R
Redbandito
Guest
Well put again Brendan. This is what I have been trying to argue the whole time.
- Status
M
magdelaine
Guest
Now, again, the above makes sense to me. The overly technical aspects of the orginal argument to which I object have to do with the fact that using a condom in the circumstance first described is NOT a rejection of fertility but a rejection of, if anything, disease. For this reason I find it difficult to accept that use of a prophylactic in this case is morally wrong.
And while I appreciate that a call to abstinence and celibacy can be a holy and high calling if entered into willingly; I would hate to have ruled out in this situation the loving act of sexual intercourse which goes a long way toward maintaining marital health, happiness, and healing.
1
1ke
Guest
Yes, it has.
No, it does not meet this criteria.
A
askeptic
Guest
There is something so dishonest about Catholic teaching on this matter.
NFP couples are no different, they will go out of their way to daily take temperature, examine the woman’s mucous, cervix, and whatever other signs they use.
That is a lot of technical and careful work for the purpose of having sex when fertility is not possible. Essentially “rejecting” the days when the woman is fertile. (They are saying “I DON’T WANT YOU WHEN YOU’RE FERTILE, SO I AM GOING TO EXAMINE MUCOUS AND CERVIX EVERY SINGLE DAY TO MAKE SURE I ONLY HAVE YOU WHEN YOU ARE NOT FERTILE.”)
And why do these couples go to all this trouble: because they don’t want to have a billion kids. Like everyone else, most Catholics want manageable families (read: small families), and that’s why they go to all this trouble.
B
Brendan
Guest
The use of a contraceptive here is not a rejection of the disease, as it does not eliminate it’s transfer.
What is being described here is a deliberate endangerment of the unborn child with only justification being given is the promotion of marital harmony.
Leaving aside the fact that the Church has already declared the use of contraceptives in the marital act to be intrinsically evil, let’s look at this from the Principle of Double Effect.
Marital Harmony is certainly a laudable goal, but the P.D.E. requires that no other means to the just goal be available.
Is it your position that the only means to achieve “marital health, happiness and healing” is via the marital act?
B
Brendan
Guest
There is nothing at all dishonest about Catholic teaching on this matter.
If you re-read my post, you will see that the uncontraceptive marital act is a full acceptance of the spouse AS GOD MADE THEM.
God made females with certain periods of fertility and infertility. The acceptance of those cycles is part of the full acceptance of the spouse.
And, as God created us with Free Will, couple may, as a couple choose when to give themselves fully to each other.
But the gift must always remain a full gift, nothing held back, no selfishness involved, only selfLESSness.
The same is true of sterile partners. Menopause, for example, is certainly part of God’s plan, and use of the marital act with a post-menopausal wife is a very laudable thing.
For those who disease has rendered sterile, such as from a hyterectomy, the same is also very true.
All of the above is a complete acceptance of the creature God united to one as one’s spouse.
No dishonesty what so ever.
A
askeptic
Guest
I know this argument, but it still seems to technical and contrived.
Why is it selfish to refuse the spouse’s fertility? As I mentioned before, pregnancy is very straining for women both physically and psychologically. It seems that for a man to protect his wife from pregnancy would be a very loving and considerate thing to do.
He might use NFP to avoid impregnating his wife, but he might also use a condom thinking “I love my wife, I want to give her sexual intimacy, love, tenderness etc., but I also want to protect her from the immense strain of pregnancy and for this reason I will withhold my fertility from her.”
F
fix
Guest
Abstaining is not rejecting. Intentionally frustrating the marital embrace is rejecting. That is one main difference. Intentionally separating love from sex is the issue. It should never be done.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Don’t change the subject Askeptic. If you want to talk about NFP, we can get there. But not until we come to a conclusion on what we are talking about here. Whether NFP is right or wrong does not have anything to do with whether contraception is wrong. If you want to make your argument that birth control is okay because Catholics practice NFP, fine. However, I think even you can see that this argument fails to address the issue. When we come to an agreement on why contraception is wrong, then we can determine whether or not NFP meets the criteria.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Askeptic, I get the feeling you just want to argue for the sake of argument. If not, then answer the questions I have posed. You keep talking about “love and intimacy”. That is exactly what we are saying is at stake. You have never addressed these points. I am beginning to believe this is intentional. Can you respond to them adequately? If so, I would love to hear the response. What is love to you? Is love selfish? Does intimacy include communicating a lie?
B
Brendan
Guest
Does your particular perception of it make it any less TRUE?
Because the marital act is about unity, not rejection. How can a rejection be part of a unitive act?
Exactly, so he should abstain. Wearing a condom is not protecting his spouse. Then only real protection in this case is abstainence. Anything else is just rolling different dice.
All the while telling her he doesn’t like a part of her. Why does showing a wife love and tenderness involve latex? And sexual intimacy is FAR more than the coital act itself.
All of the above can easily be shown to his wife without endangering her health or the life of the child within her.
R
Redbandito
Guest
And again, you show your selfish desires here. For starters, the only 100% guarantee that you will not get your wife pregnant and thereby “put a strain on her body” is to completely abstain. You were asked this question earlier and never reponded. If you are so concerned about your wife’s health, why aren’t you talking full precaution and abstaining? What right do you have to put your wife in jeopardy, even if it is less than a 2% chance she would get pregnant? It seems like your talk of “love and intimacy” is really talk of self-love or lust. This kind of objectifying of our spouse does not produce good fruit. It doesn’t seem like you’re being very consistent here.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Exactly!
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
I think Redbandito hit it on the head with the argument of modernist entitlement. In terms of the Law of God, there is no debate and there will never be any. Again and again, Rome has spoken the debate is ended. Those who are in favor of artificial birth control, or complain about NFP, your opinion in the matter is irrelevant. I pray simply that your understanding may be reconciled with the faith.
-John
-John
A
askeptic
Guest
I’m sorry I neglected to answer these questions, I guess I thought love and intimacy are pretty self explanatory, and I should say that defining them is not easy.
Married love and intimacy is: a commitment to your spouse, loyalty, faithfulness, staying by each other’s side through difficult times, sharing each other’s most private thoughts and feelings, protecting each other, looking out for each other’s well being, and last but not least expressing tenderness/love/the idea of “oneness” through sexual union.
Is love selfish: no, but human beings can be selfish.
Does intimacy include communicating a lie: No, but in my opinion contraception is not a lie. It is simply the expression of all I mentioned above, while at the same time acknowledging that the time is not right for a baby and using some method to prevent pregnancy.
Hope that’s good enough for you.
A
askeptic
Guest
You’re ignoring the fact that the wife herself may want to exprerience sexual intimacy and risk the 0.01% chance of pregnancy.
The husband’s actions may very well be about loving his wife and making her happy, of uniting with her sexually (a very important part of marriage, well worth the risk of 0.01% pregnancy) while doing his best to protect her from the dangers of pregnancy and having too many children.
F
fix
Guest
How about this?:
B
bear06
Guest
I think some lessons on the effectiveness of a condom might be warranted. Condoms fail for pregnancy 5-12% of the time depending on the study you read. Considering a woman has a very little window of time where she can get pregnant, this should tell you that the failure rate for condoms and STD’s is a lot higher since you can catch those anyday of the week. If a man truly loved a woman, he wouldn’t want to risk her health at all if he knew that he could pass on an illness to his wife.
You seem to think pregnancy = illness. I’m not quite sure where you get this. In many cases, such as breast cancer, having multiple children is actually shown to help prevent it. I know quite a few woman who have had over 5 children and amazingly, they’re still alive to tell about it. Where are you getting the numbers to back up your stats?
You seem to think pregnancy = illness. I’m not quite sure where you get this. In many cases, such as breast cancer, having multiple children is actually shown to help prevent it. I know quite a few woman who have had over 5 children and amazingly, they’re still alive to tell about it. Where are you getting the numbers to back up your stats?
A
askeptic
Guest
I would agree with that to some extent. People definitely have a duty to society to procreate in order to replace the population, otherwise human beings will simply cease to exist.
I am not advocating that people be childless, as I have said before procreation is very important.
At the same time, it is ridiculous to expect that people always be open to life. No one is open to the possibility of having 20 kids, for instance. (And women are fertile from 20 to 40) Any sane person, whether he is using NFP or birth control, is hoping to limit his family to a reasonable size.
NFP and birth control accomplish the same goal: they allow people to have a reasonable number of children.
NFP requires an insane amout of mucous, cervix, and temperature observations. Birth control is much more practical.
A
askeptic
Guest
For stats consider mothers’ mortality rate in the third world.
My mother had 2 children and spent about 2 months in a hospital bed with each of us. When she wasn’t in the hospital she was throwing up. All in all, she was very sick.
Some women handle pregnancies well, but I doubt that anyone can handle the stress of many children well. Post partum depression is another issue to consider.
And there is the very important factor of women being able to be involved in society. It is very hard to do if you are constantly pregnant or have 5+ children to take care of. How can a woman be a doctor, a lawyer, a politician, a scientist etc. with that number of kids? She can’t.
- Status