Thanks for the response, I did not mean to imply that IVF is a good option, it certainly has some very serious problems as you noted.
We never had any problems with conception, but my brother did and went through a long an painful process, I’m not sure there are any good options. We have had close friends who have suffered as well.

I can’t say what the good Fr. told them or did not, he did not share at that detail, his point (which I agree with) is that sometimes doctrine written in black and white terms isn’t always a compassionate thing when it runs directly into real situations.

NFP has been proposed to us as an alternative to contraception, I’ve seen this in two parishes. We didn’t attend because I had a vasectomy long before we converted so there’s no need (btw it’s not something I would do again, given the choice), but there was no mistaking the intent. As Devin pointed out it can be used for conception purposes, this isn’t something new or unique. Those techniques have been around for a while, but if that’s the main goal then it’s certainly not being proposed that way.

“Preventing her from conceiving makes a wife a whore, and a father a pimp (St. Augustine said this).”

And if you are past child bearing years, then what? Are you now just using each other? Since I had a surgery are we now supposed to stop having intimate relations?

The issue I’m pointing out and that Augustine made is that these black and white positions don’t work in the real world. So as a convert who cannot conceive am I now just prostituting my wife when we are intimate?

Also your statement that using NFP after your wife gives birth is licit, but (and I’m assuming here) that barrier contraception is not in this situation. Is a perfect example of how weak the churches position is, NFP used this way is no different than barrier contraception. Both have the same goal, but one is considered a mortal sin for no other reason than what? whats the rationale?

“Then you are calling the magitserium of the Catholic Church dishonest at best. Will you submit to the mind of the Church on this issue or not?”

Not dishonest, but mistaken. I don’t think that the church or the magisterium has bad intentions, but I do think in some areas it has entered into non-essentials.

Days of obligation is another good example, there are 6 that are considered core to the church. The rest have been added on, and are different based on your country, but all are considered mandatory and if you don’t attend mass your committing a mortal sin. I can’t find any teaching other than the Catechism to back that up.

I still attend and do as asked, but I don’t agree, and until someone can make the case I will continue to disagree. At least I’m willing to talk about it

Blessings

-Paul-

IVF is the “only option left” like abortion would seem to be the “only option left”. That is to say, it is NOT the only option.
IVF involves self abuse (masturbation), almost always results in the murder of unused embryos, and a faulty view of humanity… that we “deserve” to physically be parents. In SOME (not all) ways it is no different than having a sex change operation. Doing moraly wrong things to have an end result that in itself is a good (being pregnant, being male or female).
So the priest you mention is not being compassionate, because he needs to tell the people that what they are doing is evil. He can say it in a nice way, but lying to people about the Church’s moral teaching is the opposite of compassion.

I suggest that in your disillusionment with the Catholic Church you consider where the keys are located. That is what keeps me in the Church. If the Catholic Church IS the one true Church, then issues like contraception can be submitted to. Heck, that issue seems liek it should be an obvious one to me. I was convinced contraception was evil even as a Protestant.
The Church Fathers also profoundly disagree with your assesment of contraception:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

“You can argue successfully that contraception has other ramifications, but that misses the core purpose.”

The “other ramifications” are quite important, and do not miss anything. Preventing her from conceiving makes a wife a whore, and a father a pimp (St. Augustine said this). NFP (which I have used for 11 years) does not prevent anything. In fact ~7 or my wifes ~9 pregnancies were conceived while practicing NFP, and some of them were POSITIVELY concieved that way (we used NFP to concieve). There is no guarantee NFP will work, and the practitioner is still leaving things in Gods hands.

Also, you seem to skip over the requirements for someone to use NFP. There needs to be a valid reason. Your point reminds me of the Protestant who claims a Catholic can just sin and go to confession as much as he wants. As you know, thats not true. It ignores the need fr a firm purpose of amendment. With NFP, there must be a good reason.
Example: If my wife conceives a few months after giving birth she will have miscarriages. During that time, I am grateful to the Church for alowing the option of either abstaining or using NFP. Although the intent is that she not concieve, the ultimate intent is that she have another healthy baby a few months down the line. NFP could potentially help us to have MORE babies. This is a good reason. NFP is illicit if it is for a bad reason.

“In my opinion trying to disassociate the two so you can say one is licit (NFP) and the other is not (barrier contraception or BC) is dishonest at best. ”

Then you are calling the magitserium of the Catholic Church dishonest at best. Will you submit to the mind of the Church on this issue or not?

Regarding the article, there are a number of problems with it that I see…

Their main point is this (if I may surmise)…

The Conjugal act has two main parts:

1. The unitive function, of bringing the couple together.
2. The procreative function.

Pleasure is a side effect of these two as a whole, and anything that subverts either part is invalid. To truly give all of oneself in marriage you must have both parts.

Interesting, but it’s just as damaged as the Churches position, in the notes they make a reference that couples who cannot knowingly concieve still fulfill both 1 and 2 because they are ‘open to life’. So the authors want to have it both ways:

On the one hand they want to say that you either intend to create, or the act is meaningless and neither 1 or 2 is fulfilled.

But on the other hand if you can’t conceive (say a hysterectomy), you are still fulfilling both parts because you are open to 1 and 2.

What I find more interesting is they do not go to the mortal sin level, if you’ve gone this far, why not follow this to it’s logical conclusion. That being if you use ANY contraception, OR if you have coitus and knowingly can’t conceive. You have broken your union with God, and will go straight to hell if you don’t confess before your death.

But to say that the unitive function is broken because some philosopher or theologian states that you have to have both parts, is an inductive argument at best. The author provides zero evidence for his conclusion, which is based on his premise that you can’t have one without the other.

When I was attending the RCIA this question came up by a gentlemen who was older, he wanted to know what the church thought. Because they where both past the child bearing age, but still wanted to be intimate. The Fr. did a great job and told them that the church believed in love in marriage and that it was shared through intimacy.

If we where being truly honest, and if God really wanted a couple to have children, he would find a way. He did so with Abraham, and my oldest who was born despite my wife being on birth control at the time.

I think in our quest for piety have assumed that God works like we do, and have applied a standard that we can’t fully support. To make matters worse, when confronted with the harsh reality of where logically that position takes us, even the best among us detract from being hardline.

Empirically I can tell you that the unitive function of sex works even without the procreative portion. Before I converted, I got the V surgery, and my wife and I’s love for each other grows as the years go by. I can also say with certainty that when we struggle in our relationship, intimacy always and I mean ALWAYS restores our bond. No matter what the church says..

Good article…

Thanks

-Paul-

Yeah there’s a temptation in the apologetics world to have all the answers, or at least act like it, as if the slightest hint of uncertainty or weakness would make the whole thing collapse.

What’s funny is, I was a relatively unknown Catholic guy who in his spare time did apologetics. Still am, thankfully. But now that Catholic Answers is going to publish my book, suddenly there’s a pressure to have The Answer to every question and to know everything. I don’t know everything. I have a lot to learn. And I plan not to hide that. One of the things I think God has shown me is that He wants everyone to know Him in truth, and He made it so that you don’t have to have a Ph.D, or be a know-it-all Apologist, to do so.

Regarding the human aspect, you are right. I can affirm that same-sex relations are immoral. But it’s another thing to stand in front of someone (as I have) who struggles with same-sex attraction and meet them as a person, to have a real discussion with them and learn who they are and what their difficulties are.

God bless!

You raise a good point I should have mentioned, I think the Catholic position is very strong, but it’s nowhere near a slam dunk. I would be OK with that, if it was presented in that light. But read anything on Catholic Answers or Catholic Apologetics sties and you find that the response given many times is so black and white, that I wonder how couples struggling with the issue can stay Catholic. It’s why I for the most part don’t trust Apologists of any stripe (there are exceptions, but not many), I spent years getting pounded on the KJV only issue, then I discovered when pressed for an honest detailed answer, they couldn’t give one. That was the beginning of my grumpy skeptical personality 😉

One of the local parish priests talked about this recently in a religious ed class, it’s one thing to offer an apologetic removed from the humanity of the decision, it’s another to sit and share in the pain of a couple who have valid reasons for not conceiving. He mentioned a couple who’s only option left was IVF, his point was that what the Church teaches is doctrine, not Dogma and at the end of the day it’s really their decision, consequences and all. He explained what the church teaches, and offered any spiritual assistance they needed, and as much compassion as he could. How you view the issue I guess depends on your experience (gasp, I need to careful and not start quoting Hume!!!)

I get a little grumpy when people start glossing over important information to make their point, but I do it as well, so I’m certainly not any better. I like the Orthodox position, but that isn’t enough to cause a jump to the other side. It would take something really drastic to do that.

Blessings

-Paul-

Thanks for reading my blog and responding with your thoughts here. Interestingly, due to infertility, my wife and I don’t have the same difficulties with fertility awareness (aka NFP) that most couples do (since most couples have high fertility, the normal state of things).

For us, we’ve been able to conceive and also get to the root of some health issues, by using fertility awareness, so it has only been a positive for us. What shocks me is how few people outside of Catholics know about it. We’ve heard sad stories from many couples who have had trouble conceiving or had multiple miscarriages and their doctors have no clue at all about how to get to the root of the issues, something NaPro and the Pope Paul VI Institute can do. We inform anyone like this about these organizations so they can get help.

That said, I can see how Orthodoxy’s position(s) on contraception could be appealing. It’s less strict than the Catholic Church’s. And the Catholic arguments, while I find them convincing, are not slam-dunks (something you allude to). I see the whole framework of the theology of the body to be a positive explanation of the Church’s teachings, which often come across in a negative way. To me, Orthodoxy’s positions reveal a lack of institutional capability of responding to a new moral and theological problem.

In any event, I’d say read over this article, which takes a slightly different tack in presenting the arguments for the Church’s teachings in this area, and let me know what you think: http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/282

God bless!
Devin