Thoughts on contraception

[mpartyka]

Nothing? Not even a “sorry my wording seemed inconsiderate?” At least please apologize for the inflammatory statements you have made about the infertile.

I don’t think I’ve insulted anyone in the least, nor have I intended to. If someone has been insulted by my words, that person is free to take it up with me privately or publicly.

I don’t agree that the ECFs believed as you do.

And I doubt I’d ever be able to convince you or DavWan, so I’m okay with dropping that line of argument. It’s up to the reader to decide whether I proved my point or not.

It would be much more helpful if you would just state your purpose then instead of making people guess what you are trying to say.

I was wondering when somebody would actually stop and ask. I’m a little pressed for time right now but will explain when I can.

Well your experience with the “man on the street” is very different than mine then. I have had many people come to me to talk about overcoming the emptiness of withdrawl. It is bad for marriage regardless of what your “average” man says. It is specifically devastating to women. Some don’t even know that withdrawl is the reason for their feelings of emptiness and isolation. The ones who do are very aware of it.

Then maybe they should try condoms? I’ve always believed that whatever method of birth control a couple chooses to use should be agreed upon by both parties. Some couples are fine with the withdrawal method – I know one woman who said she herself was fine with it – but other couples need something different. One size does not fit all (pun intended).

Furthermore, you have already shown that they had a working knowledge of NFP. They knew more about the science of basic reproduction than your average “man on the street” does currently. (Sadly enough.)

On the contrary, there’s one piece of knowledge about human reproduction they didn’t have that today’s “man on the street” actually does.

Either people are objectively in a state of sin everytime they have non-reproductive sex OR knowledge of fertility is condemned!

I understand what you’re getting at. I’ll try to address this when I finally get to raise my second point (hopefully tonight).

–Mike

 

[DavWan]

P.S.: I just discovered that people who are functionally impotent (e.g., castrated male, female with too small a vaginal opening to penetrate) aren’t allowed to marry in the Church. Interesting!

Also irrelevant. The impotent person cannot marry because they cannot consummate the marriage. Has nothing whatsoever with infertility.

At any rate, I see no reason to continue this conversation until you start providing evidence of contradictions… not making use of the argument from silence fallacy…

 

[mpartyka]

(Post 1 of 2)

Okay, when I first opened this thread, I concluded by asking two 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?
2. 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?

I think we’ve beaten question 1 to death by now, so the reader is invited to look back at the preceding pages and evaluate for himself/herself whether the answer to that question is “Yes” or “No”.

Now it’s time to address the second question. What do we know now about the biology of human reproduction that the ECFs didn’t know, and did their unavoidable ignorance concerning this topic color their view of contraception in such a way as to cast it as “intrinsically evil”?

Recently, I had the pleasure of having dinner with a young lady who was raised in the Catholic Church but is no longer a practicing Catholic, citing basic unbelief and disinterest as the reasons she now stays away. She mentioned how one doctrine she couldn’t wrap her mind around was the doctrine of the Virgin Conception of Christ. She stated something to this effect: “I never got that because, like, don’t you need a sperm and an egg to make a baby? So what did God do? Did He provide the sperm? Did he make the whole embryo? I just don’t get that.” I told her, “I don’t think the early Christians knew about any such thing as ‘sperm’ and ‘egg’.”

The conversation soon turned to less serious matters, and we never broached the topic again, but later that evening, I got the impression that I might be onto something. Not that it was a new thing for me to wonder whether the Fathers knew about sperm and egg, for I’d wondered about this in relation to the Virgin Conception many a time myself. But for the first time I realized that I had never asked myself the question, “If the Fathers didn’t know about sperm and eggs, what did they think they knew…and did whatever primitive notions they had about the reproductive process play a role in their forming a stance against contraception?”

Having read so much of the ECFs over the last few years, I recall thinking about how they spoke of human reproduction in terms very much akin to what we would normally associate with plant life. We speak of “fertility” and “seed” and “barrenness” and such without realizing that while we impose a metaphorical sense on these terms as describing how humans reproduce, the ECFs were actually being quite literal in their usage.

It was especially in reading the works of St. Leo the Great concerning the supernatural conception of Christ that I came to understand the common view of procreation under which the ECFs were working as the “science” of their day.

Here’s the punch line: Today we understand that the human being is the result of combining sperm and egg. But back in the time of the ECFs, there were no microscopes around by which to detect these tiny gamete cells, so they took what they could see and formulated a paradigm of human reproduction based not on sperm and egg but on seed and soil – the man provided the seed, and the woman’s womb was the soil into which the man’s seed was sown. If the woman was “fertile” (i.e., her womb was “good soil”), then the man’s seed would “take root” in her womb and derive human flesh from her in the same way the seed of a plant would take nutrients from fertile soil and grow into a full-fledged plant. If the woman was “barren”, on the other hand, then the seed would be unable to “take root” in her womb, and thus the seed would “die”.

(continued…)

 

[mpartyka]

(Post 2 of 2)

Now, does this “seed and soil” paradigm help us to understand the mind of the early Church better? Indeed it does.

For example, my friend’s question (and my own musings) concerning whether God provided “sperm and egg” or “just sperm” in Mary’s conception became ridiculous because the ECFs (and the prophets and apostles, for that matter) didn’t view conception according to our present-day understanding but according to the “seed and soil” paradigm – God provided the seed, and Mary provided the soil from which the divine seed took flesh.

Likewise, the transmission of original sin makes sense, too, once the “seed and soil” paradigm is applied. Because the seed for our generation comes from Adam, it is from Adam (not Adam and Eve together) that we derive original sin. Adam’s seed and, by way of direct relation, the seed of every man is the vehicle by which original sin is passed from parent to child. Here, too, the significance of the Virgin Conception of Christ comes into sharp relief, for the seed which “took root” in Mary didn’t come from Adam – it came directly from God! That is why Jesus was born free from original sin (and, by the way, why Mary was not, but that’s a whole other argument).

And what about contraception? Here, too, the paradigm shift from “sperm and egg” to “seed and soil” makes a huge impact. Why? Because today we believe, “Life begins at conception,” and this is why so many people have a hard time understanding Catholic objections to barrier methods, non-abortive pills, surgical sterilization, etc., because they see nothing wrong with keeping sperm and egg apart so that no conception takes place. Aside from the natural/artificial distinction that Catholics harp on, there’s really very little difference between NFP and ABC (and no difference at all with regard to intent).

But what did the ECFs believe? They believed, “Life begins as seed.” This is crucial to understanding the ECFs’ vehement opposition to ABC. The seed which comes from a man contains in and of itself the life of the child-to-be. The seed itself is “alive”. Thus, to deposit that seed anywhere except into a woman’s womb is to guarantee the “death” of the seed – i.e., it is tantamount to murder! THIS is why the ECFs found contraception so detestable that they likened it to murder! They didn’t know that it takes a contribution from a woman as well as a man to make a baby! They thought the seed of a man was a living “prehuman being” in and of itself!

Now do you see why so many people today, including many Catholics, think the Church’s stance on ABC is ludicrous? In continuing to condemn ABC, the Church is perpetuating an underlying paradigm of human reproductive biology that even the average “man on the street” knows is wrong! Indeed, I’d say the Church’s refusal to get in step with science in this instance is even more damaging to its credibility than the whole Galileo affair, because in that case, it didn’t really make a difference in anyone’s life if the Church stayed trapped in the past, but today, the Church’s refusal to allow ABC to its married members is responsible for an untold amount of heartache and hardship. And it’s all because the ECFs – understandably, of course – didn’t know that it takes two halves to make a whole human being.

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

Actually, your musings are quite, well not amusing, but ill informed as to what the Virgin Birth is about and what the Church teaches about that. Seed and soil? WHAT?

Try here:
newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

 

[newbetx]

(Post 1 of 2)

Okay, when I first opened this thread, I concluded by asking two questions:

I think we’ve beaten question 1 to death by now, so the reader is invited to look back at the preceding pages and evaluate for himself/herself whether the answer to that question is “Yes” or “No”.

Now it’s time to address the second question. What do we know now about the biology of human reproduction that the ECFs didn’t know, and did their unavoidable ignorance concerning this topic color their view of contraception in such a way as to cast it as “intrinsically evil”?

I answered your question earlier. Sorry for jumping the gun.

Here are your OP questions.

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.

.

The mechanics of the method do not come into play. “Seed” vs. “Sperm/Egg” is immaterial. All sorts of contraceptive methods existed even back then. They were wrong then because they frustrated the process we are called to decide to partake in or not. All societies figure out pretty quickly the pitfals of contraceptive activity. It leads to infidelity, fornication, spreading of disease and other acts contradictive to the nuclear family. If it’s unhealthy for the family, then it’s unhealthy for the society.

If you ask me, it wasn’t yesterday’s culture that was ignorant. It is todays culture.

 

[newbetx]

(Now do you see why so many people today, including many Catholics, think the Church’s stance on ABC is ludicrous?
–Mike

The real reason people think it’s ludicrous is that they don’t understand it. Just like you… Just like me, too, only two short years ago. Really. I’m not one to just blindly accept “what the church says.” But with a second marriage failing because of fighting over sex, and just about everything else, I thought I’d go find out the “why” behind these “stupid” rules. And guess what? I found, with the help of Christopher West and JP II that the “stupid” was me and what our culture has taught us to believe.

If you think the ECF’s were wrong, fine. So what? What about one of our more recent church fathers? Try studying TOB and see where that leads you.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Great read Randy.

Little Lost Lambeth
By Steven Kellmeyer
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/story2.html

What do a 2000 year old Christian Tradition, the Anglican Lambeth Conference and English author Aldous Huxley have in common?..

In 1930, the Anglican Church made a decision that proved tragic for the entire world. About the only two voices that realized the problem were, of course, the Catholic Church, and surprisingly, an agnostic.

The year is 1932. On the Continent, Adolf Hitler is still 11 months away from gaining control of the German government. Though he continues to search for a way to gain the electoral majority necessary to rule Germany, he has already won a major victory in England, a victory that will continue to grow and metastasize long after he lies dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a burning bunker in Berlin 13 years in the future.

Well, don’t just sit there…click the link and keep reading.

 

[LittleDeb]

Now do you see why so many people today, including many Catholics, think the Church’s stance on ABC is ludicrous? In continuing to condemn ABC, the Church is perpetuating an underlying paradigm of human reproductive biology that even the average “man on the street” knows is wrong! Indeed, I’d say the Church’s refusal to get in step with science in this instance is even more damaging to its credibility than the whole Galileo affair, because in that case, it didn’t really make a difference in anyone’s life if the Church stayed trapped in the past, but today, the Church’s refusal to allow ABC to its married members is responsible for an untold amount of heartache and hardship. And it’s all because the ECFs – understandably, of course – didn’t know that it takes two halves to make a whole human being.

–Mike

This is where you were going with your thought process? WOW! Where to even begin? First off, I would like to address one of your underlying incorrect assumptions. It is in fact the people who use contraception, regardless of religious affiliation, who have the *higher *rate of “heartache and hardship,” aka divorce rate. That is the one and only statistic that has ever held true in my whole life. I even surveyed atheist couples. The ones NOT using contraception were more likely to still be married! All other factors being equal, contraception has shown itself to be one of the silent killers of marriage.

Mike, your argument is very similar to the one trotted out by Protestants about Onan. When they are corrected that Onan wasn’t killed for refusing to continue the lineage, (death wasn’t the punishment for that as is stated elsewhere in Scripture,) they then drag out the worn out “every sperm is sacred because they thought it was a human life” argument. They actually try to argue that **God **killed someone for something that they, “just didn’t know yet.” Get that? They argue that God, creator of all things seen and unseen, killed Onan for a supposed abortion!! WOW!!

I hate to break it to you Mike, but a giving-receiving still stands. The science of it is incedental. To fully image God requires male and female. To be masculine means-‘to give.’ To be feminine means-‘to receive.’ I have a feeling that this might get way too deep for you very quickly, so I am not sure how far to take you. Yes, I am one of those Theology of the Body zealots. I confess whole-heartedly. Every single thing I ever misunderstood about Church teaching was answered in TOB. Furthermore, I am one of those annoying ones who actually reads the original document. (Heck I have to read it. I was only a child when it came out.)

To be consummated (note that word, it is important) requires a complete and total giving and receiving of self. To consummate we must fully give everything we are and receive everything given to us. Why do I make this bold assertion? Because another very, very important time that word was used, was by our Lord, on the Cross. “It is consummated.” and then He died. What??? The Church uses the same word to describe what happens in a couple’s bedroom as to what happened on the Cross? How dare she!

No, no, no! We have to fix that! If what our Lord said on the Cross is watered down to “It is finished,” then maybe those unwashed masses won’t get the connection. We have to keep them thinking that sex is just for recreational purposes and that it isn’t a total giving and receiving of self. We can’t let them know that to be truly married (to any spouse, human or heavenly) that we must die to self!

We must convince them that it is alright to willfully withhold part of themselves during consummation. We must try to convince them that Christ’s *death *on the Cross wasn’t what really mattered. We have to convince them that His rising from the dead is all that is important. Goodness me! We have to get that dead Jesus off that Cross! They might think that His total self giving as the new Adam was to make up for Adam’s refusal to give up his own life for that of his wife in the Garden. We have to convince them that what happened after the Fall is more important and the Fall itself is unimportant. [/sarcasm]

(That means end sarcasm for anyone who might have missed it.)

A contraceptive act is a completely different act. The science of it doesn’t matter. That is why other posters and myself said that an infertile body is very different than a sterilized body. Willful withholding during consummation, note: during consummation, willfull withholding of self does not make a marital act.

Please do me a favor Mike. Please read the first 20 talks of TOB and then come back and we will talk about your musings on contraception and the Early Church Fathers.

 

[RobinSebas]

I have never found a single verse in the bible which forbids contraceptives. God made a man and a woman to love one another and he always mentions in his bible (at least a dozen times in every book) to love one another. If a person has sex to show love to his/her husband/wife and it results in an unwanted pregnancy, then it often results in the two hating each other which I’m sure God does not want.
He also however created a man and a woman to populate the earth by having many children. There are many people who usually use contraceptives and still have some children.
These days even with the thousands of types of contraceptives, the earth is populating at a higher rate than it ever was and the catholic church happens to be one of the fastest growing religions in the world (it is shrinking in Europe but growing everywhere else. I Australia, it is the only religion to show significant growth).

So I conclude that a person can have safe sex as long as they do eventually have children.

You probably would never find never find a single verse in the bible which forbids contraceptives.

Try looking for the word “for-life” like in re-ceptive as against the word “against-life” (Contra - against, ceptive - life).

 

[RobinSebas]

(Post 2 of 2)

Now, does this “seed and soil” paradigm help us to understand the mind of the early Church better? Indeed it does.

For example, my friend’s question (and my own musings) concerning whether God provided “sperm and egg” or “just sperm” in Mary’s conception became ridiculous because the ECFs (and the prophets and apostles, for that matter) didn’t view conception according to our present-day understanding but according to the “seed and soil” paradigm – … — the Church’s refusal to get in step with science in this instance is even more damaging to its credibility than the whole Galileo affair, because in that case, it didn’t really make a difference in anyone’s life if the Church stayed trapped in the past, but today, the Church’s refusal to allow ABC to its married members is responsible for an untold amount of heartache and hardship. And it’s all because the ECFs – understandably, of course – didn’t know that it takes two halves to make a whole human being.

–Mike

Contraception, the Virgin birth, Galileo – if you want to beat us, try to get to know us a little more.

I would recommend –

catholiceducation.org/

 

[Traditional_Ang]

For goodness sake, must the church be in my marriage bed? As long as we as a married couple aren’t using abortificient ABC, preventing children for selfish reasons, bringing others into our bed, using porn etc etc than why must the church dictate under what circumstances we can come together.

We’re not allowed to seek pleasure for pleasures sake? Huh? I really don’t get this. Especially when I’ve been dutiful and obedient in becoming pregnant 4 times. I’ve eaten my dinner for sure. That’s all I can handle.

Paul says we must be married rather than burn with lust… he didn’t say rather than burn with desire to have a child. Onan was snuffed out because of his selfish intentions not because he wanted to space out his children.

To rule that a man can’t have an orgasm anywhere than his wife’s vagina is ridiculous. To say that this is mortal sin… I can’t accept it! Be damned to hell for being pleased by your wife???

I am really struggling with the Church’s teaching on this. I do not want anymore children I am having a hard enough time raising those I do have, for their sake I do not wish to bring anymore into this family.

I am in the process of becoming a Catholic but this teaching is ruining my sex life. If the church approves NFP than she should approve withdrawal as well.

Mommomamats:

It’s not the church in your “Marriage Bed” - It’s God. you might want to read Three to get Married, by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. You can get this at Catholic Books or Amazon.com. I think Archbishop Sheen will answer most of your questions and maybe some questions you didn’t know you had.

I personally know a family who had 8 kids - The wife as well organized, and the husband made enough money so they could afford a nanny and a part-time maid. Hiring some help may help you deal with being overwhelmed. A deacon in my parish (I belong to the TAC) has had to get a lot of help lately because his wife (with whom he shares 4 children) has had metastatic cancer for most of the last 1-1/2 years. And, They haven’t had the money to pay for most of it, so they’ve had to ask us for much of it.

The principals behind Natural Family Planning are: 1) Unity must include openness to Life; 2) Sexuality and short terms of abstinence must both be by mutual consent; and 3) Sexuality must include complete self-Giving and Self-Receiving without any withholding, physical or otherwise; all because 4: Marriage is a Sign and Symbol of the relationship of Christ and His Bride, the Church.

Think of it this way, if Christ doesn’t bleed, if our Lord isn’t exposed for all to see on the Christ, we aren’t saved. That’s the equivalent of Contraception and of what what you’re asking to be allowed to do.

Try reading Why Humanae Vitae was Right (A Right), by Janet Smith. You can get it from Amazon.com. or Catholic Books and both Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae.

Remember, the Church doesn’t require you to completely understand it’s teachings. All She requires is that you accept Her teachings.

I hope this helps you to understand and accept the church’s teaching on this issue.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Which is more reasonable to believe, though – that the ECFs, some of whom may have been married themselves at some point, were completely ignorant of the unitive aspect of conjugal relations (which would totally justify sexual intercourse apart from the purpose of procreation), or that the ECFs simply didn’t believe that any such unitive aspect of conjugal relations existed? (Consider this especially in light of the ECFs’ recommendations toward marital chastity. How do you reconcile what the ECFs saw as the high calling of marital chastity with the notion that engaging in sex without the intention of procreating is good for a marriage?)

–Mike

Mike:

I have a hard time believing the Early Church Fathers were ignorant of the following and didn’t preach teach this as part of the “Gospel of Christ”:
So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of her Man.”
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Genesis 2:19-24 RSV
​

and, This from the Gospel of Matthew where our Lord reference the passage in Genesis:
Jesus answered (the Pharisees), “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Jesus’ disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Matt 19:4-12 RSV
or, The primary interpretation of the Song of Songs, which seems to be a series of a Wedding Songs which appear to describe the conflict between physical attraction and complete unitive love:
westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/songofsongs.htm
Commentary on the Song of Songs
Clark’s Commentary on the Song of Songs

New Testament Passages in Next Post…
Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Mike:
Continued from Previous Post…

Or, What St. Paul the Apostle said in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians:
But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. I say this by way of concession, not of command.

1 Cor. 7:2-6 RSV
And, then in his Epistle to the Ephesians:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church.

Eph. 5:25-32 RSV
These should be more than sufficient to make the case that the Early Church Fathers were familiar with and taught the Unitive aspects of human sexuality - Otherwise, several of these scriptures simply wouldn’t have made it into our Bible.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Rico_S]

Mike:

I actually think your take here is kind of interesting. I surely would not dismiss it as having no influence over the church’s early views on abc. In fact, I think it makes a great deal of sense. However, I don’t think that the teachings on the conjugal union are so rooted in this misconception (there is more to the teachings than just biology) that we can summarily dismiss the church positions as wrong. But, as someone who is not very well read on defending church positions or attacking them, I actually find your take pretty interesting.

Based on this thread so far, you are going to get zero consideration. Don’t let that discourage you from continuing to debate/post/argue. It may eventually lead you to the truth (if you are not there already )

–Rico

 

[mpartyka]

Well, it doesn’t look like my “seed and soil” is getting any real traction whatsoever, so there’s no sense in my pursuing it further. There are some points I still would like to discuss, though:

It is in fact the people who use contraception, regardless of religious affiliation, who have the higher rate of “heartache and hardship,” aka divorce rate. That is the one and only statistic that has ever held true in my whole life. I even surveyed atheist couples. The ones NOT using contraception were more likely to still be married! All other factors being equal, contraception has shown itself to be one of the silent killers of marriage.

This is a very compelling argument. I can’t argue with statistics. My only caveat would be that I would want to know whether it was the use of contraception itself that is responsible for the higher divorce rate, or if it’s the use of contraception in combination with other factors (which may or may not be exacerbated by the use of contraception).

We must try to convince them that Christ’s death on the Cross wasn’t what really mattered. We have to convince them that His rising from the dead is all that is important.

I don’t think it’s fair to label Protestants as more concerned with Christ’s resurrection than Christ’s death on the cross. When I was Protestant I meditated far more on the death of Christ than upon his resurrection. Considering that Christ’s death on the cross is seen as the singular act which effected the forgiveness of their sins, I think Protestants have a great tendency to focus on the cross.

These should be more than sufficient to make the case that the Early Church Fathers were familiar with and taught the Unitive aspects of human sexuality - Otherwise, several of these scriptures simply wouldn’t have made it into our Bible.

I don’t think the ECFs had any authority to pick and choose portions of a book of Scripture and “vet” it for inclusion in the canon. The whole book was either an authentic document or not. So I don’t think the Scriptures you cited could have disappeared or been rejected and therefore not included in the canon of Scripture.

Willful withholding during consummation, note: during consummation, willfull withholding of self does not make a marital act.

Sexuality must include complete self-Giving and Self-Receiving without any withholding, physical or otherwise…

This is one of the most powerful arguments I’ve heard so far, but I still question whether it’s sufficient to justify a complete and total ban on contraceptives in all cases.

–Mike

 

[newbetx]

Please do me a favor Mike. Please read the first 20 talks of TOB and then come back and we will talk about your musings on contraception and the Early Church Fathers.

If you meant to put in a pointer, it didn’t work for me. I added it here.

 

[newbetx]

This is a very compelling argument. I can’t argue with statistics. My only caveat would be that I would want to know whether it was the use of contraception itself that is responsible for the higher divorce rate, or if it’s the use of contraception in combination with other factors (which may or may not be exacerbated by the use of contraception).

–Mike

It is something more but, contraceptive mentality is at the base of it. Many want to write off the contraception portion and attribute it to something else. Why? Because we WANT contraception. The blame must be elsewhere. KWIM?

The point about NFP users are that they communicate. And we all know that one of the best things to aid a marriage is good communication. NFP makes for good marriages because it requires a good marriage to make it work. It’s a way of life.

With ABC, Sex on demand eventually makes one of the partners feel used. This is reflected in loss of intimacy and a reduction in the frequency which the first partner channels into other activity. Porn, masturbation, or outside relationships leading to a loss of intimacy and eventually a desire to terminate the relationship and get a "better one… Now this doesn’t happen over night. It doesn’t affect everyone the same. But it does to a great deal of people. Now it is not to say that 100 % of people that use contraception get divorced. We know that is not true. but 50% is still not a good thing for society.

This is one of the most powerful arguments I’ve heard so far, but I still question whether it’s sufficient to justify a complete and total ban on contraceptives in all cases.

–Mike

We all want to be considerate of those who through what ever reason already have many kids, or have a medical condition should no longer get pregnant. We WANT to let them have different rules. We don’t want them to suffer. We do similar things when raising our kids… and the result can be spoided brats who have no real preparation for dealing with the world. The Anglican Church took the step it did to help just those people you talk about. What happened after the door was opened a crack was a flood of people running through the door wanting the same “right.”

What we forget is that sex isn’t a right. Although it’s treated and called it that sometimes. It’s a gift. Sometimes the the couple is presented a trial and the gift has to go unused. However unfair that seems to us these days, it is as unfortunate as loosing a spouse to cancer or alzheimers or other debilitation. We are expected to stay with that spouse in sickness and in health. Sex or the lack of is no different.

 

[mpartyka]

It is something more but, contraceptive mentality is at the base of it. Many want to write off the contraception portion and attribute it to something else. Why? Because we WANT contraception. The blame must be elsewhere. KWIM?

I was thinking more along the lines of, “NFP users generally have more kids than ABC users, and the more kids one has, the less likely one is to divorce,” or, “NFP users are usually Catholic, and the Catholic Church doesn’t permit divorce, so few NFP users will divorce because if they care enough to respect the Church’s teaching on birth control then they will also respect the Church’s teaching on the permanence of marriage.” Correlation does not always equal causation.

The point about NFP users are that they communicate. And we all know that one of the best things to aid a marriage is good communication. NFP makes for good marriages because it requires a good marriage to make it work.

But then one could argue that NFP-using couples more often stay together because they have, on average, better communication skills than ABC-using couples. It’s sort of a chicken-or-egg situation, isn’t it? Now, one could argue that NFP forces a couple to seriously communicate about sex and children before they marry, but no method of ABC has a 100% success rate, so it’s not like they have no need to take consideration of those things.

With ABC, Sex on demand eventually makes one of the partners feel used.

And this never happens when a couple uses NFP? In every couple there’s inevitably going to be a point at which the man and woman differ in their desire for sex.

We all want to be considerate of those who through what ever reason already have many kids, or have a medical condition should no longer get pregnant…The Anglican Church took the step it did to help just those people you talk about. What happened after the door was opened a crack was a flood of people running through the door wanting the same “right.”

Apples and oranges, though, isn’t it?. Contraception isn’t abortion, isn’t divorce, isn’t promiscuity, isn’t pornography, etc., etc. Contraception is contraception, and just like sex, one would think it can be used under the correct set of circumstances (i.e., in marriage).

What’s probably a good thing about NFP is that it forces a couple to ask themselves, “Are we really prepared for the child which could result from this?” and I agree that the answer always should be “yes”, but if the answer is “yes”, then I don’t see why the couple cannot use contraception in lieu of their commitment to care for the child that may result in spite of that contraception, or even why the couple ought not to be allowed a mix of solutions (e.g., using ABC only during the fertile periods).

–Mike

 

[LittleDeb]

If you meant to put in a pointer, it didn’t work for me. I added it here.

I didn’t think to do it, so thank you! That is the one I would have added. You are always so great on making sure the details are covered. Thanks!!