Interesting post! I live and breathe in this world and I always love hearing what others have to say. One clarification: "It is often heard that those who practice NFP or Catholic family planning are “letting God choose the size of their family”." I believe what you're referring to is Providentialism, not Natural Family Planning (even Catholic Natural Family Planning). NFP very much instructs on how to avoid pregnancy (or try to conceive it) through biological and physiological function. Those practicing NFP would have the same understanding (ideally) as anyone engaging in sexual activity, which is that no method of avoidance or prevention is 100%. Acknowledging this is not a weakness of the system or a total abandonment of responsibility and participation, but a (good) reality worth coming to terms with.
I had the same thought as I was reading the essay. The idea that discernment equals not NFP (ie providentialism) is a complete falsehood. In fact, every couple is required to discern evey month where they stand. Permanent or passive contraception (iud, patch, etc.) would actually require far less discernment and close communication.
Hi, one of those Protestant to Catholic converts. Two questions.
1. How do you (and I mean both the royal you and you specifically) avoid the trap of having the "irreducible tragic and particular" become merely a theological blank check to do whatever you want?
2. "The point of discernment is that no one can tell you how this maps onto your own life. You must live it for yourself. Discernment is sisters to accountability- it is your life that you are taking account of, and not someone else’s"
I was under the impression that the point of discernment was to attempt to love God's will for your life. And more to the point, is it your life's, or God.
In summation, I see very little difference between your position and a mere liberal-indiviualistic framework within some Christian trappings.
"In summation, I see very little difference between your position and a mere liberal-indiviualistic framework within some Christian trappings."
I echo this concern and I'm not Roman Catholic. How much "folk theology" and on-the-ground discipleship is just baptized liberalism? At the same time, I recognize the risks of pastoral overreach and spiritual authoritarianism. It's a rock and a hard place to be sure.
Christians (and others) might declare something a "judgment call" or "wisdom issue," which they use as a way of ending the conversation. If we were to charitably translate it, it might be something like, "I've thought about this, prayed about this, and I don't want to rehash it with you. I'm doing the best I can here." If we were to uncharitably translate it, they're saying something like, "I've gone through my private deliberation which I will not make available for your interrogation or scrutiny because that jostles my comfortable sense of autonomy. If I wanted your input, I would have sought it, but I never seek it because I want to keep these deliberations private to guard my judgments against the messy intrusions of community."
Ideally, a judgment call should begin a conversation, not end it. If you say something is a wisdom issue, there should be a greater expectation that you need to justify your reasoning in order to be considered, well, reasonable (and, in Christian terms, faithful to some coherent form of theology). That doesn't mean sharing all the intimate secrets of your life, but it does mean somehow accepting checks on your own conscience which is, of course, fallible. Those checks are explored in community as we figure out how best to live out this story together. It requires weaving your decision into some kind of biblical theology, then there's room for discussion, debate, disagreement, and narrative interpretation as a community.
Which brings me to Protestants not having a Magisterium - that's true. But we have our churches (and, depending on denomination, other courts), which, ideally, would be bastions not only of worship but critical reflection, conversation, and formation. I suspect some churches do this better than others in medium-size venues (i.e., not the whole congregation usually, but not relegating it to individuals or individual families, but somewhere in between). The Church needs to be the Church, but it can't be if we're going to elevate the individual to the arbiter of wisdom. Which I'm not sure is what you're saying, but is my concern.
I see two things in the "family planning" discourse:
1) WHY we're avoiding pregnancy (reasons)
2) HOW we're doing so (methods)
Protestants (well, the Anglican communion at least) and Catholics might have language and guidance to work within — at least *on paper* — for #1. No one is saying we can't space or avoid pregnancy!
Number #2 is where I think things go completely off the rails.
Just observing that people are talking about different aspects of the conversation, oftentimes, and it helps to clarify which number we're talking about when doing so.
"Avoid pregnancy?" Sure!
"What are licit options for doing so?" is a valid question
(the answer to which doesn't have to be HV, I certainly don't think so)
If we are putting all our cards on the table, I’m not persuaded that “avoid pregnancy” is in fact licit according to HV by any means other than abstinence.
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
I would say "Not to get pedantic," but this is theology. Being pedantic is almost a form of prayer.
Using contraception is a method.
Avoiding pregnancy is a goal.
I think the point you are trying to make is that the *goal* is the primary object of contraception's lictness, which is at the very least debatable. (Although, ironically, HV might agree with you on this.)
"But the idea that the created world is a dim veil through which we view the sacred is a very unChristian way of viewing creation..."
"...making the human divine (a heresy)..."
Maybe it's the wording that's throwing me off but this seems wrong. Because that's actually what the historic church affirmed - that Christ elevated humanity in becoming incarnate. We, the created, can become partakers of the divine nature. The idea of a sacrament is that created things can be conduits of grace, how God shares Himself with us. We accept His gifts not by escaping the created world (that's gnosticism, which really is a heresy) but by accepting the blessed holiness of sanctified creation. It's not really even a thin veil--aspects of the created order can be *made* sacred and bring us the divine life we need. Maybe you can clarify what you meant here.
I'm always curious what a Protestant who rejects the idea of an authoritative body defining truth means when he says "heresy". Do I misunderstand you, and you actually do accept the early councils as teaching inarguable truth? I hope it's not just saying "against my preferred reading of Scripture" because it would be incongruous with the gravity of the pronouncement "heresy". Saying "I and lots of people disagree" without affirming the importance of some segment of the Church in coming up with "standardized", decisive, authoritative interpretations confuses me.
I hope this doesn't seem like a tangient based on two quotations. It seems to cut to the heart of the project. But maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
I actually am nodding my head to more of this than you might believe. (Couldn’t write a book on it, after all.)
Took the risk of talking about it because *not* having categories for wisdom has been our downfall and people are *so* hungry for better ways of thinking about it all, outside of a Magisterium. :)
"I try to speak of sex in accordance with Scripture, which is to say not very often and with little clarity."
Wondering if you say this as a theologian specifically or a Christian.
Because I wonder how much our Christian ethics (bio-ethics or otherwise) stem from this "not in the Bible" approach. If we need a whole list of things in Scripture in order to say something is moral or immoral, well, that's part of our whole debacle!
Curious how you distinguish helpful vs. unhelpful strict Biblicism here.
(Sorry to spam you, just gotta cram it in during quiet time LOL)
I love all of this. I found Emil Brunner‘s account of marriage, child bearing, and contraception in *The Divine Imperative* to practice a lot of this really well, to mention one overlooked Protestant source.
The necessity of discernment is so important - on the one hand, it is a necessity fordoing of theology in the absence of a magisterium.
On the other hand, discernment (wisdom, prudence) is a virtue that we must practice in our own lives given the lack of a strict law with regard to things like contraception and vasectomy (and the moral unclarity of IVF).
The particularities of life and the tragic dimension are also really crucial. Whatever philosophical or theological theory you start marriage and childrearing out with, you may well end up with a different view after actually living it.
I’ve tried to chip in with my piece on pronatalism and the other on contraception.
“I try to speak of sex in accordance with Scripture, which is to say not very often and with little clarity.”
This is the thing.
Looking at the overarching story of Scripture (which is to say God’s story of God’s work in the world), I am struck that everything is important and … humans rarely have clarity.
We are in a story; on a journey with Christ in the world. There are some things we just won’t know this side of heaven.
I’m heartened to walk with fellow believers who feel God’s love for everything He made; and are willing to hold things loosely.
These are points I want to keep mulling over, with an eye beyond fertility/contraception towards the topic of sexual attraction (*insert belabored sigh* you know, all the LGBTQ+ stuff). I am very grateful to have Catholics as conversation partners (literally and figuratively) around this topic and I appreciate unique frameworks like the points you present here to consider as a Protestant.
Yes, I believe so. But I'm just thinking that high school teachers everywhere really missed their chance on this one. "Math will help you at the grocery store!" = zzzzz. "Math is erotic!" = say wut now
When we attempt to make sex and desire more comprehensive we overlook some of the bare facts about reality, which include more than a small dose of the tragic. We end up with an inadequate account but with the opposite set of troubles- not too meager but too expansive,
Interesting post! I live and breathe in this world and I always love hearing what others have to say. One clarification: "It is often heard that those who practice NFP or Catholic family planning are “letting God choose the size of their family”." I believe what you're referring to is Providentialism, not Natural Family Planning (even Catholic Natural Family Planning). NFP very much instructs on how to avoid pregnancy (or try to conceive it) through biological and physiological function. Those practicing NFP would have the same understanding (ideally) as anyone engaging in sexual activity, which is that no method of avoidance or prevention is 100%. Acknowledging this is not a weakness of the system or a total abandonment of responsibility and participation, but a (good) reality worth coming to terms with.
This is a turn of phrase I hear from many who are anti- contraception- I do understand and appreciate your correction!
I had the same thought as I was reading the essay. The idea that discernment equals not NFP (ie providentialism) is a complete falsehood. In fact, every couple is required to discern evey month where they stand. Permanent or passive contraception (iud, patch, etc.) would actually require far less discernment and close communication.
Hi, one of those Protestant to Catholic converts. Two questions.
1. How do you (and I mean both the royal you and you specifically) avoid the trap of having the "irreducible tragic and particular" become merely a theological blank check to do whatever you want?
2. "The point of discernment is that no one can tell you how this maps onto your own life. You must live it for yourself. Discernment is sisters to accountability- it is your life that you are taking account of, and not someone else’s"
I was under the impression that the point of discernment was to attempt to love God's will for your life. And more to the point, is it your life's, or God.
In summation, I see very little difference between your position and a mere liberal-indiviualistic framework within some Christian trappings.
If I am wrong please correct me.
Big fan btw, keep up the good work.
Great question. Will answer later when I’m not attending to the particularities of my own life 😇
"In summation, I see very little difference between your position and a mere liberal-indiviualistic framework within some Christian trappings."
I echo this concern and I'm not Roman Catholic. How much "folk theology" and on-the-ground discipleship is just baptized liberalism? At the same time, I recognize the risks of pastoral overreach and spiritual authoritarianism. It's a rock and a hard place to be sure.
Christians (and others) might declare something a "judgment call" or "wisdom issue," which they use as a way of ending the conversation. If we were to charitably translate it, it might be something like, "I've thought about this, prayed about this, and I don't want to rehash it with you. I'm doing the best I can here." If we were to uncharitably translate it, they're saying something like, "I've gone through my private deliberation which I will not make available for your interrogation or scrutiny because that jostles my comfortable sense of autonomy. If I wanted your input, I would have sought it, but I never seek it because I want to keep these deliberations private to guard my judgments against the messy intrusions of community."
Ideally, a judgment call should begin a conversation, not end it. If you say something is a wisdom issue, there should be a greater expectation that you need to justify your reasoning in order to be considered, well, reasonable (and, in Christian terms, faithful to some coherent form of theology). That doesn't mean sharing all the intimate secrets of your life, but it does mean somehow accepting checks on your own conscience which is, of course, fallible. Those checks are explored in community as we figure out how best to live out this story together. It requires weaving your decision into some kind of biblical theology, then there's room for discussion, debate, disagreement, and narrative interpretation as a community.
Which brings me to Protestants not having a Magisterium - that's true. But we have our churches (and, depending on denomination, other courts), which, ideally, would be bastions not only of worship but critical reflection, conversation, and formation. I suspect some churches do this better than others in medium-size venues (i.e., not the whole congregation usually, but not relegating it to individuals or individual families, but somewhere in between). The Church needs to be the Church, but it can't be if we're going to elevate the individual to the arbiter of wisdom. Which I'm not sure is what you're saying, but is my concern.
Josh, couldn’t love this more.
Same questions here actually!
I see two things in the "family planning" discourse:
1) WHY we're avoiding pregnancy (reasons)
2) HOW we're doing so (methods)
Protestants (well, the Anglican communion at least) and Catholics might have language and guidance to work within — at least *on paper* — for #1. No one is saying we can't space or avoid pregnancy!
Number #2 is where I think things go completely off the rails.
Frankly, I don’t see “seeking to avoid pregnancy” and “using contraceptives” as logically different. And yes, I know the arguments and have read HV.
Just observing that people are talking about different aspects of the conversation, oftentimes, and it helps to clarify which number we're talking about when doing so.
"Avoid pregnancy?" Sure!
"What are licit options for doing so?" is a valid question
(the answer to which doesn't have to be HV, I certainly don't think so)
If we are putting all our cards on the table, I’m not persuaded that “avoid pregnancy” is in fact licit according to HV by any means other than abstinence.
Isn't that.... kind of the whole point of HV??
Not sure there's any cards to put on the table lol - that IS the interpretation.
From Humane Vitae,
16.
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
I would say "Not to get pedantic," but this is theology. Being pedantic is almost a form of prayer.
Using contraception is a method.
Avoiding pregnancy is a goal.
I think the point you are trying to make is that the *goal* is the primary object of contraception's lictness, which is at the very least debatable. (Although, ironically, HV might agree with you on this.)
"But the idea that the created world is a dim veil through which we view the sacred is a very unChristian way of viewing creation..."
"...making the human divine (a heresy)..."
Maybe it's the wording that's throwing me off but this seems wrong. Because that's actually what the historic church affirmed - that Christ elevated humanity in becoming incarnate. We, the created, can become partakers of the divine nature. The idea of a sacrament is that created things can be conduits of grace, how God shares Himself with us. We accept His gifts not by escaping the created world (that's gnosticism, which really is a heresy) but by accepting the blessed holiness of sanctified creation. It's not really even a thin veil--aspects of the created order can be *made* sacred and bring us the divine life we need. Maybe you can clarify what you meant here.
I'm always curious what a Protestant who rejects the idea of an authoritative body defining truth means when he says "heresy". Do I misunderstand you, and you actually do accept the early councils as teaching inarguable truth? I hope it's not just saying "against my preferred reading of Scripture" because it would be incongruous with the gravity of the pronouncement "heresy". Saying "I and lots of people disagree" without affirming the importance of some segment of the Church in coming up with "standardized", decisive, authoritative interpretations confuses me.
I hope this doesn't seem like a tangient based on two quotations. It seems to cut to the heart of the project. But maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
I actually am nodding my head to more of this than you might believe. (Couldn’t write a book on it, after all.)
Took the risk of talking about it because *not* having categories for wisdom has been our downfall and people are *so* hungry for better ways of thinking about it all, outside of a Magisterium. :)
"I try to speak of sex in accordance with Scripture, which is to say not very often and with little clarity."
Wondering if you say this as a theologian specifically or a Christian.
Because I wonder how much our Christian ethics (bio-ethics or otherwise) stem from this "not in the Bible" approach. If we need a whole list of things in Scripture in order to say something is moral or immoral, well, that's part of our whole debacle!
Curious how you distinguish helpful vs. unhelpful strict Biblicism here.
(Sorry to spam you, just gotta cram it in during quiet time LOL)
I love all of this. I found Emil Brunner‘s account of marriage, child bearing, and contraception in *The Divine Imperative* to practice a lot of this really well, to mention one overlooked Protestant source.
The necessity of discernment is so important - on the one hand, it is a necessity fordoing of theology in the absence of a magisterium.
On the other hand, discernment (wisdom, prudence) is a virtue that we must practice in our own lives given the lack of a strict law with regard to things like contraception and vasectomy (and the moral unclarity of IVF).
The particularities of life and the tragic dimension are also really crucial. Whatever philosophical or theological theory you start marriage and childrearing out with, you may well end up with a different view after actually living it.
I’ve tried to chip in with my piece on pronatalism and the other on contraception.
Thanks so much for this contribution, Kirsten!
“I try to speak of sex in accordance with Scripture, which is to say not very often and with little clarity.”
This is the thing.
Looking at the overarching story of Scripture (which is to say God’s story of God’s work in the world), I am struck that everything is important and … humans rarely have clarity.
We are in a story; on a journey with Christ in the world. There are some things we just won’t know this side of heaven.
I’m heartened to walk with fellow believers who feel God’s love for everything He made; and are willing to hold things loosely.
These are points I want to keep mulling over, with an eye beyond fertility/contraception towards the topic of sexual attraction (*insert belabored sigh* you know, all the LGBTQ+ stuff). I am very grateful to have Catholics as conversation partners (literally and figuratively) around this topic and I appreciate unique frameworks like the points you present here to consider as a Protestant.
I always appreciate your work!
"...what does “erotic” contribute, semantically, that gift would lack?"
I suspect you get the referent.
Yes, I believe so. But I'm just thinking that high school teachers everywhere really missed their chance on this one. "Math will help you at the grocery store!" = zzzzz. "Math is erotic!" = say wut now
When we attempt to make sex and desire more comprehensive we overlook some of the bare facts about reality, which include more than a small dose of the tragic. We end up with an inadequate account but with the opposite set of troubles- not too meager but too expansive,
It's all there in the old evangelical youth group talks: fire belongs in the fireplace &etc.
Why did we become theologians when youth group already gave us all we needed
🤣
To be fair, if Ms. Hall had said "math is erotic" I probably still wouldn't have looked up from playing space invaders on my TI83+.
I’ve always hated math.
Thank you for parsing these considerations with wit and wisdom. I hope the comments will be in the same tone!