In the post “French Bishop Urges Vatican to Reopen Debate on Whether 1+1=2”, Funky mentions that:
“Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act.”
I was inclined by this to comment on that post, but its my hope that others might have input on my thoughts about Humanae Vitae and NFP.
The Church advocates NFP (Natural Family Planning) as a form of contraception (though they don’t call it that). Using this method, couples track the fertility of the female through various methods of empirical measurement (timing, body temperature, the consistency of saliva and other bodily fluids). When the female is in her non-fertile period, only then do they engage in sexual intercourse.
It seems to me that this is a rather unnatural (or artificial) act. I don’t see anything natural about having sex by a stopwatch. One might argue that the unnatural act of the measurements and timing happens before sex, so it is not really related. I find that, however, to be a slippery slope. Just as slippery as “when does human life begin?” is for pro -or anti-abortion arguments.
Others will offer caveats that there is still a possibility of pregnancy with NFP. On the other hand, catholic NFP advocates will also tell you that NFP is more effective than condoms or The Pill. If they make this argument, then they must condone both condoms and The Pill as okay, since they offer a higher possibility of conception.
A few might argue that The Pill is bad just because it’s a bunch of unhealthy chemicals that do mean things to the person taking it. I typically disregard this argument. If the Church is disallowing it on these grounds, then most weight loss drugs should be disallowed, but all this should occur under some other grounds than contraception.
Still others might argue the barrier argument against condoms. This argument states that a physical barrier (a condom, empty space, etc.) is the problem. By this argument, The Pill must be okay, since it posses no barrier, but simply controls ovulation.
Finally, some would argue what I call “The Every Sperm is Sacred Rule” (kudos to Monty Python). By this argument, it’s the frustration and waste of sperm that becomes the issue. However, is this not the case with NFP, where there is little or no possibility of anything but death for the little swimmers? Indeed, the little guys suffer the same fate in any infertile scenario, whether with NFP, The Pill, or natural sex that doesn’t result in pregnancy.
Here the “Every Sperm is Scared Rule” proponents may also site the Old Testament in regard to an individual being struck down for “spilling his seed”. This, however, is generally taken out of context. Onan was ordered by God to have a child with his brother’s widow. Onan started “doing his thing” and then withdrew. The offence was not that he spilled his seed, the offence was disobeying a direct order! If God told Bob to shake hands with Larry, and Bob only bowed, I’d expect Bob to get struck down too!
From my humble perspective, I can’t see how NFP is any better than any contraception method. I use NFP. I support NFP, because I’m following that 2000 years of accumulated wisdom. But I still think NFP IS contraception and is no different than methods such as a condom, diaphragm, or The Pill.
Lightwave, you are arguing under the (now-)stated assumption that all acts are neutral, and that the intention wherefor the act is initiated determines that act’s moral value. This is not a “taken-for-granted” position in Catholic moral theology and is in fact the subject of great dispute. You may not, therefore, invoke it as if it were common ground in this argument. There is a different view taken by the majority of the tradition, and upon which the tradition and magisterium have based their unchanging repudiation of positive contraceptive acts that constitute a positive interference in the natural physiological processes involved in human sexual intercourse. The view upon which this repudiation is made is that acts do have moral value. At the simplest level, all killing is evil, even in self-defense. However, a severely-lowered degree of culpability attaches to killing in self defense, because one’s own right to life and self-defense take precedence. Nonetheless, the klling is still evil. At a second order, there are certain acts which remain unjustifiable in any case, assuming no other external facts are introduced. Among these acts is contraception. I suppose that, if a man with a gun threatened to kill your unless you had sexual relations with your wife while wearing a condom, having the relations would be permissible (although some might dispute me on this) because you were under coercion. The free decision, however, to engage in intercourse wherewith one interferes in the natural physiological processes of the human sexual system by a positive act to prevent, interrupt, or abort conception, is always wrong.
Lest one ask why NFP to avoid children is different, we note that the intention here is twofold: with a condom you intend (1) to avoid children for a licit or nonlicit reason and (2) to interfere with the natural processes of human sexuality. In period abstinence, you do not intend the second condition (positive interference). In NFP it all comes down to reason (1): Is your reason for wishing to avoid children licit or not? Reason (2) not being a factor, one can truly consider periodic continence to be a way of regulating birth which does not interfere and, if undertaken for proper reasons and with an authentically-self-giving disposition, can be moral upright.
The real question about NFP is why is one attempting to not conceive? But, you see, we’re already on different ground because abstaining in order not to conceive is quite different from interfering with sexual processes in order to frustrate conception. You can’t claim that NFP is no different from a Pill merely because both seek to avoid conception. The church has no problem with avoiding conception, but has a big problem with doing so by interfering with normal sexual processes. If you want to do so by abstaining during the fertile period, then the question is what your motivations are for avoiding conception. That is something to take up with one’s confessor. Periodic continence interiorizes the action of “avoidance” because one is now abstaining rather than interfering. The use of artificial contraception introduces an external factor of interference that the Church has always condemend as impermissible.
Jordan
And why are we not to interfere? We are not to interfere because the marital embrace is, despite its joys, also a Christian participation in the cross because one accepts the fullness of the other person and the responsibility that would attend a possible pregnancy. (Even infertile couples are actualizing their mutual self-surrender to the maximal degree of which they are capable. Such is most certainly not the case when one uses artificial contraception.)
A difference between NFP and artificial contraception that I just realize I neglected in my defense of Lightwave is that the ends of sexual intercourse during fertile periods are not defeated. When periodically abstaining, a couple does not interfere with gametes meeting and potentially joining to become a new human life. IUDs and abortion have this in common with NFP. However, in those cases, the natural end of intercourse during a fertile period is defeated by either not allowing an embryo to attach to the uterus or forceably removing the embryo from the uterus. All other forms of contraception interfere in one way or another with gametes meeting or joining. Summing up, NFP does not violate fertile union because such union is avoided. IOW, if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Anyhow, I think this is what Tom was trying to get across about 300 comments ago. 😉
Anyhow, I think this is what Tom was trying to get across about 300 comments ago
probably, but if people had gotten the point back in the day, we wouldn’t have had such interesting asides as oc and orgasms 😉
i tend to be on the side of grave reasons are required to use nfp to avoid, which could lead one to the position of ‘have sex whenever you want within marriage and be open to life and God’s will; if a child happens, cool.’. however, one doesn’t want to be too much of a providentialist or a quietist. so where is the balance of ‘working as if it all depends on you and praying as if it all depends on God’? assuming that the couple doesn’t have grave reason to avoid and is, thus, open to the idea of new life, should the couple pray before each act that God’s will be done? should the couple pray at the beginning of each month to discern God’s will for that month and then use nfp to act accordingly to achieve or avoid? something else? where is the balance?
Lightwave,
“BV: I think your two statements/queries in reply to me are connected. My essential reason for the distinction is that fornication is not an act (nor is contraception). Fornication is what we call the result of the intended end (sex for pleasure outside of wedlock). Contraception, or preventing conception, is the intended end of another act (taking a pill, or wearing a synthetic/natural material). The acts (sex, swalloing pills, wearing a material) cannot be construed as objectively moral or immoral, they are simply acts. When I say ‘an act’ it is very similar to saying ‘means’.” [Lightwave comment 96]
Huh?
“Fornication is not an act.” Coulda fooled me.
“Fornication is…the result of the intended end.” Sounds like the definition of an “act” to me–that which you do to achieve your intended end.
“the intended end (sex for pleasure outside of wedlock).” I thought sex was the “act”, not part of the “end”.
“The acts (sex, swallowing pills…” Here it seems sex is the “act” again.
“When I say ‘an act’ it is very similar to saying ‘means.'” Okay, but what about your previous statement:
“Even in fornication, the act is Sex…(the means would be with someone outside of wedlock, the end would be pleasure).” [comment 90] You seem to be suggesting a difference between “act” and “means” here. And how does this relate to the statement above where the “end” is made up of sex, pleasure, and outside wedlock?
You seem to be moving the pieces around and I’m getting lost. Also, I see your analysis of fornication, but I don’t see why you think it’s immoral.
DSA/Emily T: I don’t think either of you follow me (in that I don’t follow DSA). DSA said:
My point is that within a few moments I can draw dozens of connections between everything you mention in that comment. That’s a bit too abstract for me. I need to know which connections you’re speaking about in order to understand where you’re going. Claim its not abstract if you like, but can you help me (and any others like me) that don’t know which connection(s) you’re focusing on?
Funky: What’s the story with comment 100? It doesn’t seem to be complete or have an author…
DSA: Further, on your article, it states ” In every age, and in various ways, we are tempted to reject the freedom given to us in the Holy Spirit, and place ourselves under laws of our own making. We resist authentic freedom for two reasons” This is my concern with the rules regarding contraception. NFP = okay, others = bad. In this case the law is not of our own making, but merely seems inconsistent in itself.
Jordan: Indeed, I do not take for granted my argument that acts are neutral, hence my repeated defense of the subject. I don’t agree that “all killing is evil,” indeed, the concept of a “just war” seems to be contrary to this. To say that a “severely-lowered degree of culpability attaches” would seem to say there are grey areas. Another way to put it is, “its bad, but not as bad”. I can’t see, however, how the Church can be in the position of condoning “bad” behavior, even if it’s “not so bad”, so I must personally reject an philisophical method similar to the one you espouse.
Furthermore, if as you say “there are certain acts which remain unjustifiable in any case, […] Among these acts is contraception.” If this is the case, then if NFP is contraception, how may it be justified by the Church? You also say, essentially, that NFP does not interfere with the “natural processes of human sexuality,” I disagree. Again, I cannot find that sex by a stopwatch is natural.
BV: I’m sorry my logic is a bit confusing. I realized that when I posted it but didn’t have a good idea of how to relieve the confusion. You are now making the point I made earlier, which is: the definition of a moral/immoral act then lies in where the philosophers (or theologens) draw the line.
If you insist that things like murder and fornication are acts, then yes, *some* acts can be objectively moral or immoral, while others (sex, for example), are neither. Hence, back to your question (way back), I can’t say that contraception is immoral or moral objectively, since it can be either (for example, in the eyes of the Church, immoral when used with a condom, moral when used properly with NFP).
Now I understand the strong current of frustration throughout the course of this post. There seems to be a consistent inability or incapacity to hear what others have been saying (let alone listening with the possibility of changing one’s opinion). Whether it is deliberate or not is unclear. In either case, I’m done. Thank God it has only take a short while to realize what an enormous waste of time and energy blogging really is.
“Thank God it has only take a short while to realize what an enormous waste of time and energy blogging really is.”
Boy, you really know how to make a fella feel good about himself and his hobbies. 😉
“There seems to be a consistent inability or incapacity to hear what others have been saying (let alone listening with the possibility of changing one’s opinion). Whether it is deliberate or not is unclear.”
For some people, it’s deliberate, but I think for most it’s not. I don’t think this phenomenon is much worse on blogs than it is in person, though. What makes blogging different, I think, is that it tends to draw out opinions that might otherwise be held privately. Nevertheless, those opinions are there in everyone, though they may not have been presented to you yet. If someone becomes frustrated with conversations on blogs and throws in the towl, IMHO it’s not the medium of the blog they should blame for poor listening, shallow thinking, and unwillingness to to learn or change one’s mind; it’s humanity. DSA, pardon the presumption, but I fear you have either been overly charitable in your appraisals of human motives and behaviors in live interactions or overly cynical in your appraisals of the same in electronic interactions. People are people. We don’t metamorphosize into demons when we start typing at keyboards. 😉
DSA, you have offered a number of good insights. It would be a shame if you walked away in frustration. One of the many lessons I’ve had to learn over the years is that sometimes when you’re ready to bang your head against a wall because you don’t think someone’s listening, you find later that your message actually got through. Outward appearances indicated otherwise, but long after the conversation ceased, the ideas you planted grew and a mind was changed. Besides, rather than curse the darkness, wouldn’t it be nicer to light a candle? That’s what I’m trying to do do. A quote from a recent post:
The internet is mission territory. Won’t you please stick around and help me to help myself and others? If blogging is such a pointless exercise, then please help me to give it a purpose. Help me to utilize modern communications for the new evangelization JPII called for.
Lightwave, comment 100 is a trackback.
A request to any and all readers and commenters:
Would some able individual be interested in writing a post about the positive aspects and uses of NFP, rather than its purported similarities to artificial contraception? Stuff? Squat? DSA? Steve N? ANYBODY?
I think if any real headway is to be made in this discussion, we need to address whether proper practice of NFP could be beneficial to a marriage and how that might be different from all other methods of fertility management.
Funky,
Perhaps you should cut dsa some slack. First of all, some folks have more time to devote to things like blogging than others. And you have to admit, the individuals posting who have had insightful things to say (Stuff, Squat, dsa, Steve N and others) have met with what appears to be a consistent inability to even consider another opinion. For instance, the first article dsa posted sought to turn the tables on how we think about NFP. And all Lightwave could respond with was “is asking a priest permission to practice periodic abstinence canon??” The rest of the article was dismissed. dsa even said that he didn’t intend it to be the definitive word. There were a number of positive responses to the article because most people could see the value and could see where dsa was trying to go with it and yet Lightwave was concerned if it was canon.
Perhaps blogging isn’t the medium for everyone, and I think you have to respect that. Regardless of it allowing for privately held opinions to come out, something is lost when you try to engage a person while looking at your computer screen. Besides, if these privately held opinions are going to come out on a blog then perhaps the individual posting them should be a bit more ready to be open to changing their opinion. After a hundred some odd posts (and often lengthy, insightful posts), Lightwave does not seem willing to even budge and I think even in face to face conversation, lots of people would be ready to throw in the towel. I haven’t even participated in the conversation and was ready to give up on even reading when Lightwave said the self-sacrificing, self-emptying love of Christ crucified is an abstraction. That should be the most real thing of all. It is the love Christ had for His Church that a husband is called to have for his wife and yet when discussing NFP, this all of the sudden becomes abstract thinking????
Funky,
I don’t wish to be rude or to dismiss the value that blogging has had for you and the many others who have contributed in their posting. In fact, I admire how well you and others have addressed the subject at hand. But it is not for me. I’ll stick to the dialogue between persons that doesn’t necessitate going through cyberspace. While it may be a good tool and have its purpose, I’m not convinced it is the best way to use one’s time and energy. Benedict Groeschel once said something on EWTN that has come to mind in the light of this conversation. He was speaking about prayer and the spiritual life and said, “Mother Angelica probably won’t like me saying this, but the Saints probably wouldn’t even be watching TV or this show.†This may be entertaining, informative and a fun way to talk about the faith, but ???? Groeschel wasn’t diminishing the use of TV, but trying to see it from the proper perspective. Similiarly, St. Philp Neri once said: “More is learned about God on one’s knees than from books.†He wasn’t, I think, diminishing the value or importance of study, but suggesting what is of greater value. I hope no insult was given to you or anyone else in my previous comments and I thank you letting me for this short while join your conversation.
“I hope no insult was given to you or anyone else in my previous comments and I thank you letting me for this short while join your conversation.”
I confess I was a little stung by “what an enormous waste of time and energy blogging really is”. Thank you for clarifying.
Also, in light of what Emily said, allow me to apologize to you. I hope I didn’t react too strongly to the wound I perceived.
“I thank you letting me for this short while join your conversation.”
And I thank you for your participation.
Numbers 6:24-26
Funky – If it is of any interest to you, the latest issue of Ethics and Medics from the National Catholic Bioethics Center has an article titled “Dualism and Contraception.” I believe a couple of their previous issues also had articles about NFP that you might find interesting.
DSA: I’m sorry for your frustration. Funky might tell you, though, if you were to meet me in person you might find me even more obtuse, though I think myself a resonable fellow. In any case, my intent is neither to frustrate nor to offend, but rather to understand.
Emily T: I don’t think you’re being fair. I’m not sure if you read my previous comment, but in two cases I’ve invited DSA to help me understand the meaning of her post. Perhaps you are more learned than I am, so you can follow her line-of-thought, but I cannot. Call it what you want, but all I’ve recieved is antagonism for requesting a clarification of something I don’t understand.
Furthermore, you criticize that I seem to be unwilling to budge from my position, meaning there is something wrong with me. It seems to me that you, and some others who orginally disagreed with me, have not budged from your original opinions, yet I cannot find myself ready to say that your unwillingness to change your opinion is the result of any personal flaw. I must suspect that if I was towing the party line and still “unwilling to budge”, I might be applauded.
Remember, Copernicus was right, though most just thought he was being obtuse and unwilling to budge from his position. I don’t claim to be correct, as I find this conversation but an exploration of what the truth might be (certainly in part because I would not compare myself to Copernicus).
By the way, I don’t claim to be unwilling to budge, just seeking something that might be compelling to “budge” me.
Lightwave,
If I am frustrated, it is not with any person’s inability to understand my opinion or the teaching of the Church. My frustration is with myself – spending so much time engaged in an exercise that allows for no direct discourse. It is not that it has no value, but limited value in my mind. And so I freely make a choice not to participate.
Having said that, I think such a medium also makes it quite easy for people to be obtuse – to be insensitive to the meaning of what others bring to the discussion; to place themselves in the position of Copernicus in order to make their obtuseness a virtue. Is one truly seeking clarification in order that they might understand or are they playing a game that purposely frustrates and takes advantage of other people’s generosity, good will and time.
First of all, while I may have specifically referenced dsa’s posts, you have failed to see the possibility of the other side in response to anyone’s posts, dsa’s, Stuff’s, Squat’s, etc. I think dsa hit the nail on the head when he said that intellectualization is a powerful and, at times, fun defense. There was no wild abstraction in his reference to the love of Christ. As a matter of fact, by going back and reading that post, he explained it rather clearly when he said “It is this love that must form our judgments and that must be the measure of our actions and behaviors.”
That is only one point of reference, however. He provided two lengthy articles on the subject, both of which were summarily dismissed. Stuff (and others) provided excellent points, which I think are all the more interesting given her line of work, all to no avail to a point where I am not surprised that Squat had a little outburst of emotion.
Please also pay attention to who is disagreeing with you. I did not chime into this argument until very, very late and have not offered much as to the original discussion. Therefore, you cannot tell me that I am unwilling to budge from my position when you don’t know what my position is. You are the keeper of the original post, so the burden is on you to enter into the discussion with an open mind, is it not?? Or were you just posting to hear yourself talk?
I never intended it to mean that it is a “personal flaw” however active discussion on such issues must at some time reach a point where one is willing to say perhaps my opinion is wrong or when one is willing to say, we must agree to disagree before this turns into a 300 comment post. Willingness to discuss means that at some point, one would say, I see your point, I will think and pray about that, neither of which I recall you doing. For that reason, I am not surprised dsa “threw in the towel.”
I’d just like to vouch for Lightwave’s sincere desire to understand this matter better. Perhaps he has not sought such understanding eloquently or been the best listener. Still, I think it should be noted with some charity that he does indeed wish to learn something and is neither playing a game nor being deliberately obtuse. That said, do not thik that I am dismissing the criticisms given. Valid points have been raised (such as the lack of attention paid to the lengthy articles) and they ought to be addressed. I just want to make sure everyone remembers that we’re all on the same team. Let’s not devour each other (c.f. Galatians 5).
“the latest issue of Ethics and Medics from the National Catholic Bioethics Center has an article titled ‘Dualism and Contraception.’ I believe a couple of their previous issues also had articles about NFP that you might find interesting.”
I almost missed this comment in the crossfire. Thanks. 🙂
I’m not intending to devour anyone and apologize if it has come across that way. What got me going was criticism for someone bowing out of the discussion when attempts to discuss seem to have been futile. I do believe that it is on the person posting to be more open than others to changing their position since they are the one who brought up the issue, because that is indeed what they have invited by posting.
Emily T: You “believe that it is on the person posting to be more open than others to changing their position.” I don’t see why such an assertion should be assumed to be the case, but I think in this case it is true. While I would not bring it up, except in defense, I believe I was the first (and I believe only) individual to state on several occasions I was not an authority on the subject but was seeking the answer. I don’t think that I have yet to find something compelling enough to sway me makes for a closed mind.
That said, I think this is tangential to the issues of NFP and Contraception. I invite you to have the last word (or as many words as you like) on this subject, as I hope to focus on the issue of NFP and contraception.
To all: While I don’t think my position has substantially changed yet, I believe I have learned a lot from this conversation. My thanks go out to all those who commented. I invite anyone who has further insights or comments on the subject to continue commenting, lest I threaten to post an article about what I’ve learned 😉
Crawling out from under my rock…. 🙂
Having followed this post and comments, I think at this point it’s prudent to recommend some outside reading in order to facilitate understanding of the NFP issue, and then revisit this discussion. My recommendations:
Humanae Vitae (very easily found by googling and downloading off of the Vatican Web site), Love and Responsibility, Theology of the Body (or Theology of the Body Explained or An Introduction of Theology of the Body).
I would also recommend discussing your concerns with a trusted priest if you truly want to address your understanding of the church’s teachings on NFP.
While there have been many attempts to discuss and explain NFP on this thread, it appears that we are all reaching at straws at this point to make each other understand, and becoming very frustrated in the process.
…Crawling back under my rock….
Dear Lightwave,
“BV: I’m sorry my logic is a bit confusing. I realized that when I posted it but didn’t have a good idea of how to relieve the confusion. You are now making the point I made earlier, which is: the definition of a moral/immoral act then lies in where the philosophers (or theologens) draw the line.” [Lightwave comment 108]
My focus is not so much where philsophers/theologians draw the line, but trying to understand your approach to moral evaluation. As you mentioned, your explanation has been a bit confusing, and if I am to offer any arguments that you would find persuasive I need to understand your perspective on what makes something immoral. I think the easiest way to do this is by looking at an immoral act that we agree on–fornication. This is why I asked two times for you to explain why fornication is immoral. I have read where you discuss and describe fornication [comment 96 & 108], but cannot see where you have said something along the lines of, “Fornication is immoral because _____”.
“…I can’t say that contraception is immoral or moral objectively, since it can be either (for example, in the eyes of the Church, immoral when used with a condom, moral when used properly with NFP).” [Lightwave comment 108]
You seem to be using the term “contraception” different than common conversation (which typically refers to drugs and barriers).
So I ask two questions which I think will help us: 1) why is fornication immoral?, and 2) what constitutes contraception?.
[Roz: Point taken.]
BV: Okay, now I understand what you’re looking for (sometimes you have to hit me over the head with a rock, because I miss the subtitles).
To answer your question “why is fornication immoral?”, I’m not really sure why it’s immoral. Having not done any research to understand it, I blindly accept it for the moment (until I decide to research it, as I have with NFP, at which time I may or may not accept what I find). For now, I could simply state that the church teaches that sex is to be between husband and wife. I can unspecific recall several parts of the bible that seem to speak pretty specifically to this. (I know this is a lousy answer, but perhaps its enough for you to continue where you’re taking me).
In response to “what constitutes contraception?”, for me, contraception is anything that prevents conception while still allowing the sexual act It doesn’t matter to me if one is preventing conception in perpetuity or for a time. The other caveats of intent, respect, etc., don’t matter to me. Let’s call a spade a “spade”. Barrier, drugs, timing, its all contraception because its all intended to prevent conception while allowing sex. That’s why I call NFP, condoms, and the Pill contraception.
I’m curious as to where you’re going with these questions, but I’ll wait it out, in the hopes of one of those “Oh, now I get it!” moments. 🙂
Lightwave,
Wow. It seems even the morality of fornication is questionable.
I’m beginning to wonder what’s going on here: is the whole moral order in question? Do we have any common starting point from which to launch our discussion? It seems not even basic propositions are being granted. It seems you’re asking to build the immorality of contraceptive drugs/barriers from a state of nothingness.
If so, I’m going to suggest reading the beginning of Part III of the Catechism. This will help define a common moral framework that we can work from. The rest of that section might also be helpful, because it shows that framework being applied to reality (murder and fornication among them). I have found it personally helpful.
We don’t seem to have a common framework, common vocabulary, or seemingly at times even common sense. Until we do, we are missing the very basic of pieces necessary for fruitful dialogue.
If you’re agreed on some of the basics, let me know. If not, I don’t think I’m your man to reconstruct the rudimentary tenets of the moral law. My advice would be to just keep trusting the Church. She is the sacrament of salvation for the world, and if you remain close to her heart, she will guide you to God.
Peace,
BV, I indebted to you for your abundant patience in dealing with Lightwave’s thick head. 😉 Seriously, though, I really appreciate your willingness to take him at his word that he wishes to learn and to continue the conversation in the spirit in which it was intended. I just hope Lightwave writes a new post soon so the conversation doesn’t have to continue here for much longer. 😉
BV: I think I can pretty safely say that I think the morality (er immorality, that is) of fornication is pretty concrete, and if I spent a some serious time reseraching it, I’d expect to find what I need to back-up that statement. So I’m pretty confident we can agree on that moral issue.
I followed your link, and think I pulled out the moral basics you were talking about:
Even better, here’s what I’ve been saying all along…I was trying to find this earlier. Did I mention the catechism rocks when you know where to look?
Other important parts are:
That is to say, 1758 looks important, but I can read it two different ways, so perhaps someone can explain it to me.
By the way, I think part of our disparity of language amongst us can be seen in 1757. I’ll do my best to conform so as to prevent confusion.
That being said, I think we agree on the basics now. What’s next?
I feel very out-of-the-loop by now – sorry about the delay. I would like to thank Edey and any others who have flattered me by finding interest and use in my comments.
Lightwave, please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t know how much more I will post as I don’t think we speak the same language. Maybe it’s a Mars vs. Venus thing, but when I wrote that I needed a break because of overwhelming nausea and fatigue, you took it as being “too busy.” I don’t quite know how the misunderstanding took place, but my immediate reaction is to believe that you must, at best, only read about 50% of my comments. This point is actually something you admitted previously, stating:
“The second half of your comment essentially analyzes methods of BC in relation to the theories you propose. I won’t take on the analysis, since I don’t agree with the theories they’re based on…”
which I take to mean, “I’m ignoring the entire second half of this comment.”
I’m going to try again anyway. Ignore what you will.
Going way, way back to your previous comment to me, I admit I may have phrased my first point poorly: what I meant to say was that while the Church accepts NFP as a means for responsible child spacing, it in no way teaches that the practice of NFP is intended to be the norm for Catholic marriages. Responsible parenthood must be delicately balanced with generosity in participating with God’s life-giving love. Agreed?
The next point you made was the, “if I practice NFP the right way, can I still use a condom?” remark. If you had not ignored the second half of my comment, you may have notice why I theorized this would not be acceptable in the eyes of the Church. It opposes Jesus’ own words that the two become one *flesh*, and places undue responsibility on one partner, and opens another door to deception and mistrust, as discussed previously. Also, I think an important component to the equality between partners in NFP is the requirement of mutual *sacrifice*. An honest sacrifice with good intent is pleasing to God. In my humble opinion, a condom is a “get out of suffering free” card that can only do harm.
Your next comment about drugs vs. nature sounded like you think I’m anti-drug in general. Would I still be a pharmacist if that were true? 😉
I don’t feel your comparison between drugs used to contracept and drugs used to treat disease is a fair one. Chemical contraceptives work directly against *fertility* – if you consider fertility a disease state, you and I are both among the vast majority of humans ever born to suffer from it. This point also speaks to the Church’s acceptance of drugs to enhance fertility – fertility is considered the normal, healthy state of the human body.
At the risk of getting lengthy yet again, let me paint a few examples of this difference. My dad takes Lipitor, which is an awesome, life-saving drug. He uses it to keep his cholesterol in check since his bypass surgery 5 years ago (which he needed mainly because his arteries were clogged due to high cholesterol!). My cholesterol is just fine. If I take Lipitor, I am unnecessarily putting myself at risk for liver damage as well as life-threatening muscle breakdown (rhabdomyolysis). Is it moral for me to do so?
Maybe I can do better than that example. Say my husband has a prescription for Oxycontin for his chronic knee pain. I have no pain, but I notice how sleepy it makes him. I decide I want to get to sleep really early for a long flight or whatever and take one just to make sure I fall asleep when I want to. With this drug, I put myself at risk for nausea/vomiting (yeah, I need more of that like I need a hole in the head), impaired cognition, constipation, and even (depending on the dose) life-threatening respiratory depression. Aside from the legal issues involved with taking someone else’s prescription drug, is it moral for me to do so?
Medicine in general constantly practices from the viewpoint that nature is better. The American Academy of Pediatrics recently recommended *not* treating ear infections with antibiotics right away, but rather letting children fight them on their own first. Any time a person comes into the hospital with some issue not allowing them to eat, the most basic rule of thumb is, if the gut works, use it – that is, use any sort of feeding tube to allow the body to work for its own nutrition before giving nutrition intravenously.
So after all those lengthy examples (no wonder i get ignored 🙂 ), I think it makes perfect sense that working with God’s own design for the human reproductive process is always better than chemically altering it when it ain’t broke.
Welcome back to the conversation, Stuff. 🙂
By no means do I wish to be contrary for its own sake, but I do see a potential opposition to your comments. Actually, it’d be a response to hidden assumptions in them. All of the arguments I’ve heard thus far clearly make NFP a more moral contraceptive. However, I have not seen a good argument for why it is objectively moral, that is, morally licit under all circumstances in which it is not abused. So, let’s grant that NFP does not violate the fertile sex act because the act is not performed. My question is whether it violates the sex act in toto. I do not yet understand why engaging in the sex act only when it’s unlikely to produce offspring is not an abuse of the procreative aspect of matrimony.
In order to correct this lack of understanding, I am reading Casti Connubii (Pius XI), Address to Midwives and Address to the Directors of the Associations for Large Families (Pius XII), Humanae Vitae (Paul VI), and Familiaris Consortio (John Paul II). I’m in the midst of writing a post about what I learn (I’ve just finished CC). I hope and believe that it will clarify matters for all of us. If folks can just hold their wad for a while (pun intended), we can resume the conversation when that post is finished.
Stuff: Your chiding aside, I don’t think it’s fair to accuse me of ignoring you. For me, the logic of my choice not to rebut every individual line of your comment is simple. If a logical statement entails “X AND Y” and one can evaluate “X” as false, then there is no purpose in evaluating “Y” since the entire statement is false regardless (Logic 101). In the same way, there is no sense in addressing an analysis based on a theory if the theory is not accepted.
In any case, I genuinely read every comment to my posts, though I find it appropriate to limit my comments. In an effort not to be accused of ignorance again, I will respond to every paragraph in your comment:
Furthermore, I don’t see how it matters for this topic if “NFP is [not] intended to be the norm”. The fact is that it is intended to be used at all, still raises the question, why is NFP okay and not a condom? Can I use a condom, as long as it is not intended to be the norm? You then make the “one flesh” argument. Essentially this is why a married couple must consummate the marriage for it to be valid. To read “one flesh†any other way, abstinence and NFP would seem to violate this rule as well, by avoiding becoming “one flesh” from one time to another.
In response to the moral argument for/against drugs, I do not consider fertility to be a disease, as you suggest, but I also do not consider normal fatigue to be a disease either, yet there is no moral teaching I can find that states its bad to take a mild stimulant (like caffeine). For this aspect, I still reject the “no drugs = more moral” argument. (speaking of ignorance, note here that everyone seemed to ignore my comment about the abortificant effects of caffeine). (By the way, I genuinely read your oxycotten and lipitor paragraphs too!)
Beyond that, I don’t see why one should be particularly concerned that modern medicine suggests nature is better, since the topic is morality. This is to say, my point is that while nature may be better, there seems to be no moral argument that seems to apply against all “unnatural” medicines (caffeine, Tylenol, etc.) in all cases. Unless we can say there is a general argument against medicines, I can’t agree with the “if it ain’t broke” argument.
Funky: Hey, I get a chance not to be contrary here 🙂 Indeed one of my questions is that, if one can makes the “violation of the act” argument, then why is NFP not a violation too?
I don’t know if another voice will just add to the confusion at this point but a few thoughts occurred to me that might help.
Lightwave: A lot of really good things have been said to answer your question about whether NFP is contraception (and on related questions) but you’re still not satisfied. I think it comes down to definition. What is contraception? Perhaps your definition (in post 127) seems to allow a lot more than you intend. What about infertile couples and older couples? Are they contracepting because their condition “prevents conception while still allowing the sexual act”?
I think you are confusing the intention and the “moral act.” The intention and the act are two different things as we acknowledge when we say, “He did a bad thing for a good reason” (e.g. many abortion cases) or “He did a good thing for a bad reason” (e.g. praying to show off) The intention is in the one who acts, but the action is something outside of him, the objective thing done. And the moral act is good or evil, apart from the intention. (See CCC #1750-1753)
The Church defines a contraceptive act as engaging in intercourse while using means to prevent conception. So regardless of intention, NFP is not contraception and is permitted by the Church, while using physical or chemical contraceptives is and is forbidden. It is true that NFP can be used for selfish reasons and would therefore be sinful, but the sin committed would be a sin of ommission (not being willing to accept God’s gift of a child), not the sin of engaging in a contraceptive act.
Why are contraceptive acts wrong? They violate both purposes of the marital act, namely procreation and loving union. The first is obvious but the second is no less real. With their bodies, each person says, “I offer you a total gift of myself…except for my fertility. I accept your total gift of self…but I don’t want your capacity for fruitfulness.” There’s a contradiction here — a lie. And our fertility is not just a peripheral ability, but rather an essential component of who we are as men and women. Every person is called to give himself or herself to another and to bear fruit–to become a father or mother–spiritually if not physically. Conjugal love is thus an image of Christ and His Church and of the self-giving, fruitful love of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. You might want to study Pope John Paul II’s talks on the Theology of the Body which explain all this.
I’d just like folks to know that in my reading of popes Pius XI and XII it became abundantly clear to me that they most certainly regarded NFP as contraception (though they generally used the phrase “birth control”). However, they saw it as a moral means of contraception (under the right circumstances). Lightwave isn’t off his nut about the Church’s dodgy use of language in her teachings about NFP (at least as those teachings are popularly presented).
Dear Lightwave,
“That being said, I think we agree on the basics now. What’s next?” [Lightwave comment 130]
I think our next step is to apply the moral framework of “intents”, “objects”, and “circumstances”. I suggest we simplify things at the outset by comparing contraceptive drugs/barriers versus abstinence. Later, we can relate abstinence to the larger pattern of periodic abstinence known as NFP.
First, though, it sounds like it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by “objects”. A few paragraphs earlier in the Catechism from where you quoted, there is a more complete description:
“1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.”
In other words, the object is what you choose to carry out your intent. Further, reason and conscience can indicate for us that certain objects conform to the good and others to evil.
Hope that helps–let me know if not.
Okay, first “intents”. Again, to simplify things, I suggest we begin by assuming a good intention for avoiding a pregnancy for both contraceptive drugs/barriers and abstinence. Let us say that the intent is to avoid pregnancy because it would seriously threaten the life of the would-be mother.
It might be good to stop here for a moment. Are we agreed that there can be a good intent to avoid pregnancy (the one suggested being an example we can use)?
Lightwave,
I am no expert in philosophy/theology/morality. I will let BV take on that aspect of the discussion. My point, which I think Funky picked up on, is that while you would like to claim there is “no substantive difference” between NFP and artificial contraception, I have found that there are numerous differences on many levels – physical, practical, moral. And my point with the drug examples is that while there are ways to use them judiciously and morally, there are ways to use the same drugs unwisely and immorally. Using caffeine (not only a mild stimulant, but a mild bronchodilator and diuretic to boot – and I don’t mean the book by L Ron Hubbard 😉 ) to carry you through a rough day at work after your toddler has been up with a fever all night is one thing. Getting plenty of rest and proper nutrition, then drinking several cups of coffee to get a buzz is quite different.
For a single woman to take the pill to alleviate the excruciating symptoms of endometriosis is one thing. For a married woman to take the pill for any reason is quite a different story.
And my point of trying to emphasize ANY difference between the methods, intents, etc. is to hopefully show that there are so many subtle nuances to this and many other moral discussions that I don’t think it’s possible to categorize things in as simple a black-and-white format as you would like.
But I’ll leave that part up to BV. 🙂
I have to ask, and certainly feel free to correct me, isn’t becoming “one flesh” violated by the barrier of a condom which would not be violated by the use of NFP as Lightwave suggests?? He suggests that a couple does not become “one flesh” if they periodically abstain, but that doesn’t seem clear to me if every other instance of sex is not disrupted by a barrier, the couple becomes “one flesh.”
Perhaps I don’t have a clear understanding of this as somone who is not married, but it would seem to me that the suggestion is there that a couple has to be “one flesh” all the time, which something tells me doesn’t happen for more reasons than periodic abstinence.
Gah… I can’t believe this conversation is still going on… Well… what the heck.
Lightwave says:
The fact is that it is intended to be used at all, still raises the question, why is NFP okay and not a condom?
No one said NFP is “okay”. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. NFP is not per se immoral, but it can be and often is.
Also:
Indeed one of my questions is that, if one can makes the “violation of the act†argument, then why is NFP not a violation too?
Again, no one should be arguing that NFP is not a violation of the act. It is not per se such a violation, but it can be an often is.
I think this discussion would’ve been a whole lot clearer if the term NFP didn’t appear, and the term “abstinence” was substituted instead. Abstinence is what we’re talking about here. Is abstinence ALWAYS, in EVERY CASE, moral? No. It can be engaged for the wrong reason(s). But it is not per se immoral. Contraceptive sex is per se immoral, i.e., immoral regardless of intention. Which is what I said about 500 comments ago.
Back to my banishment.
I don’t know if this applies to any of you young married Catholics out there, but if one (and I’m not saying anyone necessarily fits this description) approaches NFP as a choice (however well-informed or well-intentioned) from among many modern options for “limiting and spacing births”, then it really is no wonder one cannot tell the moral difference between NFP and a condom. The problem is that such a one has already acquiesced to the Culture of Choice. And it is the Culture of Choice, not contraception nor NFP nor for that matter axe-murdering, that is the real demon that must be exorcised.
Oh, and in even less happy news, we have NOW marching in our St. Patty’s Day parade next Sat…
magistra6: I know a lot has gone on here, but I’d be the last to discourage participation to reduce confusion, so, welcome to the discussion.
If I haven’t already addressed the question “are perpetually infertile couples using contraception by definition?”, I had intended to. My answer is a qualified “no”. Perpetually infertile couples who are unintentionally infertile (perhaps due to a medical condition) are not using contraception. They have no intention of intervening in the conception process, nor are they intervening. NFP does intervene in the conception process. Again, I’ll say though, that it doesn’t matter that the intervention happens at a different time then the sexual act.
You say “The Church defines a contraceptive act as engaging in intercourse while using means to prevent conception. So regardless of intention, NFP is not contraception.” However, I make the point that NFP is a “means to prevent conception” while allowing one to “engage in intercourse. As Funky pointed out, the Church does define NFP as contraception. I have, however, pointed out that many other forms of contraception are forbidden by the Church, so I don’t think we disagree there. My original premise, however, is that I don’t see how these can be so bad, while NFP is okay.
I can’t respond to comments like “why are contraceptive acts wrong,” other to say than the Church condones contraception in at least one form that it defines, so it seems to me the Church states that contraception itself is not objectively wrong. Furthermore when you say in regard to other forms of contraception
I find that NFP fits this, in that it can be used for the same purposes: “except for […] fertility” and “I don’t want your capacity for fruitfulness.”
BV: Thanks for the explanation. I think I’m with you so far. I think I can agree with your “intents” statement. Beyond that, might I suggest that the intent with abstinence is to avoid pregnancy and avoid sexual pleasure, while the intent with contraception is to avoid pregnancy while allowing sexual pleasure? If you think I’m going a bit too far for keeping things simple, you can ignore my suggestion and continue down the path you were on.
Stuff: I think I agree with you that *anything* can be abused. NFP, caffeine, condoms, etc. But when you say there are substantive differences with NFP and artificial contraception (by the way, I still consider NFP artificial), I can’t see the pertinent difference. Okay, I’ll say every one is substantially different from any other one, but I don’t see what makes an “artificial” method different from NFP that should make the “artificial” method prohibited, and NFP not.
By the way, I like things black and white 🙂 Indeed that is what the rules give me. But I like to understand why the line between black and white is where it is.
Emily T: I’m sorry if my comment wasn’t clear, but I think your comment helps me to illustrate my point. You say
In so saying, wouldn’t that mean that a couple would have to be literally joined at the hips at all times to be one flesh at all times? I don’t think this was the intention of the teaching. If they’re one flesh even when not having sex, essentially perpetually “one fleshâ€Â, then how does a barrier or a chemical, but not a chart and a stopwatch, break that perpetuity?
Steve: I think the Church has made it pretty clear NFP is okay. If so, then I doubt the Church is in the position of saying that NFP is a “violation of the act”. Let me clearly state, though, that I don’t see NFP and abstinence as the same. NFP when used to space births is sex + (hopefully) no pregnancy. Contraception is sex + (hopefully) no pregnancy. Abstinence is “no sex” + “no pregnancy”, except in one special case 2000 years ago. Again, as Funky pointed out, the Church defines NFP as contraception, but promotes NFP as acceptable, if so, when you say “Contraceptive sex is per se immoral,” do you intend to say that the Church is defining an immoral act as acceptable?
I think in your second post, you’re getting closer to what I’m saying. Indeed, if used improperly, NFP is immoral (just as other forms of contraception are defined as immoral). I think, however, the things we can do to practice NFP “properly” we may also do with other forms of contraception, so why can they not be moral too?
I have no idea where you’re getting this “Church has made it pretty clear NFP is okay.” Or worse, the “Church considers NFP a type of contraception.” And I’m thoroughly unaware of the church “promoting” NFP. The church permits “periodic abstinence” for limiting and spacing births if there are grave reasons to do so. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Contraception is not in the Church’s parlance equivalent to abstinence, nor is it equivalent to limiting and spacing of births. It is a moot point, because the Church has made it even more abundantly clear (aside from whatever else it may or may not have made clear) that contraception is per se immoral. Abstinence **COULD BE** immoral if practiced with specific intent of limiting family size for unjust reasons. But the sin in that case would not be abstinence but faithlessness or greed. But I refuse to conflate two different moral questions.
Lightwave, if this hasn’t been made abundantly clear, the DIFFERENCE between having sex and abstinence is that in one case you’re having sex and in the other you’re not. Obvious? Right. But the corollary is that what is different is what we do with our bodies. And this is important why? Because we believe in the Resurrection of the Body–the point I was making 349 pages above up there, i.e., we are not gnostics, we are not manicheists. Our bodies matter and what we do with them matters. We are spiritual creatures, i.e., we are more than physical, but we are also at least that. Consider the deeds of the risen Lord. He was no ghost. He ate fish, was able to be touched. He was not “less solid” than us mortals. He was more. He walked through locked doors not because he was noncorporeal or vapory but because locked doors were noncorporeal or vapory relative to him. And for this Christ died and rose again: To guarantee for the faithful the resurrection of our bodies. So I say philosophizing has long ago run its course. There is a difference between having sex and not having sex and if your philosophy cannot recognize such a difference, then there’s something wrong with the philosophy, not with the sex. 😉
With that, I’ll keep my body from the http protocol for the next 144 hours. See you next Sun. Hope you all will have solved something by then.
Once more with feeling:
Birth control, done for the moral reasons (that is, with serious/grave motives), is permitted by the Church. NFP is a form of birth control. It is in fact the only form of birth control permitted by the Church. Why? Because it relies on the natural rhythms of the human body, created by God. Every pope since Pius XII has not only approved of NFP for use by the faithful, but she has also exhorted doctors and scientists to further our understanding of human sexuality and fertility so as to learn more about God’s creation and improve NFP. The difference that the Church sees between natural and artificial birth control is that the latter leaves God in control by using His creation the way He designed it and the latter presumes to usurp complete control of fertility to humanity. I say again, the distinction that NFP is allegedly not a form of contraception is a red herring. I find no such language in the writings of Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, or John Paul II. They do mention that NFP can be wrongly used with a “contraceptive mentality”, that is, hostility to fertility, but that’s different matter and speaks more to intent than means.
I won’t say any more lest I should spoil the 6-part series I’m working on. 😉
Pingback: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Investigating NFP: Preface
Dear Lightwave,
“I think I’m with you so far. […] might I suggest that the intent with abstinence is to avoid pregnancy and avoid sexual pleasure, while the intent with contraception is to avoid pregnancy while allowing sexual pleasure? If you think I’m going a bit too far for keeping things simple, you can ignore my suggestion and continue down the path you were on.” [Lightwave comment 141]
I understand what you’re saying, but I think it’s best to keep things simple for now by assuming pure intentions (we can branch out later). I’m glad we’re still together, and I’ll continue down our path:
Having established a good “intent” (to avoid pregnancy because it would seriously threaten the life of the would-be mother), our next step is to evaluate the “objects”, or the ways we can carry out our “intent”. Let us say that the first “object” is the use of a condom during intercourse (this being an example of contraceptive drugs/barriers).
Looking at the use of a condom during intercourse, we observe: a) the sexual act is performed, b) during the act, a device is used which prevents the act from functioning as designed (namely, the condom).
So we ask, how does this “object” conform/not conform to the good? Well, we see that this “object” involves sex, and we know that the good of the sexual act is understood in terms of its two inseparable significances: that of unitive, and of procreative. We see that this “object” blatantly violates one of these significances–the procreative is stifled by the married couple. The very nature of this “object”, then, is to make the sexual act a contradiction against itself. In moral parlance, we say that it is intrinsically disordered.
This is probably another good place to stop. Are we agreed that the use of a condom is an inherent contradiction of the sexual act and therefore bad?
Does anyone have any thoughts on the new NFP post?
Eeek. Well I had posted a comment back on the 7th (or at least I thought it was posted since I went through the spam catcher), but my comment doesn’t appear to have made it here! Mental note to save my comments so I don’t have to redo them. I was wondering why the thread got so quiet.
Steve N: I believe Funky will make it pretty clear that the Church thinks NFP is okay in his series of posts if his last comment was not sufficent for you. To help you understand that the Church does indeed promote NFP, let me give you this example: when attending the mandatory matrimony classes taught by the Church prior to being married, there was an entire module taught on NFP and contraception. I have to say that it was well done, taking in to consideration the thoughts and feelings of both the devout catholics in the room, those who weren’t so devout, and those who were not Catholic, but getting a Catholic marriage. Everyone I’ve spoken to who has taken the classes has mentioned something similar to me. For those recently married in the Church, please chime in and tell me if you had a similar mentioning of NFP. This is not merely an endorsement of NFP, but promotion of it by the Church.
In response to the rest of your post, I don’t think I ever claimed that “sex” = “no sex”. I’m not sure how you got to that, so its difficult for me to respond further.
BV: In your step by step analysis, You are precicely at the position of my quandry. I cannot answer your question without first answering some of the questions I have raised before (to which I don’t know the answer). Allow me to relate my (il)logic.
You ask is “a condom is an inherent contradiction of the sexual act and therefore bad?”. To answer this question, I must put the condom in some context. So, here, I would put the condom in the category of a contraceptive. I also must put NFP in the contraceptive category. If I do this, I can’t categorically say all contraceptives are bad. Here, I must figure out what is the specific difference that makes NFP not like a condom, and therefore makes NFP okay. I’ll begin listing some (I don’t remember them all) of the differences that folks have mentioned:
1. NFP is natural. Response: I don’t find NFP particularly natural (i.e. charts, stopwatches, etc.), people in nature do not time their sexual acts based on a chart.
2. NFP promotes all kinds of good virtues. Response: Okay, but if I promote those virtues and choose to use a condom in addition, is the condom then okay? Of course not, so the virtue promotion doesn’t seem to be what makes NFP okay.
3. NFP only spaces births, it doesn’t prevent them. Response: This is a bit of mincing of words. How is spacing births not contraception? Again, if you use a condom to space births, most here would claim that is not okay.
4. Using NFP means your open to life. *OR* With NFP you’re leaving it in God’s hands. Response: I find that hard to believe. NFP claims to be at least as effective or more effective than other contemporary methods. If that is the case, it seems to me that one could find it more closed to life than a condom could provide, and certainly seems to be a free-will effort to remove the choice further from God’s hands.
5. NFP doesn’t impact the sexual act. Response: I think it does. NFP conspires to prevent a fertile sexual act or preempts the sexual act from even beginning during fertile periods. I don’t think one can interfere more with an act than to prevent its occurrence.
6. NFP doesn’t violate the unitive and procreative acts. Response: Huh? If you’re preempting sex, you’re preempting the unitive act. Sounds like a violation for me. And the whole point of NFP is to prevent or delay procreation.
Having gone through these issues, I can’t find how NFP is objectively different than using a condom. Unless I can, I have to think that using a condom and using NFP must be on equal moral ground. Therefore since NFP is declared “okay”, then a condom cannot be objectively wrong.
Do you see where I am challenged by the morality of these issues? Perhaps you (or someone else) can shed some light on something I haven’t seen yet.
Dear Lightwave,
I think I see the challenge, and I agree with much of what you’ve said. I did want to suggest something:
This looks to me a little like circular thinking: You’ve started with the premise that “A” and “B” are the same, and then end with the statement that they cannot therefore be different.
I suggest that even if “A” and “B” are morally the same, we should still be able to look at each in isolation. Despite any other similarities they may have, using a condom and practicing abstinence are different “objects”. And even if they have the same moral character, that moral character should be able to be seen without reference to the other.
Does this seem reasonable?
BV: I would say it is resonable to look at them independently for someone who is a lot smarter than me (maybe that’s you!). To evaluate morality, I need moral points of reference, hence my points on similarity. I’m not sure that I’d know how to evaluate one or the other in a vacume.
Perhaps you would like to conduct the independent moral evaluation that you suggest? Maybe in seeing it, it would then make sense to me.
Dear Lightwave,
You’re right, we can’t evaluate in a vacuum and we need moral points of reference (we’d be adrift without them). But if you use the two “objects” we’re evaluating as the definitive points of reference for each other, then we simply reach foregone conclusions. We need to widen the lens, use other references and see if it works out to the same conclusions. Then we can be even more sure of our result.
About conducting an “independent moral evaluation”, this is what I’ve taken a stab at in comment 145. I’ve attempted to simply look at the use of a condom at face value, and to see what it illustrates. Even at a superficial level, the use of a condom appears to contradict the sexual act. Does it not seem so to you?
P.S. Thank you for the compliment, by the way, though I must say I’m definitely not smarter than you, so no worries. 🙂
BV: I bet you’re hoping for a short, to-the-point response from me. Alas, I find thigs a bit more complex. Looking back at your comment 145, I re-read what you mentioned:
Essentially you’re saying that use of a condom prevents the sex act from operating as designed. Again, here, I need a point of reference, specifically, I’d need to know that there was something moraly wrong with “preventing the act from functioning as designed”. Let’s assume for the moment that I accept that without justification (though I’m not sure I do). Then, I would also need an accepted definiton of “functioning as designed”. It seems to me, from your second paragraph, that you’re saying that “the sex act is intended to operate in a procreative manner (in addition to unitive)”.
Now, if I were to accept all that at face value, then yes, the use of a condom is morally bad.
However, if I apply those same rules to the use of NFP, I see that it also interferes with the procreative apsect of sex, so it also fails both of your propsed rules. Hence, NFP must also be morally bad. The Church has estabilished this is not the case, so there must be a problem with the ruleset or the application thereof.
So, now, to backtrack for a moment, since this ruleset doesn’t appear to work, what ruleset might you justly apply to the morality of using a condom that could not be applied to NFP?
Here are some rulesets we’ve already discussed:
1. Onanism – I’d argue what some call Onanism could also simply be interpreted as a failure to follow any direct order.
2. Nature is better – I don’t see why using unnatural methods should be sinful in one area, but not in most other areas of our lives. I also don’t see NFP as natural (contrary to the name, sex by a stopwatch, and all that).
3. Openness to life – If one understands the proability of conception with a condom vs. NFP, one may find (as I have) that NFP has a lower proability of conception. If this is the case, the use of a condom would represent a greater openness to life than NFP.
4. Interfering in the act of Sex – While a condom interupts but part of fertile sex, NFP prevents it from happing altogether. From my perspective, NFP thus interefers more.
5. Husband and Wife are expected to be unitive as often as possible – I don’t see how this statement, per se, can be accurate even when not applied to contraception. I can’t see how it could possibly be the Churches position that husband and wife be joined at (or a little below) the hip perpetually, especially since abstinence is permissible in many cases.
What am I missing?