Birth Control

[Em_in_FL]

No.

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.

Then do it. All you do is object with a “no, that’s your opinion.”

This isn’t just my opinion… this is the teaching of the church.

If a couple using NFP totally rejects each other there are underlying issues in the marriage. NFP doesn’t CAUSE marital problems… but it may bring existing ones to light.

 

[kbachler]

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.

It will be interesting to see how you try to distinguish this from NFP+A

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.

Every statement you made above can also be made about ABC.

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.

And so far, all of this can be said about ABC also.

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.

All of this can STILL be said about ABC.

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”.

And the above is wrong, presumptuous and insulting.

Consider Romans 14:

Principles of Conscience

  1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who 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.
  5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

  10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

11For it is written,
“AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”

12So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

  13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

I think the application of the principle outlined in Romans shows that your judgement is at best questionable. I don’t really think its up to you to determine who needs self denial in this aspect of their lives, or up to any other Christian.

If you doubt, then YOU should not use ABC. But if someone prays, honestly asks their conscience, and is fully convinced in their mind that ABC is moral, would be sinning if they didn’t use it.

This isn’t to say all determination of sin is up to each person. It’s talking about careful, prayerful introspection. It’s important that we let our brothers and sisters know how serious that is, but for any of us to assume that they HAVEN’T done this appears to me to be judging in a way that we should not be judging.

 

[kbachler]

Yet you still demand logic at every single post with your fingers stuck in your ears singing “la la la you’re not being logical la la la”. Did I say BLIND faith?

Yes, you did. Because faith without reason, without logic, without the mind, IS blind.

Based on the commandment and my personal beliefs (which come in part from Bible study and in part from study of logic and mathematics) I truly believe that ALL miracles can be explained. ALL evil can be explained. Sometimes we haven’t done it YET, but that doesn’t mean its impossible.

I believe (as does much of the Christian world) that God is complete.

A complete set - a complete being - can prove all true statements. But in being complete such a set (such a being) MUST contain inconsistent statements internally; in some way, God MUST be self-contradictory. (I believe this as an extension of Godel’s theorem)

But we know He does not exhibit inconsistency. The only reason available for that is His will. He chooses to follow His own laws.

I do not believe that a God that constructs both moral laws and physical laws would CHOOSE to follow only the moral laws, and NOT the physical laws. Our ability as a species is stronger in discerning and defining physical laws than moral ones, for example, we have more powerful tools to do so.

Therefore, if a God who gives us a commandment to love him… with all our mind and who would give us physical laws with which to discern Him (i.e. so-called miracles), would then BREAK those laws (and thereby confuse us) would by giving us that commandment at best be mischievous and at worst malicious.

But I do not find God to be mischievous or malicious. Therefore, the idea that God breaks his own physical laws is something that I must reject, and I would think Christian’s in general would accept this.

A miracle is just something that we don’t understand YET.

To frame something as a miracle, and only as a miracle, is to deny the real power and beauty of God and His universe.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m not judging anyone… I have stated several times that the intent can be just the same for those using ABC… I fully believe that many who use ABC have good intentions. But they are refusing to follow the guidance of the church that God Himself gave to the world!

If those who are using ABC are still so “open to life” (as kbachler just pointed out above)… then WHY CONTRACEPT AT ALL?
Where is the serious/well-grounded/grave reasoning for taking the time to make the act so… blocked?

 

[PassingThru]

Then do it. All you do is object with a “no, that’s your opinion.”

This isn’t just my opinion… this is the teaching of the church.

If a couple using NFP totally rejects each other there are underlying issues in the marriage. NFP doesn’t CAUSE marital problems… but it may bring them to light.

What? Do it?

Maybe you missed it, but you are stating there is a difference, which would mean you have to demonstrate the difference.

Your “evidence” in your last post was clearly clearly your (and your church) opinion, but it was lacking in any evidence.

Degrades the very essence of sexual union. Opinion, unsupported
It turns it into something entirely carnal. Opinion, unsupported
something that is driven purely by lust. Opinion, unsupported
A couple who uses ABC will never give second thought to those “serious/well-grounded/grave” reasons. Unsupported at a galactic scale. Seriously.
They don’t analyze the gift of the marital covenant as something that is “ordered toward procreation”. More of the same.
*They desire the carnal aspects of unity and tear apart the design of God. * Opinion.

• It makes sex into a carnival ride excused by “natural urges”.* Opinion, unsupported, and just plain rude. Internet anonymity is nice.

And what are you talking about “total rejection” Stop making up things. You know full well I was talking about rejection, at all times, as called for by NFP during fertility. Stop playind dumb.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Peace. I’m done.

You will do nothing but throw back the world “opinion” next to everything I say, despite the fact that I have shared countless documents that show I haven’t made this up… it’s not my OPINION.

It’s useless to argue at this point.

Peace.

 

[EasterJoy]

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?

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.

The goal to avoid pregnancy may be moral or immoral, you are correct. Having said that, not every means of achieving a moral end is equally moral.

Your answer to “Why?” is not what the Church teaches. NFP obviously uses scientific knowledge avoid pregnancy. Nobody ever said anything about a “male life force” or any made-up nonsense like that. Consider the story of Onan: “Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.” Gen. 38:8-10. The sin of Onan was obviously not that he was being selfish with his “life force.” It is plainly stated that his sin was that he was selfish in wanting to avoid his duty to attempt to father children when there was to be nothing in it for him! I’ve heard this “backward mythology that should be discarded” argument before. It is an invitation to “open your eyes and be like gods who know what is good and what is bad.” (Gen. 3:5) It is a self-deception.

There is no law against self-control in a marriage, for if there were, then Josephite marriages would be immoral. Is anyone arguing that Mary and Joseph were sinful for avoiding sexual intimacy in their marriage? I would hope not.

It seems to be too true in this case, though, that “an appeal to tradition here is a non-appeal”. If you will believe a baseless made-up argument in support of what you want to believe but will not believe the reasoned arguments that the Church uses to teach the truth, you simply do not want to be told what you do not want to hear. You want to believe what you want to believe, and I find it hard to believe that there is an argument that would change your mind.

 

[PassingThru]

I’m not judging anyone… I have stated several times that the intent can be just the same for those using ABC…

Judging does not have to be negative. You are judging. Period. You made a huge list of statements, definitively, about what is in the mind of a person using ABC. That is a judgment. Period. You have no proof.

I fully believe that many who use ABC have good intentions. But they are refusing to follow the guidance of the church that God Himself gave to the world!

We are not asking how to be good Catholics. We are asking specifically about one thing, that you say can be supported without simple faith, yet at this point have only offered a subjective opinion in support.

If those who are using ABC are still so “open to life” (as kbachler just pointed out above)… then WHY CONTRACEPT AT ALL?
Where is the serious/well-grounded/grave reasoning for taking the time to make the act so… blocked?

Again, then why practice NFP? You are defending again, not distinguishing. Remember, this discussion always turns into a defense of NFP from ABC, when we are only trying to isolate what distinguishes the two…

 

[PassingThru]

Peace. I’m done.

You will do nothing but throw back the world “opinion” next to everything I say, despite the fact that I have shared countless documents that show I haven’t made this up… it’s not my OPINION.

It’s useless to argue at this point.

Peace.

Look. If I said the following:

*NFP 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.

A couple who uses NFP 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.*

Honestly, what would you say? Would you reject it? Would you consider it fact, or opinion?

Just to make it easier, lets say this reads exactly as the Lutheran Church officially believes. Would that someone make you less interested in having my position supported with something else?

Try and look at this with an attempt and neutrality. If you can not, then you can not have an open discussion.

 

[Vico]

What? Do it?..

Do it, means “say it”, if you read her post.

 

[kbachler]

I’m not judging anyone…

I have a very difficult time reconciling that with: "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”.

I have stated several times that the intent can be just the same for those using ABC… I fully believe that many who use ABC have good intentions. But they are refusing to follow the guidance of the church that God Himself gave to the world!

OR, perhaps they have found the guidance in Roman’s chapter 14, which God Himself gave to the the world?

If those who are using ABC are still so “open to life” (as kbachler just pointed out above)… then WHY CONTRACEPT AT ALL?

Why use NFP at all? Why is the statement ANY different for NFP?

I think you continue to be confused - that you think I am defending ABC. I AM NOT. I am saying I cannot find a logical difference between NFP and ABC. The statement you made above should leave you no more confused for ABC than it does for NFP.

Where is the serious/well-grounded/grave reasoning for taking the time to make the act so… blocked?

Read Romans chapter 14 until you GET IT.

 

[PassingThru]

Do it, means “say it”, if you read her post.

I can not. She typed a list of things she was projecting into one persons head, but not another, with no reason attached. I wont do that, as it makes no sense and is unsupportable.

That is why I responded that she was making the assertion, and needed to support it. If she thought I was projecting an opinion, then I would support it.

 

[jilly4ski]

J

Again, then why practice NFP? You are defending again, not distinguishing. Remember, this discussion always turns into a defense of NFP from ABC, when we are only trying to isolate what distinguishes the two…

You and Kblacher seem to be unable to see that there is a difference in having sex and not having sex. It is really as simple as that.

The couple cannot have a child right now (with good reasons) so they do not have sex. This is very different than just having sex whenever they want to and just sterilizing it.

(BTW nobody seemed to disagree with my previous statement that it cannot be immoral to merely change the timing of the act, see below).

1. Is it immoral to change the timing of relations?

This has been answered several times, the mere changing of the timing cannot be immoral, because otherwise illness, postpartum, military deployments, business trips, etc. would be immoral. Not to mention there is no indication any particular couple would be having relations on the fertile days anyways. (the whole timing thing to me is confusing, because it seems like it assumes couples are having relations on a schedule).

Maybe an example will help here. My husband works 3rd shift (12am-8am) and I have class during the days, and when I get home he goes to sleep. So we plan* on abstaining during his work week. So we changed the timing of our relations based not on fertility but on work schedules and tiredness. We do this for the good of our family. It seems pretty illogical to call this planned abstinence immoral, so what is the difference in planning abstinence around fertility?

*Plan means here that we realize it is better for us not to seek relations from the other during this time, so we don’t.

So what is it that you object to? The a couple can plan their family, or that a couple has to abstain in order to plan that family?

 

[kbachler]

I urge you to be patient, because there are people on this forum are not studied in formal logic. The authority of the Magisterium is most important, rather than proving something based upon inductive or deductive reasoning, which can be false in its assumptions.

Um, sorry. The above statement is false. The deductive reasoning cannot be “false in its assumptions.” Logic works, because it works, it is a tool. If the assumptions are true, then then the conclusion true. PERIOD.

If there is a question about the truthfulness of an assumption, address it. If there is a question about the logical form of an argument, address it. But please, do not make false assertions such as the above.

An ARGUMENT can be false if the assumptions are false, but DEDUCTIVE LOGIC is not so.

 

[kbachler]

You and Kblacher seem to be unable to see that there is a difference in having sex and not having sex. It is really as simple as that.
{/quote]
That’s not our point, nor our argument. You are addressing something that we do not contend.
jilly4ski;7539414:

The couple cannot have a child right now (with good reasons) so they do not have sex. This is very different than just having sex whenever they want to and just sterilizing it.

No one argued for sterilizing it. Not our point either.

(BTW nobody seemed to disagree with my previous statement that it cannot be immoral to merely change the timing of the act, see below)

ALSO, not our point. The point is that changing the timing and/or frequency based on NFP is not logically different from ABC (ignoring any ABC with abortive qualities.) Therefore, if one is moral, BOTH should be, if one is immoral, BOTH should be.

THAT is the point.

So what is it that you object to? The a couple can plan their family, or that a couple has to abstain in order to plan that family?

 

[Vico]

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?

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.

Of course, everything is just a starting point, because learning is lifelong.

HV does not state the ABC and NFP have the same intention. If you want to refute, post a quote. Here is a link: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

What you do find is this, showing that there is an additional intention to use the infertile periods that differentiates from the intention to use artifical birth control:

“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.”

The questions are:

Q1. Why is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes?

Q2. How does ABC disorder the physical constitution or physical processes?

Q3. Why does NFP not disorder the physical constitution or physical processes?

And there must be a definition of physical constitution and physical processes.

 

[kbachler]

Originally Posted by kbachler
Human Vitae states that the intent under ABC vs NFP+abstention is the same. So why would we say that intent matters?

HV does not say that.

Note the highlight, in which your statement is demonstrated to be false.

From Humanae Vitae
Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

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.

Q.E.D.

Next point?

 

[Jennifer_J]

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…

If the person does nothing to help the child because for a Just/Serious reason they can’t then, no they can’t be responsible for any consequences. I said that before. But I hate analogies as they break down too quickly and don’t make much sense in my feeble brain.

Again, the couple is not removing anything from the act. The act is the act. The cycle is the cycle. A couple is free to choose when to engage in the act and for just/serious reasons may abstain from the act or may choose to try to conceive (is this altering the act too, by increasing frequency and or “timing” the act at the most fertile time?)

 

[PassingThru]

The questions are:

Q1. Why is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes?

Q2. How does ABC disorder the physical constitution or physical processes?

Q3. Why does NFP not disorder the physical constitution or physical processes?

And there must be a definition of physical constitution and physical processes.

1. If you want it to be, then it is. that is not a point of contention.
2. It does
3. It does, as well. There is the rub.

We are amendable to how you want to define physical constitution or physical process. Our only objection would be an artificial limit that is designed to make the definition fit for one case, and not the other. ie Limiting time due to time being the primary tool for NFP.

 

[kbachler]

Again, the couple is not removing anything from the act. The act is the act.

Jennifer, if NFP+A changes nothing about the act, then why do couples do it? Why do couples do ABC? Why does even HV clearly state that its clear that the couple’s intent under NFP and ABC is the same?

The couple IS removing something from the act. They are changing the timing so that the likelihood that a sperm will fertilize an egg isn’t there. If they aren’t doing this, then why are they doing NFP?

Moreover, even if we bought your argument, why would doing it this way be more, but using a barrier to accomplish the same thing, be immoral? (Note that the Church DOES NOT make an argument based on what is natural, because that argument DOESN’T WORK.)