www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Birth Control

William,

Thank you so much for the links!

I would definitely like to write to your wife to ask her some questions. Thanks for the email address!

God Bless you!

Jenny

Dear Jenny,

No problem at all. My wife, Valerie, says, if you have a question feel free to contact her privately and she'll do her best to answer it.

In His Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

I apologize for the long hiatus -- vacations happen!

I will respond to the various responses to my messages in one consolidated response.

Steven --

"1. There is no moral difference between using NFP to arrange for sex during the woman's infertile times and using artificial contraceptives."

Yes.

"2. Among the NFP practitioners, the NFP "zealots" actually have the better arguments and are closer to Eastern Christian thinking on the subject."

Actually what I intended to say is that the line of reasoning oin the patristic citations mentioned in this thread leads one to the conclusion that NFP itself is outlawed if used for a contraceptive purpose (ie, if used to avoid a pregnancy), rather than the view that NFP may be used for contraceptive purposes, for one's seed is still spent in vain if one consciously knows that it is virtually impossible for a pregnancy to occur, and one times one's sexual intercourse to coincide with that period. My own view is that the patristic citations simply do not apply to these forms of regulating pregnancy, but if one reads them the way that NFP supporters would have us read them, it seems that one must read them "all the way" -- ie, one must also agree that NFP used for contraceptive purposes is also anti-patristical and immoral per that interpretation of the fathers.

William --

"Not only this, if NFP and ABC (artificial birth control) are identical morally, I have to question why people who argue this do not just choose NFP rather than ABC, since they are morally equivalent? What is it about NFP that makes it so unacceptable to couples who accept ABC?"

Actually I have nothing against folks who wish to use NFP. My beef is with folks who say that one can *only* use NFP -- that's rather different.

"The Contracepting Couple usning ABC are in essence saying in their act:

"Lord, You have designed the marital act to naturally tend toward the begetting of children. By employing artificial birth control we are telling You, that for all we know You may want to create a life in this marital embrace and we wont let You."

Thus the embrace is a lie and a distortion of God's design.

The Couple using NFP (for just reasons) are saying:

"Lord, You have designed the marital act to tend toward the begetting of children. We have serious reasons for delaying the conception of another child. Therefore, we are delaying our union until the time You have designed the wife to be infertile. But if You want to create a life as a result of this marital act, we remain open to Your will and trust in Your Providence. When we do engage in the marital act, we will plant the seed where it belongs. Thy Will Be Done!"

But the problem with this comparison is that what couple B says is just as equally applicable to couple A, and, in fact, if NFP is more effective than non-abortificient ABC (let's call that "NAABC"), then couple B is no more open, and in fact *less* open, to the creation of a life than is couple A. In other words, couple B has no right to say that it is more open to life than couple A when they are using a method of regulating pregnancy whose promoters claim is actually more effective than the means used by couple A. Couple B is no more "open to life" than is couple A because they are specifically timing the sexual act to reduce the likelihood of conception to an even greater degree than is the case for couple A. The real question is whether, if the method of contraception does not work, couple A and couple B will accept that outcome -- and obviously if either of them do not then that is the mortal sin of abortion. But on the "front end", couple B has no moral high ground over couple A.

"In other words, in this example, the women is fertile and the man has the seed to complete the fertilization. The human life is set on a direct trajectory to conception. But when they engage in sex the male stops the seed from acheiving what it has been designed to achieve. That potential life which was set to be conceived in that sexual act is denied conception."

But the only way one can reach this conclusion logically is by narrowing, radically, the meaning of the word "act" -- rather than viewing the decision to concentrate sexuality during infertile periods as another contraceptive act. To me, both cases involve a contraceptive act -- in one case the act is having sex using NAABC, and in the other case the act is the decision to concentrate sexual activity on those periods in which NFP tells us (and which its supporters swear is true) the likelihood of conception is less than it is when one is using a condom during the fertile period.

"This is analagous to going through the motions of renewing the convenental act of the Holy Eucharist and then taking a potion which makes you vomit up the consecrated host"

Again, as I noted in my post a few weeks ago, this is more like an abortion, because the "communion", which would be the analogue of a conception, has already occurred, and one is seeking to reverse that. That's akin to an abortion. Using NAABC, one is preventing the conception from taking place. Using NFP, one is also only going to receive when you know one is not receiving communion, because receiving communion at that time would be impossible (and at the same time abstaining from going to communion when you know that communion is possible).

Alex --

"Is not the sperm used in periods in which pregnancy will virtually not occur a "more natural" use than the other?"

But not immunizing my children is also "more natural" than imunizing them. Therefore, I don't think that the natural argument, in itself, is very convincing or relevant. It's most effectively used as a buttress to the other arguments raised in support of NFP.

"You make your point about the "wasting" aspect. But is not the former use at least qualitatively and even morally distinct from the latter?"

I don't believe so, no.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

If you say so!

What the heck do I care about birth control anyway? I take a strictly "gloves off" approach - no kidding . . .

Welcome back from vacation, Big Guy - hope it was a good one!

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, everything I could say to your objections -I think- has already been stated. To me, it seems we would just be going in circles if we continue on. If what I have written has not satisfied you or demonstrated to you the difference between NFP and ABC, then I apologize. I appreciate your wanting to discuss this.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Brendan,

I guess I was wrong. There are a couple of things I might be able to add that I previously didn't mention.

First of all, I want you to know that I used to share your view. Trying to be consistent with the teachings of the Fathers who spoke very clearly against contraception, I did not employ NFP at all for several years of my marriage (and of course absolutely no contraceptives). I did this because I saw that many of them taught that sex was designed soley for the propagation of children which would seem to preclude the use of NFP, as you are arguing.

[By the way, I don't think it proper to refer to NFP as a "contraceptive." Websters defines the word as "any DEVICE or AGENT used for contraception." Neither of these are used in NFP. And, I accept your use of the abbreviation "NAABC" (non-abortifacient artificial birth control). In turn, I would call what I am referring to, "NBC" (natural birth control), but will use the common "NFP" (natural family planning).]

Later, I realized that among the Fathers their were actually two forms of anti-contraceptive views. Both of these views saw contraception as a grave distortion and frustration of God's design and evil.

Yet one view saw the marital embrace as strictly to be engaged in for the offspring of children ALONE. This was the majority of the Fathers. Yet, there were other Fathers, who all the while condemning those who artificially rendered the marital act sterile, allowed for the engaging of that act at times when no new life could result (e.g. during pregnancy) while admonishing that abstinence was the only licit means for limiting family size.

This is the precise view taken by Rome in Humanae Vitae and followed by all the Catholic Churches. There is a more comprehensive discussion of this in Chapter Five of the treatise entitled "Is Contraception Orthodox?" at the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/apologetics.html

you said:
"for one's seed is still spent in vain if one consciously knows that it is virtually impossible for a pregnancy to occur, and one times one's sexual intercourse to coincide with that period."

reply:
No Father EVER agreed with your reasoning that having sex the way God designed, yet during an infertile time, was the same as the sinful act of destroying the life-giving potential of the sexual act.

Rather some agreed, like St. Chrysostom, that to have sexual intercourse during an infertile time was perfectly acceptable and moral (e.g. during pregnancy or by couples beyond the child bearing age). Yet these same Fathers still condemned the act of artificially destroying the natural effects of the marital act. See "Is Contraception Orthodox" for more info.

When I realized this, I became open to the possibility of using NFP for a just cause.

you said:
"Actually I have nothing against folks who wish to use NFP. My beef is with folks who say that one can *only* use NFP -- that's rather different."

reply: You missed the point of what I was asking. My point is, if what you say is true (that NFP and ABC are equally moral) why don't people who hold your view EVER just choose NFP over Aritifical Birth Control???

The answer is obvious. One practice requires sacrifice, lots of communication between the couple and a rejection of contemporary, comfortable morality. I've used both (ABC and NFP), I'm sorry to say, and I can testify before you all that there is a profound difference in the very practice of Christian morality. I challenge you and all defenders of artificial birth control, to try it for a year. Then, if you still agree there is no moral difference, go back to your previous practice. Why not do this? What do you have to risk? A new life might be born? The thought of this is enough to scare many into a perpetual use of artificial birth control. What are you all so afraid of?

And THIS is another hint of the moral difference between NFP and ABC.

you said:
"But the only way one can reach this conclusion logically is by narrowing, radically, the meaning of the word "act" -- rather than viewing the decision to concentrate sexuality during infertile periods as another contraceptive act."

reply: Not true. It is looking at more than just the intention and end (which can be identical between the practioners of ABC and NFP).

Its looking at the very act ITSELF which is radically different between NFP and ABC per the great Fathers of the Church.

One act is a condemned act, the other was endorsed by some of the Fathers. This is much more than can be said for the Onanistical practice of artificial contraception which all the Fathers (who spoke to the issue) condemned in the strongest and clearest terms.

you said:
"To me, both cases involve a contraceptive act..."

reply:
Although I strongly disagree with you, I respect your freedom to hold such an opinion.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 09-08-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

There are significant differences between NFP and contraception. NFP can be used to conceive - an offten forgotten point. OK, but what about significant moral differences between NFP when used to avoid pregnancy and contraception? Here's a good concise analogy which Dr. Janet Smith uses: NFP is to contraception as dieting is to bulimia. I find condoms to be particularly illustrative of a binge-purge or bulimic sexuality.

Anybody see "The New York Times Magazine" for Sunday, 25 August 2002? (Here I introduce some consequentialist evidence about the immorality of contraception.) The cover article by a woman who lost her baby to pre-eclampsia ever-so-briefly mentioned that some researchers suspect that pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are caused by barrier contraception. Now there's no consensus yet regarding the cause, and I've seen work from the 1980s identifying a suspected link between barrier contraction and pre-eclampsia, but I thought it was interesting that even the "New York Times" published such a thought.

Er, make that "often" and "contraception."

Ireneaus,

I agree with you there are many, many, other excellent reasons for choosing NFP over ABC. Dr. Janet Smith is a very effective speaker and author on the topic. I have been presenting the reasons which most compelled me to change my life and practice in this regard. I encourage others to read more from the proponents of NFP and the official teachings of the Catholic Church as they consider this topic.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian