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:
Jan '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Duane Oyen
Leveret
Rex Mottram
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. · 8 hours ago
It's one thing to take take medication to cure you of an illness and quite another to artificially prevent conception. For starters, pregnancy is not a disease.
Aug '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Thank you, Tracy Urdan.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Grendel
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. · 20 hours ago
It is becoming evident that you refuse to accept human biology. Sometimes, sex is not about, ordered toward or having anything to do with procreation.
Take a poll. I dare you.
Feb '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno, I am embarrassed for your ignorance of the beauty of Catholic teaching about birth control and responsible parenthood, and even your misunderstanding of the terms Grendel and others have used. Perhaps this might help you, or this, this, or even this?
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
I started this conversation by asking for help so I thank you for the links.
I'm perplexed that your response to a person who sought help would be to tell them you are embarrassed by their ignorance. That would make people fear asking for help.
Perhaps you should be embarrassed...
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
It is becoming evident that you refuse to accept human biology. Sometimes, sex is not about, ordered toward or having anything to do with procreation.
Take a poll. I dare you.
A poll asking what? Do you mean the reasons people desire sex? If your point is that people desire sex for reasons other than procreation then I should have thought that so obvious that no one here disputes it.
The fact remains that the biological function of the reproductive organs is, as the name implies, reproduction. Our efforts to frustrate this purpose are less successful than we care to admit. Recall that the article above said:
I would submit that she and her boyfriend are the ones who "refuse to accept human biology." Sex is always about and ordered towards procreation no matter how much those engaging in it might wish or delude themselves otherwise.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Joseph Stanko
Tommy De Seno
It is becoming evident that you refuse to accept human biology. Sometimes, sex is not about, ordered toward or having anything to do with procreation.
The fact remains that the biological function of the reproductive organs is, as the name implies, reproduction. Our efforts to frustrate this purpose are less successful than we care to admit. Recall that the article above said:
I would submit that she and her boyfriend are the ones who "refuse to accept human biology." Sex is always about and ordered towards procreation no matter how much those engaging in it might wish or delude themselves otherwise.
You've managed to exclude the concept of concurrent purposes.
You don't explain how.
Others have pointed out that NFP is natural while other forms of birth control (conception control?) are not.
They just don't explain why it matters.
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
You've managed to exclude the concept of concurrent purposes.
You don't explain how.
No, I haven't. I've said what the Church says, that sex serves both procreative and unitive purposes. Attempting to seperate them and have just the unitive (contraception) or just the procreative (in vitro fertilisation) is a sin.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Joseph Stanko
Tommy De Seno
You've managed to exclude the concept of concurrent purposes.
You don't explain how.
No, I haven't. I've said what the Church says, that sex serves both procreative and unitive purposes. Attempting to seperate them and have just the unitive (contraception) or just the procreative (in vitro fertilisation) is a sin. · 3 minutes ago
Nothing I didn't already know.
Tell me why.
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
Tell me why.
I doubt I can improve on how Paul VI expressed it:
Jun '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
I'd also recommend the book Sex Au Naturel by Patrick Coffin. From the chapter "Birth Control in the Bible:"
Feb '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
I started this conversation by asking for help so I thank you for the links.
I'm perplexed that your response to a person who sought help would be to tell them you are embarrassed by their ignorance. That would make people fear asking for help.
Perhaps you should be embarrassed... · 4 hours ago
It's not your lack of knowing that bothers me. It's your rude attitude -- "Take a poll. I dare you." -- does not say to me, "Hmm, I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain it better?"
Also, I don't embarrass easily...
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 3:43amRe: Birth Control vs. The Church
Joseph Stanko
Tommy De Seno
Tell me why.
I doubt I can improve on how Paul VI expressed it:
Ok that makes sense to me. Not frustrating God's design. That would be the "why" of it that I was seeking as opposed to a naked appeal to authority. Thanks Joseph.
I retain some doubts though about NFP as the intention is to thwart God's design.
Same thing, only more beautifully written.
Another question that would still remain for me would be the boundaries of when we are allowed to alter nature. For instance, cesarean section.
I note too that Jesus often altered nature by way of miracle, but I suppose we could leave that discussion for another day.
Sep '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tell me why.
Tommy, our ultimate goal is eternal life and beatitude. This is an oft neglected topic, but the way to do that is to develop a life of virtue (the four cardinal and three theological) through acquired and infused virtue and the gifts of the Holy Spirit as well as the receipt of divine grace through receiving the sacraments. NFP only makes sense, ultimately, if it helps you develop those virtues and strengthen the marriage sacrament (and it is, lets not forget, a sacrament) in a way that artificial contraception cannot.
I hope that helps, though, of course, that doesn't replace a more detailed study for yourself.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Mama Toad
Tommy De Seno
I'm perplexed that your response to a person who sought help would be to tell them you are embarrassed by their ignorance. That would make people fear asking for help.
It's not your lack of knowing that bothers me. It's your rude attitude
Toad,
You've never hidden your poikilothermic attitude toward me, so I'll thank you for your honesty. Considering your popularity here on Ricochet, I won't say it doesn't bother me.
But not as much as your double standard bothers me. This fellow Grendel started his replies to me with snark such as "No wonder you are confused" followed by strawmen positions I did not take, completing another comment blaming me for being confused.
In other words, he turns the conversation from the topic to me. Yet no personal disapproval from you to him, as you do to me.
I hope that when I'm first being personally put upon that way, you'll excuse me for a bit of return snark in my own defense. It's evident you won't defend me.
Perhaps all would be better were you to pray for me instead.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Pseudodionysius: Tell me why.
Tommy, our ultimate goal is eternal life and beatitude. This is an oft neglected topic, but the way to do that is to develop a life of virtue (the four cardinal and three theological) through acquired and infused virtue and the gifts of the Holy Spirit as well as the receipt of divine grace through receiving the sacraments. NFP only makes sense, ultimately, if it helps you develop those virtues and strengthen the marriage sacrament (and it is, lets not forget, a sacrament) in a way that artificial contraception cannot.
I hope that helps, though, of course, that doesn't replace a more detailed study for yourself. · 7 minutes ago
It does help and thanks. I'm getting the message that not interfering with God's design is the measure of it.
It will, of course, open us up to a discussion of slippery slopes and God's design on topics including and other than conception.
Sep '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
It does help and thanks. I'm getting the message that not interfering with God's design is the measure of it.
Well, sort of. But remember that we're not Kantians or Nominalists in our ethics. God does respect our intelligence and you should develop an intellectual assent not merely one of duty and obligation. We're meant to live our life with a Christian joy, not stoic glum. One author you may want to read before diving into the NFP debate (which can get pretty heated at times) is Abbot Vonier at Zaccheus Press. I can't recommend his books highly enough, especially for lay people. The late Abbot had a gift.
Peace,
Pseud
Feb '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
Mama Toad
Tommy De Seno
I'm perplexed that your response to a person who sought help would be to tell them you are embarrassed by their ignorance. That would make people fear asking for help.
It's not your lack of knowing that bothers me. It's your rude attitude
Toad,
You've never hidden your poikilothermic attitude toward me, so I'll thank you for your honesty.
Tommy -- I am sorry that I was rude. This is now my second apology to you, so I clearly have stepped over several lines. Sorry again.
I like your vocabulary word there -- that's one I had to look up...
I clearly got snippy with you, but perhaps I have some justification for being disappointed? Lots of people misunderstand Church teaching and think it is all about finger-wagging and prudery. Or that it is not logically consistent or life-affirming. It is such a wonderful treasure trove in all areas of life, and in matters of human sexuality the Church is light-years ahead of the rest of the world, not stuck back in the Dark Ages.
I will try to improve. Thanks for your kindness.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Mama Toad
Tommy -- I am sorry that I was rude.
Mama -
Who loves you more than me!?!? Nobody!
No need to apologize. I have to admit my faults.
I can come off on Ricochet differently than who I am.
When I see a topic, sometimes I go all Socratic and start asking questions. Most times it is because I am ignorant and do want to learn.
But sometimes it is to get a conversation to probe more deeply. Sometimes I like to see a person defend his or her position (I learn a lot that way too).
A consequence of doing that is I risk coming off like a jerk - a contrarian for the sake of being contrary.
But I promise I never take a position I don't believe in. Sometimes I take a position I don't much care about for the sake of moving a topic along - but never will I make a statement that is not my true thought.
I just want to see Ricochet go deep, and never be a place where we spend time complimenting one another on our brilliance (even though we deserve it!).
Keep teaching me! I learned a lot this thread.
Apr '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
I retain some doubts though about NFP[,] as the intention is to thwart God's design.
This has been explained several times. To make a response to the point, could you start from basic principles and present the line of reasoning that leads to your conclusions
A- that NFP "thwarts God's design"
and/or
B-that practicing NFP is evidence of an intent to "thwart God's design"?
Another ... question ... would be the boundaries of when we are allowed to alter nature. For instance, cesarean section.
I note ... Jesus ... altered nature by way of miracles,
Nature and natural do not refer to the nature red in tooth and claw studied by scientists. They are technical terms in Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics that hearken back to the root, natus (Lat.) born. A thing's nature is that bundle of potentials it is born with, its essence, its form. From it we infer its intent, goal, purpose. The former is its Aristotelian formal cause; the latter its final cause.
These are the basis of all morality, e.g., why murder and slavery are wrong. (cont.)
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 6:26pm