www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Natural Family Planning or Contraception?

Among other things Daniel the Iconophile wrote:

Hmmm, if that is the case, the Fathers would condemn NFP, because no matter what euphemism one uses, NFP is used to prevent conception.

Latin Trad wrote:

It's funny that there is no mention of marriage in this reply. Perhaps it is to be understood. But in reading the story of Genesis, the woman was created by God for man for marriage based on love and companionship, not for child bearing. Sexuality is but one expression of that love and companionship, and children are but one of the fruits of that love and companionship.

Fr. Deacon John,

Be careful.

This line of argumentation is flawed, because it only addresses the end--avoiding conception. The difference between NFP and contraception is the means. Catholic moral theology holds that means have a specific moral intelligibility. Hence, a good end does not justify evil means.

YES, marriage is to be understood.

Oh really? First of all, I think this is a terribly false dichotomy.

Second of all, was it not God who said "Fill the earth and subdue it?"

Third of all, St. Thomas Aquinas derives the primacy of the procreative end of marriage from that very Genesis story. God created woman as the perfect "helpmate" for man. But, we see that for most tasks, a better helpmate would have been another man. What task is it in which he can be helped only by a woman? The task of procreation.

Fourth of all, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you just playing Devil's advocate, or are you arguing against the age-old Christian teaching?

In Christ,

LatinTrad

Brendan,

Are you arguing then that contraception is a "good end" and that NFP, being a "good means" closes a circle of good?

Does it thus follow that contraception, a "good end", only fails to be acceptable by virtue of the means employed, which are "evil" if they are other than NFP?

Many years,

Neil

NO No no.


Contraception is not an end at all.

Contraception is a means to achieve the end of avoiding conception.

Avoiding conception is not necessarily a good end either. It is only a good end if there are grave circumstances impinging upon the couple's life.

Under such circumstances, they must choose a means that is morally acceptable. Periodic abstinence is such a means.

Anyway, why does this teaching take so much flak on a "Christian" forum?

Condomistic intercourse and other contraceptive acts have been condemned by right believers since the creation of the world.

Periodic abstinence under grave circumstances is not the same thing.

You cannot argue from the acceptance of the latter to justify the former.

Why is this so impossible to see?

LatinTrad

Procreation is possible in sexual union. What Genesis doen't say is supplemented by natural law: You have sex (healthy couples) and babies may result. We do know that healthy men are always fertile. Healthy women are fertile for a few days a month. Therefore God did not intend for every sexual union to result in new life. There is a unitive aspect to sexual union and a procreative aspect to sexual union. By God's plan they do not always line up. That is why Natural Family Planning is in cooperation with God's plan.

I highly recommend reading "Humana Vitae". For a short little book it has an amzing amount of teaching about God's plan for married couples.

Peace,

Paul

If avoiding conception is not a good, it must be evil. But the evil can become a good depending upon the grave circumstance?

Fr. Dcn. John,

EDITED BY THE AUTHOR


In Catholic moral theology, any action involves a "moral object," an "end," and "circumstances."

The Moral Object is the action itself, in its moral intelligibility. For example, "murder" is a moral object (an evil one). "Fornication" is also an evil moral object. "Sex", however, is NOT a moral object, because it has no moral intelligibility as such--it could be marital relations, in which case it is good, or it could be fornication, in which case it is evil, etc.

The "end" is "that for the sake of which" one chooses a given action.

The "circumstances" are the remainder of the factual context.

Thus, to give an account of any action, one must include the moral object, the end, and the circumstances.

For an action to be permissible, ALL THREE must be morally good. If the moral object is evil, then the action is evil and impermissible, no matter how noble an end the person has in mind. If the end is evil, it renders the action evil, even if it is in se permissible. For example, if I eat a candy bar in order to make my friends jealous, or something like that. Lastly, the circumstances can render an action evil--e.g. marital relations are good, but if you are in a crowded room you had better not do it.

Contraceptive sex is a moral object. It is evil, and cannot be chosen for any reason or under any circumstances.

"Avoiding conception", on the other hand, is in se neither good nor evil. Every celibate avoids conception. In a Josephite marriage, the couple avoids conception. Thus, your statement that

"If avoiding conception is not a good, it must be evil."

is incorrect. "Avoiding conception" is neither good nor evil, in and of itself.

The Church teaches, however, that married couples are permitted to avoid conception under certain grave circumstances.

The means that they choose is what is at issue here. Contraceptive sex is condemned by the entire orthodox Tradition through the ages. It is condemned by all the Eastern and Western Fathers. AND IT IS CONDEMNED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Periodic abstinence, however, is not. As a moral object, it is permissible. Therefore, if the end is good, and if the circumstances do not offer any objection, periodic abstinence is permissible. Now, the Church teaches us that under grave circumstances it is a permissible end for married couples to avoid conception. Therefore, under those circumstances, it is allowable to use periodic abstinence to do so.

IT IS NOT ALLOWABLE TO COMMIT ACTS OF CONDOMISTIC INTERCOURSE, COITUS INTERRUPTUS, OR ANY OTHER UNNATURAL ACTS, WHETHER ASSISTED BY IUDs, PILLS, OR WHAT-HAVE-YOU.

I cannot understand why, as a deacon of the Church, you are arguing with me about this.

I rest.

LatinTrad

Dear LatinTrad:

In a nutshell, Natural Family Planning as espoused, and allowed and encouraged, by the Catholic Church falls squarely into your last post.

Clear enough for me!

AmdG

We find God telling the man and the women to "be fruitful and multiply" in the "first" story of creation which was developed by the priestly tradition after the Exile.

The older tradition, the Yahwist, presents us with the beautiful story of the helpmate and man's wondrous song of praise upon the Lord's presentation of the women. This older creation narrative ends with, "This is why a man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to his wife, and they become one flesh." Companionship and one-ness is the foundation of marriage not procreation.

Latin Trad,

are you really disappointed in me or in what I post? You do not know me well enough to be disappointed in me.

I'm disappointed in people who I come into contact and who would abuse NFP to ease their conscience and than ask other couples why they don't have children or alternatively push NFP on couples who are having children.

L-T, lifestyle speaks louder than words.

John, a daddy deacon of six, with one more on the way.

LatinTrad posted several posts back that "a better helpmate for most tasks would be another man." and that the only task requiring a woman instead would be procreation.

It's so heartening to know that you find one half of the race to be so valuable .


Sharon

Amen! Yes!

I really don't understand then. Also, I want to make clear that I am not a proponent of NFP as a way of life. And I am not using it either.

Why do you argue that procreation is not foundational to marriage?

I was arguing against contraception, and I was quite surprised that you came after me the way you did. I didn't know if you were trying to argue in favor of contraception, or what your objection to my posts was.

LatinTrad

This view of Scripture was developed in the 19th century by German Protestants, and it has been discredited quite ably by such luminaries as Professor Tim Gray.

Genesis is one, unified story. No part of it is less valuable than any other part. And it was written by Moses under Divine Inspiration, not by J, E, D, and P.

Lt

I did not make that up. It comes from St. Thomas Aquinas's explanation of the 3 ends of marriage.

Moreover, that is not to say that women are "only" for procreation. It is merely to say that God created them man and woman for the sake of procreation, as well as union. St. Thomas would argue that procreation is the primary end of marriage, but that the other ends are real and legitimate. Pius XI affirms this in Casti Conubii.

LatinTrad

LatinTrad