What does "impossible" mean in reference to birth control

[OCRT]

I am confused about Section 2370 of the Catechism.
It states that: “every action which, … render procreation impossible” is
intrinsically evil."

I understand that this section is interpreted by Catholic theologians as banning
the use of birth control pills, emergency contraception, and IUDs, as well as
banning procedures such as vasectomies and tubal ligations. However, the section
is interpreted as allowing natural family planning,

A straightforward interpretation of Section 2370 seems to restrict it to only
those actions that make a subsequent pregnancy*“impossible.” All of the actions
listed above make procreation unlikely. None make it “impossible:”

-Birth control pills can and do fail, particularly if a women has missed taking a
pill.
-Condoms break, leak, or are sometimes improperly applied.
-Emergency contraception must be taken within a certain time interval in order to
be effective. Even then, it does not always work.
-Vasectomies have been known to reconnect about 1% of the time.
-As many as 3% of tubal ligations can fail, depending on the technique used.

If Section 2370 is to be interpreted in a straightforward manner, and the word
“impossible” means “impossible” then it would appear that the five methods of
lowering the chances of a pregnancy are not “intrinsically evil.”

If one were to interpret the word “impossible” as meaning “not very likely” then
natural family planning would seem to be more likely to be considered evil that the use
of “artificial” birth control methods listed above. That is because I have seen many Catholic websites and heard many Catholic radio programs claiming that natural family planning is more effective at preventing conception than are birth control pills.

Something doesn’t make sense here. I would appreciate some guidance. Can anyone clear up this confusion for me?

 

[fpt]

I am confused about Section 2370 of the Catechism.
It states that: “every action which, … render procreation impossible” is
intrinsically evil."

I understand that this section is interpreted by Catholic theologians as banning
the use of birth control pills, emergency contraception, and IUDs, as well as
banning procedures such as vasectomies and tubal ligations. However, the section
is interpreted as allowing natural family planning,

A straightforward interpretation of Section 2370 seems to restrict it to only
those actions that make a subsequent pregnancy*“impossible.” All of the actions
listed above make procreation unlikely. None make it “impossible:”

-Birth control pills can and do fail, particularly if a women has missed taking a
pill.
-Condoms break, leak, or are sometimes improperly applied.
-Emergency contraception must be taken within a certain time interval in order to
be effective. Even then, it does not always work.
-Vasectomies have been known to reconnect about 1% of the time.
-As many as 3% of tubal ligations can fail, depending on the technique used.

If Section 2370 is to be interpreted in a straightforward manner, and the word
“impossible” means “impossible” then it would appear that the five methods of
lowering the chances of a pregnancy are not “intrinsically evil.”

If one were to interpret the word “impossible” as meaning “not very likely” then
natural family planning would seem to be more likely to be considered evil that the use
of “artificial” birth control methods listed above. That is because I have seen many Catholic websites and heard many Catholic radio programs claiming that natural family planning is more effective at preventing conception than are birth control pills.

Something doesn’t make sense here. I would appreciate some guidance. Can anyone clear up this confusion for me?

According to the natural moral law of human beings and more specifically concerning the natural moral law of marital act between wife and husband or between two non married lovers (forcination), only **the voluntary and direct contraception by artificial tools or by the coitus interruptus is morally wrong.
**
During infertile times, the couple respects the natural moral law. Only the wrong intentions of using these periods can be immoral.

 

[fpt]

The artificial birth control, that is direct and voluntary, is, per se, immoral;
The voluntary and direct frustration of the marital act by coitus interruptus, from wife or from husband, is, per se, immoral.

 

[Bookcat]

Such would be to read it in a way the Church does not intend.

Contraception is immoral…even if there is a “possible” conception via failure etc of the attempt.

Also note that it says there “proposes” …which contraception seeks to do – to render it impossible. That is what it wants to do -even if such is not reachable entirely. Even it there is a failure.

 

[Bookcat]

Here the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives a nice brief summary:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

NOTE there the word used is “hinder”

 

[Lancer]

For your consideration.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other.** This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality**.​

Objectively speaking…you are parsing the word “impossible” with data from science…the Church is talking about who God is, what He created and planned for His creatures…the Church is talking specifically about the Truth on the person and the Truth of conjugal relations in marriage.

Also, you are evaluating it in terms of a very limited scope.

2371 "Let all be convinced that** human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only**: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."161

Lets say premeditatedly, you plan to kill your neighbor…go into his house shoot him in the head and heart…and miraculously he lives…and you arrested on the spot by a police officer…what do you think you will be charged for** under criminal law**…attempted manslaughter or attempted first degree murder? Your** intent** is what will get you a life without parole sentence…intent is even more critical in God’s Just Law.

Below is the section of the Catechism that directly answers your erroneous logic/position. And the Church is the only entity in the world that has the absolute authority of God to make this judgment…not me…not you.

Pax Christi

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. ** The end does not justify the means.** Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

 

[revert_jen]

If Section 2370 is to be interpreted in a straightforward manner, and the word
“impossible” means “impossible” then it would appear that the five methods of
lowering the chances of a pregnancy are not “intrinsically evil.”

If one were to interpret the word “impossible” as meaning “not very likely” then
natural family planning would seem to be more likely to be considered evil that the use
of “artificial” birth control methods listed above. That is because I have seen many Catholic websites and heard many Catholic radio programs claiming that natural family planning is more effective at preventing conception than are birth control pills.

Something doesn’t make sense here. I would appreciate some guidance. Can anyone clear up this confusion for me?

I agree with Lancer. I believe the difference here has to do with intent. The intent in artificial birth control and sterilization is to render conception impossible. The fact that medically it is not 100% effective doesn’t really matter.

Attempted murder is different from murder legally, but not morally. The attack with the intention to kill, even if for some reason beyond the intended murderer’s control the intended victim is not harmed at all, is the same sin as an attack with the intention to kill that is successful. The Judge who deals with sin (God) knows for sure exactly what the intention was.

–Jen

 

[ValPal]

I am confused about Section 2370 of the Catechism.
It states that: “every action which, … render procreation impossible” is
intrinsically evil."

-Birth control pills can and do fail, particularly if a women has missed taking a
pill.
-Condoms break, leak, or are sometimes improperly applied.
-Emergency contraception must be taken within a certain time interval in order to
be effective. Even then, it does not always work.
-Vasectomies have been known to reconnect about 1% of the time.
-As many as 3% of tubal ligations can fail, depending on the technique used.

If Section 2370 is to be interpreted in a straightforward manner, and the word
“impossible” means “impossible” then it would appear that the five methods of
lowering the chances of a pregnancy are not “intrinsically evil.”

It’s probably bad wording. As usual, you can’t take one statement/section of anything (Catechism, Bible, etc.) and see the big picture. The Church has been clear on the five issues you addressed elsewhere, and they are not mentioned in the section you cited, so it would be improper to conclude the render procreation impossible.

 

[Bookcat]

Here the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives a nice brief summary:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

NOTE there the word used is “hinder”

 

[Newbie2]

Taken in context, “impossible” is used to differentiate from “improbable”, which is the goal of NFP.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Taken in context, “impossible” is used to differentiate from “improbable”, which is the goal of NFP.

The same could be said about ABC. ABC methods fail from time to time.

It’s my understanding that though the Church does not expect conception every time people engage in intercourse, they need to be “open to the possibility” of conception. So if a couple decides “We are going to use ABC, but if she still gets pregnant that’s OK” where is the problem?