Birth Control

[Scarran]

You again are missing the point.

I am using an analogy to discuss a means of logic. There are arguments made that means justifies intent. That if there is the same goal it doesn’t matter how it is achieved.

My analogies obviously prove that wrong. It DOES matter how goals are achieved. The process is just as important as the goal, because one can be moral while the other isn’t.

When arguing, stick the point. There are conclusions being drawn from a false premise. I am proving that premise wrong, therefore the conclusion cannot be drawn from it.

It DOES matter how the goals are achieved according to the Church, but God has never stated this in the Bible directly. ABC is immoral in the eyes of the Church, but there is nothing to directly support this in the Bible. If I practice ABC, I’m sinning against The Church, not God.

 

[Em_in_FL]

It DOES matter how the goals are achieved according to the Church, but God has never stated this in the Bible directly. ABC is immoral in the eyes of the Church, but there is nothing to directly support this in the Bible. If I practice ABC, I’m sinning against The Church, not God.

We are not a Sola Scriptura faith.

 

[kbachler]

I assume you meant “God intended the act to take place during the woman’s fertile time.”???
Ummm… no. It’s intended to take place whenever the couple desires.

As the pp mentioned… the ends don’t justify the means.
NFP does not disassociate the procreative (check your definitions) and unitive aspects of marital intimacy. ABC always does. This is why they are different.

Scarran - it seems as though you may have not read through the entire thread as you are coming into this discussion a little late. Most of these points have already been made.

When I check my definitions, the use of abstinence in conjunction with NFP DOES disassociate the procreative and the unitive aspects. If we did not KNOW about NFP and just having sex, then you could argue that, but that isn’t what is happening. Knowledge changes things.

ABC changes the quality of the unitive aspect but also allows us to enhance its quantity when judged vs NFP. I have a difficult time understanding how anyone would think that God would provide a universal rule for a personal taste, which is what it appears the Church has done, for no reason that I am able to discern. Its as though the Church is telling you that you MUST eat fattening vanilla ice cream at only certain times of the month, even if your preference is for low-fat chocolate.

I have a difficult time understanding how a personal preference turned into a moral issue.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It DOES matter how the goals are achieved according to the Church, but God has never stated this in the Bible directly. ABC is immoral in the eyes of the Church, but there is nothing to directly support this in the Bible. If I practice ABC, I’m sinning against The Church, not God.

But the Church does not create babies. God does. So you are sinning against God, because He created sexual intercourse as the means of bringing life into this world. they are not an accident, they are the intended result.

 

[Em_in_FL]

When I check my definitions, the use of abstinence in conjunction with NFP DOES disassociate the procreative and the unitive aspects. If we did not KNOW about NFP and just having sex, then you could argue that, but that isn’t what is happening. Knowledge changes things.

ABC changes the quality of the unitive aspect but also allows us to enhance its quantity when judged vs NFP. I have a difficult time understanding how anyone would think that God would provide a universal rule for a personal taste, which is what it appears the Church has done, for no reason that I am able to discern. Its as though the Church is telling you that you MUST eat fattening vanilla ice cream at only certain times of the month, even if your preference is for low-fat chocolate.

I have a difficult time understanding how a personal preference turned into a moral issue.

So are you suggesting that KNOWLEDGE of infertility then makes an infertile couple’s union non-procreative? If they didn’t know about the infertility, then it would still be procreative… at least according to your logic…

ABC can never, by definition, enhance the quality of the unitive aspect…

 

[agapewolf]

It DOES matter how the goals are achieved according to the Church, but God has never stated this in the Bible directly. ABC is immoral in the eyes of the Church, but there is nothing to directly support this in the Bible. If I practice ABC, I’m sinning against The Church, not God.

Oh for goodness sake.
WIll you PLEASE read my posts again? I’m not arguing for or against ABC, I’m arguing against the logic used to draw the conclusions.

One point at a time.

There was a statement made that the ends justify the means. I made an analogy that illustrated that the statement isn’t true. Pure and simple.

 

[kbachler]

Your issue is not with birth control… it’s with the authority of the church.

Jesus proclaimed all foods clean; do you allow the Church to tell you what to eat?

Or consider this explanation (NASB translation)

Romans 14

Principles of Conscience

1Now (A)accept the one who is (B)weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2(C)One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is (D)weak eats vegetables only.

3The one who eats is not to (E)regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to (F)judge the one who eats, for God has (G)accepted him.

4(H)Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Cross references:
A) Romans 14:1 : Acts 28:2; Rom 11:15; 14:3; 15:7
B) Romans 14:1 : Rom 14:2; 15:1; 1 Cor 8:9-ff; 9:22
C) Romans 14:2 : Rom 14:14
D) Romans 14:2 : Rom 14:1; 15:1; 1 Cor 8:9-ff; 9:22
E) Romans 14:3 : Luke 18:9; Rom 14:10
F) Romans 14:3 : Rom 14:10, 13; Col 2:16
G) Romans 14:3 : Acts 28:2; Rom 11:15; 14:1; 15:7
H) Romans 14:4 : Rom 9:20; James 4:12

When we so narrowly work to define the “Law” such that it touches on birth control, it shows either a lack of understanding of passages like this, or a belief that the average parishioner cannot understand passages like this.

I know people who are concerned about living a life of drunkedness. There are passages of the Bible that lead to that concern. So they don’t drink wine. I do not offend them by offering them wine in my home - nor do I offend others who do not hold this belief by refusing to offer it.

There may be those who need both the unitive act and the lack of children. I can see from the passage above that this is between them and God. If they choose a barrier ABC, its none of my business.

 

[kbachler]

NFP is periodic abstinence, which is permitted. It is permitted for more than spacing children, it is permitted for when I have the flu, too. So is having the flu the same as ABC?

The whole act is referring to one encounter between husband and wife. With NFP I am taking the sex, as it was designed, at whatever time I want to. I can take it today, as it was designed, or tomorrow, as it was designed, but I can’t take half of it today (use ABC) and half again tomorrow (use ABC).

So why is 100% abstinence from the procreative portion ok, but 20% abstinence from the unitive is not, especially when this allows more quantity of unitive?

 

[kbachler]

But the Church does not create babies. God does. So you are sinning against God, because He created sexual intercourse as the means of bringing life into this world. they are not an accident, they are the intended result.

His argument is that the Church is mistaken in the labeling of it as a sin, therefore it is a sin only against the Church, and not against God.

 

[Jennifer_J]

According to The Church, not God. Sorry I don’t worship The Church.

I wonder, did you know that the Church came first–established by Jesus, who is God–THEN came the bible? Oh, and that Church was the Catholic Church because that was the only Church then.

Try this link:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HISTCONT.HTM
<<History further illuminates the Church’s position on this subject. Anthropological studies show that means of artificial birth control existed in antiquity. Medical papyri described various contraceptive methods used in the year 2700 B.C. and in Egypt in the year 1850 B.C. Soranos (98-139 A.D.), a Greek physician from Ephesus, described 17 medically approved methods of contraception. Also at this time, abortion and infanticide were not uncommon practices in the Roman Empire.

The early Christian community upheld the sanctity of marriage, marital love and human life. In the New Testament, the word “pharmakeia” appears, which some scholars link to the birth control issue. “Pharmakeia” denotes the mixing of potions for secretive purposes, and from Soranos and others, evidence exists of artificial birth control potions. Interestingly, “Pharmakeia” is sometimes translated as “sorcery?” in English. In three passages in which “pharmakeia” appears, other sexual sins are also condemned: lewd conduct, impurity, licentiousness, orgies “and the like” (e.g. Gal 5:19-21). This evidence highlights that the early Church condemned anything which violated the integrity of marital love.

Further evidence is found in the Didache, also called the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, written about the year 80 A.D. This book was the Church’s first manual of morals, liturgical norms and doctrine. In the first section? two ways are proposed: the way of life and the way of death. In following the way of life, the exhorts, “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods…” Again, scholars link such phrases as “practice magic” and “use potions” with artificial birth control.>>

 

[kbachler]

NFP is periodic abstinence, which is permitted. It is permitted for more than spacing children, it is permitted for when I have the flu, too. So is having the flu the same as ABC?

The whole act is referring to one encounter between husband and wife. With NFP I am taking the sex, as it was designed, at whatever time I want to. I can take it today, as it was designed, or tomorrow, as it was designed, but I can’t take half of it today (use ABC) and half again tomorrow (use ABC).

I disagree. The purpose of NFP (in combination with abstinence) is that you aren’t taking it as designed, but as you can manipulate the timing of it. How is a manipulation of timing (temporal manipulation) any better than manipulation of a barrier (spatial manipulation) especially when the intent of the two is the same?

 

[kbachler]

I wonder, did you know that the Church came first–established by Jesus, who is God–THEN came the bible?

There may be a few Jewish scholars who would debate that point.

 

[Vico]

kbachler,

The form of conjugal relations, that one grants the right to in the marital covenent, cannot be modified by the individuals.

 

[Jennifer_J]

There may be a few Jewish scholars who would debate that point.

I’m sure, but I’m talking about the Catholic bible, not the torah–there certainly were arguements among the Jewish teachers about what books to include in their Holy Book, but the Catholic Church codified the books of the Catholic bible, so when people argue about what the Church teaches and then what is in or not in the bible, they often forget that the Church put the whole thing together–led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[HouseArrest]

I disagree. The purpose of NFP (in combination with abstinence) is that you aren’t taking it as designed, but as you can manipulate the timing of it. How is a manipulation of timing (temporal manipulation) any better than manipulation of a barrier (spatial manipulation) especially when the intent of the two is the same?

Yes, you are taking it, or leaving it, exactly as designed. Just like to take it or leave it because you are going to your mother in laws for dinner, or because you have the flu. You are either doing it or you are not. If you use ABC, you are altering the act.

On another point, I also still do not know why you (seem to be) assuming that quantity is decreased when using NFP.

 

[HouseArrest]

Permitted by who? The Church or God? God never said birth control was wrong, only the Church does.

With NFP you are interuppting the design by avoiding the fertile time. If you were doing nothing special, NFP wouldn’t exist as stated earler in this thread.

Em answered your first question quite thoroughly, Church or God, so I will not repeat.

I am not interrupting the design of NFP by avoiding the fertile time. We are free to take it or leave it whenever we want, for whatever reason. If I take it, I take it all. If I leave it, I leave it all, unaltered. If I use ABC, I am taking it partway, I am altering the act itself.

Furthermore, NFP is nothing more than information. It can’t “not” exist. It is signs my body is giving, whether I pay attention to them or not, if I am fertile.

 

[HouseArrest]

I disagree. The purpose of NFP (in combination with abstinence) is that you aren’t taking it as designed, but as you can manipulate the timing of it. How is a manipulation of timing (temporal manipulation) any better than manipulation of a barrier (spatial manipulation) especially when the intent of the two is the same?

Manipulation of timing is permitted for many reasons. If I have the flu, is that the equivalent of using ABC? Manipulation of timing is also saying I am refusing the whole act, not just taking the part of it that I like. Using a barrier is taking part of the act and leaving part of the act. When I use NFP, I am not doing anything at that time.’

If I go to Macy’s and see a dress I like, I can either pay for it and take it home, or I can leave it there. (NFP) I am free to do either of those two things. I am not permitted to refuse to pay for it, but take it home. (ABC).

 

[Scarran]

Yes, you are taking it, or leaving it, exactly as designed. Just like to take it or leave it because you are going to your mother in laws for dinner, or because you have the flu. You are either doing it or you are not. If you use ABC, you are altering the act.

On another point, I also still do not know why you (seem to be) assuming that quantity is decreased when using NFP.

Yes ABC honors the PHYSICAL aspect of the act, but artifically manipulates the TIMING of the act.

 

[Scarran]

Em answered your first question quite thoroughly, Church or God, so I will not repeat.

I am not interrupting the design of NFP by avoiding the fertile time. We are free to take it or leave it whenever we want, for whatever reason. If I take it, I take it all. If I leave it, I leave it all, unaltered. If I use ABC, I am taking it partway, I am altering the act itself.

Furthermore, NFP is nothing more than information. It can’t “not” exist. It is signs my body is giving, whether I pay attention to them or not, if I am fertile.

Church does not equal God. I doubt God would have been involved in decades of sexual scandals, illegal bank transfers, or would have rejected Galileo’s teachings among other things.

A physical alteration of an act is no worse than altering the timing of the act if the intent is the same.

NFP is more than information. It involves taking a specific action (abstaining or engaging in the act during fertile time).

 

[Anna1345]

All hormonal birth control has a possibility of being abortive, so we are looking at only “barrier” methods of birth control in this discussion.

**Natural Family Planning (The 4 main methods) are more reliable in avoiding pregnancy than any artificial birth control at all. **

I recommend reading “Good news about sex and marriage” by Christopher West.

I’m sorry but medically this is only true for women who have regular cycles and no other pre existing conditions.

OP – I know how you feel and I know where you are coming from. No one is saying "oh be celebit for years to come. We do not use BC not only b/c it has the potential to be an abortifactant but also because we are supposed to allow God to decide when and how many children we have. God leads us. It is not for us to decide who lives and who dies.

I would do anything to be one of those families with many many children. However, after 10 years of marriage, 14 miscarriages and 3 healthy children, I have learned to be blessed with what I have…