I shouldn’t have waited for the bishops
Published at Catholic Lane
Are you like me? Reading the coverage of the HHS mandate for insurance to cover contraception and sterilization and wondering why the bishops are only now speaking out against it when citizens have been forced to pay taxes that fund contraception, sterilization and even abortion for a long time.
“Hey, it’s about time!”
Yes, this mandate is a step change in a very wrong direction. It’s great that some bishops have started speaking out though others always have been. But just as soon as I thought about what the bishops are doing, I checked myself because I realize that I have been part of the problem all along. I shouldn’t have waited for the bishops to speak out against the citizenry being forced to fund these immoral things in our society.
Contraception has pervaded our culture for a long time and I’ve done little about it. Sure I’ve argued against it, and written about it. I’ve rejected it in my own life. I’ve taught my children why it’s harmful. But – I’ve also accepted that as long as a doctor doesn’t push it on me, it’s none of my business whether he or she dispenses it to other women. That has been my mentality. I realize now with a shudder, that’s not acceptable because that is fundamentally what moral relativism is.
Smack my head!
Over the years of bearing seven children, looking back, I see how the slow creep occurred. I was that clueless frog in the hot water waiting so long I couldn’t jump out when it was too late.
In the 1980′s I was introduced to contraception, and used it.
In the 1990′s I ask for contraception after childbirth, and got it.
In the 2000′s I converted to Catholicism and rejected it personally.
But that is when I should have done more. I should have rejected it – objectively rejected it – not just rejected it “for me.” I’ve been offered, even pushed more than I want to admit at times, to accept contraception, even after I became Catholic and said I was Catholic, and even in Catholic hospitals. Still, I would settle for ultimately having the choice to refuse it. And when I did that, I furthered the message that what I believe is a subjective opinion, not the objective truth.
Of course I also do still wonder why the bishops are getting so upset just now when the fact is, you can go to many Catholic hospitals across the country and get contraception. Why wasn’t anyone decrying that? Then it hit me, I think I know why.
News flash: Bishops and pastors don’t frequent OB/GYN offices.
Maybe they didn’t know. But parents, especially women, do go into these offices. Women can talk directly to doctors in ways bishops cannot. It is I who should have been decrying this all along. It’s not just unacceptable for the doctor to push it on a Catholic woman, it’s unacceptable for any doctor in any Catholic institution to even make it available, and women have the unique opportunity to say so directly to the doctors they visit. How many do that though?
Think about it. If a doctor is willing to prescribe abortifacient drugs or abortifacient devices, then the doctor is willing to induce abortions. If we wouldn’t let a practicing sex offender examine our children, then why for Heaven’s sake would we let a practicing abortionist deliver them?
Unless I have looked at every doctor along the way for the last three decades in the face and told them why contraception, sterilization and abortion are immoral, and demanded they stop offering it lest I seek new medical professionals to care for my body and my family, then I really have no foundation for any outrage today at all. Yes, I confess, I’ve walked out of doctor’s offices and ignored the contraception ads hanging on the wall, just glad I did “the right thing.” But I failed. I should have spoken up, right then, right there, directly to the medical professionals.
Mea culpa
I vow to be a more involved patient. Imagine what would happen if every Catholic woman demanded that every doctor in every Catholic hospital cease and desist immediately from dispensing contraception? They’d listen to us. This is the time to help the bishops, ladies.
Will you join me?
Related posts:
82 Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- The Pope warned us this would happen... - Christian Forums - [...] [...]
- Lifeissues Newsletter #561 | Deacon John's Space - [...] ITEM #8: Why My Big Family Is Not Overpopulating The Earth Now that our fifth baby is ...
- A New Catholic Action | Regnum Novum - [...] it strikes me that perhaps its time to start a new Catholic Action. You see, Stacy Trascanos notes with ...
You’re right on the mark again. And even though it’s a serious subject, this line made me literally laugh out loud:
News flash: Bishops and pastors don’t frequent OB/GYN offices.
I believe the vast majority of Catholic OB/GYN doctors prescribe contraception. There are a few heroic ones who have drawn a real line in the stand in refusing to do so.
Apparently, from what I know of it, the justification for most prescribing Catholic doctors, if it even triggers their conscience, is one of economics. In addition, I suspect that if they consult a Novus Ordo priest on the issue, they will likely be erroneously told that it’s OK, with the possible added proviso that it might not be OK to prescribe same to their Catholic patients if they know they are Catholic! With sky high mal-practice insurance and all kinds of other expenses, if the Catholic doctor refuses to prescribe contraception he may still be a Catholic (God bless him!), but with many less patients he may no longer be a practicing OB/GYN.
Another interesting issue is how it is near impossible to find an insurance company that does not cover contraception. So, there you have it. Most of us who are paying for health insurance are subsidizing contraception for others! And many of us who have health insurance through our work don’t have a practical economic option of getting some other health insurance company than the one assigned us through our place of employment. So, in some ways it seems like many of us are all in this one big sick “contraceptive family” together, whether we like it or not.
BTW, is contraception generally banned in most Islamic dominated countries? If a true Christian ethos dominated in America it would certainly be banned here I think and what a tremendously good thing that would be.
Jay, I laughed too when I realized that. I actually asked a priest if he had seen the contraception ads in the OB/GYN offices, and he just stared at me. I was like, “Oh yeah, dumb question.”
James,
In MA not only can you not find an insurance company that doesn’t cover those things, you are required by law to have insurance. There’s no way out, just like with paying taxes.
And even for the policies that do offer plans that don’t cover contraception, the company still does in other plans or other states. Like you said, it’s all one big sick bag together, any way you look at it.
After two miscarriages and a lot of frustration, I did find one lone lady doctor an hour away who refused to even prescribe contraception. She was kicked out of the HMO plan, so she started a small private office. She’s got all the patients she can handle. She treated me for the pregnancy of our son who was born a year ago.
What a blessing Tracy to find a doctor like that. Apparently, she herself, was blessed for her courageous course of action.
To clarify, you think contraception should not be offered at all at Catholic hospitals? Or that it shouldn’t be available at any hospitals anywhere?
If it’s the first case, then I agree with you. It never made sense to me that contraception would be offered at Catholic institutions. It’s like the Jewish Deli adding ham sandwiches to their menu.
This is beautiful. Yes, challenge accepted. We expect too much of our bishops, in certain senses, and even purely on a logistical level the OB office point is adroitly stated.
With regards to your comments about giving birth into the hands of possible abortionists… This may be part of the reason using midwives independent of hospitals has become rather popular among some Catholic women. Also, my lay midwives have never pushed birth control or even asked about it and respect my desire to have lots of children. When you examine the maternal mortality rates in the US, or compare our c-section rates to that of the rest of the world, it becomes clear that a nonchalance about abortion among most OB/GYNs likely fits in with the way women and babies are treated in general.
Tiffany, thank you sister.
Sarah, good point!
Paul, ABSOLUTELY contraception should not be offered at Catholic hospitals. It also shouldn’t be offered anywhere. It’s harmful to people, but that’s so misunderstood. If only people knew! There’s a better way.
Regarding the comparison to pork, I’ve had a Jewish friend tell me it’s a custom and Jewish people don’t really try to convert people to their beliefs. They just want to exist and practice their religion. It’s not a matter of objective truth – however, I’m quick to add that they may be right about abstaining from pork. Objectively it probably is healthier.
But contraception is not just about health — it destroys love, family, marriage as well – it destroys the fundamental requirements for society.
This is a different question, and one far enough from the original post that I’ll understand if you don’t want to answer it here, but I am curious.
Do you think contraception should be outlawed again, like it used to be? And how do you consider this any different than the HHS mandate, which the HHS is making because they have reached the conclusion that offering reproductive healthcare is objectively better than not doing so. Is it fair to call them anti-Catholic? Or shouldn’t you just conclude that they made a mistake in their consideration, and simply argue with them about the real issues in the public square?
Framed this way, it seems like the HHS mandate is only as anti-Catholic as making contraception illegal would be anti-secular. And it’s only persecution if making contraception illegal is persecuting those who think it is acceptable and good to use (like me!).
Touche, Paul.
You have just identified the precise point upon which the Church’s “aggiornamento” has shipwrecked.
If we base our society on the idea that religious freedom means an equal freedom for true and false religions……
We end up with a civilization where truth is subject to 51% of the vote.
The Catholic Church is about conversion of the world from evil- such as contraception and abortion- to good- such as openness to children, and sanctity of life.
The Catholic Church has instead opted to pursue a reconciliation with a diametrically opposed worldview, hoping, I suppose, that we might secure 51% of the vote.
Truth is either objective, or it is not true.
If the Catholic Church possesses objective Truth, then it ought, in charity, say so, and get busy converting the world, instead of seeking to cut a deal with it.
Rick,
Fair enough. I like the clarity and consistency of your position on this.
I likewise hope to be equally consistent, and since I see nothing intrinsically wrong with contraception (it is morally neutral, as far as I can tell), then people should be allowed by the law to do as they like with it.
But some things are wrong (white lies, for example), and not illegal. Do you think contraception should be wrong and illegal, or wrong but still legal? Do you think it should be illegal to sell contraceptives?
You of course are speaking about artificial contraception correct? I thought I read about some natural contraception on one of the catholic blogs. Maybe even here?
But again I am struck that you bemoan that you can’t find insurance that does not require paying for contraception but then in the same breathe speak about how all doctors should not be ALLOWED to prescribe contraceptions.
So yet again your beliefs and rights should trump all?
“So yet again your beliefs and rights should trump all?”
I think their position makes logical sense, even though I disagree with it. If there was good evidence that contraception was some threat to society and/or actually dangerous to people’s health or well-being, then it would be irresponsible for healthcare to pay for it. I haven’t seen this evidence, but if someone believed these things, they should be trying to get healthcare to stop providing unhealthy things.
That doesn’t mean I’d think it was immoral. Even if it was shown to be dangerous to society and self, I think it could be moral to use. It would be like cigarettes, pipe-smoking, drinking, gambling. These things should be legal, even if they are somewhat dangerous and bad for your health. But I don’t think Blue Cross should be providing people Cartons of Marlborough.
I’d be open to revising my views on whether contraception is safe or not. My ethics, however, is absolute, and so I would not be willing to reconsider my views on the ethics of contraception. I am entirely certain that the use of contraception morally neutral.
To veer off topic a bit. Imagine how the devout Catholic doctors and certain others must feel as they see active serial killers (aka: practicing abortionists) with hospital privileges walk the halls and rooms of a Catholic hospital freely. I am of the understanding that these Catholic institutions are greatly compromised by accepting certain federal funds, the acceptance of which mandates all kinds of things, not least of which is that they will not be allowed to deny hospital privileges to any properly registered/licensed doctor in “good standing.”
I am of the further understanding that if the hospital was to opt out of this it would often certainly be rapid economic suicide for them since there is so much federal funding in various forms given to these hospitals. Perhaps, it is even worse than that. I don’t know. That would be if the hospital cannot legally discriminate against abortionists regardless of whether they are on the federal dole or not.
Thus, we have a situation where our Catholic Hospitals are assisting in a rather big way our modern day “walking death machines” as they go about making part of their living in a “respectable way.”
Anyone care to comment on any of this?
************************************************************************
I am often amazed at how discussions such as the one posed by this topic and similar ones can easily tend to focus on the rights of man without an open acknowledgment and discussion of where exactly the rights of God fit in. God, if present at all, can seem to be left in the background making it appear that the rights of God (if He has any in the first place!) are derivative of those of man rights rather than visa versa.
For the record, I think I am correct in stating that man only has 3 ultimate and at the same time absolute rights. These same 3 are also his only ultimate and absolute obligations.
All other true rights including man’s very right to life itself would then be derivative of and subordinate to these 3 rights. Equally so, all our other true obligations would ultimately be derivative of and subordinate to these 3 obligations.
What are these 3 rights/obligations? To know, to love, and to serve God, and in so doing to share in His eternal beatitude in heaven, the very singular purpose of our creation!
THANK YOU!! Well said.
Paul:
The question you raise involves the correct prudential application of a Truth of Faith, to a presently-pluralistic society.
My answer is that the Church cannot presently secure the enactment of a law outlawing the evil practice of contraception, as a matter of practical and prudent fact.
The principle, of course, remains: that contraception is objectively contrary to the moral law is certain.
It is objectively evil, since it detaches the conjugal act from its highest intended purpose; it chokes off the possibility of life, intentionally, from an act intended by God to involve that possibility.
But since this is not a Catholic civilization, it were impossible to secure the coherence between Truth and positive law at this time in this civilization.
Should this, please God, become a Catholic civilization (ironically, this is very possible, now that open persecution of the Church is less than two years away, and Catholic bishops will be going to jail within that time, unless the HHS edict is overturned- when persecution comes then it will be morning), then the question would be situated in a new light.
I suspect at that time the answer would still be “no”.
Abortion will certainly be outlawed.
Contraception will not, although the manufacture and open sale of contraceptive devices will be.
The Church could secure Her primary duties to the civilization by these means, without attempting to criminalize a practice which, after all, would be quite difficult to prove in any judicial proceeding which itself remained consistent with the principles of justice.
“serial killers”….you guys crack me up.
Any how, so I will ask a direct question. It really is a yes or no question. Do any of you catholics use ANY form of contraception? Is every time you have sexual relations to get pregnant? Simple questions.
I also wonder can one purchase birth control pills over the counter? My understanding is they are by prescription only. If so then a doctor is required. Funny I have never been given a condom by my doctor, nor have any been offered to me.
Paul Delano writes
“It is objectively evil, since it detaches the conjugal act from its highest intended purpose; it chokes off the possibility of life, intentionally, from an act intended by God to involve that possibility.”
So if a baby is the “highest intended purpose” what are the other purposes?
And should it become a “catholic civilization” what happens to the millions and millions of people who have other religious beliefs?
Hi Paul,
“Do you think contraception should be outlawed again, like it used to be?”
I hope it will be rejected by people as they learn what the consequences to society really are.
“And how do you consider this any different than the HHS mandate, which the HHS is making because they have reached the conclusion that offering reproductive healthcare is objectively better than not doing so.”
They are wrong. Those people all support abortion and do not support families, this is their logical conclusion because they do not value the family.
“Is it fair to call them anti-Catholic? Or shouldn’t you just conclude that they made a mistake in their consideration, and simply argue with them about the real issues in the public square?”
We do argue about the real issues in the public square. Talking to your doctor and anyone else willing to listen in public is doing just that. Bishops all over the country have reacted as well.
“Framed this way, it seems like the HHS mandate is only as anti-Catholic as making contraception illegal would be anti-secular.”
What Rick said, convert the evil to good.
“And it’s only persecution if making contraception illegal is persecuting those who think it is acceptable and good to use (like me!).”
No one that I know of is claiming persecution. Regardless of the laws we will continue to tell people the truth. Plus, we are far, far away from anyone being denied contraception, but if they were, that is hardly persecution. Please see the video: http://www.acceptingabundance.com/who-is-trying-to-force-whom/ It’s no more persecution than telling someone you won’t cater to their every desire when they are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. That’s my honest answer.
gonna hop in here
““Do you think contraception should be outlawed again, like it used to be?”
I hope it will be rejected by people as they learn what the consequences to society really are.’
And what are the consequences to society?
and more
““And how do you consider this any different than the HHS mandate, which the HHS is making because they have reached the conclusion that offering reproductive healthcare is objectively better than not doing so.”
They are wrong. Those people all support abortion and do not support families, this is their logical conclusion because they do not value the family.”
They are wrong? Simply because they do not agree with you? Or do you have other reasons? There is nothing logical in your conclusion that if one supports abortion they do not support families.
Hi Alan,
I got busy and didn’t get to respond to all your comments. Sorry.
“You of course are speaking about artificial contraception correct?”
Yes, contraception means “against” (that’s what contra means) conceiving. It’s opposed to conception. Anything that a person uses to stop the natural process so that the sexual act is only for pleasure and not for procreation is by definition artificial.
“I thought I read about some natural contraception on one of the catholic blogs. Maybe even here?”
It is sometimes called NFP, natural family planning, and there is a 30 year developing science behind it now that even goes further. It’s a method by which the woman knows the signals of her body and follows them daily so that she and her husband know when it is possible to conceive and when it is not. That way, you know what you are doing, and you can diagnose health problems, even just from stress, in real time. If a couple abstains during fertile periods, that isn’t against any natural law, though a couple should not always abstain so as never to conceive children.
“But again I am struck that you bemoan that you can’t find insurance that does not require paying for contraception but then in the same breathe speak about how all doctors should not be ALLOWED to prescribe contraceptions.
So yet again your beliefs and rights should trump all?”
What is right and good should trump all.
You cannot argue against the ideas that if every single child was conceived in love and raised by his or her own loving parents that all of society would not be better. That would solve so many problems we have today, and the problems run so deep that many people no longer even recognize the connection that the destruction of the family has to social and economic issues.
“Is every time you have sexual relations to get pregnant? Simple questions.”
Not if you know what is going on with your biology, you know that is possible and when it is not. It’s a much better, healthier, option to actually learn about your body instead of remaining ignorant and trusting pills, devices, or latex. For what?
But when you do understand the miracle of life, yes, it is all connected. Everything is about life, and children are gifts from God. A couple is open to life because that is the very essence of marriage and family – it is unitive and procreative.
That may be more than you wanted but I was trying to answer your other questions too.
James,
“Anyone care to comment on any of this?”
It’s a bad situation for sure. I only know how it works in MA. The Catholic hospitals have gone into contracts with private companies who purchased the hospital itself, but wanted to keep the “St. _______” name because, for lack of anything better to call it, it has *brand* appeal.
So they go into contract, it’s still a Catholic hospital with the Eucharistic chapel and the Saint name on the building and the private company *promises* to abide by Catholic ethics.
But they don’t. To some extent they say that the employees of the hospital have to follow the ethics, but then they have doctors with privileges and even who rent office space that they consider are under no obligation at all.
“Imagine how the devout Catholic doctors and certain others must feel as they see active serial killers (aka: practicing abortionists) with hospital privileges walk the halls and rooms of a Catholic hospital freely.”
That’s exactly what it amounts to.
Challenge accepted, as well. What a wake-up call. Will spend some time this afternoon thinking, thinking, thinking.
Comment
thanks I had no idea what contra meant
so natural family planning or NFP (which I did not know what that meant so thank you on that one) is artificial. I mean the intent is the same as a condom or the pill, to prevent birth (even if it still leaves one open to life, it is still an attempt to not create life)
And as usual I will argue your point of “what is right and good:. I think contraception is a good thing. People who don’t want to get pregnant should have options. Sorry but I do happen to believe that we need to worry about over population. I think it is naive to expect people not to have sex, I mean c’mon how many of you all did not have sex before you were married?
“You cannot argue against the ideas that if every single child was conceived in love and raised by his or her own loving parents that all of society would not be better.”
You’d think I couldn’t, and for the most part I wont. I agree that children should be conceived in love. We differ on the parents part (I am ok with single parents and gay parents, but I think the most important word here is loving. But we have argued this before.
I appreciate your taking the time to answer the questions though. I liked it was a nice thorough answer, even if I happen not to agree with it all.
Uttering the phrase “moral relativism” will almost always get an argument… :-p I am not sure that it really applies here. Mostly because that is a societal thing. Clearly society is divided on the issue.
If you’ll pardon the pun, baby steps. If you can’t get enough popular support to abolish or re-frame the abortion debate for what it is, you have zero chance with contraception.
NFP is not artificial, any more than abstaining from over-eating to maintain a healthy weight is artificial. We need to eat, and eating has a purpose and it can be pleasurable. If we only ate for pleasure, and then induced vomiting to get rid of it, so we could avoid being overweight — that would be artificial. As my friend Leila puts it, contraception is sexual bulimia.
But being educated about what your body needs and choosing to eat healthy foods and to abstain from eating to maintain a healthy weight, that’s not artificial. That’s what we are supposed to do.
“I think contraception is a good thing. People who don’t want to get pregnant should have options.”
One could also say that throwing up food is a good thing. People who don’t want to get overweight should have options.
“Sorry but I do happen to believe that we need to worry about over population.”
You can’t be serious. OK, why do you believe that? I truly don’t understand why people say this.
Stacy,
I consider contraception to be sometimes the most healthy choice for a woman, and therefore it would be good for a doctor to prescribe it, and good for health insurance to pay for it. But I’m not into forcing people against their conscience.
I don’t think Catholic doctors who have moral objections to contraception should be forced to prescribe it, or Catholic health insurance institutions to pay for it. We agree there.
But I’m just as much against non-Catholic doctors who have no moral objections to contraception prescribing it, or non-Catholic health insurance companies choosing to cover it.
I’m for no one forcing anyone, when it comes to contraception. You want the government to someday force pharmacies to stop offering contraceptives. HHS wants to force Catholic healthcare to offer and pay for contraceptives. I see you both as being in pretty-much in the same boat. And I’m against both you and HHS.
The only difference between you and HHS is power and current threat level. HHS is posing a real threat to religious freedom right now, and since I think there is virtually zero chance that the United States will ban contraceptives ever again.
And at least we agree about half of this! That’s not too bad, is it?
Stacy
Your words “Anything that a person uses to stop the natural process so that the sexual act is only for pleasure and not for procreation is by definition artificial.” Now I think as adults we can both understand that nfp is contraception, it is designed to stop procreation from a sexual act, thus making that act about pleasure, not procreation. Please make me see this as anything else but truth.
So yes nfp is just like not overeating, I will give you that.
I am also very glad to hear that everything in your house is 100% natural. No processed foods, no foods grown with pesticides or any artificial ingredients. And you must also be a vegetarian. I mean no reason to kill animals if all the protein from them can be gotten elsewhere.
I get the feeling that now I will be told I am being silly, they are not the same. But aren’t they?
Finally, lets go to life saving measures? Do you believe in them? What if someone needs an electric shock to restart their heart? Well that is by artificial source. Is that ok?
Paul,
I’m willing to let that be the case in our discussion. For now it would help if all Catholic hospitals actually practiced Catholic ethics, that’s why Catholic healthcare became the leading healthcare in the first place. I hope and pray the medical community realizes that there is a reason the saint name on the hospital has come to mean something trustworthy.
If that happened, there wouldn’t be a need to outlaw anything in secular hospitals because people would see over time where true healthcare existed. I so badly wish more women knew what they miss out on when they chose not to learn about how their bodies work and instead ingest harmful substances or insert foreign objects in their bodies. There’s a better way, a holistic, inexpensive, loving way. I wish young women were taught that — instead of how to use a condom or take pills. That’s all.
There’s a petition to the White House regarding this issue. Please sign it and share it with this link: <a href="http://wh.gov/kl3"
Alan,
“Now I think as adults we can both understand that nfp is contraception, it is designed to stop procreation from a sexual act, thus making that act about pleasure, not procreation. Please make me see this as anything else but truth.”
It’s what you want to believe because you want to believe that unnatural acts are moral. I don’t mean to sound impatient, but Catholic women hear this all the time, in addition to the accusations of over-population. It’s right on up there with the flying spaghetti monster, being called a misogynist and a bigot.
We’re talking about the sexual act. Depersonalized sex is harmful to the soul. I’ve met plenty of people who say otherwise, but they were either very young or very angry and defensive people. No one really wants to be treated like an object. Everyone wants to be loved.
I know it’s hard to understand how the Church can teach against contraception, but not against abstinence during fertile periods to avoid conception. Sex for recreation, like eating for recreation, is not intrinsically wrong if it is within the limits of moderation. What is wrong is to deliberately separate the act from its intrinsic tendency to procreation.
Married people are required to beget children, to try, to be open to welcoming the gift, but they are also not required to throw all prudence to the wind and have more children than circumstances (societal, financial, health) allow. God designed the body to naturally have sterile periods (a woman is only fertile ~5 days a month). Just like God designed the body to not need food every hour. Knowing your body and planning your actions accordingly is good and healthy. It requires the virtue of self-control.
Vomiting your food or eating food with no nutritional value only affects the person doing it. The intrinsic evil of contraception results from the disruption of the interpersonal and social meaning of sexuality, which is much more profound. Christians find freedom in freeing themselves from the excessive pursuit of pleasure, so that they can love God, themselves and their neighbor better.
“So yes nfp is just like not overeating, I will give you that.”
OK.
“I am also very glad to hear that everything in your house is 100% natural. No processed foods, no foods grown with pesticides or any artificial ingredients. And you must also be a vegetarian. I mean no reason to kill animals if all the protein from them can be gotten elsewhere.”
I hope I addressed that above.
“I get the feeling that now I will be told I am being silly, they are not the same. But aren’t they?”
You’re not being silly, those are excellent questions.
“Finally, lets go to life saving measures? Do you believe in them? What if someone needs an electric shock to restart their heart? Well that is by artificial source. Is that ok?”
Saving someone’s life is moral, but this is only relevant if anyone can show how someone’s life depends on depersonalizing sex and rendering the act artificially sterile.
Stacy, I quoted you exactly (actually cut and pasted) so they were your words. Should I use them again? I don’t really think I have to, but your definition very clearly shows nfp is contraception (and artificial at that). Sorry, but just using your words,
“It’s what you want to believe because you want to believe that unnatural acts are moral. I don’t mean to sound impatient, but Catholic women hear this all the time, in addition to the accusations of over-population. It’s right on up there with the flying spaghetti monster, being called a misogynist and a bigot.”
Now the above is outstanding. I don’t understand the exact words you wrote because I believe what I want to believe? Accusations of over population? Don’t you think that might be you believing what you want to because god tells you to procreate plenty? Flying spaghetti monster….well all I can say to that is grow up. Not sure how misogynist fits in here nor really bigot.
Oh and I feel your pain on the catholic women having to hear things all the time and being impatient about it. Us gays really do get that. Immoral acts, disordered, umm what else have you and your catholic brethren continually said about us?
“We’re talking about the sexual act. Depersonalized sex is harmful to the soul. I’ve met plenty of people who say otherwise, but they were either very young or very angry and defensive people. No one really wants to be treated like an object. Everyone wants to be loved.”
This seems to be the fallback line especially the angry and defensive part. Anyone who disagree’s with you seems to you to be angry. The rest I don’t necessarily disagree with. Well except the soul, because like sin I don’t really believe in that concept.
I understand why the catholic church teaches about contraception. I understand why the catholic church teaches a lot of things. I guess the question here is do you understand that not everyone is cathoilic?
Final question for now. You say that eating unhealthy or non natural foods hurt only the person doing the consuming. But how on earth does my using contraception hurt (or even affect) you?
sorry I know I said last question but I reread and needed something explained.
“Saving someone’s life is moral, but this is only relevant if anyone can show how someone’s life depends on depersonalizing sex and rendering the act artificially sterile.”
IVF is bad because it is artificial means to create life. Artificial contraception are wrong, but nfp is ok.
So why then are artificial means of extending life good? Should we not view it as gods plan if we get sick and die? Is not interfering with said death wrong?
There are physicians that stand for life, follow the teaching of the Catholic Church and refuse to prescribe contraception for birth control reasons, refuse to hang the ocp posters on the wall and strictly adhere practicing ProLife medicine. There is a comprehensive list of PRO-LIFE Physicians/NFP only docs at http://www.onemoresoul.com that can be a great resource for docs of such standing.
check it out
Alan,
“but your definition very clearly shows nfp is contraception (and artificial at that).”
Then you need to show how, and define how you are using the word “artificial.” Choosing not to overeat is artificial? Really?
“Accusations of over population?”
I didn’t say those things caused any pain, they are more like boring and overused quips. But since you brought it up, substantiate it. What do you mean by overpopulation. I asked before because I want to know how you arrive at that conclusion.
“Well except the soul, because like sin I don’t really believe in that concept.
OK, so you think depersonalized acts of sex are good for a person? If so, explain. (They aren’t, and yes, you have a soul that is hurt by it, but I’d like to hear how you reason this.)
“But how on earth does my using contraception hurt (or even affect) you?”
I already explained about social units and the family. When families fall apart, societies fall apart.
“So why then are artificial means of extending life good?”
I can’t answer that until I know that you are using a consistent definition of the word “artificial.” According to how you’ve used it so far, eating healthy is equivalent to plastic surgery.
Kathleen,
THANK YOU, big time. Someone asked about that resource and I was trying to remember the name of it. I used it with our last son, but in our area the closest practitioner was ~an hour away. That worked until the last trimester, but then because there was snow and because I had a somewhat risky pregnancy, I had to transfer to a local doctor for the delivery.
It’s in the hospital where a lot of contraception/sterilization talk occurs too, especially when it’s your 7th and you are over 40.
I’m bookmarking that page. Thank you again!
I find it extremely interesting that the ones who argue most strenuously in favor of contraception are all males. The birth control pill almost killed me about 25 years ago–it caused my blood pressure to go to 300/200 and I was hospitalized for 4 days. The pill is also very well documented to cause breast cancer, blood clots, deep vein thrombosis, and a host of other diseases.
Personally, I believe the contraception movement is all about males manipulating females to behave as the worst possible forms of humanity–hit and run sexual users. It’s all the female’s responsibility to be available to males, and then when nature does its thing, it’s all the female’s fault, and her problem, and “anyway, I never promised you nothing, b!tc#.” Some things never change.
Yep, Catharine, you said it. Contraception destroys love, it depersonalizes women and men. It’s junk.
Catharine,
I think perhaps maybe I am the only male arguing for contraceptives. I am gay, so really me arguing for them has noting to do with women being “available” for me.
Stacy my mom and dad used contraceptives. I don’t think it destroyed their love or depersonalized them.
Does this negate both of your arguments.
Stacy, lets back pedal. Is nfp contraception?
You wrote “Yes, contraception means “against” (that’s what contra means) conceiving. It’s opposed to conception.”
So if you use nfp to help avoid pregnancy would this not be contraception? I mean really it is an attempt to avoid pregnancy because you know your body.
You write further ” Anything that a person uses to stop the natural process so that the sexual act is only for pleasure and not for procreation is by definition artificial.”
So if I read this right if you use nfp as contraception then nfp is artificial because, according to your written definition here, it is to stop pregnancy. You can of course argue that nfp is not artificial (and here we will agree, it is not) but you cannot argue that is it not contraception. So therefore you are admitting the acts that occur are just for pleasure.
I guess for this we can use the definition of artificial as made by humans. How’s that sound?
“I didn’t say those things caused any pain, they are more like boring and overused quips.” Umm perhaps you should read what you catholics seem to write. Want to talk about boring and over used? C’mon now.
Proof of over population? Really? I find it unnecessary to offer proof here, because whatever proof I were to provide would be met with scoffing and counter proof. I choose to believe those who say that indeed the earths resources are limited, and if we continue to grow our populations unabated then there will eventually be problems. Look at all the species that have been destroyed by the growing of the human’s need for space to accommodate them.
And please go back and reread, but I agree, depersonalized sex can be bad for a person. People have sex far to easily. Sex should mean something. Not sure why all you got out of what I wrote was I don’t believe in souls. But can you offer proof of me having a soul?
““But how on earth does my using contraception hurt (or even affect) you?”
I already explained about social units and the family. When families fall apart, societies fall apart.”
Umm what? Families fall apart now because people use contraception? This leads to societies falling apart. Sorry you are going to have to speak slowly and directly into the microphone to explain this one to me.
And fyi, in my original point about artificial life saving measures I mentioned a defib machine (ok not by name, but I think I was specific enough with my use of shocking). So now please explain how that is not redirecting gods plan.
Tracy,
I think you would agree that it is a real grace to be able to discern when it is time to stop throwing pearls before …… who continue to trample upon them. cf: The Good Lord, not me in Sacred Scripture!
James
Sorry — I did it again! Stacy not Tracy!
I just wanted to throw in a bit for Alan, about what the church teaches about contraception vs. nfp. These quotes are from an article by Brett Salkeld entitled “What ‘openness to Life’ Does NOT Mean”
“The Church has no problem with people avoiding pregnancy when the situation calls for it. Furthermore, as everyone knows, the Church does not discourage sexual intercourse during pregnancy, post-menopause, after a hysterectomy, or in any other imaginable circumstance where a couple is naturally not fertile, including roughly 3 weeks of the average menstrual cycle.
‘Openness to life’ is a lovely phrase for people who are inclined to agree with the Church in the first place. It indicates a disposition of gratitude and humility, and it means that even unplanned children are valued the same as anyone else, as a gift from God. If, on the other hand, someone is struggling with Church teaching, or is just plain antagonistic towards it, the phrase can be misleading. The claim that every sex act must be ‘open to life’ does sound an awful lot like the claim that every sex act must have the possibility of pregnancy, however remote. But that is not at all what the Church means by it.
All that the Church means is that we are not to alter the sex act to avoid its consequences. That’s it. (We can debate the merits of this teaching some other time. The point here is simply to clarify what the teaching is.) We are free, in many circumstances positively encouraged, to avoid the sex act in order to avoid its consequences.
This leads us into another area of terminological confusion. What, precisely, does the Church mean by ‘natural’? Simply this: that the sex act is not altered.
NFP works by observation, not by manipulation. Suggestions that the Church’s allowance of technology (thermometers, hormone monitors, blood tests) for fertility observation makes NFP morally equivalent to artificial contraception miss the point entirely. Once you’ve determined the fertility, technologically or otherwise, you still have to make the choice: will we have sex or won’t we? ‘Natural’ here does not mean the absence of technology; it means that the sex act, if it occurs, is unaltered. Further to the point, the Church does not allow for withdrawal, even though this requires no technology whatsoever. The issue, again, is the alteration of the sex act to deprive it of its consequences.”
good golly gosh did James just call me swine?
but maybe you are right, maybe I should stop sharing my pearls.
Skywalker, dude, I get the churchs teaching. In my opinion (which I realize means very very little here, and can be easily scoffed at and even insulted by many here) Stacy was claiming that ” Anything that a person uses to stop the natural process so that the sexual act is only for pleasure and not for procreation is by definition artificial.”
So to mean it appears that the natural process is sex for pregnancy. If said natural process is not for pregnancy then it is indeed for pleasure. So nfp is an attempt to stop the “natural process” This is why I said the church is against artificial contraception.
So I repeat. Natural family planning is contraception (if you need proof look to Stacy’s definition of contraception which she kindly spelled out for me). The church is ok with nfp. So the church is against artificial contraception. Shall I repeat?
So now maybe I can get someone to see and say that yes the church is against contraception?
after that I guess I can go to my pen and roll in the mud with the other swine. :9)
Thanks Skywalker. Thanks James.
Alan, no one called you a swine. Several people tried to explain something that, by your words, you do not appear to understand. I don’t think you want to, so James is right, I should let it go.
Have a nice day. Thanks for the discussion.
Sorry, Stacy, but I just have to have one more go at Alan’s confusion over artificiality and contraception.
Alan, I’ll make it as simple as possible. For contraception to fulfill its purpose, a male and female must engage in sexual intercourse at a time when conception is possible. For NFP to work, a male and female do not engage in acts of intercourse that could result in conception. Refraining from an action is not artificial, nor is it a “thing” that a person “uses”, therefore it is not included in Stacey’s definition. More importantly, though, NFP teaches continence, respect for one of the two primary purposes of rightly ordered acts of sex (which are procreation and pure self-giving), and reverence for God who loves us in spite of our selfish behaviours. Used as intended, it is less about preventing conception and more about understanding the purpose and beauty of human sexuality.
Go for it Lauri! Thank you.
LOL
I see why you think I wont understand Stacy as I see the same in you quite often.
Yeah pretty certain he was alluding to me as a swine, it’s ok Stacy as, not to be rude but just to be truthful, the opinions of others about me have never really mattered all that much to me, I just want people to be honest about what they are saying to whom. And yeah I think if we all are being honest that is what he was calling me. Regardless of intent.
I look very forward to our next exchange
Laurie and all, you are right I will not see it your way. Babies get made when a man and a woman have sex. Doing it at a time when you are fairly certain you will not get pregnant to me is still contra (against) ception. So you can explain away, but the final say from me is that indeed nfp is contraception, regardless of how you spin it.
Well, Alan, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, that is, that you were sincerely seeking understanding rather than shouting down those with whom you differ and deliberately misrepresenting what they say and believe. Thanks for the clarity. I can now ignore all further commentary from you.
alanl64 states: “Yeah pretty certain he was alluding to me as a swine.” For the record I was neither calling you a swine, nor even alluding to you as a swine, but rather as one who in my non-fallible opinion has exhibited on this thread a particular type of behavior which is analogous to the behaviour of a swine. The Sacred Scripture is Matt. 7:6 “….neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet….” You may wish to consult traditional Catholic commentary on this particular verse.
One solid commentary on the verse states this in part: “The animals together represent the religiously unappreciative; their distinction is merely graphic and stylistic in the manner of Semitic parallelism.” I imagine you may protest and say you are not religiously unappreciative. Fine, say what you like, but it would appear to me that you certainly do not show an appreciation for the religious pearls that Stacy and others have placed before you on this thread.
I think it might be worth exploring, for ourselves and those less obdurate than Alan, the question of whether Catholics practicing NFP are more steeped in the “contraceptive mentality” of our culture than they know. Although it is not the point he was arguing, Alan makes it clear that if NFP is used solely or principally to avoid children, then can it be fairly stated that the practice is in accordance with the teaching of the Church? I read an interesting observation by St. Thomas More recently, where he said: “Attempts to be virtuous that are joined to disobedience to the will of God, no matter how good they may appear, will actually work for our damnation.”
Lauri, it’s funny how you have me all figured out on this one post. I am shouting you down by defending and further explaining my position. That is not the case. I am just trying to show you how I see what you are saying.
I assume you disagree that nfp is contraception. I think it is. So we are at an impasse.
Stacy and I have been at impasses many times, yet we still engage. It is a little childish to write what you did in your post, but hey it is what it is. I wish you the best.
Stacy, you know I will be back on some post
)
Very well Alan. I’ve been introduced to some scientific research on the relationship – the lack thereof – between genetics and same sex attraction. ;-D That should be fun. You are always welcome here, we just get frustrated sometimes when we think we explain something and it doesn’t get across. Oh well. Impasse it is.
Lauri, you make a VERY good point. Very good. I have had that same thought, and even have said before that I don’t like the term “natural family planning” anyway. It sounds too much like the family planning Planned Parenthood talks about.
Maybe that’s what Alan is getting at. If it used as *birth control* to never conceive, it is disobedience.
You said that very well Lauri, thank you. Great St. Thomas quote.
@ James
I am still uncertain what you are trying to say. I speak simply as I am a simple man (lets not forget simple does not mean unintelligent).
You are not calling me a swine, nor alluding to me as a swine, but you were merely pointing out that I am engaging in behavior that is analoguous to the behavior of a swine. Umm please enlighten me as to the difference? Thats just speaking in circles. But I will give the benefit of the doubt that is not what you meant and I am just being sensitive (a traight I am not known for)
I again am not sure what you mean by religiously unappreciative. But I think that indeed I am religiously unappreciative James. I don’t agree with religion. I don’t believe that YOUR relion (or any religion) has the right to tell me how to live. So Stacy’s pearls really do not pertain to me.
Then I think Lauri might be trying to insult me be by using the word obdurate (and yes I did look it up to see what it means)? It’s funny because this is supposed to be an open exchange, and I have done my best to explain myself to you all. But I should know better because you don’t want to hear what I have to say. Yet I continue.
I further read what Lauri wrote, the point I am making is that if you engage in sexual activities during a time when you are fairly certain you will not get pregnant then that is indeed a form of contraception. I thought it was a very simple concept, but clearly I am wrong.
LOL Stacy I look forward to that.
I too get frustrated because I think I explain things and you all just don’t get what I am saying.
I do want to point out I really am not questioning whether or not using nfp is disobedient, that is up for you all to decide on your own. I am merely pointing out that if you use nfp so that you can have sexual relations to not get pregnant then that indeed is contraception. Thus why I was trying to make a distinction between natural ( which nfp would be) and artificial (which the pill and condoms would be) contraception. I am not sure how that turned into me being obdurate or engaging in behavior similiar to a swine.
I will look for how genetics play no part in same sex attraction.
Alan, according to you “if you use nfp so that you can have sexual relations to not get pregnant then that indeed is contraception.”
Even though NFP does not alter sex in any way and a woman’s body is infertile according to its nature at that time, you believe that having sex during natural infertility is acting against conception.
The essential difference is that NFP is choosing not to act rather than acting against. The guy who holds a gun and points it at someone but does not shoot is choosing not to act, the guy who shoots is acting against the other person.
Under your definition of contraception having sex during pregnancy when you know that you will not get pregnant, and you do not wish to become pregnant with another child would be contraception too. Having post menopausal sex knowing that you will not get pregnant, and don’t desire to get pregnant is contraceptive too? Do I have that correct?
Using your definition choosing to have sex when you are infertile by nature is the same as acting against your or your spouses fertility by the use of pills, condoms, foams, devices or withdrawal.
Dialogue with Alan continued…
Your earlier point said:
“Anything that a person uses to stop the natural process so that the sexual act is only for pleasure and not for procreation is by definition artificial.”
The key here is “stop the natural process” this means stopping ovulation, preventing sperm from reaching the egg. It is the difference between abortion and a miscarriage. One is something you caused or allowed another to cause on purpose; the other is what you did not intend but happened anyway.
Your quote:
“So to mean it appears that the natural process is sex for pregnancy. If said natural process is not for pregnancy then it is indeed for pleasure. So nfp is an attempt to stop the “natural process” This is why I said the church is against artificial contraception.”
There are two purposes for sex, babies and bonding. It is licit to have bonding without babies so long as you are not manipulating your fertility. NFP does not stop conception, you cannot conceive when you are not ovulating. You did not do anything to make yourself not ovulate, the body is not ready to ovulate yet, or you have already ovulated and the egg can no longer be fertilized. NFP works with fertility, contraception works against it. NFP and contraception both can be used to prevent pregnancy, but one respects the nature of the body and the other does not.
By the way, I think catholic teaching about contraception is easy to understand but hard to explain, and I think that you are quite polite in your disagreement, for which I thank you.
To be clear, Alan, I describe you as obdurate because you rely solely on a materialistic understanding of sex and procreation and have consitently refused to consider the explanations that rely on God and the teachings of the Catholic Church. I believe you are, as a result, hardened in feelings and closed to persuasion or softening influences. However, I will concede that some of the explanations of NFP have not been as complete as they could be, but it is a complex understanding of human sexuality that relies heavily on minds and hearts open to the will of God.
Thank you Lauri for giving clear witness to your true and correct Catholic convictions! I believe that is an objective act of true charity whether it be perceived as such or not.
Skywalker
I am not going to lie, I don’t follow your analogy. I keep trying to, but in each the man is choosing to point the gun at you. Are you saying the one who does not shoot is the couple having sex during an infertile time and the one who shoots is the couple having sex during a fertile time? Because as I see it, and mentioned before both guys are choosing to point a gun at you, bit couples are choosing to have sex. The first couple is just choosing to have sex at a time they don’t think they can get pregnant specifically for that reason. That to me is contraception. I know you all don’t see that, but please acknowledge that you see how I get to my point.
I am not certain why an infertile couple or a couple that is already pregnant would have to plan having sex when they could not get pregnant so they would they would not need to practice any form of contraception, nor nfp. Does that flow logically?
Lauri,
I am just not sure where to go with this. Yes I am not catholic. Yes I don’t believe in your god. I have never been anything less than clear about that. So you can continue to call me obdurate, not offended by it in the least. As stated before you don’t know me, so your assumptions about me are tremendously biased by our exchange here.
That being said, how open are you to arguments that don’t include god?
God loves you Alan.
Alan,
I make no assumptions about you. I believe you are obdurate because through out this thread you have ignored any attempt to discuss with you the real Catholic teaching and beliefs about contraception, holding firmly to your “gotcha” moment about NFP and Stacy’s definition of contraception.
I am “open to arguments that are not about God”, but only to the extent that you, or any interlocutor, are open to arguments that are. My world perspective, that is, everything I know and believe about human life includes God and is permeated and informed by the teachings of the Catholic Church and by my love for our saviour, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father and my desire to live in His love.
Lauri,
I am not sure how you can call me obdurant and say you are not making assumptions about me. I understand why you think this, but see the problem is not that I am not listening to the catholic church teachings on contraception, but that there is a failure to acknowledge that nfp is indeed contraception. I guess that is what you mean by my “gotcha” moment. I fully understand why catholics think artificial contraception is wrong. I fully understand catholic thought on sex. I am passing not judgments on that ( I disagree with it, but I understand, just merely trying to get you all to see that if you have sexual relations at a time where you SPECIFICALLY think you will not get pregnant, that is indeed contraception.
So you focus exclusively on that aspect of what I have written. That is indeed making assumptions. I’m ok with it, I just call it what it is. We all make assumptions. Right now I am making rather harsh assumptions about you based on what you have written. I have just not felt the need to let you know that, because I don’t think that the little I have read here from you is enough to know you, so I reserve the right to change my mind.
I have had many interchanges with Stacy, and although at times I think her crazy, I respect her thoughts, and now know that what she writes is not a personal attack but really is her attempt to get me to know the love for god she does. I don’t agree with almost everything (but I think you might be surprised to know I do agree with some of it) she says but she has my respect now that I think I understand her better.
So there we have it.
Alan,
Again, you have not responded to what was said. I think that makes you obdurate. That is a judgment, not an assumption. I couldn’t care less what you think about me, but I thank you for keeping things superfically civil, for those who are concerned about that. I won’t be communicating with you directly again since Stacy does an already admirable job of that.
Alan, the problem is that you – who claim you don’t even believe in God – are telling Catholics who live by Catholic teaching what Catholic teaching means.
Also Lauri astutely credited you with making a very good point.
She said, “Although it is not the point he was arguing, Alan makes it clear that if NFP is used solely or principally to avoid children, then can it be fairly stated that the practice is in accordance with the teaching of the Church?”
That was a great point.
Lauri,
If you don’t want to communicate with me that is ok, nothing I can do about it. Not sure how I did not respond to what was said. I guess I never will. I do notice that you have never said nfp is contraception. Interesting.
Stacy,
I still think you need to read better. I don’t think I have ever said I don’t believe in god. I have said I don’t believe in your god. Subtle but major differences. See I agree that there currently is too much unknown to not question the existance of a higher being. Has always been my stance, and that will not change unless proof is provided. If I am being vague, then I will state it clearly for you and for all. I believe in god.
Again I don’t think either of you are understanding me, but I am used to that here by now. You don’t want to. But I assume that nfp is a practice that is in accordance with the teaching of the church. Am I incorrect in that assumption? Further I am not suggesting that anyone is using nfp solely or principally to avoid having children. I don’t think in any post here I have suggested that. I think nfp is used in family planning, like non catholics use artificial contraception. I apologize if that was misunderstood by anyone.
ob·du·rate /ˈɒbdʊrɪt, -dyʊ-/ Show Spelled[ob-doo-rit, -dyoo-] Show IPA
adjective
1. unmoved by persuasion, pity, or tender feelings; stubborn; unyielding.
2. stubbornly resistant to moral influence; persistently impenitent: an obdurate sinner.
It’s a great word, one that I did not know before. I think maybe many here could look at this word and see themselves. What do you think Lauri?
OK Alan,
You believe in God. I’m curious.
[Really at this point I don't care what you think about NFP. I really (already said) don't like that phrase anyway for the reason Lauri pointed out. Being open to life means a whole lot of things besides fertility.]
What are your beliefs about God? I’m interested.
Stacy, I honestly am not certain I want to share my beliefs in god with you. I am not saying that to be rude, but especially right after you tell me you don’t care about my opinion of nfp. The lack of cares for my opinions here are quite well documented.
I am fairly certain that if I do give my thoughts on god to you I will be opening myself to further attempts at derision. I know I said I don’t care what you call me, but I certainly have no intentions of being insulted by telling you my beliefs.
So for now they will stay mine. Perhaps some day that is a discussion we can share.
Oh Alan, it’s not that I don’t care about your opinion, we’ve heard it out here. At this point it’s just arguing, and it’s not worth it. I heard you — you think abstaining is artificial contraception.
OK, I respect if you don’t want to say anything more about your beliefs.
See you didn’t hear me. At the beginning you said something about any thing that stopped the natural process, I was trying to ask if nfp was then artificial. I was attempting to get the point that there was a difference between artificial (condoms or pill) and natural (in my opinion nfp) contraception. Again I am sorry if I confused anyone. I am smart enough to know that abstaining is not artificial contraception.
I went back and reread what I wrote, and at one point I even said I agree that nfp is not artificial.
So now I am just confused, and realizing that indeed many are not reading my words, but are more so just looking to condemn me because I don’t agree.
Sad really.
But some day I will share my beliefs, I know your interest is not to insult, but right now a little gunshy.
Alan,
“so natural family planning or NFP (which I did not know what that meant so thank you on that one) is artificial.” -Alan
You changed your mind on that, but then you started asking if everything artificial is wrong because it is artificial, which isn’t the point.
So you think NFP is contraception. People already addressed the moral issue. There are some legitimate reasons to avoid conceiving for a time. And there are some immoral reasons. I hope you got that much out of the discussion.
Alan,
Something we do agree on–NFP is family planning.
The end result of not becoming pregnant is the same as the end result of contraception. The means of achieving the end is not the same. It is different because it is not an action against conception. It is inaction when conception could occur.
The shooting analogy is only to illustrate the difference between action and inaction. The shooter is active the non-shooter is inactive. The shooter hits someone who is wearing a bullet proof vest, the non shooter is not shooting someone who is not wearing a bullet proof vest. The end result is the same, neither is shot. This analogy only works for condoms, which prevent fertilization by preventing sperm from reaching a viable egg.(this would be the shooter) The non-shooter is the couple not having sex when the woman could conceive.
Contraception is an action against conception which stops male or female fertility from behaving in its natural way. NFP is inaction, refraining from having sex during fertility.
“I am not certain why an infertile couple or a couple that is already pregnant would have to plan having sex when they could not get pregnant so they would they would not need to practice any form of contraception, nor nfp.”
You are correct, a woman who is pregnant will not ovulate until after her baby is born, lets say, 10 months at minimum. A woman breastfeeding a young child is also often infertile for weeks or months. A woman who has just ovulated will not ovulate again for about 3-4 weeks. All of the women in these examples can have sex without the possibility of conception because none of them are ovulating. None of these women wish to become pregnant at this time, all of them are having sex when they are infertile.
I’m guessing that you don’t see the similarity between these three women because of the duration of the infertility in the different examples.
I’m not sure if you think that a couple who is entirely refraining from having sex to avoid pregnancy is contracepting too?
Could you tell me which one of these sentences you agree with, or if you agree with both or neither?
A couple is contracepting if they are NOT having sex when the woman is FERTILE.
A couple is contracepting if they ARE having sex when the woman is INFERTILE.
A couple is contracepting if they are NOT having sex.
Stacy, I did not so much change my mind as much as I am a lousy proof reader. What you quoted was supposed to have a question mark. I never once thought nfp was artificial. And I am sure you found later where I stated that. Skywalker (or james maybe, I really don’t feel like looking back again) I think was the first one who explained what was meant about stopping the bodies ability to have a baby rather than avoiding it.
I then started to ask about life saving/extending measures that are artificial and why they were ok according to catholicism? I don’t think I got an answer, but what I did get was this.
“Saving someone’s life is moral, but this is only relevant if anyone can show how someone’s life depends on depersonalizing sex and rendering the act artificially sterile.’
Now I asked a specific question to try to gain some understanding. I really don’t understand why artificially creating a life is any different than artificially prolonging one. I still don’t as it has not been explained. I need more than simply “it’s moral”.
And of course I understand there are legitimate reasons for avoiding conceiving. I leave the moral talk up to you because clearly our morals are different.
Skywalker
“A couple is contracepting if they ARE having sex when the woman is INFERTILE.”
And I have to disagree again with your gun analogy. The dude wearing the bullet proof vest has still been shot.
Here is what started it for me:
Stacy wrote in response to me “Yes, contraception means “against” (that’s what contra means) conceiving. It’s opposed to conception. Anything that a person uses to stop the natural process so that the sexual act is only for pleasure and not for procreation is by definition artificial.”
So from this I took that yes nfp is “against” (that’s what contra means) conceiving. So if I look further persons who have sex during a time that they think to be unfertile were having sex for pleasure and not procreation. Plus lets throw in that “thing” is not clearly defined, so for me a method (nfp which I know now could be described better) could be considered a thing, so I was questioning if that was indeed artificial.
So then all of a sudden I am the obdurant one because I could not get anyone to actually say nfp was contraception by Stacy’s first definition. I think maybe now I see that because it does not stop the natural process it is considered to not be contraception, however that seems to be a giant grey area to me. You have sex when you don’t think you can get pregnant specifically so you do not get pregnant. Seems like contraception.
I wish I was not always perceived to be the “bad guy”
But thank you for the kindness.
Hi Alan,
“And I have to disagree again with your gun analogy. The dude wearing the bullet proof vest has still been shot.”
All analogies break down at some point, I was thinking that if one had been shot there would be a bullet hole in him somewhere, otherwise he’s only been shot at.
A quote:
“Here is what started it for me:
Stacy wrote in response to me “Yes, contraception means “against” (that’s what contra means) conceiving. It’s opposed to conception. Anything that a person uses to stop the natural process so that the sexual act is only for pleasure and not for procreation is by definition artificial.”
So from this I took that yes nfp is “against” (that’s what contra means) conceiving. So if I look further persons who have sex during a time that they think to be unfertile were having sex for pleasure and not procreation. Plus lets throw in that “thing” is not clearly defined, so for me a method (nfp which I know now could be described better) could be considered a thing, so I was questioning if that was indeed artificial.”
I can see why you would think that Catholics are a bit nit picky with the terminology. The church teaches that abstaining during the fertile period is non-procreative rather than anti-procreative, which is why it does not fall under the category of “against.” You’d have to be wrestling with your fertility in some way to be fighting against it, rather than passively letting it pass you by.
“You have sex when you don’t think you can get pregnant specifically so you do not get pregnant. Seems like contraception.”
Which kind of contraception does it seem like? The pill, IUD, condoms, spermicides, do any of them have a similar way of avoiding pregnancy?
“I then started to ask about life saving/extending measures that are artificial and why they were ok according to catholicism?”
The church isn’t against artificial things so much as anti-nature things. If someone is using a defibrillator to help the heart regain a normal sinus rhythm, that’s a good thing since it’s helping the heart do what it is designed to do. Using an inhaler to open the lungs so that you can breathe is working with nature, too, since the lungs aren’t supposed to close up.
As for end of life issues the church does not say that you have to prolong life through any means possible. Some medical procedures are morally optional. The ones that are not optional are things like food and fluids, these are considered ordinary care. Treatments that are more beneficial than burdensome to the patient and others fall under ordinary care,too.
Extraordinary means are treatments in which the benefits do not correspond to the burdens of treatment.
“I really don’t understand why artificially creating a life is any different than artificially prolonging one.”
Do you mean IVF here? The church teaches that a human person, from the moment of conception, has a dignity that is to be respected. It is not to be used, manipulated, or destroyed. Each child has a right to be the the product of the love of his father and mother as expressed in the sexual union. No one has the right to pull conception out of its context and de-personalize it.
In IVF dad simulates sex into a cup, mom is given ovulating causing drugs and her eggs are harvested, a lab tech combines these two in a petri dish at which point embryos are formed. The lab tech or doctor throws some embryos out that don’t look good, freezes others, and attempts to implant one or more back in mom. IVF is also not terribly effective, in the United States, the live birth rate for each IVF cycle started is approximately:
30 to 35% for women under age 35
25% for women ages 35 to 37
15 to 20% for women ages 38 to 40
6 to 10% for women ages over 40
How is this different than prolonging life by using technology? Because pills or chemotherapy or surgery to correct a pathology is trying to help the body work as it was intended to. IVF isn’t helping anyone’s body to work as it was intended to. However,if a doctor repaired a blocked tube or endometrosis, that would likely help a woman to become pregnant naturally, which is a good thing.
I do not perceive you as the bad guy, and I appreciate the dialogue.
Skywalker
Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough commentary.
Analogies are rough because to me they rarely make sense. Very few situations are the same in two peoples opinion. For me being shot is the same as being shot at. The thing that is the same is the guy pointed a gun at you.
I understand what you are saying as to the differences about IVF and keeping people alive, but strongly disagree. To me both are artificial means to manipulate life, and if one is wrong both should be wrong. I happen to think both are right, but again that is just my belief system. I think many could argue that there is a certain pathology to not being able to have a baby naturally, and that IVF does indeed correct that.
As far as how effective IVF is, those are wonderful statistics that essentially mean nothing. What are the statistics on chemotherapy saving cancer victims? Do the odds really change the desire for the process, and the hopeful end results? The successes are what matter to those families, and as I know some I am amazed at the lengths they would go to to have a child. That will never be wrong to me.
I don’t think catholics are being “nit picky” about terminology. I think in this instance there is a manipulation of words. Even you are doing it to some degree.
“The church teaches that abstaining during the fertile period is non-procreative rather than anti-procreative, which is why it does not fall under the category of “against.” You’d have to be wrestling with your fertility in some way to be fighting against it, rather than passively letting it pass you by.”
Non procreative to me means the exact same thing as contraceptive. Both are to keep a pregnancy from happening.
The reason I get disturbed by the manipulations of catholics (and I know it is not just catholics, but for the sake of Stacy being catholic and this being a catholic blog I will keep using them as an example) is this. Both Leila and Stacy have a tendency to ” ” words or thoughts they deem to be untrue, made up or just don’t agree with. “Gay marriage”, “over population”, “hate crimes” and my favorite “homophobia”. So the manipulation of something as simple as nfp not being contraception is irksome at the least.
So there you have it. I hope I am making sense even though I know most here do not agree. I hope that I am being clear enough in my thoughts. As I have said my fear is that many here don’t read what I am writing, but just see me as being against them so little thought is given to what I am actually saying. Not saying I blame them, just saying maybe it isn’t just me that has the closed mind.
Hi Alan,
Thanks for listening to what I had to say.
The thing about having a closed mind is a little funny, though. Once upon a time I had very similar ideas to the ones you have presently. I changed my mind after thought, discussion, and grace. So I was open minded then, and if you could convince me I’m wrong in my worldview, I’d change my mind again. The point of an open mind is to find the truth.