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

[MariaGorettiGrl]

This is some of the most muddled thinking I have ever read on CAF.

That was the idea. I was being facetious.

Your comment about how two people’s actions are equally sinful because their desired outcome is the same was ridiculous. As shown by my even more ridiculous statement, two people can have the same intent, but not be equally sinful.

Contraceptives are wrong not because they’re technology or unnatural, but because they put up a barrier between a husband and wife giving themselves fully to one another. NFP does not put up that same border.

To use NFP, couples have to make sacrifices. They have to say, “We’re not ready to have another child, so we’re not going to have sex during these days.” Abstinence is definitely a sacrifice and something that can be offered up to God. With contraceptives, you make no such sacrifice. And to get pregnant while using contraceptives, something has to go wrong and not work right. To get pregnant while using NFP, nothing went wrong. It was just sex doing what it often does.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Why the NFP crowd works so hard to disguise the church position is another issue.

What do you mean?

There are no loopholes in the Catholic church. A situation is either good or bad. NFP is not a loophole around contraceptives. It is a perfectly acceptable Catholic method.

I agree, couples are supposed to have children and NFP can be used, like most things, for the wrong reasons. But that doesn’t make NFP bad.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What do you mean?

There are no loopholes in the Catholic church. A situation is either good or bad. NFP is not a loophole around contraceptives. It is a perfectly acceptable Catholic method.

I agree, couples are supposed to have children and NFP can be used, like most things, for the wrong reasons. But that doesn’t make NFP bad.

Well it is a toss up should we use your post “There are no loopholes in the Catholic church… NFP is not a loophole around contraceptives.” Or should go back to another example (how far must we search?) say post #98

“The Catholic Church allows NFP because it has been deemed significantly unpleasant enough to act as a deterrent to a couple’s avoiding children for selfish reasons.”

Do you like that explanation better? I do.

Of course if you have not read the Church’s actual teaching or did not understand the teaching then maybe you do not realize this is not what the Church teaches

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The church should never have an opinion on a moral issue that comes across as, well, if you’re clever enough to come up with a way to do it without gadgets - then we’ll let it slide. It’s silly.

strange choice of words, maybe the Church should not have “bound” on the issue as intent was always so important at least until this “bind”?

 

[FLCathMom]

Of course if you have not read the Church’s actual teaching or did not understand the teaching then maybe you do not realize this is not what the Church teaches

Well, that’s what this sounds like to me, from Humanae Vitae:

*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. *

Controlling one’s natural drives is very difficult and so it gives proof to one’s need for avoiding children. So again I say,
“The Catholic Church allows NFP because it has been deemed significantly unpleasant enough to act as a deterrent to a couple’s avoiding children for selfish reasons.”

Do you think I am reading that wrong?

 

[gardenswithkids]

…maybe the Church should not have “bound” on the issue as intent was always so important at least until this “bind”?

Texas Roofer–a couple of times you mention the “loosing and binding” of sins. You seem to imply that the Church could declare contraception not to be sinful–but it can’t do that. Contraception isn’t a sin just because the Church says so–the Church calls contraception a sin because it is. Calling a “spade” a “diamond” doesn’t change the cards.

The power to loose or bind refers to the* forgiveness* of sins. The Church does forgive past sins of contraception in the Confessional. I recieved that; my previous sins are no longer “bound”. After forgiving sins, Jesus tells us, “Go and sin no more”.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well, that’s what this sounds like to me, from Humanae Vitae:

*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. *

Controlling one’s natural drives is very difficult and so it gives proof to one’s need for avoiding children. So again I say,
“The Catholic Church allows NFP because it has been deemed significantly unpleasant enough to act as a deterrent to a couple’s avoiding children for selfish reasons.”

Do you think I am reading that wrong?

Yes, I do.
The word unpleasent seem absent in Church writing and not implied. Control of the sex drive is required by the Church before marriage to all. Do you think Priests & Nuns are call to unpleasnt life?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer–a couple of times you mention the “loosing and binding” of sins. You seem to imply that the Church could declare contraception not to be sinful–but it can’t do that. Contraception isn’t a sin just because the Church says so–the Church calls contraception a sin because it is. Calling a “spade” a “diamond” doesn’t change the cards.

The power to loose or bind refers to the* forgiveness* of sins. The Church does forgive past sins of contraception in the Confessional. I recieved that; my previous sins are no longer “bound”. After forgiving sins, Jesus tells us, “Go and sin no more”.

Thanks but this makes no sense. The Church is allowed to bind and loose the faithful. God forgives sins the Church is a conduit to such. If you could document "Contraception isn’t a sin just because the Church says so–the Church calls contraception a sin because it is. " otherwise it seems an opinion.

 

[FLCathMom]

Yes, I do.
The word unpleasent seem absent in Church writing and not implied. Control of the sex drive is required by the Church before marriage to all. Do you think Priests & Nuns are call to unpleasnt life?

I should have been more clear in that my “quote” involving the word unpleasant is not Church teaching, but it is a way of understanding the issue of NFP vs. contraception that makes sense to me.

No, I do not think Priests and Nuns are called to an unpleasant life. I think that the experience of a husband and wife in a loving relationship abstaining is unpleasant. Remove the word unpleasant if you want.

I read, from Humanae Vitae:

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.

To me that means, if a couple is willing to endure the experience of abstaining from relations, then this removes doubt as to whether they have a good reason for avoiding children. It is a deterrent from avoiding children for selfish reasons.

What do you think it means?

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.