

This is part of the principle of Double Effect.

A married couple who is not ready to have children at this time can choose to use abstinence to avoid pregnancy. They cannot choose a means that makes use of the marital act and seeks to artifically frustrate the end of fertility.

 

[Corki]

Can you phrase that in a way that doesn’t use the word “intent”? Humanae Vitae says, “It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.” So, both ABC couples and NFP couples have the intent of (1) avoiding children for acceptable reasons and (2) doing whatever they can to prevent the marriage act from being fertile (i.e., they do not intend to procreate).

–Mike

Sorry for jumping into an ongoing discussion. It is not the word “intent” that is the problem. It’s where it’s placed. With ABC, the intent is to make the specific marital act sterile. With NFP, the intent is to use the God-given rhythms of fertility to avoid a pregnancy at that time of the marriage. There is no intent to alter the act itself.

 

[mpartyka]

I’d like to know what everyone thinks about this article by an Orthodox Christian:

The Church Fathers on Martial Sexuality

–Mike

 

[DavWan]

I’d like to know what everyone thinks about this article by an Orthodox Christian:

The Church Fathers on Martial Sexuality

–Mike

John T. Noonan wrongfully supports contraception, or at least he did in the past. Therefore I would be careful about anything he writes about contraception from the “Catholic” perspective.