Birth Control = Christianity Lite?

[Marcus]

In the current issue of First Things, Mary Eberstadt argues that any Christian communion that condones or allows artificial birth control is "Christianity Lite" and on its way to oblivion. Her article, Christianity Lite, asserts that it is an abandonment of "traditional" sexual morality—with "traditional" more or less defined as [Roman] Catholic—that "divide[s] the [Roman] Catholic Church from the churches of Christianity Lite today."

I think her argument is hogwash and a straw-man for much deeper issues.

First, and as I understand it, the Roman denomination holds that the telos of sex is two-fold: 1) procreation and 2) union and sex that artificially denies or attempts to deny the possibility of either is sin. Roman Catholics are permitted to practice birth control or pregnancy regulation if you will but not by "artificial" means: condoms, diaphragms, etc.

My own perspective is that sex between married couples is a means of grace, a vehicle of union whereby the two become one flesh. The Old Testament says it, Christ said it, and St. Paul said it. Procreation is at the will of God who opens and closes the womb at His discretion. Thus, I think, the Roman church goes too far in demanding that procreation, however unlikely, be seen as some sort of accompanying possibility when indulging in sexual activity. God has, over time, revealed to us the normal means by which Providence works, granting us increasing discretion in our use of that knowledge and increasing responsibility.

Second, how is "artificial," when applied to birth control, to be defined? Probably the most efficient means of birth control is Natural Family Planning, which necessitates a couple carefully keeping rigidly accurate records of the woman's bodily temperature relative to her monthly cycle in order to track her periods of fertility. Thermometers? Written records? How artificial is that compared to say, a condom?

So what's the deal? Is Ms Mary right? There is, strictly speaking, no 100% sure means of birth control. But in any case—condoms, Natural Family Planning, whatever—the intent is the same, that is, to preclude or deny the possibility of pregnancy. I think Eberstadt is mistaken. Liberal churches may be infected with a fatal disease, but it isn't birth control or the abandonment of traditional [Roman] Catholic teaching on sexual morality in that regard.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

I buzzed the article. A tough slog for me. Short version, it seems to me, is that she identifies a series of slipperly slopes and traces their acceptance to the decline of the sects (mostly Anglicans and mainline Protestants) that accept them.

Contraception wasn't the only identified marker, and I rather agree with the others. But I do find the contraception issue far less Scripturally based than the other ones identified. But then again, I'm not Catholic, and I don't find a number of their doctrinal points as Scripturally based as I might wish.

Overall though, the general tilt of the article wasn't horrible, and I agree that Anglicans and mainline Protestants are pretty much toast. I'd argue the baseline cause is general abandonment of the authority of Scripture (and God, for that matter), and the slopes are symptoms, not the cause. But then again, I'm a KISS kind of guy.

[Ibrahim]

I can't speak to the detailed Christian theology about this, but it seems to be a mistake to equate contraception with the failure to procreate. Contraception allows people, and most importantly women, to control their reproduction without compromising their sex life, marital or otherwise. That does not preclude having 2.1 or more children. If Anglicans aren't reproducing at replacement rates that is not a consequence of contraception alone. I think the Catholic position on this is very backwards, particularly in the developing world.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

...
I think the Catholic position on this is very backwards, particularly in the developing world.

Again, FWIW I find the Catholic position dubious on Scriptural grounds*. That said, tailoring ones theology for the developing world vs anywhere else is another echo of the same disease being bemoaned in the original article.

* RCers, feel free to educate me. Best I can figure it primarily rests on Onan... I knew an evangelical Ph.D. in Hebrew/OT who was similarly persuaded. He never convinced me of his position.

[Michael]

In the current issue of First Things, Mary Eberstadt argues that any Christian communion that condones or allows artificial birth control is "Christianity Lite" and on its way to oblivion. Her article, Christianity Lite, asserts that it is an abandonment of "traditional" sexual morality—with "traditional" more or less defined as [Roman] Catholic—that "divide[s] the [Roman] Catholic Church from the churches of Christianity Lite today."

I think her argument is hogwash and a straw-man for much deeper issues.

First, and as I understand it, the Roman denomination holds that the telos of sex is two-fold: 1) procreation and 2) union and sex that artificially denies or attempts to deny the possibility of either is sin. Roman Catholics are permitted to practice birth control or pregnancy regulation if you will but not by "artificial" means: condoms, diaphragms, etc.

My own perspective is that sex between married couples is a means of grace, a vehicle of union whereby the two become one flesh. The Old Testament says it, Christ said it, and St. Paul said it. Procreation is at the will of God who opens and closes the womb at His discretion. Thus, I think, the Roman church goes too far in demanding that procreation, however unlikely, be seen as some sort of accompanying possibility when indulging in sexual activity. God has, over time, revealed to us the normal means by which Providence works, granting us increasing discretion in our use of that knowledge and increasing responsibility.

Second, how is "artificial," when applied to birth control, to be defined? Probably the most efficient means of birth control is Natural Family Planning, which necessitates a couple carefully keeping rigidly accurate records of the woman's bodily temperature relative to her monthly cycle in order to track her periods of fertility. Thermometers? Written records? How artificial is that compared to say, a condom?

So what's the deal? Is Ms Mary right? There is, strictly speaking, no 100% sure means of birth control. But in any case—condoms, Natural Family Planning, whatever—the intent is the same, that is, to preclude or deny the possibility of pregnancy. I think Eberstadt is mistaken. Liberal churches may be infected with a fatal disease, but it isn't birth control or the abandonment of traditional [Roman] Catholic teaching on sexual morality in that regard.

The clearest analysis on "artificial," in the context of birth control, is, I think, Prof Elizabeth Anscombe's 1972 paper Contraception and Chastity. Here are some relevant excerpts:

The reason why people are confused about intention, and why they sometimes think there is no difference between contraceptive intercourse and the use of infertile times to avoid conception, is this: They don't notice the difference between "intention" when it means the intentionalness of the thing you're doing - that you're doing this on purpose - and when it means a further or accompanying intention with which you do the thing. For example, I make a table: that's an intentional action because I am doing just that on purpose. I have the further intention of, say, earning my living, doing my job by making the table. Contraceptive intercourse and intercourse using infertile times may be alike in respect of further intention, and these further intentions may be good, justified, excellent...

But contraceptive intercourse is faulted, not on account of this further intention, but because of the kind of intentional action you are doing. The action is not left by you as the kind of act by which life is transmitted, but is purposely rendered infertile, and so changed to another sort of act altogether...

For in contraceptive intercourse you intend to perform a sexual act which, if it has a chance of being fertile, you render infertile. Qua your intentional action, then, what you do is something intrinsically unapt for generation and, that is why it does fall under that condemnation. There's all the world of difference between this and the use of the "rhythm" method. For you use the rhythm method not just by having intercourse now, but by not having it next week, say; and not having it next week isn't something that does something to today's intercourse to turn it into an infertile act; today's intercourse is an ordinary act of intercourse, an ordinary marriage act. It's only if, in getting married, you proposed (like the Manichaeans) to confine intercourse to infertile periods, that you'd be falsifying marriage and entering a mere concubinage. Or if for mere love of ease and hatred of burdens you determined by this means never to have another child, you would then be dishonouring your marriage.

I would add that I think the distinction Prof Anscombe draws between the intentionality of acts and ulterior intention is essential to any sound moral philosophy, generally; the failure to do so is the fatal flaw in much utilitarian or "consequentialist" thinking.

[Michael]

...
I think the Catholic position on this is very backwards, particularly in the developing world.

Again, FWIW I find the Catholic position dubious on Scriptural grounds*. That said, tailoring ones theology for the developing world vs anywhere else is another echo of the same disease being bemoaned in the original article.

* RCers, feel free to educate me. Best I can figure it primarily rests on Onan... I knew an evangelical Ph.D. in Hebrew/OT who was similarly persuaded. He never convinced me of his position.

As Prof Anscombe put it in the paper I quoted to Marcus

Christian moral teachings aren't revealed mysteries like the Trinity...

In fact there's no greater connexion of "natural law" with the prohibition on contraception than with any other part of morality. Any type of wrong action is "against the natural law": stealing is, framing someone is, oppressing people is. "Natural law" is simply a way of speaking about the whole of morality, used by Catholic thinkers because they believe the general precepts of morality are laws promulgated by God our Creator in the enlightened human understanding when it is thinking in general terms about what are good and what are bad actions. That is to say, the discoveries of reflection and reasoning when we think straight about these things are God's legislation to us (whether we realize this or not).

No one suggests that pagans were sinless, because they did not have the Law of Moses to guide them.

Of course, Catholics believe the prohibition is implicit in the whole scriptural teaching on man, woman and marriage, from Genisis on through; this, we should expect, for reason and revelation never contradict each other.

For example, as Miss Anscombe remarked, with great prescience (back in 1972)

And if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with contraceptive intercourse, and if it could become general practice everywhere when there is intercourse but ought to be no begetting, then it's very difficult to see the objection to this morality, for the ground of objection to fornication and adultery was that sexual intercourse is only right in the sort of set-up that typically provides children with a father and mother to care for them. If you can turn intercourse into something other than the reproductive type of act (I don't mean of course that every act is reproductive any more than every acorn leads to an oak-tree but it's the reproductive type of act) then why, if you can change it, should it be restricted to the married? Restricted, that is, to partners bound in a formal, legal, union whose fundamental purpose is the bringing up of children? For if that is not its fundamental purpose there is no reason why for example "marriage" should have to be between people of opposite sexes.

In fact, I heard her make the same point in the mid-sixties, at Oxford, and the snorts of derision with which it was greeted.

[charleston]

fwiw

http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm

In Jewish law, sex is not considered shameful, sinful or obscene. Sex is not thought of as a necessary evil for the sole purpose of procreation. Although sexual desire comes from the yetzer ra (the evil impulse), it is no more evil than hunger or thirst, which also come from the yetzer ra. Like hunger, thirst or other basic instincts, sexual desire must be controlled and channeled, satisfied at the proper time, place and manner. But when sexual desire is satisfied between a husband and wife at the proper time, out of mutual love and desire, sex is a mitzvah.

Sex is permissible only within the context of a marriage. In Judaism, sex is not merely a way of experiencing physical pleasure. It is an act of immense significance, which requires commitment and responsibility. The requirement of marriage before sex ensures that sense of commitment and responsibility. Jewish law also forbids sexual contact short of intercourse outside of the context of marriage, recognizing that such contact will inevitably lead to intercourse.

The primary purpose of sex is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is companionship, and sexual relations play an important role. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason. Sex between husband and wife is permitted (even recommended) at times when conception is impossible, such as when the woman is pregnant, after menopause, or when the woman is using a permissible form of contraception.

In the Torah, the word used for sex between husband and wife comes from the root Yod-Dalet-Ayin, meaning "to know," which vividly illustrates that proper Jewish sexuality involves both the heart and mind, not merely the body.

[Marcus]

Thanks, Michael,

That is, I think, very helpful in understanding the Roman Catholic position. The crux of the issue then is right here:

But contraceptive intercourse is faulted . . because of the kind of intentional action you are doing. The action is not left by you as the kind of act by which life is transmitted, but is purposely rendered infertile, and so changed to another sort of act altogether...

In other words, contraceptive intercourse is faulted because it seeks to abrogate the created order of things, i.e., sexual intercourse as the means of propagation.

If I'm understand the RC position correctly, then the same sentiment can be found here:

The service of man is the end appointed by the Creator for brute animals. When, therefore, man, with no reasonable purpose, treats the brute cruelly he does wrong, not because he violates the right of the brute, but because his action conflicts with the order and the design of the Creator (Philosophia Moralis, 9th ed., Rome, p. 136).

The fault of contraceptive intercourse, according to the RC position, is that it "conflicts with the order and design of the Creator."

Please let me know if I'm understanding the RC position correctly, and we can take the discussion from there.

Thanks . .

[Marcus]

charleston,

Thanks. This portion of your post is very well said and entirely agreeable with my understanding:

Sex is permissible only within the context of a marriage. In Judaism, sex is not merely a way of experiencing physical pleasure. It is an act of immense significance, which requires commitment and responsibility. The requirement of marriage before sex ensures that sense of commitment and responsibility. Jewish law also forbids sexual contact short of intercourse outside of the context of marriage, recognizing that such contact will inevitably lead to intercourse.

The primary purpose of sex is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is companionship, and sexual relations play an important role. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason. Sex between husband and wife is permitted (even recommended) at times when conception is impossible, such as when the woman is pregnant, after menopause, or when the woman is using a permissible form of contraception.

In the Torah, the word used for sex between husband and wife comes from the root Yod-Dalet-Ayin, meaning "to know," which vividly illustrates that proper Jewish sexuality involves both the heart and mind, not merely the body.

[Michael]

Marcus

Yes, you have it exactly right.

Charleston

Catholics would agree that the unity of the spouses is the end, or purpose of marriage. Children are the fruit of that union.

[charleston]

Marcus

Yes, you have it exactly right.

Charleston

Catholics would agree that the unity of the spouses is the end, or purpose of marriage. Children are the fruit of that union.

you may find the whole article interesting, it continues;

Sex is the woman's right, not the man's.

A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce.

The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.

Although sex is the woman's right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the ketubah.

and there is this interesting reference again reinforcing that sex is the woman's right, and not the man's-

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2005_0 ... 1174460619

ANOTHER TALMUD REFERENCE: Parent.com has an article on "Boy or Girl?

The lowdown on whether you can really sway the odds" in which they assert the following:
Strategies for conceiving a child of a particular sex have been around for centuries. The Talmud, a major book of Jewish law, says that if a wife's orgasm precedes her husband's, the baby will be a boy.

Typically, no reference is given. Can one of my Talmudist readers tell us if this is really in the Talmud and, if so, where?

UPDATE: Thanks to Nahum J. Stone, Carla Sulzbach, Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky, and Simon Montagu for sending the references, which are Berakhot 60a and Nida 25b 28a 31a. It's an interesting pericope, which creatively construes Leviticus 12:2 to say that if a woman "produces seed" ("ejaculates"? -- the verb translated "conceived" in the RSV is the causative verbal form of the root ZR(, "seed") she bears a male. Therefore if the female orgasm happens first, the child will be male, whereas if the male orgasm is first, the child will be female. The Berakhot passage is in a context that asks whether praying can affect the sex of a child. It concludes that because the order of male-female orgasm normally determines it, prayer only has an effect in cases of simultaneous orgasm.

[total issues]

The primary purpose of sex is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is companionship, and sexual relations play an important role. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason.

Spot on, and there is biological justification as well as religious. If sex were purely for recreation we would come "on heat" in the "rutting season" once a year like most mammals. Year long sex, and the desire for it lasting beyond life's reproductive period, is for precisely the reason charleston states - because human children grow up slowly and need a lot of care from two parents.

The Church would be better off if it concerned itself with people not wanting any children, and "husband and wife" becoming a threatened institution. It is quite clear that few Catholics take any notice of the probition of artificial contraception anyway (the Catholic demographic transition: 5 children to 1 in a generation e.g Spain, Italy, Quebec and now Poland).

[Marcus]

Marcus
Yes, you have it exactly right.

Thanks, Michael, I wanted to make sure before proceeding because it is right there—the notion of "telos"—that I think the RC mind and the Protestant mind part company, at least in part. The idea of telos—that the created order can be defined in terms of a thing's "end" or "purpose", or "goal"—is Greek thought and foreign to the Christian scriptures. For instance, when you note a post or so back that RC's would say "unity of the spouses is the end, or purpose of marriage," scripture does not present the matter in that light but simply says "this is what happens"—the two become one flesh. A thing's telos or purpose may or may not be a useful category of analysis, but it is not properly a way of understanding humanity's interaction with the created order.

Again, Ms Eberstadt notes that the intent of both natural family planning and contraception is the avoidance of pregnancy. The Protestant mind, I think, stops right there. As the Westminster Confession puts it, "Sin is any want of conformity unto or violation of the law of God." Sin thus is not violation of some teleologically defined created order.

How far would such a definition carry us? What about trophy hunting? Catch-and-release fishing? Riding to hounds? If the telos of the animal order is the service of mankind, what legitimate need does trophy hunting serve? Many hunters come to Alaska only to kill a 60" or better bull moose for the horns alone and would be quite content to leave the meat in the field were it not illegal. As it is, many just leave the meat with villagers. Anglers everywhere indulge C&R fishing, willfully putting the animal's life at risk for the sake of fun and recreation. Anglers regularly boast of 100-fish days. If the origins of fox hunting lie in pest control, how has that legitimate activity become subsumed by more frivolous considerations?

No, I think the whole notion of "telos" is deficient and its incorporation into Christian thinking largely a result of St. Thomas' dalliance with the Greeks. Scripture does not speak to abstract categories but only to the intent of the human heart before God as judged by individual conscience. "Christianity Lite" is not defined by a lack of adherence to RC teaching on sexual morality. Christianity Lite is the product of not taking scripture at its word. Nothing more.

That, at least, is how I see it.

[charleston]

The primary purpose of sex is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is companionship, and sexual relations play an important role. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason.

Spot on, and there is biological justification as well as religious. If sex were purely for recreation we would come "on heat" in the "rutting season" once a year like most mammals. Year long sex, and the desire for it lasting beyond life's reproductive period, is for precisely the reason charleston states - because human children grow up slowly and need a lot of care from two parents.

The Church would be better off if it concerned itself with people not wanting any children, and "husband and wife" becoming a threatened institution. It is quite clear that few Catholics take any notice of the probition of artificial contraception anyway (the Catholic demographic transition: 5 children to 1 in a generation e.g Spain, Italy, Quebec and now Poland).

I wish I could take credit for writing this, however I am only posting how Judaism approaches sexual relations in marriage.

[lzzrdgrrl]

Modern culture and psychology wants something from sexuality and sexual relationships that so-called traditional Christian Morality is either unaware of, or loathes to address. That is the nux of the issue, we need to talk about this......