Condoms vs. Monthly Abstinence: Either way the intent is to have sex without children (for the time being) ???

[HailMary]

OP, have you read

Contraception: Why Not?

 

[mercygate]

Yea i agree with everyone you should always come back to the pot and be stirring regularly… Or else it will burn… But yea i see this conversation looping now so I’m going to end it on my part by saying.

Your stance on the matter will depend on your culture, upbringing, education and other variables. So as long as your choice to or not to doesn’t hurt another sentient being we should not judge another’s morals and infringe our belief system on someone else. For what are morals but fairytales we tell our children…

Well, I’m sure glad somebody challenged my forebears’ moral right to put children in factories 12 hours a day and to own slaves.

Culture, upbringing, and education are not definitive of moral good. They condition it; they do not define it. No cogent moral system is a “fairy tale.”

But we would have to go back to philosophy 101 to walk you through that. You have been conditioned by the rampant relativism that purports to justify any action that pleases “me”.

To say one must not judge is a judgment in itself and an attempt to weasel out of the difficult decisions a serious human life requires. Discernment and right judgment are at the very heart and soul of human dignity. Failure to judge the merit of an idea or an action on its merits is a defection from our humanity.

 

[Sure]

For what are morals but fairytales we tell our children…

Does that include this moral that you have proclaimed as well:

So as long as your choice to or not to doesn’t hurt another sentient being…

Or is that moral a fairytale also?

I have a tough time seeing how you can assert a moral principle and then proclaim all moral principles to be “fairytales.”

 

[fix]

Yea see thats arguable,

Yes return OUR bodies to a natural state. By killing out a generation of bacteria or virus, which at one point in nature kept human populations under control. See it’s this whole definition of what is natural. See viruses and bacteria are natural, antibiotics aren’t. There are gay geese and giraffes and another plethora of other documented animals, therefore it is apart of nature, therefore it is natural. whether it is “moral” will depend on your culture and upbringing.

By natural we mean the natural moral law. That law that every person knows through the use of reason. Antibiotics return one to health. Do you think man was made to be unhealthy?

Therefore is it okay to use a lemon as a contraceptive? I mean lemons are much more natural than antibiotics.

Again, natural as in consistent with the proper end.

My whole point with the antibiotics was that of the fact that antibiotics aren’t natural. There artificial, they disrupt/intervene the bodies natural system of doing things, but for the purpose of getting better.

Again, it is not about “natural” in the way you define it. The use of antibiotics to combat infection is consistent with natural law.

Chemo therapy does the same, it totaly rapes your body but for the purpose to help you fight cancer. Cutting off a leg when theres no hope left to stop the spread of a flesh eating super virus mutilates your body. Smoking marijuana to stimulate eating in cancer patients or to precent psychotic episodes. Oh smoking, there was this one for smoking, for something to do with bowls and digestion i can’t remember, but doctors prescribe it.

See above.

Oh WWII Winston Churchill had to allow the bombing of an allied city so that the Nazi’s wouldn’t know that they had cracked thier code. My point is that sometimes from terrible acts can come a great good.

Direct killing of innocents is against the natural law.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I always find it funny when this is argued. For thousands and thousands of years this was wrong.

maybe; maybe not, one of the many(many) problems I have with the NFP crowd is they rarely document anything, I would say for thousands of years this was a non issue because there were minimal people who had a legitimate control of the issue.  The probably addressed the issue a minimal amount and that was to deaf ears.

Then all of a sudden since the sixties we finally figured it out that this was right. All the generations before us didn’t know what they were talking about. I sure am glad we came a long and straightened things out.

sort of; Actually in 1930 due probably to publishing and education the condom, rhythm, and other forums of contraception became known to many. There is encyclical appearing at that time. In the sixties pills and abortions became mass known, it is the alternatives which changed to perception of condoms.

I’m assuming sarcasm here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but to that i reply. Yea and crusades and witch burnings were fun, and i loved the good old days when you could lynch a colored man because it’s okay as they are a lower and separate species to whites. And for thousands and thousands of years we’ve been as a species war[r]ing with each other over land and trivialities. You can hardly use oh we’ve been assuming it for a long time therefore it must be right to justify something.

I think you missed the point. Overtime education grows and we have to face past practices which were destructive. Do we claim infallibility and continue the destruction? , improve the world? Or in the case of the Church look for a blending method of the two ( read on usery, geocentric, or haircuts in Leviticus).

 

[Yerusalyim]

Once again for those who missed it…

Let’s compare sex to eating. Both natural functions. Designed for a purpose.

Okay, say you don’t want to gain weight. According to God’s plan, you can eat less, abstain from eating for a time altogether, fast and offer it up for your spiritual welfare. Or you can exercise and walk more.

All are natural functions that are in keeping with God’s plan for your body. They all respect the act of eating itself and do nothing to interfere with the act of eating once you have taken the first bite.

Or you can use wrong and harmful methods to lose weight. You can gorge yourself anyway. Then you can stick your finger down your throat and induce vomiting. You can take diuretics and laxatives to purge your body of the food you have already eaten. You can take harmful chemicals like Phen-Fen and get heart problems from it.

While some of these practices can help lose weight in the short term, they are bad for the body, bad for the spirit and brain, and do nothing to help the person to really live a life that is in keeping with dignity and self control. In the end they can destroy bodily health and lead to death even.

The means to the end matter. Having sex with your spouse with contraception is like accepting a dinner invitation and bringing along a feather so you can go throw up right after the dinner. An insult to the whole idea of joining together and the effort of the hostess to prepare the meal. It says “I’ll go through the motions of eating with you, but I don’t want any lasting effects of this dinner. I don’t want this food to become part of me. I reject it.”

Same with sex. You’re going through the motions with contraception, but you’re saying to your spouse and God, “I don’t want to be completely united with you and have any risk that we will create a soul that will tie us together forever. I will not cooperate with God’s plan for a new life. I will actively thwart His will if I can. I will take over His place as Author of Life.”

So there. You’ve slapped both your spouse and God with a grave insult.

There is a difference between saying “No” and “Not yet, unless it is Your will.” ABC is the difference.

This is the best analogy I’ve heard yet on this subject. Thanks. Having said that, I think INTENT rather than method is the key factor, even NFP can be sinful if done for selfish reasons.

 

[Riley259]

I think the title explains itself, but just to give the thread a mission statement:

Why then are condoms condemned?

NFP, Condoms, and Contraception are as hard for me to understand as they are to defend. (in other words: I mean to provoke discussion and not the usual plethora of blatantly “uncharitable responses” I sometimes get)

Thanks in advance…

Abstinence, unlike condoms, doesn’t thwart God’s natural design.

 

[Brendan]

Okay I get what your saying here. But if your using NFP to not conceive why don’t you just use a condom or contraception or if your desperate in using something natural a lemon? Save yourself alot of fuss… I think i said this twice…

Lemon Juice is not a natural part of the marital act. Men do not ejaculate lemon juice and women don’t ovulate lemons.

Re-read my first post about Intent vs. Means.

To be a moral act, BOTH the Intent and the Means must be moral.

In addition, the use of a condom adds something more. Right in the middle of what should be a Unifing action, the condom is a sign of rejection. One spouse is saying to the other “God gave you fertility, but I don’t like it, I’m going to reject that part of you”

Yep, that a real loving thing to say. Kinda the biological equivent to placing a bag over their head because you think they are too ugly.

The marital act is a full and free gift of the entirety of oneself and a full and free reception of your spouses gift. Rejection should not be a part of it.

Condoms are rejection.

 

[Delphinus85]

I got to say i’m in the same situation as the poster of the initial forum.

And god gave us the intelligence to figure out how to use lemons as contraception, make shirts and shoes, paracetamol.

If you think about it antibiotics interfere with the natural process doesn’t mean its bad.

Niether is population control its not a bad thing. It’s bieng responsible about the children you can have and take care of as well as meeting the physical desires for sexual engagement without causing stress on a family…

Is NFP like the rythem method? I argued this at a youth camp earlier this year, that the only true way is to abstaine completely. A condom intends with a 99% success rate to prevent contraception, the rythem method or any other “natural” method intends to do the same thing with a smaller % of success… So these are both the same.

Then it moved unto naturality of the condom, pill etc… and i argued a more detailed response of the antibiotic example…

In my oppinion, I don’t mind if people use contraception I don’t belive it’s wrong, for the sake of the earth… But if you don’t want to be a hypocrite simply abstaine thats the only way to do it…

Oh i forgot all this only applies if you believe in the monotheistic god, which I’m going to guess most people who post here would. If not then the value system will change depending on your culture and religion…

I’m afraid I agree here. Yes I am a devot catholic, and I admit I disagree with church teaching on this issue. NFP isn’t any different than a couple using a diaphragm or anything like that. Sorry, I just can’t see the logic. I’ve spent months praying for God to convict my heart, and he hasn’t. I’ve read every book reccomended to me including the Theology of the Body by matt west, and so on. I’ve seen NFP couples so desperate to avoid kids than when one did come along the husband blamed the wife for not keeping track, and she was so hurt she started to not even talk to him. I think the true intent is to get married knowing that a pregnancy can happen, and you need to be okay with that, and you can do what you need to to lessen the odds if you have a reason to POSTPONE pregnancy. I’ve seen NFP tear couples apart just like some claim ABC does.

Now before anyone goes ballistic on me, know this. I disagree with what the pope said on this topic, but I still follow it. And no, I don’t tell anyone to use it, give it to them, or advise them on how to get it. I tell anyone who asks to use NFP. I just disagree, and honestly, I hope the church changes its stance. It just seems wrong. I think, honestly, it stems from some primal knee-jerk reaction to technology, or the idea that sex is ONLY for procreation, which is what was taught in the middle ages.

Also note that I mean contraception ONLY for married couples, and if a couple never wants to have kids, then they are sinning. You should AWAYS Be open to it if you are going to be married and sexually active. The method of postponing I find irrelevant so long as you aren’t using abortificant means. But as I said, I will NEVER advise anyone to use it, and I myself follow church law. I just wish they’d change it, or God would change me (I am really open to that)

 

[Delphinus85]

Lemon Juice is not a natural part of the marital act. Men do not ejaculate lemon juice and women don’t ovulate lemons.

Re-read my first post about Intent vs. Means.

To be a moral act, BOTH the Intent and the Means must be moral.

In addition, the use of a condom adds something more. Right in the middle of what should be a Unifing action, the condom is a sign of rejection. One spouse is saying to the other “God gave you fertility, but I don’t like it, I’m going to reject that part of you”

Yep, that a real loving thing to say. Kinda the biological equivent to placing a bag over their head because you think they are too ugly.

The marital act is a full and free gift of the entirety of oneself and a full and free reception of your spouses gift. Rejection should not be a part of it.

Condoms are rejection.

Sorry but I have to interject this. During our (my husband’s and mine) times where we must abstain. We both admit that all too often we feel like we’re being rejected because “we don’t want a kid right now so bad we refuse to accept each other at all.” Also, I don’t know a single couple that is using birth control (condoms or anything else) that feel this way. Not. One.

 

[Tracyms1974]

II’ve spent months praying for God to convict my heart, and he hasn’t. I’ve read every book reccomended to me including the Theology of the Body by matt west, and so on. I’ve seen NFP couples so desperate to avoid kids than when one did come along the husband blamed the wife for not keeping track, and she was so hurt she started to not even talk to him.

Couples like this probably had problems not associated with NFP. These problems may also be why they don’t want children. I would imagine that blissfully happy couples are more open to children than those in troubled marraiges.

Also note that I mean contraception ONLY for married couples, and if a couple never wants to have kids, then they are sinning. You should AWAYS Be open to it if you are going to be married and sexually active. The method of postponing I find irrelevant so long as you aren’t using abortificant means. But as I said, I will NEVER advise anyone to use it, and I myself follow church law. I just wish they’d change it, or God would change me (I am really open to that)

Think about this: Let’s say the Pope gets wind of this post and says, “Hey, he’s right! Let’s do it - contraception for married couples - as of today!” It’s only a matter of time before other groups of people - single people, gay people, people who are into orgies and wild sex will COMPLAIN because the Pope did not authorize contraception for THEM too. And really, to tell you the truth, there is no moral difference. A married couple using a condom is in the same moral position as gay people having sex. You may disagree, but it’s the truth. So, even though I understand your frustration, I encourage you to try to see it as a “fair” thing as I have stated here. It’s only fair that married couples, even though they may have a little bit more of a right to do so, use no contraception except NFP as an example to everyone else and to please the Almighty God who loves us all.

 

[Delphinus85]

I guess that hurting your soul is acceptable then right? Just use a condom, sure why not, as long as at the end of the night YOU are happy with your decision, who cares right? Ignore the Church and her teachings, what does she know? Along that lines, what does God know?

Very arrogant remarks that you have made here.

No one here, no one, is “judging” anyone else. My, my, my how quick we are to use the ‘thou shall not judge’ card.

Moral = fairytales? Are you serious?

Be sure not to tell someone that birth control or abortion or murder is wrong so that you do not “infringe our belief system on someone else.”

Good thing Jesus Christ and his disciples did not follow your line of thinking.

Opinions aside…this is really mean. It’s not discussion, it’s insulting. Discuss the issue, don’t insult people with sarcasm. Tje bible has things to say about sarcasm too. Just because you are with the church teaching on thie issue doesn’t give you the right to treat someone like this who is trying to discuss something. I happen to be with the OP on this. I am sure the church may be right, but i disagree with the church on this issue. I recognize that the church knows something I don’t, so while I dsisagree with the issue, I am waiting for God or a loving brother or sister in the Lord to show me the truth in a way that makes sense to me. This is why I follow the rules, but still disagree. That’s why people ask these questions. We are all seeking truth. Not to get yelled at. We are bringing these things up because we WANT to understand and agree, rather than following the rules without really believing what we are doing. We want to follow the church and her teaching full heartedly so we want to discuss the issues and be CONVINCED. PLEASE don’t react this way. Not only does it not help but it’s upsetting and is LESS Likely to make people see your POV.

 

[Delphinus85]

Tracyms1974:
Believe it or not, I do agree with you. But see I am quite clear to say that while I DO disagree with church teaching i have love enough for Christ and his true church to say that even though I disagree, I follow the rule. My heart is telling me they are wrong, but I am catholic, and I submit to them, otherwise it’s an anarchy. I submit that the pope is gracious enough with the issue that it’s permitted for medical reasons. I can’t help but wonder if it’s really THAT wrong since…well NFP really is the same thing. I love the church, I love the law. I will follow it as long as it is the law, even if I disagree.

ph and PS: Thank you for being gentle. I know this is a hot button issue for a lot of catholics. Know that I am not out for rebellion. I have been going to RCIA teachers, priests, and reading books on the issue trying to be convinced of the catholic position, but I still just…disagree. But I am giving it a try because someone answered someone (gently) about why condoms in africa aren’t a good idea. ANd the logic came through. I just think I need to hear someone other than “birth control profanes the marital act by denying life” when in all honesty…NFP seems to do the same thing, and yet ABC is permitted for medical purposes. So please, if you can offer another perspective, PLEASE DO I really welcome it.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Abstinence, unlike condoms, doesn’t thwart God’s natural design.

And I would add to the above that abstaining, so to speak, is what we do most of the day. Some people make it sound like not having sex is so unusual when it is the neutral state of our bodies. Why, I’m abstaining right now. Scandal!

 

[mercygate]

This is the best analogy I’ve heard yet on this subject. Thanks. Having said that, I think INTENT rather than method is the key factor, even NFP can be sinful if done for selfish reasons.

Exactly.

 

[mercygate]

I’m afraid I agree here. Yes I am a devot catholic, and I admit I disagree with church teaching on this issue. NFP isn’t any different than a couple using a diaphragm or anything like that. Sorry, I just can’t see the logic. I’ve spent months praying for God to convict my heart, and he hasn’t. I’ve read every book reccomended to me including the Theology of the Body by matt west, and so on. I’ve seen NFP couples so desperate to avoid kids than when one did come along the husband blamed the wife for not keeping track, and she was so hurt she started to not even talk to him. I think the true intent is to get married knowing that a pregnancy can happen, and you need to be okay with that, and you can do what you need to to lessen the odds if you have a reason to POSTPONE pregnancy. I’ve seen NFP tear couples apart just like some claim ABC does.

Now before anyone goes ballistic on me, know this. I disagree with what the pope said on this topic, but I still follow it. And no, I don’t tell anyone to use it, give it to them, or advise them on how to get it. I tell anyone who asks to use NFP. I just disagree, and honestly, I hope the church changes its stance. It just seems wrong. I think, honestly, it stems from some primal knee-jerk reaction to technology, or the idea that sex is ONLY for procreation, which is what was taught in the middle ages.

Also note that I mean contraception ONLY for married couples, and if a couple never wants to have kids, then they are sinning. You should AWAYS Be open to it if you are going to be married and sexually active. The method of postponing I find irrelevant so long as you aren’t using abortificant means. But as I said, I will NEVER advise anyone to use it, and I myself follow church law. I just wish they’d change it, or God would change me (I am really open to that)

You are one in a million.

Keep praying for a change of heart on this. It made miracles in our marriage. As for not getting the logic, I am puzzled. The LOGIC is absolutely crystal clear. It’s the implementation I would think that could cause the problems – as you describe in that couple where the husband blamed the wife. (Maybe she DID make a mistake? Maybe they DID ‘take a chance’?)

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Opinions aside…this is really mean. It’s not discussion, it’s insulting. Discuss the issue, don’t insult people with sarcasm.

In looking back at my original post, I think that you can see that I have approached this with the utmost sincereity and kindness as possible. I have cited the reasons that the church holds to her beliefs on this subject including sections of the Catechism to support this. I think that you looked at this post that you referenced and put forth your own “tone” into it as it was not written in a rude way or with any sarcasm, I was serious.

Tje bible has things to say about sarcasm too.

Again, not sarcasm, but I would like to read what it says.

Just because you are with the church teaching on thie issue doesn’t give you the right to treat someone like this who is trying to discuss something.

At what point when the poster said this was he or she trying to discuss it?

So as long as your choice to or not to doesn’t hurt another sentient being we should not judge another’s morals and infringe our belief system on someone else.

That is not trying to discuss it, that is shutting yourself off from a discussion saying that he or she will not be free to a discussion, but will be shutting their eyes and not open to what else is out there.

Again a lot of credibility is lost when statements like this are made

For what are morals but fairytales we tell our children…

Or do you agree with this?

I happen to be with the OP on this. I am sure the church may be right, but i disagree with the church on this issue. I recognize that the church knows something I don’t, so while I dsisagree with the issue, I am waiting for God or a loving brother or sister in the Lord to show me the truth in a way that makes sense to me. This is why I follow the rules, but still disagree.

I applaud you for going on faith with the issue. While Abbadon was not open to a discussion about this with me, you on the other hand may be. You did not make the remarks that were quoted above, you have approached it with a different mindset and that changes things. But when someone comes out and blantly says that they do not care what the Church teaches they are going to do it their own way are we to affirm them in their sin? Or should we call what is black, black and what is white, white? There is not a gray area here.

That’s why people ask these questions. We are all seeking truth. Not to get yelled at.

Agreed that is why they ask questions and not make blanket statements that they will not change and equate morality with a simple fairy tale. BTW, who was yelling?

We are bringing these things up because we WANT to understand and agree, rather than following the rules without really believing what we are doing. We want to follow the church and her teaching full heartedly so we want to discuss the issues and be CONVINCED. PLEASE don’t react this way. Not only does it not help but it’s upsetting and is LESS Likely to make people see your POV.

Some people want to learn, understand and agree. Others do not care to do those things. They have their views, they have their stand, they have “drawn their line in the sand” and that is where they are going to stand. No matter how hard you try to convince them otherwise, that stance will not change. Others are open to talking about it. Obviously you are one of them. If you would like, I would be more than happy to discuss this with you, but think that doing it via PM would be a much better option than continuing to hijack this thread

 

[Delphinus85]

You are one in a million.

Keep praying for a change of heart on this. It made miracles in our marriage. As for not getting the logic, I am puzzled. The LOGIC is absolutely crystal clear. It’s the implementation I would think that could cause the problems – as you describe in that couple where the husband blamed the wife. (Maybe she DID make a mistake? Maybe they DID ‘take a chance’?)

Thank you. I am glad some people are patient with me. And in this case, they did take a chance, but he was totally angry at her. As if it were her fault. So…I guess in putting it all together I agree with a poster above who said that even NFP can be sinful, if done for the wrong reasons. Now maybe I am in a unique position because I desire to know and see the church’s logic in this…but can’t and I am rather kept safe in that I need the pill (this is not a debate on this, I have seen a panel of docs, catholic and non) for reasons that…well allow me to function in society. It’s almost as if God is keeping my soul safe for the time being, until I can see logic. But in my state, what I see is my husband and I with no choice but to use the pill, but we studied it inside and out and we observe temporary abstinance when I have my period because we understand that this is the greatest chance of the abortive factor of the pill. We couldn’t stand letting that happen to our kids. Anyway, if NFP can be sinful at times for selfish reasons, this is the same logic I see used for why ABC is sinful. It’s selfish. But I honestly don’t know any single couple using ABC who are like this (that are married). Every single one I know (also christian) do it and they feel that this is the form that works best for them, and they pray that no matter what, God’s will is done in their marriage. By husband and I get excited sometimes thinking that God can still chose to allow me to become pregnant despite the nasty side effects of the pill (he did with one of my friends and she has the most BEAUTIFUL baby boy!) and all my other married christian friends are the same.We are indeed very open to life each time we do come together. We agree that if God wants us to become pregnant, we hope he does. And thathe doesn’t dely. We WANT his will done.

I gues that’s why I am confused. The things the church are saying about NFP vs. ABC I don’t see played out in practice. shrugs I know couples who use NFP that get divorced, I know coules who use ABC that have some of the heathiest marrigaes I have seen. I will ALWAYS follow church law. Both my husband and I even though we both disagree. We have talked about it. I have to stay on these pills for another couple years and my health issue should be gine by then, and we agree we will have kids until we feel it’s time to stop, then use NFP because the church allows only that. We don’t understand why, but it’s better safe than sorry. We are both just hoping we can understand it, change it, or hear a good reason why it’s not okay for anything else. It’s quite a frustrating thing for us, especially me, because…well I usually get stuff and I can see logic in truly logical stances, and I really can’t in this. PLEASE PRAY FOR ME.

 

[mercygate]

Thank you. I am glad some people are patient with me.

Heck! You’re EASY. You’re giving the Church the benefit of the doubt AND doing something to avoid the worst-case of pill use. BTW, my daughter was on heavy-dose BCP from the age of 14, having twice been hospitalized because of serious problems with her menstrual cycle. So I hear ya about that.

And in this case, they did take a chance, but he was totally angry at her. As if it were her fault.

Sigh. NFP doesn’t work if you don’t use it properly. Clearly, the earlier poster who obseved that the MARRIAGE was the issue, not the method, was onto something.

So…I guess in putting it all together I agree with a poster above who said that even NFP can be sinful, if done for the wrong reasons.

Here you also agree with the Church.

Now maybe I am in a unique position because I desire to know and see the church’s logic in this…but can’t . . .

The logic relates to the difference between a natural act of human intercourse, and one that is manipulated by mechanical or chemical means.

Anyway, if NFP can be sinful at times for selfish reasons, this is the same logic I see used for why ABC is sinful. It’s selfish.

Not only selfish but distorted. You get the main point though.

But I honestly don’t know any single couple using ABC who are like this (that are married). Every single one I know (also christian) do it and they feel that this is the form that works best for them, and they pray that no matter what, God’s will is done in their marriage. By husband and I get excited sometimes thinking that God can still chose to allow me to become pregnant despite the nasty side effects of the pill (he did with one of my friends and she has the most BEAUTIFUL baby boy!) and all my other married christian friends are the same.We are indeed very open to life each time we do come together. We agree that if God wants us to become pregnant, we hope he does. And thathe doesn’t dely. We WANT his will done.

:hug3: You are a model of how (I think) a Catholic should operate when he does not quite “get it” about a particular teaching. If more people would at least give the Church a chance, they would be graced with much wisdom.

I gues that’s why I am confused. The things the church are saying about NFP vs. ABC I don’t see played out in practice. shrugs I know couples who use NFP that get divorced, I know coules who use ABC that have some of the heathiest marrigaes I have seen.

Here’s where experience can break down. Your experience does not account for the widespread social chaos that has resulted from the fallout of ABC.

I will ALWAYS follow church law. Both my husband and I even though we both disagree. We have talked about it. I have to stay on these pills for another couple years and my health issue should be gine by then, and we agree we will have kids until we feel it’s time to stop, then use NFP because the church allows only that. We don’t understand why, but it’s better safe than sorry. We are both just hoping we can understand it, change it, or hear a good reason why it’s not okay for anything else. It’s quite a frustrating thing for us, especially me, because…well I usually get stuff and I can see logic in truly logical stances, and I really can’t in this. PLEASE PRAY FOR ME.

You have reminded me that we need to pray for EVERYONE to see this. You have a good heart (and you sure don’t sound stupid!) and are struggling with this. I think it was only grace that gave my spouse and me the *intuition *of the wrongess of ABC – long before we were Catholic and long before I was forced into an apologetic on Church teaching by a friend who called it “absurd.” People might disagree with the teaching, but there is no Catholic moral teaching that can be labeled “absurd!”

 

[Delphinus85]

Thank you. I guess part of the problem is I was raised non-christian. I became a christian in a protestant church where the church talked OPENLY about the use of birth control between married couples (including the pastoral staff). I don’t rule out that my brain has been corupted (if indeed ABC IS wrong) I am just hoping that if it is, it will get worked out with time. I really don’t think I’m stupid. I have come into line with the church on EVERYTHING since my conversion. (I was pentecostal, so I had a LONG way to go) but this is the one sticky point.