www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Natural contraception 'effective'

And why is it intrinsically wrong to attempt to block the procreative activity of a sexual act?

Joe
----

Let us not forget about the unitive aspect to maritial relations.

I think, like everything, it goes to the real motive of the individual.

I tend to agree that contraception is contraception, whether it is natural or artificial. The motive is the same. The basic effect is the same. But there are other effects as well to consider. I think the more sterile and "barrierific" physical relationships become the less close people really are. To me that's the real harm.

Natural Family Planning does not interfere with ovulation, insemination, or implantation, whereas barrier methods, hormonal methods, spermicides, and coitus interruptus do. The latter four stand in direct opposition to conception by attempting to make a fertile condition infertile. That is why it is intrinsically wrong--it is an insult to who we are and how our fertility works.

It seems to me that what is considered "natural" and "unnatural" by NFP is not considered so on solely physical or biological bases. It, unlike artificial birth control, takes into account what is natural and unnatural according to our personhood. For example (from a woman's point of view), for a husband to make love to his wife during her fertile time with no intention of producing life is a slap to her face. By doing so, he is suppressing an intrinsic part of who she is, a potential mother. This suppression is especially so when hormonal birth control is being used, as it alters the fertility cycle itself. NFP respects female (and male) fertility and does not attempt to modify or mask it.

What is natural and unnatural according to our personhood? Man is a tool-making creature, among other things. Making tools is part of our nature. Some of them affect our body: for example, pacemakers, eyeglasses and (among many others) artificial birth control. And I think inventing such things is not unnatural but according to our nature: to make tools, to improve our lives.


Maybe she is already a mother and doesn't want any more kids. Maybe she doesn't want to be a mother right now. Maybe a lot of women want to be valued and loved for more than their ability to be mothers. Maybe --just maybe-- this is something that the couple should decide between themselves . . .

I disagree that artificial birth control is wrong. I think it is another tool that mankind has invented. This particular tool allows people to have much better odds at regulating the size of their families than by abstinence alone. That, in turn, I think is a very good thing in an era when most kids don't die from infant mortality, most people live past their 40s, most women want to be something more than solely mothers, and yet most people still have powerful libidos. Artificial birth control enables people to control the size of their families while still enjoying sexual intimacy, and that I deem to be a very good thing.

-- John

Joe,

Wasn't NFP originally designed to help couples who wanted to increase the chances of getting pregnant?

-- John

And I would add John that NFP is a tool that uses human techne in order to figure out how to outsmart nature. Now I've nothing against outsmarting nature for good reasons. But, once one says that one does not need to intend procreation to have sex, and once one says that, in principle, it is permissible to try to avoid procreation, then the means become irrelevant (unless such means are immoral for other reasons, such as abortion).

NFP and Humanae Vitae have their basis in the same kind of scholastic hairsplitting that makes a distinction between lying and "mental reservation." In other words, according to the same scholastics I can tell lie as long as I"m not really telling a lie . A nazi comes and says, "Are you hiding Jews?" If I'm hiding Jews and I say, "No, I am not hiding Jews," while knowing that I lie, then I sin. If I say, "I am not hiding Jews here," while looking at the door mat and supposedly in my mind intending to say that I don't hide Jews under the doormat, then I'm not sinning and I'm not even lying. Folks, I am not making this up. Humanae Vitae is the same kind of sophistry.

The Church fathers would spin in their graves if they saw the mental gymnastics employed by scholastic moral theologians to justify NFP while condemning other nonabortifacient methods. Humanae Vitae is filled with nothing but logical fallacies, especially equivocation and the slippery slope fallacy.

Joe

I've posted this citation before, but here I will post it again. This is the best article on the issue of birth control that I have read. It is from an Orthodox priest.

Fr. Paul O'Callaghan, "Pseudosex in Pseudotheology," Christian Bioethics 4.1 April 1998: 83-99.

It is not online, so you will have to get it from the library.

Joe

And what do you say to those who live in such poverty that they are unable to provide for the children they already have? Now I doubt this applies to anyone on this Forum, but there are those who do live in such circumstances.

Ryan

Anyone who has used birth control and then switched to NFP can tell you there is a big difference between the two. I have never used BC but I have used NFP. The mind set is totally different for both. Even when you only have sex during infertile times you still in the back of your mind think that there is always the chance I could get pregnant. With that in mind you are still open to life in your heart and mind. It is not the same as using a condom.

As far as your picking apart of the Pope's document the Patriarch at the time agreed with it. In fact up until the 1960's all the Orthodox condemed artifical birth control. It was in the west that this changed first. Now some of the juristictions of Orthodoxy accept some forms of invitro with restrictions of course.

Mother Theresa's sisters teach NFP to women all over the world where this is a problem. Not only is it morally acceptable but for the poor it is free!

That the patriarch of Constantinople at the time agreed with it is a non sequitor. It is true that all of Christendom condemned birth control until the 20th century. But they also condemned any attempt to avoid conception, including NFP. St. Augustine explicitly condemns NFP as an immoral practice used by heretics. There is every reason to think that the vast majority of the fathers would have concurred. Prior to the 20th century, the only alternative to baby making was complete abstinence. Also, the Church at one time had canonical penalties against post-menopausal couples who conjugated. For the majority of the fathers and theologians of the Church, procreation was the only reason for sex.

As far as the experiential claim regarding "artificial" bc and NFP, that is completely subjective. One can always find a couple who had a good or bad experience with one or the other.

I should also add that the issue of in vitro is also a non sequitor. It is an entirely different issue.

I'm all for NFP and I'm glad Mother Theresa's sisters are teaching it. But to say that NFP squares with the ancient teaching of the Church and "artificial bc" does not is simply incorrect.

And using condoms would square away with the Church Fathers?

"The Church fathers would spin in their graves if they saw the mental gymnastics employed by scholastic moral theologians to justify NFP while condemning other nonabortifacient methods."

The knowledge and practice of NFP is very different than the use of non-abortificant contraception. Your claim of what the Church fathers would or would not do serves no purpose. Our problems and our culture is different than the culture and problems they had to face. We can grow wise by listening to the fathers, but any claim to their judgment on modern problems is speculative.

You are assuming that NFP is contraceptive. It is not. It can assist or delay a pregnancy, it does not prevent pregnancy. As others have pointed out, it is open to pregnancy where other methods slap away such a blessing.