Understanding the Truth in Regards to Contraception

[Abu]

HeWhoMsntBeNamd #9
My main beef with all of this starts with Onan, and (at least according to this article) that seems to be where the Church originally got its teaching on contraception. What I don’t understand about Onan, is how it can apply today. Yes, I know scripture shouldn’t have to repeat itself, but bear with me here - if MY brother died today, I would certainly not be expected to bear children with his widow. Not only because I don’t love my brother’s wife, but also because I’m married myself. To do so would be to commit adultery. Therefore, how can the Church today apply a lesson from a scenario that would be immoral today, and hold it up as an absolute moral, natural truth? Additionally, I don’t understand how the Church is able to come up with the lesson that it did from this story, when the story seems to be more about violating a law that, once again, would be a monstrosity today.

There is no legitimate “beef” – God killed Onan because he committed a gravely immoral act. That is the fact.
“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” (Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii, 1930).

**ONAN
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN): **
The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text – spilled his seed on the ground – and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church – and nature – that contraception is mortally sinful.
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

Contraception is wrong because a person deliberately thwarts the marital act by putting a barrier against conception.

Clear cut:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

 

[mark_a]

My main beef with all of this starts with Onan, and (at least according to this article) that seems to be where the Church originally got its teaching on contraception.

Actually, the Church teaching comes from Jewish tradition, which comes from the oral tradition about Onan’s sin.

And if this link hasn’t already been posted, this article does a brilliant job of explaining that fact:
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

The reason contraception is sinful is because separating the the uniative and procreative aspects of sex is wrong.

Go ahead and think of any deviant sexual behavior:

• beastiality? It separates the uniative from the procreative.
• rape? It separates the uniative from the procreative.
• homosexual activity? It separates the uniative from the procreative.

adultery?. . . . pedophilia?. . . . incest?. . . . .prostitution?. . . . gang rape?. . . .necrophilia?. . . . bisexual activity? . . . . . . .

Well, you get the picture.

 

[Steven10]

Yes, but you still have a moral duty to avoid sin. Confession is not an “easy out” – you must genuinely detest your sin and thus resolve to avoid it. If you keep your fingers crossed and plan on contracepting that evening while you’re in the confession booth, your penance as such is invalid and you remain guilty of mortal sin.

But comments like yours are designed to keep people trapped in sin because it seems to assume that a person can’t be honest in their desire to avoid contraception while still being in a situation where it is sometimes used.

For a start, I think confession is to be taken seriously, but it is an “easy out” because there is nothing else that you can do to restore your relationship with God. How simple is it to go to confession and ask for your sins to be forgiven? What else can you do? Jesus initiated the “easy out” to free people from their sins and be with him. Of course it has to be taken with the upmost seriousness but I wouldn’t be brave enough to tell people to stay away from confession because I believe their penance is likely to be invalid. Shouldn’t God alone be the judge of that or at least the priest who is hearing the confession?

My opinion is that contracepting is just like any other sin. One event is not tied to another and so if a person goes into confession genuinely not wanting to use contraception again and places it in God’s hands that there is not much extra they can do to change the situation (eg. they don’t initiate sex where contraception is likely, refuse to buy contraception, ask God for help to make their spouse see that NFP is a better way to go or by some other miracle change the situation) then this is true repentance with hope for no sin in the future.

Why would any other sins which may or may not happen again in the future get an easier treatment in confession?

 

[ahs]

But comments like yours are designed to keep people trapped in sin because it seems to assume that a person can’t be honest in their desire to avoid contraception while still being in a situation where it is sometimes used…

Isn’t that a bit contradictory? If a person is honest in their desire to avoid contraception, they won’t be “in a situation where it is sometimes used” because they will know it is wrong and will not use it.

Christ calls us to perfection. He gave us the Sacrament of Penance because He knew we would fall. But we are still called to perfection and so we should strive for such.

 

[Nate13]

But comments like yours are designed to keep people trapped in sin because it seems to assume that a person can’t be honest in their desire to avoid contraception while still being in a situation where it is sometimes used.

For a start, I think confession is to be taken seriously, but it is an “easy out” because there is nothing else that you can do to restore your relationship with God. How simple is it to go to confession and ask for your sins to be forgiven? What else can you do? Jesus initiated the “easy out” to free people from their sins and be with him. Of course it has to be taken with the upmost seriousness but I wouldn’t be brave enough to tell people to stay away from confession because I believe their penance is likely to be invalid. Shouldn’t God alone be the judge of that or at least the priest who is hearing the confession?

My opinion is that contracepting is just like any other sin. One event is not tied to another and so if a person goes into confession genuinely not wanting to use contraception again and places it in God’s hands that there is not much extra they can do to change the situation (eg. they don’t initiate sex where contraception is likely, refuse to buy contraception, ask God for help to make their spouse see that NFP is a better way to go or by some other miracle change the situation) then this is true repentance with hope for no sin in the future.

You are correct, except there is something a person can be doing to change the situation and that is prayer, prayer, prayer. Contraception IS different from other sins in that it requires two people in order to commit the sin. A husband or wife should be very wary of justifying contraception because their spouse is the one making the act contraceptive. I believe there is some reasoning for allowing this in some situations but it is only when the threat of divorce or a greater sin lies if sex is refused. The counsel of a good priest is definitely necessary in such situations.

Why would any other sins which may or may not happen again in the future get an easier treatment in confession?

Where have you got this idea that forgiveness is withheld? An imperfect contrition is sufficient to attain forgiveness in confession. This would be contrition purely out of fear of God.

 

[ahs]

Where have you got this idea that forgiveness is withheld? An imperfect contrition is sufficient to attain forgiveness in confession. This would be contrition purely out of fear of God.

I think that is from earlier in the thread where it was discussed about having no contrition…going to confession with no intention of changing the behavior.

 

[sw85]

But comments like yours are designed to keep people trapped in sin because it seems to assume that a person can’t be honest in their desire to avoid contraception while still being in a situation where it is sometimes used.

For a start, I think confession is to be taken seriously, but it is an “easy out” because there is nothing else that you can do to restore your relationship with God. How simple is it to go to confession and ask for your sins to be forgiven? What else can you do? Jesus initiated the “easy out” to free people from their sins and be with him. Of course it has to be taken with the upmost seriousness but I wouldn’t be brave enough to tell people to stay away from confession because I believe their penance is likely to be invalid. Shouldn’t God alone be the judge of that or at least the priest who is hearing the confession?

My opinion is that contracepting is just like any other sin. One event is not tied to another and so if a person goes into confession genuinely not wanting to use contraception again and places it in God’s hands that there is not much extra they can do to change the situation (eg. they don’t initiate sex where contraception is likely, refuse to buy contraception, ask God for help to make their spouse see that NFP is a better way to go or by some other miracle change the situation) then this is true repentance with hope for no sin in the future.

Why would any other sins which may or may not happen again in the future get an easier treatment in confession?

No, my comments are an expression of official Church teachings. I’m not trying to “trap” anyone but simply relating the truth. Church teachings formally require both contrition for sins and a resolve to avoid sinning in the future. A deficiency in either respect formally invalidates the confession.

Hence you cannot receive sacramental absolution if you are confessing with the intention of committing the same sin again.

 

[Steven10]

No, my comments are an expression of official Church teachings. I’m not trying to “trap” anyone but simply relating the truth. Church teachings formally require both contrition for sins and a resolve to avoid sinning in the future. A deficiency in either respect formally invalidates the confession.

Hence you cannot receive sacramental absolution if you are confessing with the intention of committing the same sin again.

Okay, I apologize as I misread the part of your sentence where you said “plan on contracepting that evening”. This is not the scenario I’m talking about as such a person would obviously have no intent of avoiding contraception in the future.

 

[Robert_Burke]

What do you want to know?

The Church is against contraception in marriages because contraception removes the possibility of life and takes God out of the marital act. You are, on the other hand, allowed to practice abstinence (natural family planning) in your marriage if you have reasons not to conceive (health/illness, spacing of children, finances–to an extent, etc.).

You can read more about this in the book “Sex Au Naturel” which can tell you a lot more about this subject than I can.

It is also interesting to note that couples who do not use contraception have a divorce rate of <1% to <2%, while otherwise marriages fail 40, 50, in some areas 70% of the time.

I don’t think this forum is enough space to explain such a teaching. We can tell you the basics, but if you want to learn more you’ll have to do the reasearch (read books and articles on the website catholic.com using the search bar).

This is a topic that I have pondered for many years. Technically, the Church is not against all forms of contraception. It bans artificial means of contraception. As mentioned above, the Church approves of natural forms of contraception (e.g. Billings Natural Family Planning and abstinence).

Also, artificial forms of contraception (e.g. condoms, the Pill) do not totally prevent the possibility of conception, but they do reduce the chances of conceiving. I had a neighbor once who was on the Pill and had had one tube removed and still got pregnant. Since no form of birth control is 100% effective (other than abstinence) there is always a chance that a couple can conceive. In fact, that is one of my biggest complaints with the “safe sex” people who push condoms on teens. They are not 100% effective. In fact, condoms are probably the least effective means of preventing conception.

Lastly, there are two basic forms of artificial contraception, those that totally prevent conception (which means that life never came into existence) and those that act as an abortifacient (life comes into being but is then destroyed). I think a logical case could be made for the first form but never for the second.

 

[Jonatello]

Im just wondering

If Onan was killed by the Lord for the same reason that masturbators and condom users should be killed by the Lord, why haven’t we seen any other masturbators and condom users get killed by the Lord?

Why weren’t the overwhelming majority of men in Onan’s time struck dead at 15?

 

[Abu]

Jonatello
If Onan was killed by the Lord for the same reason that masturbators and condom users should be killed by the Lord, why haven’t we seen any other masturbators and condom users get killed by the Lord?
Why weren’t the overwhelming majority of men in Onan’s time struck dead at 15?

For the same reason that God has not killed everyone that commits serious sins, say abortion, other forms of murder, and many others named in the Scriptures – “should be killed” is trying to make God conform to individual feelings.

Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on Mar-01-2009
“All 3 of the major Protestant founders (Luther, Calvin, Wesley) left writings that confirm this interpretation of the Onan story. Although we don’t typically turn to these men for Catholic doctrine, they demonstrate that this has been the interpretation ‘always and everywhere.’ ”

 

[Hokomai]

You are grossly misrepresenting Church teachings. Please do your homework before commenting on it. Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition would be a good place.

I’d be interested to know what I have misrepresented.

 

[Nate13]

I’d be interested to know what I have misrepresented.

Haha one point at a time. Most of your misconceptions are based on the fact that you don’t understand why every act must be both unitive and procreative. I answered that in post #34. If you want to know how you misrepresented it you can start there and we will work down the points you posted after that.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Regarding the first part of your post, which I bolded: The circumstances, no matter how bad, don’t make a grave evil any less evil. Couples who have discerned a need of avoiding conception have recourse to abstinence…whether periodic or permanent. If they wish to share the marital embrace, it must be done in the manner that God created it…natural…with natural aspects of uniting the spouses and begin ordered toward procreation. This does not mean every marital act must result in conception, but that act must be open to conception in that the procreative nature is not thwarted by contraception.

How one feels about this is not relvant. One must not try to examine God’s Laws with emotions, but with reason, and perfect obedience to God.

Regarding the second part of your statement, here is a great explanation from sw85 from post #32 that he directed to you:

In addition to that, confessing without contrition (without a firm purpose to amend one’s life) and/or committing a sin under the premise that one will simply confess it later, so it’s okay, is a sin of presumption.

For a long time after I had come back to the Church I didn’t understand why ABC was wrong. I knew and accepted that it *was *wrong; I just couldn’t understand *why *and nobody could explain it to me in a way that I could understand.

Finally I read a post and it all clicked. That post was very similar to yours. I’m impressed by how this post takes a subject that is complicated and complex and reduces it to simple truth.

Thank you.

 

[Hokomai]

Haha one point at a time. Most of your misconceptions are based on the fact that you don’t understand why every act must be both unitive and procreative. I answered that in post #34. If you want to know how you misrepresented it you can start there and we will work down the points you posted after that.

I will explain it for you. When you think of it in terms of “well why can’t they be separated?” it is hard to see but when you look at applications of natural law directly it makes since and can be described by basically saying you can never separate the two purposes.

1. We know sex is not always about procreation because 2/3rd’s of the month the chance of getting pregnant is extremely small. Just by acknowledging our bodies and how they were made we can see God’s design and that sex was meant to be more than just procreative. We also can acknowledge the inherent unitive bond that is created during sex between a couple.

1. During the fertile part of the month for a woman it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that part of the point of sex during that time is to be much more procreative oriented. To deny that is to slap God in the face and the way he designed us. If he wanted us to be fertile 1 day of the month don’t you think he would have done that? Natural law is all about acknowledging God’s design and respecting it. Also, while a woman may be fertile that is not 100% of the purpose of sex at this point, and the unitive function is still incredibly important. Two people are making a decision to have a child and it doesn’t get much more unitive than that.

1. I’ve heard examples meant to disprove natural law and call it consistent, but I have yet to hear any that stand. Two things should be remembered when thinking about natural law though.

-Just because you know the purpose of something, does not imply you have to make use of it. We were also designed with an ability to reason to complement the purposes God has designed into us. Using this reason we are able to make decisions based on just reasons to use our faculties or not use our faculties. For example reason is used to figure out if a couple has a just reason to abstain from having sex during a woman’s fertile period. It would also be used by a mother of a child to figure out whether she should make use of the purpose of her breasts to provide milk for her child.

-Going against natural law during sex is much more serious than while eating. While in eating you may be abusing the purpose of food, in sex you are abusing the purpose of your wife or husband. It is a much more serious crime to abuse a human being than it is to abuse an inanimate object.

My problem with your explanation is that the claim of purpose is a simple assertion. You say ‘sex has a unitive and procreative’ purpose, but with equal logic I could say that the purpose of sex is ‘to have fun’ and that it coincidentally produces relationships and babies. Or that the purpose of sex is to ‘experience pleasure so we will understand, in a human way, the spiritual ecstasies which await us in heaven’. In all discussion of natural law, the ‘purpose’ is just made up. your made-up purpose is no more valid than mine.

 

[sw85]

I’d be interested to know what I have misrepresented.

OK:

As I understand it, to accept the Church’s position on contraception you have to believe that 1) things are created by God for a purpose, which is called .natural law’. 2) sex, or the ‘organs of generation’ are created for both procreation and pleasure, and for a reason never fully explained, the two cannot be separated. 3) It is unnatural to intervene by the use of objects or drugs, but not by calculation, mucus measurement and planning, to reduce the chances of conception 4) It is therefore a breach of natural law to use ‘artificial contraception’ but not NFP. 5) Having sex is a really important thing, and therefore this is ‘grave matter’. 6) breaching natural law over 'grave matter is mortally sinful 7) Therefore it is a mortal sin to use ‘artificial birth control’. 8) Therefore wherever the Church can achieve it, ‘artificial’ birth control should be prevented by law from being prescribed or distributed to that purpose to anyone, Catholic or not (as in Ireland until recently).

For one thing, pleasure is not a “purpose” of sex but a consequence of it. The two final causes of sex are procreation and spousal unity. They are inseparable (and this reason is in fact explained in some places) because they are not in fact really separate – sex is unitive solely because it’s procreative. This is basic evolutionary psychology. If sex were intrinsically nonprocreative there would be no reason for it to be any more unitive than handshaking or high-fiving.

And NFP is not in fact “intervening” in natural fertility. It is simply exploiting the natural fact of fertility cycles through periodic abstinence. One can arrive at the conclusion that NFP is ontologically equivalent to contraception only by employing consequentialist logic, which the Church formally rejects.

My problem with your explanation is that the claim of purpose is a simple assertion. You say ‘sex has a unitive and procreative’ purpose, but with equal logic I could say that the purpose of sex is ‘to have fun’ and that it coincidentally produces relationships and babies. Or that the purpose of sex is to ‘experience pleasure so we will understand, in a human way, the spiritual ecstasies which await us in heaven’. In all discussion of natural law, the ‘purpose’ is just made up. your made-up purpose is no more valid than mine.

It is a baseless assertion that the reproductive system is naturally ordered toward the end of reproduction?

Your proposed purpose has to contend with the obvious fact that it flies in the face of biological science and evolutionary psychology. Ours, by contrast, hews perfectly to it: the physical configuration of the sexes all point to the end of procreative advantage, including the pleasurable quality of it; none of them make sense without assuming such a natural telos. (Or are you denying teleology entirely?)

Incidentally you are probably on to something in saying that sex is a pale reflection of the erotic (i.e., pertaining to eros) unity with God which the saved will experience.

 

[Hokomai]

Hi. You said my comments were a gross misrepresentation. So far the ‘misrepresentations’ you have identified consist of using the word ‘pleasure’ in place of the rather precious ‘unitive’ you prefer, and saying that NFP is an intervention. Even if these are misrepresentations, rather than normal variation in language expected from people of different perspectives, I would suggest that they are hardly ‘gross’. I think my summary isn’t too bad and helps explain why people who have not made a leap of faith on the contraception issue are (in my experience) never convinced by what I consider the poor argument behind the teaching of the Church.

Hoko

OK:

For one thing, pleasure is not a “purpose” of sex but a consequence of it. The two final causes of sex are procreation and spousal unity. They are inseparable (and this reason is in fact explained in some places) because they are not in fact really separate – sex is unitive solely because it’s procreative. This is basic evolutionary psychology. If sex were intrinsically nonprocreative there would be no reason for it to be any more unitive than handshaking or high-fiving.

And NFP is not in fact “intervening” in natural fertility. It is simply exploiting the natural fact of fertility cycles through periodic abstinence. One can arrive at the conclusion that NFP is ontologically equivalent to contraception only by employing consequentialist logic, which the Church formally rejects.

It is a baseless assertion that the reproductive system is naturally ordered toward the end of reproduction?

Your proposed purpose has to contend with the obvious fact that it flies in the face of biological science and evolutionary psychology. Ours, by contrast, hews perfectly to it: the physical configuration of the sexes all point to the end of procreative advantage, including the pleasurable quality of it; none of them make sense without assuming such a natural telos. (Or are you denying teleology entirely?)

Incidentally you are probably on to something in saying that sex is a pale reflection of the erotic (i.e., pertaining to eros) unity with God which the saved will experience.

 

[Abu]

Twoangels #18
the hard issue I have now is the hypothetical situations where NFP cannot be relied upon.

Natural Birth Regulation is very effective when used sensibly. NFP families, whether Couple to Couple or Billings followers, report an astonishingly low divorce rate — one informal study puts it at 1.3 percent, as compared with about 50 percent in society at large. Natural Birth Regulation is natural, avoids the devastating effects of the “pill”, encourages self control and respect for the dignity of human life, and is of the order of 99% effective among the uneducated. Mercedes Wilson claims an effectiveness rate of 99 percent among “the poorest of the poor” in Guatemala. “There’s no excuse anymore to pretend that only those with strong religious convictions can follow natural family planning,” she writes.

Wilson’s Family of the Americas Foundation now teaches NFP in more than 100 countries, including China.

EWTN News Story 10-July-2003 – Catholic World News Brief
“Unlike the rhythm method, the Billings method does not depend on a stable menstrual cycle. Numerous independent trials have confirmed the 99 percent success rate of the Billings Method, including a recent study following thousands of women for more than a year. If any further proof is needed, the method has been regularly used up to date by over 2,686,400 fertile couples in China for avoiding pregnancy with an overall success rate of approximately 99 percent.”

BTW, apart from the moral depravity of contraception, practiced when the infallible teaching is known, dissent is condemned, is totally illicit.

This website enables the worthwhile use of NBR through NaPro Technology for those who need assistance: fertilitycare.com.au/?page_id=7

The Q&A here are very helpful and specific needs are covered: ewtn.com/vexperts/conference.htm
Just choose the right section.

 

[Jonatello]

For the same reason that God has not killed everyone that commits serious sins, say abortion, other forms of murder, and many others named in the Scriptures

so why did He kill Onan?

“should be killed” is trying to make God conform to individual feelings.

not sure i follow the gist of your sentence here, but i’d imagine God wouldn’t do anything that shouldn’t be done.

My point isn’t to try and make God look like a hypocrite or something, its more that my sense is Onan either A: wasn’t killed by God after all, or B: this was a highly unusual situation for highly unusual reasons that are specific to Onan’s case, and thus probably have very little to do with masturbation or contraception.

Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on Mar-01-2009
“All 3 of the major Protestant founders (Luther, Calvin, Wesley) left writings that confirm this interpretation of the Onan story. Although we don’t typically turn to these men for Catholic doctrine, they demonstrate that this has been the interpretation ‘always and everywhere.’ ”

:
Fr John’s interpretation of “always and everywhere” does not convince me

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is a topic that I have pondered for many years. Technically, the Church is not against all forms of contraception. It bans artificial means of contraception. As mentioned above, the Church approves of natural forms of contraception (e.g. Billings Natural Family Planning and abstinence).

Also, artificial forms of contraception (e.g. condoms, the Pill) do not totally prevent the possibility of conception, but they do reduce the chances of conceiving. I had a neighbor once who was on the Pill and had had one tube removed and still got pregnant. Since no form of birth control is 100% effective (other than abstinence) there is always a chance that a couple can conceive. In fact, that is one of my biggest complaints with the “safe sex” people who push condoms on teens. They are not 100% effective. In fact, condoms are probably the least effective means of preventing conception.

Lastly, there are two basic forms of artificial contraception, those that totally prevent conception (which means that life never came into existence) and those that act as an abortifacient (life comes into being but is then destroyed). I think a logical case could be made for the first form but never for the second.

I believe the USCCB (and I realize the USCCB is *not *the Magisterium) has approved emergency artificial contraception for rape victims. Of course a pregnancy test must be performed first. I think the rationale is that it takes a certain amount of time for the spermatozoa to reach the ovum. So it would be a real contraception but it would also be artificial.

I may be wrong about this; I have trouble accessing the USCCB website (I even called them once and got the run-around) and it’s been some time since I read this in another thread and tried to research it and I wonder what the His Holiness and the Magisterium think of this. I understand how horrible rape is but if ABC is wrong it is wrong.

Isn’t it?

old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml