Skip to content

S** Talk Addendum

July 9, 2010

Well, CTC just posted something on contraception here. It really is quite ironic that within a few days of my own post, they put something up.

The main post does not address my main objection really. It does give the basic argument and mentions other big-name Protestants who have brought the issue up recently. However, if you scroll down to comment #26 and see Bryan Cross’s reply in #27, you will see an explanation given.

I said that it seems dumb to just go with NFP for the sake of it being “natural” and in harmony with the woman’s fertility cycle. The purpose is the same: to not have children. NFP is not always 100% effective, but neither are contraceptives. The couple must always consider that the sexual act could result in conception, in either scenario – both NFP and the use of contraception.  The purpose is the same, the chances are (more or less) the same, just the means are different – one happens to be “natural,” the other not.

Bryan Cross says that makes the whole difference. The end is the same (when NFP is used to postpone childbearing, that is), but the means are different. The difference is that with contraceptives, the couple is actively stopping and thwarting a part of the sexual act. With NFP, there is no active thwarting of the semen from entering the woman or stopping the egg from releasing or sabotaging the woman’s womb. NFP also still allows all three purposes of the sex act to take place – potential for procreation, unity of the couple and pleasure – whereas contraception purposely excludes one part of sex’s purpose. If any other part of the sex act were excluded, such as unity of the couple or pleasure, wouldn’t it be considered a distortion of sex? For example, forced and pleasureless sex (ie. rape, incest) is wrong, and sex with no true unity (ie. adultery or before marriage) is wrong too. Why not sex that refuses the semen or “seed” as Gen.38:9 puts it or the woman’s egg and womb?

That makes more sense, I guess.

And it makes more sense if you are thorough in regards to attitudes toward having children. Catholics have a lot of kids (historically, at least) b/c kids were a wonderful thing to have. As long as the parents could rear the children well, provide for them, were in good enough health, in a stable enough situation, then they should have kept having kids…I mean, if kids are a gift from the Lord, then why wouldn’t a family want as many as they could, in good conscience, love and provide for?

Anyway, see what I mean for going back and forth on this?

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: