Reading certain passages from Humanae Vitae makes one wonder why the Church allows natural methods of birth control while remaining strongly opposed to the use of contraceptives:
This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act…
…an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.
Impairs the capacity to transmit life. ‘Impair’ is an active word, it is a commission and not just an omission. While abstaining from sex during the fertile period is really just an omission of a certain act in the transmission of life, it’s the counting of days since the wife’s last menstruation and the charting of her temperature to be sure she’s “safe” that constitutes the commission part. So why is natural family planning allowed? Recently released official documents of the Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth-rate shed some light. The following is an excerpt from the minority report (click here for an article on the majority report) drafted by the Jesuit theologian John Ford with assistance from another Catholic theologian, Germain Grisez:
.
But is the objection really ‘nugatory’? (I had to look that up and it means “of little or no importance; trifling.”) Let us try to dissect that passage and examine it carefully:
| The Report says: | But when we try to think about it: | |
| Having intercourse during the infertile period does not prevent the beginning of new life… | Using science to determine exactly when that infertile period comes and deliberately scheduling all sexual activity within that period does prevent the beginning of new life.
. |
|
| The Report says: | But when we try to think about it: | |
| [during the infertile period]…the couple do not have intercourse to prevent conception but for the sake of some other good. | Couples using contraception also do not have intercourse to prevent conception but for the sake of some other good, which is intimacy.
. |
|
| The Report says: | But when we try to think about it: | |
| The “pill” or some mechanical or chemical device does prevent conception, but these are not themselves the conjugal act. | Charting to find that infertile period to avoid pregnancy is also not itself the conjugal act.
. |
|
| The Report says: | But when we try to think about it: | |
| Rather they are interventions in the conjugal act. | The “conjugal act” is the sexual intercourse itself and not the procreative consequence of such act. How then, does contraception intervene with the conjugal act?
. |
|
| The Report says: | But when we try to think about it: | |
| Using a thermometer does not prevent conception. | It does, by making sure she’s “safe”.
. |
|
| The Report says: | But when we try to think about it: | |
| The couple who use the infertile period do nothing that would deprive even a single conjugal act of its power of generating a new life.
. |
They may be doing nothing contraceptive during that single conjugal act, but they sure did something beforehand to make sure that such act would be powerless in generating a life. |
The only difference between artificial and natural methods of birth control is the timing, that is, when the act of birth control takes place. In natural family planning the method is applied before intercourse while in contraception it is during intercourse (the pill may be taken before intercourse but its effects are present during intercourse). But the intent is the same: to isolate the unitive significance from the procreative significance of the marriage act (in non-ecclesiastical language that means to enjoy sex without getting someone pregnant). As Igme once said, “What is the difference between ejaculating sperm in latex and ejaculating it in a uterus in its monthly off switch? The intent is the same!”
In case the similarity is still not clear, let us use an analogy about releasing baby turtles into the sea. Let’s try to find the difference between the two:
a. Building a concrete wall along the beach to prevent the turtles from reaching the ocean
b. Releasing the turtles when the tide is out and the sun is scorching hot and the only shade under which the baby turtles can get protection from the deadly heat is from the shadows of hungry sea gulls flying overhead
In both cases the effect is the same: the baby turtles do not make it to the safety of the water, much less into adulthood. While the first is obviously a deliberately preventive act, the second, if we take a moment to think about it, turns out to be just as deliberately preventive. The concrete wall may be an artificial intervention in the life cycle of turtles, but the timing of the release during extremely unfavorable conditions is really just the same in terms of intent and effect, even if it merely takes advantage of “a faculty provided by nature.”
So why does the Church allow natural methods but not artificial ones? The only logical explanation I can think of is that the Church has a strong preference for – a complete obsession with – the adjective natural. And if this is the case, as it probably is (if you think I’m wrong there’s a comment section below), the following passage from Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene says it best:
It is a simple logical truth that, short of mass emigration into space, with rockets taking off at the rate of several million per second, uncontrolled birth-rates are bound to lead to horribly increased death-rates. It is hard to believe that this simple truth is not understood by those leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods. They express a preference for ‘natural’ methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation.
And since starvation is natural for as long as we simply allow women to bear babies into a world where there is not enough food without actively robbing them of their food, there should be nothing intrinsically evil about it. Children dying of hunger and disease are just succumbing to a population control faculty provided by nature, and maybe that’s why the Church seems more concerned about sperm cells slamming against the wall of a condom, ending their lives in an unnatural rubbery death – while millions still wouldn’t make it to the egg, much less to the womb, even without any form of birth control.
Splendid analogy with the turtles, Jong! (Now I can't look at sea turtles the same way again.)
[The Church has no power to change the Truth]
And yet when the opportunity presents itself, the Vatican did not hesitate to blame everybody else for the sex abuse committed by its priests.
So when exactly did Jesus say it was alright to discriminate against gays, or that women can't be priests?
C'mon, let's hear it from the man himself.
[It was really an easier decision to make not to lose all those members who were disenchanted with the Church teaching on contraception. But Paul VI did it anyway. Pope John Paul (I suppose the most popular of all popes) reaffirmed Humanae Vitae even more. Pope Benedict XVI likewise. ]
They fall into the exact same trap as you yourself have just stated. Instead of actually assessing the world and the reality of maternal and infant deaths, the church higher-ups decided it was more convenient to just stick with tradition.
Yes, Jesus never said anything about discriminating against homosexuals. The Church never said anything about discriminating against them either. What the Church is against is disordered ACTS, be they committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals. In fact the church specifically pointed out NOT to discriminate against them.
CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
So saying you are free to be birds but are not allowed to fly… right. So priests who are supposed to be heterosexual paragons of faith, but rape young boys.
I love it when they break their own rules.
going back, never was a big deal, there is a difference between disapprove and banned. so a few holier than though men, in recent times, decided it was evil and called a crusade against it. as other religions adapted, RCC remained dogmatic. it only did a good job weakening the faith. and they will also never change that stance. as it will tarnish their infallibility.
"absolute power corrupts absolutely" as they say.
We don't claim that that the Church is composed only of indefectible persons, even clergy. Yes there are wayward priests too.
The Church has no power to ban anymore, they just guide the flock. Anyone is free to come and go as to their own accord. In the medieval times, the state subsumed the Church for its own ends. There were clergy, even the highest ones, who made mistakes in the areas of prudential matters in this unholy union. However, the Church NEVER made any mistakes when it comes to officially propagating teachings on faith and morals. We call it the Magisterium. The Magesterium never makes errors for the simple reason that the Holy Spirit guaranteed it so. The clergy continues to make prudential mistakes to this day, but such are not official acts of the Magisterium. More like violations rather
//The Church has no power to ban anymore, they just guide the flock//
Guidance with bigotry, threats of excommunication. and shoving their own doctrine down everyone's throats. you havent been watching tv or reading the news have you.
//the Church NEVER made any mistakes when it comes to officially propagating teachings on faith and morals//
oooh CAPS. I would like to point out 5 billion people disagree or just dont care wtih catholic doctrines. and if BBC is right; up to 69% catholics do too. nearly the same percentage of catholics who want RH here in RP.
//We call it the Magisterium. The Magesterium never makes errors for the simple reason that the Holy Spirit guaranteed it so//
and there we go, final answer it was guaranteed by the holy spirit.
when a simple man claims that, he is called a lunatic and his group, a cult, when an old man in seated on a big throne claims that, he is called the pope and his group, called The Roman Catholic Church.
Bill Maher does have sharp quips
Ladies and gentlemen, secularism and reason has left the building. first: vincenton, opinion hacks, WND and finally the holy spirit. as a final answer, well there goes your credibility. I should not have been really surprised. i rest my case.
I should let Twin_Skies react to that.His reaction to such claims are ,should we say, colorful.
So, the church is always right because the Holy Spirit says so, as interpreted by the church.
Willy, have you ever heard of circular reasoning?
[The Church never said anything about discriminating against them either. What the Church is against is disordered ACTS, be they committed by homosexuals or heterosexuals. In fact the church specifically pointed out NOT to discriminate against them.]
Jong may have been polite to you Willy. I, however, am far more blunt with people. You are full of shit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5433917/…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110608/us_nm/us_illi…
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/06/cathol…
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-11-10/news/171260…
But then again, what can one expect from an apologist who think he can gain the upper hand in a discussion by citing Creationist David Berlinski, or the Right Wing's World Net Daily, as if they were credible sources of information?
[This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.]
Willy, let me rephrase my question: When did Jesus ever say that being gay is inherently wrong?
perhaps they want to keep the great unwashed masses' population out of control so they will always have a guaranteed expanded flock to manipulate into their fold, etc w/e. :))
Morality of actions is determined by 3 things: the object chosen, the intention, and the circumstances.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM
Now, sexuality has a unitive and procreative meaning/purpose. In the unitive sense, sex is to be an act of free, faithful, and total mutual self-giving between the spouses – an authentic expression of love. In the procreative sense, sex should remain open to life. Any action that strips sexuality of these inseparable purposes is immoral.
The main difference between recourse to infertile periods and artificial contraception is that in the former, one can remain open to life and ultimately respectful to the properties attached by God in sexuality, whereas the latter objectively diminishes the spouses' fertility and thus can neither be said "open to life" nor respectful of sexuality's nature and purpose. It is also opposed to the unitive sense since by being closed to one's capacity to transmit life (that is, to become a parent of a spouse's child), one doesn't give himself totally to his spouse.
In terms of the object, obviously, recourse to rhythm methods does nothing to diminish one's fertility. In every sexual act, the spouses give themselves fully to one another as they are. This cannot be said in artificial contraception.
As for the intention, it is still necessary for those employing natural family planning to have grave reasons for doing so and that sexual relations should still remain open to life. Here, the intent is not so that the sexual act be dissociated from its procreative sense, but to foster intimacy while hoping to avoid a grave evil. But again, the spouses should remain open to life and respectful of the capacity of sex to transmit life. While artificial contraception may share these intentions, it falls short in the objective criterion by diminishing fertility or rendering one infertile. We should also note that if one practices natural family planning with a "contraceptive mentality," it would therefore be immoral.
For other helpful articles:
Difference between NFP and artificial contraception: http://www.chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control…
Why the Church is against contraception: http://www.chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control…
In all honesty Vincent, I wouldn't care less what the Catholic Church's stance on sexuality is. The problem is that they mean to impose their rules on everybody, Catholic or not. That's the core issue here.
//The main difference between recourse to infertile periods and artificial contraception is that in the former, one can remain open to life…whereas the latter objectively diminishes the spouses' fertility//
I disagree. Sex with contraception and sex during the infertile period are both not open to the transmission of life. The only difference is that the former uses artificial means while the latter merely takes advantage of a "faculty provided by nature."
//recourse to rhythm methods does nothing to diminish one's fertility//
I agree. It only makes sure that one is infertile during intercourse so that life may not be transmitted.
//[when having intercourse during the infertile period] the spouses give themselves fully to one another as they are. This cannot be said in artificial contraception.//
During the infertile period the procreative significance is absent since the womb is not open to the transmission of life. Why do you say that the couple (particularly the wife) are giving themselves fully to one another?
//As for the intention, it is still necessary for those employing natural family planning to have grave reasons for doing so and that sexual relations should still remain open to life. Here, the intent is not so that the sexual act be dissociated from its procreative sense, but to foster intimacy while hoping to avoid a grave evil.//
Why else would a couple deliberately schedule sex during the infertile period if not to enjoy the unitive significance while avoiding the procreative consequence? And what exactly does it mean to "foster intimacy while hoping to avoid a grave evil"?
"one can remain open to life" ?
is that weasel-talk for a high failure rate for natural methods? How can it be *BOTH* open to life AND effective in delaying pregnancies? it has to be one or the other, not both.
PROLIFE claims a 98-99% success rate for the Billings method (higher effectiveness rate compared to condom usage daw) yet somehow its also "more open to life" than condoms? even though they already said its "more effective" in preventing pregnancies?
Something's not adding up here. If they claim that condoms have a higher failure rate because of the mysterious "holes" that supposedly also make it unreliable protection against STD, then it stands to reason that condoms should also be "more open to life" than the Billings method.
Thanks for the beautifully candid comment Vincent. You made it clear yourself: the Vatican approves of the so-called "natural" family planning method because it is ineffective.
You said it yourself that in using your "natural" family planning method, "…one can remain open to life." In short, the "natural" family planning method (although there is nothing natural in intentionally limiting sexual intercourse to infertile days) is not a dependable means of preventing pregnancy.
Let us make the following gedankenexperiment. Suppose a device was invented that can precisely determine the fertility of a woman. In short, this device can guarantee you with up to 99.9% accuracy that intercourse with your wife at a given day will not cause her to become pregnant. Would the Vatican consider this technology sinful, given that using this technology is as good as using a condom?
A lot of things about PRO-Life's narrow-minded concept of "natural" birth control doesn't make sense.
Take for example the Withdrawal Method – no chemicals, artificial apparatus, spermicide, abortificent, or actual fertilization occurs so why is PRO-Life still against it? How much more natural can it get when you're not even using any device whatsoever? The response of Eric Manalang, Prolife president:
Q: Is withdrawal method acceptable to pro-life?
Eric Manalang: No, it's not acceptable to God for that matter.
(source: ANC Alerts)
This one from ABC-CBC news:
"Manalang is also opposing the "withdrawal method," wherein a man pulls out his penis from the woman's vagina before ejaculation. He said the practice is unacceptable and violates laws set in the Bible.
"We are not technical, we are moral. More than just technical, its moral, on what should be done for humanity. If we are looking at the point of view of moral or else you'd end up filling ourselves, this world will end up to the way it was before man came," he added."
———–
O diba oxymoron? pro-"natural" daw sila pero bawal pa rin Withdrawal Method… go figure…
So all the arguments of the Anti-RH propaganda about causing cancer, health hazards, costs, and other excuses mean absolutely nothing it the end. Even if there's an option that's free and has no adverse health effects, they'd still reject it purely on the basis of religious dogma.
[Wes wrote: "Take for example the Withdrawal Method – no chemicals, artificial apparatus, spermicide, abortificent, or actual fertilization occurs so why is PRO-Life still against it? How much more natural can it get when you're not even using any device whatsoever?"]
I think the Catholic answer can be found in Humanae Vitae:
"This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which MAN ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE MAY NOT BREAK, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act"
The operative phrase is "his own initiative." The withdrawal method, even though it uses no artificial apparatus or chemicals, is still about man acting on his own initiative to break the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
Am I accurate if I say that the church's stand on sex is solely confined on the act of procreation? Thus eliminating the intention of pleasure and love making even in the walls of marriage?
@Cosmos
If you're referring to conservative Catholics, that might be the case. But I wouldn't go as far as say that all Catholics believe that. When I was studying theology in admu for example, we had a professor who flat-out said during class that sex just for the sake of sex was "good," both in the sensual and moral sense.
In the latter sense, sex was good because it was an excellent way of strengthening the bonds of the sacrament of matrimony, regardless if the couple decided to have kids or not as a result of their activity.
I realize that this is a more liberal understanding of Catholic sexuality, but it should help illuminate the other guys here to one important fact – these so-called Pro-Lifers and the Vatican do not hold supreme authority on the definitions of marriage, even within their own religion.
There is this concept of ORDER. Everything has its proper use. This method is a waste of the 'seed of Life'. Thus, withrawal is a disordered method of copulation. It is not natural.
When you say "church", do you mean the Roman Catholic Church?
Yes, in this article the Church refers to the Roman Catholic Church.
The fact that the intent of both natural and artificial family planning methods makes you wonder how hypocritical the Church is by saying that the users of AFP are baby-killers. T_T And abortionists, satanists, etc.
Jong, the fact that priests are required to be celibate is already a clear contradiction of the church's policy on wat is "natural' and what is not.