DeoOmnisGloria.com

Joe,

I completely support and totally agree with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching which declares the use of contraception as intrinsically evil. I also accept the reasons behind this teaching presented in Humanae Vitae and other works (such as "Contraception, Why not?" by Janet Smith and "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II).

I also, however, reject all three objections you have to the standard reasons to delay pregnancy as your statements run counter to what I have read in Humanae Vitae.

1. Economic pressures.
2. Overpopulation.
3. Wife's Health.

Each of the three reasons above can constitute serious and grave reason to delay pregnancy. According to Humanae Vitae, if such serious and grave reasons exist, Natural Family Planning exists as a morally acceptable option to delay pregnancy. Delaying pregnancy for such reasons does not necessarily indicate a lack of trust in God. Humanae Vitae simply says that using contraception is not a legitimate means to achieve the legitimate ends of delaying pregnancy.

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church clearly teaches that it is the right of couples to decide when serious and grave reason to delay pregnancy exists. They are not protected by the seal of infallibility in this matter and they will stand accountable for decisions they make - but it is their decision to make. Not a blogger's, not a priest's, not a doctor's, not a bishop's, not the U.N.'s, not a mother-in-law's.

Humanae Vitae clearly teaches that couples have the right and duty to exercise prudence when planning the size of families and spacing of children. Exercising this duty does not necessarily indicate a lack of trust in God. Humanae Vitae teaches that when choosing to delay pregnancy, couples should only use natural methods which do not alter the marital act.

Richard,

No doubt about it, there can be grave reasons for using NFP, but we are talking about contraception. My next post, on the theological and natural problems with contraception will go into the difference between NFP and contraception. I don't want to confuse any of our readers....NFP is not contraceptive, nor can it be used with a contraceptive mindset as clearly spelled out in Humanae Vitae.

I should clarify what I meant by a woman's health. If it is a matter of being over 35 years old (a number thrown out by many doctors) or any other condition that is not specifically life threatening then it does not constitute a grave reason.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

I was going to wait until I heard the rest of your dissertation, but I couldn't wait any longer to ask a few questions. In the history of mankind, has God ever used human means or science to work His will in our lives? Can God use a man's mind and conscience through the Holy Spirit to work His will? Can God place on the mind of man a burden to use a scientific means to bring about His will? Does God ever call or place a burden on His people not to have children? Wouldn't it be testing God, reckless, and not being a good steward of what God has given us to go forward in our actions if God has placed a burden on us to stop and a means (scientific or not) to do so? You say we should allow the possibility of each act of intimacy to conceive a child. I say that we do, even if we use modern means of birth control. As long as we are having regular intimacy, if God wants us to be pregnant there is not much we can do to stop it, is there? I can't tell you how many people that I know that have gotten pregant even though they were using birth control. I'll wait for the rest of your thoughts, but I think that your distinction between NFP and other means of birth control is illogical. ( I am assuming that one is not using a birth control method that might cause an abortion here. I am also assuming that there are right motives behind the actions.)

Grace, Peace, and Truth

Thomas

Thomas, I was going to let Joe and Jay get first crack at answering your questions but its been a while and so I'll speak to your points while we wait for them to respond.

First, when Catholics speak of "trust in the Lord" or "providence" they still advocate the responsible exercise of reason in making decisions. This is called exercising virtue of prudence. Although Christian couples are all called to act generously when planning a family, it is their decision to decide when serious and grave reason exists to delay pregnancy (though they are not protected by the seal of infallibility). The Church can only play an advisory role on the issue of deciding when to delay pregnancy.

Second, when the Church teaches that using contraception is always intrinsically wrong and that natural methods of delaying pregnancy are not intrinsically evil, it does NOT point to the inherent possibility of surprise pregnancy as the reason for accepting natural methods. As you point out, artificial methods have also have a surprise pregnancy rate and so it would be illogical to point to the surprise pregnancy rate in natural methods as making it different from contraception.

The Church does, however, site many reasons as to why natural methods are different from contraceptives. Humanae Vitae explains this better than I ever could as does Janet Smith's talk "Contraception, Why Not?". In any case, here are some points to ponder when deciding if contraception is any different from Natural Family Planning:

a. natural methods do not alter the marital act as contraceptives do. Couples using natural methods abstain during fertile times. All contraceptives attempt in some way to render the marital act infertile. Mutually deciding to abstain from marital relations falls well within the rights of any couple. Rendering the marital act infertile offends God.

b. almost everyone who claims that there is no difference between Natural Family Planning (NFP) and contraceptives refuse to even try NFP and always use contraceptives. People who actually use NFP dont make such claims, surely their opinion would carry more weight. I'd go so far as to say that people who say NFP and contraceptives are the same dont really believe what they say because they wont even give NFP a try.

c. currently no contraceptives are reliable, reversible, AND safe for any eggs that do get fertilized (new lives). You would think those three conditions would be absolute minimums for anyone to use contraceptives. Condoms, barriers, spermicides are highly unreliable. Vasectomy, and tubal ligation are difficult to reverse. Pills (original, mini, and morning-after), Depo Prevera, and IUD create an environment hostile to the fertilized egg and interfere with implantation (that is, they act as abortifacients). NFP, by stark contrast, has no damaging effects on long term fertility, and have no abortifacient effect. As far as reliability goes, natural methods now and throughout almost all of history are as good as artifical methods. There was a brief 10 year stint in the 20th century when the Pill was more effective but the modern developments of the Billings Ovulation Method and the Sympto Thermal Method quickly closed this gap.

d. with the exception of barrier methods, all other contraceptives involve medical prescriptions or intervention. This violates the "Silver Rule" of ethics, common sense, and the Hippocratic oath! Namely, "do no harm" and "if it aint broke, dont fix it". There is absolutely no good reason to prescribe medicine to healthy people. Pregnancy and fertility are not diseases which require treatment. The frightening ethical implications of doctors prescribing medicine to people who are not sick or unhealthy should be setting off deafening alarm bells in any sane society.

e. as for barrier methods, Christians should read Genesis 38. And after these Christians say "but Onan was slain for not providing Tamar a son, not for spilling his seed", they should consider the following five reasons to reconsider their analysis: First, the Bible speaks of what Onan did (a sin of commission) not his hardness of heart (a sin of omission - which is what you would expect if he was slain for not providing Tamar a son). Second, Judah (Onan's father) and Selah (Onan's brother) also fail in their own duty to provide Tamar a son and yet God only slays Onan - the bible only mentions spilling seed as something differentiating him from his father and brother. Third, the book of Leviticus names the penalty for not providing a son for your brother's widow as letting the woman spit in your shoe while the rest of the village calls you funny names (does not sound like an offense punishable with death). Fourth, the Bible in other places only uses explicit sexual descriptions to describe disordered acts and uses implicit of oblique language (e.g. Song of Songs/Solomon) when describing legitimate expressions of sexuality so the very mention of spilling seed must be to condemn it. Fifth, until the 19th century all Christian scholars and teachers (both Protestant and Catholic) understood Genesis 38 as condemning masturbation, coitus interruptus, and barrier contraceptives - the scholars who offered alternate explanations are the ones who denied the virgin birth, the second coming of Christ, and the divinity of Christ. And once again, natural methods of delaying pregnancy do not have the problem of spilling seed.

By the way, NFP stands for "Natural Family Planning" rather than "Not For Protestants" :) In fact individual Protestants and a few isolated Protestants denominations have found themselves in quite a quandry when they grew uncomfortable with contraceptives yet still felt an obligation to exercise prudence and responsible stewardship when it came to family planning. Some of them even went so far as to use NFP and to thank the Roman Catholic Church for much needed resources and information.

Thomas,

I apologize for my extended absence from the blog. I have had a lot going on in my personal life, most importantly the birth of Samuel, my firstborn son. He is truly a magnificent gift from God. Krista and I are still adjusting to his arrival. I also recently began Fall Semester at the university I attend. So needless to say, life has been busy. I have read your comments and Richard's response. I believe that he has done an excellent job replying so let me know if there is anything else you need clarified. I intend to write the theological argument this weekend, so hopefully I can have it posted by Monday....if Samuel will let me :-)

I would like to make one point...God does use human means and/or science to bring about His Will....but it is always in accord with natural law. Contraception, on the other hand, does not advance nor support natural law but rather attempts to manipulate and distort it. Therefore, contraception cannot be in accord with God's Will. Again, I will go deeper into this in my next article.

I hope all is well with you and your family.

Richard - thank you for your support and comments, your contributions are appreciated.

Your brother in Christ,
Joe

Joe,

First of all Congratulations! I bet you are so excited that you and Krista can't sleep at night. ;) I pray that Samuel will be the first of many healthy, happy and most importantly God fearing children for you and Krista.

I have some issues with Richard's post, but have not had the time to address them. And to be honest other issues on this blog interest me more. Hopefully tomorrow . . .

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Richard,

a. Why does rendering the marital act infertile offend God? And aside from using the story of Onan can you back this statement up?

b.My wife and I have tried it. It appeared to work. However, right now she is nursing and her body’s cycle is total out of sync. We feel that we need to take a breather, three children in three years is enough for now. What would you suggest abstain until she goes back to being normal? That could be months from now. That is clearly not what Paul had in mind when he said to abstain for a time. The other issue I have with NFP is the inconvenience for my wife in taking her temperature every morning. So I guess my point is yes we have tried it and I’m not exactly thrilled about using it again.

c. I agree with the last condition but not the first two. Why do contraceptives morally have to be reliable and reversible? Obviously practically it would be nice . . .

d. By this logic we shouldn’t inoculate ourselves from viruses, get our teeth straightened, have a prostate exam, take vitamins, or go to the hospital to deliver babies.

e. I remain unconvinced that Onan's sin was one of birth control. I believe that it was birth control in the context of his duty as a brother that got him in trouble, not just birth control.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Thomas, to address your questions:

a. i'd like to defer this to Joe as he says he will be going into the whole theology thing later. But at least we can agree that NFP and contraceptives differ on the point of whether they render the marital act infertile.

b. Thomas, there are 2 widespread modern methods of NFP. Billings Ovulation Method and Sympto-Thermal (also called Serena). Although the two are morally equivalent, Sympto-Thermal can call for months of abstinence during irregular cycles (breast feeding, menopause). Billings, however, will usually only call for at most TWO WEEKS of abstinence even during the irregular cycles which occur while breast feeding. My wife and I also tried Sympto-Thermal when she was breast feeding and the rule: abstain from first bleed until temperature rise would have called for 8 months abstinence! We switched to Billings (my wife is now a certified teacher), and the only three times we've needed to go for more than two weeks without were when I was travelling and had little control over when I was home, the six weeks after the birth of our 2nd child, and the six weeks after the birth of our 3rd child. Although I have no moral objections to people using Sympto-Thermal and encourage people satisfied with Sympto-Thermal to stick with what they know, I would recommend Billings without hesitation to anyone who finds Sympto-Thermal frustrating.

c. agreed, reliable and reversible are not morally required and just practical nice to haves. I just dont know why anyone would use a contraceptive given that none have these practical benefits and NFP has these practical benefits.

d. my logic does not in any way forbid vaccinations or other preventative medicine as these treatments prevent disease. contraceptives are not taken to prevent disease, pregnancy is not a disease, it is a perfectly healthy condition. Similarly, a woman's fertility is also not a disease. I merely suggest that medicine should confine itself to preventing and treating disease. When the medical profession gets into the contraceptive gig, they are stepping outside the realm of preventing and treating disease, violating the universal "silver rule", common sense, and the Hippocratic oath.

e. The sin of Onan is also used to describe the sin of masturbation in addition to coitus interruptus as they both involve spilling seed. Presumably, this applies to condoms as well.

Richard,
I am interested in reading information on the Sympto-Thermal method. Do you have any suggestions as far as books go? Thanks Kristie

Thomas - take a look at The Couple-to-couple league.

God bless,
Jay

Thomas, I believe a standard Sympto-Thermal book is The Art Of Natural Family Planning. It also contains some good theology inside it. My information on Sympto-Thermal may be out of date as we switched to the Billings Ovulation Method in 2000 when we ran into a teacher as we had no teacher for Sympto-Thermal.

Post a comment