Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 20 Aug 1992 06:50:40 EDT
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Birth control & R. Catholic dogma
Distribution: usa
 <92227.064450MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <19AUG199201353193@jetson.uh.edu>

Will,
All I have been trying to do is explain the teaching of the Catholic
Church on family planning (and to show that the initial statement
that Catholics are the only Christians who oppose contraception is
incorrect).  If, as you say, non-Catholics would not understand what
I meant by saying the Natural Family Planning "does not interfere
with the individual act of intercourse" I will try to clarify it.  I
meant that it does not interfere with the moral completeness of the
act.  Since I've already said about as much as I can say on that
point, anyone who doesn't understand what I mean by that should
reread my earlier postings and, if necessary, some of the books I
recommended for further information.  I was not talking about the
details of physical actions before or during intercourse.

You have misstated the reason for the Church's teaching that contra-
ception is against the will of God.  It has nothing to do with reli-
ability.  The condom has a relatively high failure rate.  It is
regarded as an immoral method.  NFP has a very low failure rate.  It
is as effective as the Pill without the Pill's potentially serious
side effects.  NFP is morally acceptable.  If a more precise tech-
nique of NFP  were developed so the reliability went from over 90%
reliable to 100% reliable it would still be morally acceptable.  As I
said in an earlier posting marital intercourse after the wife has
gone through menopause is morally acceptable even though there is no
natural possibility of conception.

The expression "frustrate the purposes of nature" is a technical
term.  NFP does not frustrate the purposes of nature in the sense in
which the Church uses the term.

You seem to be using the words "moral intentions" ambiguously.  In
one sense it is not the couple's "moral intentions" that are impor-
tant, but their actions.  A couple may be perfectly justified in
wishing to avoid having children, but the way in which they do it is
important.  Contraceptives and early abortifacients that are some-
times called contraceptives are not acceptable methods.  Using highly
accurate techniques to identify the wife's fertile period so that
intercourse can be avoided during those days is morally acceptable.
Moral intentions are relevant in that when a couple engages in con-
traceptive intercourse they intend to interfere with the moral com-
pleteness of that act of intercourse, even if they recognize the
theoretical possibility that conception may occur.

You say, "The mechanical means are not evil in themselves, any more,
say, than using scalpels to perform surgery is evil."  I do not
understand the point of that analogy.  A scalpel is just a special-
ized knife designed for surgery.  If a surgeon in a restaurant sees
someone choking and performs an emergency tracheotomy with a pocket
knife that is morally acceptable.  It a surgeon has an argument with
one of his colleagues at a hospital and stabs him with a scalpel,
that is not morally acceptable.  If the Church said that condoms made
of latex were not morally acceptable, but condoms made of some other
substance were acceptable, your scalpel analogy might have some
point.  As it is, I see none.

To be a Catholic is basically to accept three statements and the
implications of them.  The first, also accepted by many non-
Catholics, is that God exists. If the universe was created and is
being held in existence at every moment by an all powerful, all wise
being, we should accept anything he tells us, particularly about what
we are as human being and how we ought to live in order to attain the
purpose for which He created us.  There is not, and cannot be, any
more reliable source of this information.

The second statement, also accepted by many non-Catholics, is that
God became a man in Jesus Christ and died for us on the Cross.  If
Jesus is God incarnate, then everything He tells us must be accepted
as God's teaching and followed for the reason given in the preceding
paragraph.

The third statement is the Jesus founded the Catholic Church to teach
in His name and with His authority.  If this is true then we should
accept the Church's explanations of God's teachings since they are
guaranteed by God.  As St. Paul says, the church of the living God is
the pillar and ground (foundation) of truth (1 Tim 3:15).  To say, "I
disagree with the Church's teaching on X (whether X is the legitimacy
of contraception or the spiration of the Holy Spirit), therefore the
Church must be wrong" is approaching things the wrong way.  If the
three statements I mention are true, and there are apologetic argu-
ments to support each of them, the official teachings of the Church
must be correct and the individual who disagrees with any of them
must be mistaken.

Marty Helgesen
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh