G
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
I disagree… the issue is about BOTH the means and the ends.So, if a person does nothing to help the child, are they responsible for any consequences? After all, they did nothing to change it, correct?
I say they are, because it can reasonably be inferred what the result will be.
Similarly, a couple practicing NFP is intentionally acting/not acting to remove procreation from sex, or sidestep fertility, or what ever term you wish. The neutrality of the act is irrelevant.
Dont worry about the whether what happens to the boy is good or bad. Thats not the point. The issue is whether a result matters if through a non act versus an act.
Again, my whole point is the the act of ABC has certain properties attached that make it a no-no. The usual way NFP avoids this is by saying the act or non act is neutral, therefor the whole process is neutral. We never make such leaps of logic with anything else. Ever. Think about it for a minute…
It’s about both the act/non-act and the INTENT…
V
Vico
Guest
That answer is provided. So do you want to know why it is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes?Best I can do right now is ask you to look at all your posts and quotes, and imagine someone saying “why” after each of your statements. And the why means, why only ABC, or why only NFP. Maybe ill return to this point in a bit…
P
PassingThru
Guest
Sigh…I disagree… the issue is about BOTH the means and the ends.
It’s about both the act/non-act and the INTENT…
Yes.
I am trying to focus on one, singular, question. Can you please just try and be accommodating and answer the simple question? Its pretty straight forward.
K
kbachler
Guest
That would be one question. Another would be why it is considered that ABC disorders the physical constitution or physical processes and NFP does not, when NFP does the same thing?That answer is provided. So do you want to know why it is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes?
A third would be why ask “why it is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes?” when in Human Vitae it is admitted that the intention is the same for ABC and NFP?
That’s just a starting point.
K
kbachler
Guest
Human Vitae states that the intent under ABC vs NFP+abstention is the same. So why would we say that intent matters?I disagree… the issue is about BOTH the means and the ends.
It’s about both the act/non-act and the INTENT…
K
kbachler
Guest
Doesn’t matter. They systematically chose to use it.The couple does nothing to remove the fertility.
If you knew a power anvil struck the ground every 5 minutes, and someone whom you hated was about to walk under it just before it fell, and you didn’t act, and the anvil fell and crushed the person, then did you commit a sin? Afterall, YOU did nothing to make the anvil fall, you didn’t change the act at all.
K
kbachler
Guest
The law used to work in this crazy way too. Maybe it still does some places.
If you clear your sidewalk, and someone slips and falls, then its your fault, because you “changed nature.”
But if you leave your walk with snow and ice on it, and someone slips and falls, you’re not at fault because it is an act of God.
Of course, all of life is an act of God, and we make choices to act all the time. An act of God is not a rationale for irresponsibility.
This is just another reason why arguments based on “what is in nature” and “natural law” don’t work.
If you clear your sidewalk, and someone slips and falls, then its your fault, because you “changed nature.”
But if you leave your walk with snow and ice on it, and someone slips and falls, you’re not at fault because it is an act of God.
Of course, all of life is an act of God, and we make choices to act all the time. An act of God is not a rationale for irresponsibility.
This is just another reason why arguments based on “what is in nature” and “natural law” don’t work.
K
kbachler
Guest
Please explain how that is any different in meaning from what was said?It has nothing to do with being natural in the sense you mean it. Contraception sterilizes the marital embrace. NFP or Fertility Awareness follows the normal cycles of the womans body–couples have recourse to use any part of the womans cycle to have sex so may choose to engage in the act or abstain. It’s their choice.
Or, what about following normal urges and following the desire to not have children at the current time?
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
Humanae Vitae states in several places that “serious” or “well-grounded” reasons are necessary for avoiding conception or spacing births…Human Vitae states that the intent under ABC vs NFP+abstention is the same. So why would we say that intent matters?
You can’t just decide willy-nilly that “I’m done have kids” or “I only want 2 kids”… there have to be serious/well-grounded/grave REASONS for avoiding conception.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp
So, does respect for “incarnate love” imply that couples are to leave the number of children they have entirely to chance? No. In calling couples to a responsible love, the Church calls them also to a responsible parenthood.
Pope Paul VI stated clearly that those who “prudently and generously decide to have a large family, or who, for serious reasons and with due respect to the moral law, choose to have no more children for the time being or even for an indeterminate period” exercise responsible parenthood (Humanae Vitae 10). Notice that large families should result from prudent reflection, not “chance,” and that a couple must have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy and must respect the moral law.
Assuming a couple has a serious reason to avoid a child, what could they do that would not violate the “ethics of the sign”? In other words, what could they do to avoid a child that would not render them unfaithful to their wedding vows? I’m sure everyone reading this article is doing it right at this instant. They could abstain from sex. The Church has always taught, teaches now, and will always teach that the only method of “birth control” that respects the language of divine love is self-control.
A further question arises: Would a couple be doing anything to falsify their sexual union if they have sexual intercourse knowing they were naturally infertile? Take a couple past childbearing years. They know their union will not result in a child. Are they violating “the sign” if they engage in intercourse with this knowledge? Are they contracepting?
No. Neither are couples who use NFP to avoid a child. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, make love when they are naturally infertile. (I should add that modern methods of NFP are 98 to 99 percent effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”)
People will often retort, “C’mon! That’s splitting hairs! What’s the big difference between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? End result’s the same thing.” To which I respond: What’s the big difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? End result’s the same thing. One is an act of God. In the other, man takes the powers of life into his own hands and tries to make himself like God (cf. Gen. 3:5).
The difference is cosmic. NFP enables a couple to maintain respect for incarnate love. Such respect is the very raison d’etre of NFP. Contraception “dis-incarnates” love and, by doing so, “strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person” (FC 32).
P
PassingThru
Guest
No one is proposing that the intent is different.Humanae Vitae states in several places that “serious” or “well-grounded” reasons are necessary for avoiding conception or spacing births…
You can’t just decide willy-nilly that “I’m done have kids” or “I only want 2 kids”… there have to be serious/well-grounded/grave REASONS for avoiding conception.
The means of ABC are what determines that it is a moral no-no.
As we have just demonstrated, completely neutral means can have negative moral consequences. The issue of what makes ABC means a moral negative have not been accounted for in the practice of NFP. At all.
In any other case, looking at the totality of a series of decisions and actions as a means, and including its intent, is not an issue. With NFP it is. Why?
K
kbachler
Guest
I honestly think that what this issue boils down to for many Catholics is trust. I’m going to be honest here: I don’t understand or agree with the church’s stance on NFP vrs ABC. I see them as both having the same intent: to space births. At least, that’s how everyone I know (non catholics) are using it. You are only changing the physical way that it is being done. For whatever reason, the ABC and the NFP couple have the exact same intent in their hearts for what they are doing - they are purposefully making sure that sex isn’t procreative. I am a more “intent” kind of person. When Jesus says that anyone who lusts after a woman has committed adultery in his heart, or basically that thinking about killing someone is just as bad as doing it, I see an emphasis on how sin injures and hardens your own heart because of your intent. I know NFP couples and I know ABC couples, and both have the same intention.
However, all of that being said, I trust that the church knows better than I do. it’s far older and far wiser than I can ever be. It is a long-held tradition that has never changed. I am not a betting person, but I guess in this case I am. I intent to hold to church teaching on this issue because my money is on the church being right, because it has been right in everything else. Many other catholic couples I know feel the same way. We have our money on the church, and we’re gunna let it ride.
I appreciate the open and passionate answer. However, the Church has a history of frequently showing that - particularly on issues that relate to science, it may be older, but it is often far from wiser, and frequently has been quite wrong on scientific issues that were extended or translated into moral ones. So, while I appreciate your passion, I just don’t see that “…my money is on the church being right, because it has been right in everything else.” is a reasonable statement, because it is a false statement.Awesome.
This is the best answer I have heard yet. Not a single thing for me to disagree with.
Thank you for your honesty…
In addition, I believe strongly in:
Luk 10:25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
Luk 10:26 And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? [fn] How does it read to you?”
Luk 10:27 And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
Luk 10:28 And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”
Or from Matthew:
34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38 “This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 “The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”
We are to use our mind. I’m sorry - I don’t believe in blind faith. I was commanded otherwise.
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
What is meritorious about “following normal urges”?Or, what about following normal urges and following the desire to not have children at the current time?
A very good quote from HV:
Value of Self-Discipline
- The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds.** It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.**
K
kbachler
Guest
I didn’t say that. I am saying GIVEN THAT, (or even not given that, it doesn’t matter) the intent between ABC and NFP+ abstention is the same.Humanae Vitae states in several places that “serious” or “well-grounded” reasons are necessary for avoiding conception or spacing births…
You can’t just decide willy-nilly that “I’m done have kids” or “I only want 2 kids”… there have to be serious/well-grounded/grave REASONS for avoiding conception.
A logical proof:
If someone had good reasons → and then chose EITHER ABC or NFP+A, the intent ON the consequence IS THE SAME.
If someone had bad reasons → and then chose EITHER ABC or NFP+A, the intent ON the consequence IS THE SAME.
Some has good reasons or bad reasons - THEREFORE the intent ON the consequence IS THE SAME.
K
kbachler
Guest
Why does there have to be? It’s a normal urge. Period. One is not called to be meritorious all the time! I can have many gifts and many shortcomings, and I can use my gifts to be meritorious and follow my normal urges with a wife I love very much.What is meritorious about “following normal urges”?
Why are you even offering the above as a reason in this discussion?
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
That is not true.No one is proposing that the intent is different.
The means of ABC are what determines that it is a moral no-no.
As we have just demonstrated, completely neutral means can have negative moral consequences. The issue of what makes ABC means a moral negative have not been accounted for in the practice of NFP. At all.
In any other case, looking at the totality of a series of decisions and actions as a means, and including its intent, is not an issue. With NFP it is. Why?
ABC is a moral negative because it degrades the very essence of sexual union. It turns it into something entirely carnal… something that is driven purely by lust. And yes, that sounds harsh. Let me explain.
A couple who is practicing nothing at all can come together desiring to unite (I’ll put “lustfully” in quotes here because I regard it differently than above) and have a morally positive outcome to the marital act because they have respected the nature of the act. If a child is conceived they accept it. If not, they accept it. They are accepting the act entirely as it is designed by God.
A couple who is practicing NFP can come together desiring to unite (again “lustfully”) and are still respecting the nature of the act designed by God. However, say that these feelings of “desiring to unite” come up during a time when the woman is fertile. Immediately their thoughts turn to their “serious/well-grounded/grave” reasons that are driving them to use NFP in the first place. These reasons are so forbearing (or at least SHOULD BE so forbearing) that they drive a self-disciplined couple to analyze the situation. Are we ready to accept this entirely as designed by God? No? Then we will sacrifice, for we have “serious/well-grounded/grave” reasons that should be respected in their totality.
A couple who uses ABC will never give second thought to those “serious/well-grounded/grave” reasons with respect to the design of God. They don’t analyze the gift of the marital covenant as something that is “ordered toward procreation”. They desire the carnal aspects of unity and tear apart the design of God. It makes sex into a carnival ride excused by “natural urges”. There is no practice of self-control or self-denial or sacrifice.
K
kbachler
Guest
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp
An affirmative choice to change the frequency and/or timing of the marital act in order to avoid pregnancy IS “contracepting.” It’s obvious both from the intent and from the result of an achieved goal. On what logical basis would we deny the obvious intent and result?So, does respect for “incarnate love” imply that couples are to leave the number of children they have entirely to chance? No. In calling couples to a responsible love, the Church calls them also to a responsible parenthood.
Second: “They could abstain from sex. The Church has always taught, teaches now, and will always teach that the only method of “birth control” that respects the language of divine love is self-control.”
Now ask: WHY? From Biblical direction? (Answer - NO.) From scientific knowledge of how sex works and what it does for humans/marriage? (Answer - NO.) From mythological tradition dating back to the mythical belief that the male’s life force (spirit) was somehow contained in his seed and that he was sharing it with the woman and that therefore it must be protected? (Answer: YES)
An appeal to tradition here is a non-appeal. Remember the pizza commercial “There’s a reason for tradition?” Sometimes there may be, but the tradition here is not grounded in reality.
V
Vico
Guest
HV does not say that.Human Vitae states that the intent under ABC vs NFP+abstention is the same. So why would we say that intent matters?
Em_in_FL said:
I disagree… the issue is about BOTH the means and the ends.
It’s about both the act/non-act and the INTENT…
Intention (ends) is significant with any type of conjugal act:
It is a necessary intention to keep the marital covenant by granting the normal conjugal rights necessary to have children, and to accept any resulting children and raise them as Catholics.
Intention must not violate the marriage covenant by limiting the conjugal right itself to the infertile times. The use of the right exclusively at infertile times, with grave motives, does not violate the marital covenant.
Means:
There is a defect in ABC which NFP does not have which makes ABC unacceptable. NFP uses the naturally occurring infertile periods.
P
PassingThru
Guest
No.That is not true.
ABC is a moral negative because it degrades the very essence of sexual union. It turns it into something entirely carnal… something that is driven purely by lust. And yes, that sounds harsh. Let me explain.
A couple who is practicing nothing at all can come together desiring to unite (I’ll put “lustfully” in quotes here because I regard it differently than above) and have a morally positive outcome to the marital act because they have respected the nature of the act. If a child is conceived they accept it. If not, they accept it. They are accepting the act entirely as it is designed by God.
A couple who is practicing NFP can come together desiring to unite (again “lustfully”) and are still respecting the nature of the act designed by God. However, say that these feelings of “desiring to unite” come up during a time when the woman is fertile. Immediately their thoughts turn to their “serious/well-grounded/grave” reasons that are driving them to use NFP in the first place. These reasons are so forbearing (or at least SHOULD BE so forbearing) that they drive a self-disciplined couple to analyze the situation. Are we ready to accept this entirely as designed by God? No? Then we will sacrifice, for we have “serious/well-grounded/grave” reasons that should be respected in their totality.
A couple who uses ABC will never give second thought to those “serious/well-grounded/grave” reasons with respect to the design of God. They don’t analyze the gift of the marital covenant as something that is “ordered toward procreation”. They desire the carnal aspects of unity and tear apart the design of God. It makes sex into a carnival ride excused by “natural urges”. There is no practice of self-control or self-denial or sacrifice.
This is YOUR opinion. I could say the same thing, but reverse NFP with ABC. Or I could change it to say the NFP couple rejects each other despite there pure feelings in order to avoid the even the most remote chance at having a child result. Or I could come up with all sorts of ways to state something in direct conflict with what you just typed.
See, there is the rub. The logic falls apart at the last step and requires you to make a totally unfounded judgment call on both parties.
Look at what you typed. Find all the ways you have, without evidence, imposed an artificial divide based your a preconceived decision on what you already believed. This is not sound logic or reasoning, its a statement of opinion.
Many other points you and others have made are true, or applied evenly or logically, or have some backing that does not rely on a particular allegiance. This one, however, fails.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.