Err... I can see why so many thread starters is a problem. :)

I'll address my views on the artificial contraception issue.

Your biblical references are surely good contemplating points, and I see what you mean by Onan (I am not an EXTREMELY knowledgable on the Bible, never mind the old testament).

I guess my feelings sprout out of people trying to make a religion as they see fit. Just a question (out of my low knowledge). Is it biblical that man differs from angels because of free choice?

Free choice would for me also imply that you have a say in whether you want a baby or not. You can't create the baby, but you could prevent it from happening.

I have a scenario. A married couple is too poor to afford to give a child a good rearing. Now they might be catholic, so now the abstain from having sex (or union) because they are afraid she might fall pregnant. Isn't abstaining from sex then also a sin? They are preventing having a baby, but their relationship struggles as a result. Choosing to wear a condom, or choosing (in this case) not to have sex, has the same result, except that using a condom doesn't damage the relationship (that God instated).

-Reenen

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), March 30, 2004

Answers

Send this thread to the “New Answers” section of the forum to invite further discussion by posting this comment.

-- The Bumper! (Bump@bumpitybump.bump), March 30, 2004.

Hi again Reenen,

I'm glad you started a new thread. Hopefully, we'll get someone more knowledgeable than me in on this stuff.

You said, I guess my feelings sprout out of people trying to make a religion as they see fit.

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I worry about some of the interpretations people come up with from Scripture. It seems that some people read God's Word after they've made up their minds and then try to justify their decision. Going in with this attitude, how can they really hear what God wants them to hear? The trick is to follow God's will, and not ours.

Is it biblical that man differs from angels because of free choice?

I'm not sure that Scripture gives that much detail on angels except that they are messengers and servants of God, and that the devil and his angels rebelled and were cast out of Heaven. Much of what I've heard on angels is speculation and not dogma. Either way, most theologians I've heard agree that angels do in fact have free will. It's just that their decision to serve God or rebel was final due to their spiritual nature, much like death of our bodies is final. Again, just speculation.

Free choice would for me also imply that you have a say in whether you want a baby or not. You can't create the baby, but you could prevent it from happening.

Yes, free will means we have a say in whether we commit sin or not. It also implies that we can choose to cooperate with His will or defy Him. The end does not justify the means. Assuming it is God's will that the couple should not conceive at this time, the means of not conceiving must also be in accordance with His will. One method prevents conception through manmade and artificial means and the other cooperates with natural law that God Himself created to avoid conception (assuming that it is for a good reason and in accordance with His will). If we are true followers of Christ then we want to choose God's will and God's methods, not ours. Choosing God's way is usually not the easiest path (see Mt 7:13-14).

I have a scenario. A married couple is too poor to afford to give a child a good rearing. Now they might be catholic, so now the abstain from having sex (or union) because they are afraid she might fall pregnant. Isn't abstaining from sex then also a sin? They are preventing having a baby, but their relationship struggles as a result. Choosing to wear a condom, or choosing (in this case) not to have sex, has the same result, except that using a condom doesn't damage the relationship (that God instated).

This is an excellent scenario Reenen since it is such a difficult situation for any loving couple to be in. The truth might be clearer if we used a rich couple who didn't want another baby because they wanted to buy a new car. Be that as it may, in the situation you describe the couple should indeed abstain. But God has provided an answer for this couple so they don't have to abstain for years. He made most women's cycles such that with some knowledge on temperature rises during fertile periods, the couple would only have to abstain for maybe a week at a time each month. The rest of the time they could have normal relations. But they would still be trusting in God.

If God were to bless them with a child, then he would surely provide them the means to raise their child. If we truly trust in Him, then we believe that by following His commandments that God will provide for our every need (see Lk 12:4-7 and Mt 10:29-31, also James 4:13- 17, Mt 6:24-34, and Mt 7:7-11). By living according to God's will that couple is testifying to the truth even though they may have to sacrifice more materially for their child.

I grew up in a family of eight. My father was laid off half the time. We never had much materially, but we had each other and we had Christ. We never went to bed hungry. We never went on vacations to exotic places like Disney World, but somehow, God always provided for our physical needs. And the spiritual blessings were even greater.

One problem with your scenario is that you assume that abstaining will hurt the couple's relationship and that a sterile sexual act will bless their relationship. Will their relationship struggle because they abstain for one week a month? Not if they trust in God. In fact, most couples that abstain periodically using natural Family Planning (NFP) find that when they come together that it helps them appreciate each other more and that their relationship is strengthened (Paul even allows for a married couple to abstain for a period of time to pray, but then exhorts them to come together after a time, see 1 Cor 7:5). Also, using a condom can hurt the couple's relationship by allowing the man to start to see his wife as a means of pleasure (like a prostitute) rather than his wife and mother of his children. The sexual union then becomes a sterile act like Onan's act and this is not what God intended. Is use of a condom really trusting in Divine Providence? Is the argument for using condoms based on trust in God? Is it based on a Biblical argument? Or is it worldly wisdom that promotes the use of condoms?

Just my humble opinion. Please don't take offense to my arguments. I am asking almost as many questions as I try to answer. I've struggled with this all myself, but have come to see the truth and wisdom of the Catholic Church's stance on this issue.

If you would like more info on Natural Family Planning go to www.ccli.org.

Some argue that abstaining is the same as artificial contraception because the intent is the same and the end is the same. There is a problem with this, however. First of all, whether one abstains, or whether one uses a condom, if the intent is to thwart God's will then both acts are sinful. But if a couple prayerfully and honestly determines that they should hold off on having children, they can do so, but it must be in accordance with God's will.

Let me give you an example. A person must lose weigth. They can either eat in moderation, abstaining from certain foods or they can put a tube in their stomach to catch all the food and remove it so they can have the pleasure of eating without any of the natural consequences of eating. Abstaining is simply not doing something we might otherwise do. It's avoidance rather than prevention. God made it a requirement for us to eat, but he never required us to eat as much as we could whenever we could. He built in natural abstinence from food as a means to control weight. But direct and artificial intervention to prevent a natural occurence for the sake of pleasure is not the same as abstaining. Artificial contraception is like sticking a tube down your stomach so you can have all the pleasure without any of the consquences of the act. Now, new life isn't nearly the same thing as a few added pounds, but the point is that there is a difference between abstaining at times and directly and artificially putting a barrier between the man and woman when they come together to renew their marriage vows. The sexual union is meant to be a consummation of marriage vows, a physical expression of love. Not a sterile act akin to mutual masturbation.

I don't know the answer to this, but is there anywhere in scripture where God tells someone that it is good that they use artificial means to prevent having children since food (or any other material need) might be scarce? If anything, scripture seems to go beyond what even I am saying here and stresses that children are blessings from God. God tells Abaraham his descendants will be numerous as the stars. He didn't tell Abraham to use animal intestines as condoms to hold off having kids until he owned a certain amount of sheep or land, or whatever else. God's message is to trust in Him alone, not ourselves.

Sorry for the long post. I hope I haven't bored you too much yet. May God bless you!

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 30, 2004.

I said, I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I worry about some of the interpretations people come up with from Scripture. It seems that some people read God's Word after they've made up their minds and then try to justify their decision. Going in with this attitude, how can they really hear what God wants them to hear? The trick is to follow God's will, and not ours.

Yes, I see the irony in that statement since I also quoted Scripture to support the Catholic view. Oh well. What's life without a little irony?

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 30, 2004.

You wrote: He made most women's cycles such that with some knowledge on temperature rises during fertile periods, the couple would only have to abstain for maybe a week at a time each month.

I just find it hard to believe that you think it is fine to start 'teasing' God by having sex only when you suppose you won't get pregnant, but using the pill is sin.

Yes, I see the irony in that statement since I also quoted Scripture to support the Catholic view. Oh well. What's life without a little irony?

*Big Smile*

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaure@sce.co.za), March 30, 2004.

-- off (onemore@onemore.time), March 30, 2004.

What's the difference between waiting for a woman to be naturally infertile and making this act infertile?

What's the difference between waiting for Grandma to die naturally and shooting her?

It's a world of difference. Just because the results are the same doesn't mean the act is the same.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), March 30, 2004.

"What's the difference between waiting for Grandma to die naturally and shooting her?"

But what about "unnaturally" prolonging life with machines? Especially when these machines are not universally available to every single human being?

(not the best argument to use in this case, imho)

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 30, 2004.

I think Dano had a good analogy GT.

If we want to try to keep his analogy with your example of prolonging grandma's life unnaturally, I think artificial insemination would be the closest analogy to it.

Maybe it is a poor analogy, but let me try:

In accordance with God's will, accepts God's will -> NFP -> waiting for Grandma to die naturally, trusting in God

Contrary to God's will, man is in charge -> artificial contraception - > shooting Grandma, not trusting God

Won't accept God's will -> artificial insemination -> unnaturally prolonging Grandma's life with machines, not trusting God

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 30, 2004.

Let me correct myself GT. I read your post again and I think you were implying machines that help save lives could be thought of as being "unnatural" though beneficial and certainly in accordance with God's will. The argument I think you were making is that these machines are not necessarily natural even though they do good. I took your point to the extreme and assumed you were talking about machines like a respirator that could be used to keep a body breathing even though the person is dead with no brain activity. In that case, the machines could be used incorrectly. A totally different scenario than what I now understand your post to mean.

Having said all that, I still think that Dano had a good analogy. IMHO, comparing machines that keep us alive to artificial contraceptive devices is not a good analogy because contraceptive devices are by their nature "anti-life". They destroy or inhibit life. The medical technology that keeps someone a live is being used to protect and aid life.

Please correct me if I still didn't get the point you were making. I apologize for my denseness. It's been a long day already.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 30, 2004.

Hi Andy,

You have my basic premise right. My point was that "science" can be used for good or evil. For example, I don't understand why the babies conceived/born out of wedlock are worth saving, but not the frozen babies (embryos) from IVF if the Church's position is that life is from the moment of conception. Sure, IVF is not "natural", nor is surrogate motherhood, but I don't know too many wives today who would be happy about the "handmaid" way of having children as was practiced in the Old Testament....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 31, 2004.

What I meant by teasing God is:

1. I don't want a child. 2. I want to have sex for 'unitive' or pleasure purposes. 3. Now I abstain from sex. (what does NFT stand for?) .1 Hoping that my odd's of having a baby is significantly less than it was before.

In a nutshell you are saying... "if You want to give me a kid... You've got to try a lot harder now!"

Scenario A) I don't get a baby, I am happy, but I trying to get the 'procreative' part of the sex out of the equation. If I use the pill/condom (I guess condom is closer to this analogy because no fertilized egg is 'flushed') I can just get the trying from a 60% likelyhood to a 99% likelyhood.

Scenario B) I do get a baby. One I didn't want. God knew that. In this scenario several things might happen depending on the strength of your relationship with God. If it is weak, most of the things happening would be negative.

But that is what I meant by teasing God.

(Starting another thread on Mary)

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), March 31, 2004.

Thanks for the clarifications GT and Reenen. I'll try to reply later if no one else does.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 31, 2004.

Reenen,

I suggest you read t his article written by Elizabeth Anscombe. She is a philosopher in the direct line of Wittgenstein, one of the most important philosophers in the 20th century. It is a very compelling defense of Catholic teaching re: contraception.

With respect to your scenario, though, she writes,

"contraceptive intercourse, though much less of a deviation, and though it may not at all involve physical deviant acts, yet does fall under the same condemnation. For in contraceptive intercourse you intend to perform a sexual act which, if it has a chance of being fertile, you render infertile. Qua your intentional action, then, what you do is something intrinsically unapt for generation and, that is why it does fall under that condemnation. There's all the world of difference between this and the use of the "rhythm" method. For you use the rhythm method not just by having intercourse now, but by not having it next week, say; and not having it next week isn't something that does something to today's intercourse to turn it into an infertile act; today's intercourse is an ordinary act of intercourse, an ordinary marriage act. It's only if, in getting married, you proposed (like the Manichaeans) to confine intercourse to infertile periods, that you'd be falsifying marriage and entering a mere concubinage."

Read the article. She has a lot more to say about the difference between NFP and contraception. It's a little complicated, but that's because the issue is complex; she grasps it beautifully.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), March 31, 2004.

GT,

There are two kind of abortifacent contraceptives that I know of: the "morning after" pill, and RU-486, "mephipristone."

"The Pill," as I understand it, is distinct from these, and is does not cause an abortion.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), March 31, 2004.

GT: With In Vitro Fertilization, the lab injects multiple female ova with multiple sperm and then sits back and observes the process, seeing WHICH sets of "specimens" divide and multiply past a certain point which would give the BEST chance of survival if then implanted in the uterus. Since the Church, indeed, considers that life begins with conception, EACH "specimen" with IVF is a human being..so one has a bunch of human beings in lab containers, being monitored to see which one will progress enough to PERHAPS make it from the lab and into the mother's womb. In a normal pregnancy, the ovum moves down into the fallopian tube, towards the uterus and if a sperm penetrates the ovum, life begins..the cell division begins immediately as the emerging embryo moves further and finds a place on the uterine wall. Scientists say that IVF is Ok since in nature, women often have fertilized ova which never implant in the uterus for one reason or another anyway. With IVF, you have guaranteed the death of several actually artificially conceived humans, since laboratory conditions cannot sustain ALL sperm/ova conceptions, nor the sucessful implantation of the ones which reach "optimum cellular division". Some people believe that since a human fertilized "egg" with a cell division of less than a given number is not a human being at all, they have no problem with IVF. The Catholic Church values all life and does not consider how many "cells" constitutes a human being.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 31, 2004.

I'm much too long winded today..! As far as the Church and the IVF frozen embryos, there continues to be debate as to the grave moral and theological issues involved since the Church does not take lightly at all the existance of thousands of these embryos. The Magisterium will indeed in its' God-given wisdom make the right decision.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 31, 2004.

anon,

It's a common misconception that the Pill just prevents ovulation. It in fact is designed to do this, but as a backup, it "can also prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus." This is the abortificent part of the Pill's work. I quoted this info from Planned Parenthood.

If you want the whole truth about the Pill, see Abortificent FAQS at Pharmacists for Life and Pro-Life OB/GYNs.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 31, 2004.

I understand your point clearly.

I think however that there are pills that use only one of the two active ingredients because some woman becomes nauseated by it.

It does seem to me that the debate has reached finer points on catholic teaching that I do not really care for. But I am glad to see that despite the hirachial nature of the church there are still some who evaluate what the church stands for before they blindly believe it.

-Reenen

-- Reenen Laurie (rlaurie@sce.co.za), April 01, 2004.

IMHO, "blind" faith can only take one so far. At least for me, learning and evaluating teachings helps me appreciate them more, and come to an even stronger faith. However, I have to be careful not to pick things apart too much, because God can't be explained away with reason. There's a lot of mystery there my feeble mind can't comprehend no matter how hard I try. The Trinity is one of those things, though I've come to a better understanding of it after struggling with the doctrine. At the very least, evaluating helps clear up misunderstandings I have.

I see a big difference between intellectual assent and real faith. I always strive for the gift of real faith, but struggling with teachings like Jacob did with the angel, seems to be a way for me to search for the truth and eventually find it (Mt 7:8)

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), April 01, 2004.

Andy,

That's an excellent way of putting it, and I completely agree. In fact, that's a matter that I think will be of particular interest to me when I study theology. Based on my encounters with thinkers like John Henry Newman, I would guess that you have touched on the Catholic epistemology. :)

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), April 01, 2004.

Another goofy Catholic topic. It is pretty simple folks so here it is:

NFP is hypocrtical. As all us 'guilt ridden' Catholics know, you don't even have to do the sin to be charged! You just have to "want to do it". Intent, right? So, if you use NFP to avoid having a pregnancy, it is exactly the same intent as using a contraceptive. Right? You may ask, "well then, you must use NFP with the desire to have a baby". Uh, then what is the point? Then just copulate any old time and let nature rip, right? The whole existence of NFP is to give guilty Catholics some kind of family planning that fits this crazy notion. If you are truly against ANY FORM of contraception, NFP is now different than the Pill. It is simple logic. You can't have it both ways.

And the whole pleasure thing- Of course I have sex to have pleasure- not to have more kids!!! Of course, guilt guilt Catholocism, no fun allowed LOL! Those nuns did a great job on me!! Product of 12 years of knuckle beating parochial schools!!! Yeah!

-- Bernard (hotrails@hotmail.com), April 04, 2004.

I will tell you about what true hypocrisy is. Calling sex a recreational activity and then condemning people who want to recreate but dont happen to be married (see all Protestant faiths). Somehow they believe that you put a gold ring on your finger and bam "let the games begin". I am a Protestant baptized and confirmed by the way.

I love the Catholic stance on everything because it does NOT have any hypocrisy. Now that being said, I will admit that many of Her parishoners are hypocrites. If NFP is followed as intended it is not hypocritical. If you have a serious reason not to produce a child it is allowed. I think many however have a real low threshold for "serious".

I just did my first confession (36 years worth) as I prepare to be confirmed at the Easter Vigil and have done my pennance. I didn't need to be Catholic to feel guilty but I do need Her to be absolved. If you feel guilt, Bernard I would tell you that you have missed the message of your Church as She is there to remove your guilt.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 04, 2004.

Bernard, please read the Anscombe article I linked to above--if it does not change your mind, it will at least show you that the issue is not as simple as you think it is.

Ignorance makes everything seem simple.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), April 05, 2004.