Protestants who avoid contraception

For a culture that is so obsessed with knowing one's self I find it striking that we (women) have been sold a bill of goods with regard to how our bodies function. I know SO many women who have saved themselves for marriage, but when they get engaged they give very little thought to what they are putting into and doing to their bodies by going on the pill. I would have been one of them but for the grace of God and a truely thoughtful husband. I learned more about how my body systems worked by reading on NFP then I ever did in school. It's been just great. It has also lead to a much deeper gratitude to God for his amazing grace as the giver of life. It's easy to become proud as an NFPer and think that if we just chart and figure out the perfect days for conception that "Presto" it'll just happen. God has taught me through some tough days of NOT conveiving to continue to depend on Him more fully.

I also think it's odd that NFP hasn't caught on more with earth-/nature-friendly mystical/religious/cultural movements, like Deep Greens, and neo-druids and some other neopagans, with all the stuff about back-to-nature, etc.

Among the main types of contraception, the pill and condom are so obviously horrible that I'm surprised more people don't choose celibacy as an alternative (perhaps they do, but just don't talk about it). That still doesn't mean that I can make any sense of the Catholic moral position against them.

The Catholic position on contraception is very straightforward. If you don't want to conceive, don't indulge in the action that brings it about. Not rocket science.

In Garrison Keillor's fictional Lake Woebegon, he once portrayed the pastor of the Catholic Church in town giving a sermon about birth control titled, "If you didn't want to go to Minneapolis, why did you get on the train?" ;-)

I'm surprised more people don't choose celibacy as an alternative (perhaps they do, but just don't talk about it).

Well, after all, nowadays, choosing not to have sex at all seems to be regarded in popular culture as an incomprehensible sexual perversion, and perhaps the only one still considered socially unacceptable.

I'm mean, I've known people in their 20s who are really embarrassed to admit to others that they're still virgins.

Question for the room, WRT contraception:

I recently encountered the following quote:

"There is evidence that there is a contraceptive effect of breast feeding after fertilization. While a woman is breast feeding, the first ovulation is characterized by a short luteal phase, or second half of the cycle. It's thought that because of that, implantation does not occur." In other words, if the emergency contraception pill causes abortions by blocking implantation, then by the same definition breast feeding may as well.

Source here: nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html

Query: Is this guy correct? IIRC, breastfeeding does have the side-effect of suppressing fertility. Is preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs (one of) the mechanism(s) behind this side-effect?

MI--

Yes, breastfeeding does suppress fertility--women's bodies need to recover from pregnancy and birth before getting pregnant again, and breastfeeding is the natural way to allow this recovery period (which should space your children about every 18 months-2 years, if you aren't trying to postpone pregnancy by looking at other signs). I'm not sure what the exact mechanism of this effect is. My NFP booklet says that a fully breastfeeding mom (on demand, 24/7) and even the partially breastfeeding mom should be on the lookout for signs of ovulation (meaning she is not ovulating at the time), so I'm not sure about that quote.

MI - Breastfeeding CAN suppress fertility by preventing ovulation. But it is not full-proof, some women do still ovulate while breastfeeding, a close relative of mine who is pregnant while still breastfeeding a 5 month old. And she was exclusively breastfeeding, not using formula as a supplement.

Rombald - actually avoiding contraception HAS caught on among some green-minded folks, largely due to the fact that the pill's contents are entering the water system, via the toilet. The hormones and chemicals are being found in the tissues of many aquatic species and are even showing signs of negatively affecting their fertility. (On an semi-related note, the same thing is being found with anti-depressants and Ritalin. Those medicines cannot be removed by water treatment plants, and so everytime you drink from the tap, you are consuming small amounts of those chemicals.)

I tried the pill for a while to treat my PCOS (Google if you don't know what that is), but I never felt right altering my fertility. A healthy woman is supposed to ovulate and have real menstrual period. Women on the pill do not ovulate and have a false period instead. Then once I got married, even the slim possibility of causing what I consider to be an abortion was the last straw, I could not take birth control. I now have a doctor who agrees with me, and he is not even a Christian,

MI
Query: Is this guy correct? IIRC, breastfeeding does have the side-effect of suppressing fertility. Is preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs (one of) the mechanism(s) behind this side-effect?

There's at least some medical evidence that this is how it works. We know there's reduced fertility, and it doesn't stop eggs from being released as far as we can tell, and there's almost no way to prevent fertilization, with hormones, if the egg and sperm are in the same place, so about the only logical way it could work is by reducing the odds of implantation. Granted, I did say 'almost' up there, so it is slightly possible it works some other way, but 'failure to implant' makes the most sense.

It's a much more logical claims than 'the pill could, in some cases, make the uterus uninhabitable after conception occurred.', which I am presuming is also talking about implantation. This theory is is totally and utterly unsupported by any medical studies and doesn't really even make a lot of sense medically.

The pill works by releasing the 'Already pregnant' hormones, which, obviously, are mainly designed to stop menstruation, but, in this case, also have the effect of stopping the release of an egg. There's not any evidence they make implantation harder. There entire concept that happens is from advertisers of the pill in the 60s, and they had no medical evidence of it.

Whereas there is evidence that breastfeeding and a dozen other activities, including simple movement, can reduce the chance of implantation. Basically, if women go to a fertility clinic, everything they're told not to do reduces that chance. Something like half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant, for dozens of reasons, including things as simple as not enough iron.

The specific hormone that birth control pills release is not one of them. Yet we've got people promoting this proof-less theory in books and entire groups of people who will argue it to the death.

Sue: "eating chocolate can have, er, deleterious results on the waistline (and most other lines as well). So if we don't want to put on weight, we avoid eating too much of the stuff. But suppose there was a pill available which neutralised all the calories, so that one could eat as much chocolate as one wanted, even making oneself sick, without gaining an ounce. Would that pill be moral? "

I would say not - I tend to be a organic / health-food type - but I'm not sure that the Catholic church would agree with me - someone fill me in here??

I don't think this analogy is perfect, though. The calory-neutralising pill is more equivalent to abortion, or perhaps the morning-after pill. I agree that abortion is morally objectionable (I can't make my mind up about the morning-after pill), but for quite different reasons. Contraception seems more analogous to eating calory-free versions of foods. Now, I avoid saccharine (I do occasionally drink Diet Coke), but that's all part of my organic bias, and I haven't heard of any Catholic rulings against it.

I can see the logic of someone saying that sex is disgusting, but it is necessary to propagate the species, so we should occasionally have sex out of duty (I understand the position of ISKCON to be something along these lines). I can also see the logic of someone saying that one should maximise one's reproduction, perhaps so that one's own ethnic/religious side will win the demographic war (didn't mdavid take that sort of position?). The Catholic position is sometimes parodied as being one of these two, but I know that that is not correct. I just cannot see the logic of saying that it is OK to use one means to ensure that sex does not lead to pregnancy, but not a different means. However, ironically, the means that the Catholic church does permit, NFP, is actually a very good means. It is just a shame that NFP has such a Catholic feel about it that other people are put off - in England, for example, if a woman wishes to learn about NFP, she has to go to a meeting in a Catholic church hall, with nuns there, and so on.

Lucius: "There is no cost to the believer of secular morality philosophy, as we can successfully winnow down the demands to those few which don't touch our own lives. We can feel good without having to change the way we personally live."

There is a certain type of secularist about whom I do tend to feel that - academic Marxists, media-type liberals, etc. I do think your parody rings true to some extent.

However, I think you're too sweeping.
For example; I know people striving to live greener lifestyles, who feel the demands to quite a marked degree - no driving or flying, for a start.
Fringe political activists also often sacrifice a great deal for their causes (eg. money, career, security), regardless of whether you agree with those causes.
Also, outside the sphere of sexuality, most decent secularists have moral values that are pretty much identical to Christians, and are therefore presented with all the same difficulties, temptations and dilemmas that Christians are, with probably similar levels of success in overcoming them.
I certainly don't think you can say that only Christians (or theists) feel the real-world impact of moral demands.

The issue isn't about people choosing to use NFP. It's about moves by Republicans to outlaw contraceptives.

A typically insightful comment by the paranoid Richard Bottoms, who cannot point to a single instance of the Republicans trying to outlaw contraception, in part because the 1964 Griswold decision by SCOTUS made legalized contraception a constitutional privacy right.

NFP is contraception.

In Daniel's world, unless the following actions are mandated, there is a de facto federal ban on contraception:
--Force pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, even though said pharmacist has personal or religious objection
--Force health care providers to prescribe contraceptives, even though said provider has personal or religious objection
--Force Congress to approve taxpayer funding of contraceptives in domestic health care
--Force Congress to approve taxpayer funding of contraceptives in foreign aid bills
--Prohibit any attempt to overrule Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court
--Prohibit any attempt to amend the Constitution to overrule Roe v. Wade

This view can be summarized as follows: Unless unwilling people are forced to provide, support, deliver and fund contraceptives, it is a de facto ban on contraceptives.

The logic...is, of course...lacking.

Re: Further adventures with John M.'s logic

Not conceiving is contraception.

Sex without conception is contraception.

Not having sex is contraception.
------
As with Daniel, the logic...is, of course...lacking.

And for those parents who think prophylaxis is the "grown-up" way to address their progeny's libidinous pre-marital promiscuity, THINK AGAIN: watch this YouTube flip for evidence that the chemical doping of our young girls (into a state of faked-pregnant unattractiveness to the opposite sex) dooms them to poor choices not only before marriage but FOR marriage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bevk4s1I0XM

I found myself chatting at a recent social function with my male host and a newly-married hubby colleague, who complained that his young but not-as-sexy-as-he-expected wife had taken to knitting every evening, dampening his enthusiam for the conjugal bliss God intended they be partaking of at this stage in their thirty-something existence... I had to bite my tongue to prevent myself asking him if she's on the Pill -- her body thinks she's broody, so its most natural for it to be telling her to want to knit, not tumble in the hay... So sad... If his needs aren't being met at home, how long will it be before he goes elsewhere to satisfy them?

Rombald, by your use of the clause "outside the sphere of sexuality" and the remainder of your post, you confirmed my observation that secularists believe "that human sexuality is outside of the realm of morality."

Let me make the chasm clear.

To think that your ecological footprint or political activities are of more moral importance than your sexual behavior with your wife is staggering in its moral dessication. A man vows to love a woman, for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, for the entirety of life, and his most intimate interactions have no moral significance?

"An affair with my secretary? Well...yes, I did. But I'm still a good person. I drive a Prius."

I've never found the "prevents a fertilized egg from implanting" to be in the least bit compelling as an argument against the pill. We have zero actual scientific evidence that this happens or doesn't happen. Besides, as others note above, breastfeeding does the same thing. It just seems like a kind of pseudo-scientific attempt to justify something which isn't even about science (ie the teaching not to use artificial contraception).

OTOH, the one scientific argument I have found against the pill (besides the fact that it's showing up in our water supply) involves hormones and sexual attraction. I saw something on TV a while back about how scent is somehow involved in helping us pick a mate. It turns out that people who are genetically different from us in key ways are more sexually attractive to us and we can pick these people out by scent. (Opposite genetics = greater genetic diversity = more viable babies and greater chances for survival for the species.) However, taking the pill seems to turn those receptors and chemical signals off, making a woman far more likely to pick a mate who does not have the opposing genetic materials. The scientists who are involved in the research say that they have theorized that the large numbers of young women on the pill while dating could be responsible for some divorces. The woman goes off the pill after getting married to have a baby and finds that now that her body is open to scent cues, her husband is no longer sexually appealing to her.

I am not Catholic, but my hubby and I have been using a combination of NFP and barrier for a while now. (I track fertility and we use condoms during fertile times.) This works well for us, as I'm not doing anything artificial to my hormones or body, it forces us to both pay more attention and be respectful of what my body is doing, and allows us to enjoy intimacy without loosing sight of the importance of reproduction as part of what sex is all about. I'm afraid that I just don't get what the problem with condoms is, when used properly in a marriage. The RCC totally has me on board with its human vitae right up to that point. That last leap just doesn't ring true to me at all. But, like I said, I'm not Catholic, so I don't feel obliged to take it as an article of faith. I suppose that the rubber isn't good for the environment. However, it's got to be better than the pill. Not to mention those carbon emitting machines called human babies. :)

Rombald: "It is just a shame that NFP has such a Catholic feel about it that other people are put off - in England, for example, if a woman wishes to learn about NFP, she has to go to a meeting in a Catholic church hall, with nuns there, and so on."

Did you know that Chinese government invited the Catholic Australian married medical doctors, the Billings, to teach their 2-day-continence method (based on recognizing the ovulatory change in cervical secretions) ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1610076.ece

all the while persecuting Roman Catholics whose take their fidelity to the Petrine See as seriously as sino-mandarins take their fidelity to the Comitern. If the presence of a few nuns puts you off... take courage from some brave Chinese Commies: we need more manly-men who know where the hairs on their chests come from: the testosterone God gave them to recognize those alluring luteal pheromones!

DavidTC, I can't get into the food stuff analogies myself, but what you've written is silly nonsense. you don't really believe that, do you? Of course our actions have natural consequences! If I eat food, the natural consequence is that I will poop. If I drink water, the natural consequence is that I will pee. If I drive a car badly, the natural consequence is a greatly increased likelihood that at some point I will crash it and kill people. If I drive a car well, the natural consequence is that I will reduce my chances of crashing and killing anyone. If I drink alcohol in quantity, the natural consequence is that I will get drunk. If I have sex while fertile without protection, the natural consequence is that I will get pregnant. If I act like an arse, the natural consequence is that people will not want to be around me. So on and so forth forever and ever and ever.

I'm going to venture a guess that you're not involved in any sort of scientific endevor. These natural consequences which you claim to be fiction are pretty much the underpinning of science, after all. I just read an article arguing that our education system is inculcating children with ideas that are inimicable to serious scientific inquiry. This is why we have so few American students studying serious science at our universities (look - cause and effect - it happens everywhere!). If your "no such thing as natural consequences" stuff is really part of the pantheon of liberal ideology, then I think you've just provided a fantastic illustration of this problem at work.

Rod,

Could I beg that we cease using the phraseology of "artificial contraception" altogether? Using the noun 'contraception' in combination with the adjective 'artificial' suggests a genus/species relationship that could, in principle, allow 'contraception' to be modified by another adjective, namely 'natural' --- see John M.'s earlier insistence that NFP is contraception. Confusion will reign.

Artificiality is NOT the problem here. It is rather the intent that this particular sexual act be certainly infertile, for which human 'art' (devices/drug therapies) is deemed necessary, being used therefore as a means to an end, the end here being the causing of this sexual act to be infertile by commission---which official Catholic teaching contends is morally illicit.

To 'perform' contraception is to employ these 'arts'; to 'perform' NFP is to do nothing (not commission, but omission).

I am admittedly a conservative Catholic theologian , so these minutiae matter to me. But in the high-impact, often church-dividing area such as sexual morality is, linguistic clarity is job-one.

MSNBC link to the adverse effects of enjoying the scent of the blossoms but not the aroma of the ripe fruits of the Spirit (aka the sixth "ergos of the sarcos" or the Pauline works of the flesh: φαρμακεία or pharmakeia, the Greek word for "to administer drugs/poisons"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26180187/
"The Pill makes women pick bad mates -- Ability to sniff out a compatible partner affected by taking contraceptives" by Jeanna Bryner
for which the Catholic NAB bible uses "sorcery", and King James coined "witchcraft" so tongue-in-cheek one might say we're casting spells on our poor girls who want to believe that the most precious L-word is "licence" as meaning "liberation" when is reality God's idea of liberty is a mutual, deep and abiding "Love."

"John M., do you think that skipping an occasional meal is the same as gorging and then inducing vomiting? You don't retain calories either way, after all. So if the object is to reduce calories, why give up the pleasure of eating?

Posted by: Erin Manning | August 13, 2008 1:26 PM"

If sex is only for procreation, then shouldn't one abstain from sex when fertility is not at its peak?

NFP, like other forms of scheduling or avoiding pregnancy, leaves room for sex without procreation, sex for pleasure by itself.

Isn't that a sin in your construct?

Anon: Isn't that a sin in your construct?

"sins" aren't constructed, we're created with faculties that make us human, as opposed to being created with faculties that make us amoeboid. When we chose to act contrarian to our nature, we behave inhumanely! Those who believe, as I do, that we owe our Creator a debt of gratitude for making us, then sin is simply conduct unbecoming: Our creator in his wisdom saw to it that conjugal acts were designed for for pleasure. duh! And not only that, in addition to a score or more periods for this pleasurable pastime, he added one day every full moon (nursery rhymes "as the cow jumped over the moon" contain an iota of wisdom if we were but alert enough to recognize it) He vested us with the rights of co-creators, the power to bring new human life into existence - awesome! An awesome responsibility also, might I add! We get to chose who our children will look to for their identity and sense of humanity (or inhumanity as the case may be).

MJ: "Artificiality is NOT the problem here. It is rather the intent that this particular sexual act be certainly infertile, for which human 'art' (devices/drug therapies) is deemed necessary, being used therefore as a means to an end, the end here being the causing of this sexual act to be infertile by commission---which official Catholic teaching contends is morally illicit.
To 'perform' contraception is to employ these 'arts'; to 'perform' NFP is to do nothing (not commission, but omission)."

Thanks, MJ, that's actually the best explanation I've seen to date of the Catholic position. I still don't agree with it, but I can see the logic now: artificiality is irrelevant, but it is immoral to commit sex acts that are certainly infertile, although not to elect to ommit possibly-fertile sex acts.

However, applying this logic consistently ought to mean that sex with a naturally sterile (eg. postmenopausal) woman is also immmoral. As far as I can see, the only way you can distinguish between such a sex act and a contracepted sex act is by reverting to the rejected artificial vs. natural distinction. (Of couse, I might be wrong)

Anon at 3:33, it could be argued that eating is an act which has two purposes: nutrition and socialization. The binge-eater, who does not purge but who secretly consumes large numbers of calories in private, is just as disordered as the bulimic, even though the binge-eater consumes the calories/nutrition from the food, while the bulimic eats and then rids his/her body of calories/nutrition. Neither one could be said to be a rightly-ordered approach to food.

The Catholic Church teaches that sex has also has a twofold purpose: unity and procreation. Acts which separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect are seen as disordered. Abstaining from acting at all during certain times is not the same as seeking the unitive aspect without the procreative (contraception) or the procreative aspect without the unitive (IVF).

Using NFP doesn't separate the two aspects, because abstaining during times one believes one is fertile doesn't remove, block, or alter the procreative aspects of the marriage act. In addition, the Catholic who uses NFP is always aware that God may choose to give the gift of new life, and is prepared to accept that gift, not seek to destroy the child.

I think these discussions would profit from some definition of these easily slung around words: natural, nature, natural law. Aren't these culturally conditioned concepts taken over from Greek philosophy by the ancient Church? Had ancient Christianity moved east rather than west, would we have these same categories with the same content? I wonder about the certainty that there is an immutable human nature and the confidence that we know what it is and exactly how God wants it to operate.

It's all about restrictions on choices for adults led by a bunch of moralistic men:

At National Right to Life's conference this year, Mitt Romney set out to convince anti-abortion leaders he was their candidate. At the podium, he rattled off his qualifications. To a layman's ears, it sounded pretty standard for abortion politics. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports teaching only abstinence to teens.

But for those trained to hear the subtleties, Mr. Romney was acknowledging something more. He implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are code phrases to listen for - and for those keeping score, Mr. Romney nailed each one.

One code phrase is: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
Mr. Romney's code, deciphered, meant, "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions."
(snip)

Now any reasonable person realizes how ludicrous the idea of getting rid of birth control is. Period. But the fact that GOP hopefuls are willing to court the extremists of their party by deception shows some of the very real problems the GOP is facing. First there's the honesty factor. Romney implying that he's anti-contraception is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He never came out and said it. He just led them to believe he did. It seems that every candidate has an issue they treat like that when it comes to competing for the base. (Imagine Hillary speaking at PETA meetings implying "meat is murder" and you start to see my point.)

College campuses have emerged as the latest battlefield in the nation's war on women's reproductive rights. Wisconsin has passed a bill entitled UW Birth Control Ban-AB 343. This bill prohibits University of Wisconsin campuses from prescribing, dispensing and advertising all forms of birth control and emergency contraceptives. Wisconsin State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, introduced this bill based on the belief that "dispensing birth control and emergency contraceptives leads to promiscuity." In reality, full access to all birth control options - including emergency contraceptives - has no effect on the level of women's promiscuity. Instead, birth control and emergency contraceptives help prevent more than 35,000 unintended births and 800,000 abortions each year.

In passing this bill, Wisconsin has the distinct honor of becoming the first state in the nation to limit college students' access to full birth control options. Minnesotans should be concerned about what this bill means for their future. Not only does the bill affect the 13,000 Minnesotans who attend college in Wisconsin, but it also sets a dangerous precedent for similar bills to be introduced on college campuses across the nation in the future. Currently, University of Minnesota students have access to full reproductive services at their on-campus clinics, including emergency contraceptives, pregnancy counseling, access to birth-control prescriptions and more. However, Minnesota, as Wisconsin's nearest neighbor, might be the next stop in the introduction of college campus birth-control-ban bills.

I grant you that the movement might be having more success if so many of the morals brigade didn't turn out to be adulterers and closet queens.

rb,
restricting access to contraceptives isn't the point; making allowances for those whose religious beliefs do not allow them to deal in contraception is. It's not a position I particularly agree with. However, misrepresenting people's positions is nothing if not a fantastic way to make sure you are written off as an ignorant crank. Unfortunately, you seem to be more committed to demonstrating your anti-religious, anti-Republican prejudices than to arguing your point. I suppose that's OK if it's what you want. A monumental waste of time and a poor reflection on yourself. But your perrogative, I suppose.

Restrictions can act as a ban if they mean people cannot access medical treatment prescribed by their medical provider. If a woman has to go to two or three pharmacies to fill a prescription because of conscientious objectors who tout HHS saying birth control is abortion, then it is a problem.

If women in the Third World can't access family planning information and contraceptives to avoid passing along HIV/AIDS to a child or to avoid having more children when they are living on $500 a year, that's a problem.

Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable to most Americans that medical providers could block access to contraceptives based on their own conscience. Now, it's just the tip of the iceberg with medical providers ignoring their professional obligations by refusing to dispense contraceptives that are prescribed by a medical provider.

Caroline: I think these discussions would profit from some definition of these easily slung around words: natural, nature, natural law. Aren't these culturally conditioned concepts taken over from Greek philosophy by the ancient Church?

The answer is yes--natural law philosophy predates Christianity. It is more or less official in Catholicism, largely as a result of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics. I am not as familiar with its role in Eastern Christianity, but I think it never was developed in the way it was in the West, and plays less of a part. Eastern Christianity tends more towards Neo-Platonism, whereas Western Christianity is more Aristotelian. Anyway, any full explanation of natural law ethics is far beyond the scope of a thread like this, but the link above could be a start for anyone who wanted to learn about it.

Another interesting thing. There has been a lot of discussion on this thread about the effects of breast-feeding. As I think was mentioned, this does work to some degree, since it releases hormones that retard ovulation. What I wanted to add is this: the Chinese exercise system known as qigong (ch'i kung in Wade-Giles, pronounced "chee gohng"). Qigong is similar both to yoga and to the better-known taijiquan (t'ai chi ch'uan). From what I understand, there is a set of excercises in which the woman massages herself in such a way as to simulate nursing, thus resulting in cessation of ovulation, and thus de facto contraception. I'm not sure how well this works, although anecdotally I have heard that it does, and I have know idea what the Church would have to say about it. For more information, you can check out Ken Cohen's book The Way of Qigong. I know this may be a little odd, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Rombald,

The reason sex with a naturally infertile woman (or a post-menapausal or a pregnant woman for that matter) is not immoral is that the COUPLE is not acting in a way that would render the sexual act infertile. The Church's teaching on sexuality focuses on the couple not taking steps to alter the nature of the sexual act. Basically, a couple cannot sterilize the act. In the case of an infertile woman, the couple has not altered the act - hence no moral problem.

NFP operates under the same premise. The couple never alters the sexual act to sterilize it. They simply choose NOT TO ACT during the fertile period if they are trying to avoid pregnancy. Again, the sexual act remains intact.

The Church's basic problem with contraception is not that it tries to avoid pregnancy; there are lots of valid reasons to do so. The problem with contraception is that it violates the integrity of the sexual act.

I'm posting this again, since it either didn't go through or was deleted. It occured to me that maybe the problem was the last paragraph, which I didn't think was in any way inappropriate; but feel free to delete that part, if necessary.

Caroline: I think these discussions would profit from some definition of these easily slung around words: natural, nature, natural law. Aren't these culturally conditioned concepts taken over from Greek philosophy by the ancient Church?

The answer is yes--natural law philosophy predates Christianity. It is more or less official in Catholicism, largely as a result of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics. I am not as familiar with its role in Eastern Christianity, but I think it never was developed in the way it was in the West, and plays less of a part. Eastern Christianity tends more towards Neo-Platonism, whereas Western Christianity is more Aristotelian. Anyway, any full explanation of natural law ethics is far beyond the scope of a thread like this, but the link above could be a start for anyone who wanted to learn about it.

Another interesting thing. There has been a lot of discussion on this thread about the effects of breast-feeding. As I think was mentioned, this does work to some degree, since it releases hormones that retard ovulation. What I wanted to add is this: the Chinese exercise system known as qigong (ch'i kung in Wade-Giles, pronounced "chee gohng"). Qigong is similar both to yoga and to the better-known taijiquan (t'ai chi ch'uan). From what I understand, there is a set of excercises in which the woman massages herself in such a way as to simulate nursing, thus resulting in cessation of ovulation, and thus de facto contraception. I'm not sure how well this works, although anecdotally I have heard that it does, and I have know idea what the Church would have to say about it. For more information, you can check out Ken Cohen's book The Way of Qigong. I know this may be a little odd, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Sorry, last one was me. I did it again.

Marie,

I can understand how the procreative/unitive language can sometimes raise questions. The Church teaches simply that the COUPLE cannot act to alter the sexual act in a way that would attempt to sterilize it, or in other words, remove its procreative dimension. In the cases of an infertile or postmenopausal or pregnant women, nature has rendered the act infertile, not the couple. The couple has not altered the act in anyway.

I personally find it easier to think about the whole issue in terms of protecting the integrity of the sexual act. God created sex act to occur in a certain way - generally with certain results :) - and the couple simply needs to respect the integrity of the act.

The natural question follows: Why is it so important to protect the integrity of the sexual act? This is generally the question John Paul II addressed in his The Theology of the Body. A very, very basic summary of some of his arguements:

1. Man is not made in the image of God only through his reason and will, but also through his sexuality. The sexual act - which is a total, free, faithful, and fruitful gift of self - imagines the Trinity. In engaging in the sexual act, we are imaging God's love, becoming symbol pointing to the nature of God. Therefore, to alter the act means we are no longer imaging God, committing a kind of sacrilage.

2. Also, the sexual act is meant to "enflesh" the marriage vows. Though the couple speaks their vows at the wedding ceremony, the marriage isn't sealed until the enact those vows in the sexual act - hence why a marriage is not considered complete until it is consummated by the Church. Since the sexual act is meant to enact the wedding vows, obviously the act must conform to those vows.

The Rite of Marriage asks three questions of intent, basically outlining the meaning of the marriage vows: Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage? Will you love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives? Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?

So married love needs to be free, total, faithful, and fruitful. The sexual act needs to embody this married love. By its nature, the sexual act does so - since it is an image of the free,total, faithful, and fruitful love of God. However, if one alters the act, one ends up violating some aspect - generall all aspects - of one's marraige vows. Contraception violates one's marriage vows most obviously by acting against one's promise to be open to children, but also by preventing the act from being a complete gift of self.

Anyway, this is a very rough summary of just some of JPII's thoughts on this issue. I would definitely recommend reading his The Theology of the Body to understand some of the reasoning behind the Church's teaching in this area a little better.

The best article on this subject that I've ever read is Father Paul O'Callaghan's "Pseudosex in PseudoTheology," Christian Bioethics, vol 4, issue 1, April 1998, p83-99.

Also, for those interested in what the Church fathers had to say about NFP, here is St. Augustine writing to the Manicheans:

"Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time...?"Saint, Bishop of Hippo Augustine; Philip Schaff (Editor) (1887). A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume IV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co

found at http://www.kerala.com/wiki-Rhythm_Method

The Church fathers made no moral distinction between NFP and any other form of contraception and permission to use NFP was not granted until the 19th century.

Joe: Both of the links you provided are excellent. It is good be reminded that even the rhythm method was condemned for centuries. In the West, at least, the procreative end of intercourse was the only theologically permissible end. The "unitive" aspect isn't even spoken of until the 20th Century. All this is very clear if you read enough of the actual writings of the times. Thus, contra Maria, Erin, and other posters who cite the Church's current teaching, throughout most of Christian history the Western Church would not, in fact, have seen any difference between active ("artificial") contracetption and NFP--both were forbidden.

Frankly, I think part of the problem is that the Western church painted itself into a corner with the Scholastic method, which exacerbated the already nit-picky and legalistic tendencies inherent in the Latin-derived cultures (remember, the Greeks were always more speculative and philosophical, whereas the Romans were the practical, legalistic, "git 'er done" types). The mania to define things to the nth degree led to the decrees of Papal infallibility at Vatican I, which further led to "creeping infallibilism" later as a way of bolstering teachings not promulgated ex cathedra. The end of this is that when something taught consistently in antiquity is in actual practiced reversed (e.g. the teachings on usursy), the Magisterium finds itself having to jump through elaborate rhetorical and conceptual loops to argue that it hasn't really "changed", just "developed".

Thus, when it became clear in modern times that the laity would not accept a view of sexuality that reduced it to mere procreation, the Church introduced the idea of the unitive function of sex, and even allowed the formerly forbidden NFP. Since it was locked by infallibilism into rejectiong "artificial" contraception, it then had to make elaborate philosophical distictions between, say, using a pill and using NFP. One can make that case with some philosophical consistency, but it has never (and probably never will) resonate with the great majority of married people. They think it is sophism, and I think that to some extent they are correct.

Let me be clear: I think that Humanae Vitae and the Church's current teaching in general are correct in several ways: sex is not just about pleasure; it is a deep and profound aspect of our humanity; it should be within the context of a marriage open to life; the "contraceptive mentality" can lead to negative views towards children, and can have bad effects on society; and sex should not be sundered from procreation. Many people of good will would agree with all of this, while doubting that it logically entails the idea that any form of non-NFP birth control at all is to be utterly forbidden, even to faithfully married couples, under all circumstances.

I am Catholic myself, but I think (as indicated in the article at the torodesign link) that the Orthodox tradition has in fact done a better job of balancing marriage and celibacy than the has the Latin church, and I think its principle of oikonomia functions as a better way of dealing with human frailty and the varying circumstances of individuals than the Scholastic-derived theology of the West does. I also might point out that I do not reject the Catholic doctrines of infallibility (Papal or by the ordinary Magisterium) as properly understood and delineated. I do think the way of doing theology in the West has caused infallibility to be understood incorrectly and to be used in an improper fashion; int has often been improperly used as a cudgel to squash discussion and has led to some unnecessarily tortuous theology.

Turmarion,

Excellent post! I couldn't have said things any better. I'm Orthodox so fortunately I don't have to play by Roman Catholic rules. In the Orthodox Church, non-abortifacient contraception is permissible as long as it is for good motives.

Anastasia: Does this aspect of women's anatomy and physiology come into play at all in the "theology of the body"?

I can't reply specifically to JP2's non-infallible non-dogmatic views as expressed in Theology of the Body (a queer title, no?). But in a discussion of this topic while I was a student at a Jesuit college many years ago, I asked what the Church's position was if the woman failed to reach orgasm. There's always next time, said the priest with a wink. I asked whether cunnilingus was permissible, even recommended, to relieve the unresolved sexual tension she would experience. The priest damn near fainted. Another Jesuit did actually claim that it was permissible for the woman to fellate the man if he was unable to achieve erection otherwise. These guys were not singing from the same hymnal, that much was clear.

I would therefore doubt JP2 had anything constructive to offer on the subject.

Clare, on what basis does JPII make these assertions? Also, the idea that the woman experiences her true climax through breastfeeding just sounds a bit too freudian and incestuous for my taste. It also seems to me that by de-emphasizing (or effective removing) the importance of the orgasm for a woman, that JPII is just reiterating a common, ancient, and profoundly wrong point of view regarding woman: that woman is somehow unerotic and that a woman should not seek sexual pleasure. I am sure that this is not JPII's intent, but it sure comes across that way.

Is my follow on post re: climax, in the transcendent sense of "completion" as apposed to the merely physical sense of "release of sensual tension" in stuck in the approval pipeline - Rod?

Clare Krishan: Sexuality without birth is no sexuality!

My aunt had six miscarriages and never had children of her own, much to her lifelong sorrow. If she were still alive, I'd tell her your definition of sexuality. It would have consoled her immensely, I'm sure.

But, Clare, my definition of climax is orgasm for the male and multiple orgasms for the female. If you think otherwise, you may be depriving yourself of the greatest bodily ecstasy the Good Lord granted us. You may doubt that or even consider it blasphemous, but what then would you say is the teleological function of the clitoris? If not pleasure, then is it not as useless as the vermiform appendix? And even if this "mere release of sexual tension" falls short of the transcendent spritual orgasm of Bernini's Estasi di Santa Teresa, how many of us mortals will share that bliss this side of the grave?

As a not entirely irrelevant obiter dictum may I opine that the Church will eventually change its "teaching" on human sexuality to acknowledge its material as well as spiritual elements. At present, the Holy See is mired in a quasi-Ptolemaic view of sexuality, a view which had baleful consequences for the Church's credibility when pontificating on the transcendent divine harmony of the cosmic spheres. Eppur si muove.

Clare, I think you are right about the ships in the night. You navigate the briny furrows of the purple main with an accurate chart, perched in the crow's nest of the Barque of Peter, undaunted in the face of roiling tempests, while I, cowering in an unseaworthy coracle, cast my old salt's seasoned eye upon the flotsam of fallen mankind, and hope for Him that trod upon the turbid tides and soothed the swollen seas.

Despite our different bearings, perhaps we seek the same haven. May She whose Dormition and Assumption we celebrate today and who dwells now in the Age to Come, see us both safely to that haven.

Clare: Sexuality without birth is no sexuality!

Thanks, Clare, I'll treasure that all through my menopause.

Heh...

Late to the game here, but...

Unrepentant, happily married contraceptive couple here.

Frankly, I loved my time on chemical BC. I loved the low flow 2.5-3 day periods, the lack of cramps, the freedom to participate in the public arena/outdoors activities w/o the hassles and restrictions imposed by 6 day periods, the ability to plan when we would have our three sons, the freedom to engage with the BH wholeheartedly and without fear, and also the freedom to develop my career without fear.

I hear a lot of talk about how the contraceptive mentality means that husbands and wives are not truly giving of themselves, that it means that couples "do not want ALL of one another." I can happily admit that...No, back in the uberfertile days, I did not in fact want ALL of my husband ALL the time. This has to do with the essentially onesided consequences of my Better Half giving me his ALL, a reality that invariably gets lost in the discussion.

So while I am all in favor of folks using whatever means best suit their beliefs and circumstances, please spare those of us who are going strong 30 years in...the bizarre and insulting charge that our "contraceptive mentality" has denied us true intimacy. Or at least acknowledge that the charge is an opinion, and not a fact.