Elena 
JCecil and I continue to debate the contraception issue. John and PMC (who really should have a blog too hint hint) and I have been challenging him all day. Here are my latest contributions. JCecil’s comments in italics.
However, I cannot understand why natural family planning is considered morally acceptable, since the practice of techniques such as daily temperature monitoring and measurement of vaginal mucus is a deliberate attempt to obstruct the generative process.
Here’s your first problem then. What exactly does observing fertility signs “obstruct.” Does it stop the egg from coming forth the like the pill? No. Does it kill sperm and prevent them from fertilizing the egg? No. Does it cover a body part and keep it from acting as it should? No. Does it deform body parts? No. Does it deliberately put the body in a state of menopause? No. Therefore, what exactly is it obstructing? Nothing.
1) If a natural herb were discovered that safely and temporarily prevented ovulation or the production of sperm, would use of this herb be considered immoral?
Of course. If the intent is to enjoy the marital act while deliberately thwarting the potential life giving nature then yea it is immoral.
NFP on the other hand does not do that. You aren’t enjoying the act if you are abstaining from it.
2) While the distinction between “natural” and “artificial” is “obvious” in everyday speech, what exactly do we mean in theological terms by this?
I already answered this at great length on my own blog. I refer you there.
Isn’t all of God’s creation, even when manipulated by humanity, “natural”?
No. Having atomic particles floating around in the air is not “natural.” PUtting a piece of latex on your private parts to “protect” yourself against your beloved spouse is not “natural”
Is the Church advocating that we live like the Amish and shun the use of man-made aids to a better life?
No. That is a strawman fallacy. The church doesn’t even imply that.
If so, where is the line drawn between “natural” and “artificial”? Is an orange “natural”, while orange juice is “artificial”? Or do we cross a line only when we chemically synthesize a substance such as “Tang”?
Well, I know they use to use sheep skin for condoms. I’m sure that must have broken a Jewish law or two (eewww!) Nonetheless if you could get them today, even though they are “natural” doesn’t make them morally licit. It is the action that is immoral, not the substance per se.
So go ahead drink fresh squeezed or Tang, it’s not a moral issue because there is nothing immoral about drinking fruit juice!!!
3
) Along the lines of question 2, why is it immoral to use an artificial contraceptive to block a natural process, but it is morally permissible to use drugs to block natural processes such as minor and non-terminal pain?
Beating my head against the monitor… thud, thud, thud… BECAUSE DRUGS AND MEDICINES CURE or ALLEVIATE PATHOLOGIES. FERTILITY AND PREGNANCY ARE NOT PATHOLOGIES!!
Pain serves a vital purpose for the good of the body, and those who do not experience pain, such as lepers, often die of infections. Furthermore, we believe as Christians that pain has meaning in light of the cross. Why is it morally permissible to block this good and natural process, but not the good and natural generative process?
Jesus mercifully alleviated pain JCecil. I don’t recall that he made anyone deliberately sterile. There is nothing immoral about alleviating pain. On the other hand Jesus did welcome little children.
In other words, how is taking the pill morally different than taking advil for a minor headache, or drinking wine to relax at the end of the day?
Asked and answered.
4) Why is it morally permissible to use some artificial substances that not only block natural processes, but may be unhealthy? For example, why is smoking a cigarette not considered a sin by most of the hierarchy?
It might be sinful but for other reasons. If it becomes your “false idol” of sorts, where you buy a six pack over bringing home a carton of milk for your kids its probably sinful. Daughter of an alcoholic here, I know of what I speak.
But isn’t it lovely JCecil that our religion gives us so much freedom on these things, so that when it brings down a hard prohibition on something it must have a good reason, a divine reason!!!
5) Why is it not considered “artificial” or “unnatural” to use thermometers and other devices, including chemical sticks that a woman urinates upon, as well as mucus measurements and other techniques to pinpoint the exact moment of ovulation when practicing NFP?
It’s not a sin to observe the signs in nature. Jesus uses natural observations and encourages others to do so throughout the Gospels. People have always been astute observers of nature. Whether you record your basal body temperature or not, or note the mucus when you go to the bathroom or not, these signs are still there, the body still functions. A thermometer is not a contraceptive device.
BTW You can’t pinpiont the “exact” moment of ovulation at home.
6) How does a mutual decision by married partners to use artificial contraception violate the golden rule?
There are three people in a Catholic Christian Marriage. The husband, the wife, and God. The church teaches that contraceptive is intrinsically evil and as such it is offensive to God. Even mutual decision by an informed Catholic couple says that we, the creatures are putting our wants and desires ahead of our love of God.
Elena | Email | Homepage | 07.01.04 – 9:32 pm | #
Nor do I see questions as a lack of faith, since one would only ask a question with faith that God will provide the Church an answer.
The church has provided the answers. You have simply rejected it.
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook). You can chat with me on the tag board to the right!
