Birth Control vs. The Church
Should insurance plans at Catholic colleges be forced to cover birth control? The Obama administration thinks so, as the New York Times gleefully reports. Of course, the Times' piece is less a news story than it is an editorial against the Catholic Church, but it's an illuminating read as a case-in-point of this new morality of entitlement that has stitched into today's culture, especially youth culture. Young people think they have the right to have premarital sex, and they think they are entitled to full protection against its consequences, i.e., having a child or contracting STDs.
Here's the Times:
Bridgette Dunlap, a Fordham University law student, knew that the school’s health plan had to pay for birth control pills, in keeping with New York state law. What she did not find out until she was in an examining room, “in the paper dress,” was that the student health service — in keeping with Roman Catholic tenets — would simply refuse to prescribe them.
As a result, students have had to go to Planned Parenthood or private doctors to get prescriptions. Some, unable to afford the doctor visits, gave up birth control pills entirely. In November, Ms. Dunlap, 31, who was raised a Catholic and was educated at parochial schools, organized a one-day, off-campus clinic staffed by volunteer doctors who wrote prescriptions for dozens of women.
Many Catholic colleges decline to prescribe or cover birth control, citing religious reasons. Now they are under pressure to change. This month the Obama administration, citing the medical case for birth control, made a politically charged decision that the new health care law requires insurance plans at Catholic institutions to cover birth control without co-payments for employees, and that may be extended to students. But Catholic organizations are resisting the rule, saying it would force them to violate their beliefs and finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings.
...
Despite Catholic teachings, surveys have found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, as in the general population, have used contraceptives.
At Catholic universities, some students support the right of the schools to uphold religious doctrine. But others, particularly professional and graduate students, have found the restrictions on birth control coverage onerous. Undergraduates are often covered by their parents’ insurance, but graduate students are usually on their own and are more likely to be married or in relationships and in regular need of birth control.
...
A 23-year-old who asked that her name not be used said she became pregnant while studying at Fordham. In high school, she said, she had taken birth control pills, but she gave them up at Fordham because she could not afford the doctor visit needed for a prescription. She and her boyfriend were using condoms when she became pregnant. Though Catholic, she considered abortion, but chose to have the baby. She said she knew six other Fordham students who had become pregnant and had abortions.
This is crazy. These young women, as the Times is reporting it, are acting like their Catholic colleges are putting them in an impossible position, where they—the women—are left without a choice. "Now I'm going to have to have sex without protection!" you can hear them crying. "What about my reproductive rights!" But the beauty of being a young woman today is that there are plenty of choices to make—thank you, feminism—in a situation like this: You can drop out of your Catholic school and go somewhere that better matches your lifestyle; you can pay for your own birth control (what a thought!); you can decide not to have protected sex; or you can have unprotected sex.
These are real choices—real alternatives—so why doesn't the Times mention them as serious alternatives? Because they are hard choices that no one wants to face up to; because they are choices that have consequences, as most important decisions do. To the Times and to the young women in the story, sex shouldn't have consequences. That it would is an outrage.
Against this fantasy, the Catholic colleges remind us that we may be entitled to making our own decisions, but we won't be coddled and protected from the fall out of those choices. This is a lesson that young women everywhere—especially those who choose to go to Catholic colleges--should learn.
- Comment (170)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Grendel
Tommy De Seno ...
Sex using the rhythm method seems no less divorced from procreation than sex using any other method. Its basis is still release of the urge with an intentional avoidance of procreation.
No wonder you are confused.
Easy brother! I made no pronouncements on what church teaching is nor did make any arguments!
I'm not sure what you mean that we don't "use" the rhythem method. At pre-cana they had a couple come in and chart out the whole thing including the taking of body temperature, etc., so that we didn't do it wrong.
Sure sounds like we were being encouraged to use it!
Apr '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno Easy brother! I made no pronouncements on what church teaching is nor did make any arguments!
I'm not sure what you mean that we don't "use" the rhythm method.
It seems you don't understand what you are saying, and so are troubled by invalid conclusions.
To the contrary, the Church affirms some forms of birth control (abstinence, anyone?) are licit, but never those involving artificial contraception. (cont....)
Apr '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
(...cont.)
I say you think the Church teaches that you always have to be trying to get pregnant, because if it doesn't, then this objection (argument) evaporates.
As a practical matter, thinking about naughty urges can be exciting, but that is too Puritanical to have any place in Catholic metaphysics. The distinction I am making about NFP is this. A couple can use NFP, the Pill, etc. to regulate their fertility; this can be to increase as well as decrease the chance that any particular act will result in conception. The Church rejects the Pill, because it interferes with the potential of each particular use of the sexual faculties, that is, the Pill deprives intercourse of its natural, God-given power. (cont...)
Edited on January 31, 2012 at 6:43pmRe: Birth Control vs. The Church
Grendel
Tommy De Seno Easy brother! I made no pronouncements on what church teaching is nor did make any arguments!
I'm not sure what you mean that we don't "use" the rhythm method.
It seems you don't understand what you are saying, and so are troubled by invalid conclusions.
To the contrary, the Church affirms some forms of birth control (abstinence, anyone?) are licit, but never those involving artificial contraception. (cont....) · 7 minutes ago
Whats the bottom line - does the Catholic Church allow for sex, using NFP, the goal of that sex being other than procreation?
Apr '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
(...cont.)
Your comments confuse two different things, and two different paths of analysis.
The Church’s moral teaching is directed to helping us align our wills with God's will, both regarding individual acts and with our general conduct in marriage. It's not concerned with whether pregnancy results. That is the concern of the Contraceptive Mentality, and it leads directly to abortion to correct any mistake that results in pregnancy.
Apr '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
Whats the bottom line - does the Catholic Church allow for sex, using NFP, the goal of that sex being other than procreation? · 5 minutes ago
The short answer is "No", but if you correct the false premises in your question, it is "Yes".
The technical language is important here. Sex is by its nature ordered toward procreation, in at least two ways: conception, and support of the marital union that provides the best circumstances for nurturing the products of conception (that's where the question's premise goes awry).
A couple using NFP has not rejected either aspect. They accept and submit to both, but the balance between conception and mutual unitive pleasure as motivation can vary. JPII, in his TotB writing, warns that a couple struggling to conceive should guard against getting so focused and anxious about techic and timing that they lose the loving unitive aspect of sex.
Dec '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
Grendel
Tommy De Seno Easy brother! I made no pronouncements on what church teaching is nor did make any arguments!
I'm not sure what you mean that we don't "use" the rhythm method.
It seems you don't understand what you are saying, and so are troubled by invalid conclusions.
To the contrary, the Church affirms some forms of birth control (abstinence, anyone?) are licit, but never those involving artificial contraception. (cont....) · 7 minutes ago
Whats the bottom line - does the Catholic Church allow for sex, using NFP, the goal of that sex being other than procreation? · 28 minutes ago
So long as it remains open to life, yes.
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Rex Mottram
Tommy De Seno
Whats the bottom line - does the Catholic Church allow for sex, using NFP, the goal of that sex being other than procreation? · 28 minutes ago
So long as it remains open to life, yes.
I think it's worth examining the specific mechanism that different forms of birth control employ.
The Pill tricks a woman's body into thinking it's already pregnant, preventing ovulation. It can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, causing an early abortion.
Barrier methods use a physical barrier to prevent completion of the procreative act.
NFP and the rhythm method both prevent conception by... abstaining from sex. And the Church has never opposed abstinence as a licit method of preventing pregnancy.
Jan '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Rex Mottram
...
...
Whats the bottom line - does the Catholic Church allow for sex, using NFP, the goal of that sex being other than procreation? · 28 minutes ago
So long as it remains open to life, yes. · 1 minute ago
I didn't know there were still Catholics who thought that the Church teaches that enjoying sex was sinful. It's about the means and not the ends - NFP is permissable because it is natural - using our bodies in the way they were designed. Artificial contraception is sinful because it is artificial - a mechanical or chemical alteration to our bodies performed for the express purpose of unnaturally ripping away one purpose of coitus from the other.
May '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Joseph Stanko
As the article I cited above points out Luther and Calvin both condemned contraception, and no Christian denomination approved of it before 1930. So one might, without meaning to cause offense, also say there is a vas deferens between many modern Christians (many Catholics included) and the historic Christian consensus on sexual ethics spanning 19 centuries. · 20 hours ago
That may relate to the fact that for 40 centuries or so (for the sake of hyperbole, I stop at 2100 BC) there was no way to block conception.
And there certainly was a lot of gross misinterpretation of Genesis 38 back before the Scriptures were truly available to all rather than the ecclesiastical elite.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Grendel
Tommy De Seno
Whats the bottom line - does the Catholic Church allow for sex, using NFP, the goal of that sex being other than procreation?
The short answer is "No", but if you correct the false premises in your question, it is "Yes".
The technical language is important here. Sex is by its nature ordered toward procreation, in at least two ways: conception, and support of the marital union that provides the best circumstances for nurturing the products of conception (that's where the question's premise goes awry).
A couple using NFP has not rejected either aspect. They accept and submit to both, but the balance between conception and mutual unitive pleasure as motivation can vary. JPII, in his TotB writing, warns that a couple struggling to conceive should guard against getting so focused and anxious about techic and timing that they lose the loving unitive aspect of sex.
False premise? Are you kidding me? Get 3 gin and tonics in me on a Satuday night and I assure you the premise isn't false.
Sometimes sex is not about procreation. The church itself acknowledges that by suggesting the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy.
May '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Leveret
Rex Mottram
Whats the bottom line - does the Catholic Church allow for sex, using NFP, the goal of that sex being other than procreation? · 28 minutes ago
So long as it remains open to life, yes. · 1 minute ago
I didn't know there were still Catholics who thought that the Church teaches that enjoying sex was sinful. It's about the means and not the ends - NFP is permissable because it is natural - using our bodies in the way they were designed. Artificial contraception is sinful because it is artificial - a mechanical or chemical alteration to our bodies performed for the express purpose of unnaturally ripping away one purpose of coitus from the other. · 1 hour ago
You'd better not take any medications, Leveret. And we can list a bunch of other actions and deeds as well.
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Duane Oyen
Leveret
I didn't know there were still Catholics who thought that the Church teaches that enjoying sex was sinful. It's about the means and not the ends - NFP is permissable because it is natural - using our bodies in the way they were designed. Artificial contraception is sinful because it is artificial - a mechanical or chemical alteration to our bodies performed for the express purpose of unnaturally ripping away one purpose of coitus from the other. · 1 hour ago
You'd better not take any medications, Leveret. And we can list a bunch of other actions and deeds as well. · 14 minutes ago
The goal of medicine, at least when practiced ethically, is to preserve or restore the proper function of bodily organs. Jesus restored sight to the blind. A modern medicine that could cure blindness would be a wonderful thing. A drug that causes blindness would be defective and should not be used.
Catholic moral teaching consistently opposes everything that masquerades as "medicine" with the real goal of damaging or suppressing the proper functioning of the human body: contraception, sterilization, abortion, and euthanasia. Medicine should heal, not wound or kill.
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Duane Oyen
That may relate to the fact that for 40 centuries or so (for the sake of hyperbole, I stop at 2100 BC) there was no way to block conception.
Again from the same article: "Anthropological studies show that means of artificial birth control existed in antiquity. Medical papyri described various contraceptive methods used in the year 2700 B.C. and in Egypt in the year 1850 B.C. Soranos (98-139 A.D.), a Greek physician from Ephesus, described 17 medically approved methods of contraception."
I would add that condoms have been around for hundreds of years, and I'd venture to guess the withdrawal method is older than the Bible itself.
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
Sometimes sex is not about procreation. The church itself acknowledges that by suggesting the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy.
Sex is not just about procreation. To ignore the unitive aspect would reduce it to the mechanical or bestial level and would be just as sinful as ignoring or suppressing the procreative aspect.
On the other hand, sex between two fertile individuals is always about procreation, because no method of birth control, licit or illicit, is 100% effective. There's always a possibly of conception, however slim, and part of being "open to life" means a couple should be married and emotionally and spiritually prepared to joyfully welcome the new life that might results from any procreative act. There can be no such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy" if you are properly following Church teaching.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Joseph Stanko
Catholic moral teaching consistently opposes everything that masquerades as "medicine" with the real goal of damaging or suppressing the proper functioning of the human body...
Decongestant? It suppresses the proper function of the body so your nose doesn't run with no expectation of curing you.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Joseph Stanko
Tommy De Seno
Sometimes sex is not about procreation. The church itself acknowledges that by suggesting the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy.
Sex is not just about procreation. To ignore the unitive aspect would reduce it to the mechanical or bestial level and would be just as sinful as ignoring or suppressing the procreative aspect.
On the other hand, sex between two fertile individuals is always about procreation, because no method of birth control, licit or illicit, is 100% effective. There's always a possibly of conception, however slim, and part of being "open to life" means a couple should be married and emotionally and spiritually prepared to joyfully welcome the new life that might results from any procreative act. There can be no such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy" if you are properly following Church teaching. · 38 minutes ago
If all forms of birth control are the same, then that would cut against the argument that NFP is better than the rest.
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
Joseph Stanko
On the other hand, sex between two fertile individuals is always about procreation, because no method of birth control, licit or illicit, is 100% effective. There's always a possibly of conception, however slim, and part of being "open to life" means a couple should be married and emotionally and spiritually prepared to joyfully welcome the new life that might results from any procreative act. There can be no such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy" if you are properly following Church teaching. · 38 minutes ago
If all forms of birth control are the same, then that would cut against the argument that NFP is better than the rest. · 5 minutes ago
Huh? How did you leap from "no method of birth control is 100% effective" to "all forms of birth control are the same?"
Also, I'm not arguing that NFP is "better" in the sense of "more effective," I'm arguing that it is "better" in the sense that right is better than wrong, that it is morally better.
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
Joseph Stanko
Catholic moral teaching consistently opposes everything that masquerades as "medicine" with the real goal of damaging or suppressing the proper functioning of the human body...
Decongestant? It suppresses the proper function of the body so your nose doesn't run with no expectation of curing you. · 18 minutes ago
Easing pain and suffering is also an ethical use of medicine.
Apr '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
False premise? Are you kidding me? Get 3 gin and tonics in me on a Saturday night and I assure you the premise isn't false.
Sometimes sex is not about procreation. The church itself acknowledges that by suggesting the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy. · 3 hours ago
Ha, Ha.
Your false premise is that the generative and unitive (fun) aspects of sex are separable. They aren't, and they are both properly ordered toward procreation, as I think I made pretty clear. Any confusion you experience after this is your own fault.