Contraceptives

[BAChristian]

What do you think would be the consequences both adverse and favourable if the church was to change her position and say that barrier methods of contraception were OK?

Nothing would change, because 95% of Catholics today don't adhere to the Church's teaching on contraceptives anyway.

Let me give you all my insight on what I think the Church will do here soon:

The Church will claim that using the pill, or something like that, is OK, AS LONG AS, it's used for disease-related things, and NOT just used to prevent a baby.

So what does that mean? Well that means that the Church is changing it's stance, but it's not coming across like it's, "changing it's stance"...

The Anti-Catholic press will have a field day with it though...

 

[marciadietrich]

More pregnancies, because they do not work. Now if the Church’s plan was to really have Catholics, have babies until they couldn’t anymore then that would be the plan, let them contracept using barrier methods.

To me this is just more confusion and inconsistency in what is being said. Contraception some how "always prevents pregnancy" when preventing is the bad side of the issue, then somehow they just simply "don't work" if it is bad for them not to work. So can we say people who use a barrier method are more open to life than NFP users? I think some probably are, but I doubt that will be the conclusion came to here. All birth control has a failure rate and all will be greater in that failure rate if not used properly. As I recall "perfect use" prevention rate for condoms was listed at 98% ... that seems to be reasonably effective, but not absolute.

We used mainly condoms (and if not that a foam type barrier) for birth control for over 10 years. Never had one break or slip. I think the only problem, and probably not a problem in terms of intended function, was occasionally it would be put on inside-out. I had three kids over that time frame, always during months when we had simply skipped using them for some reason, just a not worrying about it moment. Months where they were always used never had a pregnancy. So most likley, but can't be said for certain, it was the times we didn't use a condom that I became pregnant - or at least probably 2 of 3 cases. Seems that it favors the condoms working most of the time, and if I had some NFP knowledge combined with ABC I expect we might have avoided having at least one of the kids and so best I didn't have that knowledge.

Then the possibility of spermicides or plastics harming sperm. Saliva has been found to damage sperm (of course it does, saliva is part of the digestive process!), as do most lubricants - either damage or slow sperm speed. There is no prohibition on saliva or lubricants because they don't prevent pregnancy, but the potential damaging effects are there. So the fact that there is potential damage to sperm can't be the reason for the prohibition of spermicide ... but that it is contraceptive the only reason.

And I thought it was permissible to use the pill for medical reasons, maybe it isn't encouraged, and the strict here would say the person should abstain while on it ... but I thought that it is actually allowed for medical purposes. Just as if a woman had cancer she could get a hysterectomy or have ovaries removed. It would be a medically needed proceedure with the unintended side-effect of sterilizing the person.

The ONLY reason that I can see that NFP is a superior choice is because it is LICIT - that the Church allows it (but did the church mean that EVERY married couple should use it for EVERY conceivable reason?) ... otherwise there are all the same issues involved.

 

[Benedicta00]

The mentality is what makes the difference.

As far as what artificial thing works better than the others, why put chemical or artificial means in your body when you do not have to? That is not respecting God’s creation, that is trying to alter it and take control of something that is his.

NFP fails when the couple does not follow it properly but if they are "open to life" it is not considered a failure. It is all in the mentality.

ABC is okay if medially needed, one has to discern what is medically needed, because how many doctors really give you an option of other methods of treatment?

If you have to take B/C pills then you should abstain because that B/C pill can act as an abortifant. If it didn’t have the capability of acting that way, then it would not have an effectiveness of 98%.

 

[Benedicta00]

Nothing would change, because 95% of Catholics today don't adhere to the Church's teaching on contraceptives anyway.

Let me give you all my insight on what I think the Church will do here soon:

The Church will claim that using the pill, or something like that, is OK, AS LONG AS, it's used for disease-related things, and NOT just used to prevent a baby.

So what does that mean? Well that means that the Church is changing it's stance, but it's not coming across like it's, "changing it's stance"...

The Anti-Catholic press will have a field day with it though...

The Church already ready teaches this but really and truly, what disease it prevents or cures is debatable but B/C pills can act as an abortifant, some ABC like Depo shots or Norplant, and the IUD, strictly abortifants, so I do not think the Church will change their mind. All the hollering "Catholics" do won't make them either.

 

[BAChristian]

Ya know, one thing I would like to point out here is that it's easy to say all of this when you're in a, how should I say it, period of life where:

a) you're not married, so thus, you're not going to be having any kids, assuming you abstain from sex out of wedlock.

b) you're old enough that you can't have kids anyway (from a female PoV).

c) you or your husband probably have already used birth control most of your life, and now, because of an earlier instance where surgery was performed, you no longer can have it, so since you can't have kids, it's easy for you to live like the Church teaches...

Sure is easy to say all of this when it doesn't matter anyway in your situation...

 

[geocajun]

BA, I am 26 and my wife is 23, we have 2 kids 18 months apart, and apparently if I look at my wife really hard, she will likely become pregnant.
The thought of having 10 kids is scary, and rightfully so.
But, I do faithfully adhere to Church teaching, and I am certain that God will not give me more than what is good for me.
Big families have huge benefits anyway...

I like how Michelle said it somewhere earlier. (Paraphrased) "It's seems easy to give God everything (problems, victories, etc) but we cannot give Him our fertility.
Do people think God will accidently give them a baby?

 

[BAChristian]

Do people think God will accidently give them a baby?

That question goes back to faith, doesn't?

 

[geocajun]

The church could probably still push NFP, it has some objective advantages, but that faithful would then be free to make their own decision as to birth control within the frame work of some moral guidelines, rather than a strict set of rules.

People are "free to make their own decision as to birth control within the frame work of some moral guidelines" today.
Just because you made up your own moral guidelines does not reduce Church teaching to a "strict set of rules".

 

[geocajun]

That question goes back to faith, doesn't?

isnt that what this whole "Catholic" thing is all about?

 

[marciadietrich]

Ya know, one thing I would like to point out here is that it's easy to say all of this when you're in a, how should I say it, period of life where:

a) you're not married, so thus, you're not going to be having any kids, assuming you abstain from sex out of wedlock.

b) you're old enough that you can't have kids anyway (from a female PoV).

c) you or your husband probably have already used birth control most of your life, and now, because of an earlier instance where surgery was performed, you no longer can have it, so since you can't have kids, it's easy for you to live like the Church teaches...

Sure is easy to say all of this when it doesn't matter anyway in your situation...

I'm in case (C) ... and I don't expect it would be easy if I wasn't. My husband had a vasectomy probably about 5-6 years ago, I converted just this past April. And three years ago he had a heart attack and quadruple bypass ... if it wasn't for his chewing aspirin during that first heart attack he may well have died. He's had continuing problems despite the bypass surgery. So I got a huge reality check there. Makes me think what if I had been widowed and possibly remarried as a Catholic ... could I live with the Church's teachings on this subject?

I look at these conversations as getting the basis to understand Church teaching in this area. If someone isn't willing to just accept it as part and parcel of being Catholic, does it make sense? Could I explain this to a potential convert and not come across as a hypocrite. I've got my out afterall.

Marcia

 

[Benedicta00]

Ya know, one thing I would like to point out here is that it's easy to say all of this when you're in a, how should I say it, period of life where:

a) you're not married, so thus, you're not going to be having any kids, assuming you abstain from sex out of wedlock.

b) you're old enough that you can't have kids anyway (from a female PoV).

c) you or your husband probably have already used birth control most of your life, and now, because of an earlier instance where surgery was performed, you no longer can have it, so since you can't have kids, it's easy for you to live like the Church teaches...

Sure is easy to say all of this when it doesn't matter anyway in your situation...

Christian,

That is not true at all. It is easy and only easy when you practice it, that is when you understand it.

This takes obedience and assent.

I have 5 kids, the first four are all boys. The first two were 2 years apart exactly, no NFP then. I then had another 3 years later, no NFP then either. Then a year and ½ later I had another and that was when I first learned NFP and we made a choice knowing what was a stake, it wasn’t because the NFP failed, that child turned out to be mildly autistic but very high functioning, the oldest is ADHD, BTW. Then 6 years later I had a girl and she is now 18 months old and the best thing that has happened to us. All the kids ages are 14, 12, almost 9, 7 and 18 months, if anyone should be preaching ABC, it’s me but I know in my heart it’s wrong and being open to life is right.

I had 4 c sections out of 5 and one delvery had complications, so it is not as hard to assent to as it seems. It increases your faith and trust in God more than you could ever imagine.

 

[Benedicta00]

I'm in case (C) ... and I don't expect it would be easy if I wasn't. My husband had a vasectomy probably about 5-6 years ago, I converted just this past April. And three years ago he had a heart attack and quadruple bypass ... if it wasn't for his chewing aspirin during that first heart attack he may well have died. He's had continuing problems despite the bypass surgery. So I got a huge reality check there. Makes me think what if I had been widowed and possibly remarried as a Catholic ... could I live with the Church's teachings on this subject?

I look at these conversations as getting the basis to understand Church teaching in this area. If someone isn't willing to just accept it as part and parcel of being Catholic, does it make sense? Could I explain this to a potential convert and not come across as a hypocrite. I've got my out afterall.

Marcia

Marcia have you researched the cause why he had a heart attack? Did the doctors tell you a reason because they are finding out now the vasectomy in men can or may cause blood clots.

But don't worry, what ever situation your in, God will give you the graces needed to do what he asks, but again, we have to be open by obeying his teachings if his grace is going to flow.

 

[MariaRegina]

Great posts Michelle.

 

[marciadietrich]

Marcia have you researched the cause why he had a heart attack? Did the doctors tell you a reason because they are finding out now the vasectomy in men can or may cause blood clots.

But don't worry, what ever situation your in, God will give you the graces needed to do what he asks, but again, we have to be open by obeying his teachings if his grace is going to flow.

Hi ...

Dale's mom was diabetic and had many heart attacks before she died at 55. Before Dales' heart attack we thought that the problems were related to a combination of her diabetes and post menopausal issues. So probably heredity involved, and cholesteral and other risk factors were there. I suppose it is possible blood clots could come from the vasectomy, never heard of that as a risk factor in getting a vasectomy ... but he had blockages from 85-95% in the four bypassed arteries, and they something like 70-75% in the ones they didn't bypass.

Marcia

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

People are "free to make their own decision as to birth control within the frame work of some moral guidelines" today.
Just because you made up your own moral guidelines does not reduce Church teaching to a "strict set of rules".

In this case I think it does. Some on this thread had repeated stated the the mentality (I'm going to say intent) is the crux of the matter with NFP vs. ABC. Indeed, it should be. since intent and circumstances are underlying factors in all occasions of sin. Expect in the case of conjugal love. Here NFP is considered only birth control method acceptable to be using IF you are open to procreation. I would accept this if it was explained to me why using another form of birth control AUTOMATICALLY changes my intent, even if my state heart does not change. If I am open to a anti-conceptive failure using NFP why am I no long open to an anti-conceptive failure a using non-abortive birth control method of any kind ? If my intent is not to get pregnant and I take proactive steps to ensure I don't get pregnant: take my temperture, intentionally not have sex during time I know to be fertile, put a phyiscal device on my body, whatever, how can one of these methods be said to not interfere with the bond between unity/procreation while the others do ?

No, we have been given a strict set of rules and they appear to be somewhat arbitiary. And it is, unfortunately, to this that the Church has been reduced. A quick scan of this thread shows that we have argued about the glories of NFP, the despairs if ABC, what constitutes openness of life, even mortal sin. What we don't seem to get to is the underlying morally of a conjugal act in a set of specific circumstances with specific intent. I respectfully submit that this is because we, together, can't wrap our collective mind around what the underlying morality should be. This is the problem with the Church's policies on conjugal love.

One more thing, I have been discussing this line of logic on three different threads for two months. I have made my points, backed my logic when asked, been respectful and more than patient. That I have issue with the Church on this subject is common knowledge. Frankly, I find your suggestion that I make up my own moral guidelines insulting.

 

[Rising_Suns]

One more thing, I have been discussing this line of logic on three different threads for two months. I have made my points, backed my logic when asked, been respectful and more than patient. That I have issue with the Church on this subject is common knowledge. Frankly, I find your suggestion that I make up my own moral guidelines insulting.

You have been very respectfull in our previous conversations about this on the other thread, which is a refreshing change of pace around here.

What we don't seem to get to is the underlying morally of a conjugal act in a set of specific circumstances with specific intent. I respectfully submit that this is because we, together, can't wrap our collective mind around what the underlying morality should be. This is the problem with the Church's policies on conjugal love.

Maybe your issue is with specificity. I don't think it is possible for the church to lay down guidlines that will cover every possible circumstance with every possible intent, which is probably in part, why she left this issue more vague than you would prefer.

 

[geocajun]

One more thing, I have been discussing this line of logic on three different threads for two months. I have made my points, backed my logic when asked, been respectful and more than patient. That I have issue with the Church on this subject is common knowledge. Frankly, I find your suggestion that I make up my own moral guidelines insulting.

Charlie, it is not my intention to insult you. I am being very candid.
We have already demonstrated the Church teaching to you refuting each of your points which you refuse to accept - now how it is that you distinguish between your refusal to accept this and your creating your own moral guidlines which are superior to the Church's is a mystery to me.

I do agree that you have been respectful and patient, no doubt about that. However, I put up a post which shows that intention does not matter in regards to contraception and did not directly refute that so you ignore it and continue to talk about why intention does matter in your personal moral system.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Charlie, it is not my intention to insult you. I am being very candid.

Both conscience and law are meant to be ways in which we come to know the truth. In theory, then, they are not in conflict with each other. But
unfortunately, sometimes our conscience or the law or both are not fully and correctly formed.
We have a duty to our own conscience. I've stated that too. If you're satisfied with the circular argumentation the Church has on this subject that's between you, your conscience and God. As it should be with me.

After all Rising_Sun says this is too vague and subject for us to come to conclusions on specific situtations anyway. So how come I'm not a welcome Catholic (I am after all accused of making up my own morals), if I chose to use a non-abortive birth control method?

I put up a post which shows that intention does not matter in regards to contraception and did not directly refute that so you ignore it and continue to talk about why intention does matter in your personal moral system.

As loathe as I am to quote doctrine rather then argue it:

Humanae Vite 12 (2):

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Paul just states that, he gets to, its Natural Law and he can interpret it anyway he wants, but ......

Humanae Vitae 16 (3)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.


.....he has to follow his own rules. Its unity/procreation before this paragraph and chasity within Marriage after. Chasity within marriage was never raiased as a source of moral righiousness before this paragraph. And another thing, he SAYS the chuch's state isn't inconsistent, but he never actually showed why. Its not obvious why unity/procreation are not broken using NFP, doesn't that bother you some ?

I mean I know he's the Pope and everything, but just who is making up their own moral guidelines here ? Maybe me. Maybe not.

Intent is an underlying aspect of sin for every sin but this one. Without adequate explaination as to why NFP isn't sinful. This is ok ?

As Catholics we are restricted to the use a specific contraceptive method and a specific means of enforcing chasity in Marriage and no less a deep thinker on this subject than Rising_Sun says that whole subject may to TOO VAGUE to come to a specific reason for these recommendations. How can we be vaguely restricted ?

How can you take a proactive action against conception and claim its does not break union/procreation ?

If your conscience is ok this all this, I'm a happy man. I got issues. I'm the one who has to bear the attacks on my Catholicity. If I didn't really have issues do think I'd bother discussing this with people who think I'm a libertine ?

I won't follow a doctine that can't be explained to me. There are nuns who lay moldering in their graves who will awaken, find me, and hit me with a ruler it I do that. (Although it might be good to see some them again)

 

[geocajun]

Intent is an underlying aspect of sin for every sin but this one. Without adequate explaination as to why NFP isn't sinful. This is ok ?

remember when I quoted this: 1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

Note that it says "Blasphemy, perjury, murder, and adultery" are all sinful regardless of intention. They are all sinful because their object is evil - the same with contraception.

As Catholics we are restricted to the use a specific contraceptive method and a specific means of enforcing chasity in Marriage and no less a deep thinker on this subject than Rising_Sun says that whole subject may to TOO VAGUE to come to a specific reason for these recommendations. How can we be vaguely restricted ?

I will post more on this tomorrow. I am going to give you my best shot at distinguishing between Natural family planning and artificial birth control in the Natural Law.

 

[marciadietrich]

remember when I quoted this: 1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it."

Note that it says "Blasphemy, perjury, murder, and adultery" are all sinful regardless of intention. They are all sinful because their object is evil - the same with contraception.


I will post more on this tomorrow. I am going to give you my best shot at distinguishing between Natural family planning and artificial birth control in the Natural Law.

Hello geocajun,

I highlighted in red a couple of things. I think I understand that murder is considered an evil regardless of intent. Although intent and context may be used in determining culpability, if I understood you correctly before and this part of the Catechism. Similiar to intent and other factors being used to determine if criminal charges would be murder 1, murder 2 or manslaughter. Or that 'murder' in the process of a war is something that is expected and would be judged differently than a similiar action outside of war.

Reading the prior paragraphs says this in 1755:

A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.



So the object must be good, the end good and the circumstances good TOGETHER. (yet if NFP lacks in 1 or 2 it might not be "morally good" yet never mortal sin, see below) To me this, other sections of the Catechism and the conversations here indicate that the only reason that is consistent to consider in the debate is that birth control is considered evil in its object and NFP is not evil in its object. All the other reasoning trying to justify one over the other seems to fall into intent (ends?) and circumstances where there will be cases of NFP being used without a goodness to the end or the circumstances and there might be ABC case with goodness to the end or the circumstances. So all the argumentation outside of NFP being licit and ABC not just confuses the issue, IMO.


So that would say ABC is always a grave matter by definition, NFP not a grave matter by definition. (And I agree with cosmin charlie in that I don't see the best of reasoning for making that case, and that NFP is always given the moral pass.) Because of that NFP no matter how bad the intent, no matter the shallowness of circumstances is always given a pass and never can be considered mortal sin because one element is always missing (NFP is never considered a grave matter). ABC is always grave, so always confessable given that knowledge ... but not necessarily always mortal sin because there are the three elements of grave matter (met given these definitions), full consent of will (maybe not, what if a spouse uses ABC like the pill against the other spouses will) and full knowledge (maybe they know it is not allowed, but do they understand all this reasoning? ... do they understand it is considered grave always?)


Looking forward to the natural law arguments, which I think may be misnamed. They often seem to go contrary to what is commonly thought of as natural or nature.


Marcia