Contraception

[porcupine]

It shows pleasure is a purpose. It would be safe to say that if you have a burning passion for someone, you'd like to have sex with them, right? I think it's fairly obvious in that situation that you wish to have sex with them to enjoy physical pleasure, not to create children.

Being male, I know that while pleasure is there, the "burning" is more for what one would politely term "release."

If God had not intended for sex to be pleasurable, he would have made it so getting pleasure from it would be impossible under any situation. Since sex can be very pleasurable, I think it's safe to say one pleasure is one of the purposes for it. Likewise, since procreation can happen during sex, procreation is a purpose as well.

You need to go back and read what I wrote at post #30. I'm am NOT saying what you are arguing against. In fact, I sometimes thing that most of humankind is so lazy that the only way He could get people to procreate was to make sex pleasurable. He inteded it to be pleasurable, but that doesn't make it a purpose. Read #30.

 

[invisible trousers]

In response to #39, it's the same thing. The intention to not have kids and the result of the egg not being fertilized are exactly the same in both situations. One involves waiting a few weeks, while one involves putting on a piece of rubber. Waiting is just as morally unacceptable since you're not open to the transmission of life.

This still means that infertile couples can't have sex, right?

edit: after reading your post I have determined that

1. You're implicitly adding "only" as a modifier. Does the Bible say unity and procreation are the only purposes for sex? No. If God had not wanted pleasure to be one of the purposes of sex, then he would have made it unpleasurably every time for all the parties involved. Since God decided to make sex pleasurable, it must be one of the purposes of it. Purpose and pleasure are in no way mutually exclusive.
2. Sex is not food.
3. Natural planning is deliberately preventing conception and therefore perverting the "purpose" of sex.

 

[PurpleBunny]

During premarital counselling we were taught that sex is for: communication, procreation, and release--none of these being above the other.

 

[porcupine]

1. You're implicitly adding "only" as a modifier. Does the Bible say unity and procreation are the only purposes for sex? No. If God had not wanted pleasure to be one of the purposes of sex, then he would have made it unpleasurably every time for all the parties involved. Since God decided to make sex pleasurable, it must be one of the purposes of it. Purpose and pleasure are in no way mutually exclusive.

I add "only" because I find no place where God says pleasure is a purpose. Surely, He knew it would be pleasureable, yet He left that out.

2. Sex is not food.

No, but there are legitimate comparisons. People are not sheep, nor are the words of God seeds, yet Jesus makes comparisons. Debate my comparisons.

3. Natural planning is deliberately preventing conception and therefore perverting the "purpose" of sex.

Correct.

 

[porcupine]

During premarital counselling we were taught that sex is for: communication, procreation, and release--none of these being above the other.

I would agree except I would put "release" a bit below the other two. (That would make "pleasure" fourth?)

 

[beechy]

The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. (Here I would like to clarify that the Church allows the regulations of births through NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING). Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). (CC 2399)

This is the part I don't get. How is "Natural Family Planning" materially, morally distinguishable from a condom?

 

[bliz]

IMHO, it is not.

 

[porcupine]

This is the part I don't get. How is "Natural Family Planning" materially, morally distinguishable from a condom?

It isn't.

 

[beechy]

It isn't.

Heeeyy!! A point we agree on This is definitely an area where I find your position to make more sense (even if I don't agree with you) than the Catholic church's.

 

[invisible trousers]

This means that infertile couples are not allowed to have sex, correct?

 

[porcupine]

This means that infertile couples are not allowed to have sex, correct?

Again, it you will simply read the preceding posts, you wouldn't post such foolishness. One of the purposes of sex is unity. That purpose never ends.

 

[praying]

Again, it you will simply read the preceding posts, you wouldn't post such foolishness. One of the purposes of sex is unity. That purpose never ends.

What causes that unity?


PLEASURE! It isn't very unifying if it isn't pleasurable for both.

 

[msaenz]

This is the part I don't get. How is "Natural Family Planning" materially, morally distinguishable from a condom?

The answer to your question is found in the following article. I have taken an excerpt…the article by Christopher West is called “God, Sex, & Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood”.

John Paul wrote in Familiaris Consortio that “the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle ...is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.”[1] In brief, these “two irreconcilable concepts” revolve around an “incarnate” versus a “dis-incarnate” view of love.

“Love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). These words of Christ sum up the meaning of life. Yet how did Christ love us? “This is my body which is given for you” (Lk 22:19). God’s love – an eternal, spiritual reality – is made flesh in Jesus Christ. In other words, Christ’s love is an incarnate reality and we’re called to love in the very same way – with the unreserved gift of our bodies.

Divine love is generous; it generates. And, to put it plainly, this is why God gave us genitals – to enable spouses to image in their bodies (to “incarnate”) an earthly version of his own free, total, faithful, fruitful love. When spouses contracept – that is, when they willfully defraud their union of its procreative potential – they become “false prophets.” Their sexual act still “speaks,” but it denies the life-giving love of God.

To think that constraining the free flow of body fluids impedes me from loving my wife is ludicrous.” This sentiment – once angrily expressed in a letter I received – typifies the “dis-incarnate” view of love used to justify contraception. For this man, love is not revealed in the body (and its fluids), but is something purely spiritual.

Make no mistake – taken to its logical conclusions, contraception implies the acceptance of a world-view antithetical to the mystery of Incarnate Love, that is, to the mystery of Christ…without the giving of the seed, there is no conjugal act. The spirit is expressed in and through the body (and, yes, the body’s fluids). It can be no other way for us as incarnate persons. John Paul II explains: “As an incarnate spirit, that is a soul which expresses itself in a body and a body informed by an immortal spirit, man is called to love in his unified totality. Love includes the human body, and the body is made a sharer in spiritual love.”[6]

If contracepted intercourse claims to express love for the other person, it can only be a dis-embodied person. It is not a love for the other person in the God-ordained unity of body and soul. In this way, by attacking the procreative potential of the sexual act, contracepted intercourse “ceases also to be an act of love.”[7]

 

[porcupine]

What causes that unity?


PLEASURE! It isn't very unifying if it isn't pleasurable for both.

If it is not pleasurable for one or both, is is not still the act of becoming "one flesh"? It is not the pleasure that makes it unifying. There are people who for various reasons (many physical) do not enjoy sex. Are they not united with their spouses?

 

[Edouard]

Porcupine:

With Faith God also tells us to be responsible in how we raise our children and to be responsible to our families with what he has provided!!!!

So where is your response to your Faith...foolishness in our decisions is not being wise nor is it faith...

I attest everyday that God provides for me and my family!
Matthew 5-7 Sermon on the Mount makes this more clear!
God is control, but we also have to be responsible... where do you balance the two?

Edouard
May God grant you wisdom!

 

[porcupine]

Porcupine:

With Faith God also tells us to be responsible in how we raise our children and to be responsible to our families with what he has provided!!!!

So where is your response to your Faith...foolishness in our decisions is not being wise nor is it faith...

I attest everyday that God provides for me and my family!
Matthew 5-7 Sermon on the Mount makes this more clear!
God is control, but we also have to be responsible... where do you balance the two?

Edouard
May God grant you wisdom!

You are making the issue of stewardship. Look at Jesus' examples of stewardship. In each case it was the steward's LORD, not the steward, who determined how many talents that steward was capable of taking on. There is no instance of a steward saying, "But Lord, I don't think I can handle ten talents. Could you give me only five?"

 

[beechy]

msaenz, here's my response to West's article:

Divine love is generous; it generates.

Where does this come from, and what does it mean? Generates what? Children? Where does it say in the Bible that love is divine only if it generates children?

And, to put it plainly, this is why God gave us genitals – to enable spouses to image in their bodies (to “incarnate”) an earthly version of his own free, total, faithful, fruitful love.

I see no support for this in the Bible -- it seems like a pretty big leap to me: Because God was incarnate in Jesus that is evidence that our bodies are important. This is why we have genitals -- so that we can procreate and make more incarnate beings, and having sex for any other reason denies the value of our incarnate bodies. I think there are some pretty big leaps in reasoning here.

God was incarnate in Jesus (1 John 4:1-3), so I agree that our bodies are not insignificant to our being. Indeed, the Bible says that our bodies are a temple (1 Cor 6:19), and that a husband and wife should freely give their bodies to each other in a sexual way (1 Cor 7:3-4). West's article goes on to say that Christ having freely shed His blood on the cross is evidence that husbands should, similarly, give freely of their bodily fluids to their wives during the sex act. To prevent his sperm from entering his wife, according to West, would be properly withholding his body, just as if Christ had a "mock" crucifixion. This I don't get. What Christ gave freely of was his life (Romans 5:8), and he did this in order that our sins would be forgiven (1 Cor 15:3). He gave His life of His own accord, i.e., his own free will. John 10:18. If He had had a "mock" crucifixion, as West suggests, He wouldn't have given His life at all, and our sins wouldn't have been forgiven by virtue of that sacrifice. Insofar as His goal was to have our sins forgiven, and this was accomplished through his death.

A couple having sex at any given time may be at that moment have the goal of procreation, or they may have the goal of expressing their love for each other through our bodies, as the Bible suggests we should do in passages like 1 Cor 7:3-4. Just because procreation may be considered an "important" function of sex doesn't mean that it has to be THE function all the time. If that were true, NFP would be just as problematic as contraception.

How is not letting sperm get into the uterus is a "dis-incarnate" version of sex in the sense that it denies the incarnation? West answers this question with reference to 1 John 4:1-3. 1 John 4:1-3 says we shouldn't deny that Christ came in the flesh. How does sex with a condom deny that Jesus came in the flesh? Especially if you're going to advocate, as West does, wholly abstaining from sex during certain parts of a woman's cycle (NFP) for the express purpose of not getting pregnant? NFP, according to West, is when a couple "track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, embrace when they are naturally infertile." Isn't sex even more "dis-incarnate" when it is denied altogether, than when the fluid at the end is prevented from reaching the uterus but the whole rest of it happens? At least in the second scenario, you are accomplishing the "unity" and "communication" parts that come with this intimate, physical, corporeal, bodily act. The only part you're changing is what happens to the sperm itself. And the only reason you're changing that is because the couple decided that that particular instance of the sex act was not going to be about procreation. That is the same reasoning that undergird's the decision to abstain in NFP -- we're not going to have sex while it is possible that that sex will result in procreation, but we will have sex when we think that it is not possible that that sex will result in procreation. In this way, doesn't a couple practicing NFP also have as its goal a way of being sexually intimate which "attac[ks] the procreative potential of the sexual act"?

God provided a physical mechanism -- i.e., sexual intercourse between a man and a woman -- by which we are able to facilitate the creation of a new life. We now know that the sex act is not itself creating life, however, but rather is a process by which sperm are delivered to an egg. In light of that knowledge, science has developed other methods, like in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination, by which the sperm and egg unions are made possible through different delivery methods, and couples that have trouble conceiving through traditional intercourse can still have children of their own. I don't see how this goes against anything in the Bible.

West himself recognizes that the NFP vs. "other kinds of contraception" distinction is a problem, because he spends a good amount of time discussing the difference through analogies, e.g., to killing v. death, and abortion vs. miscarriage. I addressed the problems with West's discussion in my earlier post #33:

. . . the West article says it is ok to avoid getting pregnant if you're doing so for the right reasons, but goes on to make a distinction between "natural family planning" (basically, abstaining during certain parts of a woman's cycle), and contraception like condoms. The distinction is made by criticizing the pro-conception argument that abstention and contraception are the same because they have the same "end" (i.e., prevented pregnancy), as containing the same logical fallacy as likening miscarriage to abortion. The difference, according to West, is that "[Natural family planning or miscarriage] is an 'act of God.' In [the case of contraceptives or abortion] man takes the powers of life into his own hands and makes himself like God." West cites Genesis 3:5 in support. Genesis 3:5 is the verse where the serpent tells Eve she'll be ok if she eats the forbidden fruit because all it will do is open her eyes so that she, like God, will know the difference between good and evil. I fail to see how this passage supports the idea that using contraception would be making onself like God any more than abstention would.

Moreover, the miscarriage vs. abortion analogy is materially distinguishable (indeed, I think it actually helps illustrate how not different abstention and contraceptive use are). Miscarriage and abortion both end a life already in existence. In a miscarriage, the fetus may be miscarried whether its parents wanted that to happen or not. A fetus that is aborted, however, has been aborted because someone chose to abort it, and it otherwise may have lived. I think it is that active choice to end a life which brings humankind into the picture (rather than making it just an "act of God," as a one might view a miscarriage to be).

Abstention and contraception, on the other hand, both prevent pregnancy from ever occurring -- that is, they both disrupt the potential for life, not life itself. In one case, that potentiality is disrupted by a couple actively choosing not to have sex, thereby not letting any sperm near the egg. In the other case, the potentiality is disrupted by the couple choosing to have sex with a latex barrier . . . which doesn't let any sperm near the egg. What's the difference? That one is an "act of God" and the other isn't as the West article suggests? How? They both involve a couples' choice not to let sperm near the egg. The only difference is the method: latex (which allows for the sex part to happen) vs. no latex (which requires that the sex part not happen). Is the problem that condoms don't grow on trees or whatever so they're not "naturally" occurring "acts of God"?

Making arguments hinged on the potentiality for life are difficult because there's no logical difference for the well being of the "not-yet-created-embryo" when you're not having sex and when you're having sex with a condom on. The "not-yet-created-embryo" is not going to be hurt any more or any less by either method ...

 

[msaenz]

NFP would be just as problematic as contraception.

Natural Family Planning is just that…Natural. Contraceptives like condoms, the diaphragm, the Pill etc are all UNNATURAL. The reason why my husband and I choose NOT to use contraceptives is because we give GOD every opportunity to bless us with children if that be His will.

I agree that a couple using NFP could use it as a contraceptive if there are not grave reasons (financial, psychological, emotional reasons which are left up to the couple to decide) for truly avoiding a pregnancy. However, the use of contraceptives such as condoms or taking the Pill presents an obstacle to God’s Perfect plan. We as Christians try in prayer to give God all our problems, decisions and cares…especially something as important as family and fertility. The problem however, when we use contraceptives is that we don’t leave God much room to fulfill His plan with respect to our children. (Happy are those whose greatest desire is to do what God requires; God will satisfy them fully! Matthew 5:7)

The natural laws established by God make it very difficult for a woman to get pregnant using contraceptives. And while the effectiveness rate to avoid a pregnancy using NFP is also high, it nonetheless, makes it possible for God to bless a family with a child. If children are a blessing as stated in Psalm 127:3 (Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a real blessing), why would we ever choose to “block” a pregnancy/blessing?

Because the contraceptive attitude is popular in today’s society, I can see why you have difficulty accepting it. It requires lots of prayer, surrender and FAITH to accept a child at any moment. But as I am sure you know, “we can do all things in him who strengthens me” (Colossians 4:13) and that includes, having more children than you think you can handle.

 

[beechy]

Natural Family Planning is just that…Natural. Contraceptives like condoms, the diaphragm, the Pill etc are all UNNATURAL.

Natural Family Planning has the word "natural" in it -- but that doesn't make it so. What do you think "natural" means in this context anyway?

I agree that a couple using NFP could use it as a contraceptive if there are not grave reasons (financial, psychological, emotional reasons which are left up to the couple to decide) for truly avoiding a pregnancy.

However, the use of contraceptives such as condoms or taking the Pill presents an obstacle to God’s Perfect plan.

Why is a condom more of an obstacle than NFP? Because NFP is statistically less effective? If the goal isn't to be effective, why bother at all? Why not just "leave it up to God" and not try and avoid the procreative aspect by any means?

We as Christians try in prayer to give God all our problems, decisions and cares…especially something as important as family and fertility. The problem however, when we use contraceptives is that we don’t leave God much room to fulfill His plan with respect to our children. (Happy are those whose greatest desire is to do what God requires; God will satisfy them fully! Matthew 5:7)

But what if a couple decides because they are having trouble providing for the children they've already got, that an element of "responsible parenthood" in their situation is a decision to not have any more kids? Do you not agree with the Catholic Church and West in his article when he says:

So, does respect for “incarnate love” imply that couples are to leave the number of children they have entirely to “chance”? No. In calling couples to a responsible love, the Church calls them also to a responsible parenthood.
Pope Paul VI stated clearly that those are considered “to exercise responsible parenthood who prudently and generously decide to have a large family, or who, for serious reasons and with due respect to the moral law, choose to have no more children for the time being or even for an indeterminate period.”

If this decision is reached in a sound, responsible, prayerful way, shouldn't some form of planning be used so as not to "put God to the test"?

A couple struggling to provide for their existing children should likewise not put God to the test. Today, knowledge of the fertility cycle is part of God’s providence. Thus, couples who make responsible use of that knowledge to avoid pregnancy are trusting in God’s providence. They, no less than a couple “who prudently and generously decide to have a large family,”[12] are practicing responsible parenthood.

The natural laws established by God make it very difficult for a woman to get pregnant using contraceptives. And while the effectiveness rate to avoid a pregnancy using NFP is also high, it nonetheless, makes it possible for God to bless a family with a child.

But if you're going to go with NFP just because it is less effective than regular contraceptives, and you think that a condom would make it "impossible" for God to bless your family with a child, why even bother? If by using NFP you're deferring to God, don't you think He in his omnipotence would find a way to make you pregnant even with a condom if that's what He wanted? And OTOH, don't you think he'd just not make you pregnant whether or not you were using NFP if He didn't think you should be having a child? NFP seems totally illusory if the only reason you're using it is to practice some kind of less than totally effective birth control . . . I say you either practice it or you don't. What's with the halfway thing?

If children are a blessing as stated in Psalm 127:3 (Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a real blessing), why would we ever choose to “block” a pregnancy/blessing?

I thought you agreed earlier in your post that there might be reasons . . . those are the reasons that would make it ok to use NFP.

 

[praying]

If it is not pleasurable for one or both, is is not still the act of becoming "one flesh"?

It is an act without meaning. Is it one flesh, no I don't think so. I think being one flesh is more than just the physical act of intercourse. A prostitute and a John by that definition are "one flesh." The act of becoming one flesh is both physical, mental and spiritual and IMHO can't be done without all elements present.

It is not the pleasure that makes it unifying.

NO it is not pleasure alone but pleasure is the glue so to speak.

There are people who for various reasons (many physical) do not enjoy sex. Are they not united with their spouses?

Why would you engage in sex if you did not enjoy it on some level? My assesment of a couple where one partner for whatever reason does not ever enjoy the sexual act but does it anyway is, it is not unifying. How can something one-sided be unifying?