What bluff? They said they read your blog, didn't they?

Anyhoo, once the deleting/banning calms down, I would be interested to see if you have a response to my latest comment in the thread below. Before the most recent flame-burst it seemed like there was the possibilty of an actual discussion of the moral distinction, if any, between NFP and artificial contraception.
Josh | 04.13.06 - 6:19 pm | #

Why are they so angry?
Sex isn’t about pleasure, and it’s especially not about female pleasure. It’s strictly about baby-making,
I am honestly always baffled by the notion that open to life=not enjoying sex. Why do we keep producing kids then? Not to mention babies are also another side of "female pleasure" as well.
Pansy Moss | Homepage | 04.13.06 - 6:20 pm | #

Who's violently angry?

Sure, some of the more judgmental comments irritate me, and it scares me for the future of this country... but I can't say that it throws me into a blind rage where I want to go around slashing tires. No, I'm a little busy between law school and writing and figuring out summer jobs and a social life for all of that. Today I sat outside in the sun and read Con Law. Tomorrow I'm going to class and then getting a blow-out. I don't want to diminish your idea of yourself as some sort of public servant, but your blog isn't exactly quelling my otherwise violent behaviors.

If you're worried about "violent people," you may want to have a word or two with Operation Rescue and the blockers of abortion clinics whose work you think is so great.

And for the record, I don't think Amanda nor I think that you're a "14-foot-tall towheaded golem." We disagree with you. But I don't think that you're scary or evil or anything like that. I wish you wouldn't assert that your version of morality is the only one, and the level of judgmentalism here and the lack of connection with the lives of most women often makes me roll my eyes. But it's not hate, and it's certainly not fear.
Jill | Homepage | 04.13.06 - 6:45 pm | #

"I am honestly always baffled by the notion that open to life=not enjoying sex. Why do we keep producing kids then?"

Pansy-

That's not what I'm saying. Of course openness to life and great sex and coexist. I'm not trying to argue that NFP couples have bad sex, or that everyone who uses NFP is anti-sex. That's ridiculous. All I'm saying is that a worldview which says, "My very narrow way of having sex is the one and only moral way, and if you deviate from it you're wrong" is anti-sex.
Jill | Homepage | 04.13.06 - 6:47 pm | #

Jill, how can you be scared for the future of the US if morality is subjective? Without some kind of absolute standard, you have no cause for outrage of any sort. To assert any standard of morality with any sort of credibilty, one must believe that it is objective. Anything less is merely feel-good mush. Ms Eden, moreover, is far less judgemental than most feminists, and her posts do, believe it or not, have a lot to do with the lives of real women.
Luthien | 04.13.06 - 9:30 pm | #

Who said I have no absolute moral standards? Of course my morality has limits; every moral code does. Objecting to a particular standard for being too narrow doesn't mean that I think everything is subjective.
Jill | Homepage | 04.13.06 - 9:40 pm | #

Jill is right. Why in the world can't you folks live your lives the way you want to and leave it at that? Nobody's stopping you. I just don't want you to tell me how to live my life. I don't want to be told "You're wrong. Wrong!!" for having sex/using contraceptives/not going to church/being a feminist etc. ad nauseum as infinitum. I don't want to be told my marriage is meaningless and I don't love my husband if we use birth control. I don't want your arrogance foisted on me or anyone else.

I don't think it's too much to ask.
Norah | 04.13.06 - 10:19 pm | #

Google and Bear are the sweetest revenge!

Happy Easter--are you being received this Sunday?

You are in my prayers!
Jennifer | Homepage | 04.13.06 - 10:42 pm | #

Silly me--I just read the next post. You are! Alleluia! Welcome, welcome, welcome!

I'm so thrilled for you. And for us.

Praise God.
Jennifer | Homepage | 04.13.06 - 10:43 pm | #

I am honestly always baffled by the notion that open to life=not enjoying sex. Why do we keep producing kids then?

Because sex is a spiritual matter and has more profound implications than the emotions two people experience.

I just think it's ridiculous that to be against contraception is anti-sex. Believing in a restriction on how to do an action doesn't make you against that action. It just means that you think there are moral and immoral ways to do it. If anything, contraception distorts the sexual act, because we are naturally made to do it without pills, condoms or other contraceptive devices. Allowing for the natural consequences of sex-- which yes, sometimes produces a baby-- seems to me to pro-sex. It seems to me that contraception is the denial of the natural consequence of sex, one of the intended products-- babies. If I do the things to bake a cake and I'm mad that a cake is the result, isn't that a bit contradictory? Seems to me that would be anti-baking. More so than just allowing the natural consequence to happen.
SUZANNE | Homepage | 04.13.06 - 11:21 pm | #

Saying that contraception is immoral because it interrupts the natural progression of sex --> baby is like saying that running is immoral, because it interrupts the natural progression of cake --> saddlebags.

Being personally against contraception isn't anti-sex; it's having a personal opinion. Where you run aground, though, is when you start insisting that everyone be against contraception, that to be otherwise is wrong and bad and immoral, and even to go so far as to pass judgment on other people's love lives and marriages because of their choice to use contraception.

Remember that moral and immoral aren't the only options. There's also amoral which, contrary to popular belief, means nothing more than lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply. Contraception is only good or bad as it applies to an individual's unique situation; just because something works for you, is right for you, and enhances your life doesn't mean that it's the only way to be. And insisting that others are immoral, emotionally lacking, unnatural, or less than whole because their choice differs from yours is the kind of judgment that God tends to reserve for Himself.
ACG | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 12:14 am | #

I don't mean to derail the serious discussion, so edit me out if necessary, but I just can't get past the image of a "towheaded golem." I keep seeing a gigantic clay man wearing Michael Caine's wig from "Dressed to Kill."
Brett | 04.14.06 - 12:22 am | #

Saying that contraception is immoral because it interrupts the natural progression of sex --> baby is like saying that running is immoral, because it interrupts the natural progression of cake --> saddlebags.

I'm so glad you brought this up, ACG, because it gives me the opportunity to copy a relevant excerpt on that very sex/food analogy as it relates to contraception in an excellent essay by John Zmirak (emphasis mine):

Since 1930, the Church has expanded its understanding of when one may choose to postpone pregnancy. As Paul VI wrote in Humanae Vitae, and as the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church repeated, a couple may choose to delay or avoid pregnancy for "just reasons." That is, not for frivolous motives—but in accordance with prudence, which governs every other virtue, including generosity to the poor, and the proper times to preach the Gospel.

Good news: This means that most of the Catholics who choose to have smaller families are acting in accord with the Church's teaching—except when they use chemical or mechanical methods which change the nature of the sexual act. To utilitarian Americans, this seems like a pointless distinction: The end justifies the means. When we want to lose weight, we get liposuction. When we want the kids to sit still, we give them Ritalin. When we want more milk from a cow, we genetically engineer it using alien DNA from a grasshopper. Descartes taught us long ago that the point of science was to become the "master and possessor of nature." But the Church sees Creation as covered with big, greasy divine fingerprints, which we're not supposed to wipe away in our rage to tidy things up. And because sexuality is even more sacred than eating, we must treat it with more reverence than we do, say veal cattle. The best way to explain the Church's official theology is to compare spacing children to losing weight. You can achieve that through dieting—or you can try bulimia. If you think they're equivalent, you probably better go back to your gastroenterologist.

i'm afraid i still fail to understand the fundamental difference between fertility awareness/NFP and other methods of contraception. it is not a willfull ignorance, i promise: i honestly cannot understand why a child concieved accidentally through NFP is inevitably regarded as a 'blessing' while a child concieved accidentally when other means of contraception are used is inevitably a 'mistake', and i would welcome the further discussion of this point others on the previous thread have wished to have.

being a 'mistake' myself, and having a good friend whose good catholic mother told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was a 'mistake', and a deeply regretable one, it simply doesn't ring true for me that NFP is fundamentally different from other contraceptive methods - except, perhaps, that its track record as a contraceptive is not so great.

NFP/fertility awareness works wonderfully for some people, and that's great. cutting back on sodas and snacks helps some people lose those few pounds they've been wanting to lose, and that's great too.

some women have irregular cycles, and all the charts and thermometers in the world (and all the self-discipline to avoid sex on the fertile days) won't make NFP work for them. (thanks to Exciting Endocrine Issues, i am one myself). some people have underlying medical issues (thyroid problems, what have you) that mean dieting alone won't help them lose weight, and so they look for other methods - dieticians and exercise programs, pharmaceuticals, surgery.

is a person who loses weight through diet alone somehow more virtuous than a person who loses weight through diet and exercise, or who loses weight after regulating a wacky thyroid or off-kilter blood sugar, or who loses weight after a gastric bypass? are they somehow less fulfilled? is the result any less valid?
kidlacan | 04.14.06 - 1:08 am | #

(reading prior comments . . . thinking, what the hell did I wander into here?)

OK, I'm just popping in from the link at Happy Catholic. Been here before, but haven't posted before (I don't think). And although there is WAY too much that could be said in response, I don't have the time, and you all wouldn't read it anyway. Besides, I'm sure whatever meager comments I might make have already been said before a thousand times. Nevertheless, on the odd chance that they have not been --

Josh asks about "the moral distinction, if any, between NFP and artificial contraception." Well, if NFP is used with a contraceptive mentality, then no, there is no moral distinction -- they are both a corruption and distortion of human sexuality. Contraception, whether physical or mental, is a barrier between a man and woman -- literally. Such a barrier obviously prevents a man and woman from becoming "one." Indeed, it prevents any real or authentic intimacy at all. Contraception presents both a wall -- of rubber, chemicals, or otherwise -- and a withholding of a part of yourself from the other.

Because of this barrier and this withholding of self, sex is no longer an act of mutual giving, that is, an act of love. Instead, it becomes an act of taking; an act of exploiting; an act of using the other as an object, as a sex toy. By this use of contraception, couples no longer see each other as a subject or even a person -- they see the other as object, a thing. Nothing much more than a flesh and blood blow-up toy or vibrator.

It is this objectification of the human person that is the real evil of contraception. It is the central evil because human beings are not things, they are not toys to be used and exploited by others and then tossed aside. Even if putatively "consensual," it is still by its very nature exploitive.

On the other hand, when a couple is non-contracepting, there is the possibility in sex of mutual giving of self -- total and complete giving of self, no matter what. It is a giving that is truly and completely intimate, open to the all natural possibilities that flow from sexuality. It holds nothing back, and it respects the other as a subject and as a person. And that leads to a greater pleasure than can be imagined.

I do think, however, that before opposing the anti-contraception position, it behooves such person to actually learn what that position is, and why it is. Speaking from a Catholic point-of-view, it has always amazed me that nearly all of the people that reject Humanae Vitae have never read the thing! They oppose it in complete ignorance. But before you all reject it, and have your little condom parties, thinking that a balloon on the wang is the path to happiness, perhaps you might read such a document. Or better yet, go read Karol Wojtyla's "Love and Responsibility," which gets pretty hot and heavy with the sex talk.

Sorry about the length here, didn't mean to go this long (there's a joke in there somewhere, but I'm not going there). But anyway, that's my 22 cents on the matter.
Bender | 04.14.06 - 1:25 am | #

In their minds, I appear to be a 14-foot-tall towheaded golem...

You nailed it, Susan B.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 2:13 am | #

I believe Dawn has linked this before, but if not, here's a very good explanation of the Catholic view of contraception:

http://www.catholiceducation.org...ity/ se0002.html
meep | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 8:05 am | #

If anything, contraception distorts the sexual act, because we are naturally made to do it without pills, condoms or other contraceptive devices.

If I do the things to bake a cake and I'm mad that a cake is the result, isn't that a bit contradictory?

Seems to me that would be anti-baking. More so than just allowing the natural consequence to happen.

Because of this barrier and this withholding of self, sex is no longer an act of mutual giving, that is, an act of love. Instead, it becomes an act of taking; an act of exploiting; an act of using the other as an object, as a sex toy. By this use of contraception, couples no longer see each other as a subject or even a person -- they see the other as object, a thing. Nothing much more than a flesh and blood blow-up toy or vibrator.


Speak for yourself, please.
Norah | 04.14.06 - 8:15 am | #

But the Church sees Creation as covered with big, greasy divine fingerprints, which we're not supposed to wipe away in our rage to tidy things up.

The best way to explain the Church's official theology is to compare spacing children to losing weight. You can achieve that through dieting-or you can try bulimia. If you think they're equivalent, you probably better go back to your gastroenterologist.

Oops, I should have identified who I was quoting in the last post. That was ELIZABETH and Dawn Eden

kidlacan wrote:

NFP/fertility awareness works wonderfully for some people, and that's great. cutting back on sodas and snacks helps some people lose those few pounds they've been wanting to lose, and that's great too.

But it's not hate, and it's certainly not fear.

I'll read the rest of the comments later, but on reading that one sublime sentence, I just had to skip down here immediately to ask that the word "homophobia" be retired permanently from intelligent discourse. And maybe while we're at it we could cut Christians/conservative talk radio some slack and stop lumping it all together as "hate speech."
saintkansas | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 8:23 am | #

Bender wrote:

By this use of contraception, couples no longer see each other as a subject or even a person -- they see the other as object, a thing. Nothing much more than a flesh and blood blow-up toy or vibrator.

Dawn, that physical description of you sounds a lot like James Arness. If so then my compliments to your photographer for the life like head shots you recently showed.
PS: Please stay away from Antarctica till the confusion is cleared up. It could be very dangerous.
Pat Patterson | 04.14.06 - 9:00 am | #

//Because of this barrier and this withholding of self, sex is no longer an act of mutual giving, that is, an act of love. Instead, it becomes an act of taking; an act of exploiting; an act of using the other as an object, as a sex toy. By this use of contraception, couples no longer see each other as a subject or even a person -- they see the other as object, a thing. Nothing much more than a flesh and blood blow-up toy or vibrator.//

This is a judgement no one can make.

No one person can know the depth of the love between other people. The form of birth control a couple uses is certainly no indicator. There are NFPing couples who use and/or manipulate each other in many ways, who are unkind to each other, and even who are unfaithful to each other. That they use NFP does not necessarily make their sexual encounters any richer, deeper or more giving of self than those of a couple using a barrier method or a hormonal method.

If you're going to go around claiming that people you don't know are using each other like sex toys, no one is going to respect your position. If this kind of claim is the culmination of all this Church teaching you want everyone to follow, why would anyone even be interested?
Nina | 04.14.06 - 9:13 am | #

Nina:

Clearly, the only reason to even be interested in all this Church teaching is if it were true.

How can such a claim be true? Well, it can be true by the very nature of the act. If the act has a "very nature," then that very nature does not change simply because of what people say or think about the act.

Now, you may disagree with the whole concept of acts having natures, but the idea that acts do have natures is hardly so outrageous as to drive all clear-thinking people away. In fact, it's pretty close to a tautology.

More likely -- and, in this case, certainly -- you may disagree with what is being proposed as the very nature of this particular act. Which is fine, in the context of a debate, but even if you were right, that would merely mean that the other side would be wrong, not that they would be making an a priori impossible judgment.
Tom | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 10:13 am | #

Dawn, the passage you quoted doesn't address my comment at all. Spacing children : dieting :: abortion (having and then purging) : bulimia. We're not debating the merits of having children/not having children/spacing children out; we're debating the fact that you seem to feel that (a) only a couple who are actively seeking children can be a happy couple and (b) a couple avoiding such for whatever reason is wrong, bad, and unloving.

But the fact that you saw a likeness between bulimia and contraception shows that you're unwilling (not unable; unwilling) to accept the existence of contraception as an amoral, not immoral, entity. A comparison of amoral entities would compare contraception to eating healthy and exercising, in which you do what's natural and good for your body while also taking extra steps to avoid gaining weight. The fact that I'm going for a run this evening doesn't make my lunch any less enjoyable or valid, and the fact that it helps me avoid the natural consequence of obesity doesn't make running any less moral.
ACG | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 11:42 am | #

Just to correct what somebody said above about fertility awareness: NFP can be used by any woman at any stage of her reproductive life. This includes women with irregular cycles from PCOS, breastfeeding moms who haven't begun to cycle yet, premenopausal women, etc. It's a myth that it can only be used by women with cycle regularity. I know this from experience, as I teach fertility awareness.
Mary Russell | 04.14.06 - 11:49 am | #

Now, you may disagree with the whole concept of acts having natures, but the idea that acts do have natures is hardly so outrageous as to drive all clear-thinking people away. In fact, it's pretty close to a tautology.

Well, that's an interesting assumption to work from.

Human sexuality, for example, is peculiarly different from that of most of the other mammals. For a start, women are sexually receptive for their entire cycle. For another, men do not rely on pheremone or other chemical triggers before becoming aroused. And, extremely significantly, unlike just about every other single mammal on the face of the planet, women display no cue to show when they are fertile.

If you attempt a deontological stance, a brief examination shows that human sexuality has seperated from the reproductive function in the same way that the use of the human arm has seperated from brachiating, swinging on trees.

Which, if you're religious, suggests that God designed people to have lots and lots of sex without babies. Which would make using contraception in line with his obvious intentions.
Phlebas | 04.14.06 - 11:55 am | #

andrew wade:

there is only one immoral beverage choice - moxie. that stuff is awful. tastes like melted necco wafers mixed with pine tar. diet soda is a-okay in my book.


meep:

i have read that article, and many like it. unfortunately, it seems to be little more than generalised conjecture, bolstered with a bit of fuzzy 'correlation = causation' thinking, concluding in a warm and sweet and entirely groundless 'but BABIES will make you HAPPY!' sentiment.

tom:

even if you were right, that would merely mean that the other side would be wrong, not that they would be making an a priori impossible judgment.

am i wrong in thinking that the anti-contraception camp believes that their position is truly unassailable, that they claim to know the only truth for all humanity? because it reads that way, and that certainly seems an 'impossible judgement' to me. why is so little credence given to the many who claim to use contraception with no ill effects - and often, with positive effects?
kidlacan | 04.14.06 - 11:59 am | #

mary russell:

all i know is that i've studied fertility awareness - not as a contraceptive, just to learn more about my body - and for me, it simply does not work. my cycles are extremely irregular, thanks in part to a medication i took for an unrelated condition which messed with my hormone levels.

it may be possible for some women with irregular cycles or health issues to use NFP/FAM as a part of their contraceptive plans, but i certainly don't see how it could be trusted as reliable under those circumstances, and used as the sole means of contraception.

if you have resources which indicate otherwise, i'd be interested to see them, but i personally know a few kids who are around because somebody practicing NFP 'threw off an egg late', and i certainly don't see how NFP could work for someone like me, who might have a period three times in one month, then have no periods for three months, with unreadable signs of ovulation throughout.

it also should be considered that some women with PCOS and other hormonal conditions take hormonal birth control to preserve their future fertility, and to control other unpleasant side effects of screwy hormones like sprouting moustaches, glucose intolerance, and nasty mood swings. NFP can't be used in conjunction with hormonal therapies, can it?
kidlacan | 04.14.06 - 12:10 pm | #

ACG, when you say,

"But the fact that you saw a likeness between bulimia and contraception shows that you're unwilling (not unable; unwilling) to accept the existence of contraception as an amoral, not immoral, entity,"

you are merely saying that she thinks contraception wrong. Just like your metaphor,

"A comparison of amoral entities would compare contraception to eating healthy and exercising, in which you do what's natural and good for your body while also taking extra steps to avoid gaining weight."

shows that you're unwilling (not unable; unwilling) to accept the existence of contraception as an immoral, not amoral, activity.

What on earth is so shocking about people comparing things to things they find like it, in their own judgment?
Mary | 04.14.06 - 12:24 pm | #

Hormonal contraception does not preserve future fertility in women with PCOS.
Yes, NFP can be used in conjunction with hormonal treatments.
Yes, NFP can be used reliably by women with PCOS.
There are other treatments out there for the androgenic effects of PCOS (spironolactone, for example) besides OCPs.
I really don't have time to do your research for you regarding the effectiveness of NFP in women with irregular cycles- but you might check out the metaanalysis of the Creighton Model published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine for 1998, as well as the multiple studies out there on the Billings Method.
Keep in mind that NFP is far more effective when you are working with an instructor to help you interpret your cycles; it is really not meant to be a self-taught form of family planning, alas.
Finally, regarding the few kids out there who are a result of NFP "accidents", so to speak- there are really far, far more pill babies- because women skip pills, because the pills don't work, because women don't like the side effects and stop taking them. No method of family planning is completely reliable, including surgical sterilization. NFP has been proven to be comparably reliable to hormonal contraceptives, however, and can be used- truly- by anybody.
Mary Russell | 04.14.06 - 12:25 pm | #

let's try this again

why is so little credence given to the many who claim to use contraception with no ill effects - and often, with positive effects?

Do you think that everyone who claims to do something with no ill effects - and often, with positive effects -- must be given credence about the moral evaluation of it?
Mary | 04.14.06 - 12:27 pm | #

Mary - that word, judgment, is the kicker. You're applying a morality level to an entity that doesn't need it, and then using that to pass judgment on an entire group of people (users of contraception) and declaring their very marriages invalid. You're saying, in so many words, that because of one choice to which you, personally, object, a married couple cannot possibly truly love each other and that any love they do have is ultimately shallow an unsatisfying, because they make a choice with which you disagree.

You have no way of knowing that what you say is true, that a marriage with contraception is, in fact, less fulfilling than one with; you make the judgment based on a single, arbitrary aspect of their marriage. It's like saying that painting your bedroom taupe shows a lack of love for your husband, because it means you don't respect his masculinity with proper oak paneling, and thus taupe is immoral. Your only evidence of the supposed immorality of contraception comes from completely unsubstantiated - and unsubstantiatable - claims and a whole lot of self-contradiction.

You can feel free to not use contraception and to think that it's the work of the Devil himself. What you can't do is insist that other women do the same, or pass judgment on them for doing so, when the only evidence of its immorality is your own spurious claims. Why is it not enough for you to just not use contraception and leave other women to do what's right for them and their marriages? And "because wrong is wrong" isn't an acceptable answer until you can come up with evidence of its wrongness.
ACG | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 12:38 pm | #

Ah, yes, the old "it can be a great belief for you, but don't try to push it onto me" defense. It's a great fallback argument. It reminds my of "that's just YOUR opinion" that I used to say when I was younger and had nothing left.

You're saying, in so many words, that because of one choice to which you, personally, object, a married couple cannot possibly truly love each other and that any love they do have is ultimately shallow an unsatisfying, because they make a choice with which you disagree.

It depends on what your view of "satisfying" is, I suppose. Such a couple may not realize that there is a much deeper and more satisfying love.

Equating sexual behavior with choice of bedroom decor is a red herring, at best. The sexual embrace, being at the center of the marital relationship, most certainly holds moral value. Paint color does not (except maybe goldenrod). You are also starting with the premise that tenets of faith need to be empirically proven, on your grounds, before moral arguments can be derived from them. This gets down to the very nature of faith, and probably requires a completely different discussion.

Saying a couple can be open to children throughout the course of their marriage without every sexual act being fertile (at least having the possibility of conception) is like saying that you can be faithful to your spouse throughout the course of your marriage without every sexual act needing to be with him or her.
Andy | 04.14.06 - 1:20 pm | #

Uh, ignore the italics after the first paragraph of them. Apparently I know less about inserting them than I thought.

[I corrected it. You've got to put a backslash before the i to close the italics, e.g. (/i) but with carets instead of parethentheses - Ed.]
Andy | 04.14.06 - 1:21 pm | #

These ladies doth protest too much methinks.
Bender | 04.14.06 - 1:38 pm | #

Part of the problem with the evidence is that most people simply dismiss what evidence there is to be had. If someone comes out and says "I used to do it one way, found that it was damaging to me spiritually, and converted," the rejoinder is that it's all well and good for that person, but who's to say that such benefits are universal?

Well, how many of those stories does one need? If "Well, I'm contracepting and I'm just fine" is evidence, why isn't "I contracepted and suffered greatly" ?

"Well, isn't that what pro-lifers do? We say we're fine and they still insist we're wrong!"

No doubt, some do. Others will continue the conversation more sensibly.

"Some people have to contracept for good reasons - don't judge them."

That's not what's going on here - at least, not if we on the pro-life side are careful about what we mean. No-one can judge a soul's destination and there are clear warnings about it. But in order to care for ourselves sensibly, we have to make judgements all day long about innumerable things, from "It's safe to cross the street now" to "Those socks do NOT go with that shirt!"

If you saw someone badly dressed you may speak up, but with both people knowing full well that judgement can hardly be universal on such a light matter. Most people won't say anything at all unless they know the bad dresser. But few if any would stand idle if they saw total strangers darting into heavy traffic. One only hopes he's fortunate enough to make it to the other side and catch an earful.

In talking about NFP, all the Church (or any of us) can do is say "These are the guidelines, this is what the Church has discerned as right and wrong regarding these matters." For a good many people, that's usually enough to make the choice simple. Most people stick to the sidewalk, after all. But what if the sidewalk isn't safe? What if there's a stretch of road with no sidewalk? One may actually have a good reason for having to risk the traffic. But that still doesn't make traffic any less dangerous.

That's where "Don't judge" cuts both ways. There's no way of knowing where some of the people in hard cases are coming from. It's irresponsible not to offer something to the majority just because it doesn't apply to a few. So why do those in the hard cases feel compelled to say that the majority can't benefit from an example that doesn't personally apply to them?

Many of the protestors above are going out of their way to say "If it works for you, fine, but don't tell me what to do." And some are going further and saying, "If it works for you, fine, but don't tell ANYONE ELSE."

Well, that sounds awfully familiar. If one can reasonably protest the statement We don't care what you say about your own lives, don't contracept then one can equally protest We don't care what you say about your own lives, don't witness. It's the same intolerance, only this time it's from those who blithely assume that their difficulties are the universal principal.
Nightfly | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 1:45 pm | #

Or, I could have just seconded what Andy said - simpler is better, no? Wish I'd refreshed before I posted.
Nightfly | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 1:50 pm | #

nightfly:

only if you consider 'disagreement' to be 'intolerance', and if you consider 'witnessing' to be equivalent to 'forcible conversion'. repeatedly telling people that their lives are empty, that they are less than human, that they can never know true love or that they're going to hell tends to come off a bit 'intolerant'.

one doesn't need to wholeheartedly accept the absolute truth of another's philosophy in order to respect that philosophy. to extend your analogy: if supporting the right of people to use contraception if they wish is 'intolerant', isn't allowing people to practice faiths other than christianity, or no faith at all, also 'intolerant'? does it oppress christians to acknowlege the existence of non-christians? why, then, does it oppress supporters of NFP to accept that some people may choose differently?

perhaps those of us who find contraceptive use to improve our lives, and who are not rendered empty soulless husks by its use, might be granted a little tolerance too?
kidlacan | 04.14.06 - 2:19 pm | #

Finally, regarding the few kids out there who are a result of NFP "accidents", so to speak- there are really far, far more pill babies- because women skip pills, because the pills don't work, because women don't like the side effects and stop taking them.

Mary R., while there are more pill babies than NFP babies, the pill babies are far more likely to be aborted. From the Planned Parenthood-sponsored Alan Guttmacher Institute:

Of the contraceptive users, 58% ended their pregnancies by abortion, compared with 49% of nonusers who had accidental pregnancies. (When the estimated number of unintended pregnancies that ended in miscarriage is included, the percentage of women who were using a method remains at 53%, but among contraceptive users, we estimate that 51% had abortions, 37% had births and 12% had miscarriages; among nonusers, we estimate that 43% had abortions, 44% had births and 13% had miscarriages.) Thus, contraceptive users appear to have been more motivated to prevent births than were nonusers, although many nonusers did have abortions.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 2:23 pm | #

mary:

it is difficult for me to answer; i do not share your moral framework. and this is the problem, really: we may as well be a PETA activist and a butcher arguing over the morality of eating meat. why is it so unacceptable to agree that people freely choose, based on personal experience and personal belief, whether or not to buy a steak?
kidlacan | 04.14.06 - 2:30 pm | #

Such a couple may not realize that there is a much deeper and more satisfying love.

I've had married sex with contraception; I've had married sex without. I've had unmarried sex of both kinds. You know what? No spiritual difference. You guys think there is one; that's fine. But I don't, and there are some mighty judgemental and arrogant people here for telling me I have a loveless marriage and see my spouse as a sex toy because we have used contraception.


(And that's the correct way to say it, Dawn. "Contracepting" is not a word, much less a verb.)
Norah | 04.14.06 - 2:54 pm | #

am i wrong in thinking that the anti-contraception camp believes that their position is truly unassailable, that they claim to know the only truth for all humanity? because it reads that way, and that certainly seems an 'impossible judgement' to me.

What do you mean by "impossible judgment"? If you mean that every "claim to know the only truth for all humanity" is necessarily false, I think that can be shown to be wrong by example (though I couldn't say offhand which examples you'd be likely to accept).

If, though, you merely mean that this particular "claim to know the only truth for all humanity" is false, and can be shown to be false, then as I suggested I think it would make more sense to say it is "wrong," rather than "impossible."
Tom | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 2:57 pm | #

Do you mean that I'm contracepting the English language, Norah? :^)

I'll stop using "contracept" as a verb when feminists stop using "woman" as an adjective. ("Woman lawyer," "woman police officer," etc.) It shows an abhorrence of the word "female." One doesn't hear "man nurse," "man secretary," etc.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 2:58 pm | #

Uh, I said what I mean, Dawn.
Norah | 04.14.06 - 2:59 pm | #

Well, I don't usually have as much time and patience for endless blog perusal, as does my fiance Andy, commenting above (of inability-with-HTML fame). But as he made a point of pointing this post out to me, and as Mary Russell, also commenting above, is our NFP instructor, I suppose I should weigh in.

The main thing I wanted to say is that NFP is a good system PRECISELY because the motivations of people using it are different from people using artificial contraception.

Andy and I are getting married 8 weeks from tomorrow (yay). We both plan on having kids, and, well, since we're getting married, we're pretty much expecting that we'll have them together (I think we can safely cross "virgin birth" off the list of possibilities). Already we differ from people who don't want kids at all, or do not want to have them with a person with whom they are nonetheless sleeping.

In my perfect imaginings, Andy and I will start having kids in a year or two, once our marriage relationship is firmly established, and we may have the financial means to live somewhere other than a one-bedroom apartment. Andy and I think these reasons are serious enough to make an effort to avoid pregnancy for the time being.

The hope that our future children will greatly benefit from our waiting period and also the realization that waiting is going to cause us to make a conscious and significant sacrifice in our sex life is enough to make me believe we are justified in what we do.

Mary Russell has been a great teacher so far, and since I seem pretty average in the world of fertility monitoring, I am very confident that the system will work so long as there aren't any errors on my part or Andy's.

However, should it not work out, and I get pregnant "ahead of schedule," I wouldn't really care that much. Sure, it would be a challenge, but we would be secure in the knowledge that God specifically intended for us to have a child at that time. So it really wouldn't be that big of a deal. And this line of thinking sets us apart from other people who might use artificial contraception.

Also, on a different but related topic, I fully intend to enjoy my sex life, even if it is mandated by a chart with colored stickers, because Andy is the hottest man alive.

Happy Easter and welcome to the Church, Dawn!!
Julie | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 3:52 pm | #

Something needs clarification in the study you cited, Dawn. The study states that many nonusers [of contraceptives] had abortions. It is incomplete in showing how many of those nonusers were using a deliberate method of family planning apart from contraception. I don't have that information, but I would guess that the number of abortions in that group would be much smaller.

Kidlacan,
I doubt you'd find many moral frameworks that find the deliberate death of human beings acceptable. Eating a steak doesn't kill humans.

Norah,
Many of us (well, speaking for myself, at least) believe that sex has a role exclusively in marriage, and even then have a very specific view of what marriage truly is. This comes from our view of the world from a Catholic Christian perspective. Conversion always comes before understanding and acceptance of many of these thoughts and beliefs. Does that make them worthless to a secular society? Certainly not.

Any person could understand the difference between a physical intimacy that gives itself completely, body and soul, and one that attempts to do the same while keeping fertility set apart. Fertility is part of the package.
Andy | 04.14.06 - 3:54 pm | #

I have to say, I read your thought exercise on kissing as sex, and I found it fallacious.

I've been with my wife for over three years now, and we've only now gone off birth control. As a man among men, I can assure you that my wife's love for me is not contingent upon her allowing every egg I fertilize to implant. On the contrary, I feel reassured by the fact that she has chosen to involve me in the decisions we make regarding our family planning.

As for your defense of your own work, I don't think people dislike you for your views, but rather for the way you present them.

"[P]roviding all these angry people with a chance to do something nonviolent."

What you just did there is called "passive-aggressive behavior." It's what people do when they're too repressed to actually call people out in the open, and so have to vent their anger/superiority complexes through other means. I'm not being mean spirited, just honest. See again? What I just did was passive-aggressive.

As a white, heterosexual male--and an American soldier, no less--I've witnessed a lot of unfair behavior toward women that I, as a man, would never have to suffer. I can justify and see a legitimate need for feminist thought and activism. My wife and I are both feminists, and I can assure you, my wife does not hate men or sex any more than I. But for you to expend so many words launching veiled invectives against the "violent feminists" comes across as the immature ravings of a sort of feminist "Uncle Tom," glorifying the acts of your oppressors. Wake up! I love being a guy, but my gender treats yours like garbage in every area, from wages to career options to sexual choices.

That said, keep on "praising Him." Let me know how that works out for you.
Freeman | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 3:56 pm | #

That said, keep on "praising Him." Let me know how that works out for you.

Will do. I've been praising Him for six years and it keeps getting better. Even the bad times are good.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 4:08 pm | #

"Even the bad times are good"? Come on, Dawn. Can't you be human for once?

Andy, your beliefs are certainly not worthless. Neither are mine, though, and that's the part I'm having trouble convincing you folks of.
Norah | 04.14.06 - 4:21 pm | #

andy: using contraception doesn't kill humans, either.
kidlacan | 04.14.06 - 4:23 pm | #

NFP is contraception. It involves using intentional means to avoid having children while still having sex. What matters is the attitude - would a child be welcomed if one were conceived? Why is the couple practicing contraception? I'm not sure how else one could understand this.
Sophie | 04.14.06 - 4:36 pm | #

Edit: "I'm not sure how else one could reasonably understand this."
Sophie | 04.14.06 - 4:46 pm | #

Come on, Dawn. Can't you be human for once?

Aaaarrrrr, does not compute. Change data tape. Msxdlioyfadl;gphfhhhh...
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 4:46 pm | #

Oh and I wanted to add - please do not direct me to Catholic sites explaining the difference - I have read lots of them, I have read Humanae Vitae, and I have read many articles by Catholic moral philosophers on the topic. Fact is - all of the arguments saying that the two are distinct are unsound. I've yet to see one that is sound.
Sophie | 04.14.06 - 4:51 pm | #

Julie, your argument makes more sense and is better phrased than anyone's that I've seen on this thread. And that's why I hate to use you as an example, but here goes.

Going from Julie's situation: She hopes to start having a family in a year or two, when they're a little more established as a married couple and are better prepared financially to have a child, however, she would welcome children if they came earlier than planned.

What if something happened to Andy midway through that first year, and Julie was left as sole breadwinner and in no position to have a child? Or what if nothing happened to either of them, but circumstances simply left them barely able to support themselves, much less a child?

1. Would their marriage suddenly lose love and truthfulness and sincerity if they were to switch from their current method of contraception (NFP) to something more reliable until circumstances were more favorable for a child?

2. Would it be responsible for them to continue to make love using their current, less-reliable method, if the understanding was that their marriage couldn't support the blessing of a child?

3. If they were to make love using condoms, accepting that condoms fail and they'd still have a 10% chance of getting that accidental blessing, how is that any different from accepting a comparable failure rate from NFP?
ACG | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 4:55 pm | #

You should research your NFP more. It's much more reliable than you give it credit for.

And as far as Julie and I are concerned, we are not exclusively concerned with responsibility, but also sin. If we were ever in a situation where we absolutely could not support a child, we would practice abstinence. Easy? No.

This uncovers a fundamental presupposition that keeps coming up here. Should having sex be an end unto itself? No. It is a symbol and a reaffirmation of the sacrament in which Julie and I take part.

To answer Sophie, the difference is day and night. Contraception introduces a barrier, whether physical or chemical into the sexual embrace sterilizing it and separating it from its original intention. NFP works with the cycles of fertility. It is the acceptance of the gift of sex as it was given to us by God.

Part of the marriage committment is accepting children lovingly from God. If this causes me to be destitute if I didn't plan it, then I'll just have to have faith that it will work out. There's not enough sense of adventure in marriage anymore. Believe me, life with Julie will certainly be adventurous. And loving.

Also, Julie's a librarian. That's hot.
Andy | 04.14.06 - 5:22 pm | #

Attitude is key, I think. It is possible (though difficult) to use contraception while still being welcoming to a surprise pregnancy. And it is possible to use NFP with an attitude that says that pregnancy is a totally unwelcomed intrusion (although that seems to be more likely with fertility awareness, which involves using barriers rather than abstinence during fertile times).
What periodic abstinence does is force the conversation about why pregnancy is being deferred every time that a couple decided to abstain during the fertile period. When using contraception,( especially the 'brainless' methods like an IUD, depo shots,the patch, the ring, and to a somewhat lesser degree the pill and the barrier methods) it becomes easy to defer that conversation, sometimes for years. And then we have the spectacle that has become increasingly common of the couple who 'never got around to it' on having children and now it is too late.
Contraception is but one of the many things that are troubling about the sexual and reproductive ethos of our modern culture. Assisted reproductive techniques are another, and it could be argued that these are the flip side of the contraceptive revolution that started in the 1950s. Reading the biography of Dr. John Rock (one of the developers of the birth control pill) is very enlightening, regardless of one's position on this ethical issue.
It could easily be argued that the ready availability of contraception was the major social catalyst that has brought us to a culture where the majority of births are now occuring outside of marriage. Separating the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse from its bonding aspect is a two way street.
alicia | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 5:37 pm | #

I think Alicia is on to something there, and I completely agree insofar as certain methods of contraception can make it more or less difficult to have the right kind of attitude toward sex. What I oppose is the idea that there is distinction so essential that entails that non-NFP contraception *cannot possibly* co-exist with a Godly attitude toward sex.

I believe that NFP separates sex from fertility just as much as any other form of contraception does. Simply because it is natural rather than chemical or a barrier method, I believe, does not change the fact that sex and fertility are being divorced, at least temporarily. One is having sex and intending not to procreate.
Sophie | 04.14.06 - 5:43 pm | #

only if you consider 'disagreement' to be 'intolerance', and if you consider 'witnessing' to be equivalent to 'forcible conversion'.

I don't, and I never have. My whole post was an attempt to draw the distinction. That's why I went out of my way to talk about hard cases and general principals.

repeatedly telling people that their lives are empty, that they are less than human, that they can never know true love or that they're going to hell tends to come off a bit 'intolerant'.

Fair enough. All I can do is repeat what I said before - one may succeed in negotiating the traffic, but that does not invalidate the warnings about staying out of traffic, because traffic is still dangerous. Contraception also carries risks, many less visible than a tractor trailer moving at 60 mph.

one doesn't need to wholeheartedly accept the absolute truth of another's philosophy in order to respect that philosophy.

I'd be more sympathetic to this if there were, in fact, a little more respect of the Catholic philosophy on life matters. Again, I see a lot of people refusing even to admit the possibility that contraception may damage people's relationships with each other and God. I don't even see acknowledgement that it allows people to be much more irresponsible with their sexual faculties, which is a much plainer and more visible danger. This isn't de facto proof against the practice (not everyone is irresponsible), but it's a valid warning.

to extend your analogy: if supporting the right of people to use contraception if they wish is 'intolerant', isn't allowing people to practice faiths other than christianity, or no faith at all, also 'intolerant'?

No. That's not at all what I said, either.

perhaps those of us who find contraceptive use to improve our lives, and who are not rendered empty soulless husks by its use, might be granted a little tolerance too?

All I'm saying is "know the risks." Sex is momentous and precious, and it lies very close to the soul, and it requires careful handling. Yet some people insist that the Church remain utterly silent on the topic! How could the Church even pretend to minister to its people if it did that? How could anyone take any faith seriously if it left out something like sex?

And it makes no odds if people outside the Church overhear it - or even if they are directly lectured. There IS a universality to human sexuality and it is within the Church's responsibility to make pronouncements on it, intended to help anyone who accepts them. One is free to reject them, of course - for whatever reason, that's up to the individual skeptic. But at least the skeptic HAS something to reject.

I do not assume that anyone here is being casual or glib about their sexual lives - quite the reverse. All I ask is that people stop treating the Church's guidelines about it as useless or a matter of mere personal quirk. They have a 1900 year head start on every last one of us, and have seen sexuality in many circumstances besides ours.
Nightfly | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 5:45 pm | #

Tom, the exact comment made was that anyone who didn't accept and follow the Catholic Church's teaching on birth control was essentially using his or her spouse as a sex toy - as a thing.

That's a judgement. That's actually worse than a judgement - it's assigning motivation to people when there is absolutely no possibility that you can ever know the reality of the situation.

It's also a deliberate insult, and why I think that this insistance on NFP as being the only "licit" method of birth control is not only wrong, but probably inherently evil.

This "debate" inevitably ends up with some Catholic NFPer claiming that NFP sex is deeper, more meaningful, better, and that the people engaging in it are better and holier and more in love and more giving, etc., etc., etc., and then going on to claim that anyone who doesn't use NFP doesn't really love their spouse and is merely using them as a masturbatory tool.

If the end result of the teaching on NFP is that particular attitude, then it's inherently evil.

And I've yet to see a discussion where the claim isn't eventually made.

It couldn't be more untrue. It is a lie. It is wrong. It is a deliberately mean and judgmental conclusion to come to, and one can only wonder why these people need to make such a claim.

If you believe NFP makes your marriage more meaningful and deeper and holier and whatever, great. Have at it, baby. NFP away to your heart's content. But if the only way you can feel good about your marriage is to claim that someone else's is a sham and is both emotionally and physically abusive in nature, then you've got a problem and the method of birth control you choose to use has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The act of using NFP itself is devoid of any morality or meaning at all. It is merely a tool. It is the intent behind the use of the tool that is either moral or immoral.

If two couples are avoiding pregnancy for exactly the same reasons under exactly the same circumstances, and one uses the purportedly 99% effective NFP method and the other uses the 80-something-%-or-less method of a condom or diaphragm, then how exactly is the NFP couple more "open" to life? If you've taken advantage of the best science and technology have to offer in avoiding fertile periods so you can have intercourse and avoid pregnancy, you are no more open to life than someone who uses a condom. The intent behind your use of NFP, and the deliberate attempt to fine-tune NFP to a nearly-failproof birth control method alter the nature of the act just as much, if not more, than the use of a condom. You have deliberately done your best to have the sex and not have the pregnancy. If sex is only "licit" if ALL the aspects are present, then any sex at all that is engaged in with the intent to enjoy the physical pleasure and emotional bonding while drastically reducing the chances of pregnancy is illicit. ALL sex. Not just non-NFP sex.
Nina | 04.14.06 - 7:17 pm | #

// The main thing I wanted to say is that NFP is a good system PRECISELY because the motivations of people using it are different from people using artificial contraception.//

Nonsense, if you mean that the motivation is a spiritual/religious one. Many, many earthy, health-food, nature-freaky types use NFP because they're just not into using artificial hormones (or artificial anything in any aspect of their lives). They don't refrain from sex during their fertile periods. They just refrain from intercourse and use the opportunity to get creative and explore.

NFP in itself doesn't require any one particular motivation for its use.

//There's not enough sense of adventure in marriage anymore.//

And you say this based on what? Have you been married to everyone on the planet already?

I've been married for almost a quarter of a century, have kids ranging in age from 18 to 26, and, believe me, there's plenty of "adventure" in marriage, and it will find you whether you go looking for it or not.

Just wait until you're sitting next to your spouse's or your child's bed in an ICU...or comforting a spouse who's lost his or her parents or sustaining him or her during a difficult period of unemployment, or any number of unexpected, unplanned little "adventures" that most certainly will crop up along the way.

Oh, wait - how could I know about any of those things? I've been way too busy all these years using my husband's body as a sex toy or a vibrator...
Nina | 04.14.06 - 7:35 pm | #

Tom wrote:

Now, you may disagree with the whole concept of acts having natures, but the idea that acts do have natures is hardly so outrageous as to drive all clear-thinking people away. In fact, it's pretty close to a tautology.

Nina:

I agree, claiming that contraception turns sex into an act of using the other as a sex toy is a judgment, in the sense that it's a determination or a declaration that something is true.

But it's not necessarily assigning motivation to others.

It may well be a claim that the act has a certain objective nature, regardless of and independent of what the actors think they're doing and of what their motivations are.
Tom | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 10:22 pm | #

And doing something that look like an act but doesn't have it's essential nature is immoral?

Not on that basis, no.

I don't think Dawn and Bender are doing this intentionally, I think they're lying to themselves as well.

So you think someone can lie without realizing they're lying? Might they perhaps even be insulted if someone tells them they're lying? Or reply that there is absolutely no possibility that the person who tells them they're lying can ever know the reality of the situation?
Tom | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 10:29 pm | #

Tom, if the act itself has a certain objective nature, then ANY tampering with that act, including using NFP is as wrong as any other.

If intending to enjoy the physical and emotional aspects of a sexual relationship while actively working towards avoiding the procreative alters the sex act, it alters it no matter what method you use.

Either all birth control methods are wrong, or none are. If all sexual intercourse must be legitmately and truly open to life every go round in order to be considered licit, then that means no birth control, not ever, just complete abstinence if one is in a situation where one must avoid pregnancy.

Playing this BS word and mind game (so love the people who think they can pull one over on God, as if he doesn't know what's really going on) in which you pretend that you're really more open to life because of the method of conception avoidance you use is a lot of hooey. If in your mind you are fully aware that you want the sex but not the baby, then you're not truly and legitimately open to life at all. Oh, you might suck it up and accept it if it happens, but you'll do your darndest to see that it doesn't.

That doesn't come off as real "open" to me. It comes off as sort of begrudgingly accepting if all else fails. Big difference.

Wanting to have intercourse while at the same time avoiding conception is what it is no matter what kind of spin you put on it or what name you call it.

Needing to think you're somehow less guilty of this merely because of the method you're using to achieve your self-serving ends is delusional.
Nina | 04.14.06 - 11:00 pm | #

You know, if NFP is all that its proponants claim it is, you guys are going about it all wrong. The rate of "It's wonderful. It's deepened our marriage. It's a great spiritual gift." posts has been very low when compared to the "You have shut yourself off spiritually. You're marriage is stunted emotionally because you've put a wall between you." posts.

If my marriage has been stunted, you couldn't prove it by me. My husband does not view me as a live doll, nor I him. We're not having masturbatory sex with a toy, we're loving each other and celebrating our bond. Fear of another pregnancy does nothing to add to the intimacy, quite the opposite.

(And using NFP vs. BCP would not alter my views on pregnancy in the least. Hemorrhage would appear to be a natural consequence of childbirth for me, and even when not fatal, the requisite treatment is painful beyond belief.)

Also - the offering yourself as a place for us to take out our aggressive tendancies? How noble. I've been offering myself as an exemplar horrible, pro-choice user of contraception so that you would have someone to pick on who can defend herself rather than finding some poor woman who doesn't need you in her face.
Cynthia Wood | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 11:56 pm | #

Glah - your marriage, not you're marriage. Me speak English good.
Cynthia Wood | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 11:59 pm | #

I've been offering myself as an exemplar horrible, pro-choice user of contraception so that you would have someone to pick on who can defend herself rather than finding some poor woman who doesn't need you in her face.

You're right. I'll go free the unapologetic contracepter (contraceptionist? contraceptista?) I have locked in the basement.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.15.06 - 1:44 am | #

User of contraception, Dawn, or contraception user.

And I think the argument Nina makes is a valid one - either NFP is a reliable method of contraception, or it isn't. If it is, if it's 99% effective, then you're no more welcoming the advent of a mistake than you would be on the BCP or using a condom. If it isn't that effective, then you're left with a less-effective method of contraception which would leave some women open to a potentially harmful pregnancy.

In the end, you're attributing everything to motivation, saying that NFP is better not because of what it is, but because of why people choose it. But the reasons that people their contraceptives go well beyond welcoming/not welcoming kids, and it could be that a couple would use the BCP for the same reason that another would use NFP. No matter what, it is an interference with what you consider to be God's intention of creating a child with every sexual act; people who use NFP are just choosing to interfere without the use of a hormone or barrier.

I still haven't seen an answer to my question 3, whether Andy and Julie could use condoms and accept the 10% risk of pregnancy in the same way that they'd accept the risk of pregnancy using NFP.

And while I'm at it, 4: Would a marriage between two infertile people still be as blessed and fulfiling and real, even for not having any chance at conception? Does a marriage become less fulfilling and valid as both partners age and fertility is no longer an issue?
ACG | Homepage | 04.15.06 - 8:57 am | #

And speaking to the issue of morality: yes, morality is based on logic. Human morality, as it stands today, is based on the question "Who does this hurt?" Drug use is considered immoral not arbitrarily, but because it's been shown to be harmful to society. "Victimless crimes" are still considered immoral, because again, the harm to society can be documented. Lying, while not a crime, is also immoral, ditto adultery, and (it has been argued) premarital sex, because the question "Who does this hurt?" has an answer.

While for many people, religion is a major basis for morality, it's rarely if ever the sole basis. That's why, even as Catholics, we don't follow the Bible exactly as written; for instance, Leviticus would have us condemning people who eat shrimp or wear clothing of mixed fibers. If our religious text tells us that such actions are immoral, shouldn't we condemn them? No, because we also base our morality on logic, and that overcomes arbitrary rules. The answer is "Who is hurt when people wear cotton/poly blends" is "no one," and so we leave it alone.

So, yes, morality is logic-based. Which brings up the question I asked before and was dodged: Who is hurt when contraception is used? So far, all I've heard is "it makes your marriage worse" and "it makes people have irresponsible sex," but since neither of those claims has been backed up by any kind of evidence, I have no choice but to chalk it up to some kind of arbitrary judgmentalism.

Why not just take the argument "It has made my marriage better" and share your thoughts that way? Why does your argument have to be an attack on anyone who disagrees with you and a condemnation of their marriage?
ACG | Homepage | 04.15.06 - 9:09 am | #

And is it the NFP in itself, all by itself that has enriched a couple's marriage?

This is my biggest problem with the arguments put forth by the Catholic NFPing crowd (which is a distinct subset of the overall NFPing crowd). Okay, it's really my second biggest problem - the first is that the conversation always denigrates to "all people who use non-NFP birth control are all selfish, pleasure-seeking, objectifying, immoral people who are incapable of understanding or feeling or expressing real love".../eyeroll

Anyway...

The mere use of NFP does nothing on it's own. It always comes back to what is in the hearts and minds of the people using it, just as it does with the use of any tool.

If I pick up a kitchen knife and use it to slice carrots, I'm not doing anything immoral. If I pick it up and use it to chop my neighbor into small pieces, I'm doing something immoral.

The morality of the knife remains the same throughout - it's an inanimate object and is incapable of morality or immorality in and of itself.

Same with NFP. It in itself has no morality or immorality. It can be used for good or it can be used for evil.

The people who keep going on about the nature of the act of sexual relations and the morality thereof keep confusing the sexual relations with the method of conception-avoidance. They're implyint the mere use of NFP as opposed to a condom in itself makes the act moral and licit. Like it's a license to engage in any number of other acts that demean marital love - it's as if you're saying it's okay to beat the crap out of your spouse and/or rape him or her as long as you're using NFP as opposed to a condom.

Sounds extreme, but that's the conclusion of your arguments.

But once it's made clear that it's the intent and attitude and end objective of the people using the tool, then there is no moral difference between NFP and non-NFP birth control.
Nina | 04.15.06 - 9:34 am | #

Oops..."that it's the intent and attitude and end objective of the people using the tool _and not the tool itself that are either moral or immoral_..."

Sorry. Not being very clear.
Nina | 04.15.06 - 9:38 am | #

Tom,

And doing something that look like an act but doesn't have it's essential nature is immoral?

Not on that basis, no.

So you think someone can lie without realizing they're lying? Might they perhaps even be insulted if someone tells them they're lying?

Or reply that there is absolutely no possibility that the person who tells them they're lying can ever know the reality of the situation?

Tom,

I agree, claiming that contraception turns sex into an act of using the other as a sex toy is a judgment, in the sense that it's a determination or a declaration that something is true.

But it's not necessarily assigning motivation to others.

It may well be a claim that the act has a certain objective nature, regardless of and independent of what the actors think they're doing and of what their motivations are.

Nightfly wrote:

I don't even see acknowledgement that it allows people to be much more irresponsible with their sexual faculties, which is a much plainer and more visible danger.

Well, I think we can agree that no one is changing anyone's mind here. We all just seem to be trying to show how much smarter than the next person we are.

If you're interested in a good Catholic defense of Humanae Vitae, here is a good link:

www.archden.org/archbishop/docs/of_human_life.htm

Like I said before, all of this teaching is based on a Catholic understanding of morality. Conversion always comes first.
Andy | 04.15.06 - 1:12 pm | #

The objective nature of using a sex toy is independent of thought and motivation? Uh, that's kindof a stretch.

How so? Humans are perfectly capable of not realizing they're doing what they're doing.

I may be misreading, but I don't think Bender is saying the thought and motivation of people who use contraception is to treat their partners like sex toys. I think, rather, Bender is saying people who use contraception simply are treating their partners like sex toys, whether they realize it or not.

Bender may be wrong about that, but if so it's not because people who use contraception don't think they are treating their partners like sex toys. People don't think they do all sorts of things they do -- as you apparently recognize, based on what you've written about Dawn and Bender not performing due diligence in evaluating their beliefs.
Tom | Homepage | 04.15.06 - 1:40 pm | #

Treating someone like a sex toy requires a deliberate and conscious awareness of what you're doing and the intent to do it.

Just because you or "Bender" claim that we're doing it without realizing we're doing it doesn't make it so.

Unless, of course, you're willing to accept that a Catholic NFPer is treating his or her spouse like a farm animal and using sex for purely agricultural purposes whether he or she realizes it or not because there are those who see sexual relations under the NFP model in that light.

What I'm seeing here is a total lack of understanding of real, committed, married love, and I'm only seeing it on the part of the proponents of NFP.

You cannot accept that love can be giving and sustaining and spiritually rich if a couple uses any method other than NFP for family planning purposes.

Which basically means you're denying the power of the Holy Spirit in people's lives based soley on a method of birth control constructed by humans.

And that is a serious, serious sin indeed, and not one I'd want to have to answer for come Judgment Day.
Nina | 04.15.06 - 2:21 pm | #

//Like I said before, all of this teaching is based on a Catholic understanding of morality. Conversion always comes first.//

In other words, it's merely a belief and, like Tinkerbell, can only exist if enough people clap their hands and believe.

If a thing is logical, it can be understood without anyone coverting to a belief system first.

That's a cop out answer, Andy.

You and your fiancee have made some pretty foolish and unfounded claims about other people's marriages, intimate lives and motivations.

I suggest you tend to your own affairs and not claim to know about other people's. Especially when those other people have decades more experience with the things you are speaking of.
Nina | 04.15.06 - 2:25 pm | #

Treating someone like a sex toy requires a deliberate and conscious awareness of what you're doing and the intent to do it.

Okay, there's your bald assertion to counter Bender's.

Just because you or "Bender" claim that we're doing it without realizing we're doing it doesn't make it so.

I agree. And just because you claim you're not doesn't make it so, either.

You cannot accept that love can be giving and sustaining and spiritually rich if a couple uses any method other than NFP for family planning purposes.

Not only can I accept it, I do accept it, though I can't speak for anyone else.
Tom | Homepage | 04.15.06 - 3:51 pm | #

Nina, please watch the ad hominem -- read the Harris Protocol, linked at left. Thank you.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.15.06 - 4:16 pm | #

Its kind of interesting just how wrong Dawn is on this issue.
I've been with my partner for 8 1/2 years (We've been married for 2 1/2)

We have been using contraception for all that time except for the last couple of months, 'cause we are trying to conceive.

Now each time we make love is different, and the trying to conceive part gives another dimension when my wife is ovulating, but all in all, sex with and without the pill is the same.

Nice idea Dawn, but you are dead wrong.
Soren | 04.15.06 - 4:23 pm | #

Erm... doesn't all moral discussion of contraception belong within the Christian community? Arguing morals with non-Christians seems pointless to me. Christ comes first: preparing for the kingdom means prayerfully keeping watch for sin within ourselves and trying our hardest to imitate Christ within the community and towards the world at large. Paul didn't tell the Christian community at Corinth to make fun of the guy who was sleeping with his stepmother (apparently out of wedlock). He basically said, this guy's not a Christian. Reject him from the community and concentrate on the reality of your own salvation. You can't control what he's doing.

In short... most of the conversation here seems like fruitless circular arguments with no end in sight. Sorry.
Lulu | 04.15.06 - 4:49 pm | #

Lulu, does moral discussion of murder belong only in the Christian community?
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.15.06 - 4:53 pm | #

Ouch. Good one. Trying to think of a good argument against that one ...and failing. Oh, well, I'm not that attached to my argument.
I'm frustrated, though: It seems that the discussion so far has not gone anywhere, and there's been more insulting on both sides than actual debate.
Lulu | 04.15.06 - 5:06 pm | #

only my opinion, though.
Lulu | 04.15.06 - 5:11 pm | #

Lulu, even if you're right, that doesn't mean that this discussion belongs only in the Catholic community. And I don't buy the "convert first" argument either - I've read the Catholic documents defending Humanae Vitae, and they attempt to make logical arguments. They fail - but they attempt it. Fact is, it comes down to motivation, and I think that Nina has it exactly right.

I actually think that this argument is not going in circles. When the argument is between non-Christian pro-choice pro-self people and NFP-only Catholics, it goes in circles. That is not what is happening here. I share the view that we should view children as gifts from God, and be open to life. What I do not share is the view that NFP is on a different moral plane than any other form of contraception. I think others here share my views.
Sophie | 04.15.06 - 5:17 pm | #

So do all Catholics who contracept here believe that it is unnecessary to accept the teaching authority of the Church in this matter?
Is the decision to contracept, in your situation, a matter of conscience (sp?), or a matter of convenience?
Got to go. My dad needs to use the computer, and I'm pretty much done with my time online for today. Thanks for responding to my comments, Dawn and Sophie.
Lulu | 04.15.06 - 5:29 pm | #

Who are you claiming is not a Christian here? Anyway, non-NFP contraception is perfectly licit in almost all other Christian communities, so the "discussion" could still go on without end among an exclusively Christian group.

I think, however, that the point is that Catholics are not permitted to budge on this issue so that there really isn't a discussion for them on the topic. You can't discuss something that's already been decided and is not open to question.

Which is fine - all those who oppose the belief that NFP is the only licit method of birth control have been very supportive of those who accept that belief.

It's just that there's really no point in the discussion anymore - for a Catholic, agreeing with us is dangerous dissent. Practicing anything other than NFP is sinful, and maybe even constitutes a mortal sin. Under those circumstances, the Catholic NFPers really can't agree with the non-NFPers, at least not openly.

I'd also like to point out that the insults were first to come from the Catholic NFPers and that they are far deeper and nastier than anything anyone else might have said.

You will find that people who have been in good, solid, loving, long-term marriages don't take kindly to having that love spit on and dragged into the muck by someone who has no knowledge at all of relationship, the love and intimacy, the tragedies and joys, the storms weathered, etc. in that marriage.

It's pretty damned insulting to be told the only measure of love is limited only to acts that involve the penis and vagina. That's a pretty shallow, one-dimensional view of love.

It's worse than insulting to be told that the man who has given you decades of love and support and sustenance has really been using you as a blow-up doll all those years and he doesn't really love you, and that your love for this man is equally as empty and superficial.

It is especially annoying and insulting to be told that by someone who doesn't have the first clue as to what the day-to-day realities of marriage actually are because they've never been married or had kids or probably even had sex.

If calling them out on that kind of cheap, insulting argument and defending a marriage that none of you can possibly ever know the truth about is an "ad hominem", so be it. I noticed that likening my sexual relations with my husband to both of us using each other as sex toys didn't constitute an ad hominem at all...
Nina | 04.15.06 - 5:30 pm | #

Sorry if that second question was too personal, btw.
Lulu | 04.15.06 - 5:30 pm | #

Go, Nina. Beautifully put.
Norah | 04.15.06 - 6:02 pm | #

Lulu - I'm not Catholic but I do support the idea of being open-to-life. I'm an Anglican. My husband and I use contraception (FAM actually, so I do know all about NFP) because we are delaying having children until we are able to support them. I have read Catholic teaching and our reasoning for delaying conception is perfectly in line with that teaching. The only way in which our practice differs from that which is advocated in Humanae Vitae is that instead of abstaining during my fertile time, we use condoms.
Sophie | 04.15.06 - 6:04 pm | #

Let's begin by noting the following historical facts: until the 20th century, almost no Christian groups, be they Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or otherwise, accepted contraceptive technologies. The liberal Protestant denominations began to change their stances largely because of pressure from the progressive secular thinkers of their day. The Ecumenical Patriarch publicly defended Humanae Vitae almost as soon as it was promulgated.

Secularists, non-Christians, and non-catholic Christians see birth control as morally neutral or, more usually, morally mandated. Arguing this matter with such people is fruitless past the point where one merely stands up for the catholic position. Non-catholics are not in a position to understand or receive this teaching, so on our parts, we are not teaching according to their understanding.

On the other hand, non-catholics have not exactly covered themselves in glory in this thread either. Folks, your constant insistence upon arguing catholic positions in non-catholic terms, from anecdotal evidence and subjective impressions, while appealing to the amen corner, makes me wonder whether you have any interest in understanding the catholic point of view. (And before someone raises a tu quoque, let me remind you that the catholics in this thread are largely reiterating church teaching rather than arguing independently from it.) If you don't agree, then arguing the matter with someone who believes it to have been authoritatively resolved is as pointless as arguing the laws of physics with a physics student: even if his understanding fails him on some particular, he trusts that his professor can be depended upon to know and teach the truth.

As an Orthodox Christian, it is sufficient for me to note that the Patristic teaching is unanimous in its condemnation of birth control* and abortion, among other matters of sexual sin, and that there is no apparent need for doctrinal innovation. For those of you who are Protestants, in my opinion, you would do well to study deeply the question of on what grounds your denomination rejects catholic unity on the matter of birth control, and to ponder the consequences of the general divorce of sex from procreation in our culture; even if you can handle it, is it safe for everyone? And for those of you who are secular or non-Christian, well, your positions are so diverse I'll have to take them case by case.

* nb: There are some Orthodox theologoumena allowing barrier but not abortifacient birth control. These cannot be considered as accepted opinion throughout the whole Orthodox Church., much less doctrine, so don't bother googling in an attempt to refute me on this point.
cantemir | 04.15.06 - 6:54 pm | #

Tom,

The objective nature of using a sex toy is independent of thought and motivation? Uh, that's kindof a stretch.

How so? Humans are perfectly capable of not realizing they're doing what they're doing.

I may be misreading, but I don't think Bender is saying the thought and motivation of people who use contraception is to treat their partners like sex toys. I think, rather, Bender is saying people who use contraception simply are treating their partners like sex toys, whether they realize it or not.

Bender may be wrong about that, but if so it's not because people who use contraception don't think they are treating their partners like sex toys. People don't think they do all sorts of things they do -- as you apparently recognize

Andy wrote:

www.archden.org/archbishop/docs/of_human_life.htm

contraception has released males -- to a historically unprecedented degree -- from responsibility for their sexual aggression.

Like I said before, all of this teaching is based on a Catholic understanding of morality. Conversion always comes first.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we've been to successful at convincing the Catholics here that perhaps our relationships are not shallow exploitive ones...Mr. Wade, I don't know you. Perhaps you are one of the saints that Christ will say served Him unknowingly. But I can argue, both from experience and objective data, that large-scale sexual exploitation is totally pervasive in our society, in a way and to an extent that seems historically unique. Not only has pornography become one of the pillars of modern entertainment, and not only has a subculture based on rituals of sexual submission become mainstream (BDSM,) but casual sexual activity among early adolescents has also apparently become widespread. Our culture is thoroughly and openly sexual in an apparently value-free fashion unthinkable a generation ago. I daresay that these phenomena and their consequences are a driving force in the resurgence of sexually conservative forms of Christianity in America. If your 15-year-old daughter is, in your opinion, inappropriately involved with her boyfriend, chastity camp might well seem more appealing than sending her down to talk to Presbyterian minister who lobbies for Planned Parenthood - never mind to Planned Parenthood itself.It is, I hope, transparently obvious that prior to the widespread adoption of artificial birth control methods, sex implied pregnancy. Catholic Christians deplore that this link was severed. Some of their grounds for this belief come from a frame of reference that, as an atheist, you can't possibly be expected to assent to. Other grounds, such as the consequentialist case that artificial birth control led inevitably to the dehumanizing imagisitic commodification of sex, fall with indisputable force upon anyone not a libertine.While I presume that no one on this board has enough information about you, never mind your wife or partner, to say anything specific about your relationship, it is not inappropriate to move from the argument that sex is commodified as a consequence of birth control to the argument that anyone using birth control experiences sex that is perforce commodified to some extent. Do be gracious and concede that this is a logical inference, no matter what your subjective impression, nor whether you think the argument wrong.
cantemir | 04.15.06 - 10:11 pm | #

//Is the decision to contracept, in your situation, a matter of conscience (sp?), or a matter of convenience?[...]Sorry if that second question was too personal, btw.//

How about the same question right back at the NFP crowd...or would that suddenly be too personal...?

Is the decision to pursue a sexual relationship while deliberately and willfully avoiding conception a matter of conscience or a matter of convenience?

Is waiting to "establish" one's married relationship a grave reason for avoiding conception? Is waiting to live in a four bedroom, two and a half bathroom suburban home rather than a one bedroom apartment a grave reason?

My parents had their first three children while living in a tiny two bedroom walkup in NYC. In those days there was no licit 99% method of birth control available to Catholic couples. If they could manage, if they could be open and welcoming to children, why is it now a grave reason to wait and see if you get along and wait until you can afford the ideal housing arrangement? Have we become that soft and that self-involved that waiting to see if you like being married and waiting until you can provide a McMansion for your future kids is now a grave reason for avoiding conception?

If a non-NFPing couple had given those same reasons for avoiding conception while intending to enjoy the physical benefits of sexual intimacy in their marriage, would those reasons honestly still have been considered "grave" in the eyes of the NFPers - honestly?

Sounds like one man's convenient reason is another's conscientious one...

The only being who can completely know the truth of any relationship, the gravity of any reasons for anything, the wholeness of any situation is God. To imply that you know something you cannot even begin to know is wrong. Do unto others...love others as you love yourself...whatsoever you do to the least of your brothers...

How the hell does calling someone else's marriage a sham and likening the individuals in it to vibrators and blow-up dolls fit in with Christ's message?
Nina | 04.15.06 - 10:51 pm | #

//While I presume that no one on this board has enough information about you, never mind your wife or partner, to say anything specific about your relationship, it is not inappropriate to move from the argument that sex is commodified as a consequence of birth control to the argument that anyone using birth control experiences sex that is perforce commodified to some extent. Do be gracious and concede that this is a logical inference, no matter what your subjective impression, nor whether you think the argument wrong.//

Nope. You are wrong. It is wrong to think that way. You cannot know the truth about any particular relationship. You can draw whatever inferences you like from whatever circumstances you like, but you cannot then assume they are true to ANY extent about particular individuals unless you have incontrovertible evidence that it is indeed so.

It's called bearing false witness. And it's one of the top ten big baddies.

You may want to do it, you may even enjoy doing it, but God told you not to.

You would also have to prove that ALL NFPing couples NEVER commdify their sexual relationships to ANY extent to even begin to make that kind of unfounded judgment. And you can't do that, either.

So you can stop now. Mind your own business, go tend to your own marriage, and keep your nose out of other people's marriages.

If you want to address the over-sexualization of children and the permissiveness of this society, go ahead. But don't think they have anything to do with anything other than attitudes and intent and ommitting to raise one's kids properly.
Anonymous | 04.15.06 - 11:07 pm | #

That anonymous was me.
Nina | 04.15.06 - 11:08 pm | #

Dawn, I think that you know my opinions on these issues, but I would like to bring up some physiological issues here that do have a play in the moral and psychological discussions above.

One factor that is being widely ignored is that hormonal contraception totally alters the physiology of a woman. While most of these effects are reversable (i.e. they go away once the synthetic hormones are out of her system) others may not be. Two, and now nearly three, generations of women have volunteered in one of the largest uncontrolled medical experiments in human history. There are some intriguing studies out there. For example, women who are taking oral contraceptives respond differently to male pheromones than when they are not taking this medication.
I think that it is safe to say that one is a different person while using hormonally based contraception. Some might argue that the changes are improvements. However, one cannot deny that they exist.
Among the common changes that happen to women using hormonal contraception are weight gain, skin changes (both better and worse), decreased libido, increase and decrease in frequency and severity of mood swings, estrogen related changes in blood clotting (usually clots faster, which is a risk factor for various cardiovascular events), alteration in liver function, increased triglycerides, increased cholesterol with a worse balance between HDL and LDL.
Progesterone only methods (depo, mini-pill) are associated with some of the worst weight gain and mood swings. The lack of regular menses with these methods attract some but repel others. The irregular spotting makes some women nuts, too.
Combined hormone birth control pills suppress ovulation about 80% of the time, progestin only methods suppress ovulation even less than that. The 97% pregnancy prevention rate relies on other effects of the hormones - making the cervical mucous thicker (a spermicidal effect) and both slowing the cilia of the tubes and thinning the endometrium of the uterus - effects that may cause a zygote to be unable to implant properly in the uterus. These post-fertilization effects are not widely known, but they are real. They are the same for the regular pill as for the morning after pill, and I am puzzled and bemused by those persons who rail against the morning after pill but have no problems with the regular pill. Moral consistency would require one to either support both or reject both. But perhaps it simply is ignorance of the basic mechanisms of action. Or maybe it is a moral judgement that says contraception (contra-implantation) is ok ahead of the fact but not after the fact?

Barrier methods (condom, diaphragm) do put a barrier between the sexual partners. This barrier can have the effect of making intercourse resemble mutual masturbation. I'm not saying that every act involving physical barriers is impersonal, mechanical, or whatever. I am aware that there are couples who are loving and caring and using these methods. I also know that many of them will admit that they prefer sex without the barrier, and not just on a physical basis but also on a spiritual and psychological basis. A barrier can say "I love you but not your fertility". And depending on how much a person's self image is tied up with his or her fertility, using a barrier can really put a crimp in things.

Consider the psychological difference between the statement "I want to have sex with you" and "I want to have a baby with you". One is a commitment for a few minutes to a few hours - the other is (should be) a commitment for at least 18 years, if not for lifetime. By separating fertility from sex, we have made it easier to concentrate on the short term rather than the long term. Is this a good thing for society? I guess it all depends on what one defines as 'good'.
alicia | Homepage | 04.15.06 - 11:08 pm | #

You cannot know the truth about any particular relationship. You can draw whatever inferences you like from whatever circumstances you like, but you cannot then assume they are true to ANY extent about particular individuals unless you have incontrovertible evidence that it is indeed so.

I suspect you didn't read my post carefully, like for instance the part where I said the inference rather than the conclusion was 'logical.' (Conclusions are true or false.) A correctly formed syllogism with bad premises can prove absurdities: Dogs can fly, Fido is a dog, ergo Fido can fly.

Given a catholic perspective, that syllogism would run: Using mechanical barriers and abortifacients deforms a sexual relationship; X uses mechanical barriers and/or abortifacients; X's sexual relationship is deformed. Naturally, as you concede the minor premise but deny the conclusion, you are attacking the major premise. But for a catholic Christian, the major premise is a given. For one thing, it is the received teaching of the Church from its earliest days.
cantemir | 04.15.06 - 11:27 pm | #

If using mechanical barriers and hormonal birth control "deforms" a sexual relationship, then so does taking classes and studying and working to the best of one's ability to pinpoint one's fertile periods in a deliberate attempt to plan all one's sexual activity around them in order to have orgasms and not babies.

Because that's what NFP is, no matter how you slice it - yes to orgasm, no to babies. It's saying I want to have sex with you but I don't want to have a baby with you. It's saying I like doing you but I sure as hell hope you don't get pregnant because that would really suck. It's saying I want only part of you, not all of you.

That's. What. NFP. Is.

It isn't anything else, no matter how much blithering, nonsensical doublespeak you engage in.

NFP = sex - babies, orgasms - conception, nookie - pregnancy, and so on.

Period.

I find this continued insistance that married people who use non-NFP birth control are merely using each other's bodies to masturbate with higly distasteful, low-class, ill-bred, and extremly unChristian, not to mention pretty damned dirty-minded. I also have to wonder why you need so very badly to keep insisting it's true. What is so lacking in your own relationship that you're so bitter about other people's happiness? What's wrong with you people? What's missing in your lives that the only way you can feel good about yourself is to spit on and demean other people and their love?

Not one single NFPer has been able to give one specific example of how using NFP enriched their marriages. Not one single NFPer has been able to enter into the discussion without calling other people's marriages unloving, selfish, deformed, mindless, and without making really dirty and foul insinuations about the nature of their sexual lives. Not one NFPer has been able to see love as anything at all outside of penis-vagina contact.

And this is the "real" love we're all supposed to aspire to? This is the Catholic teaching we're all supposed to be wowed by?

You've got to be kidding.
Nina | 04.15.06 - 11:55 pm | #

Nina,

I would like you to point out where my fiancee or I discussed anyone's relationship but our own. We certainly addressed the issue in generalities, but I did not attack anyone.

If you think that faith as a prerequisite to morality is a cop-out, then there's nothing I can do to change your mind. If that is the case, arguing won't solve anything.
Andy | 04.16.06 - 12:03 am | #

The generalities about people who use non-NFP birth control are just as insulting as if you were using specific names.

You are claiming to have knowledge of the nature of the relationships of thousands and thousands of people you don't even know.

You are claiming that the love you feel for your fiancee is deeper and more satisfying than those of us who use non-NFP birth control when it is impossible for you to know that - especially since you aren't even married yet! Heck, you want a two-year grace period to see if this whole marriage thing is your cup of tea, and you're claiming this is a deeper and more satisfying love...?

And then your fiancee claims that the motivations behind all people who use NFP are somehow higher than all those who don't, which is, again, claiming to have knowledge it is impossible for her to have, and also a pretty ridiculous statement given the fact that there are plenty of non-Catholics who use NFP for birth control but are having a grand old time having non-intercourse sex during the fertile periods - definitely NOT in keeping with Church teaching. But, according to your fiancee, that's okay, because it's all about the method, not the intent.
Anonymous | 04.16.06 - 12:26 am | #

My name is visible in the combox, but it's registering as "anonymous"...
Nina | 04.16.06 - 12:27 am | #

Nina, you sound very heated, and I can't help but wonder why you believe it's right for you to make value judgments and wrong for others.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 1:31 am | #

Wow, so much has been said while I was away. I promise you all that I'm not a hit-and-run, drive-by commenter, but it is Easter weekend after all, and a gloriously sunny one at that. So I have been otherwise engaged. I can't read all of what has been said now, but I will, and then get back to you all.
Bender | 04.16.06 - 2:38 am | #

Nina, I understand that, from your perspective, NFP and other forms of "birth control" are not different. But before this discussion can proceed, I need you to stop denying my premises. You can either agree that the institution of Catholicism has, in fact, drawn the conclusion that NFP is OK but condoms and the pill aren't, or else you can keep insisting that you don't agree with the Catholic position. I get it: you don't. But that's not a premise from which to begin arguing. I'm Eastern Orthodox myself, which means that I don't exactly agree with the Western Church on every point either, but let's not let subjective impressions take the place of arguments from fact; and right now, the pertinent fact is the substance of the Catholic position, not its merit.

I find this continued insistance that married people who use non-NFP birth control are merely using each other's bodies to masturbate with higly distasteful, low-class, ill-bred, and extremly unChristian, not to mention pretty damned dirty-minded.

I think that you need to cool it. I am not flipping out and you shouldn't either.

Part of what makes Christianity so interesting is its insistence that humanity is under judgment. We can both think of a dozen religions or quasi-religions that have as their main point the glorification of their adherents. Christ Himself, on the other hand, was always going bringing beggars and whores into the Kingdom, while condemning those who were middle-class, responsible, self-controlled, and (though they did not know it) thoroughly compromised.

We are all under judgment and, while you may be a moral paragon, and while I would not presume to say that you do not have a higher place than me in God's eyes, that's not what's at stake. We don't become Christians to become polite or, God forbid, to compromise the deposit of faith handed down to us from the Apostolic Age. Part of this deposit of faith is incontrovertible and utterly unambiguous sexual morality.

As you say, I know nothing about your marriage in its individual character. On the other hand, the message of Christ and the Apostles is clear: birth control is wrong. No doubt this is a scandal to your private judgment; and no doubt that is one reason why you remain outside the catholic churches. But if we were to compromise Christ's teaching to please you, it would not be an act of kindness; it would be an act of moral cowardice.

Allow me to say, again, that I am the chief of sinners and I do not judge you as a person. Please, go in peace and commemorate the Ressurection of our Lord today. (For me, it's next week, which explains why I'm at my keyboard now rather than in church. :) )
cantemir | 04.16.06 - 7:15 am | #

Dawn, the only "value judgments" I've made is to call out those who would cheapen and dirty other people's marriages with their own obscene imaginings on their despicable behavior. I'm making value judgments on people's words, all of which can be read here, not on some trashy little theory I've cooked up in my head about other people's most intimate moments - people I don't now and will never know and moments I can never be privy to.

Not one non-NFPer here has made a single "value judgment" regarding the status of anyone else's relationship. It has only been the other way around.

Heated? Honey, you better believe it. No one tries to dirty up my marriage by publicly claiming that our relationship is akin to beating off over each other and claims that we don't really love each other and that everything we've worked at and built together over decades is shallow and cheap and selfish.

What could you or Bender or Andy and Julie or Tom or Alicia possibly know what my marriage is? Where do you people get off making blanket comments in which you assert that one group of marriages is automatically richer and more satisfying than another based upon a contrivance of man that serves one purpose and one purpose only: to do the very thing you claim is counter to the nature of the act involved?

And why is it that the NFPers can't argue that point and have to resort to "my marriage is deeper and my love more satisfying and your husband is just using you like a sex toy and doesn't give a damn about you, nyah-nyah" instead?

It's unseemly behavior, and especially unbecoming during this particular season.

And exactly how does acting like a bunch of grubby adolescents about the sex other people are having serve God?

Frankly, Dawn, I find it very odd that, in the midst of the supposedly rapturous and ecstatic moment of being received into the Catholic Church, receiving FOUR sacraments back to back, including receiving the body and blood of Christ, you have resorted to these snarky, baiting types of posts in which you do nothing but try to stir things up, allow others to make highly insulting, demeaning and unChristian (and even sinful, which means you're providing them with an opportunity to sin, a sin in and of itself), and toss off cheap one-liners rather than actually engage in any discourse.

That's very, very odd behavior indeed.

Now go ahead and ban me since that'll probably make your next five minutes or whatever. I have a husband, children, two sets of grandparents, sixteen aunts and uncles, thirteen nephews and nieces, my widowed great aunt and two neighbors to cook for. It's called family - family built on loving and committed marriages, not one of which has ended in divorce, most of which have utilized some form of non-NFP birth control at some point. Family like that is the reward of a deeply satisfying, decades long marriage in which the spouses love, sustain, and cherish one another and welcome children, planned or unplanned.

Not that you would know anything about that...

Have a LOVELY Easter, Dawn.

Can't wait for the next installment of the Dawn Patrol in which Catholicism no longer provides you with the attention you so desperately seek. What's the next stop on the never-ending navel-gazing session that is Dawn Eden? The Orthodox Church? Honey, you really don't know that crowd at all if you think they'll put up with this bratty crap.

Ta!
Nina | 04.16.06 - 7:20 am | #

cantemir,
I agree that there are grave problems with how our (North American) society treats sexuality. I hope to give a much fuller response to your comments, but I'm probably not going to have time today.
Andrew Wade | 04.16.06 - 8:52 am | #

>>Nina, I understand that, from your perspective, NFP and other forms of "birth control" are not different. But before this discussion can proceed, I need you to stop denying my premises. You can either agree that the institution of Catholicism has, in fact, drawn the conclusion that NFP is OK but condoms and the pill aren't, or else you can keep insisting that you don't agree with the Catholic position.
Nina | 04.16.06 - 9:57 am | #

Well, that post bit the dust...

I don't disagree with your premise. I take serious exception to the cheapening and dragging of my marriage through the dirty-minded muck of your pervy little imaginings.

And NFP _IS_ birth control. Duh.
Nina | 04.16.06 - 9:59 am | #

// But if we were to compromise Christ's teaching to please you, it would not be an act of kindness; it would be an act of moral cowardice.
//

No one's asking you to compromise Christ's teaching. All anyone has asked you is to stop making smarmy, cheap,degrading comments about other people's marriages.

It actually is an act of moral cowardice to refuse to undertake the argument at hand by politely, lovingly, kindly showing me how NFP is not controlling the planning of your family, and instead resorting to spitting on my marriage.

But no one has done that. They can't, so they resort to low-class cheap shots. That's some serious cowardice.

And I most certainly do not need to "cool it". It would be immoral for me to sit back and allow the kind of commentary that has gone on here about the nature of other people's intimacies to continue without calling it for what it is.

Now maybe you can bully some weaker-minded people into "cooling it", but you're not going to bully me, mister.

No one calls anyone in my family names and gets away with it. If you were saying all of this to me face to face, you'd be on the ground bleeding by now.
Nina | 04.16.06 - 10:05 am | #

Oh, and as far as "commemorating the resurrection of the Lord", you have to be kidding.

I took one long look at the nastiness the super-Catholics were thinking about me and my husband and I flat-out refused to go to Mass today (I am Catholic, btw).

Hell can freeze over before I'll sit in a pew next to someone who is visualizing me as a blow-up doll. Now that I know what you all really think, I really don't want to belong to your ugly little club any longer.
Nina | 04.16.06 - 10:13 am | #

I think the problem Nina (and I have) is the fact that people wave their finger at others and say "Shame! You're marriage is a loveless sham if you don't want to have lots of babies and use sex for that reason!" My wife and I have been together for 12 years, married for 8 1/2. Sex is only part of it, we enjoy each other's company, we have fun taking trips and we make each other laugh. To me, that's a marriage and relationship, how deep you've bonded and connected. Sex is just part of it, we waited until marriage. For various reasons, we have not had kids, and we might not. I think it's better to be honest about not wanting them, rather than having one as a trophy or just because you can. I try not to pass judgement on those who feel differently, unless they harrass me. A lot of the religious basis for the discussion goes over my head because I am Jewish, and intend to remain so, thank you very much. All I say is try not to call what I have "a sham" or similar statements or don't get upset when your opinions are similarly mocked.
neilC | 04.16.06 - 11:06 am | #

Alicia, pregnancy also alters the physiology of the body, and it does not necessarily reset to what it was pre-pregnancy. For those of us with depression or other such problems, pregnancy is a crapshoot: what we come out of it with may not be what we went in with. Might be better; might be lots worse. One's cycle can change with pregnancy.
You say that "some might argue" that certain changes with hormonal contraception are improvements, and mention that one of the possible changes is "increase or decrease of frequency and severity of mood swings". I fail to see how a decrease in mood swings could be anything but an improvement.
I was on birth control pills for several years, and finally went off them because of (mild) side effects. That's how it is with medication. Anti-depressants, for example, can cause an physiological inability on the part of a man taking them to complete the act of sexual intercourse, either due to difficulty in maintaining an erection or inability to ejaculate. If Catholic doctrine were entirely consistent on these matters, should not a depressed man be required to forgo the antidepressents that render him impotent or consider his marriage lesser in the same way that marriages in which the spouses employ contraception have been referred to here as lesser? Although it's only permanent and irreversible impotence that is considered an absolute bar to marriage, isn't a person who deliberately removes from himself the ability to have relations with his spouse in the same moral position as one who takes contraceptive pills and removes the capacity for conception?
Ledasmom | 04.16.06 - 11:31 am | #

Prayers for you and your family, Nina.

You are indeed banned for threatening violence against a fellow commenter. If you would like to apologize to that commenter (no need to apologize to me), e-mail me and I'll unban you.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 1:24 pm | #

Nina, you are missing the point and giving in to wrath. Please do not do that.

I never said anything about you as a person. You're probably a better person than me. Whatever I did say was entirely abstract and concerned with how the Catholic Church understands the objective character of a certain action. I don't doubt you found this offensive; you don't have the right to take it personally, though, and you don't have the right to make it anyone's fault that their preaching offended you.

I fear for you! Talk to your priest and turn this rage into passion for the truth. Otherwise, you are using your anger at a plain and, frankly, uncontroversial church teaching as a way not to have to answer to what it says about you. But make no mistake, I am probably a worse sinner than you, and I am preaching love to you, not condemning you in hate! Rather than call your fellow Christians a perverted rabble, though, I would much rather than you remember than all have sinned and all are under judgment.

If you were a believing Catholic, you would never have skipped Easter Mass for any frivolous reason, because that is a serious sin. If you are not in passionate communion with the Church or seeking to be, perhaps you are right not to go, though - because you don't love it enough to go even when you're mad at it. But I tell you honestly, until you find repose in the God who made you, in the Church He has given us for our salvation, you will never know peace, God forbid. Please, pray, talk to a priest, read the Bible and the fathers, take our warnings seriously!
cantemir | 04.16.06 - 1:42 pm | #

If you mean that every "claim to know the only truth for all humanity" is necessarily false, I think that can be shown to be wrong by example (though I couldn't say offhand which examples you'd be likely to accept).

You couldn't? I could.

kidlacan claims to know that every "claim to know the only truth for all humanity" is necessarily false, which necessarily means knowing the only truth for all humanity about such claims.

It does have the little logic problem, though.
Mary | 04.16.06 - 2:17 pm | #

Human morality, as it stands today, is based on the question "Who does this hurt?"

Sez who?

And the claims here, that saying contraceptors are objectively harming their marriage is causing hurt feelings, shows the real problem. Silencing people who think they see real, objective harm will also hurt their feelings. You can't chose without an additional rule.
Mary | 04.16.06 - 2:20 pm | #

Is the decision to pursue a sexual relationship while deliberately and willfully avoiding conception a matter of conscience or a matter of convenience?

Conscience.

In order to licitly avoiding having children, one must not only avoid objectively, one must perform it with the subjective correct intent. To do an objectively good deed, one must have the right intention.

A married couple avoiding having children -- by any means -- require grave cause.
Mary | 04.16.06 - 2:31 pm | #

No one's asking you to compromise Christ's teaching. All anyone has asked you is to stop making smarmy, cheap,degrading comments about other people's marriages.

I suspect that Herod thought John the Baptist's comments about his marriage were smarmy, cheap, and degrading.

I suspect that when Paul complained to the Corinthians, of "immorality of a kind not found even among pagans--a man living with his father's wife," that the man and woman thought the comments were smarmy, cheap, and degrading.
Mary | 04.16.06 - 2:53 pm | #

mary, could you clarify the 'little logic problem'? i can't quite make out what you are arguing in your most recent three posts, but when you speak about 'hurt feelings' you seem to be suggesting, again, that people repress and persecute christians simply by disagreeing with them.

i'm reminded why i'm not christian most times i engage in debate with christians, so it goes without saying that i do not practice catholicism. therefore, i have no place engaging directly in argument over tenets of church teaching. not my church, not my concern.

at this point, i don't even care if the whole of the catholic church stands up and tells me i treat my beloved like a sex toy. not my church, not my concern. it may make me sad for those involved with such a church, but it has little effect on me or on my relationship.

at this point, my only real question is this: do those of you so dead-set against contraception feel satisfied practicing this belief yourselves, and 'witnessing' it to others? or do you believe that this practice of yours ought to be codified into law?
kidlacan | 04.16.06 - 2:54 pm | #

why is it so unacceptable to agree that people freely choose, based on personal experience and personal belief, whether or not to buy a steak?

The PETA member agrees with it. He also thinks it's wrong of them to so choose.

People freely chose a lot of things, based on personal experience and personal belief. Would you be prepared to defend all of them?
Mary | 04.16.06 - 7:18 pm | #

when you speak about 'hurt feelings' you seem to be suggesting, again, that people repress and persecute christians simply by disagreeing with them.

That's an odd spin to put on my observation that Nina regards the comments on this thread as harmful to her, and that her solution -- our silence -- would hurt our feelings.

How do you chose what is harm?
Mary | 04.16.06 - 7:20 pm | #

Kidlacan, while I certainly can't claim to speak for everyone, I would ban abortifacient forms of contraception (eg the morning after pill) but leave the barrier forms, eg condoms, legal.

Nina, could you please leave the Orthodox church out of this? Incidentally, the Orthodox church has no official position on contraception. (I'm Orthodox) Calling Dawn names, moreover, only hurts your position. If you wish to accuse others of a being judgemental and personal, for goodness' sakes lay off the the ad hominem yourself!
luthien | 04.16.06 - 9:21 pm | #

Luthien,

I assume that you're the same Luthien that posts of merecomments? Because I'm the same Cantemir :)

I do and do not agree with this statement: the Orthodox church has no official position on contraception... Indeed, the Orthodox Church has fewer 'official positions' than any other church that I can think of, because of the nature of doctrine formation in contemporary Orthodoxy. But I have found Fr. Matusiak's opinion (given here) to be widely shared:

Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. Here again, however, such a couple cannot pretend to justify themselves in the light of the absolute perfection of the Kingdom of God.

Dawn, do the commenters who told the contraception users their marriages were loveless shams beyween sex toys and blow-up dolls have to apologize as well? (Let me guess...no.)


Nina did not threaten anyone. She said:

No one calls anyone in my family names and gets away with it. If you were saying all of this to me face to face, you'd be on the ground bleeding by now.


And you know what? If you wouldn't react the same way to a stranger trashing your family, you're the one with the problem. But I'd be shocked if any of you actually would speak that way to someone's face. Talk is cheap, especially on the Internet.


Nina made some really good points and eloquent arguments...of course she's banned. I wouldn't expect any more of you, Dawn.
Norah | 04.17.06 - 2:11 am | #

Norah, you sound very heated, and I can't help but wonder why you believe it's right for you to make value judgments and wrong for others
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 2:24 am | #

re: the distinction between 'artificial contraception' and NFP --

as someone has already stated, one must have a grave reason for avoiding the conception of a child; taking the simplest case of where the intention is 100% identical between a couple using NFP and a couple using artificial contraception, there remains the significant moral difference between the means used to attain this end, NFP versus artificial contraception -- whether an action is right or not is not solely determined by the intention
T. Chan | 04.17.06 - 2:51 am | #

Gee, Dawn, C&P much?

Nina, you sound very heated, and I can't help but wonder why you believe it's right for you to make value judgments and wrong for others.

Perhaps you could try not phoning it in, and responding to my actual points?
Thank you.
Norah | 04.17.06 - 10:09 am | #

Norah, I've responded to all your points, and so have many people. I have the impression that you're not listening. You've expressed a great animus towards me personally here and on Pandagon. I don't know how to respond to that or to respond to your comments in a way that you'll listen. All I can tell you is that I have prayed for you and will do again right now.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 1:53 pm | #

Dawn, welcome to the church.

That having been said - no, you haven't responded to the questions. You and many of your commenters have repeatedly smeared, demeaned, and insulted the marriages of many people here. You've implied that they're treating their spouses, and being treated in return, as nothing more than a blow-up doll, and that their marriages are a loveless joke. And then, when they take (perfectly understandable) offense at that, you shout, "'Elp! 'Elp! I'm being repressed!"

Here's the difference between Nina and Norah and you: They are having a completely understandable reaction to being baselessly and blatantly insulted. You are trying to turn it around and deflect blame by pretending that they're just trying to oppress you now. And every time you pass some horrible, hateful judgment and try to defend it with the weight of God's word, you lose credibility and weaken the message of Christ that you claim to support.

If you want to argue that the Church forbids contraception and that contraception has weakened some marriages, fine, go ahead. But if you want to go insulting all marriages by making the claims you've made, you. Are. Wrong. You have no way of knowing that what you're saying is true, you know that you have no way of knowing, and still you choose to throw around the most horrible insults.

And then you go crying about being repressed.
ACG | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 3:30 pm | #

Dawn, there is no need to pray for me, so why don't you pray for peace in your own life.
You have not responded to my points, at least not in an adult manner ("Aaaarrrgh does not compute"? Come on.)

I have no animosity towards you, but it bothers me greatly that you seem to condone your commenters' ugly remarks towards the marriages of certain people. Scroll back up and reread, why don't you? I listened to everything everyone had to say; but I think you're the one who isn't hearing.

I don't think you're a bad or misguided person, but I do see you as terribly naive, and terribly eager to make the rules for a game which you do not play.
Norah | 04.17.06 - 3:36 pm | #

ACG, point to me one instance in which a commenter has personally insulted you, Nina, or Norah.

I do not accept that general value statements about the merits of one lifestyle over another are personal insults. If that is your belief, then I'm sorry that communication is impossible.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 3:49 pm | #

Oh, it doesn't count if it's not a "personal" insult? Dawn, that's a copout and you know it. By your own logic, you should not have banned Nina, since she didn't "personally" threaten anyone. But no, I guess ugly smallminded comments are A-OK here at Dawn Patrol, as long as Dawn agrees.


Check out your boy Bender:

Because of this barrier and this withholding of self, sex is no longer an act of mutual giving, that is, an act of love. Instead, it becomes an act of taking; an act of exploiting; an act of using the other as an object, as a sex toy. By this use of contraception, couples no longer see each other as a subject or even a person -- they see the other as object, a thing. Nothing much more than a flesh and blood blow-up toy or vibrator.
It is this objectification of the human person that is the real evil of contraception. It is the central evil because human beings are not things, they are not toys to be used and exploited by others and then tossed aside. Even if putatively "consensual," it is still by its very nature exploitive.

Dawn, please explain exactly how anyone who isn't hiding under the bed of every married contraception user in the world could know things like that?

Nobody on earth can ever know what goes on inside a marriage but the two people in the marriage. If you had a bit more experience in such matters, I wouldn't have to explain that to you.
Norah | 04.17.06 - 3:56 pm | #

Folks, I think that we need to stop making this discussion about wounded feelings and personalities. Norah, ACG, I have no opinions on those aspects of your marriages or relationships that you've not seen fit to reveal here. On the other hand, you have to realize that no one here is insulting your marriages because they want to hurt your feelings. Rather, they have stated what they believe to be generally true of all marriage that use contraception. What's more, this belief is of a basically abstract character. There's room for you to enjoy profound personal communion, deep sacrificing love, et al., and yet for the argument that contraception taints sexuality to be true as well.

Frankly, I think that all these wounded feelings are rather non-productive. No one has said anything half as obnoxious here as what has been said over at feministe about Dawn and the rest of us benighted woman-hating troglodytes. If you can't talk about abstract policy or moral issues without taking umbrage every time someone's beliefs do not flatter you, well, you'd be safest talking only with people whom you know already to agree with you.

Let's get back to the fundamental issue at hand: that of marriage and contraception. The Catholic position, that artificial methods of contraception are wrong, was not conjured from the air. Rather, it is the logical outgrowth of the beliefs that virtuall all Christians professed until the 1930's. Catholics believe that NFP is basically reproductive in character, but that attempts to render a sex act sterile in character are sinful. But G.E.M. Anscombe, the famous philosopher and, incidentally, Catholic woman, said here that:

With society becoming more and more contraceptive, the pressure felt by Catholic married people became great. The restriction of intercourse to infertile periods "for grave reasons" was offered to them as a recourse - at first in a rather gingerly way ... and then with increasing recommendation of it. For in this method the act of copulation was not itself adapted in any way so as to render it infertile, and so the condemnation of acts of contraceptive intercourse as somehow perverse and so as grave breaches of chastity, did not apply to this. All other methods, Catholics were very emphatically taught, were "against the natural law".

you have to realize that no one here is insulting your marriages because they want to hurt your feelings.

But I thought we'd just established that just because you don't mean for something to be wrong, doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Oh, golly, now I'm all confused again.
ACG | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 4:38 pm | #

Dawn, please explain exactly how anyone who isn't hiding under the bed of every married contraception user in the world could know things like that?

Norah: that is possibly a problem with popular Catholic explanations of the moral teaching--the over-reliance on psychological states/desires/etc. to explain why an action is immoral.

Nonetheless, do you not agree that a good intention does not make every action right or morally good? In the case of artificial contraception, the action is not proportioned to the intention. In artificial contraception there is a deliberate interference by the one or both partners; in NFP there is not--even if they are taking into account the fertility cycle, they are not deliberately impeding the act.
T. Chan | 04.17.06 - 7:11 pm | #

But I thought we'd just established that just because you don't mean for something to be wrong, doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Now that you realize that, the question is whether to make a general moral condemnation of an action is objectively wrong.

Looking into our authority, in the Bible, we find that many moral condemnations of action that'll seer your ears off, which were, in fact, morally right.

And many people who regarded this as "trashing" and justification for leaving people "bleeding on the ground" -- literally -- but that did not only not justify their actions, it did not justify those issuing the condemnations to go silent.

No, you're not going to persuade us that moral condemnations are objectively wrong.
Mary | 04.17.06 - 10:26 pm | #

ACG,

While that was witty, it was also a cheap and empty point, because it need not be wrong to insult someone by telling him a painful truth. Worse, it may be morally mandated! Friends don't let friends drive drunk - or have illicit sex.
cantemir | 04.17.06 - 10:34 pm | #

I believe that NFP separates sex from fertility just as much as any other form of contraception does. Simply because it is natural rather than chemical or a barrier method, I believe, does not change the fact that sex and fertility are being divorced, at least temporarily. One is having sex and intending not to procreate.

This whole NFP vs. ABC argument relies on either the acceptance or rejection of a simple premise:

A loving God designed sex to allow us to partner in His continuing plan of creation.

If you accept this, you cannot in good conscience contracept. If you reject this, you can pretty much do whatever you want.

I believe some of the ladies of the radical feminist persuasion might have mis-interpreted Dawn's motives for her posts regarding sexuality from a Catholic perspective. I'm sure if I got it wrong, Dawn will correct me (possibly right in this comment :)).

The reason that I promote sex within marriage as opposed to casual sex is that the difference is between (to quote Christopher West) dumpster diving for your meals and partaking of a sumptuous feast. The difference between contracepted sex within marriage and using NFP (or No FP) is the difference between McDonald's and a sumptuous feast.

All of these methods gain you nutrition, but nobody can argue that the sumptuous feast is preferable. Oh, sure, you'll get those people who ask "what if you're on a diet?". To those I say: "Never mind. Carry on the way you're going".

I don't believe it's some attitude of superiority that drives Dawn (as some attitude of superiority doesn't drive me). Sure, I believe my way is better. I have incredible benefits from loving this way, and I'd like everyone to have those benefits.

There's an awe and mystery, that each time you come together with your wife in incredible love, and the two of you are one flesh, your love might be so strong that in 9 months you may have to give it a name.

If you use NFP, you are saying to God: "We would prefer not to have a child right now, and I know you don't require us to have children because you made one of us infertile 25 or so days a month, but should you wish this for us, we will accept him or her lovingly into our lives as a submssion to your will."

When you use contraception you are saying to God: "We don't care what plan you have for us, we have our own plans. Kindly don't interfere".

By using contraception, you are avoiding the natural conclusion of the sex act. Someone I know likened it to Jesus saying: "I like this preaching, teaching and miracle working. But I don't think I like this idea of dying on the cross. I think I'll just avoid that part of it."

Would the world have had new life had that happened?
Tony | Homepage | 04.17.06 - 10:40 pm | #

cantemir,
Your respectful tone is an example to us all, I hope I can return it. Unfortunately, given the subject matter, I'm afraid we probably can't avoid offending each other.
I agree that sexual exploitation is pervasive in society. But I suspect below that agreement lie some differences. The most pervasive form of sexual exploitation is, I would argue, the use of images of women (mostly) in advertisements to sell products, thus exploiting the sex drives of the viewers. Also common is the use of images of women to sell entertainment. (I feel that advertisements are exploitive in general). This, I think, would be benign were it not for the shear volume of advertisement and other media were are exposed to. It was instructive to come home from a stint at University with almost no television; it is astonishing how rude and sexist ads are.
I don't know how common sexual exploitation as in sexual slavery is, but I would question just how much choice most prostitutes really have in their choice of vocation. Strip clubs don't bother me as much (though that might be because I've never been in one); as I understand it most strippers really do choose to work as strippers, and not in a "wage slavery" way. Still, I don't think that is a very healthy form of sexuality. "Consenting adults" is the operative phrase here; it's not my decision to make for others. Same for value-free (recreational) sex. I don't think it's very healthy, but I just don't see the degree of harm the Church claims.
As an aside, my morality is loosely based on a desire for people to be free, safe, healthy, and sane. Things like homosexuality or polyamoury don't really bother me. They're not for everyone, but for some people they really are good for their welfare (free, safe, healthy, and sane). Same also for BDSM. My understanding of BDSM is that it is basically play, and while that doesn't necessarily mean it's harmless, from my very peripheral knowledge of the BDSM community it doesn't appear to be actually harmful. Weird.
Onward to casual sex among early adolescents. Casual is a relative term, I think that most sex still takes place in the context of relationships. But they may be fairly casual relationships.
Here again, I think that sex in early adolescence is harmful (from a mental health perspective), but I'm not at all convinced it is nearly as harmful as has been claimed even in this thread. But there is another aspect of adolescent sex, and that is teenage pregnancy. The reason this is a problem is simple; most teens are not mature enough to make good mothers, hence a generation of children raised by poor (and money-poor) mothers, often without any help from fathers. The grandparents may sometimes step in, but I don't think that's going to be enough to compensate. This is a big, big problem in the United States, and a far smaller problem just about everywhere else. The Catholic Church sees the problem as one of fornication, where as I see it as one of irresponsible sex. This is not a problem caused by the pill, indeed were kids having sex on the pill the problem would be much smaller.

If your 15-year-old daughter is, in your opinion, inappropriately involved with her boyfriend, chastity camp might well seem more appealing than sending her down to talk to Presbyterian minister who lobbies for Planned Parenthood - never mind to Planned Parenthood itself.

I hope, transparently obvious that prior to the widespread adoption of artificial birth control methods, sex implied pregnancy.

Catholic Christians deplore that this link was severed. Some of their grounds for this belief come from a frame of reference that, as an atheist, you can't possibly be expected to assent to.

Other grounds, such as the consequentialist case that artificial birth control led inevitably to the dehumanizing imagisitic commodification of sex, fall with indisputable force upon anyone not a libertine.

it is not inappropriate to move from the argument that sex is commodified as a consequence of birth control to the argument that anyone using birth control experiences sex that is perforce commodified to some extent.

Now I will freely grant that my relationship and sex with my partner is less than perfect. There should be no shame in that. But not commodified, not as I understand the word.

I'm deleting further comments about who's beating up whom, because it's gone way off-topic.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 04.18.06 - 2:38 am | #

NFP vs. ABC does not come down to accepting the premise you've laid out, Tony, but on a fundamental confusion between means and ends. NFP-only advocates are saying that using a certain means - NFP - usually means that one's ends will be good, and that using ABC means that one's ends will be anti-God. That is a fallacy. There are two separate questions: One, which ends are allowable for a Christian, and two, which means are permissible to attain those ends. A couple practicing NFP and one practicing ABC can have the same ends - delaying children, though being open to God's sending them a child if He so chooses. What they do is use different means. The question a NFP user has to answer is why NFP as a means is different than ABC as a means - without referring to ends.
Sophie | 04.18.06 - 10:24 am | #

I would tell her that condoms are the most reliable way to avoid conception if you do have sex.

Why?

I have never seen any evidence that condoms are the most reliable form of contraception. Far from!
Mary | 04.18.06 - 8:19 pm | #

Someone made the comment that Christ's teachings clearly say that birth control is sinful...please elaborate. I understand chemical birth control being sinful becuase it can be abortofacient and alters your body's natural balance (I don't even take advil, you can bet I am not going to pump my body full of artificial progesterone and estrogen). However I truly don't understand where Christ's teachings tell us that barrier methods are sinful. Before my marriage I prayed about BC a lot, I realized that I couldn't use the pill or things like that because of the abortofacient nature. My husband and I now use FAM. What is funny is that you say that by using condoms we are telling God "to heck with you this is our life and you can't control it" but what is interesting is just a few months ago I thought I might be pregnant. It was not intentional, because we are trying to wait until we won't have to go on welfare if we have a child (we would have to if we get pregnant now). My husband was so wonderful and he told me that I couldn't think of it as any kind of accident if I was pregnant but we just needed to think of it as a blessing from God. It was as though a light bulb went off in my head, all this time I thought I was giving my whole life to Christ, but I did not give him my fertility. I prayed about it and a huge burden was lifted off my shoulders: the fears I had of getting pregnant before we could afford it...gone, the fear that I might be infertile and could never have my own children...gone, the fear that it would take me a long time to get pregnant when we do start trying...gone. I opened myself to God and told him that my fertility was His, my husband and I prayed and we still felt we should attempt to concieve in October and continue to use FAM until then...but if we do get pregnant sooner, we know he will take care of us, or if we can't get pregnant we will submit to his will. I guess what I am trying to say here is that we are completely open to Gods will for our fertility but we do use FAM, and we would not consider any child a "mistake". Even though the argument was that people using any form of BC other than NFP were not open to Gods will.
Sarah Faith | 04.19.06 - 9:23 am | #

From the better late than never file --

"Man does not trust God. Tempted by the serpent, he harbours the suspicion that in the end, God takes something away from his life, that God is a rival who curtails our freedom and that we will be fully human only when we have cast him aside; in brief, that only in this way can we fully achieve our freedom.
"The human being lives in the suspicion that God's love creates a dependence and that he must rid himself of this dependency if he is to be fully himself. Man does not want to receive his existence and the fullness of his life from God.
"He himself wants to obtain from the tree of knowledge the power to shape the world, to make himself a god, raising himself to God's level, and to overcome death and darkness with his own efforts. He does not want to rely on love that to him seems untrustworthy; he relies solely on his own knowledge since it confers power upon him. Rather than on love, he sets his sights on power, with which he desires to take his own life autonomously in hand. And in doing so, he trusts in deceit rather than in truth and thereby sinks with his life into emptiness, into death. . . .
"We live in the right way if we live in accordance with the truth of our being, and that is, in accordance with God's will. For God's will is not a law for the human being imposed from the outside and that constrains him, but the intrinsic measure of his nature, a measure that is engraved within him and makes him the image of God, hence, a free creature.
"If we live in opposition to love and against the truth - in opposition to God - then we destroy one another and destroy the world. Then we do not find life but act in the interests of death. . . .
"we have a lurking suspicion that a person who does not sin must really be basically boring and that something is missing from his life: the dramatic dimension of being autonomous; that the freedom to say no, to descend into the shadows of sin and to want to do things on one's own is part of being truly human; that only then can we make the most of all the vastness and depth of our being men and women, of being truly ourselves; that we should put this freedom to the test, even in opposition to God, in order to become, in reality, fully ourselves.
"In a word, we think that evil is basically good, we think that we need it, at least a little, in order to experience the fullness of being. . . . We think that a little bargaining with evil, keeping for oneself a little freedom against God, is basically a good thing, perhaps even necessary.
"If we look, however, at the world that surrounds us we can see that this is not so; in other words, that evil is always poisonous, does not uplift human beings but degrades and humiliates them. It does not make them any the greater, purer or wealthier, but harms and belittles them.
"This is something we should indeed learn on the day of the Immaculate Conception: the person who abandons himself totally in God's hands does not become God's puppet, a boring 'yes man'; he does not lose his freedom. Only the person who entrusts himself totally to God finds true freedom, the great, creative immensity of the freedom of good.
"The person who turns to God does not become smaller but greater, for through God and with God he becomes great, he becomes divine, he becomes truly himself. The person who puts himself in God's hands does not distance himself from others, withdrawing into his private salvation; on the contrary, it is only then that his heart truly awakens and he becomes a sensitive, hence, benevolent and open person."
Pope Benedict XVI, Homily on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 2005.
http://www.vatican.va/ holy_fathe...council_en.html
Bender | 04.19.06 - 12:27 pm | #

I have never seen any evidence that condoms are the most reliable form of contraception. Far from!