Thoughts on contraception

[JDaniel]

Three quarters of the way through TOB…should be finished sometime next week, I hope…

–Mike

I’m doing the same thing and finding it fascinating.

jd

 

[mpartyka]

#1 and #2 do reflect Church teaching, but #3 does not.

Also, have you read the book Contraception by John Noonan?

I haven’t read that book, but what is ironic is that from reviews of the book I can gather that Noonan confirms belief #3 as Church teaching – namely, that sex initiated for purposes other than procreation is venially sinful (though excused under the sacrament).

Consider what this reviewer had to say:

Second, I saw nothing in this book to justify the usage of NFP among Orthodox/Catholics. Noonan even notes that the first explicit condemnation of contraception is ironically the only contraceptive form allowed by 20th century Catholic theologians. He says from page one that NFP has as it’s purpose to prevent conception, and therefore is contraception. I’m a bit mystified how Dave Armstrong, et al. can justify using this book so extensively when Noonan doesn’t even agree with such an important–and directly related–aspect of their belief on this matter.

Third…, celibacy within marriage was not only allowed, but actually suggested in some cases. What was condemned by Chrysostom and other fathers was the practice of two non-married people trying to live together as “brother and sister”. Married people, on the other hand, are told that it’s best to be celibate in a number of cases (financial problems, don’t want any more children, etc.)

The reviewer then comments upon the results of his own personal study of the early Church Fathers:

Would the Fathers have ok’d NFP? No, actually such methods (in admittedly archaic forms) were among the first methods to be talked about in a negative light (ie. not allowed). Pro-creation was the key to sex (not necessarily marriage) for the Fathers. Curbing lust was another thing that some Fathers were concerned with, but it was always with pro-creation in mind. The Fathers simply didn’t allow actions that would fulfill sexual desire while leaving no room (or trying to avoid) procreation. Augustine admitted that he didn’t know anyone who thought about pro-creation every time they had sex, but that was the goal set by the Fathers, nonetheless (sort of like other nearly unattainable goals we must work at, such as “be ye perfect”)

Therefore, oral and anal sex, masturbation, etc. were not permitted. Pro-creation wasn’t, of course, the thing that had to be kept in mind for infertile couples, and infertile couples (or elderly couples in general) did not have to cease from have sex (though they were counselled to do so, and some Fathers thought it was shameful for those beyond the child-bearing years to have sex, but these were usually the Fathers who considered procreation the only proper use of sex).

But back to NFP, what the Fathers were against was the intentional prevention of conception. Fasting from sex during times appointed by the Church (e.g., Lent) was not an intentional avoidance by the couple, so it was ok. Skipping having sex during the times of the month that the woman was deemed to be able to conceive, on the other hand, wasn’t allowed…

The Fathers did not draw such sharp distinctions between “natural” and “mechanical,” between “passive” and “active”. Perhaps such a distinction needs to be made today; if so, I’d love to hear it. NFP seems like the best of the worst, so to speak; the least of the evils, if contraception has to be used (and when I say that, I am not just following Augustine).

As to what acts are allowed and what aren’t, I think it depends on whom you ask. Some penitential literature gets quite explicit about what is and isn’t allowed…, while other early Church texts are pretty vague. Essentially, most Fathers went along a basic line that anything that avoided or would prevent conception would not be allowed. A possible second reason for sex for some fathers was the curbing of lust, but in their mind, doing sexual things that didn’t allow for conception was not curbing lust, but was in fact giving into and indulging lustful wants. They did not see oral sex and masturbation as a “release” or “relaxing” action, or one that could be used in the bedroom.

and later on:

…the Fathers almost never mention sexual relations when they (rarely) speak of some type of “bond of love” within marriage. When they do speak of the bond through sexual relations, guess what the glue is that makes the bond? Children! Suprise, suprise, procreation is the bond that forms a “bridge” (as Chrysostom says) between the couple.

Now I don’t want this to come off wrong or offend anyone, so please don’t take this too personally, but the only people who talked about anything close to a “bond of love” or “spiritual experience” within marriage by sexual means were heretics such as the gnostics. Admittedly, these heretics were way out there, and so the Fathers polemics against them should take that into consideration. It’s still noteworthy, though, IMO, that the early saints never speak of sex as being good in itself (as though the experience in itself is of benefit, forming some type of bond or being some type of mystical union). Any good that can come from sex is always a byproduct of sexual relations (children, not being tempted to have sex with other women, etc). Most of the Fathers would even be hesitant to say that the sex was “good” in itself, but instead, they’d say that sex led to good things, and therefore was necessary and justifiable.

Earlier in this thread I quoted heavily from another reviewer’s opinion on Noonan’s book and the consensus of the early Church Fathers, and it is much the same. My own study of the ECFs in on hiatus, but many of the quotes I found on sex in marriage from the ECFs substantiate the opinion that even non-contraceptive sex is venially sinful if initiated without the express goal of procreation in mind.

–Mike

 

[Daedelus76]

Children are not the only ones who use resources. Adults and the elderly do, too. I guess I don’t get what you are getting at - should people who use resources not be around? Cuz, that’s everyone.

It’s better that they not be born. Once they exist, it’s wrong to kill them, though. It does have to be balanced with common sense. I don’t see a problem with the Earth having some people. Most scientists say the long term carrying capacity of the Earth is 2-3 billion people, we are over 3 times that limit.

 

[yellowbicycle]

It’s better that they not be born. Once they exist, it’s wrong to kill them, though. It does have to be balanced with common sense. I don’t see a problem with the Earth having some people. Most scientists say the long term carrying capacity of the Earth is 2-3 billion people, we are over 3 times that limit.

Do you think it would be better had you not been born? Or me? Or my children?
I am grateful that your own parents, and mine, did not believe the world would have been a better place if you, or I, had not been born.

 

[mpartyka]

Finally finished TOB. Reviewing my notes now. Was most impressed by the beginning, talking about the original significance of marriage as it relates to the body. The idea of body as the visible sacrament of the person was very interesting, especially as it would later tie in to the “language of the body” concept. Still, the connection of the theology of the body with Humanae Vitae seemed labored, as if what was being sought was a way to convincingly argue that married sex is a good thing in itself rather than something necessary for procreation and the relief of concupiscence. The anti-contraception arguments weren’t directly tied back to the more profound insights at the beginning, so I was left feeling like TOB was incomplete – like the circle didn’t close as neatly as I’d hoped it would.

Since we’ve got to start somewhere, here is a quote from TOB to get us going:

Biblical knowledge is not limited to satisfying instinct or hedonistic pleasure, but it is a fully human act, directed consciously toward procreation, and it is also the expression of interpersonal love.

What strikes me about this definition of sex is the use of the word “consciously” with reference to procreation. A conscious direction toward procreation speaks of intent, not merely of mechanics.

I’m reminded of the board game “Mousetrap”. The players would build the mousetrap piece by piece until everything was in place – i.e., once the crank was turned, the mousetrap would then proceed to do what it was designed to do, which is catch a mouse. But you didn’t turn the crank until the mouse was on the mark, for that was the only time that all your hard work in constructing the mousetrap is going to pay off. You waited until the mouse was in place…unless your intent was not to catch the mouse but was instead to enjoy the show of the mousetrap’s going off, which was a pleasure in and of itself, usually.

So let’s look at NFP in terms of “Mousetrap”. The purpose of the mousetrap is to catch the mouse. So, from the perspective of NFP, you’re not allowed to remove any of the mousetrap’s parts, as even one part’s being removed would impair the design of the mousetrap and disable it from catching a mouse. Instead, you make sure that every part of the trap is in place so that the trap is perfectly capable of catching a mouse…if a mouse happens to be on the mark. So you look, and, sure enough, there’s a mouse. Well, you don’t want to catch a mouse…you just want to see the trap go off because it’s fun to watch. So you wait until the mouse is off the mark, and then you turn the crank. True, a mouse could come along plop himself down on the mark while the trap is being sprung, which means you’ll have an unwanted mouse, but you’ve done everything you could short of sabotaging the trap to prevent a mouse from being captured.

So my question is, “What makes the disposition of an NFP user’s heart any different from that of an ABC user’s heart?” Or, what makes the person who activates the trap when there’s no mouse on the mark any different internally from the person who sabotages the trap? Where is the “conscious direction toward procreation” (or mouse-catching) in either person – the ABC user or the NFP user?

–Mike

 

[snowpiece]

To the first- YES. To the second- YES!

As we’re taught in sex ed 101, NFP is a mildly successful form of Birth Control. Just because you don’t use plastic doesn’t mean you aren’t trying to have pregnancy-free sex. It just means that you’re not likely to be successful. Rules about birth control are in part designed to increase the population of Church members, so of course the Church is resistant to changing it’s rules about ABC. Still, the Church’s anti-ABC position is nonsensical and damaging (especially in countries facing AIDS and STI epidemics).

Thank you for posting valuable, intriguing information!

 

[Jennifer_J]

Finally finished TOB. Reviewing my notes now. Was most impressed by the beginning, talking about the original significance of marriage as it relates to the body. The idea of body as the visible sacrament of the person was very interesting, especially as it would later tie in to the “language of the body” concept. Still, the connection of the theology of the body with Humanae Vitae seemed labored, as if what was being sought was a way to convincingly argue that married sex is a good thing in itself rather than something necessary for procreation and the relief of concupiscence. The anti-contraception arguments weren’t directly tied back to the more profound insights at the beginning, so I was left feeling like TOB was incomplete – like the circle didn’t close as neatly as I’d hoped it would.

Since we’ve got to start somewhere, here is a quote from TOB to get us going:

What strikes me about this definition of sex is the use of the word “consciously” with reference to procreation. A conscious direction toward procreation speaks of intent, not merely of mechanics.

I’m reminded of the board game “Mousetrap”. The players would build the mousetrap piece by piece until everything was in place – i.e., once the crank was turned, the mousetrap would then proceed to do what it was designed to do, which is catch a mouse. But you didn’t turn the crank until the mouse was on the mark, for that was the only time that all your hard work in constructing the mousetrap is going to pay off. You waited until the mouse was in place…unless your intent was not to catch the mouse but was instead to enjoy the show of the mousetrap’s going off, which was a pleasure in and of itself, usually.

So let’s look at NFP in terms of “Mousetrap”. The purpose of the mousetrap is to catch the mouse. So, from the perspective of NFP, you’re not allowed to remove any of the mousetrap’s parts, as even one part’s being removed would impair the design of the mousetrap and disable it from catching a mouse. Instead, you make sure that every part of the trap is in place so that the trap is perfectly capable of catching a mouse…if a mouse happens to be on the mark. So you look, and, sure enough, there’s a mouse. Well, you don’t want to catch a mouse…you just want to see the trap go off because it’s fun to watch. So you wait until the mouse is off the mark, and then you turn the crank. True, a mouse could come along plop himself down on the mark while the trap is being sprung, which means you’ll have an unwanted mouse, but you’ve done everything you could short of sabotaging the trap to prevent a mouse from being captured.

So my question is, “What makes the disposition of an NFP user’s heart any different from that of an ABC user’s heart?” Or, what makes the person who activates the trap when there’s no mouse on the mark any different internally from the person who sabotages the trap? Where is the “conscious direction toward procreation” (or mouse-catching) in either person – the ABC user or the NFP user?

–Mike

Heh, I like your Mousetrap analogy!

To answer your last questions from my point of view… I think the difference is that most couples who use Fertility Awareness to space babies, realize that the act is directly tied to procreation (and I should add, Fertility Awareness for spacing should only be used for grave/serious/justreasons and not just “because”. It should NOT be the default state of every marriage!!), thereby making it a “conscious direction toward procreation” because nothing has been done to alter the act itself. Each act, which we may think we know is infertile, may still result in a pregnancy and even if we are infertile, we know that the act was done as God designed it.

The contraceptive users intent is to stop, ignore, halt, etc, the relationship between the act and procreation. Many ABC users think they are immune to pregnancy. The act of sabotaging the act, breaks the act. The average ABC user doesn’t think about procreation with each act, their focus is only on the pleasure of the act.

I found this to be an interesting, indepth pamplet from the USCCB
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/TheologyofNFP–McHugh.pdf

 

[diggerdomer]

Mike, thank you for what I read as sincere and well-thought out reflections.

In short, replying to your questions at the end:

1. Yes. Look at the evolution of the “ends” of marriage. Is marriage only or primarily for procreation? Sure…for much of our tradition. But now the Church teaches that sexual relations in marriage are not only for procreation, or for the avoidance of sinfulness, but also for the good of the spouses. I can’t believe there’s any informed, honest disagreement on the basic “yes” answer to this question.
2. This may be more complicated and controversial. I don’t think the Church’s view is based on any erroneous or incomplete understanding of human biology, but I do think that scientific progress should have an impact on what the Church teaches (if not…we’d still be teaching that the Sun revolves around the Earth!).

Cheers.

 

[diggerdomer]

Mike, thank you for what I read as sincere and well-thought out reflections.

In short, replying to your questions at the end:

1. Yes. Look at the evolution of the “ends” of marriage. Is marriage only or primarily for procreation? Sure…for much of our tradition. But now the Church teaches that sexual relations in marriage are not only for procreation, or for the avoidance of sinfulness, but also for the good of the spouses. I can’t believe there’s any informed, honest disagreement on the basic “yes” answer to this question.
2. This may be more complicated and controversial. I don’t think the Church’s view is based on any erroneous or incomplete understanding of human biology, but I do think that scientific progress should have an impact on what the Church teaches (if not…we’d still be teaching that the Sun revolves around the Earth!).

Cheers.

 

[mpartyka]

Heh, I like your Mousetrap analogy!

Whew! I thought people might think it too silly.

I think the difference is that most couples who use Fertility Awareness to space babies, realize that the act is directly tied to procreation (and I should add, Fertility Awareness for spacing should only be used for grave/serious/justreasons and not just “because”. It should NOT be the default state of every marriage!!)…

This is a tad troubling to me because it almost implies that the “default state” of every marriage is to be producing babies as often as possible, with the married couple’s intentions only coming into play with regard to whether they think they can handle another baby just then. The woman’s role then becomes that of a, for lack of a better term, baby-making machine who must then subjugate every other aspiration she might have otherwise had to the process of having and raising as many kids as possible.

…thereby making it a “conscious direction toward procreation” because nothing has been done to alter the act itself.

Except the timing of the act itself has been changed to ensure that one step in the process is naturally missing rather than artificially missing (as in the case of oral contraceptives which prevent ovulation – which also doesn’t alter the act itself, by the way).

Each act, which we may think we know is infertile, may still result in a pregnancy…

Which is equally true in the case of ABC usage. No ABC method is 100% sure.

…and even if we are infertile, we know that the act was done as God designed it.

The constant reference to “design” brings up an interesting sidebar: From what paradigm of creation are you speaking – special creation or evolution? (Or does it matter either way?)

The contraceptive users intent is to stop, ignore, halt, etc, the relationship between the act and procreation. Many ABC users think they are immune to pregnancy…The average ABC user doesn’t think about procreation with each act, their focus is only on the pleasure of the act.

All very true…but what is the focus of the NFP user who decides to have sex only when infertile? How does the NFP user answer the question, “I wanted to have sex with my spouse during an infertile period because…”?

The act of sabotaging the act, breaks the act.

I think that depends on what you actually want the act to accomplish, doesn’t it?

I found this to be an interesting, indepth pamplet from the USCCB
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/TheologyofNFP–McHugh.pdf

I’m going to have to save this for later, because it’s difficult to read on it’s side.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

1. Yes. Look at the evolution of the “ends” of marriage. Is marriage only or primarily for procreation? Sure…for much of our tradition. But now the Church teaches that sexual relations in marriage are not only for procreation, or for the avoidance of sinfulness, but also for the good of the spouses. I can’t believe there’s any informed, honest disagreement on the basic “yes” answer to this question.

I couldn’t have summed up my position any better myself. Thanks!

1. This may be more complicated and controversial. I don’t think the Church’s view is based on any erroneous or incomplete understanding of human biology, but I do think that scientific progress should have an impact on what the Church teaches (if not…we’d still be teaching that the Sun revolves around the Earth!).

If you search this thread for the phrase “seed and soil”, you’ll find the posts in which I explain this point in more detail. My basic argument was based on the fact that certain early Church Fathers (ECFs) likened birth control to murder, which made no sense to me until I realized that the ECFs were working with a “seed and soil” paradigm of procreation rather than the “sperm and egg” paradigm we understand today – i.e., the man plants his “seed” into the woman’s “soil”, and the “seed” takes flesh from the “soil” to become a baby. Under this paradigm, preventing the “seed” from reaching the “soil”, or making the “soil” unreceptive to the “seed”, could be viewed as a sort of murder because the “seed” was probably thought to have life in itself. But none of the ECFs really made the direct argument that birth control “kills the seed” and is therefore murder, so this point has pretty much fallen by the wayside.

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

Whew! I thought people might think it too silly.

I think it works.

This is a tad troubling to me because it almost implies that the “default state” of every marriage is to be producing babies as often as possible, with the married couple’s intentions only coming into play with regard to whether they think they can handle another baby just then. The woman’s role then becomes that of a, for lack of a better term, baby-making machine who must then subjugate every other aspiration she might have otherwise had to the process of having and raising as many kids as possible.

It shouldn’t be troubling. As a Catholic couple we should loving accept babies as they come, however, we have total or periodic abstinence for those times when we need to space or limit births. The ideal is accepting (generosity), the exception is spacing. Review the CC on Responsible Parenthood. The Church doesn’t teach that we must have all the children possible, but that we must prayerfully discern whether we can add to our family. That doesn’t mean that a couple enters marriage with the goal of using Fertility Awareness to limit children to zero.

Except the timing of the act itself has been changed to ensure that one step in the process is naturally missing rather than artificially missing (as in the case of oral contraceptives which prevent ovulation – which also doesn’t alter the act itself, by the way).
The use of Fertility Awareness to space children does nothing to the ACT itself–each act is still ordered toward procreation, even if the woman is naturally infertile. The natural state of the woman during her cycle ranges from not fertile to fertile to not fertile. That’s the way a woman’s body works. No alteration is necessary for infertility to occur. Actually bcpills DO alter the act–it creates a chemical and physical barrier to procreation. The pill alters the lining of the uterus so that babies can’t implant should breakthrough ovulation happen AND the chemical barrier of no ovulation. The woman’s state is unnaturally infertile and the chance of fertilizing an egg and then it not implanting is very troublesome to Catholic–it’s potentially abortofacient. This is another good resource about contraceptives: catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Which is equally true in the case of ABC usage. No ABC method is 100% sure.

But NFP is not licit because there is a failure rate. It’s licit because NFP doesn’t alter the act. Couples are allowed to engage or NOT engage in sex at any time.

The constant reference to “design” brings up an interesting sidebar: From what paradigm of creation are you speaking – special creation or evolution? (Or does it matter either way?)
Biblical paradigm. Be fruitful and multiply. The 2 shall become one. Part of the human design is the complimentary nature of male and female. They work together to co create life with God. This nature of creation is how procreation works and is the essence of the marital bond. Sex is sacramental–a renewal of the marriage vows each and every time.

All very true…but what is the focus of the NFP user who decides to have sex only when infertile? How does the NFP user answer the question, “I wanted to have sex with my spouse during an infertile period because…”?

I wanted to? Same as “I want to have sex with my spouse during the fertile time because…I wanted to.” Sometimes, situations dictate we wait for what we want, though. Sometimes this waiting is momentary, sometimes it’s for weeks, sometimes it’s forever. Maybe I don’t understand your question here?

I think that depends on what you actually want the act to accomplish, doesn’t it?
Not really. The act is broken when contraception is used. The natural order of the act is altered. NFP doesn’t alter the act. The couple has a right to use any part of their fertility cycle, both fertile and naturaly non fertile.

I’m going to have to save this for later, because it’s difficult to read on it’s side.

I know I had to hold my laptop sideways. I think there is a way to turn the screen though…control key + alt key plus arrow Left that does it on my computer!
–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Ugh…please don’t respond within the body of the quote. I get nothing when I try to quote you in response.

The Church doesn’t teach that we must have all the children possible, but that we must prayerfully discern whether we can add to our family.

But that really amounts to the same thing, doesn’t it? Only “possible” is mitigated by the couple’s understanding of whether now is the “right time” or not. So, a couple gets married, and from that point forward, the couple’s mission is, “Have kids. Delay as necessary, but otherwise have as many as possible.” Correct?

With regard to the article (which I really enjoyed, by the way):

What is the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse? It seems to me to be quite clear. It’s for two things. It’s for babies and it’s for bonding. And that’s what happens when you have sexual intercourse – you have babies and you bond. My view is, if you don’t want to have babies and you don’t want to bond, then you shouldn’t be having sexual intercourse.

What if you want to bond, but you don’t want babies?

The Christian view is that…God…wants souls. He wants lots of them. “Go forth and multiply and fill the face of the earth.”

Oh, this is amusing like you wouldn’t believe. If you could only see how the Fathers would have reacted to such an idea…

Now, a little piece of evidence for this is what most women will tell you that their greatest sexual desires are when they’re ovulating. Just like God giving you a shove in the back.

Actually, that was one of the evidences presented before the Papal Birth Control Commission in support of allowing contraception to married couples. If sex is designed by God for bonding as well as for making babies, and if God has given a woman the strongest urge to bond with her husband at the time of ovulation, then how is it consistent with God’s will that the married couple should totally resist an urge implanted by God to drive them together?

You know, God did create new human life before in different ways. He made the first man, the first male, out of mud.

Interesting pointer to my earlier question about “special creation vs. evolution” (which you kinda avoided rather than answered, by the way, unless you were saying “it doesn’t matter”).

Pope John Paul II…says that the sexual act was meant to be an act of total self-giving. You want to give everything you’ve got to someone you love. And when you’re withholding your fertility, you’re withholding something that belongs in the sexual act, something that actually belongs there. To withhold it means that you’re not giving of yourself completely…that’s what a contraceptive is. It says, “I love you but I don’t want a very important part of yourself here, something that actually belongs in this act.”

And when the other partner agrees to contracept, he/she is saying, “I don’t want it there, either. You don’t want it, and I don’t want it. We are of one mind with regard to this.”

Think of the difference between these two phrases: “I want to have sex with you.” and “I want to have a baby with you.”

And which phrase is the NFP couple using when they have sex during the infertile period?

You are expressing the desire for an incredible bond with a person when all of your acts of sexual intercourse leave open the ordination to procreation. Whether it’s literal or symbolic, at least it’s there and preserved in some sense.

Sure, it’s preserved in the mechanics, but not in the intent. But which is more important?

Let me state my argument again, just to make sure I’m not just coming across simply as arguing for ABC and against NFP, because that’s not what I’m trying to do. My argument is that the early Church Fathers believed that it was venially sinful for a married couple to engage in sex without having procreation as a conscious objective of the act. In other words:

A) To do what makes babies because you want to make babies is okay.
B) To do what makes babies exclusively for other reasons besides making babies is not okay…but because you’re married, it’s excused because that’s part of what marriage is there for (i.e., to provide a remedy for concupiscence).

Now, let’s look at what another poster recently said:

Look at the evolution of the “ends” of marriage. Is marriage only or primarily for procreation? Sure…for much of our tradition. But now the Church teaches that sexual relations in marriage are not only for procreation, or for the avoidance of sinfulness, but also for the good of the spouses.

What I’m arguing is precisely what this poster has observed – there has been a change in what the Church teaches about sexual relations in marriage. Before: sex is for making babies, but if you have to let the pressure off, you’re excused. After: sex is for making babies, but it’s also for bonding couples, too! To which the ECFs would have replied, “Say WHAT?” (Remember, most of the ECFs didn’t believe that sexual intercourse was part of God’s original – i.e., pre-Fall – design for propogating the race!)

I wanted to?..Maybe I don’t understand your question here?

What was the intent, if not to have a baby?

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

But that really amounts to the same thing, doesn’t it? Only “possible” is mitigated by the couple’s understanding of whether now is the “right time” or not. So, a couple gets married, and from that point forward, the couple’s mission is, “Have kids. Delay as necessary, but otherwise have as many as possible.” Correct?

No, the Church teaches the purpose of marriage is twofold–both for bonding and babies. They come as a package deal. That doesn’t mean that every couple’s goal is to have as many children as possible. We can avoid for legitmate reasons via Fertility Awareness methods or total abstinence. Also the couple’s mission is to get to heaven.

What if you want to bond, but you don’t want babies?

Well, babies are always part of the equation, even if you are using NFP to avoid. They are intertwined. We may use the infertile period for bonding, however, the possibility of being able to create life is always there.

Oh, this is amusing like you wouldn’t believe. If you could only see how the Fathers would have reacted to such an idea…

I’m sure the ECF’s would be amazed by the internet, phone, hymns, the current OF of the liturgy and many other things. The growth and development of married love is not a bad thing. Many marriages during the EFC’s time were arranged marriages. They might also be amazed that we don’t do that any longer. I think you ignore the fact that the Magisterium is actually ALLOWED to continue thinking about moral issues and able to develop them as time goes on. This “change” you are so bothered about doesn’t negate what the EFC’s said–marriage and sex is for procreation and for the partners. That some thought sex was sinful isn’t the main part of their teaching, that I can see.

Actually, that was one of the evidences presented before the Papal Birth Control Commission in support of allowing contraception to married couples. If sex is designed by God for bonding as well as for making babies, and if God has given a woman the strongest urge to bond with her husband at the time of ovulation, then how is it consistent with God’s will that the married couple should totally resist an urge implanted by God to drive them together?

Because we aren’t animals. We can choose to have sex at any point of a woman’s cycle. While the biological urge is certainly present, this doesn’t make sex at other times any less bonding. Sex for humans is both physical AND mental.

Interesting pointer to my earlier question about “special creation vs. evolution” (which you kinda avoided rather than answered, by the way, unless you were saying “it doesn’t matter”).

I didn’t avoid it . God created us MALE and FEMALE. He made us complimentary in our physical bodies and psycologically as well. I don’t think evolution comes into this at all. We were created this way by God. However, our understanding of married love has grown to greater depths.

And when the other partner agrees to contracept, he/she is saying, “I don’t want it there, either. You don’t want it, and I don’t want it. We are of one mind with regard to this.”

And agreement doesn’t make something moral…all the cool kids are doing it

And which phrase is the NFP couple using when they have sex during the infertile period?

Both–or I want to have sex with you and a baby could be possible.

Sure, it’s preserved in the mechanics, but not in the intent. But which is more important?

The intent to “control births” is not inherantly sinful–though it could be. It’s HOW that is accomplished. ABC is an immoral way to "control births’. Total or periodic abstinence is a moral way to accomplish this. Now I know your ECF’s are having a hemmorage, but this is the teaching of the Church and I submit to Her Authority.

Let me state my argument again, just to make sure I’m not just coming across simply as arguing for ABC and against NFP, snip for length.

Again, the ECF’s are great, but we now have a fuller understanding of marriage. I’m not even 100% sure that what you say about the ECF’s is 100% accurate. I don’t have the time to research it right now–family obligations and this post is already taking too much time…

What I’m arguing is precisely what this poster has observed – there has been a change in what the Church teaches about sexual relations in marriage. Before: sex is for making babies, but if you have to let the pressure off, you’re excused. After: sex is for making babies, but it’s also for bonding couples, too! To which the ECFs would have replied, “Say WHAT?” (Remember, most of the ECFs didn’t believe that sexual intercourse was part of God’s original – i.e., pre-Fall – design for propogating the race!)

And I say “so what?”. There has been a development of the understanding in marital love and sex. It’s deepened. It’s more accruate if you look at the state of man and woman that God created (at creation) and Jesus raised to a sacrament (wedding at Cana). The language of the Bible often uses marital love to explain ideas. The whole Song of Solomon, for instance…

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb96.htm (Marriage is Central Point of the Sacrament of Creation)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html (GOD is love, encyclical)

What was the intent, if not to have a baby?

To bond with each other with the act being ordered toward procreation–therefore open to babymaking…
Now I have to go be a mom…

 

[newbetx]

To the first- YES. To the second- YES!

As we’re taught in sex ed 101, NFP is a mildly successful form of Birth Control. Just because you don’t use plastic doesn’t mean you aren’t trying to have pregnancy-free sex. It just means that you’re not likely to be successful. Rules about birth control are in part designed to increase the population of Church members, so of course the Church is resistant to changing it’s rules about ABC. Still, the Church’s anti-ABC position is nonsensical and damaging (especially in countries facing AIDS and STI epidemics).

Thank you for posting valuable, intriguing information!

Chastity, not condoms solves the AIDS and STI problems. The concept of “safe” casual sex is the issue… not the church’s stance on condoms. Chastity within a marriage is the Church’s stance on BC, not a mechnaism to increase the church’s numbers. We have RCIA, RE and evangelization to increase our numbers. Comments like these are very old and come from very ignorant or biggoted people. I would know. I was once convinced they were true, too.

It is ABC that is damaging to most of us. The decline in moral standards and respect for one another over time has proven that. It can bring one to a point of selfishness, and give one a false sense of total self control. In fact, it’s the opposite. ABC provides a continued loss of self control. Sex then becomes something to have rather than to give. Responsibility of the act diminishes. Eventually, unplanned pregnancy becomes a problem, something that needs a remedy. And that would be abortion.

 

[newbetx]

My daughter dearly loved mousetrap! And yes, if she got the chance to make the trap run without a mouse within range, she would do it… First inclination was for us to say… “NO. don’t do it, it won’t catch a mouse.” And we were wrong to say that… What is the object of the game? To catch a mouse, true, but making the mechanism go when there was little chance of catching a mouse was not wrong.

If you come from the perspective that the only reason to have sex is to “make a baby.” Then your analogy makes sense… however, the chruch does not and has not taught that. Sex is not just for making babies. So to ONLY do so to intend to have a baby, is no more than animalistic.

So my question is, “What makes the disposition of an NFP user’s heart any different from that of an ABC user’s heart?” Or, what makes the person who activates the trap when there’s no mouse on the mark any different internally from the person who sabotages the trap? Where is the “conscious direction toward procreation” (or mouse-catching) in either person – the ABC user or the NFP user?

–Mike

It MIGHT not be different on an individual act from the perspective of not wanting a pregnancy. Can you have your cake and eat it, too? Assuming a 100% effectiveness with either ABC and NFP for the moment… With ABC, the answer is yes. “You can have the best of both worlds! Unlimited sex without worry of pregnancy untill YOU want one.” Well, with NFP, we know it’s not unlimited, right? One has to give up sex at times. Where is the sacrafice with ABC? While one can use NFP to avoid conception for selfish reasons, it requires unselfishness to work. Not true for ABC…

Again, Mike… looking only at the tree (pregnancy free sex), it can not appear any differnent. But in the larger picture of the true value of sex for a couple, it makes a big difference.

Any action to frustrate the mechanism of the mousetrap is cheating. Purposeful breaking of the chain makes playing the game a lie. A lie of what kind? Is it OK to lie to your spouse if she says it’s OK? And what about God? Is it OK to lie to God?

It’s about “three to get married.” What is missing in your analogy is the role we are to play as husband and wife with respect to the relationship with God. It’s beyond a relationship between only two persons. We are called to love each other as Christ loves us and how He loves his Church. When we cheat each other or God by making the act one of self or mutual satisfaction without putting the result into the hands of God, we are living a lie… As we know about sin, this will eventually cost us dearly.

So how is using NFP permissable? It’s based on the concept that sex is a gift from God. We, as a married couple, are to use it to bring us closer to Him and to provide a method to renew our sacrament we have made to each other. To emulate Christ’s love for us… And that was Total, Free, Faithful and Fruitful. If we really love each other, that love may provide a fruit of the labor (pun intended). And we must accept that going into it. ABC is an affront to all of them. NFP is permissible because while sex is a gift, we are allowed to determine when, with His guidance, to use it. If we have other challenges, we are called to forego the act for the benefit of the family. It is not required to give it up completely. That would still be self-denial which is far different from what happens when ABC is used.

Pregnancy avoidance by ABC vs NFP methods can not be judged by the result but by how sex is approached. It has to do with what kind of sex the couple is having. There is a difference. TOB talked much about that difference.

 

[newbetx]

Finally finished TOB. Reviewing my notes now. Was most impressed by the beginning, talking about the original significance of marriage as it relates to the body. The idea of body as the visible sacrament of the person was very interesting, especially as it would later tie in to the “language of the body” concept. Still, the connection of the theology of the body with Humanae Vitae seemed labored, as if what was being sought was a way to convincingly argue that married sex is a good thing in itself rather than something necessary for procreation and the relief of concupiscence. The anti-contraception arguments weren’t directly tied back to the more profound insights at the beginning, so I was left feeling like TOB was incomplete – like the circle didn’t close as neatly as I’d hoped it would.

–Mike

Yes. I can imagine you might feel this way… JP II was talking at a very theological level… It takes some digesting to pull it all together. Like a bible study, a TOB study is required to get the most out of the “data.” The Bible tells us much, but if we don’t understand it’s point of reference, we can make the wrong interpretation.

Much of TOB is based on “In the beginning, it was not so.” A presentation that, while we are not free from original sin, we can, if we so desire, attempt to go back to the relationship Adam and Eve had. And we are called to do so. However, we are now also called to immitate Christ. And Free, Total, Faithful and Fruitful service is the basis of our marital relationship.

I’m not sure where to point you next. JP II has a few books. There are many good instructors of TOB. I will point you to some free MP3’s from Father Ricardo, that I like. I can’t possibly type 4 hours of speach in a post to help convey the message… so I’ll leave it up to you.

I’m pretty busy these days, And I’ve already gone over my allotment of CAF for the day… I will come back and read the rest of your posts this week sometime… But I thought you went into TOB looking for your answer to question #3 from the ECFs… What is your feeling about that “teaching.” after reading TOB?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

And after much of this discussion, it doesn’t appear that the CC has anything coherent to say to a married couple that simply doesn’t like children. That its thinkers on either side of the clergy/laity divide don’t seem to think such sentiments conceivable is a little depressing; it sort of short-circuits the possibility of discussing anything in that line. Nearly all the arguments for/against contraception seem to boil down to “you, I, we, and the bystanders all agree that everyone’s simply dotty over the little tykes and can’t imagine not experiencing decades of their continuous company: now, by what practices and at what rate shall you & your spouse crank them out?”

 

[diggerdomer]

And after much of this discussion, it doesn’t appear that the CC has anything coherent to say to a married couple that simply doesn’t like children.

Yes it does.

However, if the couple disagrees with the Catholic understanding of marriage, part of which believes that an openness to children is part of the nature of marriage, well then they probably aren’t in the best place to “listen” to what the Catholic Church believes. Which is fine. But if they want to celebrate a Catholic sacramental marriage, they would not be able to do so if they intended to have no children. This is just part of what the Church believes and professes; procreation is part of marriage by its very nature.

Cheers

 

[LittleDeb]

Mike,
You theory still has a glaring hole in it that you haven’t answered.

*Either infertile sex is not *sinful or knowledge of fertility is condemned.
**
It takes knowledge to sin. The ECF you keep quoting use the word ‘pleasure’ over and over. It is indulging in pleasure for pleasure’s own sake that they dismiss as a venial sin (not mortal) within marriage. Just because I happen to be infertile right now, I am not required to abstain, even according to the ECFs. I am not sinning while engaging in sex simply by having knowledge of my fertility.