Catholic Church and Birth Control - Page 8

[Smokering]

Failure rates are not relevant to whether or not NFP is morally distinguishable from ABC. All forms of birth control (with the exception of hysterectomy, I guess) have some failure rates: it doesn't mean they're misusing the word "control", because we all know what the word means in context.

I have already stated that NFP is superior to IUDs because it cannot result in the rejection of a fertilized egg, superior to hormonal methods because it isn't forcing non-involved parties to be exposed to synthetic hormones, suprior to condoms because no chafing is involved and it is far more effective, superior to diaphrams and cervical cap because toxic spermicides aren't involved, and superior to sterilization because of so many things, the documented negative health effects, the many people with regrets, the nasty population control history, etc.

But this is not, to my knowledge, the Catholic position. The Pope didn't base Humanae Vitae around the principle that condoms chafe or that hormonal birth control leaches into the water supply. Those things may be true (in fact, I agree with most of the points you make), but they are irrelevant. The official Catholic line is that NFP is right and other forms of birth control are wrong because... well, the various reasons have been mentioned (and I think, refuted) in this thread. "Sex is unitive and procreative"; "ABC defiles the marriage bed"; etc.

I know all about formal logic, my brother gets paid big to teach it all day, they don't deal with issues like Birth Control routinely, and this isn't college, it is real life. You aren't the professor here.

Wow. I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Surely you agree formal logic is applicable in real life?

[dinahx]

But central to the CC position is that 'control' is a false bill of goods we are sold that changes 'pregnancies' into 'birth control failures', which, since one could reasonably have expectEd 'control' one is completely entitled to deal with by any means necessary. But that is essentially a pro life issue, which we are not allowed to get into here. I'm sire you are familar with that being the CC position, tho.

[Smokering]

I thought we were allowed to discuss abortion in RS if we trod carefully?

Anyway: again, your argument seems pyschologicaly dubious. Intelligent people, Catholic or otherwise, know that no form of birth control is 100% effective (except hysterectomy). It's generally written on the packet. Yes, "birth probability reduction" might be a more accurate term, but it is generally accepted that birth control is not an absolute guarantee.

Furthermore, it seems odd to suggest that the mere fact the words "control" or "failure" are used will cause people to have abortions. And if the mentality of control and failure are the issue, then that applies just as much to NFP. Catholics try to control their fertility with NFP, and it is doesn't work it's either a user or method failure. My Catholic SIL, who accidentally conceived her son with the Billings method, freely admits the method failed for her - it didn't mean she ran out to get an abortion. And there are many, MANY Christian and non-Christian couples who accept the failure of BC (NFP or another method) with good grace. And yes, they do use the word "pregnancy"...

So I think this is weasel wording again. Do some people have a cavalier attitude to the unborn, expressed by the use of abortifacient HBC and abortions should it fail? Yes. But that is not a necessary consequence of using birth control other than NFP; and using NFP does not, in and of itself, prevent that attitude (although obviously other Catholic teachings would prohibit having an abortion). It's a false dichotomy.

[anj_rn]

Originally Posted by Smokering

My position is that the Catholic position on birth control is logically (syllogistically, if you like) incoherent: that it relies on the clever use of weasel words, some dubious premises and drawing invalid distinctions to dissociate NFP from other forms of birth control. Now, I'm willing to be proven wrong on that: but that requires someone to argue the Catholic position (not just state it, not even just illustrate it with analogies) to demonstrate a truly valid distinction between NFP and other forms of birth control: one that makes it clear that one is permissible and the other evil. So far, nobody has offered such evidence.

I have to agree. I have yet to see an explanation of why NFP is permissable and all other forms of BC are not (with the exception of abortifacients).

In addition, if you are looking at a strictly biblical view NFP is the opposite of Old testament teachings (family purity, specifically abstaining from sexual encounters during a woman's monthly cycles and the 7 days following). Which if you count, puts the resuming of sexual encounters during a woman's ovulation.

The point I would like to address is why it is acceptable to abstain from sex (thus not being open to conception and choosing not to "be fruitful and multiply"). Also, since no form of abc is 100% effective, why it would not be permitted. For example, if a husband and wife would like to lengthen the time between children so choose to use condoms. Both of them are happy with condoms (no chafing, etc), and understand that they are not fool-proof. They have also agreed that if they were to conceive, they would be accept it as G-d's will and continue with the pregnancy. Are they not "open to conception"? I would argue that they are more open to procreation than those using NFP since they are more likely to conceive.

I would also like to point out that while all marriage relationships have "cycles." ALL forms of BC, including NFP, alter those cycles. In most relationships, those cycles center around a woman's libido, both hormanol BC and NFP alter those cycles without regard to the libido of the woman.

[dinahx]

It is a super stretch to say that NFP is capable of altering a woman's cycle, it's not.

Also it is a super stretch to assert that because some tiny subset of the population recognizes that 'Birth Control' is a misnomer, that it doesn't matter and doesn't advance the sales of said 'control' methods. What is that if not 'weasel wording'??? I regularly converse with fairly intelligent women, and the reaction is universally shock & awe when Depo, the Nuva Ring, or even Vasectomy fail to deliver on their promises or gasp, cause negative health effects.

Then there is the question of where you are putting your faith, I personally feel more in control putting my faith in God's design than putting my faith in any pill or device.

Just also pointing out that the Billing's method is not NFP, NFP is always Symptothermal. You don't have to agree with the pregnancy vs BC Failure argument, but you aren't going to demolish the CC's teachings on sexuality using logic on a mommyboard, so at this point, I don't see what the point is, unless perhaps one has a significant investment in Trojan or something.

[Smokering]

It is a super stretch to say that NFP is capable of altering a woman's cycle, it's not.

She wasn't referring to a woman's menstrual cycle, but to the cycles in a relationship - at least, that's how I read it.

Also it is a super stretch to assert that because some tiny subset of the population recognizes that 'Birth Control' is a misnomer, that it doesn't matter and doesn't advance the sales of said 'control' methods. What is that if not 'weasel wording'??? I regularly converse with fairly intelligent women, and the reaction is universally shock & awe when Depo, the Nuva Ring, or even Vasectomy fail to deliver on their promises or gasp, cause negative health effects.

OK, first: a "tiny subset" of the population? I think a sizeable majority know that BC has failure rates - most people know someone who's conceived a baby on one or more forms of BC. (I know of dozens, and it's not a subject I discuss frequently!)

And it's not hidden by the manufacturers - they are legally required to disclose on the packets that BC isn't 100% effective (I think the brand of condoms we use says, rather conservatively, that they "reduce the instances of pregnancy and transmission of STDs", or something).

As I have said before on this thread, "birth control" isn't the most accurate term, technically. "Birth probability reduction" (or actually, "conception probability reduction" or "implantation probability reduction", depending on the type of BC) would be more accurate. Then again, one could take the larger view and say that by and large, BC does control birth - just not eradicate it completely. "Control" is used in plenty of instances which don't imply complete, 100% success rates.

Does the sale of birth control promote the mentality that one can control birth? Well yes, obviously. To some extent, you can. Just as you can with NFP/FAM, which are also "marketed" on that basis. (NZ's Natural Fertility site's slogan is "Conception or Contraception - You Choose".) I don't see how, say, The Billings Method (the book), which spends chapters and chapters detailing how to time sex so as not to get pregnant, isn't marketing the idea of control. That's the point. People don't use NFP just for kicks: they use it to avoid getting pregnant (and sometimes to conceive, which is another form of controlling the reproductive process - and interestingly, one that some QFers find immoral).

Then there is the question of where you are putting your faith, I personally feel more in control putting my faith in God's design than putting my faith in any pill or device.

In... control? That's an interesting word to choose, given your argument.

I agree to some extent - the physiological and psychological effects of hormonal birth control can be horrible. Fertility is a complex system to mess around with. Barrier methods, on the other hand, have far fewer issues. And one can simultaneously put one's faith in God and birth control, for the record...

Just also pointing out that the Billing's method is not NFP, NFP is always Symptothermal.

Are you sure? My SIL uses the Billings method and calls it NFP; and the head of Natural Fertility NZ specified that FAM was sympto-thermal and NFP was typically Billings.

you aren't going to demolish the CC's teachings on sexuality using logic on a mommyboard, so at this point, I don't see what the point is

The point is to investigate the truth-claims the CC makes about birth control and to determine whether or not they are logical, Biblical and right. It probably won't cause the Pope any sleepless nights, no; but it might make someone on this board who has been guilted into not using BC rethink the arguments she has heard. Or it might not. Maybe someone will spot a flaw in my logic, convince me with argumentation that the Catholic position is correct and turn me into a member of Holy Mother Church. I don't know. I enjoy debating theology. You're free to walk away at any time if you don't.

I would argue that they are more open to procreation than those using NFP since they are more likely to conceive.

I'd say they are definitely more biologically open to procreation, but whether or not they are more mentally/spiritually open to it would depend on the individual couple.

I think, though, that the term "open to life" is also somewhat weaselly. It implies a binary - "closed to life" - which sounds like something nobody would want to be. But I don't think a couple who are really hoping not to get pregnant (say, a wife on chemotherapy, with the couple using FAM as well as condoms and spermicide in order to lessen their chances of conceiving) are necessarily in a spiritually worse place than a couple whose attitude is "Meh, we'd rather not get pregnant for another month, but whatever". You know? There are valid reasons for a woman to really, really not want to conceive and even to be devastated should she test positive. That's OK. What she does about the accidental pregnancy becomes a moral issue, but feeling "closed to life", as it were, before conception - really not wanting to be pregnant - isn't unholy or a sin. It's just how life is sometimes.

[dinahx]

The whole point is, the very idea that really really not wanting to get pregnant is somehow to be made comptible with night after night of unihibited sexual revelry is somewhat contradictory. Unless you somehow divorce sex from procreation, if your situation is really that serious, you may find yourself drawn to other pursuits during that time.

And yes I am totally sure regarding Billings vs. NFP. NFP as endorsed by the CC is and only is the Symptothermal method as described in the book 'The Art of Natural Family Planning'. Not being aware of that may account for some of the earlier confusion regarding the length of abstinence required. Relying only on CM is far more nebulous and subjective than using temperature and cervical position also.

And the package inserts on vaccinations clearly and explictly state their only partial effectiveness, but how many people operationally believe in 100% effectiveness there??? Plenty. What the package insert states and how people treat these technologies in real life is very different. I would venture to say a truly small percentage of people read those inserts, and an even smaller percentage regard the facts therein as anyting other than CYA lawyerese.

[Sk8ermaiden]

In our marriage prep, we were we taught that any of the methods of natural family planning (including Billings and Sympto-thermal) were acceptable (although we were definitely taught sympto-thermal was most accurate.) And this wasn't just the opinion of one couple or priest, it was the class that all engaged couples in the entire Houston-Galveston diocese are required to attend to marry in the church. Plus, a quick google finds Billings promoted by many, many Catholic sites, including many diocese websites. I do find it hard to believe that all of these sources are wrong.

And for the above post regarding NFP vs. FAM, NFP is any of the "natural methods (rhythm, sympto-thermal, billings, creighton) in which you abstain during your fertile period, while FAM utilizes a barrier method during your fertile period.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by dinahx

The whole point is, the very idea that really really not wanting to get pregnant is somehow to be made comptible with night after night of unihibited sexual revelry is somewhat contradictory. Unless you somehow divorce sex from procreation, if your situation is really that serious, you may find yourself drawn to other pursuits during that time.

Once again, there is the assumption that a couple using methods other than NFP are unrestrained lechers. A couple with terribly serious reasons for wanting to avoid pregnancy might, instead of enjoying this "uninhibited sexual revelry" every night, avoid sex during the fertile period and use a barrier method at other times, just to be cautious.

Really, I wonder if this subject can be argued in a purely logical way. I think this is more a clash of sexual mores or world views. The RCC takes a particular view of sex, marriage, and the human body, and these views are, IMO, the real basis for the attitude to contraception - as they probably are for other religions.
A faith can see sex within marriage as

• justified by childbearing
• not in need of justification, although childbearing is an added blessing
• valuable also for reasons other than childbearing
• valuable and good in and of itself
• sacred in and of itself
• profane but tolerated

and that view will certainly inform its stand on contraception.
That may be why so much of this discussion involves accusations, or at least insinuations, of sexual impropriety.

[Smokering]

unihibited sexual revelry

Again with the weasel words. How about a couple (a loving couple, if you like) who decide that, despite wanting to delay pregnancy for some serious reason, but (mutually!) find that the stress of that very reason leads them to seek the closeness and intimacy of sex; so occasionally, during the woman's fertile time, they (mindfully!) use condoms and spermicide. Is that such a difficult picture to envisage? Does that make them carnal bunnies?

I think the term NFP might be used in two ways: one to refer specifically to the Art of Natural Planning method, and the other as umbrella term for any form of FAM in which barrier methods or "alternative sexual expression" are not permitted during the fertile period. I can't imagine the CC would have any moral objection to the Billings method, just a practical one (and the method failure rate is only 1% "worse" than the Sympto-Thermal method). The book The Billings Method (lent to me by my Catholic SIL for reference when I wrote the FAM article) insinuated that temping was actually unreliable and caused more problems than it solved. I'm not convinced that's true, but SIL was (and, er, has a baby boy. Maybe she'll temp next time!). So even if the CC officially endorses one method, maybe the Billings is more regionally popular in NZ? That would explain the statement of the Natural Fertility lady (who was actually keen to distance their organisation from NFP, because they taught sympto-thermal only).

As for the percentage of people who don't know BC a) causes side effects and b) isn't 100% effective: well, I doubt either of us can produce hard data on it, but I think the number is higher than you do. The vaccine comparison isn't fair: known vaccine reactions are far more rare than known BC side effects, and there is far less stigma to a person saying "BC caused my weight gain/headaches/mood swings" than there is to saying "Vaccines caused my arthritis". I really find it hard to believe that a grown woman with female friends wouldn't have heard AT LEAST one story - and probably far more - of "I conceived Denny on the Pill", "I had to stop Depo-Provera because I gained so much weight" or "Did you hear about Ross and Rachel? The condom broke!" Plus, in the USA at least, there are powerful lobby groups disseminating the information that non-abstinence birth control isn't 100% effective. And isn't it taught in sex ed?

[xekomaya]

Smokering - If the argument you're looking for someone to make is really "NFP is morally superior to barrier methods for contraception", I'm not really sure it can be done. I mean, I think it can be done in a way, but religion aside, it is going to come down to your philosophical leanings. It all hinges on what you would accept for the REALLY big definitions required to formulate the argument. I don't think it is something that can be objectively said and be agreeable to all people.

I do think that there are demonstrable benefits, within the Catholic framework, and provided the couple SHOULD be contracepting. That makes it "better" for me, but I think you need more than that to make it a moral argument.

Other methods of ABC, however, are different. I think it would be much easier to make a logical argument against them and if that is what you want to see, I'd be happy to take a shot at it.

[moonshoes]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Again with the weasel words. How about a couple (a loving couple, if you like) who decide that, despite wanting to delay pregnancy for some serious reason, but (mutually!) find that the stress of that very reason leads them to seek the closeness and intimacy of sex; so occasionally, during the woman's fertile time, they (mindfully!) use condoms and spermicide. Is that such a difficult picture to envisage? Does that make them carnal bunnies?

?

No, it doesn't make them carnal bunnies. But it would make them unfaithful Catholics In other words, during those few days of her fertile period, abstaining from sex and using other forms of intimacy (of which there are many) would in some ways bring them closer, as they are mindful of God's love for them and their vocation of Holy Marriage - which as Catholics we regard as a sacred calling, just as some are called to the priesthood or religious life.

IN other words, for a Catholic, using condoms and spermicide is not an option. Therefore, we must choose among the many other options God has given us. In doing so, in being fully conscious and mindful of our obedience to God's will, our marriage will be that much stronger and holy.

(I just wanted to add, Smokering, that although I disagree with your positions, you always are respectful toward the Catholic mamas on this board and I deeply appreciate it.)

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by moonshoes

No, it doesn't make them carnal bunnies. But it would make them unfaithful Catholics In other words, during those few days of her fertile period, abstaining from sex and using other forms of intimacy (of which there are many) would in some ways bring them closer, as they are mindful of God's love for them and their vocation of Holy Marriage - which as Catholics we regard as a sacred calling, just as some are called to the priesthood or religious life.

IN other words, for a Catholic, using condoms and spermicide is not an option. Therefore, we must choose among the many other options God has given us. In doing so, in being fully conscious and mindful of our obedience to God's will, our marriage will be that much stronger and holy.

Practicing NFP, for a RC couple, might very well bring them closer if they share a common belief in its spiritual value. Just having a strong devotion to the same church would probably strengthen the marriage. For a non-RC couple, using NFP might have the opposite effect.

The problem is, no distinction is being made between practicing Roman Catholics who understand and accept their church's precepts and see value in living by them; and others who live by different precepts. There is no benefit to keeping a spiritual practice when you do not subscribe to the theology behind it.

To give a parallel, in my church married couples abstain on Wednesdays and Fridays. This is based on beliefs and practices specific to my church. I consider the practice spiritually valuable, uplifting, important, and sanctifying to the marriage. At the same time, I would never suggest that people of other denominations should all abstain on those days. There would be no benefit to it, without the underlying belief system. Much less would I suggest there is anything unseemly in these wanton couples who just go ahead and indulge in wild sex on Wednesdays, Fridays, any old time they please! Married couples sleeping together on Wednesdays is not inherently wrong or unspiritual, separated from a particular doctrinal framework. Similarly, NFP is more in keeping with RC beliefs and principles, but is not inherently more moral, spiritual, or unitive outside the context of that belief system.

[moonshoes]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

Practicing NFP, for a RC couple, might very well bring them closer if they share a common belief in its spiritual value. Just having a strong devotion to the same church would probably strengthen the marriage. For a non-RC couple, using NFP might have the opposite effect.

The problem is, no distinction is being made between practicing Roman Catholics who understand and accept their church's precepts and see value in living by them; and others who live by different precepts. There is no benefit to keeping a spiritual practice when you do not subscribe to the theology behind it.

.

Obviously. But isn't this thread about the Catholic Church and birth control? Personally, I feel that what is lost in back and forth of this thread is precisely the value and truth in the Church's teaching for Roman Catholics. When did anyone advocate this should be the basis of non-Catholics use or non-use of BC or NFP?

[anj_rn]

[QUOTE=dinahx;15050887]It is a super stretch to say that NFP is capable of altering a woman's cycle, it's not.

Then there is the question of where you are putting your faith, I personally feel more in control putting my faith in God's design than putting my faith in any pill or device.
QUOTE]

I was referring to the cycles in a woman's sexuality and desire for intimacy. Which is usually regulated by her hormones. My argument still stands that BOTH hormonal birth control and NFP put restrictions on her sexuality.

I do not think that you either have to put faith in ABC OR in G-d's design. I am not following the logic. If limiting conception means you are not putting your faith in God's design, then why would NFP be acceptable? It still is trying to limit conception.

[Smokering]

I think it would be much easier to make a logical argument against them and if that is what you want to see, I'd be happy to take a shot at it.

I'd be interested in this for a few forms of BC at least. I get the argument against HBC (abortifacients), and agree with it; but some of the arguments I've seen for barrier methods seem a lot more nebulous - for instance, using the unpleasantness/inconvenience of said methods in place of a moral argument. And I've never understood the reasoning behind the "sperm must only go in the vagina" argument which is used to prohibit condoms.

Obviously. But isn't this thread about the Catholic Church and birth control? Personally, I feel that what is lost in back and forth of this thread is precisely the value and truth in the Church's teaching for Roman Catholics. When did anyone advocate this should be the basis of non-Catholics use or non-use of BC or NFP?

Well, for a start it's the Catholic view that all non-Catholics should be Catholic, no? But more to the point, the teachings of the CC about contraception aren't closed-circuit. They imply moral failing on the part of those who believe/behave otherwise about birth control. Hence, what I see as weasel wording or demonisation of non-NFP forms of birth control and the people who use them. If, say, condom users are implied to be lechers who reject an important part of their spouse's humanity in order to satisfy their own lust and who would abort any baby conceived via condom failure - and even in this thread, it's clear some Catholics think that way, and it's used in numerous publications as a polemic device - then that doesn't affect just Catholic condom users, but non-Catholic ones. And those of us who do not feel that we are rejecting our spouses/pro-choice/trying to put one over on God because of our condom use are liable to say "Oi". It's easy in a subculture to attribute dubious psychological motives to people outside that subculture, but those who are familiar with the other culture may very well object. (This isn't just one-way, either. There are plenty of psychological reasons Protestants attribute to Catholics for venerating Mary, and I doubt they really reflect the attitude of the average Catholic. What matters is whether or not venerating Mary is right. You know?)

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by moonshoes

Obviously. But isn't this thread about the Catholic Church and birth control? Personally, I feel that what is lost in back and forth of this thread is precisely the value and truth in the Church's teaching for Roman Catholics. When did anyone advocate this should be the basis of non-Catholics use or non-use of BC or NFP?

When the discussion is about RC teachings on birth control and what kind is or is not allowed, yes. Even strong statements about ABC users being guilty of mortal sin still qualify as "in-house" discussion, and it would not be an outsider's place to contradict them.

However, when this expands to general statements that ABC use is more irresponsible or self-indulgent than NFP; when it is suggested that ABC users are less respectful of their wives or of women in general; that their marital intimacy is impeded and their sex life polluted; that they are "hard hearted" or trying to avoid life's natural consequences like someone who binges and purges; that the use of ABC devalues women and weakens the social fabric; then the discussion is not limited to Catholics, but takes in others as well.

(The odd thing is, I am not a big fan of the indiscriminate use of ABC, and agree with a lot that has been said here. Certain aspects of the discussion have me supporting the "other side" most of the time, though.)

If a married woman were exhausted and overwhelmed by the care of children she already had (or if another pregnancy would threaten her health, or some other dire reason), a non-RC husband who valued and respected his wife might well decide to arrange for a vasectomy, in an effort to protect her well-being and ease her burden. A devout RC might respond that the vasectomy was a nice thought, but definitely not permissible for people in his church. Fair enough. What would not, IMO, be fair would be to question the man's regard for his wife; to say that, if the man truly loved his wife, he would simply refuse to sleep with her.

[dinahx]

Or he would join her in charting her temperatures, observing her CM, and abstaining for as little as a week each month, preserving his fertility just in case she someday becomes less overwhelmed and someday strongly desires another child? And thus also avoids the whole family having to deal with the low level autoimmune disorder that Vasectomy is universally established to cause (the only thing that is debated is how debilitating this is or is not, not whether it happens). I feel like the ABC advocates on this thread are still painting a way too rosy picture of the reality of ABC.

[Smokering]

Sure he could, but why should he - morally speaking? The physical side effects aren't what are up for debate here.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by dinahx

Or he would join her in charting her temperatures, observing her CM, and abstaining for as little as a week each month, preserving his fertility just in case she someday becomes less overwhelmed and someday strongly desires another child? And thus also avoids the whole family having to deal with the low level autoimmune disorder that Vasectomy is universally established to cause (the only thing that is debated is how debilitating this is or is not, not whether it happens). I feel like the ABC advocates on this thread are still painting a way too rosy picture of the reality of ABC.

I was not saying ABC is healthy or not healthy, just responding to the insinuations that ABC has a negative effect on the marital relationship. My point was that one man's offer to have the vasectomy could be just as loving, respectful, selfless, humble, and considerate as another man's offer to help chart fertile periods. His marriage could be every bit as solid, his relationship with his wife just as affectionate. He might even know the risks of vasectomy, and accept them to help his wife.
As for painting too rosy a picture, we have to accept that there are some women for whom fertility has become nothing but a burden and a curse, and even a potential threat to their health.