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
I retain some doubts though about NFP as the intention is to thwart God's design.
This has been explained several times. Perhaps you could start from basic principles and present the line of reasoning that leads to your conclusions
I'm adding to the analysis the desire for sex itself which is also part of Nature and well within God's plan for us to procreate.
If the Lord allows me the mood for sex right now, am I not thwarting the Lord's plan if I should put off copulation so as not to conceive a child?
This is why I question those who have told me its the method not the intention that makes the difference.
I see the intention of governing. If you are thrwarting the Lord's design, you are doing so regardless of your method.
So who's the sinner?
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 6:32pmFeb '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
Grendel
Tommy De Seno
I retain some doubts though about NFP as the intention is to thwart God's design.
I'm adding to the analysis the desire for sex itself which is also part of Nature and well within God's plan for us to procreate.
If the Lord allows me the mood for sex right now, am I not thwarting the Lord's plan if I should put off copulation so as not to conceive a child?
...
I see the intention of governing. If you are thrwarting the Lord's design, you are doing so regardless of your method.
So who's the sinner? · 1 minute ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
God also gave us Free Will. Not having sex with your wife is not a sin per se. (in and of itself). There may be sinful reasons you are choosing to not have sex, but the act of abstaining in and of itself is not a sin.
NFP cannot thwart God's design. Speaking of healthy adults, men are always fertile. Women have fertile cycles. He made us that way. There is no way to "thwart Him" by understanding the way He made us.
May '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
I may be in the mood to eat a chocolate chip cookie..I can eat it, or not...no problem. Now say, I eat it and then force myself to throw up...that's a problem.
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 7:13pmRe: Birth Control vs. The Church
Katie O: I may be in the mood to eat a chocolate chip cookie..I can eat it, or not...no problem. Now say, I eat it and then force myself to throw up...that's a problem. · 32 minutes ago
Edited 17 minutes ago
I'm still stuck. It was the Lord who filled me with this desire as part of his design for me to procreate. If I avoid it, I'm acting contrary to the Lord's design.
I was told earlier that the we must keep within God's design (which is why contraceptives are wrong - they thwart God's design).
It appears we are on a proverbial slippery slope (pun intended).
Is the this the rule?:
Thwarting of God's design is allowable so long as no artificial means are employed.
Or is it:
Abstinence is not thwarting God's design.
If it is the latter, on what authority do we know this? If you are going to appeal to the authority of a Pope to answer, please be clear on the "why" of his answer, not just that he said it.
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 7:39pmJan '12
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Leveret: ... it was explained to us that the difference between artificial contraception and NFP is a matter of means and not ends. It is not wrong to want to space out your children but it is wrong to use improper means.
There is a huge moral difference between my wife and Icoming together in a conjugal act when my wife's fertility is low and my inserting some artificial contraption (or her disfiguring her own body through sterilisation) to frustrate the natural purpose of congress.
After all, as my wife cannot conceive during certain times of her cycle, we have no intention of actively frustrating the purposes of congress because we cannot intend something which cannot happen. It does not interrupt the act through artificial means.
Put it this way - NFP is achieved by abstaining from coitus during my wife's fertile period. Artificial contraception is achieved by interrupting or sterilising the act. That's not the same thing. · Jan. 30 at 8:12pm
I can see why so many people resent the Church. Its philosophers have a habit of making distinctions which are real for thought but elusive for desire.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Katie O: I may be in the mood to eat a chocolate chip cookie..I can eat it, or not...no problem. Now say, I eat it and then force myself to throw up...that's a problem. · 43 minutes ago
Edited 27 minutes ago
Also, I can't abstain from eating a chocolate chip cookie. On that you'd be asking too much.
Sep '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
If the Lord allows me the mood for sex right now, am I not thwarting the Lord's plan if I should put off copulation so as not to conceive a child?
If I have a desire and do not act on it, am I practicing the virtue of temperance? How would I discern God's will in all circumstances? Clearly, the only example of a perfect man was our Lord, who walked among us in the New Testament. Why was he perfect and able to do this? Because he was without sin. For the rest of us, we fight against sin and pray and practice Christian asceticism appropriate to our state in life to better discern that will and to attempt a perfection of our soul that will never be complete until we are completely purged of our old self, and enter heaven as our new, perfected self.
Sep '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Lots of people misunderstand Church teaching and think it is all about finger-wagging and prudery.
Fr. Servais Pinckaers’s work is well on its way to being accepted as the work on Catholic moral thinking for the coming generation of laymen and students.Pinckaers sharply distinguishes this view of morality from modern “moralities of obligation,” which regard the moral life primarily as obedience to rules that limit human freedom and curb human desires. Pinckaers sees moralities of obligation as the logical outcome of a new understanding of human freedom. Instead of regarding freedom as the capacity to engage in excellent acts of virtue (freedom for excellence), the modern view understands freedom as the radical ability to do good or evil indifferently (freedom of indifference). Pinckaers argues convincingly that this view of freedom and the morality of obligation that flows from it have impoverished the Catholic understanding of the moral life. This work offers the reader a compelling itinerary of moral development, rooted in the theology of St. Paul and the morality of the Gospels.
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 7:49pmSep '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
I can see why so many people resent the Church. Its philosophers have a habit of making distinctions which are real for thought but elusive for desire.
Catholic thought has a great deal to say about the essence of desire itself, which would likely be a good starting point if you wish to investigate further.
Jan '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
I'm still stuck. It was the Lord who filled me with this desire as part of his design for me to procreate. If I avoid it, I'm acting contrary to the Lord's design.
Yeah, but the Lord also gave you a lot of other qualities as well, to be used together coherently ... judgment, prudence, and so on.
Further, the Christian tradition is that you have a fairly important role in your own development. You have an ongoing responsibility to discipline yourself and all your desires and to order them to a higher purpose.
Humanae Vitae spends considerable (and IMO worthwhile) time exploring the notion that human beings are co-creators in God's universe. Well, great phrase, but what does it mean in the real world? It can't mean that we do whatever we want (this is still God's universe, after all), but it doesn't mean that we never do anything on our own. Humanae Vitae teaches that prudent cooperation in God's creation has some boundaries - and that some things should remain natural.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Pseudodionysius: If the Lord allows me the mood for sex right now, am I not thwarting the Lord's plan if I should put off copulation so as not to conceive a child?
If I have a desire and do not act on it, am I practicing the virtue of temperance?
Touché.
Of course between work, sports and having 4 kids already running about the house from 6 a.m to 10 p.m., temperance of sexual desire is imposed far more often than chosen.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
KC Mulville
Tommy De Seno
I'm still stuck. It was the Lord who filled me with this desire as part of his design for me to procreate. If I avoid it, I'm acting contrary to the Lord's design.
Yeah, but the Lord also gave you a lot of other qualities as well, to be used together coherently ... judgment, prudence, and so on.
Agreed - this is the same worthwhile point Pseud is making.
Sep '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
Pseudodionysius: If the Lord allows me the mood for sex right now, am I not thwarting the Lord's plan if I should put off copulation so as not to conceive a child?
If I have a desire and do not act on it, am I practicing the virtue of temperance?
Touché.
Of course between work, sports and having 4 kids already running about the house from 6 a.m to 10 p.m., temperance of sexual desire is imposed far more often than chosen.
· 3 minutes ago
Agreed.
Feb '11
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy, Papa Toad is a secular Reform Jew -- not a convert -- who teaches NFP with me. In our "witness" talk to couples, he says, "Practicing NFP requires sacrifice, patience, and self-control, gifts which the spouses pour out upon the marriage, making it stronger."
It isn't just that there are good reasons to avoid contraception. There are good reasons to learn and practice NFP. Papa Toad will tell you that it is one of the greatest blessings in our marriage.
BTW, "witness" is the meaning of the word martyr. We are all called to be martyrs for Christ!
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
So it appears you've all completed the circle for me:
Contraceptives are an artificial means of interfering with God's design of the nature of man.
NFP does not do so as it involves only abstinence.
Abstinence is in keeping with temperance, one of the Cardinal Virtues.
Cardinal Virtues are done in honor of the Lord (which nicely supplies the "why" of it that I came searching for).
Artificial contraceptives lend themselves away from temperance and lead in the direction of the vice of lust.
I can see all of it quite clearly.
Congratulations! When standing at St. Peter's gate, you may all add to your Petition for Entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven that you helped keep a Catholic on the path!
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 8:28pmRe: Birth Control vs. The Church
By the way it was Pseud who shined the brightest light on it for me when he brought up the virtue of temperance.
I've always thought virtue was one of the obvious separations between man and beast. That got me thinking about the honor we owe God for giving us the gifts of human faculties, and I've always thought the best way to Honor Him is to use them.
That really showed me the "why" of it all.
Nice job, Pseud.
Dec '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy, if Mama Toad, Kateivs, and others can make a convincing case to a hard core protestant like me then you were doomed from the start.
May '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
... It was the Lord who filled me with this desire as part of his design for me to procreate. If I avoid it, I'm acting contrary to the Lord's design.....
Thwarting of God's design is allowable so long as no artificial means are employed.
Or is it:
Abstinence is not thwarting God's design.
If it is the latter, on what authority do we know this?
This is sticky for me as well Tommy. I get it for each individual act. Sex on Tuesday when God has made you infertile...abstinence on fertile Friday. Nothing thwarted. But, taken as a whole, as a scheme to avoid pregnancy all the time, doesn't that thwart his His design? I don't know. I do know we aren't suppose to use NFP with a "contraceptive mentality". Couples need to have a "just reason" to use NFP. Maybe a "just reason" is poverty, relationship issues, illness, maybe it's not wanting to get fat again. The authority is suppose to come from the couple who prayerful try to discern God's will for them. As I said...sticky for me too.
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
The King Prawn
Tommy, if Mama Toad, Kateivs, and others can make a convincing case to a hard core protestant like me then you were doomed from the start. · 1 minute ago
Agreed.
Unfortunately, they've forced me to add "go to confession" to my weekend schedule.
May '10
Re: Birth Control vs. The Church
Tommy De Seno
The King Prawn
Tommy, if Mama Toad, Kateivs, and others can make a convincing case to a hard core protestant like me then you were doomed from the start. · 1 minute ago
Agreed.
Unfortunately, they've forced me to add "go to confession" to my weekend schedule. · 2 minutes ago
Tommy, this is such great news! You've totally made my day.