Tough contraception questions

[Fortiterinre]

Contraception questions are always tough because they involve looking at very specific and intimate situations and then linking them back to first principles. We can easily get lost in the specific cases, but the first principles do not change. Human beings made in the image of God are called to live in that image, open to life in their relations and never doing direct evil even to gain a good. “Something must be done about the AIDS epidemic in Africa” is a variation of other statements like, “Something must be done for horrible genetic diseases” that lead to arguments in favor of stem cell embryo research, cloning, etc. Doing just a little bit of evil could get us a lot of what might feel like good, but first principles will never allow us to do this.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Fortiterinre:

Contraception questions are always tough because they involve looking at very specific and intimate situations and then linking them back to first principles. We can easily get lost in the specific cases, but the first principles do not change. Human beings made in the image of God are called to live in that image, open to life in their relations and never doing direct evil even to gain a good. “Something must be done about the AIDS epidemic in Africa” is a variation of other statements like, “Something must be done for horrible genetic diseases” that lead to arguments in favor of stem cell embryo research, cloning, etc. Doing just a little bit of evil could get us a lot of what might feel like good, but first principles will never allow us to do this.

Awesome. My post of the day!

 

[Leo44]

Not to be trite but God has already given us a way to prevent Aids, all we have to do is listen to him and if we don’t listen to him and get it HE has a cure!!!

 

[1ke]

Thepeug:

1. Unless a cure is found, contraception is one of the only ways at present to stop the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Having taken both a course on Africa and a course on AIDS and public policy, I’ve seen the extent to which the disease has ravaged an entire continent, leaving children orphaned and families destitute. Is the use of condoms in such a situation permitted by the Church? In some cultures in Afica, abstinence is not even considered. Is it better that people in such cultures die before using a condom? This seems a little extreme.

Chris

I disagree totally. Contraception is NOT the answer to eradicating AIDS.

I wrote to you in another thread about principles of objective truth. What I mean by that is the “God’s eye view” of things. There is right and wrong that is objective, not subjective, and it is knowable. So, again what is the basic principle here?

Contraception is in-and-of-itself intrinsically disordered. It is not a matter of the church “allowing” or not allowing contraception. The Church can only teach the reveal truth given by God. Contraception is always and everywhere immoral, therefore, the Church can but teach the truth.

So, fornication is a sin, adultery is a sin, contraception (condom use) is a sin. The Church cannot teach how to sin “better” or more “effectively”. She can teach the Truth about these things, why they are wrong, and why they have not only temporal consequences but also eternal ones. The church cares for our souls. In your example you ask isn’t it better to use contraception and fornicate than to contract AIDS.

So, I ask you-- if a friend told you they were going to rob a bank would you say “here, take this mask and use it so you will be safer and have less chance of getting identified and caught”. Better Bank Robbing, yes, I can see the educational campaign sponsored by W.H.O. I mean, how ridiculous is this example? What’s the difference? If someone is going to commit fornication, your solution is to hand them a piece of rubber and say, “well, here… let’s lessen the risk of getting caught”. What a true friend should do is what is REALLY best for the person-- which is to teach the TRUTH: what they are doing is wrong and can kill you and I will have no part in helping you! I care about you too much to patronize you and deceive you.

Certainly AIDS is a scourge. It is sad that people engage in behaviors that lead to contracting this disease. The solution is not to teach lies (that condoms are ok). They’ve been doing that for 20 years. So therefore we have this epidemic in places where people have been convinced that all they need to do is continue with their risky, immoral behavior but use a condom and they will be “safe”. That’s a lie, an obvious one judging by the state of things.

The solution is always to teach truth and do God’s will: fidelity within marriage and abstinence before marriage. Uganda is a shining beacon of success in this regard, where they have made huge progress through an abstinence only campaign.

 

[1ke]

Thepeug:

1. I struggle with the prohibition of contraception in marriage. I understand that marriage is meant to be both unitive and procreative, but abstaining from sex limits the unitive aspect. Primarily, how is NFP any different than using a condom? If both methods are shown to be nearly 100 % effective when used properly, how is NFP any more “open to the possibility of conception” than a condom? In both instances, the couple is trying to DELIBERATELY avoid pregnancy, and both methods allow for the possibility, however slight, of conception.

Chris

Ok, first let’s start with this. NFP and Contraception are both distinct subsets of Birth Control If this were a Venn Diagram, the space would be Birth Control and NFP and Contraception would be two non-intersecting circles within the space. Some people have the idea that the Church teaches against birth control. Birth control is nothing more than spacing or planning one’s family. And, the Church does not teach this is wrong to do within proper conscience formation. What the Church DOES teach is that there are moral and immoral ways to space and plan one’s family.

Abstaining from sex is not immoral. Contracepting is. Contracepting is an action that before, during, or after the marital act (sexual intercourse) attempts to alter the act and make it sterile. NFP is only observing fertility signs and deciding to engage or refrain from the marital act. Every time you engage in the act you do nothing to alter it and render it sterile. If you choose not to have sex, you’ve done nothing-- there is no directive to have sex every day. But, when you do, you do not alter the act.

Keep in mind, it’s not the totality of the marriage but EACH sex act that must remain unaltered and procreative in its objective meaning.

There are reasons behind this. Marriage is a Sacrament, and the marital act is the renewal of the sacramental covenant. The marital act has a meaning outside the physical. God sanctified the act and made it the way that spouses engage in the Sacrament and receive grace. Remember, in Catholic teaching a Sacrament does what it signifies-- so the Eucharist give actual grace each time you receive it. But, not (as is so eloquently explained by St Paul in 1 Corinthians) when taken unworthily. When the Eucharist is taken unworthily (meaning without following God’s directives), the result is sickness and death (1 Cor). So, when the marital sacrament is egaged in unworthily by profaning the act with contraception, it also thwarts the grace that God is trying to impart, and is an unworthy act.

This escapes many in the secular world because to them marriage is not a Sacrament. They don’t understand the big deal, sex is just recreation… that is a distorted, incomplete, and very sad view.

The primary end of Marriage is procreation. Each marital act is both unitive and procreative by its nature. However, unity is not only to be found within sex so I disagree with your premise that limiting intercourse limits the unitive aspect of marriage. What of the ill, infirm, and aged? Our sex-saturated culture cannot understand that sex is NOT the end all and be all.

Blah blah blah… I could go on, but I would recommend the study of the Catholic understanding of Sacraments, then reading something like Theology of the Body by Christopher West.

 

[1ke]

Thepeug:

These are questions that I definitely plan to ask once I start RCIA next semester, but they’ve been rolling around in my head for awhile, so I want to see what you guys think.

God bless,

Chris

I am also a convert, and RCIA programs vary widely. In some parishes the volunteers are not much more knowledgeable than the inquirers… in my parish we had the luxury of having guest speakers, including university professors. Even so, people are all over the board as far as what they already know, what faith background they come from, etc, and in some ways RCIA is teaching to the lowest common denominator.

I converted in 1992. I studied A LOT on my own. I bought lots of books, led bible study, and read a lot of church documents like encyclicals. Honestly I was about 5 years into being Catholic before I even started grappling with the contraception question. It was as a result of becoming active in pro-life work that I finally began to read, read, read and understand the teaching on contraception.

I came from the premise that the Church taught Truth and could not teach error. I got to that log on the raft first. Therefore, I knew that if I disagreed with church teaching (which I did in the case of contraception) then the defect was in my understanding not in church teaching. If you can get to that point-- then God will help you, slowly but surely, to come to understand the teachings. The Church is SO rich in teaching, and some of it is very deep, and some of it hinges on understanding other parts. Like the relationship between Sacrament and contraception, or the Trinity to the marital covenant.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and you will learn slowly but keep at it! That’s the important thing.

 

[Runner1]

I am in a similar situation as the original poster, having recently joined the catholic faith and although I have accepted the churches teachings on the subject, I dont believe I fully understand them.

Please let me know where the fallacy is, in this line of thinking.

If God made everything, and defined the natural laws that govern this universe, how can one make the distinction of what is natural, and where does one draw the line, and what justification can man made in making that judgment.

I don’t know who invented the pill or other contreceptives, but I dont believe that its invention was a sinnful invention. If God defined the rules for how the body regulates itself, what is immorral about determining how to affect its function. If the invention, discovery of such function of a pill or other device is merely the manupulation of the laws that God himself put into place, what could be wrong with working within the biological laws he put in place in the first place. Who is to say what rules God did not intend to break in the first place.

Please dont take me wrong, I understand that things in the Bible have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. What I am questioning are the teachings based in inference where it seems like the thought have been interjected by human views on morality, and where it appears to be shades of gray when in comes to application.

That being said, if a moral reason, exists to use NFP after thorough and deliberation, why not use any other device that only manipulates the laws that God enacted.

If the thought is that it is immorral to “spill seed”, I could hardly believe that it was sinnful to have a nocturnal emision since it is beyond consious control.

If it is the intention that is morally objectional, I ask why is it. God made the rules, why do his rules not allow for man to understand how to use them to his advantage. How can we say it is immoral to use this knowdlege and not other such knowledge that effects biological function. If we have headaches, illnesses, or other maladies we take drugs to that end. We take vitamins, fat burners, nicotine and alcohol to change our mood and feelings. What is so wrong about a married couple deciding to try postpone pregnancy and still enjoy intercourse. Some will say its a contridiction, giving but not completely. I truly do not see it that way. I dont see intercourse as a means to an end. I see it as a display of love and expression of intimacy.

Before you beat up on my too much, I want to remind you this is a philosophical argument. I am practicing the churches teachings as my wife believes in the churches teaching completely. In respect for my wife, I respect her views. Also this is her account, so dont beat up on her in other forums too.

 

[felra]

Runner1:

Please let me know where the fallacy is, in this line of thinking.

That being said, if a moral reason, exists to use NFP after thorough and deliberation, why not use any other device that only manipulates the laws that God enacted.

If it is the intention that is morally objectional, I ask why is it.

Before you beat up on my too much, I want to remind you this is a philosophical argument.

From a human reasoning and philosophical argument, it makes sense and is logical to bypass the Laws of God that govern the design of man and introduce contraceptive technology into the marital union. However, man choice’s are governed and known/judged by moral laws as God created man in the higher order creation as rational, willful beings capable on knowing what is right and wrong. Intention does not change what is intrinsically evil (disordered against the natural law design of man made in the image and likeness of God).

Radically, the natural law consists of one supreme and universal principle, from which are derived all our natural moral obligations or duties…No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law…“Observe the rational order established and sanctioned by God”; “Manifest in your life the image of God impressed on your rational nature.” The exposition of St. Thomas is at once the most simple and philosophic. (Catholic Encyclopedia).

“The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399).

“one may not do evil that good may result from it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church” (CCC 1755-1756).

 

[BibleReader]

The moral difference between NFP and ABC is the same reason why 73.5% of Catholic church-goers opt for immoral ABC while 3% of Catholic church-goers opt for moral NFP, according to a federally-financed study in the 1990s. ABC affirmatively seeks to kill the life process, leaving the woman’s entire cycle available for sexual pleasure intentionally rendered *** risk-free***; while NFP leaves the life process alive, leaving only a part of the woman’s cycle available for sexual pleasure rendered only substantially risk free.

ABC is a subtle form of homicide, to steal sexual pleasure from God. NFP is not. The only risk-free sexual pleasure partakers of NFP experience is that which has been allocated to the couple by God before the act.

 

[Rascal]

Runner1:

That being said, if a moral reason, exists to use NFP after thorough and deliberation, why not use any other device that only manipulates the laws that God enacted.

Ask the question the other way around. If NFP works well, improves marriage and can plan families as well as any alternative, why use anything else?

I suspect you get an answer similar to BibleReader’s post.

 

[martino]

Runner1:

Please let me know where the fallacy is, in this line of thinking.

…if a moral reason, exists to use NFP after thorough deliberation, why not use any other device that only manipulates the laws that God enacted.

Here is your mistake, you have falsely concluded that NFP “manipulates the laws that God enacted”, which is actually the exact opposite of the truth. The reason NFP is permitted (while other forms of birth control are prohibited) is precisely because it does not manipulate God’s laws, it respects them!

 

[Thepeug]

Scott Waddell:

If you learned the person you were about have sex with had AIDS, would you still do it even with the condom? Answer no to this and you can see that it is thoughoughly disgusting to tell Africans to just use condoms.

Wow, all of this information has given me a lot to think about. Scott, your question raises another point: if you’re married and contract AIDS through, say, a blood transfusion, are you never allowed to have sex again for fear of transmitting the disease to your spouse? I’ve heard that contraception for medical reasons is morally acceptable; is this true? If so, would the above scenario qualify as a legitimate medical reason to use contraception?

Also, believe it or not, there are people who are willing to have sex with their spouse even if they know that he or she has AIDS. An AIDS-stricken couple came to my class the other day (the husband has AIDS, the wife does not), and a student asked whether or not they have sex. The couple replied that they take every precaution to avoid transmission (two condoms, making sure that there are no cuts on the body, no contact with bodily fluids other than saliva, etc.), but they are still willing to run the risk. In this case, the couple is not trying to prevent the transmission of life, but they are trying to prevent the transmission of disease within the bonds of marriage. I think this distinction was made by one of the Catholic Spanish bishops recently. If sex is an essential part of the marriage relationship, must couples deny themselves sex if one of them contracts AIDS? Again, would contraceptve use in this instance fall under the category of medical use, and therefore be morally acceptable?

God bless,

Chris

 

[1ke]

Thepeug:

Wow, all of this information has given me a lot to think about. Scott, your question raises another point: if you’re married and contract AIDS through, say, a blood transfusion, are you never allowed to have sex again for fear of transmitting the disease to your spouse? I’ve heard that contraception for medical reasons is morally acceptable; is this true? If so, would the above scenario qualify as a legitimate medical reason to use contraception?

Chris

No, there is no such thing as “contraception for medical reasons”.

I believe you have the principle of double effect confused with “contraception for medical purposes”. If a person were to take a medicine for a condition, and that medicine had a primary intent of treating the disease and a secondary effect of rendering the person sterile (temporarily or permanently) then that is a moral use of a medicine.

So, if a person were being treated for leukemia and the medical treatment (radiation and chemo) made them permanently sterile, there is no problem. The intent is not to contracept but to eradicate the leukemia.

In your scenario, the person’s intent is contraception. It is not allowed.

 

[Benadam]

UKcatholicGuy:

In response to your first question, I’m not positive what the “official” Church position is on using condoms to combat AIDS. .

Condoms as a necessity to combat aids presumes I would think, that abstinence isn’t a reasonable choice.

 

[Genesis315]

Benadam:

Condoms as a necessity to combat aids presumes I would think, that abstinence isn’t a reasonable choice.

I find it disheartening that there are many people out there who dehumanize those in Africa and elsewhere by stating that self-control is not a possibility for them, like they are some sort of animals.

 

[Thepeug]

Genesis315:

I find it disheartening that there are many people out there who dehumanize those in Africa and elsewhere by stating that self-control is not a possibility for them, like they are some sort of animals.

I see you’re point.

 

[mercygate]

Genesis315:

I find it disheartening that there are many people out there who dehumanize those in Africa and elsewhere by stating that self-control is not a possibility for them, like they are some sort of animals.

 

[bureen]

First I would like to respond that the spread the AIDS has probably increased due to the use of condoms as well as the UN and other secular agencies foisting Depo-Prevara on women. Dr. Chris Kahlenborn has written on this link in his book “Breast Cancer - its link to abortion and the birth-control pill”. I highly recommend this book for a host of info on many topics related to the ramifications of contraception and abortion. While it may seem “cruel” to deny the use of condoms evil can never be done so that good may result and we know contraception is intrinsically evil. Secondly as for the difference between NFP and contraception, what is the difference between and abortion and a miscarriage? The result is the same but one is an act of man and the other of God. Maybe we need to rename NFP, instead of “birth control” maybe “self-control”. Ha. To call it birth control or contraception betrays its true beauty and truth of human sexuality.

“Right is right if nobody is right and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong”. Fulton Sheen

 

[BibleReader]

I have one more thing to add to my comment above.

Could it be that this…

’Until I began to explore the Catholic Church, I never thought twice about contraception. Far from an “intrinsic evil”, it seemed like a responsible thing for young people to use.'

…was your original perspective because you lacked perspective.

My wife definitely views my masculinity as more “honorable” and “maculine,” and our intimacy more as love-“making” rather than as “sexual release,” because I exercise dignified sexual self-control with NFP.

Monthly fertility is “in and of” the wife’s sexuality. By-passing that fertility with ABC, to get-at “risk-free nookie,” is to not tolerate, rather than to tolerate, an aslect of your wife’s sexuality.

Such subtle philosophical concerns might account for why divorce boomed as use of ABC boomed in our society. Instead of sexual n and marital Nirvana, ABC seemed to come with sexual chaos.

 

[maltagirl]

My husband and I practice NFP. From what I can remember when we took the class, NFP does unify couples and assists couples in either achieving or avoiding pregnancy in God’s way. The woman was given a cycle by God for a reason. Our instructor’s explained that during the times of fertility the couple may choose to achieve pregnancy by having relations or choose to avoid pregnancy by abstaining and working on the other aspects of their relationship. My husband and I have found this to be true. This was challenging at first on both of us however now we realize how blessed we truly are compared to other couples who don’t get to experience these times of abstinance. God gave my husband and I a specific time to learn about one another. I find we have a better marriage than most.

Our Pastoral Associate explained during one of our premarital sessions that having relations with your spouse is about experiencing God through each other.

I think many couples unfortunately have got caught up in what the secular culture says about having relations in a marriage. I think many believe the sexual release is important however they are really missing out on experiencing God and the greatest gifts he has waiting for us.