Posted on 03/19/2007 5:46:55 AM PDT by markomalley
| The recent debate over contraception between Fr. Thomas Euteneuer of Human Life International and nationally syndicated talk-show host Sean Hannity has brought to center stage an issue which most Americans—and most Catholics—simply do not understand. Let’s review what’s wrong with contraception. The intrinsic moral issue of artificial contraception is a marriage issue. Contraception has little or no intrinsic moral relevance outside of marriage. This contributes to the difficulty our culture has in understanding the problem, because our culture doesn’t understand marriage either. After all, only about half of all couples are formally married. For this reason, it is perhaps best to start with what we might call the extrinsic moral issues associated with contraception, which apply to all sexual relations. The Consequences of Contraception
I am using the word “extrinsic” to apply to the consequences of contraception as opposed to its own essential moral character. Catholics are not consequentialists, and we don’t determine the morality of an act by attempting to foresee all its consequences. But we do determine the prudence of an act by assessing its potential consequences. For this reason, it is highly instructive to examine the extrinsic moral issues associated with contraception.
Even morally neutral acts can have good or bad consequences and should be selected or avoided accordingly. It is a morally neutral act, for example, to dam a river, but one wants to be pretty sure of the consequences before one builds the dam. So too, many moralists have argued (I believe correctly) that contraception is morally neutral in itself when considered outside of marriage. But contraception suppresses the natural outcome of sexual intercourse, and in so doing it has two immediate and devastating consequences.
First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. An action which, because of the possibility of conceiving a child, makes demands on the stability of the couple is stripped by contraception of its long-term meaning. The mutual commitment of a couple implied by the very nature of this intimate self-giving is now overshadowed by the fact that the most obvious (though not necessarily the most important) reason for that commitment has been eliminated. This clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.
Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness to pleasure. Naturally-speaking, the sexual act finds its full meaning in both emotional intimacy and the promise of offspring. For human persons, sex is clearly oriented toward love and the creation of new life. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of equal value. It is no surprise that pornography and homosexuality have mushroomed, while marriage has declined, since the rise of the “contraceptive mentality”. Abortion too has skyrocketed as a backup procedure based on the expectation that contracepton should render sex child-free. All of this, too, is psychologically, emotionally and physically damaging, as well as destructive of the social order. The Intrinsic Evil of Contraception Now all of these evil consequences apply both inside and outside of marriage. Within marriage, however, there is an intrinsic moral problem with contraception quite apart from its horrendous consequences. Outside of marriage, sexual relations are already disordered. They have no proper ends and so the frustration of these ends through contraception is intrinsically morally irrelevant. Outside of marriage, contraception is to be avoided for its consequences (consequences surely made worse by the difficulty of psychologically separating contraception from its marital meaning). But within marriage, the context changes and the act of contraception itself becomes intrinsically disordered.
Within the context of marriage, the purposes of sexual intercourse are unitive and procreative (as Pope Paul VI taught in his brilliant and prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae). It is worth remembering that there is no proper context for sexual intercourse apart from marriage; this is why it is impossible for human persons to psychologically separate contraception from the marital context. But the point here is that marriage has certain ends (the procreation of children, the stability of society, the mutual happiness of the couple, and their mutual sanctification) and so does sex within marriage. The purposes of the marital act are the procreation of children and the progressive unification of the spouses. These two purposes are intimately related, for it is through marriage that a man and a woman become “two in one flesh”, both through sexual relations and, literally, in their offspring.
It is intrinsically immoral to frustrate either of these purposes. Let me repeat this statement. It is immoral to choose deliberately to frustrate either the unitive or the procreative ends of marital intercourse. It is immoral to make of your spouse an object of your pleasure, to coerce your spouse, or to engage in sexual relations in a manner or under conditions which communicate callousness or contempt. These things frustrate the unitive purpose. It is also immoral to take deliberate steps to prevent an otherwise potentially fruitful coupling from bearing fruit. This frustrates the procreative purpose. Related Issues
Because it causes so much confusion, it is necessary to state that it is not intrinsically immoral to choose to engage in sexual relations with your spouse at times when these relations are not likely to be fruitful. The moral considerations which govern this decision revolve around the obligation married couples have to be genuinely open to children insofar as they can provide for their material well-being and proper formation. There is nothing in this question of timing that frustrates the purposes of a particular marriage act.
Statistically, couples who avoid contraception find that their marriages are strengthened, their happiness increased, and their health improved. Some of these considerations are topics for another day. But Fr. Euteneuer is clearly correct and Sean Hannity is clearly wrong. Contraception is a grave evil within marriage and has grave consequences not only within marriage but outside of marriage as well. Both individual couples and society as a whole will mature into deeper happiness by freeing themselves from the false promises of contraception, and from its moral lies. |
Or if the pregnancy, even without a threat to the mother's life, cannot end well for the child... as in the case of the mother with the incompetent cervix that Scotswife mentionned, or when one parent has a chromosomal translocation...tough.
I think the Church at least used to permit contraceptive pills to regulate women's irregular and unpredictable cycles - with the idea that a couple was entitled to predictability but should abstain at the times they would have if they were using NFP.... not sure that is still permitted.
Sometimes, the reasoning of the Church, as when it teaches that you may remove a tube with an ectopic pregnancy, but you may not remove the pregnancy from the tube, has me beating my head against the wall. I wonder, AFTER you have removed the tube, then can you remove the pregnancy from the tube, for the sake of science and advancing medical knowledge and seeing the baby and burying it?
It's late...
Mrs VS
Dear Scotswife,
"If it is bad to 'mutilate' your body to obstruct the natural gift of fertility....why isn't the Church opposed to stomach stapling for the same reason?"
Obesity is a disease. Pregnancy isn't.
Surgery to cure a disease, or to correct something that's not working properly in the body is surgery, is medicine. Surgery to remove or break something that is working properly is mutilation.
sitetest
That should really read:
"Obesity is a disease. Fertility isn't."
"But if it is the state of pregnancy itself that is dangerous - if pregnancy would overtax a weak heart or kidneys - if it would with a very high likelihood cause hyperemesis gravidarum or severe early preeclampsia - tough, suck it up, offer it up. You may not remove the potential of pregnancy for the purpose of removing its potential danger."
I hadn't seen put that way before - but you are right.
"suck it up" does appear to be the message.
And if I can go back to my stomach stapling question....people get their stomachs stapled even when the stomach is functioning pefectly normally - no disease - no abnormality.
"Sometimes, the reasoning of the Church, as when it teaches that you may remove a tube with an ectopic pregnancy, but you may not remove the pregnancy from the tube, has me beating my head against the wall. I wonder, AFTER you have removed the tube, then can you remove the pregnancy from the tube, for the sake of science and advancing medical knowledge and seeing the baby and burying it?"
That one always left me scratching my head as well.
It seemed to be a matter of semantics to say "we're removing the bulging tube" to make it sound like it's not aborting, even though the bulge in the tube IS the baby itself.
Removing the "bulging" tube, vs. chemically flushing the embryo through the tube are both done for the same reason and produce the same result.
The notion that one procedure is acceptable and the other is "evil" doesn't make sense.
"Obesity is a disease. Pregnancy isn't."
hmmmm...it is debatable as to whether obesity is a "disease" or not.
For some it is a metabolic condition that can be treated with drugs that address metabolism.
For others it is a hormonal problem that can be addressed by addressing hormonal therapy.
For some it is a fatigue problem that hinders the ability to exercise - so treatment is focused on addressing the fatigue.
But what does stomach stapling address?
It would appear for those who have a condition that causes them to overeat? emotional reasons - addictive reasons - uncontrollable cravings.
so - the stomach itself is healthy and functioning normally, but the stomach is "mutilated" in order to address non-stomach related issues.
pregnancy can lead to other health problems as well.
"CCL, nor no one I am aware of teaches that you wait 3 days after the temperature shift for dry up. The temperature shift is the indication of ovulation. After ovulation the life of the sperm does not matter since it has no ovum to fertilize. Ovum life span is 1 day. NFP adds a day to that for assurance. If you are drying up before the shift, you will be good to go as soon as the temp shift is complete. What system of NFP did you learn? How did you learn it?"
I was loaned a CCL book once, but I believe I read the 3 day rule in the "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" by Toni Weschler.
I think the rationale was that temp can drop as hormones attempt to bring on ovulation, but sometimes the threshold is not met (stress, illness) and ovulation is postponed.
So...the idea is that if temp holds the pattern after 3 days it is safe to assume ovulation has occured and the egg is dead and gone.
"How so? This life of sperm in mucus is scientifically proved and backed up"
You can tell me that over and over.
I've read it over and over.
I am of the opinion that it can live at least up to 7 days.
No scientific study except personal experience - 3 times over.
"Do you have many charts like this? I'd like to see them all if possible."
I did. I threw them out in a bit of a hissy fit.
They said the same thing....ovulation anwhere from day 12-14.
sex 7 days prior.
The bartholin cyst problem is likely a factor as well, which means brakes would have to put on except maybe for a week (if I'm lucky) after ovulation.
/s
Good grief, klossg - at least some women have cervical mucus for 8 days - I do. I've read what I consider to be reliable and informed testimony from women who had intercourse 7 days before ovulation and conceived. Maybe some men have long-lived sperm and if they marry women with long CM phases, presto.
Wikipedia's "Menstrual Cycle" entry has footnotes to 3 scientific papers saying sperm can live 8 days.
If you want to make real sure NFP doesn't lead to pregnancy, you have to skip the pre-ovulatory time altogether.
And what do you do when your body starts throwing out a double ovulation now and then?
From Wikipedia, Menstrual Cycle:
"Sperm survive inside a woman for 3 days on average, with survival time up to five days considered normal. A pregnancy resulting from sperm life of eight days has been documented.[7][8][9]
# ^ Ball M (1976). "A prospective field trial of the "ovulation method" of avoiding conception". Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 6 (2): 63-6. PMID 985763.
# ^ Dr Evelyn Billings & Ann Westmore (2005). Trials of The Billings Ovulation Method. Retrieved on 2005-11-03.
# ^ Sinha G, Sinha A (1993). "A field trial of Billings' ovulation method for spacing and limitation of birth". J Indian Med Assoc 91 (10): 255-6. PMID 8308307. "
Mrs VS
"From Wikipedia, Menstrual Cycle:
"Sperm survive inside a woman for 3 days on average, with survival time up to five days considered normal. A pregnancy resulting from sperm life of eight days has been documented.[7][8][9]
# ^ Ball M (1976). "A prospective field trial of the "ovulation method" of avoiding conception". Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 6 (2): 63-6. PMID 985763.
# ^ Dr Evelyn Billings & Ann Westmore (2005). Trials of The Billings Ovulation Method. Retrieved on 2005-11-03.
# ^ Sinha G, Sinha A (1993). "A field trial of Billings' ovulation method for spacing and limitation of birth". J Indian Med Assoc 91 (10): 255-6. PMID 8308307. "
So I might not be stupid or crazy! What a relief.
"Do you remember if there was mucus present the day you had sex 7 days prior and was it based on internal mucus observation? If so, CCL's rules say you are fertile, regardless, and in phase 2. I cannot say that for sure, because I haven't seen the charts"
Charts showed I could have up to 4 days cm prior to ovulation.
However...there was "other" mucous occasionally with bartholin cyst sometimes leaking, sometimes bursting.
The midwife didn't think this was "fertile" mucous, but I wonder.
So I wasn't charting cyst mucous, and I suppose it is possible there were times when I thought I was only dealing with they cyst but it could have masked some cm.
Does that make sense?
"And phase one sex should only be attempted during the menstrual period (or before day 6) "
Last pregnancy....sex on day 6, ovulation on day 13.
Hence...the hissy fit.
"I understand your frustration but please do not crush the system if you may have not been properly trained or informed."
I'm not sure if I was or wasn't.
I'm not trying to crush NFP for others, but I think what I'm trying to say is that - is it possible there is not a one size fits all solution for all couples?
"Since, this is impossible and unless you have conclusive evidence that it was the system itself that failed and not your use (say a CCL teacher (or equivalent) review of said charts), then please make less sweeping statements against NFP"
first of all...it's a discussion forum, and I can state whatever opinion I please.
second of all...which statements did I make that you consider "sweeping"?
Third...when someone like me reads statements about how NFP is darn near foolproof, is a wonderful loving bonding experience with the spouse...well I can consider those to be sweeping statements.
"I am not trying to talk you into anything like trying it again. No offense but I wouldn't use the NFP knowledge that you have demonstrated myself. If you do use NFP again, please take a class from CCL beforehand. This can be done on-line. Otherwise, do not use the same NFP system you used previously."
Well, it's pretty simple.
Clearly any sex from day 1 to ovulation is out.
Did you find something wrong with the information about waiting 3 days post ovulation to be safe?
Is there something wrong with the information that temp can be suppressed without ovulation actually occurring?
So, if I were to use NFP again then it's "no, no, no" week after week and then "quick hurry up -now!" one week out of the month if I'm lucky.
I'm sure I have personal growth to undergo, but right now this is not seeming very loving or a bonding experience.
"CCL, nor no one I am aware of teaches that you wait 3 days after the temperature shift for dry up"
From...Taking Charge of Your Fertility
Toni Weschler, MPH
"3. Temperature Shift Rule
You are safe the evening of the third consecutive day your temperature is above the coverline...." (p. 129)
from the glossary...
"coverline : A line used to help delineate pre- and postovulatory temperatures on a fertility chart."
"The way you have written it, the rule is a temperature only rule. Correct?"
yes.
" Maybe she suggests to combine this rule with one involving mucus? "
yes, and cervical observation as well.
She suggested combining all three to confirm each other as illness could skew temp readings - and some medicines can skew mucous readings.
"The assurance of temp and mucus for phase three transitions makes the Sympto-Thermal system 99% effective."
I know I know (sigh)
"And unless I have it wrong, which I might well be, you were talking about phase two issues ... 7 days or more before ovulation occurred."
That appears to be the case.
As I read more of what you post I'm wondering if part of the problem is with trying to distinguish one kind of mucous from another.
For ex...in the Weschler book she describes cervical mucous vs. glandular mucous and claims that when only glandular mucous is present you can consider yourself "dry"
She does recommend internal observation. (yuck...)
"And pre-ovulation phase two has nothing to do with temperature shifts, correct?"
correct.
I agree, one size cannot fit all because its obvious that each couple has a differing level of fertility and/or virility. That has been our experience too, so the question I have to answer is what to do about it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.