Culture

[Old Man Mike]

The fact that it has been a long time since Malthus without a population over-run globally is "convenient" for people to argue for the just-keep-producing-at greater-than-sustainability-rate-view. The easily ignored also-fact is that we don't live in a smooth homogeneous globe and there have been plenty of places where the population has overshot the carrying capacity of that local/regional "culture." The "Oh but that was all their fault" argument is a red herring to the current discussion, as, if The Church was dominating that segment of morality teaching in those areas, it would have been a powerful influence in assuring the disaster of that over-growth at least as "efficiently."

I just wish that arguers of this BC vs no BC (worldwide) topic would just admit that this is not at all an obvious issue when solutions are trying to be discussed, and that statements like GOD/Providence will (apparently via a rather cast miracle) "provide", has in fact NOT been a solution in evidence used by GOD to assuage massive situations involving human suffering and deaths. Also things like Space Colonization are a preposterous fantasy when it comes to "evacuating" any serious percentage of the human population, and it leaves behind the precise population problem for the planet remainders. Throwing out "solutions" like these are straw men.

Extreme sexual->production insisters should look at the population problems as they actually are --- not on some globalized series of graphs which do not describe reality on the ground. If they did, it would be nice to hear that group say: well, it is still my Faith that we must behave ______ way, and that's going to be hard on people and some will suffer and some will die. THAT would be a refreshing bit of candor to hear.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Barring a quantum leap in technology, our growth will ultimately (and to be clear, this is long-run and not something I'm hoping for or advocating in the present day) be limited by our choice of either societal convention or physical carrying capacity. The latter option is famine, genocide, or war. Faced with those options, I think I'd error on the side of the former.

Of course, in our current situation, I agree with you. We're not yet at that point but eventually continuous growth must stop. I have regrettably not yet heard a moral answer to that end which doesn't center around hoping for a vague and undefined deliverance, since technology has always provided in the past.

The Church has never had enough political influence to enact a global prohibition on contraceptives, and as Tolkein reminds us, Catholics are bound to expect history to ultimately be a long defeat; so the consequences that such a global ban would have are mostly academic. We ought to consider societies separately, based on what is best for each of them.

In America, as with the remains of Christendom in Europe, contraception has been a disaster. The severing of sex from its procreative purpose has introduced all sorts of chaos, from mass infanticide to broken families, that has caused and continues to cause immeasurable damage to our children and future generations. As the total fertility rate has plummeted far below replacement rate, we're risking bankruptcy as the cost to support an unproductive elderly cohort far surpasses that of a shrinking tax base made up of young productive workers. The math behind those trends is far more certain and is going to impact us far sooner than any Malthusian concerns.

And even if, by some miracle, the USA became a confessional Catholic state tomorrow, banning contraception and passing pro-natalist policies, we would not end up remotely close to the nightmare scenario OMM describes below. Many of the countries with the lowest fertility rates have been taking increasingly extreme measures to attempt to incentivize their citizens to start reproducing again, and thus far nothing has seemed to work. It would be remarkable if we ever managed to get back to the replacement rate of 2.2 children/ woman.

It's both an issue of justice for children and pragmatic civilizational survival in the medium term. Continuing on our current course due to Malthusian concerns is to resign ourselves to letting the ship sink within the next several generations in order to avoid an iceberg that we may or may not crash into some point in the distant future. The former disaster is too immediate and certain, and the latter too distant and uncertain, to justify maintaining the status quo.

The fact that it has been a long time since Malthus without a population over-run globally is "convenient" for people to argue for the just-keep-producing-at greater-than-sustainability-rate-view. The easily ignored also-fact is that we don't live in a smooth homogeneous globe and there have been plenty of places where the population has overshot the carrying capacity of that local/regional "culture." The "Oh but that was all their fault" argument is a red herring to the current discussion, as, if The Church was dominating that segment of morality teaching in those areas, it would have been a powerful influence in assuring the disaster of that over-growth at least as "efficiently."

There are two primary variables here, Mike-- population growth and sustainability of current human lifestyles. I think following the Church's social teaching would help the West stabilize politically by getting close to the replacement rate again, and I've stated many times that we need to concurrently address the sustainability of our energy and food production. I also don't think there's a one-size-fits all program that can be forced onto every society across the globe, but there's plenty of evidence to support my arguments within the West.

Extreme sexual->production insisters should look at the population problems as they actually are --- not on some globalized series of graphs which do not describe reality on the ground. If they did, it would be nice to hear that group say: well, it is still my Faith that we must behave ______ way, and that's going to be hard on people and some will suffer and some will die. THAT would be a refreshing bit of candor to hear.

Who would "suffer and die" in America or Europe by implementing the policies I'm suggesting? The 60 million American infants aborted since Roe v. Wade passed definitely died, and the millions of American children raised in broken homes have definitely suffered. Where do they rate on your moral compass?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Didn't realize that we were talking about abortion --- I wasn't.

Didn't realize that we had to be talking about rich countries --- I wasn't. (though the argument exists there in local communities too --- All "Americans" aren't the same socio-economically and educationally, and certainly European situations vary all over the map.)

Bending a complex issue into your own strongest position alone is a debate club technique not an intellectually honest one. Turning everything into a large context statistical abortion argument is great for absolute maintenance of one's position on basically everything, but is eerily like current political discourse.

This debating technique is why I don't engage in multi-post discussions, as I consider the style consciously or subconsciously disingenuous, which voids the function of true discussion. It doubtless is extremely effective in court, I'll admit.

As (against my better judgement I'll throw thoughts down this Black Hole again) to "who'd suffer and die?", countless people in many numbers of places all over the globe have "suffered and died" due to local/regional overpopulation. It is generally accepted in academia that the whole Mayan culture collapsed due to this. Also the Easter Island culture --- and every historian/anthropologist can list dozens more. These situations local/regionally continue to crop up regularly still today. (many more coming because of the Climate and Water changes.) OK, much of that was in the past and pre-Christian preachment versus birth control, BUT NOT ALL OF IT. And, we're talking about the world today, not trying to save the Mayans. So how does The Church's refusal to countenance birth control (and DAMMIT don't deflect into abortion!) HELP these areas where it has large influence? And, as for "policies" to avoid this sort of thing --- policies? For Sudan? Bangladesh? Latin America? Indonesia? You-name-it-in-Africa? How do even genuine do-gooders living in America affect ANYTHING elsewhere on these scales? But The Church coming off its birth control stance could. Cure it all? No. Help? You bet.

But this is like hollering into the wind so I'll just get back to my retirement policies of giving away my money to good charities here in Kalamazoo, while some Catholics think I'm headed towards He!l due to "heretical thinking" and enjoying experiencing The Holy Spirit through moving music at Mass. ..... Lord Save Us.

 

[irishog77]

Didn't realize that we were talking about abortion --- I wasn't.

Didn't realize that we had to be talking about rich countries --- I wasn't. (though the argument exists there in local communities too --- All "Americans" aren't the same socio-economically and educationally, and certainly European situations vary all over the map.)

Bending a complex issue into your own strongest position alone is a debate club technique not an intellectually honest one. Turning everything into a large context statistical abortion argument is great for absolute maintenance of one's position on basically everything, but is eerily like current political discourse.

This debating technique is why I don't engage in multi-post discussions, as I consider the style consciously or subconsciously disingenuous, which voids the function of true discussion. It doubtless is extremely effective in court, I'll admit.

As (against my better judgement I'll throw thoughts down this Black Hole again) to "who'd suffer and die?", countless people in many numbers of places all over the globe have "suffered and died" due to local/regional overpopulation. It is generally accepted in academia that the whole Mayan culture collapsed due to this. Also the Easter Island culture --- and every historian/anthropologist can list dozens more. These situations local/regionally continue to crop up regularly still today. (many more coming because of the Climate and Water changes.) OK, much of that was in the past and pre-Christian preachment versus birth control, BUT NOT ALL OF IT. And, we're talking about the world today, not trying to save the Mayans. So how does The Church's refusal to countenance birth control (and DAMMIT don't deflect into abortion!) HELP these areas where it has large influence? And, as for "policies" to avoid this sort of thing --- policies? For Sudan? Bangladesh? Latin America? Indonesia? You-name-it-in-Africa? How do even genuine do-gooders living in America affect ANYTHING elsewhere on these scales? But The Church coming off its birth control stance could. Cure it all? No. Help? You bet.

But this is like hollering into the wind so I'll just get back to my retirement policies of giving away my money to good charities here in Kalamazoo, while some Catholics think I'm headed towards He!l due to "heretical thinking" and enjoying experiencing The Holy Spirit through moving music at Mass. ..... Lord Save Us.

I hate to be the guy that jumps in somebody else's debate, but, frankly, I call total BS on this. Didn't realize we were talking about abortion? That's how this entire discussion started-- a post about....abortion. Whiskey being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous here? Ha! Nope, not at all. As a follower of the discussion, your post is really the only one that sniffs of being dishonest and/or disingenuous.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

As (against my better judgement I'll throw thoughts down this Black Hole again) to "who'd suffer and die?", countless people in many numbers of places all over the globe have "suffered and died" due to local/regional overpopulation. It is generally accepted in academia that the whole Mayan culture collapsed due to this. Also the Easter Island culture --- and every historian/anthropologist can list dozens more. These situations local/regionally continue to crop up regularly still today. (many more coming because of the Climate and Water changes.) OK, much of that was in the past and pre-Christian preachment versus birth control, BUT NOT ALL OF IT. And, we're talking about the world today, not trying to save the Mayans. So how does The Church's refusal to countenance birth control (and DAMMIT don't deflect into abortion!) HELP these areas where it has large influence? And, as for "policies" to avoid this sort of thing --- policies? For Sudan? Bangladesh? Latin America? Indonesia? You-name-it-in-Africa? How do even genuine do-gooders living in America affect ANYTHING elsewhere on these scales? But The Church coming off its birth control stance could. Cure it all? No. Help? You bet.

It's not rhetoric, Mike. Once you normalize birth control, you've endorsed the position that the natural end of sex is not essentially procreative. It can be procreative for certain people, if they make that "lifestyle choice", but the default assumption then becomes that any number of consenting adults should be able to rub their genitals together without consequence.

Then what about the man who has "fallen out of love" and is no longer "sexually fulfilled" by his wife of 15 years and the mother of his children? No-fault divorce, of course. He's entitled to his "happiness", and who are we to shame him for fornicating with his secretary?

Then what about the young woman with an unexpected pregnancy? Of course young people are going to fornicate, because sexual desire is a healthy natural instinct, and she just wanted to make her boyfriend happy. But now her education and all of her near term plans are in jeopardy because of the new life gestating in her womb. Abortion, naturally. Since sex is assumed to be sterile until chosen otherwise, she is entitled to fornicate, and it would be tantamount to slavery to make her carry the baby to term... so the child must die.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. The world wherein contraception is normalized, but divorce and abortion are rare simply cannot exist, because the former not only logically entails but requires the latter. Pope Francis details the connection between sexual liberalism and environmental degradation at length in Laudato Si.

But this is like hollering into the wind so I'll just get back to my retirement policies of giving away my money to good charities here in Kalamazoo, while some Catholics think I'm headed towards He!l due to "heretical thinking" and enjoying experiencing The Holy Spirit through moving music at Mass. ..... Lord Save Us.

The Church has paid dearly for holding the line on these teachings, and not without good reason. They are divinely revealed truths. The Didache, which--dating back to the 1st century AD-- is the earliest known Christian catechism, explicitly prohibits pharmakeia, which is a clear reference to classical contraceptive methods. So either the Church has been wrong about this from Day 1, or we're bucking 2,000 years of a consistent and perfectly coherent tradition for the sake of convenience.

 

[wizards8507]

Speaking of flaming #HotTakes... pets are liberalism. Here's Matthew Schmitz in First Things with an article titled "Beware of Dog":

Segues nicely from the last topic.

Timely.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A buddy just sent me his Vindictive Reformicon Agenda:<br><br>Tax Dogs<br>Tax Divorce<br>Tax Brunch<br><br>All revenue goes to unrestricted school vouchers.</p>— Jonathan V. Last (@JVLast) <a href="https://twitter.com/JVLast/status/918496226974273536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[zelezo vlk]

Timely.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A buddy just sent me his Vindictive Reformicon Agenda:<br><br>Tax Dogs<br>Tax Divorce<br>Tax Brunch<br><br>All revenue goes to unrestricted school vouchers.</p>— Jonathan V. Last (@JVLast) <a href="https://twitter.com/JVLast/status/918496226974273536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'm fine with that.

Eating post-Mass meal at a friend's house > dropping way too much money at a brunch place.

 

[irishog77]

Timely.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A buddy just sent me his Vindictive Reformicon Agenda:<br><br>Tax Dogs<br>Tax Divorce<br>Tax Brunch<br><br>All revenue goes to unrestricted school vouchers.</p>— Jonathan V. Last (@JVLast) <a href="https://twitter.com/JVLast/status/918496226974273536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Should probably add personal trainers/crossfit dues, vegan food, infused vodka, gluten free anything, high end sushi, and the entire 30A area of Florida to that list.

 

[pkt77242]

It's not rhetoric, Mike. Once you normalize birth control, you've endorsed the position that the natural end of sex is not essentially procreative. It can be procreative for certain people, if they make that "lifestyle choice", but the default assumption then becomes that any number of consenting adults should be able to rub their genitals together without consequence.

Then what about the man who has "fallen out of love" and is no longer "sexually fulfilled" by his wife of 15 years and the mother of his children? No-fault divorce, of course. He's entitled to his "happiness", and who are we to shame him for fornicating with his secretary?

Then what about the young woman with an unexpected pregnancy? Of course young people are going to fornicate, because sexual desire is a healthy natural instinct, and she just wanted to make her boyfriend happy. But now her education and all of her near term plans are in jeopardy because of the new life gestating in her womb. Abortion, naturally. Since sex is assumed to be sterile until chosen otherwise, she is entitled to fornicate, and it would be tantamount to slavery to make her carry the baby to term... so the child must die.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. The world wherein contraception is normalized, but divorce and abortion are rare simply cannot exist, because the former not only logically entails but requires the latter. Pope Francis details the connection between sexual liberalism and environmental degradation at length in Laudato Si.



The Church has paid dearly for holding the line on these teachings, and not without good reason. They are divinely revealed truths. The Didache, which--dating back to the 1st century AD-- is the earliest known Christian catechism, explicitly prohibits pharmakeia, which is a clear reference to classical contraceptive methods. So either the Church has been wrong about this from Day 1, or we're bucking 2,000 years of a consistent and perfectly coherent tradition for the sake of convenience.

Since you brought this up, I have a question.

My understanding (from what I remember of my pre-marriage counseling through the church) is that birth control is taboo because sex is about procreation.

So why is Natural Family Planning allowed? My religious family members love to tell me how effective it is at preventing pregnancy (98% if used correctly), so what makes that different then condoms or the pill?

Marquette University | Natural Family Planning

 

[connor_in]

Since you brought this up, I have a question.

My understanding (from what I remember of my pre-marriage counseling through the church) is that birth control is taboo because sex is about procreation.

So why is Natural Family Planning allowed? My religious family members love to tell me how effective it is at preventing pregnancy (98% if used correctly), so what makes that different then condoms or the pill?

There's a name for those people that practice the rhythm method...PARENTS!

 

[zelezo vlk]

There's a name for those people that practice the rhythm method...PARENTS!

Sure, but the rhythm method isn't NFP.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Since you brought this up, I have a question.

My understanding (from what I remember of my pre-marriage counseling through the church) is that birth control is taboo because sex is about procreation.

So why is Natural Family Planning allowed? My religious family members love to tell me how effective it is at preventing pregnancy (98% if used correctly), so what makes that different then condoms or the pill?

That's a fair question. You can find a lot of information on this by Googling "difference between nfp and contraception". Here, for instance, is a brief statement JPII made on the subject. But the biggest differences are these:

• Contraception severs the procreative from the unitive aspect of sex, whereas NFP maintains them together.
• Contraception seeks to simply "turn off" fertility, whereas NFP plans around it.
• With contraception, the burden is usually shouldered entirely by one spouse, whereas NFP requires coordination and communication between both spouses.
• Hormonal birth control causes all sorts of nasty health problems, whereas NFP is completely natural.
• It's much easier to avoid sexually objectifying your spouse when using NFP.
• NFP is strongly correlated with dramatically lower rates of divorce than among couples who use contraception.

If you have a valid reason for delaying childbirth (health, finances, etc.), then abstaining from intercourse during periods of fertility is the responsible choice. So it can achieve the same end, but it does so in a way that respects the integrity of the act, of the spouses, and their marriage. Contraception, which technologically sterilizes one of the spouses (one of the only instances where we accept the use of "medicine" to subvert an otherwise healthy biological system), is bad for your spiritually, bad for your health, bad for the stability of your marriage, etc.

Catholics aren't consequentialists. Means are not justified by their ends. NFP v. contraception is a great example of that.

 

[pkt77242]

That's a fair question. You can find a lot of information on this by Googling "difference between nfp and contraception". Here, for instance, is a brief statement JPII made on the subject. But the biggest differences are these:

• Contraception severs the procreative from the unitive aspect of sex, whereas NFP maintains them together.
• Contraception seeks to simply "turn off" fertility, whereas NFP plans around it.
• With contraception, the burden is usually shouldered entirely by one spouse, whereas NFP requires coordination and communication between both spouses.
• Hormonal birth control causes all sorts of nasty health problems, whereas NFP is completely natural.
• It's much easier to avoid sexually objectifying your spouse when using NFP.
• NFP is strongly correlated with dramatically lower rates of divorce than among couples who use contraception.

If you have a valid reason for delaying childbirth (health, finances, etc.), then abstaining from intercourse during periods of fertility is the responsible choice. So it can achieve the same end, but it does so in a way that respects the integrity of the act, of the spouses, and their marriage. Contraception, which technologically sterilizes one of the spouses (one of the only instances where we accept the use of "medicine" to subvert an otherwise healthy biological system), is bad for your spiritually, bad for your health, bad for the stability of your marriage, etc.

Catholics aren't consequentialists. Means are not justified by their ends. NFP v. contraception is a great example of that.

I agree with some of the points especially the burden being shared by both and that it requires good and constant communication which is helpful to other parts of the relationship.

I also agree that hormonal birth control can have significant health consequences (though diaphragms and condoms, etc do not).

I have read the study on the correlation between NFP and divorce rates (vs other types of contraception) but I have my doubts about it being causal relationship. I would love to see a study that did try to look for a causal relationship though.

I am also not sure that NFP keeps the procreative with the unitive. If the efficacy is really around 98% that pretty much removes the procreative from the table.

I appreciate your response and I think that you make some very good points. Thank you.

 

[irishog77]

I agree with some of the points especially the burden being shared by both and that it requires good and constant communication which is helpful to other parts of the relationship.

I also agree that hormonal birth control can have significant health consequences (though diaphragms and condoms, etc do not).

I have read the study on the correlation between NFP and divorce rates (vs other types of contraception) but I have my doubts about it being causal relationship. I would love to see a study that did try to look for a causal relationship though.

I am also not sure that NFP keeps the procreative with the unitive. If the efficacy is really around 98% that pretty much removes the procreative from the table.

I appreciate your response and I think that you make some very good points. Thank you.

Maybe you're overthinking it?

The Church and NFP teaches that in times of potential fertility, abstinence is perfectly fine. There is no mortal sin in not having intercourse. In periods of the woman's nonfertile times however, the effective rate is 98%, with intercourse.

If a husband and wife are really wanting to get pregnant though, then bombs away, regardless of where the woman is in her cycle!

 

[pkt77242]

Kind of related. I know that the drop in birth rates has been talked about in this thread and usually it is attributed to the use of birth control, so I found this interesting.

Sperm counts of Western men are plummeting, analysis finds - CNN

I do think that the use of birth control contributes to the drop in the birth rate but I wonder if the "environment" is also a big part of it. Such a drastic drop in sperm counts could be a significant culprit as well. I have known multiple couples who wanted children but had to use invitro to actually get pregnant and I am guessing that I am not the only one who knows people who have had to take that route.

It also makes me wonder what is causing the drop in sperm counts in Western men.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Kind of related. I know that the drop in birth rates has been talked about in this thread and usually it is attributed to the use of birth control, so I found this interesting.

Sperm counts of Western men are plummeting, analysis finds - CNN

I do think that the use of birth control contributes to the drop in the birth rate but I wonder if the "environment" is also a big part of it. Such a drastic drop in sperm counts could be a significant culprit as well. I have known multiple couples who wanted children but had to use invitro to actually get pregnant and I am guessing that I am not the only one who knows people who have had to take that route.

It also makes me wonder what is causing the drop in sperm counts in Western men.

Light beer

 

[NDRock]

Kind of related. I know that the drop in birth rates has been talked about in this thread and usually it is attributed to the use of birth control, so I found this interesting.

Sperm counts of Western men are plummeting, analysis finds - CNN

I do think that the use of birth control contributes to the drop in the birth rate but I wonder if the "environment" is also a big part of it. Such a drastic drop in sperm counts could be a significant culprit as well. I have known multiple couples who wanted children but had to use invitro to actually get pregnant and I am guessing that I am not the only one who knows people who have had to take that route.

It also makes me wonder what is causing the drop in sperm counts in Western men.

Chemtrails. And Oprah.

 

[greyhammer90]

I have read the study on the correlation between NFP and divorce rates (vs other types of contraception) but I have my doubts about it being causal relationship. I would love to see a study that did try to look for a causal relationship though. .

Yeah its not very shocking that couples who use a birth control form which is almost exclusively used by those who subscribe to religious beliefs that do not allow divorce as an option in all but the most extreme circumstances would have a lower divorce rate than the norm. That doesn't mean the divorce rate is in any way caused by what type of birth control they use.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I have read the study on the correlation between NFP and divorce rates (vs other types of contraception) but I have my doubts about it being causal relationship. I would love to see a study that did try to look for a causal relationship though.

I agree that it's not purely causal, but more advanced statistical analyses have shown that, even after controlling for most other variables, NFP use is still a significant predictor for marital stability.

I am also not sure that NFP keeps the procreative with the unitive. If the efficacy is really around 98% that pretty much removes the procreative from the table.

It has more to do with the fact that: (1) there's no artificial barrier placed between spouses, so you're not holding anything back from each other; and (2) you can go from "avoiding pregnancy" to "trying to conceive" overnight without changing anything other than the timing of your intimacy. Modern contraceptive methods can't offer that.

I also agree that hormonal birth control can have significant health consequences (though diaphragms and condoms, etc do not).

That's why it's important to consider this issue beyond the simple utilitarian level of, "Does this allow me to avoid pregnancy, and how effective is it?" The Church is also concerned with things like, "How does this method encourage you to think about sex, about your own body, about your spouse, and about your marriage?" And "When multiplied out over an entire people, what sorts of effects does that mindset have on society at large?"

It's that last question that militates so strongly in favor of NFP. To have a functional and stable polity, every society needs: (1) TFR around replacement level; and (2) strong marriages that sacrifice for the good of their children. Normalizing contraception causes TFR to plummet far below replacement level, and logically entails other policies (no fault divorce, abortion, etc.) that are very detrimental to children. So one doesn't have to buy into the Church's supernatural claims to believe that, based on the evidence we have, it's more or less correct on what sexual ethics in a just society should look like.

On a related note, Georgia recently undertook an experiment to boost its TFR back above replacement level which actually worked. Wouldn't be possible to replicate the method directly here in the States for a number of reasons, but its example should help us better understand how these things can be influenced effectively.

 

[wizards8507]

That's a fair question. You can find a lot of information on this by Googling "difference between nfp and contraception". Here, for instance, is a brief statement JPII made on the subject. But the biggest differences are these:

• Contraception severs the procreative from the unitive aspect of sex, whereas NFP maintains them together.
• Contraception seeks to simply "turn off" fertility, whereas NFP plans around it.
• With contraception, the burden is usually shouldered entirely by one spouse, whereas NFP requires coordination and communication between both spouses.
• Hormonal birth control causes all sorts of nasty health problems, whereas NFP is completely natural.
• It's much easier to avoid sexually objectifying your spouse when using NFP.
• NFP is strongly correlated with dramatically lower rates of divorce than among couples who use contraception.

If you have a valid reason for delaying childbirth (health, finances, etc.), then abstaining from intercourse during periods of fertility is the responsible choice. So it can achieve the same end, but it does so in a way that respects the integrity of the act, of the spouses, and their marriage. Contraception, which technologically sterilizes one of the spouses (one of the only instances where we accept the use of "medicine" to subvert an otherwise healthy biological system), is bad for your spiritually, bad for your health, bad for the stability of your marriage, etc.

Catholics aren't consequentialists. Means are not justified by their ends. NFP v. contraception is a great example of that.

I think the more difficult "yeah but what about..." argument is intercourse between a husband and his pregnant wife (or a husband and his sterile wife). In both cases, intercourse serves only a unitive purpose and not a procreative one, but is still morally licit. That's a tough one to get around in comparison to something like non-intercourse sex acts between spouses.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think the more difficult "yeah but what about..." argument is intercourse between a husband and his pregnant wife (or a husband and his sterile wife). In both cases, intercourse serves only a unitive purpose and not a procreative one, but is still morally licit. That's a tough one to get around in comparison to something like non-intercourse sex acts between spouses.

In the former case, the act is still intrinsically ordered toward procreation (even though the wife's condition means she is temporarily unable to conceive). And in the latter case, this is a bigger deal than most Catholics think. If a couple is seeking marriage, and one of them is impotent, the Church is supposed to refuse to marry them (because they're incapable of the marital act). Also, if a man knows he's sterile, hides it from his fiancee, and then marries her, that's grounds for an annulment (for the same reason).

 

[zelezo vlk]

In the former case, the act is still intrinsically ordered toward procreation (even though the wife's condition means she is temporarily unable to conceive). And in the latter case, sterility is a bigger deal than most Catholics think. If a couple is seeking marriage, and it is publicly known that one of them is sterile, the Church is supposed to refuse to marry them (because they're incapable of the marital act). If a man knows he's sterile, hides it from his fiancee, and then marries her, that's grounds for an annulment (for the same reason).

I thought it was impotence, not sterility

 

[irishog77]

In the former case, the act is still intrinsically ordered toward procreation (even though the wife's condition means she is temporarily unable to conceive). And in the latter case, sterility is a bigger deal than most Catholics think. If a couple is seeking marriage, and it is publicly known that one of them is sterile, the Church is supposed to refuse to marry them (because they're incapable of the marital act). If a man knows he's sterile, hides it from his fiancee, and then marries her, that's grounds for an annulment (for the same reason).

Publicly known?

Also, you sure about that? So if a woman was in a car wreck as a teenager, let's say had to have a hysterectomy to save her life, she's unable to then be married in the Catholic Church? I'm not sure this is actually the Church's teaching.

 

[wizards8507]

Publicly known?

Also, you sure about that? So if a woman was in a car wreck as a teenager, let's say had to have a hysterectomy to save her life, she's unable to then be married in the Catholic Church? I'm not sure this is actually the Church's teaching.

Get thee to a nunnery.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I thought it was impotence, not sterility

That's correct. Sloppy terminology on my part. One's fertility is almost never publicly known anyway.

Publicly known?

Also, you sure about that? So if a woman was in a car wreck as a teenager, let's say had to have a hysterectomy to save her life, she's unable to then be married in the Catholic Church? I'm not sure this is actually the Church's teaching.

Should have been more precise with my language. See above.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Publicly known?

Also, you sure about that? So if a woman was in a car wreck as a teenager, let's say had to have a hysterectomy to save her life, she's unable to then be married in the Catholic Church? I'm not sure this is actually the Church's teaching.

It's a hersterectomy, you sexist sh*tlord!

Such a depressing joke

 

[irishog77]

That's correct. Sloppy terminology on my part. One's fertility is almost never publicly known anyway.



Should have been more precise with my language. See above.

I hate it when I get married and then find out my wife doesn't have a vag. ALWAYS happens!

 

[Wild Bill]

It also makes me wonder what is causing the drop in sperm counts in Western men.

Chemicals in the water, man.

<div style="position:relative;height:0;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9JRLCBb7qK8?ecver=2" style="position:absolute;width:100%;height:100%;left:0" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Just stumbled across this Vox article on my Twitter feed which directly addresses the issue Mike and I debated over: "I'm an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here's why."