www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Contraception: outdated teaching

I once heard an analogy concerning this very thing:

Using NFP is like not inviting someone to a party.

Using artificial birth control is like sending a card which tells this someone he or she is not welcomed at the party.

The "someone" in this analogy is God.

Columcille

[ 04-30-2002: Message edited by: Columcille ]

Based on the analogy that Columcille presented, am I way off base in assuming that, since sex should be something you should bring God into (although it's very probable that you won't be rattling off akathists during the experience), that the only way of reconciling this with both artificial birth control and NFP is to say that both methods shouldn't be used at all? Or am I misunderstanding the point?

Totally bogus. Don't believe the hype Ality. The claim of the condom industry - along with the medical community - that condoms very rarely break, is the biggest hussle going second only to the dog food industry.

Why should the Church *have* to help women pregnant out of wedlock. You want to be so personal with Jesus then have personal responsibilty before Him.

I suppose if the Church doesn't want Colombians selling cocain on the black market to the US, and murdering people over it, then the Church should finacialy support all Colombians involved in the coca trade?

The Church says that a husband should not beat his wife. And if a husband beats his wife after several stressful days at work - guess what - the Church is not at fault because it did not pay for "stress managment classes" for him.

Self mastery and virtues living is a b***h I know. But the gate to heaven is narrow, ain't my rules (believe me I've screwed up enough) or the Popes - take it up with God. And if you do, do me a favor, and tell Him to lighten up on me. Thanks!

LOL, this is great! I would appreciate a little lightening up too!

Brendan wrote:


The revolution against the Church's position on contraception was fueled by the ease of use of "the Pill." How ironic that what was thought to be simply a method of contraception turned out also to be something that can be abortificient. I think that demonstrates the wisdom of the traditional Catholic and Orthodox position on artificial birth control.

Brendan goes on to write:


I have not done thorough research on this but wasn't it the traditional interpretation that the "evil thing" Onan did (Genesis 38) was an attempted form of birth control with the intent of preventing contraception (not very scientific, of course)?

Is not the interpretation that all that Onan did that was wrong was to not intend to fulfill levirate marriage a twentieth century novelty?

Here are a couple of links which mention the case of Onan. One refers to the traditional Jewish interpretation of the passage.

http://www.hli.org/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/001/461lorsr.asp

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/2495/abcbible.html

My impression is that Jewish and Christian antiquity would be united in viewing the sin of Onan as being the misuse of his seed. Again, this is not something I've studied in detail and I'd be open to hearing other information on this.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Allow me to clarify: NFP is like not sending someone an invitation to party. However, if the person happens to show up anyway, you welcome him and treat him as well as the other guests.

Artificial birth control is sending the person a card stating "You are NOT welcome here. If you show up, the door will be shut in your face.

It may be weak, but I think you get the point.

Columcille

Thanks for the clarification, Columcille. The analogy does seem a bit weak, though, unless one "forgot" to invite the guest, and then when they showed up, you welcomed them, and felt even a bit remorseful for forgetting to invite them.

However, this is not the case in the analogy, at least that's how it seems to me. Here someone wasn't invited, and if they showed up anyway, you would oblige, but since your heart wasn't in it totally in the beginning, all it is is an obligation carried out. Either way, one knows what the intent was, and, in my opinion, a halfhearted welcoming is less honest than an all out "don't show up". It's all in the intent. But that's just me...in some ways, I guess I'm just an honesty nut, and have much to learn.

Dear Anastasios,
Bravo on your excelent defense of the teaching of the Church on "Artificial Birth Control".

If you want to know where this contraceptive mentality leads to let me quote an Orthodox work,
"Some Bishops, theologians and canonists "now" hold that birth control methods may be used by married couples, to allow (and get this!) for a freer expression of marital love, to protect health and to space children. In rare cases a choice between th e life of the mother and the life of the child, a decision must be made for te life of the unborn child, a decision must be made for the life of the unborn child or the life of the mother on the basis of the consequences. IN MOST CASES THIS POBABLY MEANS THAT AN ABORTION WOULD BE ALLOWED."

Now there you have it bottom line to as were this mentality ends up.

Stephanos I

[ 05-03-2002: Message edited by: Stephanos I ]

Bravo Stephanos I!

Here's another analogy against contraception to pair with the one about the party invitation.

Eating food has two purposed:
1)pleasure
2)calories for energy

Suppose a person wanted eat tons of ice cream for pleasure but in the end didn't want the calories. Thus, he throws it all up everytime, right after consuming all the food. Is this morally responsible. Is this godly behavior. I should say not!!!!!!

If you're going to eat extra food be prepared for the natural unfolding of the act. Deal with the calories or eat less.

Same with sex. Sex has two purposes for the married couple as well:
1)pleasure
2)precreation

If someone wants the pleasure but not the outcome of nature, then they are actually "sexual gluttons". Contraception is like sexual bulimia.

The difference between NFP and articificial birth control is that NFP observes the natural order and acts accordingly. With respect to the food analogy, NFP is like enjoying the pleasure of the food but then dieting or working out more (both of which have an ascetic quality).

yours in Christ,
Taylor

Brendan said:


I love your qualifications for condemning those of us who choose the traditionaly Orthodox position towards birth control. I think your "qualified" deomonizations are cute, but baseless. I use NFP and take offense that you would even insinuate that I ignore my son or my wife because I use NFP. I know my wife and her body better than I know my own and have given up a lot for my son. You say, "I don't judge" and then go on to pronounce a sentence. Nonsense.

According to you, I am using some bazaar idea of "headship" (??????????????) to learn about my wife and understand her? Where the heck are you coming from, man?

I know litteraly hundreds of people using NFP and I must say I think that on this subject you're a bit of a looney. I don't know many (I do know a few) who try to use NFP as some kind of weird control issue. The ones who abuse it usually end up abandoning the technique because they have no self control.

In general, Brendan, you're wrong about many who use NFP and, in particular, you are wrong about me.

I think a lot of the conundrum arises because the "issue" is being framed in terms of 'objective evil/sin' rather than in terms of human choices to turn towards God or to turn away (i.e., be sinful or choosing to avoid sin).

It seems to me that there are any number of reasons why people would choose to both engage in, or abstain from intimate activity. These reasons are in the 'internal forum', i.e., between the individuals and God (and perhaps the spiritual director). Judgements about their 'sinfulness' really cannot be judged in the abstract. This is the principle used to train confessors: one must interview the penitent to determine the individual's perspective on an action in order to determine whether absolution is called for or not.

The notion that "sins" are objective realities, apart from the intent of the sinner, is not really consistent with the general perspective of sacramental theology. While there are many who choose the easy way of saying: "SIN!!" about something they object to, the pastoral reality is to understand personal behavior in the context of the person and his/her intents.

A wise old priest once said: "You can't sin unless you really want to."

Christ is Risen!!

Slightly tangential:

Would anyone know what percentage of the time the "pill" acts as an abortifacient? Could someone point me to a statistical citation?

My understanding of the science is that, when taken after conception has occured, the pill works to make the uterus inhospitable and does not permit implantation (sort of a "morning-after" effect).

My guess is that in most cases, women begin taking the pill without having first conceived. Thereafter, the pill prevents ovulation, and does not work to cause an abortion (or can it?). I think this is most women's understanding of how the pill works, and that many women would be disturbed to discover that taking the pill could be causing them to have abortions.

In any case, I think it is obvious that upon the development of the pill came the sexual revolution, and a precipitous societal moral decline. What share of the blame can be assigned to the pill is open to debate, but my guess is that it is a major one.

Dear Psalm 51,

For articles regarding contraception and abortifacients click on the following. They are from HLI Human Life International:
http://www.hli.org/content/dynamic/articles/000/000/000/787dvewl.asp

http://www.hli.org/content/dynamic/articles/000/000/000/784efodn.asp

http://www.hli.org/content/dynamic/articles/000/000/000/032crwtu.asp

A side note, by Psalm 51 are you referring to the psalm which begins with "Have mercy on me, O God" [which is Psalm 50 of the Septuagint, the official text used by Eastern Christians] or Psalm 51 which begins with "Why do you boast of evil" [which is our Psalm 52]?

Cizinec --

I specifically did *not* condemn those who choose to use so-called "NFP" to regulate conception. The comments that you have highlighted were qualified on purpose precisely because I can only speak from my own personal experience, and obviously the several couples that I do know who use NFP may or may not be representative of the larger body of NFP users that I do not personally know. And it is certainly my personal experience that NFP goes together with very traditional, 1950s style H and W roles, and is often coupled with traditionalist ideas about "headship". I did not say that NFP was a tool used to control others -- rather that it is, in my experience, often together on the same menu with other very traditional choices regarding the internal relationship of the married couple to each other.

Again, I do not judge those who use so-called "NFP" -- to the contrary, the so-called "NFP" users and their lobby actively condemn and vociferously judge those married couples who choose to use other non-abortificient means of regulating conception. The shoe is on the other foot, Cizinec, and you well know that.

Brendan