How Could the Catholic Church Develop Its Teaching on Artificial Contraception?

[Maximilian]

http://philotheaonphire.blogspot.com/p/nfp-posts.html

I love Philothea!

I was just thinking of her the other day because she liked to include old-time photos of large families along with her blog posts. Those photos were like a Rorsacht test or like the Voight-Kampff test in "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep?".

[Amos]

"Artificial contraception"

This term is idiotic.
There's at least one contraceptive action that has nothing to do with the artificial. I won't describe it for the sake of decency.

Yes, the term is idiotic, but it's the current lingua franca, so we use it reservedly for the sake of clarity and consistency as to what is referenced: the purposeful reliance on introduced mechanical, chemical, or exogenous hormonal means to subvert conception. (I use subvert so as to cover both pre- and post-conception, but that distinction is a discussion in itself.)

Who cares if it's the current "lingua franca?"
It's not clarity when non-artificial contraceptive methods exist that are just as bad as the artificial ones.

The first sentence of the first post in this thread stated:

"Among scattered rumors that Pope Francis is considering a new document that could soften the Church's ban on artificial contraception..."

How can one soften the ban on "artificial contraception" and leave non-artificial means untouched?

[Instaurare omnia]

Who cares if it's the current "lingua franca?"
It's not clarity when non-artificial contraceptive methods exist that are just as bad as the artificial ones.

The first sentence of the first post in this thread stated:

"Among scattered rumors that Pope Francis is considering a new document that could soften the Church's ban on artificial contraception..."

How can one soften the ban on "artificial contraception" and leave non-artificial means untouched?

Two distinct dragons to slay, even if both dragons are from the same infernal source. "Artificial" contraception requires some mix of pharmaceutical companies, drug stores, doctors, insurance companies, government regulation, etc. (all of whom are also secular stakeholders in whatever decisions the Vatican puts forth). In contrast, "non-artificial" means -- to call them that, since these are no less unnatural -- are far simpler and solely the doing of the man and woman who chose to employ them in that moment. (I redirect your attention to a book I mentioned way back in an earlier post, in which the anthropologist authors, a husband and wife, undertook many hours of delicate conversation with their village informants to reveal what exactly had caused the local drop in fertility.) A married couple who abuse the conjugal act between themselves is a somewhat different pastoral challenge from a married couple who expend the additional time and effort to obtain contraceptives. The former sin in the same way as others have going back to the time of Onan. The latter add in a further layer of Modernist sins, and they will need convincing of the error of more than just their bedroom habits.


Terminology matters. If we are bogged down in ambiguity instead of the targeted thing itself, it only gives an advantage to the enemy.

[Vox Clara]

"Artificial contraception"

This term is idiotic.
There's at least one contraceptive action that has nothing to do with the artificial. I won't describe it for the sake of decency.

Yes, the term is idiotic, but it's the current lingua franca, so we use it reservedly for the sake of clarity and consistency as to what is referenced: the purposeful reliance on introduced mechanical, chemical, or exogenous hormonal means to subvert conception. (I use subvert so as to cover both pre- and post-conception, but that distinction is a discussion in itself.)

Who cares if it's the current "lingua franca?"
It's not clarity when non-artificial contraceptive methods exist that are just as bad as the artificial ones.

The first sentence of the first post in this thread stated:

"Among scattered rumors that Pope Francis is considering a new document that could soften the Church's ban on artificial contraception..."

How can one soften the ban on "artificial contraception" and leave non-artificial means untouched?

The article refers to "artificial contraception" because it is the Church's stance on artificial contraception that this new document is rumored to soften. The Church has already relaxed its prohibition on natural contraception by allowing and even encouraging the use of "natural family planning".

[Polymath]

Forgot to add this link:

https://vaticancatholic.com/natural-family-planning-nfp/

I don't care for the Dimond Bros. or a lot of what they have to say, but I do think there is a lot of truth in what they say on this issue.  I wouldn't say the Church is necessarily wrong in allowing NFP for grave reasons (as distasteful as I find the concept, it is Church teaching), but I do think sufficiently grave reasons are so rare as to be negligible.

[Maximilian]

Who cares if it's the current "lingua franca?"
It's not clarity when non-artificial contraceptive methods exist that are just as bad as the artificial ones.

The first sentence of the first post in this thread stated:

"Among scattered rumors that Pope Francis is considering a new document that could soften the Church's ban on artificial contraception..."

How can one soften the ban on "artificial contraception" and leave non-artificial means untouched?

Two distinct dragons to slay, even if both dragons are from the same infernal source. "Artificial" contraception requires some mix of pharmaceutical companies, drug stores, doctors, insurance companies, government regulation, etc. (all of whom are also secular stakeholders in whatever decisions the Vatican puts forth). In contrast, "non-artificial" means -- to call them that, since these are no less unnatural -- are far simpler and solely the doing of the man and woman who chose to employ them in that moment. (I redirect your attention to a book I mentioned way back in an earlier post, in which the anthropologist authors, a husband and wife, undertook many hours of delicate conversation with their village informants to reveal what exactly had caused the local drop in fertility.) A married couple who abuse the conjugal act between themselves is a somewhat different pastoral challenge from a married couple who expend the additional time and effort to obtain contraceptives. The former sin in the same way as others have going back to the time of Onan. The latter add in a further layer of Modernist sins, and they will need convincing of the error of more than just their bedroom habits.

Your overall point is correct, i.e. that there are 2 distinct categories to address. However, the reality is that NFP is actually a lot more complicated and requires a lot more effort than "artificial" birth control. Buying artificial contraception is easy. NFP requires thermometers and charts and graphs and mucus measurements and a whole regime of monthly schedules. There is also sometimes the issue of denial of the marital right which is a grave sin of itself.

[Maximilian]

Forgot to add this link:

https://vaticancatholic.com/natural-family-planning-nfp/

I don't care for the Dimond Bros. or a lot of what they have to say, but I do think there is a lot of truth in what they say on this issue.  I wouldn't say the Church is necessarily wrong in allowing NFP for grave reasons (as distasteful as I find the concept, it is Church teaching), but I do think sufficiently grave reasons are so rare as to be negligible.

Yes, "periodic continence" in a situation of "grave reasons," as taught by Pius XII in his "Allocution to Italian Midwives," is not necessarily wrong per se. But the problem is that we have reached a situation in the Church, on this issue and on other issues, where "the loophole becomes the rule." Loopholes are like black holes that swallow up everything around them. In this case also, a loophole that was supposed to be reserved for rare situations has become something that is taught and recommended and even sometimes proposed as mandatory. In 1951 Pius XII was teaching at a time when millions of people were still suffering from the after-effects of WWII and were living in displaced persons camps. Although even in that situation, I know several people who were born in displaced persons camps.

[Instaurare omnia]

However, the reality is that NFP is actually a lot more complicated and requires a lot more effort than "artificial" birth control. Buying artificial contraception is easy. NFP requires thermometers and charts and graphs and mucus measurements and a whole regime of monthly schedules. There is also sometimes the issue of denial of the marital right which is a grave sin of itself.

Except that I wasn't talking about NFP there, and as an old woman who formally taught that basic biology to young adult students for many years (NB: but not at all with the intent of teaching them how to contracept), I know exactly what NFP entails. What I was actually describing earlier in this thread was the timeless variety of private violations of the Sixth Commandment that a sacramentally married husband and wife may still chose to commit in order to impede conception. Those practices were exactly the ones that the anthropologists investigated in that book I mentioned many posts ago. Do I need to explain further, or is this PG-rated set of euphemisms clear enough? Amos back in Reply #25 (not this more recent reply) used far fewer words for the sake of decency, but I don't think NFP is what he referenced either.

Bottom line, if the Vatican and the hierarchy are serious about combatting artificial contraception (whether narrowly or broadly defined), then they first need to reassert the primacy of sacramental Catholic marriage (entered into by mature adults who will at least make an effort to honor their vows). Not civil unions, not remarriage after annulment or even mere divorce, not every other possible willful straying to be "accompanied" by a "welcoming" modernist clergy.

[Polymath]

Why the [expletive] are people here arguing and making excuses for people deliberately preventing their own children from ever existing?

[Instaurare omnia]

I wouldn't say the Church is necessarily wrong in allowing NFP for grave reasons (as distasteful as I find the concept, it is Church teaching), but I do think sufficiently grave reasons are so rare as to be negligible.

I wonder, does the mainstream Church include the story of St. Gianna Beretta Molla during its Pre-Cana sessions? (She was canonized in 2004.) If not, then it's a telling omission. Hers was not a case of NFP, rather of the principle of double effect with regard to the risk of indirect abortion. But it would serve to illustrate what grave reasons are and are not.

[Polymath]

I wouldn't say the Church is necessarily wrong in allowing NFP for grave reasons (as distasteful as I find the concept, it is Church teaching), but I do think sufficiently grave reasons are so rare as to be negligible.

I wonder, does the mainstream Church include the story of St. Gianna Beretta Molla during its Pre-Cana sessions? (She was canonized in 2004.) If not, then it's a telling omission. Hers was not a case of NFP, rather of the principle of double effect with regard to the risk of indirect abortion. But it would serve to illustrate what grave reasons are and are not.

I'm not even comfortable with the fact that the Church would have allowed her to have a hysterectomy using the "double effect" loophole.  My mother would give her life to save mine if that were necessary, and since she has felt that way from the moment she first saw me, and this was even before reverting to the faith, I would argue that this is merely natural law.  Parents are supposed to put their children's lives above their own; that the Church would have allowed St. Gianna the option of sacrificing her baby to save her own life seems reprehensible to me, as that seems quite selfish.  Even if God allows the loophole, I can't imagine He looks favorably on those who take advantage.

[Amos]

Two distinct dragons to slay, even if both dragons are from the same infernal source. "Artificial" contraception requires some mix of pharmaceutical companies, drug stores, doctors, insurance companies, government regulation, etc. (all of whom are also secular stakeholders in whatever decisions the Vatican puts forth). In contrast, "non-artificial" means -- to call them that, since these are no less unnatural -- are far simpler and solely the doing of the man and woman who chose to employ them in that moment. (I redirect your attention to a book I mentioned way back in an earlier post, in which the anthropologist authors, a husband and wife, undertook many hours of delicate conversation with their village informants to reveal what exactly had caused the local drop in fertility.) A married couple who abuse the conjugal act between themselves is a somewhat different pastoral challenge from a married couple who expend the additional time and effort to obtain contraceptives. The former sin in the same way as others have going back to the time of Onan. The latter add in a further layer of Modernist sins, and they will need convincing of the error of more than just their bedroom habits.


Terminology matters. If we are bogged down in ambiguity instead of the targeted thing itself, it only gives an advantage to the enemy.

Nothing you said rebuts my initial point. "Artificial contraception" is an idiotic term as it excludes "non-artificial" methods. If one relaxes the "artificial," then the "non-artificial" follows. My point has nothing to do with drug companies or how it is a supposedly different "pastoral challenge" with folks who go the Onan path. The initial post of this thread talked about the "Church" relaxing the teaching on "artificial contraception," to which I responded the phrase is stupid because it should include the "non-artificial" - meaning they should just call it "contraception" or at least include terminology that includes the "non-artificial." Or in other words, if you want clarity then non-artificial methods should be included, hence the phrase "artificial contraception" is at best ambiguous or at worst exclusionary.

[Instaurare omnia]

I'm not even comfortable with the fact that the Church would have allowed her to have a hysterectomy using the "double effect" loophole.  My mother would give her life to save mine if that were necessary, and since she has felt that way from the moment she first saw me, and this was even before reverting to the faith, I would argue that this is merely natural law.  Parents are supposed to put their children's lives above their own; that the Church would have allowed St. Gianna the option of sacrificing her baby to save her own life seems reprehensible to me, as that seems quite selfish.  Even if God allows the loophole, I can't imagine He looks favorably on those who take advantage.

Exactly. And for that reason, St. Gianna would be a role model of the most exemplary decision, even if it were to make some of those prospective couples a bit uneasy. Modernist educators love to use these sorts of "values clarification" exercises. Let's see them try this one.

[Amos]

The article refers to "artificial contraception" because it is the Church's stance on artificial contraception that this new document is rumored to soften. The Church has already relaxed its prohibition on natural contraception by allowing and even encouraging the use of "natural family planning".

Yes, I know what the article is saying.

The point I am making is that the term "artificial contraception" is stupid because things like the Onan method are just as bad. Hence the term is idiotic and should not be used because, at the very least, it implies only "artificial" or man-made methods of contraception. If you relax "artificial contraception" then you relax it all. That's all I'm saying.

[Instaurare omnia]

Nothing you said rebuts my initial point. "Artificial contraception" is an idiotic term as it excludes "non-artificial" methods. If one relaxes the "artificial," then the "non-artificial" follows. My point has nothing to do with drug companies or how it is a supposedly different "pastoral challenge" with folks who go the Onan path. The initial post of this thread talked about the "Church" relaxing the teaching on "artificial contraception," to which I responded the phrase is stupid because it should include the "non-artificial" - meaning they should just call it "contraception" or at least include terminology that includes the "non-artificial." Or in other words, if you want clarity then non-artificial methods should be included, hence the phrase "artificial contraception" is at best ambiguous or at worst exclusionary.

I don't disagree. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the current Vatican to lower the boom on all these CINO couples who've become accustomed to doing whatever they want. The fact that (as per the Aleteia article quoted in the OP) someone like Archbishop Paglia could suggest that the traditional teaching on procreation is "ideological" and now inadequate leaves us with little else except simply to be glad for the many large young families we see every Sunday morning. I did say at the end of Reply #5, "It's not a simple endeavor." But I also said at the end of Reply #10, "I can't fix anyone else."