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

You think that contraception's function is not to physically block pregnancy or that it does not have the potential to affect a woman's frame of mind?

About the ad hominem, I was simply making an observation, though I admit it was unnecessary to the conversation.

Rachel, that contraception attempts to block pregnancy is an empirical fact. But that this is fundamentally different than NFP is debatable. Look at three different forms of birth control,

1) condom-designed to prevent sperm from reaching egg
2) the pill-designed to suppress ovulation
3) NFP-designed to engage in relations when the couple knows that procreation is impossible (or near impossible)

The first uses latex, the second hormones, the third uses time. The person using NFP is refusing to have relations during the time when nature normally intends us to have relations in order to procreate. I do not see how this is any different than the other methods. The question of whether one is "open to life" is purely subjective. None of these three methods is objectively open to life. All three of them attempt to render procreation impossible. The couple practicing NFP knows darned well that the chances of the woman getting pregnant are practically nil (remember, strict use of NFP is more successful in preventing conception than the pill or condoms). At the same time, none of these methods render procreation impossible. The view that one method renders procreation impossible while the other doesn't is mistaken.

Prior to the middle of the 20th century, the only option to regular conjugal relations for Catholic couples was complete abstinence. Also NFP was never intended to be a lifestyle or a spirituality. It is very clear both in Humanae Vitae and in Pope Pius XII's comments that NFP is only to be used temporarily and should be the exception, not the rule and it should be used only for grave reasons. I suspect that he would be quite surprised at what one finds in a typical NFP class.

Joe

"I suspect that he would be quite surprised at what one finds in a typical NFP class"

And how many NFP classes have you attended to come to this conclusion?

Terry

My wife and I practiced NFP for about 12 years and we know several NFP teachers. I'm quite well versed in the subject, both the Creighton and the Billings models.

Joe

I think we lawyerball life way too much sometimes.

I just figure it is better to go with nature - how God made us - then it is to try to reinvent ourselves through science. That's why I don't like artificial birth control. I think it is very unhealthy to the people involved in it. I would never, ever take the pill. And there should be one "thing" left in life that is not left to being a medical ritual.

But to me, even NFP attempts to game the system a little and I cannot help but recognize that. The arguments are attempts to avoid admitting that that is how it can be used. And it uses science, just not in a manner that alters human function (which I agree is better). Not altering human function makes it better than other methods, but to me, in my view, it is still not 100% right.

Rachel,

I wasn't claiming to speak on behalf of women. I was pointing out that different women can think differently on the matter than the point of view which you expressed.

Also, I don't think I missed the point. I think I addressed it. Namely, this is an issue which should be decided by the couple themselves precisely because the marital act can mean and communicate so many different things between people.

Also, there are women who are participating in this debate, and nothing is stopping more from participating if they wish.

Finally, I object to the ad hominem tone of your reply, both already quoted and the following:


I take it you meant to be sarcastic by that last part. Yet, you were the one who implied that artificial birth control is insulting to women because it demeans their capacity to be mothers. You wrote:


And thus I responded with the quote above, trying to illustrate different views and the need for a couple to decide this matter themselves.

In sum, both here and of my earlier posts: I do not think artificial contraception is intrinsically evil because I find it indistinguishable in goal and effect from both abstinence and NFP. I also think that the whole matter of controlling the size of one's family should be decided between a husband and a wife (with, perhaps, some counsel from their spiritual director). I do not think contraception (whether by abstinence, NFP or artificial means) is an insult to women, human nature, or God. Instead, in brief, I think contraception is a set of tools for people to have a measure of control over their reproduction.

-- John

John, forgive me. Sometimes I get carried away.

That family size should be left for the couple to prayerfully decide is totally right. My point, however, was not that, but that there is a difference between contraceptive intercourse during the fertile time and abstinence, namely that the first is an affront to nature because it attempts to ditch the natural consequence of intercourse. With abstinence, there is no such consequence. Furthermore, the first doesn't seem like the "total self-giving" that marital intercourse is supposed to be (am I wrong here?) because it holds back an intimate part of who we are, thus not allowing for total personhood. That was my point. Of course, I may be completely wrong, but that's how it seems to me.

To say that NFP and artificial contraception are the same just because the outcome is the same is truly hard for me to swallow. Where people and future lives are concerned, I think it's a misstep to objectify it all and say that every method is the same. It is right and good to use our intellect to improve our lives, but "tools" can be used poorly, and some should not be created at all.

Considering that Christians of all stripes condemned contraception (tools for controlling family size) until recently, who are we to say now that it is okay? Are we so bold as to say that God has changed His mind, or that the Holy Spirit has only recently been guiding the church in this area?

The reason why NFP seems permissible to me for postponing pregnancy rather than total abstinence is that marital intercourse is both unitive and procreative. Total abstinence implies that sex is to be used only for creating new life, not to also bring husband and wife together.

Again, my apologies for my tone.

Annie, "lawyerball" is a new term to me. I like it.

No problem. That happens to all of us (including me) from time to time.

And, although I disagree, I can see and respect your point of view.

Be well.

-- John

The following is from my blog [svjatsvjatsvjat.blogspot.com]:

Most sex acts are not moral. Firstly, sex is only moral as an act of two people, neither more nor less. Secondly, sex is only moral as an act of one woman and one man. Thirdly, sex is only moral as an act of a husband and his wife, married in the eyes of God. Fourthly, sex is only moral when its primary purpose is the conception of a child.

That fourth item is particularly scandalous to modern Christians, many of whom have wholeheartedly embraced a worldly, impassioned view of sex, engaging often in deliberately infertile sex acts to satisfy their pleasure. I understand that certain circumstances make conception imprudent, but where is it written that married couples must frequently have sex? Why do we consider it unthinkable or impossible to deny ourselves sex? St. Paul wrote, �let those having wives act as not having them� (1 Cor. 7: 29). If we were Godly, such a denial of pleasure would be no burden. Many married Christians rightly acknowledge that sex ought to be denied to the celibate, to the widowed, to the unmarried, and to the homosexual, but are unwilling to deny themselves even for a few years.

As an unmarried virgin knowing nothing about sex, I often defended the contemporary Catholic teaching on natural family planning (NFP). To do this, I mainly relied on the terms of the encyclical of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae:


As a man engaged to be married and studying this subject more closely, I asked our NFP teachers what constituted a �well-grounded reason for spacing births.� To my surprise they replied, �We don�t talk about that.� They do talk about effectiveness, thermometers, charts and tables, scientific observation, mathematics, etcetera. The more I learned, the more artificial and less natural this method seemed. NFP, we were told, when followed strictly, is more effective at avoiding pregnancy than �artificial� means of contraception. What happened to Pope Paul VI�s teaching that �each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life?� If anything, when having sex a Catholic should desire a less effective method of avoiding conception. If you do not desire conception, you should not be having sex.

As newlyweds, my wife and I practiced NFP for the first several months of our marriage. Before long, experience taught me more about sex than any amount of dry theological literature had ever managed. One thing I learned is that a woman is not like a man, always and everywhere desiring sex. Feminine sexuality is more like a sunrise than a match. It is great and bright and slow and cyclical, not small, hot, fast, and at-the-ready. NFP insists that we only have sex in the cold dark night, i.e. when a woman does not really want to have sex, i.e. when nature fails to arouse, i.e. when sex is unnatural.

I began to doubt the morality of NFP.

In 1968, a Catholic commission examining married life and birth regulation awaited the publication of Pope Paul VI�s encyclical, Humanae Vitae. Speculations ran wild. Catholics of a traditional mind knew that the Pope could not contradict the teaching of the Church. Catholics of a �progressive� mind hoped for a sweeping reform of Catholic sexual ethics. This is what they received. So outraged were they that artificial contraception was not permitted by even this most permissive of popes that they failed to observe that he had altered an ancient teaching of the Church about sex. What he approved, which we now call �natural family planning,� was specifically and universally condemned by Church teaching until the early to mid twentieth century. Pope Pius XII, in an Address to Midwives, was the first to suggest there may be permissible occasions for such methods.

It strikes me that the Early Church Fathers would have been dismayed to hear the successors of Peter preaching such things. Sex, in their view, is for making babies. This is its end and purpose. The distinction between artificial contraception and NFP would therefore be moot.

St. Justin Martyr (c. 160) wrote, �If we marry, it is only so that we may bring up children.�

Athenagoras the Athenian (c. 175) forbids sexual activity during an infertile period � pregnancy. He wrote, �After throwing the seed into the ground, the farmer awaits the harvest. He does not sow more seed on top of it. Likewise, to us the procreation of children is the limit of our indulgence in [sexual] appetite.�

In reference to the same issue, St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195) wrote, �To such a spiritual man, after conception, his wife is as a sister and is treated as if of the same father.�

Lactantius (c. 304-313) wrote, �Whatever is sought [sexually] beyond the desire of procreation is condemned by God.�

Two activities recommended by some NFP teachers are having sex during menstruation and during pregnancy, both of which are specifically condemned by the earliest extant Church Canons, the Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390):



St. Augustine (c. 388), more directly than others, opposes calculating and limiting sex to the infertile periods of a woman�s cycle:


I provide these sources in the hope of clearly contrasting the ancient teaching of the Church with current teachings.

This discussion has been most interesting and thought-provoking for me.

Each couple is different and has its own special calling, so it is quite difficult to pin down one clear model of sexual behavior for all, other than they should be "open to life." And while I can see God calling some to total abstinence, some to unpatterned intercourse, and some to somewhere in between, I simply cannot see God ever calling a couple to contraception, that is, a deliberate blocking of ovulation, implantation, or insemination during the fertile time.

Whatever a couple decides, it should be decided prayerfully.

One has to remember the question which was posed to Paul VI. The main issue was whether contraception was legitimate. Many expected him to say that it was. Sure, with NFP there can be a "contraceptive" mentality. Paul VI addressed that issue by saying that abstinence could be practiced with resort to the infertile periods for "just cause." That is an enormous distinction.

The question posed to Paul VI was not, "What is the most virtuous use of the marital act?" That seems to be what the Fathers are asking. And no doubt, we must strive for what is most virtuous, but we also realize our own frailty. Moreover, it seems that a woman does not merely want to be seen as a baby making machine. So a man must remember that the marital union also symbolizes Christ's love for his bride the Church. See Ephesians. This is not in contradiction to the primary end of the marital act, ie, procreation, but it is a true secondary end. Hence even a couple for whom the union, with any reasonable scientific certainty, might appear to be infertile can make proper use of the marital act. God is always full of surprises. One need only think of Abraham and Sarah who found God's plan rather amusing.

Paul also mentions that one may have a duty to pay the marital debt. Now that I suppose could be an act of virtue for the one paying the debt and perhaps, though not necessarily, a sinful act in the one "demanding" that the debt be paid. I think there is room to see that the marital union has a primary end which can never be legitimately frustrated and a secondary end which is, in a way more sublime--and indeed a great mystery which refers to Christ and the Church. Both ends need to be properly understood.

And many of us simply don't see any real difference between NFP and the use of contraceptives, insofar as both are used in order to avoid conception. I agree with those who go so far as to say that NFP is essentially a form of contraception, because it is literally used for the sake of avoiding, or "countering" conception. Now is there a difference between abstaining during times when the woman is fertile and the use of condoms, oral contraceptives, and the like? I suppose so. However, to me, it strains credulity to say that those who practice NFP engage in sexual acts that remain open to life. If the whole point is to have intercourse only when the woman is not in the fertile period, and NFP, when followed correctly, has a failure rate as low or lower than other means of contraception, I don't see it as being open to life. To me, it's a distinction without a real difference.

Ryan

This is a very good point. In a very real sense, participating in God's creation of a new human being is the highest, most noble part of sex. And if the question was "What is the most virtuous use of the marital act?" -- that is the answer.

However, as lm posted, it was the other question --whether contraception was legitimate-- that was the issue for Pope Paul VI. I don't want to rehash what has already been so ably stated in six pages of posts: namely, some people believe that contraception is against God's will and others believe that contraception can be in accord with God's will.

Now, let me ask another question. As lm posted, a lot of Catholics expected Pope Paul VI to allow artificial. contraception. But, he came out against it. So: Was Pope Paul IV's teaching on contraception (in Humanae Vitae) the main cause for many Catholics in the modern age to lose faith in the authority (especially the teaching authority) of the pope? Personally, I think so, but I would like to hear others' opinions.

-- John

Rachel,
In the mind of the fathers and at least one canon of the ancient Church quoted by John, NFP is contraception and no different than any other kind (save abortion). That is why many of us are completely unpersuaded by Humanae Vitae.

Joe

Ryan, well said. My thoughts exactly.

Joe