Contraception, Part V: Other Considerations
This is the final installment in this series (for now, anyway ;-) ) Sorry for the delay in putting it up. I’ve been busy elsewhere in the blogosphere.
Many thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion so far. I appreciate your comments very much.
In this post I will share miscellaneous thoughts which haven’t yet been addressed, and perhaps expound further on some previously-mentioned ones.
Note: while the matter of contraception obviously has personal import to every reproductively healthy married person, I am not examining the topic of contraception solely from that perspective. I am interested in it philosophically as well.
Mr. Pierce has mentioned a possible adverse effect of a certain barrier method on the physically unitive aspects of coitus, including the pleasure principle for the man. If one is going to bring this up, however, one must also consider another common cultural practice: circumcision. (Not to open up another can of worms :-) ). Obviously, this was part of the Abrahamic covenant, but now that the Abrahamic covenant has been superceded by the new covenant of life in Jesus, what do we say about it? Apparently, it’s possible that a man’s pleasure can be affected adversely by circumcision. Though admittedly there doesn’t seem to be much good information available on the subject.
There are other arguments against contraceptives which focus on one or another supposed disruptive, distractive, or contrived element which robs the marital act of total unity, but none of them hold water IMHO. Anything could be viewed as a “distraction” or “disruption!” No need to go into detail :-) And there is certainly potential for much more to be contrived in the marital act than use of contraception. This is not to say that contrivance is good thing, but rather to say that use of contraception doesn't have to be any of those things.
On the issue of whether or not certain forms of contraception are abortifacient, I refer the reader to Imago Dei, where OMF Serge has written quite thoroughly on the subject.
****
Due to the medical advancements and improved nutrition we enjoy today, survival of women and children is much greater than in the past. How might this relate to God's view of "limiting" production of children? In Biblical times, it’s probably safe to say that health was not as good. There were surely more complications/deaths from pregnancy and childbirth-related problems. (Or maybe not; I haven’t researched this, but seem to remember mention somewhere that feto-pelvic disproportion -– baby too big to fit through pelvis -- occurs with much greater frequency in the present day than in the past.) If I were living a few hundred years ago, I would most certainly not have three beautiful children nor anything else (except eternal life, and that’s the ultimate, so maybe we are missing out on what God wants...?), because I’d be, well, dead. I'd have suffered death from failed childbirth, joining countless women of the past. Dear Lord have mercy.
Which brings up another issue: does God want us to bear children “naturally?” I thought He did, when I was pregnant with my first. The pregnancy was perfect; I jogged up until my 7th month (what was I, crazy?) and everything seemed A-OK until...I went into labor. Then things went south in a hurry. Yet the midwives coached me on. After more than 24 hours of excruciating, dysfunctional labor, it was determined that the baby was stuck. The inevitable C-section apparently saved us both from uterine rupture! Aaaaaaaaaah! So much for natural childbirth!
But thank God for medical technology.
When it came time for #2, my doctor recommended a pelvimetry/sonogram test for cephalo-pelvic disproportion (baby’s head too big to fit through pelvis). Though I really didn’t like the idea (x-rays, being in that claustrophobic scanning bed for 20 minutes), I went along. Well, the ratio of disproportion was so great, the technicians thought there must’ve been an error. So they re-entered all the data and came up with...the same ratio. Translation: baby’s head was most certain to be bigger than the available pelvic opening, meaning forget about a VBAC (vaginal birth after Cesarean). We can’t always get what we want! (BTW, I had a spinal headache after that C-section...and it didn’t respond to a blood patch right away either...)
But anyway, what was God’s plan for me? To die in childbirth? To die and have no children? Or to take advantage of a medical accomplishment and be able to continue my life and raise 3 fantastic kids? Likewise, is contraception a tool to better our lives? Or a sinful intervention? Is bettering our lives bad???
There’s an old cemetery I walk by occasionally. In plain view of the sidewalk is a family plot with 6 headstones: a mother, a father, and 4 little stones all marking babies that died before age 2. Did you get that? Also, our local museum has a display that I’ve always hurried my kids past: a child’s coffin. The exhibit describes the booming youth-coffin business of the 19th and early 20th centuries due to the large number of childhood deaths.
Again, if it were a couple hundred years ago, and presuming my pelvis had been adequate to deliver my children, at least one of them would be gone from this earth already due to childhood illness. Of course, if this had happened, I could’ve kept having children, to “refill my quiver.” In some ways I see the merit of this, but in other ways there is no true “replacement” for a lost child, either before birth or after. And I would like to think that children have a value beyond simply a number in the quiver.
****
Could it perhaps be idolatrous to make non-management of family size a doctrine? Certainly a mother’s worth is not based solely on whether or not she bears and raises her full potential number of children.
I'd like to conclude by making clear that I have nothing but praise to God and admiration for families who do not use contraception. And yes, I'm a bit envious of these families :-) I am grateful for the example they set, and for the valuable wisdom they can impart to us all.
Which leads to my parting question:
If contraception is wrong, and all reproductively healthy married couples are to do nothing to restrict their numbers of children, then are some meant to be granted relatively manageable lives, adequate health, adequate sleep, adequate help, and opportunity to pursue other interests, while others are doomed to great struggle and hardship? Perhaps yes, if one is to be theologically consistent. Actually, it already happens this way, even with use of contraception. Therefore, could one not say that God grants couples with different circumstances the allowance to limit their family size?
Thanks, everyone, for reading. :-)
Many thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion so far. I appreciate your comments very much.
In this post I will share miscellaneous thoughts which haven’t yet been addressed, and perhaps expound further on some previously-mentioned ones.
Note: while the matter of contraception obviously has personal import to every reproductively healthy married person, I am not examining the topic of contraception solely from that perspective. I am interested in it philosophically as well.
Mr. Pierce has mentioned a possible adverse effect of a certain barrier method on the physically unitive aspects of coitus, including the pleasure principle for the man. If one is going to bring this up, however, one must also consider another common cultural practice: circumcision. (Not to open up another can of worms :-) ). Obviously, this was part of the Abrahamic covenant, but now that the Abrahamic covenant has been superceded by the new covenant of life in Jesus, what do we say about it? Apparently, it’s possible that a man’s pleasure can be affected adversely by circumcision. Though admittedly there doesn’t seem to be much good information available on the subject.
There are other arguments against contraceptives which focus on one or another supposed disruptive, distractive, or contrived element which robs the marital act of total unity, but none of them hold water IMHO. Anything could be viewed as a “distraction” or “disruption!” No need to go into detail :-) And there is certainly potential for much more to be contrived in the marital act than use of contraception. This is not to say that contrivance is good thing, but rather to say that use of contraception doesn't have to be any of those things.
On the issue of whether or not certain forms of contraception are abortifacient, I refer the reader to Imago Dei, where OMF Serge has written quite thoroughly on the subject.
****
Due to the medical advancements and improved nutrition we enjoy today, survival of women and children is much greater than in the past. How might this relate to God's view of "limiting" production of children? In Biblical times, it’s probably safe to say that health was not as good. There were surely more complications/deaths from pregnancy and childbirth-related problems. (Or maybe not; I haven’t researched this, but seem to remember mention somewhere that feto-pelvic disproportion -– baby too big to fit through pelvis -- occurs with much greater frequency in the present day than in the past.) If I were living a few hundred years ago, I would most certainly not have three beautiful children nor anything else (except eternal life, and that’s the ultimate, so maybe we are missing out on what God wants...?), because I’d be, well, dead. I'd have suffered death from failed childbirth, joining countless women of the past. Dear Lord have mercy.
Which brings up another issue: does God want us to bear children “naturally?” I thought He did, when I was pregnant with my first. The pregnancy was perfect; I jogged up until my 7th month (what was I, crazy?) and everything seemed A-OK until...I went into labor. Then things went south in a hurry. Yet the midwives coached me on. After more than 24 hours of excruciating, dysfunctional labor, it was determined that the baby was stuck. The inevitable C-section apparently saved us both from uterine rupture! Aaaaaaaaaah! So much for natural childbirth!
But thank God for medical technology.
When it came time for #2, my doctor recommended a pelvimetry/sonogram test for cephalo-pelvic disproportion (baby’s head too big to fit through pelvis). Though I really didn’t like the idea (x-rays, being in that claustrophobic scanning bed for 20 minutes), I went along. Well, the ratio of disproportion was so great, the technicians thought there must’ve been an error. So they re-entered all the data and came up with...the same ratio. Translation: baby’s head was most certain to be bigger than the available pelvic opening, meaning forget about a VBAC (vaginal birth after Cesarean).
But anyway, what was God’s plan for me? To die in childbirth? To die and have no children? Or to take advantage of a medical accomplishment and be able to continue my life and raise 3 fantastic kids? Likewise, is contraception a tool to better our lives? Or a sinful intervention? Is bettering our lives bad???
There’s an old cemetery I walk by occasionally. In plain view of the sidewalk is a family plot with 6 headstones: a mother, a father, and 4 little stones all marking babies that died before age 2. Did you get that? Also, our local museum has a display that I’ve always hurried my kids past: a child’s coffin. The exhibit describes the booming youth-coffin business of the 19th and early 20th centuries due to the large number of childhood deaths.
Again, if it were a couple hundred years ago, and presuming my pelvis had been adequate to deliver my children, at least one of them would be gone from this earth already due to childhood illness. Of course, if this had happened, I could’ve kept having children, to “refill my quiver.” In some ways I see the merit of this, but in other ways there is no true “replacement” for a lost child, either before birth or after. And I would like to think that children have a value beyond simply a number in the quiver.
****
Could it perhaps be idolatrous to make non-management of family size a doctrine? Certainly a mother’s worth is not based solely on whether or not she bears and raises her full potential number of children.
I'd like to conclude by making clear that I have nothing but praise to God and admiration for families who do not use contraception. And yes, I'm a bit envious of these families :-) I am grateful for the example they set, and for the valuable wisdom they can impart to us all.
Which leads to my parting question:
If contraception is wrong, and all reproductively healthy married couples are to do nothing to restrict their numbers of children, then are some meant to be granted relatively manageable lives, adequate health, adequate sleep, adequate help, and opportunity to pursue other interests, while others are doomed to great struggle and hardship? Perhaps yes, if one is to be theologically consistent. Actually, it already happens this way, even with use of contraception. Therefore, could one not say that God grants couples with different circumstances the allowance to limit their family size?
Thanks, everyone, for reading. :-)
posted by Bonnie at
11:48 PM
13 Comments:
Which leads to my parting question:
If contraception is wrong, and all reproductively healthy married couples are to do nothing to restrict their numbers of children, Interestingly all Christian denominations prior to 1930 condemned contraceptive use as sinful. All of them. The only church who continued to hold the line on that was the Catholic Church.
Interestingly to me, it seems that some Protestant churches have swung then far to the other side - no child spacing whatsoever ever. The Catholic Church doesn't take that approach either.
God didn't create the female body to be fertile 365/24/7. As with everything else in creation there is a cycle, a season, a time for conceiving and a time for not. The Catholic Church teaches that for serious, grave reasons, up to the conscience of the couple, these cycles can be used to limit or postpone family size.
I find that to be a very balanced, healthy approach - much more holistic than the contraceptive mentality of the current society.
By
Elena LaVictoire, at 5:50 PM
Hi Elena,
Once again I apologize for a late reply.
I guess I’m wondering: how does one determine the “cycle, season, time for conceiving and time for not?”
And I’m still curious as to what you would answer to my reply re: Onan, et al, here.
I agree that an irresponsible, selfish “contraceptive mentality” exists and is a very bad thing. But I’m not sure the problem is inherent in the contraceptives themselves.
By
Bonnie, at 11:14 PM
I've read the Onan piece; there's a lot there to comment on, some of which I touched on above. But essentially I don't think God was upset that Onan practiced "contraception" per se. It's that he wasn't honoring his familial obligation to his sister-in-law. He didn't want to father children that would "not be his." (Gen. 38:9).The Leverite Law is what you are referring to. That was the law that required a brother to marry brother's widow and have offspring in honor of the dead brother. Then penalty for the Leverite Law as to have your sandal pulled off in public and to be spit at. The penalty WAS NOT DEATH!
In the Onan story, it is very clear that Onan was engaged in the actual sex act and deliberately pulled out to avoid conception - a contraceptive act. And up until the 20th century that is how that passage was interpreted by scholars and theologians. It makes absolutely no sense to interpret the breaking of the Leverite Law as the reason God slew Onan, as a penalty for that is in the scriptures and it is no where near the severity of the death sentence.
As for natural methods of family planning, here is a good link.
By
Elena LaVictoire, at 7:17 AM
Elena, thanks for the link. I read it. There is nothing consistent about the NFP-vs.-other-forms-of-contraception logic in that piece whatsoever!
I very specifically addressed one aspect of this on the comment thread referenced in my last comment: the one about a woman’s sexuality being fuller during her times of fertility. How would you answer that?
Another problem with NFP: it doesn’t work for everyone. Not everyone can “read” their signals, meaning some have inconsistent signals or irregular cycles.
Also, there’s no 100% guarantee of conception prevention with use of other forms of contraception either, so, although the chances of such prevention are probably greater with these forms than with NFP, God can still “overrule” the use of both methods.
From the article you linked:
“However, with regard to individual acts, e.g., acts of conjugal love by married partners, the Church never examines a general intention. Rather, it is always the specific act and the specific intentions which accompany the specific act which weigh as evidence in the judgment. In other words, an NFP couple may have some vague general intention about avoiding children for months or even years, but that does not matter. It is the specific intention which they both have when engaging in an act of love which either contributes to the virtue of the act or to its sinfulness. And, as we have seen, the specific intention of the NFP couple is not contraceptive. Therefore, the NFP couple does not have a contraceptive mentality.”
Huh? “Vague general intention?” What on earth is that? It seems a pretty specific thing to me to avoid intercourse during fertile times, for the purpose of avoiding conception. How can contraception not be the specific intention of the NFP couple? C’mon, let’s call a spade a spade!
Lest you think I’ve got something against NFP, I don’t :-) I just don’t understand calling it something it isn’t, or not calling it something it is.
I’ll address the Onan situation in another comment.
By
Bonnie, at 5:46 PM
Contraception means literally "against" conception. There is nothing in NFP that is "against" conception. It does nothing against the egg, it doesn't kill the sperm, it doesn't alter natural body hormones, it doesn't maim or destroy healthy body tissue. So while the intent may be the same - to limit or postpone family size, it is not the same "contraceptive" action. It is the only licit moral way of doing so.
I have never met a person who really wanted to learn NFP who was unable to learn it even with the craziest cycles. Motivation is the key. Agreed it is more difficult than filling a prescription or getting sterilized.
By
Elena LaVictoire, at 5:28 AM
Also, there’s no 100% guarantee of conception prevention with use of other forms of contraception either, so, although the chances of such prevention are probably greater with these forms than with NFP, God can still “overrule” the use of both methods. The point is not to test or challenge God. It is to live a holy life. The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is "intrinsically evil" for a number of reasons, the first being that it is counter to the natural law. It may be helpful to think of analogies. It is acceptable to withdraw money from a bank. It is not acceptable to withdraw money from a bank with a gun. It is acceptable to lose weight with diet and exercise. It is considered a "disorder" to lose weight by sticking your fingers down your throat to induce vomiting. It may be licit to limit family size, but there are licit and illicit ways of doing so.
By
Elena LaVictoire, at 6:37 AM
Good series Bonnie.
By
Rusty, at 9:59 AM
Elena...
I would like to know how refraining from intercourse during a woman’s fertile time is not contraception! It certainly is “contra” conception. It’s withholding sexual intimacy in the form of coitus for the purpose of avoiding conception! The sperm are there, the egg is there. They are being kept from meeting via abstinence.
I agree that there are problems with other forms of contraception. But let’s look at what you are suggesting:
First, are you saying that it’s wrong to kill sperm in order to keep them from meeting the egg? Why? Sperm die anyway if they are “unused,” whether they make it out of the man’s body or not. Some of them may reach the end of their lifespan during a week-long abstinence, either during a wife’s menstruation or fertile period.
Second, if tubal ligation or vasectomy are “maiming,” then what about other types of surgery? There is very little surgery that does not result in some form of “maiming.”
The only circumstance I can see warranting NFP is if the sole purpose of sex is procreation. But if sex is a celebration of the marital union in other ways as well, then why compromise those other aspects of sexual unity to avoid conception? Either contraception as a concept and practice is allowable, or it isn’t. Period. NFP is contraception, regardless of the terms used to discuss it.
You still have not answered my question about a woman’s sexuality during her fertile stage.
On Onan: obviously, he either didn’t want to go through the humiliation of being known as “Unsandaled,” or he wanted to enjoy coitus with his brother’s wife without giving his deceased brother children by her. Or both. He wanted no children that would not be his. Yes, he performed an act of contraception. (One which didn’t kill any gametes, by the way. Also one that’s in actuality a rather unreliable method.) The passage in Genesis clearly states that God slew him because of his failure to consummate his marital union with Tamar.
The penalty of being spit upon and de-sandaled was for failing to take as wife one’s sister-in-law for the purpose of fulfilling the Levirate law. Onan did “go in to” Tamar (take her as wife). But he failed to fulfil that act.
You said: The point is not to test or challenge God.No, of course not. That wasn’t my point. I was responding to this, from the article you linked:
“The contracepting couple while engaging in the marital act, has excluded procreation both physically and purposely (in their wills). Such a couple has said "No" to new life. The NFP couple has said to God, "We do not think this is the time, but if you wish a new life, we will accept that life." In this sense, the NFP couple making use of the infertile times have not excluded the (remote) possibility of procreation physically or purposely (in their wills)."
I was saying that even couples who use “artificial” contraception have not excluded the remote possibility of procreation. The only way to exclude even a remote possibility of procreation is total abstinence.
The Catholic Church teaches...Elena, herein may lie part of the problem. I don’t believe that God has sanctioned any one denomination. I, personally, do not accept, hook-line-and-sinker, the totality of doctrines of any one of them. (I’ve actually got a bit of Catholicism in my background :-) ) This does not mean that I do not submit to appropriate authority, nor does it mean that I do not have tremendous respect and appreciation for traditions of faith which have been passed down through the generations and through churches. But I believe that in the judgment I will not answer to any denominational creed or tradition. I will answer to my Father in heaven, and Him only.
By
Bonnie, at 1:16 PM
I would like to know how refraining from intercourse during a woman’s fertile time is not contraception! Remembering that the "contra" means against as in against conception, what exactly does refraining from intercourse do that is "against" the act. Indeed since there is no act, there can be nothing against it. Refraining does not hurt the egg, it doesn't kill sperm, it doesn't put up an artificial barrier between husband and wife, it doesn't put anything unnatural into or on the body and it doesn't alter normal body structure or function. It is not against conception and it is not against the body. This is all of what makes it the only moral, licit option.
The sperm are there, the egg is there. They are being kept from meeting via abstinence.
There is however certainly a difference between the normal sloughing off of an egg or absorption of sperm that are not used according to the normal body design and chemical or mechanical destruction of the same.
I agree that there are problems with other forms of contraception. But let’s look at what you are suggesting:
First, are you saying that it’s wrong to kill sperm in order to keep them from meeting the egg? Why?What I am saying is that historically in Christianity it has been wrong to willfully enjoy the sex act while deliberately thwarting its natural consequences. Sperm emission during sex is normal and natural. Deliberately thwarting the potential consequence with spermacide (which sounds a lot to me like insectacide) while deliberately enjoying the act is what is considered to be sinful.
Second, if tubal ligation or vasectomy are “maiming,” then what about other types of surgery? The fallopian tubes and spermatic cord however are usually altered even though they are normal, healthy, functioning body tissue. This is maiming.
There is very little surgery that does not result in some form of “maiming.”Not of normally functioning body tissue.
The only circumstance I can see warranting NFP is if the sole purpose of sex is procreation. That is a partial purpose along with joining the spouses together and the pleasurable aspect. But its chief purpose, as in all things is to give Glory to the Creator, because as images of God we image him in all things. NFP honors that.
You still have not answered my question about a woman’s sexuality during her fertile stage.What was your question regarding a women during her fertile stage? Certainly women desire their husbands more during that time. But we are not animals and slaves to our desires. We have souls and can reason. For grave reasons the church allows us to abstain, but we examine those reasons on an ongoing basis.
On Onan: obviously, he either didn’t want to go through the humiliation of being known as “Unsandaled,” or he wanted to enjoy coitus with his brother’s wife without giving his deceased brother children by her. Or both. He wanted no children that would not be his. Yes, he performed an act of contraception. (One which didn’t kill any gametes, by the way. Also one that’s in actuality a rather unreliable method.) The passage in Genesis clearly states that God slew him because of his failure to consummate his marital union with Tamar. Well that's your interpretation and it is shared by modern procontraception scholars and theologians. It is not the historical interpretation and it is not the one that the Magesterium of the Catholic Church has taught for centuries. It is also not what the Proestant reformers taught. This interpretation does not have the weight of historical interpretation behind it.
I was saying that even couples who use “artificial” contraception have not excluded the remote possibility of procreation.That's not necessarily true. The abortion rates for contraceptive failures are quite high even amoung Christians.
The Catholic Church teaches...Elena, herein may lie part of the problem. I don’t believe that God has sanctioned any one denomination. I, personally, do not accept, hook-line-and-sinker, the totality of doctrines of any one of them. (I’ve actually got a bit of Catholicism in my background :-) ) Well that's a discussion for another day. However since the Catholic Church is the oldest branch of Christianity I think its position has much merit if it's a search for truth that we're after.
By
Elena LaVictoire, at 3:08 PM
Remembering that the "contra" means against as in against conception, what exactly does refraining from intercourse do that is "against" the act. There is no act. The abstinence, the refraining from marital union, is the "contra." This most certainly is "against conception."
There is however certainly a difference between the normal sloughing off of an egg or absorption of sperm that are not used according to the normal body design and chemical or mechanical destruction of the same.
True. But, as I said before, if you're going to make an argument based on how "unnatural" the chemical/mechanical means are, you're going to have to throw out a heck of a lot of other stuff in order to have a consistent ethic.
What I am saying is that historically in Christianity it has been wrong to willfully enjoy the sex act while deliberately thwarting its natural consequences.OK. But how is that any different from withholding the marital benefits of the sex act besides procreation merely to avoid conception?
There is very little surgery that does not result in some form of “maiming.”...Not of normally functioning body tissue.I disagree. Someone I know and love has some loss of function as a result of brain surgery to seal off an aneurism which probably would have killed her. There was some "maiming" involved in order to procure a greater good.
The only circumstance I can see warranting NFP is if the sole purpose of sex is procreation... That is a partial purpose along with joining the spouses together and the pleasurable aspect. But its chief purpose, as in all things is to give Glory to the Creator, because as images of God we image him in all things. NFP honors that.What I don't understand about that is how it gives glory to God to abstain from marital union in order to avoid conception if physical joining of spouses, as far as I can find Biblically, is not to be withheld except for purposes of prayer (I Cor. 7:5). How does it give glory to God if a wife must withhold ministering to her husband sexually, or vice-versa, because of a greater desire to avoid conception? How is this desire to avoid conception any different from a desire not to put sexual ministry below a desire to avoid conception by using "artificial" contraception?
For that matter, isn't it artificial to alter the natural rhythm of a sexual relationship in order to avoid conception?
What was your question regarding a women during her fertile stage? Certainly women desire their husbands more during that time. But we are not animals and slaves to our desires.Elena, what do you suppose is the natural reason for this "increased desire?" You make desire sound like something animal. Is it? Is desire not distinguishable from lust?
Does the increased desire for sexual communication during the fertile period not exist to drive us to procreate? Does it not exist to help cement a couple together? If you're going to say that withholding/destroying gametes is wrong during this time, you're also going to have to say that abstinence during this time is wrong. Why does the wrong of altering the physical aspects take precedence over the wrong of altering the other aspects?On Onan... Well that's your interpretation and it is shared by modern procontraception scholars and theologians. It is not the historical interpretation and it is not the one that the Magesterium of the Catholic Church has taught for centuries. It is also not what the Proestant reformers taught. This interpretation does not have the weight of historical interpretation behind it.I don't know about that. I'd have to research it myself.
I was saying that even couples who use “artificial” contraception have not excluded the remote possibility of procreation...That's not necessarily true. The abortion rates for contraceptive failures are quite high even amoung Christians.
Good heavens! Does that change my argument? No! It just serves to illustrate that those who use contraception cannot exclude the apparently not-so-remote possibility of procreation.
...since the Catholic Church is the oldest branch of Christianity I think its position has much merit if it's a search for truth that we're after.I agree that the Catholic Church's teachings in general have great merit. But not complete merit, which was my point.
Whew! Thanks for the discussion :-) Hey, let's talk about something else for a change: I'm curious, what homeschool method or curriculum do you use?
By
Bonnie, at 11:04 PM
A few things and then I'll bow out.
Remembering that the "contra" means against as in against conception, what exactly does refraining from intercourse do that is "against" the act. There is no act. The abstinence, the refraining from marital union, is the "contra." This most certainly is "against conception."An anaology:
If I am "against" something, oh, let's say Senator kerry for example in the spirit of the election season, I will speak out against him, I may distribute Bush bumper stickers and signs, I will certainly vote against him... Those are all direct actions against the candidacy of the candidate. If I sit in my house and do nothing at worse I am just neuteral, but I am certainly not acting against.
Abstaining is not "against conception" If that were true every high school student, priest nun, widow etc. is contracepting because their abstainance is "against conception.
The problem I think is that contraception has become synonymous with "family planning" to the point where the two mean the same thing - but I've already broken down the word to illustrate how contraception does not apply to abstinance and it does not apply to NFP.
True. But, as I said before, if you're going to make an argument based on how "unnatural" the chemical/mechanical means are, you're going to have to throw out a heck of a lot of other stuff in order to have a consistent ethic. Natural vs. natural law - and that is something that you will need to research for yourself.
What I am saying is that historically in Christianity it has been wrong to willfully enjoy the sex act while deliberately thwarting its natural consequences.OK. But how is that any different from withholding the marital benefits of the sex act besides procreation merely to avoid conception? The answer lies in the integrity of the act. In one you are not having the sex act. In the other you are having the sex act while deliberately thwarting its natural end. This too may require more research on your part. This gentleman, Christopher West, explains the natural law and family planning very well.
There is very little surgery that does not result in some form of “maiming.”...Not of normally functioning body tissue.I disagree. Someone I know and love has some loss of function as a result of brain surgery to seal off an aneurism which probably would have killed her. There was some "maiming" involved in order to procure a greater good. Do you realize you are comparing an aneurysm to natural fertility and surgical infertility as a greater good?
What I don't understand about that is how it gives glory to God to abstain from marital union in order to avoid conception if physical joining of spouses, as far as I can find Biblically, is not to be withheld except for purposes of prayer (I Cor. 7:5). How does it give glory to God if a wife must withhold ministering to her husband sexually, or vice-versa, because of a greater desire to avoid conception? How is this desire to avoid conception any different from a desire not to put sexual ministry below a desire to avoid conception by using "artificial" contraception?First of all, married couples ARE supposed to enjoy the marital embrace!! No question. The church doesn't teach that couples HAVE TO USE NFP. It states that for grave or serious reasons they MAY use NFP, but it is supposed to be examined on an ongoing basis. And yes certainly sometimes that desire to be joined makes you rethink what exactly that serious reason was!!
But also what honors God in NFP is a willing sacrifice of those desires in a way that honors his design of the body and the life giving power of that design.
You make desire sound like something animal. Is it? Is desire not distinguishable from lust? Certainly. Like hunger or a craving is distinguishable from starvation. WE have the free will to control both do we not?
I'd have to research it myself.
Another article on the topic...since the Catholic Church is the oldest branch of Christianity I think its position has much merit if it's a search for truth that we're after.I agree that the Catholic Church's teachings in general have great merit. But not complete merit, which was my point. I just found a historical/ doctrinal perspective missing in this series and thought it was important to bring to the table. I hope you continue to research the topic. It has been one of my favorites Christian topics to research and discuss.
By
Elena LaVictoire, at 7:46 AM
My homeschool curriculum is on my side bar. Here's the link.
By
Elena LaVictoire, at 8:03 AM
I want to thank you again for this whole discussion of contraception. I truly learned something and feel that I have been able to come to a position for myself and my family on the issue through reading your series.
thanks!
If you are curious, I will be posting that position and my own experiences with FQ on motherceo.blogspot.com
By
texashimalaya, at 4:29 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home