www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Contraception: outdated teaching

[ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Recommended website on this issue:

www.ccli.org [ccli.org] (Couple to Couple League).

Glory to the Lord, the Giver of Life!

Another female voice ---
(1) do they accept the Church's teaching on contraception - if so, why?
Yes, we do because it is the Church's teaching. That's a good enough reason for us.
2) do they find natural family planning to be marriage building?
We don't use NFP. We are trusting God to send us (or not send us) the children He wants us to have. We have 5 so far.
(3) do they find natural family planning to be reliable?
We find God to be reliable in sending us the children He wants us to have.
(4) why is there so much conflicting medical evidence at times?
---because doctors have their own agendas for promoting or discouraging NFP. It is my understanding that NFP used correctly prevents pregnancy 99.4% of the time.
Peace to all,
Xenia

Hey everyone, great post!

This is a topic that I hope to gain more "gnosis" about.

Can any Orthodox brethen/sistren properly, and articulately, share the Orthodox perspective?

I have heard one statement offered numerous times by participants in this post and I understand it as such:

That using NFP keeps us open to God's grace with a child where as artificial contraception does not keep us open to God's grace.

NPU is 99% effective
and
profalactycs, to name one, are 99% effective as well.

So, each is equally effective in preventing. Then, is it equally effective when procreating? Proportionately, it would appear to be so.

How does putting an artificial barrier between you and your spouse going to prevent God from conceiving a child?

Is an omnipotent God, powerless over this human created device?

If the chance of conception is the same for both, when both methods are used in the hopes of contraception, and God is all powerful and can act through each form of contraception, then why is one wrong and the other right; why is one open to God's grace and the other closed to God's grace?

Or does God choose, accross the board, not to conceive a child for any couple who uses artificial contraception? Could somebody call Him up and ask Him?

I ask these question in all sincerity.

Christ is Risen!

ALity

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: Ality ]

God is the author of all laws of the physical universe. While God could defeat a couple's attempt at contraception, He generally does not routinely contravene the physical laws He has authored in order to violate our free will, which we can use for Him or against Him. We use things in material creation either according to His Will or against It, and we will be held accountable before the fearsome Judgment Seat of Christ for those actions.

I think NFP is the way to go. I'm a convert and didn't buy into any of this stuff until I was getting married. Thanks to my catholic engaged encounter in Wichita, KS and Fr. Ron Larko, who was in Dallas at the time, I learned a lot and decided that the Church was right.

We used NFP effectively for two years.

Thanks to NFP, I know more about the way women's bodies work than most of the liberal catholic women I know. My liberal catholic friends all use the "not in my bedroom" logic (does this mean that if I make it with a chicken its okay as long as it was in my bedroom and my spouse thinks it's great?) and the "I take control of my body from those dirty old men." What they mean by "take control" is "let drug and plastics corporations take control of my body so that I don't have to waste my time and energy to learn about or take responsibility for myself."

We used NFP for two years with absolute success. We didn't need the "sympto-thermal" method and don't use a thermometer. My wife was on a temporary assignment out of town and could only come home every other weekend. She came home and said "uh-uh, look at my chart." It was at this point that I decided NFP didn't work and that I must be sterile. Now I have a wonderful son.

For those of you who are Orthodox and disagree with the position of the Catholic Chruch, try NFP anyway. If it doesn't matter to you what kind of birth control you use, what will it hurt to check it out? Trust me, it's better than ANYTHING a pharmaceutical company has to offer.

Xenia,

Congratulations on your success. I know God loves your heart.

They say one of the reasons we have a shortage of priests is the lack of large families. May God bless you with a priest or religious out of your children.

Rose

Dear Paul,
May I suggest you read "humane vita" again! That is presuming your have read it for the first time.
It is far from outdated and is a very prophetic document to boot!
Stephanos I

As a female BZ Catholic I have thought and prayed hard over this issue. Bottom line is I do not accept the Catholic view on birth control. I do not view birth control as leading to promiscuity. I personnal have only known by husband. If the church is so rigid about birth control they should have better support for women who do become pregnant out of wedlock. But I want to make it clear I do not endourse abortion.

The Church doesn't do enought to support women with children born out of wedlock?! What about Birthchoice, Project Gabriel, etc etc???

What birth control are you going to use? the Pill, which can cause the fertilized embryo (thus soul-endowed) to not connect to the uterine wall and thus abort? The condom, which separates the unitive from the procreative act? The withdrawl method? Why not use natural family planning if you have a valid reason to space children? Try the couple to couple league--they have lots of info on natural family planning which is 99% effective if used correctly.

If you don't accept the church's position on contraception, what's to stop you from denying the church's position on Jesus' divinity?

In Christ,

anastasios

Anastasios --

You have fallen into the trap of putting everything on the same level, equating Humanae Vitae with the dogma of the divinity of Christ. As Stuart used to point out here, there is a hierarechy of truths within Catholicism -- and certainly Humanae Vitae -- which is something of a litmus test among a certain sort of Catholic these days -- is not on the same level as the divinity of Christ, or even of the infallibility of the Papacy, which has been infallibly dogmatically defined.

I agree with Little Green Coat. I never supported the Catholic view on non-abortificient artificial forms of family planning -- even during my 30 years as a Catholic -- and, of course, I was in good company with the majority of Roman Catholics having the same view.

I think that the Catholic position is strong with respect to abortificient forms of family planning such as the so-called pill, IUDs and the like. The argument with respect to these -- that there is a high risk that you are actually aborting a conceived life -- is a very compelling one.

The position is much weaker with respect to condoms and other barrier methods. These latter methods do not involve the risk of a taking of a life that has been conceived, but are truly means of preventing conception from taking place. Metaphysical arguments are then raised to the effect that these methods separate the procreative element from the unitive element, but this is a red herring, for if one uses NFP to time sexual activity during unfertile periods, one is likewise separating the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect by greatly decreasing the likelihood that a conception will take place. A condom does the same thing -- it reduces the likelihood of a conception taking place. Given this similarity, the argument then typically turns to the "natural" vs. "artificial" concept, which, again, is a metaphysical distinction rather than a real one. NFP is itself an artificial method that has only relatively recently been developed and refined, and is itself the product of medical science, as are condoms. And, in any case, the idea that something is immoral simply because it is "artificial" in some metaphysical way does not hold a lot of weight. It's at this point that the argument generally turns to the purpose for which the family planning method is used -- with at least some Catholics claiming that even NFP can be used for illicit purposes if one is trying to contracept. For the life of me, I have never understood that one ... because ISTM that the main reason for using NFP in most cases is precisely to contracept. Sure, it also helps you time conception so that you can target sexual activity to certain periods of the month, but for most months when one is not trying to conceive, one is specifically using it precisely to minimize the likelihood of conception. Unless, of course, one wants to have as many children as one can possible have until biology determines otherwise ... which is the position of many NFP-using Catholics I have personally met.

I agree with Little Green Coat. Non-abortificient forms of family planning are morally licit provided that one is using them in the context of marriage to space childbirths and plan the overall size of the family -- whether NFP or condoms.

Brendan

Contraception is not immoral simply because it is a threat to life, (as an abortifacient). We must remember that every moral choice has a consequence. The Church has looked at the over-all effects contraception and the contraceptive mentality has on the individual, the couple involved, society, and even the Church.

Brenden makes a lot of points which would take to much time to respond to.

We should be informed about the authentic teaching of the Church which is truly liberating. Brendan questions tht there is any difference between natural and unnatural means of birth control. There is an essential difference between Natural Family Planning and artificial birth-control (contraception). I recommend checking out the following:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/contraceptionmaster.htm
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpvscontraception.html
http://www.ccli.org/

It was once the consensus of the whole Christian world that contraception was immoral. In the 1930's the Protestants (beginning with the Anglican Church) first began to publicly approve of the practice. The Orthodox were also based in the traditional prohibition of contraception. Recently there has been a slacking in this area among the Orthodox. I think this is less due to the natural flow of the Eastern Christian tradition, but to do with comprimise (by some) with muddled Western morality.

Although like to think we are "Eastern", we are often Eastern in dress but Western in soul. (I'm talking about post-Western Christian culture).

You have fallen into the trap of putting everything on the same level, equating Humanae Vitae with the dogma of the divinity of Christ. As Stuart used to point out here, there is a hierarechy of truths within Catholicism -- and certainly Humanae Vitae -- which is something of a litmus test among a certain sort of Catholic these days -- is not on the same level as the divinity of Christ, or even of the infallibility of the Papacy, which has been infallibly dogmatically defined.

True, I am guilty of a somewhat knee-jerk reaction. However, did not several prominent Vatican theologians argue that the ban on contraception is part of the infallible teaching of the ORDINARY magisterium per the Latin view?

I agree with Little Green Coat. I never supported the Catholic view on non-abortificient artificial forms of family planning -- even during my 30 years as a Catholic -- and, of course, I was in good company with the majority of Roman Catholics having the same view.

Brendan, that's fine if you want to tell us your POV. However, saying you were in good company with a majority of RC's makes you fall into the trap of groupthink. Polls show a majority of RC's in this country don't believe in the Real Presence or at least don't believe the right thing about it. So what?

The position is much weaker with respect to condoms and other barrier methods.

Weaker according to whom? You? This is one problem I have been facing in my ongoing quest to decide whether to stay Byzantine Catholic or become Orthodox: if I "choose" to become Orthodox, or at the least "choose" not to accept a doctrinal Church argument, am I not guilty of Protestantism? I've been there, done that, and don't want to return! Sorry for the tangent...

These latter methods do not involve the risk of a taking of a life that has been conceived, but are truly means of preventing conception from taking place.

Which leads to all sorts of sins: selfishness, contempt for children, etc. Look at the results of a contraceptive society: "families" with only one or two kids (my parents had only one child, and believe me, I hated it!), the idea that a child is something you can just "put off" like doing the laundry, a lack of responsiblity... yuck! That is not Christian.

Metaphysical arguments are then raised to the effect that these methods separate the procreative element from the unitive element, but this is a red herring, for if one uses NFP to time sexual activity during unfertile periods, one is likewise separating the procreative aspect from the unitive aspect by greatly decreasing the likelihood that a conception will take place.

Using NFP means you abstain from sex = sexual fasting. Condoms means you have sex whenever but try to use plastic to keep things from going "wrong". It is NOT the same thing, and the results are NOT the same, my friend, no matter how you want to rationalize it!

A condom does the same thing -- it reduces the likelihood of a conception taking place. Given this similarity, the argument then typically turns to the "natural" vs. "artificial" concept, which, again, is a metaphysical distinction rather than a real one.

Not being a philosopher, could you explain to me what a "metaphysical" distinction is, and why it is not "real"?

For the life of me, I have never understood that one ... because ISTM that the main reason for using NFP in most cases is precisely to contracept. Sure, it also helps you time conception so that you can target sexual activity to certain periods of the month, but for most months when one is not trying to conceive, one is specifically using it precisely to minimize the likelihood of conception. Unless, of course, one wants to have as many children as one can possible have until biology determines otherwise ... which is the position of many NFP-using Catholics I have personally met.

I can see your philosophical issue here. I see you making a valid point here on this one. However, NFP seems to me to be a better way to do things because you are abstaining from sex, and you are "finishing the job" naturally instead of into a piece of plastic. Sorry if I offend anyone here, by the way. I have had sex numerous times (I wasn't always Catholic!!) and let me tell you, from personal expereince, using condomns is the most disgusting and impersonal thing I can imagine during sex. But that's just my opinion, and I certainly am not going to judge you, Brendan. I will think about your last point, which as I said was good, but also will say that I think contraception is not the same as NFP in the fasting aspect, and I think the result of articifical contraception is acute; I feel differently in homes where I know the people are NOT contracepting.

In Christ,

anastasios

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

"Which leads to all sorts of sins: selfishness, contempt for children, etc."

I disagree. Almost all of the people I know who do have children do not use NFP, and they are neither selfish nor contemptuous towards children. That statement is simply false.

"Look at the results of a contraceptive society: "families" with only one or two kids (my parents had only one child, and believe me, I hated it!)"

But why is one *morally* obligated to have more than two children? It's not an issue of selfishness, either -- because two children is quite enough to whittle down one's selfishness rather effectively (one child does that as well). And frankly, I know folks who use NFP where the fathers are much more disinvolved with their kids than folks who don't use NFP -- why? Because NFP is most often part of a larger social agenda that includes fixed 1950s familial roles, concepts of "headship" and the like. It is part of a larger menu of social choices, in my own personal experience with persons who choose to use NFP. Regretfully, often this is mixed in with a large dollop of judgmentalism towards those who choose other family planning methods -- something which is often assumed if one has an "unusually small" family, meaning, to some, fewer than 6-10 children.

"the idea that a child is something you can just "put off" like doing the laundry, a lack of responsiblity... yuck! That is not Christian."

Having a child is certainly something one can plan, and which one ought to plan -- whether one uses NFP or another form of family planning.

"Using NFP means you abstain from sex = sexual fasting."

Only during a limited period of the month. Looked at another way, it involves concentrating sexual activity on certain periods of the month depending on whether one is trying to conceive. Effectively, that is a conscious decision to increase, or decrease, the likelihood of conception. That's the *exact* same decision one makes when one elects to put on a condom or to leave it off. The only difference is that in NFP the name of the game is timing, whereas with condoms the decision is timing neutral.

And let's disabuse ourselves of the idea that married couples who use condoms are having a sexual free for all as compared with those who chastely fast from sex using NFP. My anecdotal guess is that sexual activity levels do not materially differ among married couples based on whether they use NFP or not -- it simply is an issue of timing.

"Not being a philosopher, could you explain to me what a "metaphysical" distinction is, and why it is not "real"?"

My point is that it was a theoretical, rather than a real, distinction.

"But that's just my opinion, and I certainly am not going to judge you, Brendan."

I know that we have different opinions on this issue, and I respect that and do not judge you either.

Brendan

I'm actually a little surprised here. I know that Orthodoxy has not defined a position very well on this (alas, defining positions is not something we're very good at) but I never thought there was so great a difference in teaching here. I've heard audiotapes on it, Hopko maybe?, where the thought was that the only real difference is that Orthodox are more willing to talk about exceptions for good reasons (health risks, etc., but not because children are too expensive to allow us to maintain an affluent lifestyle) But I've certainly been taught that an Orthodox couple who plans to have no children shouldn't be getting married.

I don't know, I just think Rome is right on this one and Orthodoxy is lagging because we are institutionally disinclined to be decisive about anything at all. I don't think there are really Orthodox principled reasons to approve of birth control.

What could be better than joining in the creative love of God to produce heirs and warriors for the Kingdom of God?