Website arguing that the teaching on birth control can be changed

[svoboda]

fix:

Please provide proof.

Another person asked for this, I’ll just post what I wrote here:

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MAFAMCOM.TXT

This century has seen an ongoing debate within the Church about the ends of marriage. A traditional understanding presented these ends in a clear hierarchy or order of importance: a “primary” end (procreation) and two
“secondary” ends (mutual help and the remedy for concupiscence). **Early on in the century a feeling began to emerge that this understanding was too exclusively centered on the procreative function of the marital relationship, while it neglected “personalist” aspects or values also characterizing this relationship, and of which modern times have become
more aware: love between man and woman as the main motive for marrying, the promise of personal happiness or fulfillment that marriage seems to offer, the human values felt to underlie physical sexuality. ** The Second Vatican Council incorporated these personalist values into its presentation of marriage. And, as is well known, married personalism is notable in the teaching on marriage of John Paul II. Sexuality and marriage, interpreted in a personalist light, were in fact the theme of a lengthy papal catechesis covering the first years of the present pontificate; and the same presentation has frequently recurred since. Thus it now seems beyond question that a personalist view of marriage has
become firmly established in magisterial teaching.

**Here, in what Pope John Paul II has described as the “last document of the Second Vatican Council,”[1] we are offered a brief formula of the greatest importance, which marks a development and crystallization of the married personalism of Vatican II. ** Particularly to be noted is the progress from
the rather vague conciliar statement about matrimony being endowed with “various” or “other” ends, besides procreation,[2] to the specific enunciation of < ends to marriage, the good of the spouses and the procreation/education of children.

 

[fix]

svoboda:

Another person asked for this, I’ll just post what I wrote here:

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MAFAMCOM.TXT

I want to be certain I understand your argument. You are claiming the Church *changed *Her understanding of marriage meaning She reversed Herself, thus She can reverse Herself on contraception? Is that it?

It is my understanding the Church still teaches procreation is the primary end of marriage. The unitive aspect may not have been fully developed, but She never said it did not exist and now says it does exist. So I fail to see your point?

 

[fix]

svoboda:

I used to be a very conservative Catholic and read quite a bit on this issue. I think I know Church teaching.

I have read the parts of Humanae Vitae that relate to NFP. I disagree with your assesment of this document though. Popes have written encyclicals in the past that have now been contradicted. I don’t know if you’ve looked at my other posts, but one idea a pope CONDEMNED is that it’s not the will of the Spirit to burn heretics.

Encyclicals can be wrong. I doubt that any pope now would agree with that. Another thing is that it is necessary for the salvation of every person to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. That was in a a papal bull, so what? Again, now we don’t believe this.

The website is actually pretty Catholic in the sense that they believe in the authority of the Church. But they allege that our UNDERSTANDING of natural law has changed, it has before (for example until Vatican II the unitive portion of sex was not recognized/elevated to equal with procreative).

HV states the universal magisterial teaching about contraception. Nothing changed, nothing will change.

 

[svoboda]

fix:

I want to be certain I understand your argument. You are claiming the Church *changed *Her understanding of marriage meaning She reversed Herself, thus She can reverse Herself on contraception? Is that it?

It is my understanding the Church still teaches procreation is the primary end of marriage. The unitive aspect may not have been fully developed, but She never said it did not exist and now says it does exist. So I fail to see your point?

Not at all, my point is that the Church’s understanding of natural law as regards marriage has changed completely. (Pretty big thing to not teach about love/unitive parts of marriage.)

The Church’s condemnation of birth control now relies on its understanding of natural law as regards sexuality. This understanding can change.

Read on that website the part about sex and natural law and a comparison between ABC and NFP.

The Church’s arguments have too many logical holes for me to listen to them.

They claim that each sex act must be unitive and open to life at once, and yet they allow NFP.

NFP is NOT open to life either in intent or in means. NFP couples make the most careful measurements to have sex when conception is biologically impossible. Ther bodies are not open to life. Why do they make all those measurements? Because they want to enjoy the unitive aspects of sex without the procreative, so they are not open to life in intent.

The only argument that remains is the “complete gift of self” argument, saying that birth control goes against martial vows by withholding fertility, a part of the self. NFP carefully measures when there is no fertility so there is a complete gift of self.

Personally I don’t see how preventing the sperm from meeting the egg for good reasons violates the marital vow. NFP already allows couples to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex for the sake of the unitive, being closed to the procreative both physically and in intent.

I don’t see the difference. I don’t see the evil in preventing sperm from meeting the egg.

In my opinion unitive aspects of sex for the sake of unitive aspects alone is a perfectly moral and natural behavior. Most human sex acts are done for this reasons. Very few are done to make a new life. Even people who have huge families may have this intent say 10 times in their life.

 

[fix]

svoboda:

Not at all, my point is that the Church’s understanding of natural law as regards marriage has changed completely. (Pretty big thing to not teach about love/unitive parts of marriage.)

The Church’s condemnation of birth control now relies on its understanding of natural law as regards sexuality. This understanding can change.

Read on that website the part about sex and natural law and a comparison between ABC and NFP.

The Church’s arguments have too many logical holes for me to listen to them.

They claim that each sex act must be unitive and open to life at once, and yet they allow NFP.

NFP is NOT open to life either in intent or in means. NFP couples make the most careful measurements to have sex when conception is biologically impossible. Ther bodies are not open to life. Why do they make all those measurements? Because they want to enjoy the unitive aspects of sex without the procreative, so they are not open to life in intent.

The only argument that remains is the “complete gift of self” argument, saying that birth control goes against martial vows by withholding fertility, a part of the self. NFP carefully measures when there is no fertility so there is a complete gift of self.

Personally I don’t see how preventing the sperm from meeting the egg for good reasons violates the marital vow. NFP already allows couples to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex for the sake of the unitive, being closed to the procreative both physically and in intent.

I don’t see the difference. I don’t see the evil in preventing sperm from meeting the egg.

In my opinion unitive aspects of sex for the sake of unitive aspects alone is a perfectly moral and natural behavior. Most human sex acts are done for this reasons. Very few are done to make a new life. Even people who have huge families may have this intent say 10 times in their life.

Again, where has the Church reversed Herself in understanding the natural law or any moral teaching? There is a difference between growing in a deeper understanding and contradicting something previous. I have seen no proof She contradicted Herself in the understanding of marriage, or contraception or the natural law.

As for NFP versus contraception perhaps this will help:

Those who claim that contraception and periodic abstinence are morally
equivalent frequently bring forward two principal considerations. They
first allege that the activities are morally the same because the
“intentions” of both contracepting couples and of spouses who practice
periodic continence in order to regulate conception are the same. They then
assert that the two are morally equivalent because they lead to the same
result, namely, the avoidance of conception.7…

"The reason why people are confused about intention, and why they sometimes
think there is no difference between contraceptive intercourse and the use
of infertile times to avoid contraception, is this. They don’t notice the
difference between ‘intention’ when it means the intentionalness of the
thing you’re doing–that you’re doing ‘this’ on purpose–and when it means
a 'further or ‘accompanying’ intention 'with which you do the thing. For
example, I make a table; that’s an intentional action because I am doing
just ‘that’ on purpose. I have the ‘further’ intention, of, say, earning my
living, doing my job by making the table…

The term “intention” can refer either to
the intention to do “this” (in this case, either to contracept or to
abstain from marital relations during fertile times) or to the further
intention with which one does “this intentional deed.” The further
intention is one thing (and it can be either good or bad) and the present
intention to do this is another (and it can be either good or bad). The
contraception advocate seeking to show the moral equivalence of
contraception and periodic abstinence fails to distinguish between the two
sorts of intentions and claims fallaciously that the “acts chosen” (the
intention to contracept and the intention to abstain during fertile times)
by contraceptors and by periodic abstainers are the same because the
further intentions of both may well be, as Pope Paul VI himself
acknowledges, the same.
ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/COABPA.TXT

 

[bear06]

Not at all, my point is that the Church’s understanding of natural law as regards marriage has changed completely. (Pretty big thing to not teach about love/unitive parts of marriage.)

Look, you’ve chose to ignore this before but here it is again. Try reading the Summa and maybe all of the other footnotes in Humanae Vitae. Most of them came quite awhile before Vatican II. In fact, almost all. The procreavitve and unitive aspects of marriage come from the bible itself and have constantly been held by the Church.

The Church’s condemnation of birth control now relies on its understanding of natural law as regards sexuality. This understanding can change.

You say that the Church’s teachings don’t rely on scripture. Where does the Church say this?

Why do they make all those measurements? Because they want to enjoy the unitive aspects of sex without the procreative, so they are not open to life in intent.

No, it’s actually because they have some serious reason that they must avoid pregnancy if possible. I think you’ll find that most who use NFP don’t enjoy having to use it. I, personnally, hate using it.

The only argument that remains is the “complete gift of self” argument, saying that birth control goes against martial vows by withholding fertility, a part of the self. NFP carefully measures when there is no fertility so there is a complete gift of self

Personally I don’t see how preventing the sperm from meeting the egg for good reasons violates the marital vow. NFP already allows couples to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex for the sake of the unitive, being closed to the procreative both physically and in intent.

I don’t see the difference. I don’t see the evil in preventing sperm from meeting the egg.

Yes, and this is what it all comes down to - YOU. I find it quite annoying that you think you are more theologically scholared than the Magisterium but this is what you get when you deal with someone who doesn’t practice the Faith.

In my opinion unitive aspects of sex for the sake of unitive aspects alone is a perfectly moral and natural behavior. Most human sex acts are done for this reasons. Very few are done to make a new life. Even people who have huge families may have this intent say 10 times in their life.

LOL! Just out of curiosity, are you married and do you have kids?

 

[bear06]

fix:

Again, where has the Church reversed Herself in understanding the natural law or any moral teaching? There is a difference between growing in a deeper understanding and contradicting something previous. I have seen no proof She contradicted Herself in the understanding of marriage, or contraception or the natural law.

As for NFP versus contraception perhaps this will help:

Exactly but he doesn’t understand that developing a doctrine and changing one are 2 different things.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

Look, you’ve chose to ignore this before but here it is again. Try reading the Summa and maybe all of the other footnotes in Humanae Vitae. Most of them came quite awhile before Vatican II. In fact, almost all. The procreavitve and unitive aspects of marriage come from the bible itself and have constantly been held by the Church.

I am not going to read the Summa today, if those arguments are there, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind providing references (i.e. quotes). In fact, any pre-Vatican II Church document that recognizes and praises the importance of unitive components of marriage, and acknowledges that they’re just as important as procreative will suffice.

You say that the Church’s teachings don’t rely on scripture. Where does the Church say this?

I am fairly familiar with the Bible. The only scriptural argument against contraception is Onan’s story, which in my opinion has nothing to do with contraception, but has everything to do with Onan’s defiance of God and refusal to obey law of the time and make offspring for his deceased brother.

And this is the only scriptural argument the Church uses.

No, it’s actually because they have some serious reason that they must avoid pregnancy if possible. I think you’ll find that most who use NFP don’t enjoy having to use it. I, personnally, hate using it.

Okay, but you still want to enjoy sex with your husband, so you use NFP. **If every sex act really had to be open to life and unitive AT THE SAME TIME, then NFP would have to be immoral. NFP is not open to life physically because conception is impossible when there is no egg (and the only reason NFP is not perfect is method imperfections, if they could make it 100% successful they would, and it would still be moral because morality of NFP doesn’t depend on the 2% chance of failure), and NFP is not open to life in intent because couples who use NFP intend not to conceive ** (they may have very serious reasons for this intent).

If every sex act must be open to life and unitive at the same time, then when you have serious reasons not to get pregnant you should abstain completely and wait until you can be open to life again.

If, when you have serious reasons, you choose to use NFP you are having sex for the unitive purpose alone. You want to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex for its own sake. If you didn’t, you would abstain completely.

Yes, and this is what it all comes down to - YOU. I find it quite annoying that you think you are more theologically scholared than the Magisterium but this is what you get when you deal with someone who doesn’t practice the Faith.

LOL! Just out of curiosity, are you married and do you have kids?

No, but I know married people and I am perfectly capable of seeing the logical contradictions of Church teaching.

 

[bellesjoy]

members.aol.com/revising/nfp.html Compares ABC and NFP

The remarks in the above link were very disrespectful to Archbishop Chaput and distorted his very direct and truthful remarks that reflect doctrine.

If you want to understand the Church’s teaching on the subject of contraception I refer you to the CCC 2370 where contraception is termed “intrinsically evil.”

I would refer you further to the Apostalic Constitution Fidei Depositum of the CCC by John Paul II, page 5 under heading 3. The Holy Father by his Apostolic Authority, declared the content of the CCC to be a statement of “the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine…” That includes Humanae Vitae which is heavily referenced there in.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a “sure norm” for those who are or seek to understand what it is to be Catholic. Discussions outside of that do not change what is doctrine to be held by all Catholics. The fact that there are many dissenters among the laity and the clergy in our day is very sad and we should include them in our prayer.

 

[bear06]

I am fairly familiar with the Bible. The only scriptural argument against contraception is Onan’s story, which in my opinion has nothing to do with contraception, but has everything to do with Onan’s defiance of God and refusal to obey law of the time and make offspring for his deceased brother.

Once again, this is your opinion. BTW, there are plenty of bible references for the procreative and unitive aspect of marriage which is what I was talking about.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

Once again, this is your opinion. BTW, there are plenty of bible references for the procreative and unitive aspect of marriage which is what I was talking about.

Look, you often say that there are plenty of reference of this or that. Plenty of references that the Church recognized unitive component, plenty of references to unitive aspect of marriage in the Bible.

The Song of Solomon does praise the unitive aspects of marriage (by the way without tying them to procreative the way the Church does).

If you’re going to make such claims, you must provide the references. Why should I take your word for it?

Provide evidence that the Church recognized the unitive aspect of marriage and equated it with the procreative. The Old Testament was written by Jews, not the Catholic Church. Paul was pretty negative on marriage, saying that if you can remain a virgin it’s preferrable to do it, but if you can’t hold back sexual desire go ahead and marry (and I will quote this if you want me to, I am not quoting it because it’s pretty well known passage).

Provide references or don’t make those claims. Your claims aren’t worth much without evidence.

If you want to argue that Onan’s story is against birth control, make the argument. Don’t just say my opinion is wrong and leave at that. Give logical reasoning for why I’m wrong and you’re right.

Otherwise this argument we are having is worthless.

 

[fix]

svoboda:

Okay, but you still want to enjoy sex with your husband, so you use NFP. **If every sex act really had to be open to life and unitive AT THE SAME TIME, then NFP would have to be immoral. NFP is not open to life physically because conception is impossible when there is no egg (and the only reason NFP is not perfect is method imperfections, if they could make it 100% successful they would, and it would still be moral because morality of NFP doesn’t depend on the 2% chance of failure), and NFP is not open to life in intent because couples who use NFP intend not to conceive ** (they may have very serious reasons for this intent).

If every sex act must be open to life and unitive at the same time, then when you have serious reasons not to get pregnant you should abstain completely and wait until you can be open to life again.

This is an incorrect understaning of the Church teaching. Open to life does not mean simply conception must occur. It means one has not intentionally frustrated fertility. Each act “being open to life” intends that one is not suppressing fertility and in effect shutting God out of the process so to speak. It does not mean one must have a strong chance of conception happening.

 

[fix]

svoboda:

Look, you often say that there are plenty of reference of this or that. Plenty of references that the Church recognized unitive component, plenty of references to unitive aspect of marriage in the Bible.

The Song of Solomon does praise the unitive aspects of marriage (by the way without tying them to procreative the way the Church does).

If you’re going to make such claims, you must provide the references. Why should I take your word for it?

Provide evidence that the Church recognized the unitive aspect of marriage and equated it with the procreative. The Old Testament was written by Jews, not the Catholic Church. Paul was pretty negative on marriage, saying that if you can remain a virgin it’s preferrable to do it, but if you can’t hold back sexual desire go ahead and marry (and I will quote this if you want me to, I am not quoting it because it’s pretty well known passage).

Provide references or don’t make those claims. Your claims aren’t worth much without evidence.

If you want to argue that Onan’s story is against birth control, make the argument. Don’t just say my opinion is wrong and leave at that. Give logical reasoning for why I’m wrong and you’re right.

Otherwise this argument we are having is worthless.

I do not want to offend you, but I want to ask why you care what the Church teaches as it seems you may reject the authority of the Church to teach?

 

[svoboda]

fix:

This is an incorrect understaning of the Church teaching. Open to life does not mean simply conception must occur. It means one has not intentionally frustrated fertility. Each act “being open to life” intends that one is not suppressing fertility and in effect shutting God out of the process so to speak. It does not mean one must have a strong chance of conception happening.

Okay, but I think NFP does intentionally suppress fertility. It doesn’t do it directly like artificial birth control, but it involves A LOT of effort in terms of measurment in abstinence to make sure that the couple has sex when conception is impossible.

This excludes fertility from the marital act. A couple using NFP and having sex is having sex for the unitive purpose alone, separate from the procreative purpose.

Since the Church approves NFP, it approves sex for the unitive purpose alone, separate from its procrative purpose.

But this is not what the Church says, therefore contradiction.

 

[svoboda]

fix:

I do not want to offend you, but I want to ask why you care what the Church teaches as it seems you may reject the authority of the Church to teach?

Why do I care? Because so many people follow the Church and I believe are harmed by its teachings.

I have read personal stories of couples for whom NFP simply doesn’t work for biological reasons. They are stuck. They must either abstain for incredibly long periods of time or they must risk having more kids than they can handle.

I don’t know if you saw my post on maternal mortality rate in the third world.

I also think the Church is very negative on unitive purpose of sex for its own sake, and that is such an important emotional need that human beings have.

 

[setter]

If every sex act must be open to life and unitive at the same time, then when you have serious reasons not to get pregnant you should abstain completely and wait until you can be open to life again.

Why in the world would you make such a strange assertion and impose this unneccessary restriction on married couples to enjoy the gift of conjugal embrace?

If, when you have serious reasons, you choose to use NFP you are having sex for the unitive purpose alone. You want to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex for its own sake. If you didn’t, you would abstain completely.

This statement is lacking in all common sense – proof: try this line of unreasoning on your spouse.

Contraception, by definition is a deliberate action that is intended to work against the procreative good of the conjugal act. With contraception, procreation is treated as an evil, something to be directly opposed. In addition to contraceptive intercourse directly assailing the good of procreation, it also assaults the unitive nature of the sexual act. As Pope John Paul II has noted, contraceptive intercourse is “lying with the body.” In essence, contraceptive sex is saying “I give myself completely to you—everything, that is, except my fertility.”

 It is a difference in means that makes NFP morally distinct from contraception. Natural Family Planning takes advantage of a woman’s natural cycles of infertility, working with nature and not against it. The body and its purposes are respected, the sexual act retains its sacredness, and the door is always open to allow the natural fundamental human goods to flourish and to allow God to do his creative act. NFP is also virtue building. Self-denial, temporary abstinence, and self-control all build character and allow the relationship to grow on non-physical levels. Couples that practice NFP are practicing self restraining love by refraining from the conjugal act during certain periods. Most important to the current discussion is that NFP violates neither the good of procreation, nor the good of human bonding that are inherent in the conjugal act. Contraceptive sex engages in an act that is naturally aimed to bring about these goods, and then takes positive steps to halt that good. With NFP, a couple either abstains from the act, or engages in the it while doing nothing to oppose its fundamental goods. Where contraception thwarts the good, NFP abstains.  Noted moral theologian Dr William May describes the difference correspondingly;

“NFP involves no choice to treat the procreative good as evil and to act directly against it whereas contraceptive intercourse does…Refraining from intercourse is not contraceptive intercourse, since it is not intercourse at all.” 2

Likewise, Pope Paul VI offers the same line of reasoning;

"The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple makes legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes

. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love."3

archindy.org/prolife/appleoranges.htm

 

[svoboda]

setter:

Why in the world would you make such a strange assertion and impose this unneccessary restriction on married couples to enjoy the gift of conjugal embrace?

I don’t believe this, I said that this is logical conclusion of the Church’s teaching.

The Church teaches that each individual sex act must be open to life and unitive at the same time. But when a couple use NFP they are having sex for the unitive purpose alone. Physically they are not open to life because without the egg there can be no conception. Their intent is also to prevent conception.

I DO NOT THINK THIS IS WRONG.

I just think this is a contradiction within Catholicism.

I have nothing against NFP, but keep in mind that there are people for whom it doesn’t work. Keep in mind that there are women in third world nations whose husbands would not be willing to abstain and there’s nothing they can do about it.

 

[setter]

svoboda:

setter:

I don’t believe this, I said that this is logical conclusion of the Church’s teaching.

The Church teaches that each individual sex act must be open to life and unitive at the same time. But when a couple use NFP they are having sex for the unitive purpose alone. Physically they are not open to life because without the egg there can be no conception. Their intent is also to prevent conception.

I DO NOT THINK THIS IS WRONG.

I just think this is a contradiction within Catholicism.
This is not the logical conclusion as you erroneously conclude.

If a couple’s marital embrace by no artifical and intended action of their own is naturally infertile (i.e., conception cannot occur), then this does not at all mean (or imply) that the couple is now closed to life when enjoying the marital embrace. It simply means that nature has so deemed conception is not possible. The couple is in no way during these naturally infertile periods withholding their *procreative potential * (i.e., fertility) from the marital embrace. Their intent may or may not be to limit the chance of pregnancy, but there is nothing that they are doing or introducing to violate or frustrate the exchange of their *procreative potential * and unitive embrace, as is exactly the case with ABC.

If you cannot see the blatant function and symbolism of a condom (or other forms of ABC) erecting/introducing a barrier between the procreative and unitive exchange of a couple during the marital embrace, I am not sure what could convince you (perhaps put hubby in a body wrap of blue tarp bounded by duck tape ).

 

[fix]

svoboda:

Okay, but I think NFP does intentionally suppress fertility. It doesn’t do it directly like artificial birth control, but it involves A LOT of effort in terms of measurment in abstinence to make sure that the couple has sex when conception is impossible.

Again, that one has intercourse when there is little or no change of conception occuring is not a suppression of fertility. In such a case no one is suppressing fertilty. Both parties are still giving their fertility in full to each other. It is not simply all about conception.

This excludes fertility from the marital act. A couple using NFP and having sex is having sex for the unitive purpose alone, separate from the procreative purpose.

Wrong. They have not supprssed their fertility.

Since the Church approves NFP, it approves sex for the unitive purpose alone, separate from its procrative purpose.

No, this is not true at all. It is a basic misunderstanding of what the Church teaches.

 

[fix]

svoboda:

Why do I care? Because so many people follow the Church and I believe are harmed by its teachings.

The truth does not harm.

I have read personal stories of couples for whom NFP simply doesn’t work for biological reasons.

It is never that simple.

They are stuck. They must either abstain for incredibly long periods of time or they must risk having more kids than they can handle.

False choice. NFP is always an alternative. If for some reason, like contagious disease, then yes they must abstain.

I don’t know if you saw my post on maternal mortality rate in the third world.

I did and I responded.

I also think the Church is very negative on unitive purpose of sex for its own sake, and that is such an important emotional need that human beings have.

The Church, who speaks as Christ, is not negative on this.