The rejection of Church teaching on contraception is seeing a modern equivalent, in the rejection of Church teaching on the intrinsically disordered nature of sexual acts between persons of the same sex. Both are intimately linked, as they espouse the decoupling of the sexual act from reproduction, changing it from a means to an end to a goal in itself.

And quite unsatisfying at that...

Does that analogy really work? Sex between a man and a woman is contraceptive most of the time by God’s natural design, but still complementary. Homo sex is something totally different. It doesn’t seem like a good idea to associate the two things.

Faulty definition. Contraception is defined as an action taken by a participant in the sexual activity having the intent to render a potentially fertile intercourse into a sterile one. If the particular time of the month an encounter occurs is naturally sterile, this cannot be contraceptive by definition because neither participant has rendered it so.
The problem with your Alix reasoning is the failure to distinguish the difference between yourself and God.

Bingo. Thanks for saving me the trouble of explaining it.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that sex between husband and wife is contraceptive most of the time by God's design? If you really understand what you're stating and mean to state that, it is utter blasphemy. What you're stating is that God is anti-life. Impossible. God is the author of life and cannot be anti-life which is exactly what contraception is. Yes, by man's understanding of the natural order it is not unreasonable to conclude that there are days of the month when a wife may seem to be infertile. But you do not seem to account for the supernatural order.

There are days of the month where a woman is not fertile. God can do anything, but He performs miracles only occasionally, and usually for the purpose of giving us faith. He respects his natural order and our free will so much that He lifts the usual order of nature only rarely .

I didn't say they were identical or of equal moral weight. But it's easy to see how acceptance of one eventually opened the door for acceptance for the other.

To clarify - i think you mean "naturally not potentially procreative" most of the time, rather than contraceptive. Contraception is the wilful prevention of conception while engaging in, or before, or after, the conjugal act. The "most of the time" comes because the woman is fertile only for a few days of her month, and infertile the rest of it.
You are right however regarding the complementarity between man and woman. Sodomy and contraception are both grave sins and have in common sexual gratification by at least one party, selfishness, lack of self-control perhaps and even lust, but yet are as you suggested, two quite different sins.

For Manualman, Vincent Brandolini, and Phoebe Coombey too. The time of an act is not merely part of the circumstances if it changes the object of the act. As an example, a man is at the shooting range. He can fire at the target, or by waiting until somebody is downrange checking the target dramatically alter the act and make it murder.

Being somewhat indelicate, by altering the time the couple chooses to have intercourse the husband is shooting at an ovum or at nothing. Different kinds of acts.

If contraception with a condom is a disordered act so is having sex when when the woman is infertile. They are fundamentally the same, the difference is merely in what is visible to the eye.

condom is wilfully employed. the fertility rythmns are natural. so the act is fundamentally different. Intent is another matter.

The rejection by many Catholics of the Church's teaching on contraception is the source and font of a great many of the problems in the Church today.

I've found in several cases where people have left the Church for another denomination, citing disgust with the sex abuse scandals, bad behavior of clergy, etc. as the reason it really turned out to be more about Church teaching on family & marriage.

I have no doubt that people are disgusted by the scandals and cannot stomach many of our leaders, and they are struggling spiritually, they don't know what to do. In some cases, I have encountered and ministered to some very traditional people who are beginning to question the truth of Church teaching because these scandals have rattled their souls. That is real...

But I also think that the abuse scandals provide a convenient exit strategy for those who had already left in their heart a long time ago.

My thoughts too.

Many teachings are hard like on divorce, use of infertility help like invetro, use of euthanasia drugs and LGBT etc. God’s will is not ours. Pride makes us vain and blind. We think we know what is better than the early church fathers.

Mrs. Cracker, please do not imply that Catholicism is a denomination.

I apologize. I appreciate you clarifying that.
:)

Artificial birth control makes one of the purposes of sex irrational. It takes a procreative act and makes it non-procreative. It is similar to making the unitive purpose non-unitive, by condoning rape for instance.
Who has the authority to determine the purpose of sex? Since it is based on the natural law then it is only God that makes the determination as promulgated through the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Other ecclesiastical communities and physicians can state their opinions and desires but none of them have the authority to change natural law.

isn't rape unitive? here its more a matter of consent, than the goods of marriage - unitive, procreative, lifelong, etc

You’ll have to explain how rape is unitive since it is the violent act of forcing one’s will over another’s. Can someone give consent to be raped?!

unitive because it unites/ makes one. Consent is different.

Howdy, y'all. Protestant commenter here.

To the author - excellent article. Thank you!

To the commenters - thank you for the excellent discussion. I am enjoying the civil discourse on this article (as on others!).

As a Protestant, my husband and I started out very Protestant-y regarding birth control. In other words, every responsible person should use it, and we ourselves were on the Pill. Over a seven year period, we painfully re-examined our position and moved incrementally from hormonal contraception, to barrier contraception, to NFP, and now to nothing at all. We eventually rejected NFP because it was still, to our minds, a way of trying to take control from God regarding which persons were or were not born into this world. This is one of the only areas of life ethics from which we now differ from Catholicism. I have enjoyed the back-and-forth discussion on NFP here in the comment section.

I'd write more, but I'm feeling too crummy - from morning sickness, which is perhaps fitting!

Thanks so much, all. I learn so much from Crisis and its commenters.

Congratulations on #6! Your way is great. As a matter of moral acumen though the conservative Protestant views on this topic are much sharper and aligned with Scripture and right reasoning.

Congratulations on the pregnancy! Children are a real blessing. Enjoy!

Thanks! This is #6! It has taken a while to undo the brainwashing (that children are only a blessing if they're child #1 or #2), but we've grown so much in learning that they truly are a blessing. Cheers!

Fred, you said "the only difference between NFP and artificial is the artificiality part." You are correct as far as purpose goes. Day baseball vs night baseball, etc. (Therefore) "you have to explain exactly how many children you expect people to have and why. Nobody can answer that. Ergo, the whole thing falls apart." Nope. Just don't avoid fertility and honor the marriage debt. God handles the details.

People make babies. They need to know whether to use NFP to have one, two, three, four, five babies.......etc........ to pay their "marriage debt" to God. Each couple has to prayerfully decide that. We are co-creators. So again, if the purpose of NFP is to avoid fertility, then it is contraception. The NFP folks claim that it's very effective as a contraception technique. It's the "natural" part that seems to make it morally licit; or maybe the part where it's not very successful, and therefore "open to life"? It can't be both ways.

Oh, you're against NFP for contraception? Ok, that makes sense to me, but one still had to decide how many children to have.

Catholics are not allowed to criticize NFP.. too much institutional bias. Now it's time to conclude if there are many faiths, or one faith.

The small number of ecumenical services that I've attended seemed to be a stage for the speakers to practice their oratory skills. It is my understanding, and it makes sense, that we, as Catholics, desire for everyone to become Catholic.

I have never heard of one single convert resulting from an ecumenical service.

there's a youtube video out there with a Jewish rabbi about the key to successful marriage as not merely mutual love, but as love for marriage itself. Although I was not blessed with an inclination for marriage, I would agree that a love for marriage itself endows persons with a greater opportunity for self-fulfillment through fulfillment of the marriage bond.

“Believing in Christ”.
Congratulations! You are now at the same level as the Demons.
They too - Believe! .... Oh and How they Believe.
They also Know - and Tremble.

But is believing the same as obeying?
St James answers that question:
“Show me your Faith apart from Works....”

What are Works?
For many Protestants it is Not ‘working” in soup kitchens, but meaning the Sacraments; Devotion to Mary; the Rosary; the Communion Of Saints; etc.
In other words: The Catholic Church and Her Beliefs. Her Practices.
These “things” are what THEY mean by Works.

Scratch a Protestant hard enough, and long enough, and out pops an Anti Catholic: Someone opposed to the Catholic Church, which ultimately means opposed to His Body - the Church,
Harsh words, but it is the Truth.

Protestant by definition is in protest of the Catholic church. As a former protestant I had come to ask what was I protesting? How can I protest that which I do not know?

Scratch a Protestant hard enough, and long enough, and out pops an Anti Catholic"
Man oh man is that ever the truth. That is so true. Ditto with conservatives on political/social conservative news site. If there is an article about the Pope, the vitriol and hate towards the Church shines bright.

I've found that when you scratch a particularly anti-Catholic Protestant you often find a fallen away Catholic underneath.

I have been to Jewish services that are closer to mass than some Protestant services I've been to.

God may make a way for them in the end but they are not open to the Savior’s intercession sadly. I think that is why He sent Saint Max Kolbe and Saint Edith Stein among them in WWII. He always tries to reach His people.

and there's a very good reason for this

I wish I could say I've been to a Jewish service. I've never had that privilege.

I agree that we share much with Orthodox Jews.
Sadly, we used to share more with mainline Protestants. There were some deeply faithful & heroic Methodists, Presbyterians & others back in the day.

There are still faithful and heroic Presbyterians - just not in the PC (USA). Try the OPC and others.

That may be an exaggeration.
Jews do not believe Christ to either be the long awaited Messiah nor believe Him to be God, nor in the Trinity.
In those last three beliefs, Protestants are Christians.
Jews are not.

I am coming to believe - particularly in light of the fact that I most emphatically am NOT "in communion with" our current pope/Rome - that the past few centuries has seen the increasing development of a false understanding of the pope and the scope of his authority.

I have no idea the correct way to speak about it in theological terms, but a simple way of understanding things is that while he certainly has the primacy, he is basically only a guardian of the deposit of faith, the liturgy, etc. (in a word, tradition), nothing more. When he tries to do anything outside this scope, or if he tries to deviate from anything within it, he has no authority to do so.

Protestants in this sense are right. The pope is not meant to dictate every little thing to the faithful. That right primarily lies with one's local bishop. I am sure it is true/orthodox to say that the pope is capable of being the defender of the faith, and therefore should be appealed to and step in when clergy or a group of faithful are straying from orthodoxy, but honestly, in the grand scheme of things, it is precisely an ever-increasing amount of power being given to Rome/the pope which has led to so many problems in the past few centuries. The most obvious, recent examples being the problems of the last few decades.

Obviously I have major theological differences with Protestants; but in this one particular statement - "who does the pope really think he is?" - in light of Pope Francis and many other recent popes (although to a lesser degree), I am right there with them in asking that question.

I don’t mean to be insulting, but it sounds less like a “coming to believe” than a “coming to Less believe”
What our separated brethren do believe that is right did not come from them. I learned this particular truth years ago when I got mixed up with a non catholic cult. I learned certain truths which they presented as if they were the only ones who taught this. I was an unlearned Catholic.
I didn’t know any better. I was ignorant. And I was tricked.
There are many ways to “skin a cat”, and there are many ways to fool a Catholic or “convert” him. Focusing on fallen, or sinful Catholics is one of the most popular ways.
You must focus on Doctrine. The Sacraments.
Who has all Seven Sacraments: Baptism; Confession; Confirmation; Marriage; Priesthood; Last Rites. The Eucharist. Only the Catholics and the Orthodox (a scandalous separation) have All Seven.
Protestants used to have Two: Baptism and Marriage. And even those Two have fallen into disrepair or in many, even done away with.

You might be misunderstanding me and thinking I am in danger of falling away from the Catholic faith. I am not, at least not any more than from the usual temptation towards it that the average faithful Catholic may experience.

I absolutely do focus on doctrine. Because of my belief in the deposit of faith, apostolic succession, the seven Sacraments, the Real Presence, etc. I could never fall away.

I believe pope Francis is the Pope. He is just a heretical one, and one who has taken to the extreme the misunderstanding and abuse of papal authority that has been brewing not just in the past few decades, but the past few centuries.

The pope does not have the power to discard any longstanding tradition, (for example, the traditional liturgy) nor to contradict the deposit of faith. Both of which the past few popes are guilty of doing. I do NOT stand with that abuse of his authority, and if that makes me "not in communion with Rome," then so be it.

Doctrine is our Defense.
In Apologetics it is best to learn One very well.
One that Protestants Deny.
The Eucharist - meaning the Body and Blood of Christ as Instituted by Christ Himself is one.
Multiple prongs are ineffective as one doctrine is ignored, passed over, and some other objection arises.
It is a curious thing regarding Scripture as well:
Hardly ever do Protestants read the Gospels. Our Lord’s words are quite plain and quite easy to understand.
Paul is much harder, as even Peter declares, so can be manipulated.
Pope’s come and go. But does Our Lord declare a sinful pope necessary to Salvation? No.
But He does declare one Must eat His Body, and Must drink His Blood for Salvation, and This Doctrine is denied by Protestants.

Don’t get sidetracked.