Why NFP rather than condoms, sponge, etc.?

[BigE]

Okay, I know you’ve posted a few messages since this one, but I had to go to mass and didn’t have a chance to respond…so I appreciate your patience.

I hope you enjoyed mass

First, let’s take God out of the picture for a moment, and just speak about this contraception issue from a strictly humanitarian point of view. This is a bit difficult for me as I don’t know how one can seperate man from God, but for conversation sake, let’s say there is no God, and only us humans running the world.

As such, we humans are mammals. No other species of mammals that I’m aware of proactively takes the pro creative function out of the sexual act. Survival of the species depends upon it. So one could posit that non-contraceptive sex is the natural law in mammals.

Well, we’re different than animals in a lot ways. In the animal world survival IS dependent on non-contraceptive sex. The new borns are eaten by predators and face all sorts of challenges in the wild. The sick and weak are quickly killed and rarely survive. We do not face any of those issues.

And if you are making the claim that since something happens in the animal world it must be natural. That would seem to support natural aggression and territorial violence - a very common occurence in the wild - something that we as people try to rise above.

Now you exist today because your biological parents had sex. And they exist because their biological parents had sex. If you go back a thousand generations in your family tree, then you discover that thousands of your ancestors existed and theirs and your very existence was contingent upon non-contracepted sex. If just one of those folks in the chain had used contraception…you and thousands others never come into being.

Your argument here is valid only if I was arguing for the use of contraceptive sex 100% of the time. Let’s pick an extreme example. What if the Church said contraceptives were ok only after a family has had eight children. Your continuation of the species argument goes away. Now how do you feel about contraception?

You could even throw in a Darwinian slant to this. If the best and brightest of the species is also the demographic of the species that practices contraception the most, then fewer of the good genes get passed on to the next generation and weakening of the species begins to occur.

Couldn’t that theoritically happen with NFP too?

That’s the best I can do leaving God out of the equation.

Thank you . I appreciate the discussion - and I value your response.

Let’s touch on the marriage. Do you really give yourself totally to your wife if you are contracepting? Are you not saying “I give all of myself to you except my fertility?” So it’s not a total gift. Do you give yourself freely if you’re contracepting? You can’t because you’re enslaved by your fear of pregnancy. Do you give yourself faithfully if you’re contracepting? No, because contraception is an act of self-absorption versus the a self-donating act. You’re holding back from wife. Finally, do you give yourself fruitfully to your wife if you’re contracepting? Absolutely not. Without the openness to the normative purpose of the act, it’s merely an outlet for lust, which is the very thing that turns your wife or you into that mechanical entity. It is an affront to your human dignity. That’s what makes it evil. Simply stated, as a human being, you deserve better.

Perspective is a funny thing. I would’ve argued just the opposite. That no sex (nfp) = less giving. Or sex with the worry of pregnancy would get in the way of fully giving during sex.

 

[BigE]

There is a big difference between “error” or “mistake” as opposed to the doctrine of “infallibility”.
In your list you mentioned the Galileo affair, which is not a case of Church error or Papal infallibility. The facts of the case are:

In the Galileo affair, it should be noted that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained – which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.

Citing all facts of the matter and all the rest of broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. What you have are cases showing incompetence of a group of people of the cloth, not the whole church.

I agree 100%.

And to my knowledge, the teachings on contraceptives have never been declared infallible. Correct?

1ke made the claim that the Church NEVER taught in error. I assume he included non-infallible teachings as well. So I was just pointing some out.

 

[LittleDeb]

Perspective is a funny thing. I would’ve argued just the opposite. That no sex (nfp) = less giving. Or sex with the worry of pregnancy would get in the way of fully giving during sex.

I have been silently reading along and have appreciated your candor and polite exchange in what can be a hot topic.

If I may jump in and comment here. The part I quoted here deserves attention. You might be on to a deeper understanding if you think and pray on this further. Those of us who periodically abstain during fertility, (what the Church is actually addressing in Her documents not the knowledge of fertility) we don’t “worry” about pregnancy. Many non-NFP folks misunderstand that. We rejoice at pregnancy! It is God who helps us to know when He wants us to be together. Charting helps in understanding God’s will for us. Those who use the “wing it” method are fine without that understanding. God has different plans for each of us, but His plan doesn’t involve taking His will out of the act.

An unhealed post-partum woman is not best loved by sexual intercourse. A person with Alzheimer’s and doesn’t know his or her spouse is not best loved by sexual intercourse. I am not best loved if my husband were to cut work and lose his job to stay home and have sex.

Sex is not the only way to express love. Sometimes abstinence can be just as loving or more so. God doesn’t want the unmarried to have sex. Why not? Because that is not part of His design. Are the unmarried less loving? Are the married celibates less loving because one spouse is no longer able to have sex? Of course not.

Consummation is a renewal of our wedding vows. I agree that those vows need to be expressed often and with great enthusiasm!
For better/worse, richer/poorer, sickness/health, love, honor, cherish, all the days of our lives. Is sexual intercourse always the answer? Not having sex can sometimes be the deepest way to say, “I love and respect all of you and all of me.”

 

[Jennifer_J]

I would like to add to LittleDeb’s beautiful post, that coming together in the martial embrace knowing that life is truly possible makes that act even more special–a true reminder of our marriage vows. Our use of NFP has truly opened us to having children and welcoming them joyfully. There is no “worry of pregnancy”, for us at least. When you engage in the marital embrace, you must admit that the end result could be a baby–that’s how it works When we contracepted before converting, the marital embrace was not like that at all.

God bless,
Jennifer

 

[agapewolf]

Well, we’re different than animals in a lot ways. In the animal world survival IS dependent on non-contraceptive sex. The new borns are eaten by predators and face all sorts of challenges in the wild. The sick and weak are quickly killed and rarely survive. We do not face any of those issues.

And if you are making the claim that since something happens in the animal world it must be natural. That would seem to support natural aggression and territorial violence - a very common occurence in the wild - something that we as people try to rise above.

.

REALLY??? You trully believe that?

Abortion: predators against the young.

Territorial violence…happens everyday. Children in uganda are stolen to become trained killers.

There is no population overflow. We are making ourselves extinct.

 

[1ke]

1. Galileo
2. Crusades/Inquisition
3. Attitudes and teachings towards Jewish Faith
4. Support of Slavery
5. Organ donation
6. Cremation

Please do your homework as you are incorrect that the church “taught wrongly” on any of these subjects.

You are blinded if you think the church has NEVER made a mistake in anything she has taught.

And, you are not quite there regarding the Church’s infallibility if you don’t.

Even she knows she makes mistakes and occasionally teaches in error (one of the things I admire about her).

This is completely untrue. Please provide documentation.

And the teachings on contraception have never been declared infallible.

This is also inaccurate.

 

[1ke]

And to my knowledge, the teachings on contraceptives have never been declared infallible. Correct?

Incorrect.

1ke made the claim that the Church NEVER taught in error.

That is correct. The Church infallibly teaches correctly on all matters of faith and morals, and cannot error.

I assume he included non-infallible teachings as well. So I was just pointing some out.

I am a she, not a he.

Non-infallible teachings, are by definition “fallible”. So, no, something that is not part of the deposit of faith or morals do not enjoy the charism of infallibility.

However, none of the things you listed were taught “wrongly”. If you would like to discuss *why *the Church did not teach wrongly in these areas of discipline then start threads on them for discussion.

 

[StCsDavid]

Well, we’re different than animals in a lot ways. In the animal world survival IS dependent on non-contraceptive sex. The new borns are eaten by predators and face all sorts of challenges in the wild. The sick and weak are quickly killed and rarely survive. We do not face any of those issues.

No, we don’t eat our new borns…we abort about 25% of them as a contraceptive measure before they have a chance.

And if you are making the claim that since something happens in the animal world it must be natural. That would seem to support natural aggression and territorial violence - a very common occurence in the wild - something that we as people try to rise above.

So is procreative sex something we as species need to rise above? As to the natural aggression and territorial violence, one only need look at what happens to segments of society with no moral guidance.

Your argument here is valid only if I was arguing for the use of contraceptive sex 100% of the time. Let’s pick an extreme example. What if the Church said contraceptives were ok only after a family has had eight children. Your continuation of the species argument goes away. Now how do you feel about contraception?

So eight children are a blessing from God, the ninth is a curse? It doesn’t have to be used 100% of the time to have an effect. Look at the zero and even negative birth rates in Europe. Their culture is slowly dying simply because they are not even replacing themselves.

Couldn’t that theoritically happen with NFP too?

I would agree with that, but I would say it’s far less likely. The mindset of the NFP user versus the contraception user is different. One is oriented to life, the other is oriented towards preventing life.

Perspective is a funny thing. I would’ve argued just the opposite. That no sex (nfp) = less giving. Or sex with the worry of pregnancy would get in the way of fully giving during sex.

I suppose the worry of pregnancy is not the same. It has to do with the true belief that life is a gift from God. So while pregnancy is a possibility, it’s not dreaded. Pregnancy is not a problem to be solved. The chastity equating to less giving is a product of our modern culture. It hasn’t always been that way. Mary and Joseph were chaste their entire marriage and they seemed to fair pretty well. It’s hard for me to believe that abstaining from sex for a few days out of the month is really going to harm a relationship. In fact, I would propose that a couple using artificial contraception very well could enjoy less sex than an NFP couple because the understanding of the total meaning of sex is different, not to mention the better communication between the couple that is required for NFP. Better communication leads to more intimacy.

I too have enjoyed the discussion.

 

[PLAL]

Can contraception cause an early abortion?

---

The pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, emergency contraception, the IUD - all of these chemical contraceptives have three basic modes of operation:

• They can act to suppress ovulation (the release of an egg from the ovary). However, women can and do experience breakthrough ovulation, meaning that an egg is released and available to be fertilized.
• They can cause the cervical mucus to thicken, making it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg. It is possible, though, for the sperm to break through the mucus and to fertilize the egg.
• They can alter the lining of the uterus making it difficult, if not impossible, for the 7-9 day old developing baby to attach to the uterine lining, where it would receive the nourishment necessary for further development. The baby would then be expelled from the body during menstruation. This process is known as a chemical abortion and is why the pill is referred to as an abortifacient.
  Sources:
  1999 Physicians Desk Reference
  Planned Parenthood
  A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and other Drugs, by John Wilks, B. Pharm., M.P.S.

all.org/article.php?id=10217​

Please read Dr. Janet Smith’s article on “Contraception Why Not”…

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

 

[jack_hawkins]

No…I am Catholic, I am just trying to understand the logic of this teaching beyond “because the church said so”.

And are you trying to tell me the church has never made a mistake in anything she has taught?

This is the block I am constantly faced by - the church says so, so it is true. So no justification is either necessary or desirable.
What’s that Voltaire quote - he who can make me believe in absurdities can make me commit atrocities, or words to that effect?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Then why do the manufacturers not state so in their packaged inserts? If this information is blatantly false, why is it promulgated on public websites with nary an outcry?

Let me ask you this:

Do you concede that it is possible for the pill to be abortificent? In the absence of solid proof, and given the information provided by the manufacturers of the pill, is it possible? Yes or no?

Lots of things are possible.
If we acted on possibilities all the time rather than probabilities it would be a strange and illogical world. The burden of proof is with the positive assertion.

Complex questions are no way to resolve dilemmas and logical arguments.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Originally Posted by BigE
Your argument here is valid only if I was arguing for the use of contraceptive sex 100% of the time. Let’s pick an extreme example. What if the Church said contraceptives were ok only after a family has had eight children. Your continuation of the species argument goes away. Now how do you feel about contraception?

All children are a beautiful, unique gift from God-a ninth child does not lose their value simply because of the position they are born into the family.This is perhaps why the church does not say that contraceptives are OK after a certain number, as it would imply that only certain people deserve to be here.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Those of you having a hard time understanding what the Church teaches regarding contraception/sexuality/purpose of marital embrace: Have you actually read any of the Church documents on said subject??? If no, then stop arguing and start reading!!!
Here’s a short list:
Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#I,
Humane Vitae vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Casti Connubii
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality
newadvent.org/library/docs_cf9601.htm
Deus Caritas Est
wf-f.org/DeusCaritasEst.html
Evangelum Vitae
wf-f.org/EvangeliumVitae.html
Familiaris consortio
wf-f.org/FamCons.html
Theology of the Body
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
(have I forgotten any?)

If you’ve read these and still don’t understand, stop reading and start praying for understanding. I find it amazing that just because we “think” the Church is wrong, we throw out 2000+ years of Church teaching because we don’t understand and refuse to submit and will only argue. Read, study, contemplate, pray.

God bless,
Jennifer

 

[jack_hawkins]

By saying that the church must be right because of authority and tradition, you push people who find the opinions expressed illogical into believing that the church is unreliable on everything. The church hasn’t been expressing an opinion on modern contraception for 2000 years, that is clear. Oral contraception is a modern discoveyr.

 

[Jennifer_J]

There’s nothing new under the sun.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36589&highlight=pharmakeia

<<Posted by BibleReader:

Most think, “How could the Bible possibly condemn contraceptive use, if it was written thousands of years ago, and contraceptives weren’t invented until our era?”

In fact, around 500 B.C., North Africans discovered silphium. It is not the same “silphium” commercially available today. The silphium of North Africa was a fennel-like plant, which grew wild in North Africa – nobody ever figured out how to cultivate it. Orally imbibed as a tea, it completely disrupted the girl’s reproductive tract. It was a very successful contraceptive. Around 400 A.D., the last silphium plant was picked, and the species became extinct.

Remember “Simon of Cyrene” who helped Christ carry the cross in the gospels? Well, Cyrene, Libya, was the main point of export for silphium. In the centuries before Christ, Cyrene even minted a coin featuring a naked girl holding up a fennel plant and pointing to her genital region.

Other popular and somewhat successful contraceptive herbs used before and after Christ were asafoetida, and what we today refer to as Queen Anne’s Lace, and pennyroyal. Asafoetida is still sometimes used as an ingredient in Worcestershire saurce. (Please do not go out and brew your own contraceptive teas or drink a bottle of Worcestershire sauce. You don’t know enough about quantity.)

All of these contraceptive preparations game to be referred to with the euphemism pharmakeia in the Greek-speaking Roman Empire – “drugs.”

All of this is well-discussed in the March/April, 1994 issue of Archaeology magazine.>> there’s more at the link if you scroll down…biblical references and everything…

More reading, study and prayer, less accusations.

Jennifer

 

[davidv]

By saying that the church must be right because of authority and tradition, you push people who find the opinions expressed illogical into believing that the church is unreliable on everything. The church hasn’t been expressing an opinion on modern contraception for 2000 years, that is clear. Oral contraception is a modern discoveyr.

But the principles involved date from the beginning.

 

[jack_hawkins]

nearly all of the quotes involve induced abortion - so I am not persuaded
also I would have to see the historical context, since for example we know the historical origin of the term “fornication” was temple prostitution

 

[Jennifer_J]

Read further into the link forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36589&highlight=contraception+church+teaching
referencing the Didache:
<<The reason why you had to read all of that is to understand the exact meaning of a catechetical summary employed in the early Church – very shgortly after the time of the Apostles – called the Didache.

Didache 2:2 condemns (1) magiae; (2) pharmakeia; (3) abortion; and (4) infanticide.

Do you see what is going on there? Progressively-invasive anti-reproductive measuresare being condemned – reproductive curses, contraceptive chemicals, post-contraceptive abortions, and post-birth child killing.

So, the Didache, essentially written in the same era as Paul’s letter to the Galatians and as the Book of Revelation, is a reliable benchmark assuring us that when pharmakeia were condemned by Early Church Christians, use of contraceptives was being condemned.

A letter by Pope Clement also condemned use of pharmakeia.

Pharmakeus were users or sellers of pharmakeia.>>

Link to the Didache online
earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

Hope that helps.
Jennifer

 

[Goldy]

By saying that the church must be right because of authority and tradition, you push people who find the opinions expressed illogical into believing that the church is unreliable on everything. The church hasn’t been expressing an opinion on modern contraception for 2000 years, that is clear. Oral contraception is a modern discoveyr.

I’m not going to try to debate with you regarding this topic…not going to even try. But I had to say something about this post. Understand that the Church is God’s mouthpiece (whether you agree with this or not). If I believe everything the Church teaches, which I do, this means that I believe everything that Christ teaches. That’s our belief. Dr. Hawkins, be careful not to let your intellect get in the way of your moral judgment. The world doesn’t need more intellectuals today. It needs more people who are willing to stand up for Christ.

 

[fix]

By saying that the church must be right because of authority and tradition, you push people who find the opinions expressed illogical into believing that the church is unreliable on everything. The church hasn’t been expressing an opinion on modern contraception for 2000 years, that is clear. Oral contraception is a modern discoveyr.

Either Christ is the authority behind the Church or She is a fraud. Your reasoning makes you the final authority in these matters. That means you think you are above Christ?

Church teaches contraception is a grave sin. Whether or not the mechanism of some pills causes abortion is not the main issue.

BTW, there are plenty of drugs where we do not know the exact mechanism of action. That does not mean we act blindly when we accept good scientific rational.

It seems from your posts you would practice only when we have exact proof of how each single drug works. We have no such proof in each case. That said we know that some drugs have a strong likelyhood of acting in a certain way, even without “hard” proof, we still accept that indirect evidence.