From: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter)
Subject: Re: Birth control & R. Catholic dogma
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:35:00 GMT

In article <92227.064450MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, Marty Helgesen
<MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes... 
>When a couple practices Natural Family Planning (NFP), each individu-  
>al act of intercourse is the same as it would be if the couple were 
>having intercourse without regard for the time of month..........
>...............  The only difference between this couple and the 
>couple in the preceding paragraph is that this couple is taking the 
>woman's status in her natural monthly cycle into account in deciding 
>whether or not to have intercourse.  Doing so does not interfere with 
>the individual act of intercourse, which is identical with both 
>couples.  Contraception does interfere with the individual act by 
>preventing the deposit of sperm, killing the sperm, etc.  That is 
>what makes the moral difference.

Marty, I think you have represented the official position of the Church on this
matter fairly well; I don't want you to think I am arguing with you
personally. But I would like to point out a fallacy in this argument--the
Church's argument. It was a fallacy recognized by the nearly unanimous majority
of the panel of theologians and doctors whom Pope Paul VI convened to examine
this matter before he issued the "Humanae vitae" encyclical. The Pope,
regrettably, decided to listen to one member of his panel--Cardinal Ratzinger
(not then a cardinal, I think)--and disregard the others.

Non-Catholics will find your assertion that the practice of NFP "does not
interfere with the individual act of intercourse" bizarre. As a Catholic, I
know what you mean, but let me assure you, having thermometers around, worrying
about mucous flow and all the rest, DOES put a crimp in a couple's amatory
style. Couple's practicing NFP are working much harder to avoid
pregnancy than couples using more simple methods such as condoms or the
diaphragm. To avoid pregnancy using NFP you have to be DETERMINED.

The essence of the Church's official rejection of "artificial" means of birth
control is that the way in which they attempt to frustrate the processes of
nature indicates that the couple employing them is not open to the creative
potential of the marital act. In other words, a couple practicing NFP knows
that NFP is chancy and remains open to the possibility that a pregnancy may
result, while the Church presumes that a couple employing, say, the diaphragm,
indicates by its use of that artificial method an intent absolutely to prevent
pregnancy. The mechanical means are not evil in themselves, any more, say, than
using scalpels to perform surgery is evil. It's what the Church thinks the
mechanical means say about a couple's moral intentions.

But the Church's presumption in this instance is mistaken, and tragically so.
My wife and I reject abortion and the use of those means of birth control that
are not true contraceptives (e.g., the IUD). We are aware however that the
method of contraception that we use is not 100% perfect and we are entirely
open to the possibility that, whether by accident or by an act of Providence,
pregancy may sometime result. And we are totally and completely prepared to
accept this possibility.

I have made this analogy before and make it here again. The night before the
Crucifixion, Jesus prayed to his father, saying that he'd prefer that "this
cup" be put away from him, but accepting it if that were God's will. This is
precisely the attitude of my wife and myself toward contraception and the
possibility that our love-making may result in conception. Frankly, I am not
the first Catholic who has studied the theology involved and found the decision
reached by Paul VI to be downright mistaken.

Which leads to the second problem--a problem only for Catholics: the obligation
that the Church imposes on its faithful to obey its teachings. The magnitude of
this error was so great that I felt I had no choice but to leave the Church. (I
had other problems, too, but they're beside the point.) It's the Pope's
football, so to speak, and I am not so lazy-minded as to accept the usual line
that "it's okay for you if you think it's okay." I know that the Church does
not really think that, and neither do I.

Will Porter                  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh