condoms vs nfp. what's really the dif??

[Good_Daughter]

FACE IT. The Church was wrong, even on what some traditionalists consider to be an infallible doctrine. The Church has erred on a teaching that was promulgated by ALL of the Church fathers, by ALL of the Popes, and by the Magisterium for 1750 years. They have never rescinded this teaching, although it is no longer formally propagated.

If this were any other teaching and not something so absurd as geocentrism (say, contraception), every Catholic here would shouting infallibility from the rooftops, and some still are.

I will never understand some of the Catholics on this forum whose faith is based so strongly on the idea that the Church is infallible, or can’t err in interpreting scripture that they are willing to practically kill themselves to avoid acknowledging these mistakes. It’s O.K. The Church can and does make mistakes, none of which invalidates the sacraments or any of the other profound truths that the Church holds. It’s just that sometimes, we might not be able to count on the Church to lead us by the hand with 100% accuracy in every situation and we might have to use our God-given brains to assess a teaching or a situation. This whole idea that we must all follow the Catholic Church into error even when our conscience and/or intellect is telling us that she is wrong is silly.

So you’re saying the Church is not necessarily trustworthy in scientific matters, and therefore not necessarily trustworthy in matters of faith and morals. Then you switch to trustworthy for valid sacraments. That’s confusing.

 

[Debora123]

I will never understand some of the Catholics on this forum whose faith is based so strongly on the idea that the Church is infallible, or can’t err in interpreting scripture that they are willing to practically kill themselves to avoid acknowledging these mistakes. It’s O.K. The Church can and does make mistakes, none of which invalidates the sacraments or any of the other profound truths that the Church holds. It’s just that sometimes, we might not be able to count on the Church to lead us by the hand with 100% accuracy in every situation and we might have to use our God-given brains to assess a teaching or a situation. This whole idea that we must all follow the Catholic Church into error even when our conscience and/or intellect is telling us that she is wrong is silly.

Wow, well said. My thoughts exactly.

 

[BrushedByAngels]

So you’re saying the Church is not necessarily trustworthy in scientific matters, and therefore not necessarily trustworthy in matters of faith and morals. Then you switch to trustworthy for valid sacraments. That’s confusing.

Apparently the church says if you want to space out children you should try abstinence. From what I am learning about NFP it has more to do with fertility than as a natural contraception. The church prefers it not to be used as a contraceptive at all, insisting on abstinence if you are not open to having children. Every sexual act within the marriage must not be contracepted, instead open to the idea of children.

I can just imagine telling my ex husband (when we were married) we are not having sex for 20 years. Yeah I think that would give him a free ticket to an affair

 

[Debora123]

So you’re saying the Church is not necessarily trustworthy in scientific matters, and therefore not necessarily trustworthy in matters of faith and morals. Then you switch to trustworthy for valid sacraments. That’s confusing.

Confusing?

She’s making a point. She’s saying that the Church has been dead wrong on certain issues in the past and we must use our well formed consciences and God given brains to “asses a teaching or a situation,” rather than just following blindly.

 

[BrushedByAngels]

Sorry, someone else quote ended up in my post. I was responding to the OP. I was trying to explain to her that the church teaches abstinance instead of using NFP as a contraceptive.

I’ve learned so much on NFP… so glad. I’m always getting asked questions and had the whole concept backwards.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Apparently the church says if you want to space out children you should try abstinence. From what I am learning about NFP it has more to do with fertility than as a natural contraception. The church prefers it not to be used as a contraceptive at all, insisting on abstinence if you are not open to having children. Every sexual act within the marriage must not be contracepted, instead open to the idea of children.

I can just imagine telling my ex husband (when we were married) we are not having sex for 20 years. Yeah I think that would give him a free ticket to an affair

I think you might be confused…NFP is also known as fertility awareness. A woman learns when her fertile time is through various means…and then if the couple wants to avoid having a child, they avoid relations on the fertile days.

The couple does not need to abstain completely…hope that helps.

 

[BrushedByAngels]

I think you might be confused…NFP is also known as fertility awareness. A woman learns when her fertile time is through various means…and then if the couple wants to avoid having a child, they avoid relations on the fertile days.

The couple does not need to abstain completely…hope that helps.

Exactly my point., You are deliberately avoiding the natural process of procreation.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act.

Indeed. At the very least, it’s certainly consequentialist.

Is it because it’s wrong to have sex w/o the intention of having children? Well, obviously not, otherwise NFP wouldn’t be allowed either.

Precisely. Clearly the Catholic Church has no problem with planning your family responsibly or with “birth control” in the broad, intention-based sense, if a couple has just reason.

If that couple with just reason to avoid pregnancy uses a condom, the sin is not having sex while intending not to have children. In their case, that’s okay. The sin is to divorce the act itself from whatever procreative potential it possesses.

I understand that, but what makes no sense to me is WHY using a rubber glove over the male genitalia during intercourse with one’s spouse is a “wrong means”

So then the big question here is… WHY is it wrong to contracept sex?

Okay, you have to admit that you’re bringing up an entirely new question here. Your original post asked what the difference is between condoms and NFP.

Now you’ve switched to, “Why is it wrong to contracept sex?” in general.

And someone brought up a good point. Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about contraception being wrong? Contraception existed back then. If it is suuuuuch a horrible, terrible, evil, mortal, Hell worthy sin that you all are saying it is, then how come Jesus never brought it up once? Not once??? Curious indeed…

You know, for someone as invested as you seem to be, you really ought to know that NFP is statistically more effective - when used properly - than condoms.

It’s wrong because the Church says it is.

Technically, I think it’s the other way around, dfp42: The Church says it’s wrong because it is.

I think, however, you meant to say that we can know it’s wrong because the Church says it is. I just didn’t want there to be any confusion, since, “How do we know?” wasn’t the question to which you were responding. “Why is it wrong?” was.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

`So a teaching has to be infallible for us to be bound to follow it according to you? That’s not what you said here:

Aside from this, there are many who actually believe this teaching to be infallible based upon the following:

1. **Absolute consensus of the Fathers on geocentrism in the face of Greek heliocentrism **(GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 13)
2. The continuous belief of the Tradition in geocentrism from the partistics throught the medievals (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 13-14)
3. **The teaching of Scripture, as interpreted and officially endorsed by the 16-17th century Catholic magisterium **(GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 12)
4. The declaration of the same Magisterium that geocentrism is a matter of “faith and morals” because it directly affects the veracity of inspired Scripture (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 12, 14)
5. **The canonical trial of Galileo in 1633 which called heliocentrism a “formal heresy” **and which has never been officially rescinded, especially noted in the case of Joseph Lalande in 1765 (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14)
6. The illicit means by which Cardinal Olivieri made possible an imprimatur for Canon Settele in 1822, and the illicit and unsubstantiated reasons Galileo was taken off the Index in 1835 (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14)
7. The continual allegiance of Catholic editors to geocentrism by putting disclaimers on Newton’s Principia which promoted heliocentrism (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 14)
8. The Vatican’s support of geocentrism in 1850 by Mario Marini commissioned book (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 14)
9. The failure of Leo XIII’s Prov. Deus, Vatican II and John Paul II’s speech to the PAS to officially endorse heliocentrism and officially negate geocentrism (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14)
10. Vatican I’s teaching that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14).
11. Catholic doctrines that are considered infallible that have much less patristic, traditional or scriptural support than geocentrism. (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14)
12. The Vatican’s withdrawal of Pio Paschini’s 1941 book that exonerated Galileo and faulted the Catholic Church. (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 14)
13. The teaching of Lumen Gentium 12 that “the whole body of the faithful…cannot err in matters of belief,” geocentrism being a belief in Scriptural data that the Church has always believed and never rejected. (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 14)
14. The failure of popular science to prove helicentrism and disprove geocentrism, thus requiring the Church, according to Augustine’s and Leo XIII’s teaching, to hold to traditional beliefs unless science can “prove” its theories. (GWW, Vol. 1, Introduction)

bellarmineforum.xanga.com/702646734/question-138—is-geocentrism-infallible/

FACE IT. The Church was wrong, even on what some traditionalists consider to be an infallible doctrine. The Church has erred on a teaching that was promulgated by ALL of the Church fathers, by ALL of the Popes, and by the Magisterium for 1750 years. They have never rescinded this teaching, although it is no longer formally propagated.

If this were any other teaching and not something so absurd as geocentrism (say, contraception), every Catholic here would shouting infallibility from the rooftops, and some still are.

I will never understand some of the Catholics on this forum whose faith is based so strongly on the idea that the Church is infallible, or can’t err in interpreting scripture that they are willing to practically kill themselves to avoid acknowledging these mistakes. It’s O.K. The Church can and does make mistakes, none of which invalidates the sacraments or any of the other profound truths that the Church holds. It’s just that sometimes, we might not be able to count on the Church to lead us by the hand with 100% accuracy in every situation and we might have to use our God-given brains to assess a teaching or a situation. This whole idea that we must all follow the Catholic Church into error even when our conscience and/or intellect is telling us that she is wrong is silly.

Christianity in general is a faith not just of cold, hard, Enlightenment-style rationalism but of paradox, mystery, and wonder - I mean, of course it is, it’s centered around the concept of the Incarnation! This fact about the Christian faith certainly spills over into Catholic ecclesiology in particular, and I resent the deceitful, simplistic, and falsely dichotomous implication that the matter is as simple as you make it.

That’s right. You’re as guilty of intellectual short-sightedness just as much as those who simply issue blanket statements of, “Well, the Church says so, so there.”

So get over this stupid heliocentrism thing. You want to know what constitutes far more rocky territory, logically speaking, than heliocentrism? How about these:

(a) Catholic teaching on usury and how it’s changed
(b) The dogma of the Incarnation itself

So Thoughtfulone, if you’re going to try to undermine the Church’s authority with the very nuance at the heart of its theological foundation, then at least pick something better than geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. Please.

Now, that said, Bob Sungenis is a nuance-less hack. What is this “GWW” that he cites? I’d love to familiarize myself with the sources that helped him make himself a slave to rationalism.

 

[dfp42]

I come to the conclusion myself personally that after 265 posts no one will ever be able to give an answer that will tell someone why it’s wrong to use a condom* if they already have their minds set that they are going to do it anyway*. It makes us feel good to somehow feel confirmed in sin if Catholicism was based on a democratic vote but it’s not. It’s all wrapped up in free will and the best person with the best answer isn’t the one who wrote the last response on a forum although it seems this way at times. It’s obviously clear that Catholics love to dispute Catholics and get a thrill out of it and regardless of the number of posts on the subject they will do what they want to do anyway. Either you listen to the Magisterial or you don’t. Your choice. Even if you don’t understand it either you obey or you don’t. Did God really tell you you couldn’t eat from the tree of life? No no, God’s a liar and he just doesn’t want you to become like God’s knowing what is good and evil for yourselves without reference to him.

When this thread is locked or over with and you go on with life you will ultimately pick your choice between 1 of 2 things regardless of a democratic vote on CAF.

**Humility…Obedience…Life
****Pride…Disobedience…Death

**

 

[Debora123]

If that couple with just reason to avoid pregnancy uses a condom, the sin is not having sex while intending not to have children. In their case, that’s okay. The sin is to divorce the act itself from whatever procreative potential it possesses.

What do you think a couple using NFP is doing when they go through great lengths to make sure their lovemaking doesn’t involve a pregnancy??? They are “divorcing the act itself form procreative potential.” More so than condoms do, supposedly.

Okay, you have to admit that you’re bringing up an entirely new question here. Your original post asked what the difference is between condoms and NFP.

Now you’ve switched to, “Why is it wrong to contracept sex?” in general.

It’s all part of the same nonsensical rational to me…

You know, for someone as invested as you seem to be, you really ought to know that NFP is statistically more effective - when used properly - than condoms.

Yes, I know. I really know. Waaayyyy ahead of you buddy. Check out my post #255 where I say exactly that. It was part of my argument.

 

[Debora123]

Christianity in general is a faith not just of cold, hard, Enlightenment-style rationalism but of paradox, mystery, and wonder - I mean, of course it is, it’s centered around the concept of the Incarnation! This fact about the Christian faith certainly spills over into Catholic ecclesiology in particular, and I resent the deceitful, simplistic, and falsely dichotomous implication that the matter is as simple as you make it.

That’s right. You’re as guilty of intellectual short-sightedness just as much as those who simply issue blanket statements of, “Well, the Church says so, so there.”

So get over this stupid heliocentrism thing. You want to know what constitutes far more rocky territory, logically speaking, than heliocentrism? How about these:

(a) Catholic teaching on usury and how it’s changed
(b) The dogma of the Incarnation itself

So Thoughtfulone, if you’re going to try to undermine the Church’s authority with the very nuance at the heart of its theological foundation, then at least pick something better than geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. Please.

Now, that said, Bob Sungenis is a nuance-less hack. What is this “GWW” that he cites? I’d love to familiarize myself with the sources that helped him make himself a slave to rationalism.

Why are you downplaying the fact that the Church has been wrong in the past? Especially when so many here are using “infallibility” to argue the issue of contraception?

If people are telling me that contraception is wrong “bc the Church says so and the Church is infallible,” then bringing up the fact that the Church has been wrong is completely legitimate and shouldn’t be downplayed. It should be taken into consideration.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Confusing?

She’s making a point. She’s saying that the Church has been dead wrong on certain issues in the past and we must use our well formed consciences and God given brains to “asses a teaching or a situation,” rather than just following blindly.

So a church that’s been dead wrong in the past can be trusted to have valid sacraments?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Confusing?

She’s making a point. She’s saying that the Church has been dead wrong on certain issues in the past and we must use our well formed consciences and God given brains to “asses a teaching or a situation,” rather than just following blindly.

Thank you Deborah! This is exactly what I was saying

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Christianity in general is a faith not just of cold, hard, Enlightenment-style rationalism but of paradox, mystery, and wonder - I mean, of course it is, it’s centered around the concept of the Incarnation! This fact about the Christian faith certainly spills over into Catholic ecclesiology in particular, and I resent the deceitful, simplistic, and falsely dichotomous implication that the matter is as simple as you make it.

That’s right. You’re as guilty of intellectual short-sightedness just as much as those who simply issue blanket statements of, “Well, the Church says so, so there.”

So get over this stupid heliocentrism thing. You want to know what constitutes far more rocky territory, logically speaking, than heliocentrism? How about these:

(a) Catholic teaching on usury and how it’s changed
(b) The dogma of the Incarnation itself

So Thoughtfulone, if you’re going to try to undermine the Church’s authority with the very nuance at the heart of its theological foundation, then at least pick something better than geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. Please.

Now, that said, Bob Sungenis is a nuance-less hack. What is this “GWW” that he cites? I’d love to familiarize myself with the sources that helped him make himself a slave to rationalism.

So your whole point is that it is quite simple to show that the Church’s authority can be easily called into question using what you consider to be better examples than heliocentrism, and this is somehow supposed to REFUTE what I am saying? Thanks for helping to illustrate my point and I’m sorry you don’t find the argument on heliocentrism to be all that interesting.

And as to your question: GWW is an abbreviation for the book entitled “Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right”, a book supporting the Catholic Church’s position on geocentrism.

Call the author a nuanceless hack all you want, but his citations of the Church’s councils and statements re: geocentrism over the centuries are spot on. Don’t shoot the messenger.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

So a church that’s been dead wrong in the past can be trusted to have valid sacraments?

Well, you are Catholic, yes? The fact is that the Church HAS been dead wrong, as illustrated above. Do you believe in the validity of the sacraments?

Just because the Church has been wrong on some occasions doesn’t mean that we as Catholics cannot prayerfully and using a combination of scripture, tradition, Church teachings and our own consciences that the Church is absolutely right in other things, in MOST things in fact, just not EVERYTHING.

It’s a matter of faith. I have faith in the Sacraments. That doesn’t mean I have to stick my head in the sand and deny the truth that the Church has been wrong in the past in order to have a basis for that faith. This is what so many people on this site feel the need to do and I JUST DON"T GET IT. The Church being wrong on a few issues doesn’t make the rest of her teachings a load of garbage. Why can’t people see this? The fact that the Church can make a mistake doesn’t have to undermine your faith in the Church and the sacraments as a whole.

 

[Debora123]

So a church that’s been dead wrong in the past can be trusted to have valid sacraments?

Just because there has been human error in the Church regarding a few issues doesn’t mean Catholicism is the wrong religion and everything else about the Church is false.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Just because there has been human error in the Church regarding a few issues doesn’t mean Catholicism is the wrong religion and everything else about the Church is false.

Also it doesn’t mean that human errors in tribunals, would = human error in birth control teaching of the Church. No Christian church accepted the use of contraceptives prior to the 1930’s. Also note that Hasidic Jews and the Orthodox Jews do not believe in the use of contraceptives.

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

 

[Debora123]

No Christian church accepted the use of contraceptives prior to the 1930’s. Also note that Hasidic Jews and the Orthodox Jews do not believe in the use of contraceptives.

So? What do other religions have to do with it? Not that I think what other religions say should have anything to do with this, but If we’re gonna talk about other religions, it would probably work in the favor of contraception NOT being a sin, since most religions out there say it isn’t. Seriously, Catholicism is one of very very few religions that still oppose contraception.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So? What do other religions have to do with it? Not that I think what other religions say should have anything to do with this, but If we’re gonna talk about other religions, it would probably work in the favor of contraception NOT being a sin, since most religions out there say it isn’t. Seriously, Catholicism is one of very very few religions that still oppose contraception.

I just wanted to point out that ABC is a recent schism…so for most of Jadaism and most of Christianity, the use of contraceptives was not allowed.