Birth Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter kdragonfly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To renew their marital covenant.

CCC 2360
Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
Sigh…

Can we try and keep the conversation in this world, not the next?

If you find me one guy who looks longingly at his wife one evening and whispers in her ear “lets go renew our marital covenant” Ill rescind…

Look, I get your statement, and you likely have an idea of where I am going.

Ill take that to mean have sex.

So, if a couple is practicing NFP, they do not want to have children. But, WHY have sex? There are any number of things they can do, either together or apart, in a spiritual sense to renew there commitment to each other and to God. Why sex?
 
Sigh…

Can we try and keep the conversation in this world, not the next?

If you find me one guy who looks longingly at his wife one evening and whispers in her ear “lets go renew our marital covenant” Ill rescind…

Look, I get your statement, and you likely have an idea of where I am going.

Ill take that to mean have sex.

So, if a couple is practicing NFP, they do not want to have children. But, WHY have sex? There are any number of things they can do, either together or apart, in a spiritual sense to renew there commitment to each other and to God. Why sex?
Oh come on… that doesn’t work for ya? 😉 😛

TOTAL self-giving to each other…
 
God’s design doesn’t *require *that sex must *always *(timing wise) be available.
Consider situations where abstaining is necessary - health, surgery, postpartum, etc…
I dont think anyone has even mentioned this…
 
Denying these “hormonal aspects” that you’re speaking of is not immoral. Furthermore, they can be achieved in other ways that sex.
First, denying the unitive aspects has been stated by the Church as immoral. The hormonal aspects are largely responsible for the unitive apects. Therefore, there is a legitimate question of morality.

Second, as noted previously, not all hormonal aspects can be achieved in other ways (at least not naturally - would you prefer to have NFP and inject people with hormones?) and even those that can be cannot be achieved to the same levels.

So, your statement above is false.
God’s design doesn’t *require *that sex must *always *(timing wise) be available.
Consider situations where abstaining is necessary - health, surgery, postpartum, etc…
No one is claiming that THAT is God’s design. What is being claimed is that the Church’s stance on NFP and ABC should be logically consistent UNLESS there is a clear differentiating factor “in favor of” NFP. So far, no one has demonstrated such a factor, AND the Church’s position IS NOT logically consistent.

This poses a massive moral issue for the Church.
 
Denying these “hormonal aspects” that you’re speaking of is not immoral. Furthermore, they can be achieved in other ways that sex.
First, denying the unitive aspects has been stated by the Church as immoral. The hormonal aspects are largely responsible for the unitive apects. Therefore, there is a legitimate question of morality.

Second, as noted previously, not all hormonal aspects can be achieved in other ways (at least not naturally - would you prefer to have NFP and inject people with hormones?) and even those that can be cannot be achieved to the same levels.

So, your statement above is false.
God’s design doesn’t *require *that sex must *always *(timing wise) be available.
Consider situations where abstaining is necessary - health, surgery, postpartum, etc…
No one is claiming that THAT is God’s design. What is being claimed is that the Church’s stance on NFP and ABC should be logically consistent UNLESS there is a clear differentiating factor “in favor of” NFP. So far, no one has demonstrated such a factor, AND the Church’s position IS NOT logically consistent.

This poses a significant moral issue for the Church.
 
I pointed this out in the previous post… this is how the church teaches us to *approach *NFP (in the correct mentality)… but those who approach it from this so-called “contraceptive mentality” are never going to be satisfied.
Ignoring for a moment that there are some people who “practice NFP” to increase their chances pregnancy, why does everyone else practice it?
 
Oh come on… that doesn’t work for ya? 😉 😛

TOTAL self-giving to each other…
Well, thats probably as good as its going to get I suppose.

I like that you used the word TOTAL.

If they are interested in TOTAL self giving, they would do so. Yet, they are not. Can you answer what they are changing, what they are withholding, and why?

I think we can agree that the only way we could define TOTAL self giving, in a sexual sense, would be to participate in TOTAL self giving, well, totally. Anytime, and at any appropriate location that they mutually feel.

Anything short is not TOTAL self giving. It may be close, but it is NOT TOTAL self giving.

So, what is different, what has been added and removed, and why?
 
Oh come on… that doesn’t work for ya? 😉 😛

TOTAL self-giving to each other…
How is it TOTAL self giving if the couple decides not to have sex during certain times of the month? That seems somewhat less than total.

Why is complete abstinence in terms of frequency ok, but partial abstinence in terms of quality of experience verboten?
 
Alternatively someone could demonstrate a logical difference between NFP and ABC.
Am I the only one who sees that not having sex on the day I am fertile as opposed to *having sex *when I am fertile, but using a condom, diaphragm and spermicide are 2 totally different things.

If I know I am fertile, and have sex, the I must accept that fertility and accept the baby that comes along.

If I know I am fertile, why would I have sex if I don’t want to accept a baby? By using a contraceptive aren’t I telling God, “I don’t want the baby, I don’t want to be fertile now, but we are going to have sex anyway.”

If I have sex when I am not fertile, I am accepting my body the way it is right at that moment. If I have sex when I am fertile, I am again accepting my fertility.
 
First, denying the unitive aspects has been stated by the Church as immoral. The hormonal aspects are largely responsible for the unitive apects. Therefore, there is a legitimate question of morality.

Second, as noted previously, not all hormonal aspects can be achieved in other ways (at least not naturally - would you prefer to have NFP and inject people with hormones?) and even those that can be cannot be achieved to the same levels.

So, your statement above is false.
No, *denying *the unitive aspect is not *immoral *(otherwise abstinence would be immoral).
Taking the marital act and separating the unitive from the procreative WITHIN that act is immoral.
No one is claiming that THAT is God’s design. What is being claimed is that the Church’s stance on NFP and ABC should be logically consistent UNLESS there is a clear differentiating factor “in favor of” NFP. So far, no one has demonstrated such a factor, AND the Church’s position IS NOT logically consistent.

This poses a significant moral issue for the Church.
I can’t understand the logic you are proposing… :confused:
 
Can you rephrase the question I bolded?.. I don’t understand…
By analogy -

Let’s suppose that there is a creek. And we are told it is immoral for man to build a dam across the creek.

But a tree is struck by lightning and falls across the creek. Is that immoral? (By his question, it is not mechanical, as a man made dam would be, so it implies a “no, it is moral.”)

How about if beavers build the dam? Is it still moral? Its still not mechanical, so one would argue yes.

Men are as much a part of nature as beavers. Their brains and hands are part of nature. To the extent that man creates tools isn’t that still part of nature, and therefore, why would man building the dam be immoral?
 
How is it TOTAL self giving if the couple decides not to have sex during certain times of the month? That seems somewhat less than total.

Why is complete abstinence in terms of frequency ok, but partial abstinence in terms of quality of experience verboten?
You’re right… when we abstain at the time of desiring sex it is sacrificial.
But when it comes to the morality of the act - it’s ALL or nothing. You can’t take some of it and leave the rest behind. It’s TOTAL self giving, or sacrificial abstinence.
 
You’re right… when we abstain at the time of desiring sex it is sacrificial.
But when it comes to the morality of the act - it’s ALL or nothing. You can’t take some of it and leave the rest behind.
Why?
 
By analogy -

Let’s suppose that there is a creek. And we are told it is immoral for man to build a dam across the creek.

But a tree is struck by lightning and falls across the creek. Is that immoral? (By his question, it is not mechanical, as a man made dam would be, so it implies a “no, it is moral.”)

How about if beavers build the dam? Is it still moral? Its still not mechanical, so one would argue yes.

Men are as much a part of nature as beavers. Their brains and hands are part of nature. To the extent that man creates tools isn’t that still part of nature, and therefore, why would man building the dam be immoral?
I’m not seeing the analogy :confused: - so I’ll wait for PassingThru to clarify…
 
Am I the only one who sees that not having sex on the day I am fertile as opposed to *having sex *when I am fertile, but using a condom, diaphragm and spermicide are 2 totally different things.

If I know I am fertile, and have sex, the I must accept that fertility and accept the baby that comes along.

If I know I am fertile, why would I have sex if I don’t want to accept a baby? By using a contraceptive aren’t I telling God, “I don’t want the baby, I don’t want to be fertile now, but we are going to have sex anyway.”

If I have sex when I am not fertile, I am accepting my body the way it is right at that moment. If I have sex when I am fertile, I am again accepting my fertility.
I would propose that you are missing that we have no disagreement with any singular decision made at one moment in time.

I think you will agree that NFP is NOT one decision in time, or a collection of individual decisions in time.

Maybe that helps…?
 
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html
When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of “total” self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.
When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original dynamism of “total” selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.(90)
In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.
 
Taking the marital act and separating the unitive from the procreative WITHIN that act is immoral.
Whoa whoa whoa. Could you explain how it is OK to separate the unitive and procreative as long as a condom isnt on? That seems entirely arbitrary…

As in, pulled out of your backside made-up!
 
First, denying the unitive aspects has been stated by the Church as immoral. The hormonal aspects are largely responsible for the unitive apects. Therefore, there is a legitimate question of morality.

Second, as noted previously, not all hormonal aspects can be achieved in other ways (at least not naturally - would you prefer to have NFP and inject people with hormones?) and even those that can be cannot be achieved to the same levels.

So, your statement above is false.

No one is claiming that THAT is God’s design. What is being claimed is that the Church’s stance on NFP and ABC should be logically consistent UNLESS there is a clear differentiating factor “in favor of” NFP. So far, no one has demonstrated such a factor, AND the Church’s position IS NOT logically consistent.

This poses a significant moral issue for the Church.
You are arguing the highlighted portion as a given…but it is actually only your hypothesis that a couple can only bond hormonally during fertile times. (or achieve ideal bonding)…

What about infertile couples? Or older couples? Or post hysterectomy couples? Or post chemotherapy couples? Can they not bond? Does the church say they must abstain completely?

And say the hormonal bond was perfect during fertile periods…wouldn’t it be even more perfect by accepting the child that would naturally occur? Instead of impeding or preventing it’s conception.?
 
I would propose that you are missing that we have no disagreement with any singular decision made at one moment in time.

I think you will agree that NFP is NOT one decision in time, or a collection of individual decisions in time.

Maybe that helps…?
I don’t understand this???

NFP is used on a case by case basis… each dependent on that particular moment in time that you desire to engage or not…
 
Taking the marital act and separating the unitive from the procreative WITHIN that act is immoral.
I didn’t say that in the least. :confused:

Let me rephrase…
Given that a couple decides to engage in the act and not abstain - separating the unitive from the procreative during that act is immoral. It’s all or nothing. Total self-giving or abstaining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top