Artificial Contraception, Natural Family Planning, and the "Language of Love"
Archived exchange between the Editor of the Birth Control and the Catholic Church web site and "Other Michael" with a few other participants jumping in. Most posts from October 2002.
For further reflection on this topic, see the web page on "Pope John Paul II and the 'Language of Love'"
Editor's posts in Black.
"Other Michael's" posts in Blue.
Other participants in Red.
(Editor begins the exchange by re-posting points made by "Other Michael" in another thread.)
Replying to:
I'm working off of a post by "Other Michael" in another thread to start of this thread as I think the topic needs to be aired out. Since other approaches to distinguish NFP from ABC have failed miserably, pro-NFP folks have, following Pope JP II, adopted a "Language of Love" approach, attempting to show that ABC defiles this language while NFP respects it. "Other Michael" attempted to show us how this was so, and I will reply.
----------------
"Contraception directly attacks the first purpose and equally destoys the second by saying to the partners:
'I want you to have only this part of me, and I want only that part of you.' "
----First let's be clear that NFP IS a type of contraception--a practice used to avoid conceiving a child. So whatever you think contraception attacks, NFP also attacks. Unless, of course, you'd like to explain to us why NFP shouldn't be considered a contraceptive practice?
"Contaception does this by treating fertility as a disease to be treated...attacked. "
-----Why not NFP as well, what with examining cervical mucous, taking the temperature of the vagina--all this seems intent on insuring that a woman doesn't have "fertility disease." Or is that all about "respecting fertility?" Do you see the spin factor in all this?
"Contraception says: Here take some poison first before we have sex."
"Let me erect a barrier between part of us before we have sex."
"O.k. I'll have sex with you, but I'm going to make real sure that if life developes within me...it dies."
-------The birth control pill is not a poison, and the barrier placed with a diaphragm isn't between the couple--i.e. their love, their spirit, even their flesh: it's between sperm and egg. The third example I assume is to IUDs, which are abortive and to be rejected. We should note here as well that sterilization places no chemical or physical barrier between the couples, fwiw.
------- I fail to see how these practices inhibit the total giving of self by the couple to one another. They pale in comparison to the lack of sexual self-giving during the abstinent periods of NFP. Correct?
"NFP doesn't do this because it doesn't say "I only want part of you." NFP does nothing besides help couples find the fertile time and choose when to enjoy God's gifts, INCLUDING a potential life giving miracle. It does this wether the couple is trying to avoid pregnancy or achieve preganancy. NFP says:
"Love all of me as you make love with me."
"I love all of you, and accept all from you."
Go ahead say it...How sappy, gooey, and emotional! ! ! ! Yuck! "
------- I do not see how this is different from couples using ABC, for I don't accept your fundamental premise: i.e., that artificial contraception impairs self-giving. From the experience I share with my spouse, I will say that it does not. So do thousands of other couples. Your "language" approach fails to establish objective criteria for determining this, but introduces a kind of judgmental rhetoric into the discussion unparalleled in the old essentialistic/existentialistic squabbles.
"The issues surrounding transmission of life and regulation of birth require some deep honesty between couples as well as prayer. If couples can say the things above to each other when they contracept...well...I don't want to be judgemental here so I won't say anything. "
------- Only you *have* said something already! And your judgmentalism is quite plainly stated: you believe that couples using ABC are somehow not completely giving themselves to one another and that couples using NFP are. But you have certainly failed to prove your case, imo.
"Do you see Editor, you tie the hands of the debator when you use this argument. What I mean by argument here is that I am being Judgemental and Insulting when I am trying to be honest. Honesty, Editor, it is required. "
------- And so now "Mr. Gracious" suggests that I espouse dishonesty? Well, not quite, but sorta kinda maybe?
"NFP does not say "I want only that (unitive) part of you", because those practicing NFP are doing nothing to prevent transmission of life. "
------- Baloney! Unless "non-having-sex-in-the-fertile-period" is considered "doing nothing to prevent transmission of life." But who would deny such a thing? And why even practice NFP (for contraceptive purposes) if the idea isn't really to "prevent transmission of life?"
"Periodic abstinance(i can never spell that), is a choice to knowingly not partake of God's gifts for a time. Yes, it can be avoidance of the gift of a child. That is not evil. "
------- Correctomundo! The controversy is entirely about "acceptable methods of contraception."
"It(abstinance) is not a rejection of part or all of your partner or of God's plan(like contraception is). "
--- - How is rejection of sex during the fertile period not a rejection of "God's plan?" How is it not rejecting total sexual self-giving with your partner?
"It is a respect for each partner's person, their fertility, their humanity, and God's plan. "
------- That's the interpretation you give it, which I'm sure helps you to justify the practice--along with trying to be faithful to the Church's teaching, no doubt. But I'll give you that one: NFP does promote fertility awareness. But that's not why the Church allows it and condemns other methods.
"Conjugal acts during the "perceived infertile time", do not reject God's divine plan that may include the transmission of life. They allow for and accept the possibility that life can result from this act eventhough the chances are less likely than the fertile time. "
------- There you go again with this "God's plan" language, as though the woman's monthly cycle was somehow ordained to regulate sexual activity in marriage. And yes, a 98% effectiveness rate for NFP does mean that it is "less likely" that a "life can result from this act." Just a little joke we're playing on God, as you noted in another post. Ha ha.
"If one cannot honestly(there's that word again) accept the consequences of an action, including its divine intention, then one needs to pray for guidance. Be honest with yourself and do not judge yourself. "
------- Whatever that's all supposed to mean. Nothing judgmental, of course!
-------------
Now, "Other Michael," I believe you meant well with your post, only please do see that you are not discussing all this with people who've not thought long and hard about these matters, nor who have disregard for the divine and the teachings of the Church? Please consider my replies, and let me know what you think of them.
Much better approach, O.M. It is so rare to find the pro-NFP position presented without communicating harsh judgment toward Catholics using ABC. Nice job.
----------------
Getting to the heart of things, you ask:
"Explain why ABC=NFP. How can introduction of an unnatural process or element equal that which follows natural processes? I'm sure you'll wind up at the notion of intent to regulate birth. I won't tie your hands here, but that's not the debate...focus on how does unnatural=natural?"
First, I've never said ABC=NFP. What I do say is that it is a contraceptive practice, and so the ABC vs. NFP dichotomy falls apart right there once you recognize that it is one of many practices for avoiding conception. It differs from other contraceptive practices in its approach and method, primarily by not actively placing an obstacle to the union of sperm and egg, and that IS a real difference! No doubt about it! But let's not adorn this difference with nonsensical language like:
- ABC users don't respect fertility but NFP users do;
- ABC users don't give themselves fully to one another sexually, but NFP users do;
- ABC users are selfish in their sexuality, but NFP users aren't;
- ABC users are control freaks but NFP users are "open to God's plan."
- ABC users are closed to new life while NFP users are open;
- ABC users consider fertility a disease while NFP users consider it a great blessing from God;
- ABC users are "crowd-pleasers" who don't care about Catholic teaching whereas NFP users live by principles and are stalwart Catholics.
- et blah blah blah!
THAT'S ALL PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLS***, if you'll pardon my language. After reading and responding to hundreds of emails and posts where NFP users (yourself included) have made those judgments, that's the kindest thing I can say about it.
Back to the distinction between NFP and ABC, which is that NFP doesn't actively place an "artificial" obstacle in the way of conception. Again, granted! No barrier, poison, or or hormonal manipulation is there; certainly no impediment to implantation should a conception occur. Wonderful! All true! And this should be the platform off of which NFP presents its advantages, along with its compliance with Catholic teaching. No need to put down ABC users in the process.
However, let's do recognize that:
- NFP users are indeed DOING SOMETHING to thwart conception by not-having-sex during the fertile period. This "practice" does constitute an obvious impediment to conception, although in a different way.
- Calling abstinence a "natural" practice is just misleading. There's nothing more UN-NATURAL than a couple refraining from sexual relations during the fertile period of the month.
- Checking cerival mucous and taking the temperature of the vagina to insure a good read on the fertile period can hardly be considered "doing-nothing-to-impede-God's-plan." Every effort is being taken to avoid conception.
- In the end, NFP fails to honor the principle in Humane vitae that every sexual act is to be open to new life. NFP users are NOT open to new life any more than ABC users are.
And yet the Church does permit NFP, for the most strained of reasons--that it supposedly doesn't interfere with the natural fertility process. How this connects with the principle of every sexual act being open to new life is left hanging. Why this "non-interference" translates to a moral principle derived from natural law and "in conformity with the objective criteria of morality" is unexplained. The Pope says so, that's all, and then tells us that he is best suited to read and interpret the natural law. Say what?
Following all this up by then saying that even so, NFP users shouldn't adopt a contraceptive mentality is . . . well, dumb! Why else are they using it, unless they're trying to get pregnant?
So, in the end, NFP is considered "licit" or "legal" for Catholics because the Pope says that it doesn't violate objective norms of natural law while ABC does. All attempts to clarify this end up sliding off the slippery slope as you see happening again and again on this forum and on the web site. Theologians who question this interpretation of natural law (which they have every right to question and discuss) are labeled dissenters; bishops are ordained according to whether they see things the Pope's way, and lay people aren't even told what their rights of conscience are in this situation.
How do you like them apples?
Editor
Good afternoon Editor,
Except for a very few details of an emotional nature I cannot disagree with anything in your last post except:
" Calling abstinence is "natural" practice is just misleading. There's nothing more UN-NATURAL than a couple refraining from sexual relations during the fertile period of the month."
And this is where we diverge!
"NFPers" say that periodic abstinence has a role in marriage.
"ABCers" deny this role. Pardon me for risking judgementalism here.
So I suppose in the end we all have to answer the following questions:
Is it right to desire conjugal acts?
Is it right to desire only the unitive aspect of conjugal acts?
Is it right to desire only the unitive aspect of conjugal acts and act on those desires?
Is it right to desire only the unitive aspect of conjugal acts and act on those desires while introducing an unnatural element that harms the procreative aspect of conjugal acts?
Is it right to desire only the unitive aspect of conjugal acts and act on those desires while introducing a natural means to avoid but not reject or otherwise harm the procreative aspect of conjugal acts?
I won't answer any of these. You're all grownups about this. Besides, it's fairly obvious what the answers will be for the two divergent views.
This last bit may get me into the judge's seat, but it needs saying!
Now go answer these questions again, especially the last two, and honestly apply the notion of conjugal love.
Again, I won't give answers. Each of us must do this for ourselves.
the other Michael
Responding to the follow-ups:
"Other Michael" wrote: ""NFPers" say that periodic abstinence has a role in marriage.
"ABCers" deny this role. Pardon me for risking judgementalism here.
--- Actually, ABCers don't deny this role, nor its value, but leave it up to the couple to decide for themselves when they will be absent. Simple enough.
"So I suppose in the end we all have to answer the following questions:
Is it right to desire conjugal acts? "
--- We're always talking here about married couples, where the answer is surely yes, that's OK. There's nothing sinful about this desire outside of marriage either.
"Is it right to desire only the unitive aspect of conjugal acts? "
--- Yes, of course. Insofar as the couple is not intending to conceive, they are desiring "only the unitive aspect" of the conjugal act."
"Is it right to desire only the unitive aspect of conjugal acts and act on those desires? "
--- Yes, of course! That's even permitted for NFP practitioners.
"Is it right to desire only the unitive aspect of conjugal acts and act on those desires while introducing an unnatural element that harms the procreative aspect of conjugal acts? "
--- Inasmuch as "unitive-only" sex is desired, why not? The intent is to have non-procreative sex, and presumably the couple has legitimate reasons for not wanting to conceive. So what's the harm? What harm is done by taking steps to insure that this legitimate intent isn't thwarted?
"Is it right to desire only the unitive aspect of conjugal acts and act on those desires while introducing a natural means to avoid but not reject or otherwise harm the procreative aspect of conjugal acts? "
--- Obviously, if I don't have a problem with the former, I'll not have one with this.
"Now go answer these questions again, especially the last two, and honestly apply the notion of conjugal love. "
--- I did.
Now you answer these:
Is it a good thing to suppress the unitive aspect of marital sexuality for 5-7 days each month to avoid pregnancy?
If it's wrong to thwart the procreative aspect of a couple's relationship using ABC, then why is it not wrong to thwart the unitive aspect because of the abstinence called for in NFP?
Finally, who's really more preoccupied with sex: couples using NFP or those using ABC?
Remember, you are speaking to a parent of 4 NFP kids here, with 15 years of NFP in my past. I do know what it's like on both sides of the fence!
Hey Editor,
O.k. ...
Now you answer these:
Is it a good thing to suppress the unitive aspect of marital sexuality for 5-7 days each month to avoid pregnancy?
It is certainly NOT good to supress unity in marraige! Periodic abstinence does not mean periodic neglect. Periodic abstinence does not suppress unity! It actually develops alternate and additional means of intimacy and growth of unity. By this I do not mean anything kinky or otherwise disordered!
"These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom"
As for the avoidance of pregnancy part...well, all these discussions go out the window without that! Nothing wrong in avoidance, I think everyone agrees.
If it's wrong to thwart the procreative aspect of a couple's relationship using ABC, then why is it not wrong to thwart the unitive aspect because of the abstinence called for in NFP?
It's not wrong because periodic abstinence does not thwart the unitive aspect and actually has the capacity to enhance it. imo.
Did I miss something in this question? I did not find it making much sense.
Finally, who's really more preoccupied with sex: couples using NFP or those using ABC?
I can't see that it makes any difference or that either is. What's your point?
tom
cool, I always liked the name Tom
Other Michael, how about taking off the mask now and admitting that you're not really married. Most married people won't say "Periodic abstinence does not suppress unity! It actually develops alternate and additional means of intimacy and growth of unity." Straight out of one of the encyclicals.
But assuredly not my experience, nor that of countless other married couples.
"These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom"
Nice quote! Where's you get it?
Then, "It's not wrong because periodic abstinence does not thwart the unitive aspect and actually has the capacity to enhance it. imo."
Saying that abstinence doesn't thwart the unitive aspect of human sexuality is like saying that fasting doesn't deprive one of calories.
My point about preoccupation about sex is that that's not a good thing, and NFP couples are much more preoccupied about sex than ABC couples are.
Back, now, to your linchpin question: ""Is it right to desire only the unitive aspect of conjugal acts and act on those desires while introducing an unnatural element that harms the procreative aspect of conjugal acts?"
--- I said no, that's not wrong, especially if it doesn't harm the body of the person who's using the "unnatural element." I said why I don't think it's wrong: because the real intent is to have non-procreative sex, and presumably the couple have thought over why they don't want children at this time and are OK with that.
Now, you tell me, please, what's wrong with that? Where's the harm to anyone? We're assuming married adults who are clear in conscience about not wanting to have children at this time, and who are not using abortificent means of birth control. They're never more than 98% sure that their "method" will work--same as the NFP strategy.
You will no doubt say that it's wrong to deliberately interfere with the procreative aspect by using a barrier or something like that.--that this is qualitatively different from NFP users leaving that open.
And I say, "Why is it wrong?" What's wrong about it? Be specific, here. And spare us the bit about "objective norms of morality." I want to know who's being hurt, how, etc.?
Back to you, Tomcat the unmarried man.
No mask, and very very happily married.
The quote is from CCC 2370. My apologies for not giving credit where it was due.
Fasting doesn't deprive you of any calories that you need. It promotes one's humilty! something that I definitely need and will continue to work on. It is also a sharing in Christ's cross. But enough on this OT subject.
I'll quote again from CCC 2362:
"They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation."
Yet another potential reason for periodic abstinence. Yes, a flippant response to the fasting metaphor. A common theme in many of the Churches teachings is that the pleasures of this life must be taken in moderation so that we do not become slaves to our passions. Self Mastery! all things in moderation
"! NFP couples are much more preoccupied! " As I suspected, undefendable and irrelevant.
My linchpin question:
You fell into this one on multiple points:
1) I'll spare you the stuff about destruction of the unitive aspect. We simply just can't agree on that.
2) Chemical contraceptives do harm! There is no arguing against this. The level at which a woman's physiology is affected by contraceptive pills is variable, but it is so variable that in the extreme case it is lethal. Go read the label on the product at your local pharmacy if you don't believe me.
3) Other non-chemical forms of ABC can also harm. Skin irritation (internal and external), infections, lack of "sensitivity", etc. Never mind the fact that it makes one feel like they have to put on their sex outfit instead of their birthday suit.
Granted not everyone is put off by the physical short comings of ABC, but there is no denying the potential for serious serious harm. But, your question below said "! especially if it doesn't harm the body! ". Well, here we go back to my first point! if you can't see, or do not sense the destruction of the unitive aspect, you will likely not see the harm BEING DONE(whether perceived or not). I can't help you beyond that except to pray for you.
"You will no doubt say that it's wrong to deliberately interfere with the procreative aspect by using a barrier or something like that.--that this is qualitatively different from NFP users leaving that open."
Thanks for sparing me the trouble. NFP is qualitatively different. No potential for physical or emotional harm. One possible exception here is the special case where it could be physically harmful for a woman to become pregnant. Still, not a justification for ABC.
Have a good evening Editor, it has been a most invigorating debate! :
tom
(from Mom of 4)
Whatever wagon is hitched to the linchpin isn't carrying much weight insofar as the core issues of natural law vis a vis ABC. More central issues would have to do with, for instance, 1) what are the INTRINSIC evils associated with ABC and 2) even once conceding same, which I don't, why are they seriously or gravely offensive to God (the parvity of matter issue)?
Moderation is a virtue to aspire to and immoderation a vice to avoid in most all human activities but we don't consider chain-smoking or over-eating a mortal sin, for heaven's sake (pun intended), though one could imagine situations which might approach such gravity.
As far as physical harms, the discussion below is not dispositive of the intrinsic evil issue insofar as everyone knows that even if medical science advanced to where all such shortcomings are eliminated the rationale used in Humanae Vitae still stands.
Finally, all of these discussions of consequences are employing an approach that is
1) existentialistic
2) using a teleological ethic with consequentialistic (and extrinsic) rationale whereas the Church seems to use an approach that's 3) essentialistic 4) using a deontological ethic with unnuanced natural law rationale
and both the Church and this thread fail to address, in all respects,
5) parvity of matter.
So, as far as the debate goes, it has been invigorating because the Editor has drawn his partner into a debate on terms that can ONLY be discussed by those who agree with the majority report and dissenting position!
Oh that the hierarchy would make a pronouncement that engages existentialistic factors, a consequentialistic hermeneutic and a teleological approach to ethics, not over against but in addition to the essentialistic and deontological approaches!
Oh that anyone would engage parvity of matter!
We don't fault anyone for using human reason to bolster their arguments but congratulate them and welcome the engagement. On that account we'd score the opposition some debate points, if only we could. The opposition loses points, however, because it is actually weakening the orthodox position which it has come into this forum to defend 1) by not restricting the conversation to matters of tradition and authority 2) by not defending the implict position of Humanae Vitae which is that human reason alone cannot solve this particular moral matter and 3) by not restricting the rationale to the merely essentialistic and 4) the metaethical approach to the deontological.
Tut, tut, Momma's rained on another parade.
Seriously, always glad to help you boys out
OM, please accept my apologies for doubting your marital status. It's just that one seldom finds a married person using terminology like "procreative aspect of the conjugal act" or giving such an enthusiastic plug for the marvels of sexual abstinence! I still have my doubts, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
First, let's not be silly about fasting, which is also somewhat irrelevant to the discussion as well. It *does* deprive you of calories you need--as long as you're fasting, that is.
Second, you don't need the imposition of an NFP fertile period to get mature, married couples (that's always what we're talking about, here) to schedule for themselves a time of abstinence from sex (i.e., the "conjugal act" ). That, too, is an irrelevant side-track that does nothing to support the present teaching. "Just moderation" doesn't depend on keeping the NFP days, or else we'd be requiring it of infertile and beyond-years couples to insure their chastity. We don't.
Third, to speak of the woman's cycle as though it's intended by the Creator to regulate periods of sexual activity is also nonsense, no apologies to the authors of the Catechism offered. We didn't even know about this until the 20th Century. The purpose of the cycle is entirely about preparing the womb for a possible conception, and the egg for a possible fertilization. Anything other interpretation we bring to the table is projective.
Drop all that stuff--it's irrelevant, and doesn't hold up anyway.
----------------
Back to the crux of the matter: NFP IS different, I've acknowledged. It doesn't deliberately interfere with the fertility of a sex act by placing impediments to fertilization. OK. Fine. We all know that.
And I asked: SO WHAT? You still haven't demonstrated how this:
a. choosing to have sex during infertile days only is being "open to new life." It's not, and therefore it fails to meet the essentialistic criteria of Humane vitae.
b. although you say that ABC can do physiological harm, that's far from proven, even about the pill. Certainly, there's no evidence that a condom hurts anyone physically.
c. there's not even any evidence that ABC harms relationships. If there is, I'd like to see it. Show me the survey where ABC couples who pray and go to Church regularly have a higher divorce rate than NFP couples. Obviously, NFP couples are conscientious about religious duties, so when that's pitted against ABC users as a whole, the stats tell a different story. But you'd have to compare groups with similar religious commitments.
In other words, for an act that supposedly "intrinsically evil," maybe even "grave matter" in the sense of leading to Mortal Sin and eternal damnation, where's the evidence that ABC is so destructive? My spouse and I have been using it for 10 years, after 15 years of NFP, and I daresay my sense of God's presence and my religious convictions have not changed. There is no "grave matter" here as there is for other acts given this designation. This kind of language comes off as hysterically exaggerated.
Finally, you seem to assume that NFP can only do good in a marriage--certainly much more good than practicing ABC. I wonder if you're aware of the 3,000 couples interviewed by the Crawley's during the time of the Birth Control Commission study, and how many of them said that trying to keep the Church's teaching was the number one stressor in their marriage . . . that it completely destroyed their sex lives . . . that they viewed it as a curse! This is not a simple issue where practicing NFP produces only good results while using ABC produces only bad consequences. That's naive.
Spare me the "I'll pray for you BS," btw. That always comes across condescending, even if not intended.
There now, you can see how hard it was to stay in that clear, crisp realm of moral objectivity based on the "structure" of the sex act. Existential considerations always come in, and restricting the exercise in that domain to NFP only makes absolutely no sense, imo.
Sticking to the crux of the matter!
---"And I asked: SO WHAT? You still haven't demonstrated how this:
a. choosing to have sex during infertile days only is being "open to new life." It's not, and therefore it fails to meet the essentialistic criteria of Humane vitae."
If by "essentialistic criteria", you mean that "each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life", then it is inarguable that not directly interfering with the generative process remains open to life. It is inarguable because even if you have "determined" that it is the infertile time, you can still have a pregnancy. If God wills it, it will happen. The obvious come back to that is! Why can't He do it if I'm using ABC? He can. The point is you're not telling Him "NO" when you wait for only the infertile time.
Look, if NFP is so bad as to not satisfy this condition, the Church would never have sanctioned it. The only reason I can think of that the Church would not have sanctioned it would be if it somehow found that determining the infertile time and having sex then is closed to life. It (the Church) didn't do this! ! ! !
You can try accusing me of the legalistic argument of "that which is not expressly forbidden, is permitted", but it won't work. "God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity! "
btw! both quotes from HV section 11. Excuse me if you already knew this.
---"b. although you say that ABC can do physiological harm, that's far from proven, even about the pill. Certainly, there's no evidence that a condom hurts anyone physically."
Far from proven! hmmm. Well officer I can't prove that a blood alcohol level of .2 caused him to wrap the car around the telephone poll, but it sure looks that way.
Your point is well taken, causality may not be possible to establish conclusively. Why have the warning labels on the product then?
As for the other forms of ABC! ever heard of allergies to latex, nonoxyl-9, and lubricants (both natural and petroleum based).
At any rate, physical harm (while it is there) is not your main beef with all of this. I think you're mainly stuck on points a) and c).
---"c. there's not even any evidence that ABC harms relationships. If there is, I'd like to see it. Show me the survey where ABC couples who pray and go to Church regularly have a higher divorce rate than NFP couples. Obviously, NFP couples are conscientious about religious duties, so when that's pitted against ABC users as a whole, the stats tell a different story. But you'd have to compare groups with similar religious commitments. "
Good point. If I start quoting statistics you'll ask for references and then try to debunk the associated research. Comparing "groups with similar religious commitments" would be a very interesting result to see. I am not aware of any research like this though.
Forgive me for not citing the research of the Birth Control Commission, but I believe some of the original assertions about the potential positive aspects of widespread ABC usage were:
- improvement in the quality of marriages
- reduction of unwanted pregnancies(what's this got to do w/ relationships? Everything.)
I think there were others, but I'll focus on these two. What's happened to the divorce rate since the widespread usage of ABC became commonplace? Similarly, do we have more unwanted pregnancies now than we did 40 years ago?
There is certainly not a causal link between either of the trends I'm alluding to and the usage of ABC, but it's awful darn suspicious.
In the rest of your last post the only question you asked was "where's the evidence that ABC is so destructive?" In the context that you asked it, I'm reluctant to answer out of not wanting you to think I'm back to my fault of judging. I will however, point back to b) and c) above, and the facts alluded to there.
---"There now, you can see how hard it was to stay in that clear, crisp realm of moral objectivity based on the "structure" of the sex act. Existential considerations always come in, and restricting the exercise in that domain to NFP only makes absolutely no sense, imo."
Yes, it is very difficult to keep a clear head about this.
Evidence. Evidence is a funny thing. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. This cuts both ways. The destructive aspects of ABC may not be able to be proven for whatever reasons. The positive aspects of NFP fall victim to this as well. You know, even all of the evidence we have about the existence of God and the Trinity can be debunked as circumstantial. What's my point?
This ultimately comes down to a question of faith. No, I'm not questioning your faith. I am saying that mine lead me to side with 2000 years of experience. If that's the blind ignorance of not being able to make up your own free will mind, so be it.
Take care Editor, I'm out for the next day or so for a trip to the hinterland to enjoy nature, a campfire, and a little peace and quiet. So if I don't respond to any new post you have for me you'll know why!
the other Michael
O.M., I'll be winding this up soon, too, but our exchange has prompted me to consider posting archives. It seems that we get only 30 days or so on this message board then it drops off into cyber-limbo. I'd like to save this exchange for posterity and so I don't have to do it ever 30 days!
----------------------
You wrote: "If by "essentialistic criteria", you mean that "each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life", then it is inarguable that not directly interfering with the generative process remains open to life. It is inarguable because even if you have "determined" that it is the infertile time, you can still have a pregnancy. If God wills it, it will happen. The obvious come back to that is! Why can't He do it if I'm using ABC? He can. The point is you're not telling Him "NO" when you wait for only the infertile time. "
--- LMAO! Sorry, but will you please read that last sentence! That's the silly game! "OK God, we're open to life, but we'll only have sex when we're 98% assured that it won't take place. We'll examine cervical mucous, chart days on the calendar, take the temperature of the vagina to do our damnedest to NOT conceive, but we're really open to new life. See, we're using NFP! "
Come on! Who're you kidding anyway?
And tell me again, please, why it's inarguable that postponing sex for only the infertile time of the month is really being "open to the transmission of life." Non-interference with fertility and not placing barriers to conception does not translate to "openness to new life."
You wrote: "Look, if NFP is so bad as to not satisfy this condition, the Church would never have sanctioned it. The only reason I can think of that the Church would not have sanctioned it would be if it somehow found that determining the infertile time and having sex then is closed to life. It (the Church) didn't do this! ! ! ! "
That's called begging the question! It's a type of fallacy, sort of like saying that if something is a law, it must be legal, or if something is written in a book about truth, it must be true.
But , OK, why did the Church sanction NFP? Not because it satisfied "objective criteria of morality," for it contradicts the principle that every sex act must be open to new life. That's why the theologian on the web site and others have called attention to another theological tradition based on the experiences of married people. The case had been made as early as 1950 that married couples were grateful for the information about fertility as it enabled them to more successfully plan their times for procreation or unitive-only sex. Please recall that in the early days of this debate, many Catholic theologians were insisting that using this knowledge to plan for non-procreative sex was a grave sin. Pius XII finally put that to rest in his "Letter to Midwives" in 1950. He was actually recognizing the importance to married couples of times when they could enjoy their sexual relationship without having a child result from their actions. His letter left unanswered questions, however. . . like, if that'!
s possible, then why not artificial methods? Oh, he tried to cut that one off, but it didn't go away because once you allow for the legitimacy of non-procreative sex, it CAN'T go away. Not completely! That's why the Birth Control Commission was formed, and their Majority Report concluded that the logical extension of allowing NFP/rhythm was to allow ABC. And we all know how it went after that.
You ask about the divorce rate since ABC became widespread? What's always bugged me about that point is how utterly simplistic it is-- like that's the only factor which could account for the divorce rate. Drug and alchohol abuse, two working parents, etc. have nothing to do with this! It's all about ABC. You need to nuance that a little more along the lines I suggested in my earlier post! Otherwise, I don't take that seriously!
As for premarital sex . . . I don't recall when fornication became legal or was considered moral. We're talking here about sex between married people, and really only Catholic married people, at that.
Fine with me if you want to drop the "proof " issue, only someone, somewhere needs to be able to establish the horrible consequences which are supposed to ensue from the "intrinsically evil" practice of using ABC. I have no trouble explaining to my children why it's wrong to kill, steal, commit adultery, have premarital sex, and even miss Mass on Sunday. I can't for the life of me explain why, if they don't want to have children, they shouldn't use a non-abortive form of ABC.
You wrote: "This ultimately comes down to a question of faith. No, I'm not questioning your faith. I am saying that mine lead me to side with 2000 years of experience. If that's the blind ignorance of not being able to make up your own free will mind, so be it. "
Well, that's nice, but it's hardly a commendable response. If the best we can do is say "believe . . . trust . . . the Pope knows best . . . 2000 years of experience . . ." we've got nothing, really.
Please recall that one of the hallmarks of Catholic theology, especially on moral teachings based on natural law, has always been its transparency to reason. Appeals to faith, obedience, and a long tradition (one that's changed its stance on a few significant issues, btw) is hardly convincing, but that's what it always seems to comes down to. That's not an especially Catholic attitude! In fact, it's a cop-out, especially when Catholics don't even have their rights of conscience with regard to this teaching properly explained to them.
We have a serious problem in the Church because of this teaching. Telling people to have faith and obey is not the way to resolve it!