Contraception hypothetical

[tjm190]

Not a clue here where this is coming from.

Love the blue- I’m saying that sex can be planned around a woman’s fertile times without much in terms of communication.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…And I’ve said it before with respect to faith- I can truthfully pray the Nicene Creed. That is all the faith that should be required if the Church claims to base it’s positions off of the faith it professes.

Good. Prayer is important. Might I suggest that you spend time meditating on the phrase “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life.” Also maybe reflect on what these phrases mean and how they might relate to accepting the Church teaching on matters we may not yet understand: “He has spoken through the prophets” and “We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.”

 

[tjm190]

Good. Prayer is important. Might I suggest that you spend time meditating on the phrase “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life.” Also maybe reflect on what these phrases mean and how they might relate to accepting the Church teaching on matters we may not yet understand: “He has spoken through the prophets” and “We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.”

The belief in God as Christianity understands and His influence on humanity, who’s word is conveyed through a select few men (prophets), and the belief in one community of believers (breaking the order here, but that’s Church) that is unified (one), bears God’s approval (Holy), meant for all of mankind (Catholic), and bears the responsibility of keeping and spreading the teachings of it’s founder (Apostolic.)

Don’t confuse the word catholic with the name of our Church- if that was the intended meaning, other denominations wouldn’t include it in their recitation of the prayer.

 

[gardenswithkids]

The belief in God as Christianity understands and His influence on humanity, who’s word is conveyed through a select few men (prophets), and the belief in one community of believers (breaking the order here, but that’s Church) that is unified (one), bears God’s approval (Holy), meant for all of mankind (Catholic), and bears the responsibility of keeping and spreading the teachings of it’s founder (Apostolic.)

Don’t confuse the word catholic with the name of our Church- if that was the intended meaning, other denominations wouldn’t include it in their recitation of the prayer.

Wow. You meditate fast.

Words, words, words. What do they mean? Protestants often change the word “Catholic” to “Christian” in the creed, but some use the word “Catholic” without intending to say they believe in the Catholic Church–even though that is what they say. The word “one” used to literally mean there was One Church–that was before the split. The word “Apostolic” can also relate to the line of succession from Jesus to the Apostles that continues to this day in the Pope and Bishops. (Apostolic succession is also found in the Eastern Church.)

The biggest line that stood out to me in the Creed when I was personally struggling with an issue related to this was: “The Lord, the Giver of Life.” I’ll share some of my own reflection on that line. Life comes from God. *He *is the source of life, and it is “very good.” That’s what He said when He looked upon His creation of man. I think He still says that each time He creates a child.

As your original post attested, a couple using a condom can become pregnant if it is God’s will. God can do that. Jesus walked through locked doors, so God’s life giving power certainly can penetrate latex. But why should we make God always walk through locked doors and latex in order to do His will? Can’t we who claim to trust Him be a little more open to Him than that? Children are a gift from God, and the Lord and Giver of Life may not want to often give such precious blessings to couples who would lock Him out of their bedrooms.

Getting pregnant is not like jumping off a bridge or tripping on your shoelaces as seemed to compare “unwanted” pregnancy to in previous posts. When we do not see children and life as God sees them, contracepted sex may seem very appealing.

I really invite you once again to meditate and reflect–really meditate and reflect–on how you really view the gift of fertility and children.

 

[tjm190]

Wow. You meditate fast.

Words, words, words. What do they mean? Protestants often change the word “Catholic” to “Christian” in the creed, but some use the word “Catholic” without intending to say they believe in the Catholic Church–even though that is what they say. The word “one” used to literally mean there was One Church–that was before the split. The word “Apostolic” can also relate to the line of succession from Jesus to the Apostles that continues to this day in the Pope and Bishops. (Apostolic succession is also found in the Eastern Church.)

The biggest line that stood out to me in the Creed when I was personally struggling with an issue related to this was: “The Lord, the Giver of Life.” I’ll share some of my own reflection on that line. Life comes from God. *He *is the source of life, and it is “very good.” That’s what He said when He looked upon His creation of man. I think He still says that each time He creates a child.

As your original post attested, a couple using a condom can become pregnant if it is God’s will. God can do that. Jesus walked through locked doors, so God’s life giving power certainly can penetrate latex. But why should we make God always walk through locked doors and latex in order to do His will? Can’t we who claim to trust Him be a little more open to Him than that? Children are a gift from God, and the Lord and Giver of Life may not want to often give such precious blessings to couples who would lock Him out of their bedrooms.

Getting pregnant is not like jumping off a bridge or tripping on your shoelaces as seemed to compare “unwanted” pregnancy to in previous posts. When we do not see children and life as God sees them, contracepted sex may seem very appealing.

I really invite you once again to meditate and reflect–really meditate and reflect–on how you really view the gift of fertility and children.

Well since the word “Catholic” was placed in the prayer before there was a church called the “Catholic Church” or anything like of that sort makes
Again, what makes you think God wills the creation of new life 100% of the time? Of course children are a possibility during every sexual act between a man and a woman, but that does not mean a sexual act that does not result in a child is incomplete or invalid. Therefore, an act that reduces the probability of a possible side effect of the contraceptive act does not diminish it’s value. And, like it or not, while children and life are gifts from God, pregnancy and raising a child are burdens, and a family may not always be able to properly raise a child due to monetary or health reasons.
And speaking of God’s will being done- the Catholic position is that abstinence is preferable to contraceptive sex. If we God always, 100% of the time desires new life to be created, wouldn’t contraceptive sex be preferable given that the rate of failure (varying from 15 to 2 or so percent) is significantly greater than zero?

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Again, what makes you think God wills the creation of new life 100% of the time? Of course children are a possibility during every sexual act between a man and a woman, but that does not mean a sexual act that does not result in a child is incomplete or invalid…

I do not think God wills the creation of life 100% of the time whenever a couple engages in the marriage act. Obviously He doesn’t since He created women with naturally occuring infertile times during their cycles. Couples struggling with infertility can also attest to the fact that God does not will pregnancy each and every time. Married women who have undergone medical hysterectomies can continue to morally engage in sex with their husbands. You seem to make the assumption that just because a woman can get pregnant from uncontracepted sex means she will get pregnant. That’s not true–it sort of takes fertility and pregnancy for granted when one makes that assumption. As you wrote. not getting pregnant does not “invalidate” the marriage act.

…that does not mean a sexual act that does not result in a child is incomplete or invalid. Therefore, an act that reduces the probability of a possible side effect of the contraceptive act does not diminish it’s value…

I assume you meant “conceptive act” or “conception”, and if so, you took a big jump in logic from your one statement (which I agreed with above) to the next. An action to reduce the probability of pregnancy changes the marital act. Rather than the “total self giving” as God designed it, the spouses give *almost *everything but withhold giving each other whatever fertility they may happen to have. That’s a slightly different act from when married couples give whatever fertility they may have to each other. While contraception may not completely invalidate the marriage act, it diminish it. The spouses give something less than everything they’ve got.

…And, like it or not, while children and life are gifts from God, pregnancy and raising a child are burdens, and a family may not always be able to properly raise a child due to monetary or health reasons…

Yep, sometimes that happens. The Church recognizes that, which is why the Church teachings allow couple to make use of the woman’s infertile times if they have just reasons to avoid pregnancy.

…And speaking of God’s will being done- the Catholic position is that abstinence is preferable to contraceptive sex. If we God always, 100% of the time desires new life to be created, wouldn’t contraceptive sex be preferable given that the rate of failure (varying from 15 to 2 or so percent) is significantly greater than zero?

Nope. Once again, this assumes God’s will for sexuality relates only to the reproductive aspects of sex. Remember the Church teaches sex to be* both* pro-creative and unitive. God wills for us to respect the way He designed the sexual act, and to respect our own body and our spouse’s body.

Abstaining from the marriage act can be a way to show great respect for it. For example, a couple who loves each other but who abstains from sex before marriage demonstrates great respect for both each other and the marriage act. Similarly, married couples who prayerfully discern that they should avoid pregnancy can abstain during the woman’s fertile time, showing respect for both each other’s fertility and the marriage act.

 

[tjm190]

I do not think God wills the creation of life 100% of the time whenever a couple engages in the marriage act. Obviously He doesn’t since He created women with naturally occuring infertile times during their cycles. Couples struggling with infertility can also attest to the fact that God does not will pregnancy each and every time. Married women who have undergone medical hysterectomies can continue to morally engage in sex with their husbands. You seem to make the assumption that just because a woman can get pregnant from uncontracepted sex means she will get pregnant. That’s not true–it sort of takes fertility and pregnancy for granted when one makes that assumption. As you wrote. not getting pregnant does not “invalidate” the marriage act.

You did nothing but agree with me here, which was kinda the point

I assume you meant “conceptive act”, and if so, you took a big jump in logic from your one statement (which I agreed with above) to the next. An action to reduce the probability of pregnancy changes the marital act. Rather than the “total self giving” as God designed it, the spouses give *almost *everything but withhold giving each other whatever fertility they may happen to have. That’s a slightly different act from when married couples give whatever fertility they may have to each other. While that may not completely invalidate the marriage act, it diminish it. They give something less than everything they’ve got.

“Giving fertility”? Dressing the human reproductive system up in flowery terms does not change it. If a couple mutually agrees that reproducing would not be in their best interest or that of the child, then the only responsible action would be to reduce the probability of it. If you wanted to call that a “denial” you are welcome to.

Yep, sometimes that happens. The Church recognizes that, which is why the Church teachings allow couple to make use of the woman’s infertile times if they have just reasons to avoid pregnancy.

Which has a typical failure rate of up to 25%. Quite a gamble. Would using a condom and NFP be allowable? Such a process would have all of the tangible benefits of NFP, but lowered odds of the outcome the couple wishes to avoid. (using the highest typical failure rates- .25*.15=.0375)

Nope. Once again, this assumes God’s will for sexuality relates only to the reproductive aspects of sex. Remember the Church teaches sex to be* both* pro-creative and unitive. God wills for us to respect the way He designed the sexual act, and to respect our own body and our spouse’s body.

Abstaining from the marriage act can be a way to show great respect for it. For example, a couple who loves each other but who abstains from sex before marriage demonstrates great respect for both each other and the marriage act. Similarly, married couples who prayerfully discern that they should avoid pregnancy can abstain during the woman’s fertile time, showing respect for both each other’s fertility and the marriage act.

You followed this logical path in your first two sentences- Action A is respectful. For example, action A demonstrates great respect.

 

[newbetx]

an act that reduces the probability of a possible side effect of the contraceptive act does not diminish it’s value.

Now, It’s easily misunderstood by many the difference in using NFP to avoid. When a couple uses NFP to avoid and have sex, they say:
Lord, we thank you for our blessings. We trust in you to provide for us. Help us love one another in the way you intended for us. We don’t think at this time we should have another child. We’ve been obedient to you and respectful of your laws. If you will it, we will lovingly accept the child you bring us.

First, a contraceptive act sends this message: “Lord, we care about our personal pleasure. We reject the posibility of a gift from you because we have no self control. Please don’t send us a kid at this time. Oh, and by the way, we don’t trust you so we’ve taken measures into our own hands.”

No change in value of the act? Then I don’t think you understand the value of the act past the cultural perspective of “entertainment.” Sex is meant to be a serious, conscience, completely loving action. Not a spectator sport. Sex is best when ALL is given and nothing, including the possibility of pregnancy, is withheld.

If you want to fool yourself, like I did, it’s your choice. Well, not really. It would also have to be the choice of your future spouse. But you are not married, nor sexually active (according to your post on another thread) so I don’t think you really can understand at this time. Hopefully by the time you marry, you will consider what we are saying.

 

[gardenswithkids]

You did nothing but agree with me here, which was kinda the point…

Yes, we can be very agreeable people here. Your previous post that tried to state my position showed that you misunderstood it. If you thought we wouldn’t agree, you misunderstood portions of the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex and reproduction.

…Dressing the human reproductive system up in flowery terms does not change it. …

Again we agree. Dressing up the human reproductive system in flowery terms does not change the human reproductive system. On the other hand, contraception changes the human reproductive system. Condoms add a latex surface to a man’s man-parts. Diaphams place latex (and spermacide–a substance designed to kill sperm) within a woman’s female parts. IUD are placed deep into the woman’s body to her uterus. Birth control pills send disruptive artificial hormones throughout a woman’s body. Sterilization slices apart functioning tubes and vas deferons. I think you get the idea. Contraception works by changing the human reproductive system.

… If a couple mutually agrees that reproducing would not be in their best interest or that of the child, then the only responsible action would be to reduce the probability of it…

For the most part, we agree again! The terms used in Church documents are along the lines of “have just* reasons for avoiding pregnancy.” Sometimes the word “just” is translated as serious or grave. The Church has not defined what constitutes a “just” reason for avoiding pregnancy, but leaves it to individual couples to discern in prayer.

BUT…here’s where NFP varies significantly from those using contraception. The only “action” required to use NFP involves the observation and charting of a woman’s fertility. Observation and charting will not prevent pregnancy unless the couple agrees NOT to take an action–specifically if they agree not to have sex when she’s fertile. And here again is a big difference from contraception. “Honey, why are we abstaining? Are you sure we still have good reasons to avoid pregnancy? Honestly, sweetheart, the baby’s getting older and.…” Communication. Prayer. “Lord, what do You want us to do this cycle?”

You mentioned you’re not married, so I assume you don’t have experience with contraception. My experience with contraception (and most of my friend’s experience with contraception) is much closer to auto-drive. The couple mutually agrees once, and the discussion is over for the next several months to years. If someone changes his/her mind and wants to start talking about a baby, the other spouse may not want to talk about it.

… Which has a typical failure rate of up to 25%. Quite a gamble. …

I don’t know where you got that number for NFP. If a couple has serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy, they will likely abstain whenever there’s any chance that the woman is fertile. If a couple’s reasons for avoiding pregnancy are less that serious, they may not abstain. If they are not serious about charting and abstaining, they aren’t serious about wanting to avoid pregnancy. And if they don’t have a just/serious/grave reason to avoid pregnancy, then they shouldn’t be avoiding. NFP to avoid has a sort of built-in correction system so that couples avoiding pregnancy for less that “just” reasons won’t be as tempted to follow it.

… Would using a condom and NFP be allowable? Such a process would have all of the tangible benefits of NFP, but lowered odds of the outcome the couple wishes to avoid…

“Allowable?” God gives us free will. He judges the heart with both perfect mercy and perfect justice. He doesn’t always expect us to change bad habits overnight. (I think contraception often becomes a “bad habit”.) If the couple took your suggestion as a baby step down the road towards ultimately from giving up contraception towards trying to follow Church teachings, they’re at least headed in the right direction. Does it follow the “letter of the law?” No.

BUT…I don’t know what exactly you mean for them to do. Do you mean abstain during the woman’s fertile time, but use a condom during her non-fertile times? Of do you mean engage in contracepted relations during the woman’s fertile times? A couple that knows the woman is fertile and who uses a condom during her fertile time has a high chance of pregnancy. And…if an unwanted pregnancy occured they might blame NFP and not the condom that broke or failed, misleading people into believe that NFP has a high failure rate such as what you stated above…

 

[Rico_S]

Newb:

I know you are passionate about this topic, and I admire your zeal, but…

First, a contraceptive act sends this message: “Lord, we care about our personal pleasure. We reject the posibility of a gift from you because we have no self control. Please don’t send us a kid at this time. Oh, and by the way, we don’t trust you so we’ve taken measures into our own hands.”

This is ridiculous. Each sentence in this is either wrong, or can also be said of using NFP to avoid. You won’t convince anyone with this stuff. You will be far better off just saying contraceptive sex is wrong b/c the church says so. You must submit to her authority.

 

[newbetx]

Newb:

I know you are passionate about this topic, and I admire your zeal, but…

This is ridiculous. Each sentence in this is either wrong, or can also be said of using NFP to avoid. You won’t convince anyone with this stuff. You will be far better off just saying contraceptive sex is wrong b/c the church says so. You must submit to her authority.

Well, there is a subtlety between the two… NFP to avoid and contraceptive acts. Maybe I didn’t do too well, here.
“Because the church says so” doesn’t seem to convince anyone, either. I’ll keep practicing. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Rico_S]

Well, there is a subtlety between the two… NFP to avoid and contraceptive acts. Maybe I didn’t do too well, here.

No, you do a good job at describing the difference between the two. The problem arises in explaining the “why” one is bad and one is not.

“Because the church says so” doesn’t seem to convince anyone, either. I’ll keep practicing.[/qutoe]
Perhaps talk more about mortal sin, fires of hell, eternal torment…that used to work pretty will back in the day.

 

[newbetx]

No, you do a good job at describing the difference between the two. The problem arises in explaining the “why” one is bad and one is not.

“Because the church says so” doesn’t seem to convince anyone, either. I’ll keep practicing.[/qutoe]
Perhaps talk more about mortal sin, fires of hell, eternal torment…that used to work pretty will back in the day.

 

[tjm190]

Now, It’s easily misunderstood by many the difference in using NFP to avoid. When a couple uses NFP to avoid and have sex, they say:
Lord, we thank you for our blessings. We trust in you to provide for us. Help us love one another in the way you intended for us. We don’t think at this time we should have another child. We’ve been obedient to you and respectful of your laws. If you will it, we will lovingly accept the child you bring us.

First, a contraceptive act sends this message: “Lord, we care about our personal pleasure. We reject the posibility of a gift from you because we have no self control. Please don’t send us a kid at this time. Oh, and by the way, we don’t trust
you so we’ve taken measures into our own hands.”

You seem woefully biased in your analysis-
Both couples are having sex, so both care about their pleasure
Contraception does not reject the possibility of a child any more than NFP
Both state that they would rather not have a child
NFP does not specifically praise God anymore than contraceptive sex
Both a family using contraceptives and one using NFP can lovingly accept a child
I’ve said it a million times, you take things into your own hands all time- that doesn’t make it immoral.

No change in value of the act? Then I don’t think you understand the value of the act past the cultural perspective of “entertainment.” Sex is meant to be a serious, conscience, completely loving action. Not a spectator sport. Sex is best when ALL is given and nothing, including the possibility of pregnancy, is withheld.

I understand the unitive aspect of sex has value outside of the possibility of pregnancy.

If you want to fool yourself, like I did, it’s your choice. Well, not really. It would also have to be the choice of your future spouse. But you are not married, nor sexually active (according to your post on another thread) so I don’t think you really can understand at this time. Hopefully by the time you marry, you will consider what we are saying.

Again, assuming those that those that disagree with you have fooled themselves doesn’t help anyone

 

[tjm190]

Yes, we can be very agreeable people here. Your previous post that tried to state my position showed that you misunderstood it. If you thought we wouldn’t agree, you misunderstood portions of the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex and reproduction. Again we agree. Dressing up the human reproductive system in flowery terms does not change the human reproductive system. On the other hand, contraception changes the human reproductive system. Condoms add a latex surface to a man’s man-parts. Diaphams place latex (and spermacide–a substance designed to kill sperm) within a woman’s female parts. IUD are placed deep into the woman’s body to her uterus. Birth control pills send disruptive artificial hormones throughout a woman’s body. Sterilization slices apart functioning tubes and vas deferons. I think you get the idea. Contraception works by changing the human reproductive system.

And immunosuppressants work by killing off your own immune system when you are in a state in which your immune system’s function would be undesirable (i.e. transplant patients/ auto immune diseases)- that doesn’t make them immoral.

And my point was this- A couple using contraceptives would say they are reducing the odds of an unwanted outcome of the act they are planning to engage in (although probably not in those words.) You would claim that they are denying their full selves to each other/altering the beauty of the sexual act.

Take another scenario- A guy (who happens to be me) asks his Muslim friend why there are no portraits/pictures of people allowed in Islam. I said that pictures are harmless ways to remember past friendships/give us a representation of something we can actually see. He said pictures of animate needlessly and excessively glorify Earthly creatures by attempting to immortalize them.

The couple and I were in a similar situation- we were looking at the situation for what it is, but someone with no knowledge of our intention projected something completely different upon it. There is no refutation of such statements- projections can not be properly disputed in a logical way. But using your own terms to make something seem like more than it is is still not a valid form of argument.

For the most part, we agree again! The terms used in Church documents are along the lines of “have just* reasons for avoiding pregnancy.” Sometimes the word “just” is translated as serious or grave. The Church has not defined what constitutes a “just” reason for avoiding pregnancy, but leaves it to individual couples to discern in prayer.

Yep

BUT…here’s where NFP varies significantly from those using contraception. The only “action” required to use NFP involves the observation and charting of a woman’s fertility. Observation and charting will not prevent pregnancy unless the couple agrees NOT to take an action–specifically if they agree not to have sex when she’s fertile. And here again is a big difference from contraception. “Honey, why are we abstaining? Are you sure we still have good reasons to avoid pregnancy? Honestly, sweetheart, the baby’s getting older and.…” Communication. Prayer. “Lord, what do You want us to do this cycle?”

Honey, why are we using contraception? Are you sure we still have good reasons to avoid pregnancy? Honestly, sweetheart, the baby’s getting older and.…" Communication. Prayer. "Lord, what do You want us to do the next time we have sex?
Point=made

You mentioned you’re not married, so I assume you don’t have experience with contraception. My experience with contraception (and most of my friend’s experience with contraception) is much closer to auto-drive. The couple mutually agrees once, and the discussion is over for the next several months to years. If someone changes his/her mind and wants to start talking about a baby, the other spouse may not want to talk about it.

See above

I don’t know where you got that number for NFP. If a couple has serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy, they will likely abstain whenever there’s any chance that the woman is fertile. If a couple’s reasons for avoiding pregnancy are less that serious, they may not abstain. If they are not serious about charting and abstaining, they aren’t serious about wanting to avoid pregnancy. And if they don’t have a just/serious/grave reason to avoid pregnancy, then they shouldn’t be avoiding. NFP to avoid has a sort of built-in correction system so that couples avoiding pregnancy for less that “just” reasons won’t be as tempted to follow it.

There’s always a chance that the woman will conceive unless there is something medically wrong- and although abstinence is an option, it completely excludes unitive sex from a marriage. And we know that’s not good. Btw (came from wiki, but I check the source at the bottom- 2-25% is the typical failure rate)

Allowable?" God gives us free will. He judges the heart with both perfect mercy and perfect justice. He doesn’t always expect us to change bad habits overnight. (I think contraception often becomes a “bad habit”.) If the couple took your suggestion as a baby step down the road towards ultimately from giving up contraception towards trying to follow Church teachings, they’re at least headed in the right direction. Does it follow the “letter of the law?” No.

I meant using contraception during the woman’s infertile times- obviously the pill wouldn’t be the best idea since it could make the couple more prone to error.

 

[tjm190]

BUT…I don’t know what exactly you mean for them to do. Do you mean abstain during the woman’s fertile time, but use a condom during her non-fertile times? Of do you mean engage in contracepted relations during the woman’s fertile times? A couple that knows the woman is fertile and who uses a condom during her fertile time has a high chance of pregnancy. And…if an unwanted pregnancy occured they might blame NFP and not the condom that broke or failed, misleading people into believe that NFP has a high failure rate such as what you stated above…

“misleading”? NFP has a typical failure rate of 2%-25% of those actively attempting to use it. And a couple that conceived while using NFP and a condom would clearly understand that for a conception to take place, BOTH methods would have failed.

 

[gardenswithkids]

“misleading”? NFP has a typical failure rate of 2%-25% of those actively attempting to use it…

You previously wrote “up to 25%”, which is different from saying 2-25% since you didn’t acknowledge the low end of the number. Most every form of birth control has “user error”, (such as the woman on birth control pills who forgets to take them.) As a former NFP user, I can tell you that it can be incredibly tempting to “cut corners” on the abstinance required for avoiding pregnancy, especially if one or both spouses begin to question their reasons for avoiding pregnancy. I might consider failing to abstain the requirred amount of time to avoid pregnancy “user error” rather than a simply reflection of the effectiveness of NFP. Or I might even consider that a “success” for NFP because if a couple doesn’t have a good reason to avoid pregnancy, they have no business trying to avoid pregnancy. As I wrote previously, the abstinance required for effective NFP has a built-in correction for those who might misuse it.

 

[newbetx]

You seem woefully biased in your analysis-
No moreso than you.

Both couples are having sex, so both care about their pleasure
I hope so.

Contraception does not reject the possibility of a child any more than NFP
There is something not right about this statement. One does not have contraceptive sex ASSUMING it will fail. A couple is purposly attempting to frustrate a process given to them by God. That is a problem. God doesn’t require us to have sex. But if we do, he expects us to do it the right way.

Your argument for contraceptive sex is based on a numbers game. You can not reduce sex to a “roll the dice” scenario.

Both state that they would rather not have a child
True.

NFP does not specifically praise God anymore than contraceptive sex
You’ve got me here. I forgot. Many athiests use NFP. Of course some go to church, too. (Fact I found out from another thread.) You are correct. NFP methods are not tied to faith. However, it takes greater faith to have sex using NFP than a condom wouldn’t you suppose?

Both a family using contraceptives and one using NFP can lovingly accept a child
Eventually or in the present? A woman on the pill calls up her doctor and screams: “The )&#% pill didn’t work!” A wife tells her husband with a vasectomy… “I’m pregnant.” Does the husband respond with “that’s great, honey.” or “You have something else you want to tell me honey?”

Now, don’t think I don’t know that NFP can be practiced with the “contraceptive mentality.” It can. The “contraceptive mentality” I talk about is key to the difference here. And I’ve done a poor job of preparing you to understand the difference.

I’ve said it a million times, you take things into your own hands all time- that doesn’t make it immoral.
I understand your statement. But taking something into your own hands doesn’t make it moral, either. Like killing someone who has wronged you or someone else but he’s the police cheif’s son. Again. more preparation is needed for you to pick up on the difference.

I understand the unitive aspect of sex has value outside of the possibility of pregnancy.

It does, but it looses value when the possibility of pregnancy is removed by the participants . See my CCC references. Until you understand this dual purpose of sex, we won’t be able to discuss this and get to an end.

Again, assuming those that those that disagree with you have fooled themselves doesn’t help anyone.

I’m sorry if I came off as pretentious. I meant that I understand where you are coming from because I was once there too. I am firmly convinced now that I was fooling myself for many years with the same arguments you present. They are far from new.

There are two ways to look at this subject. Once I understood the TOB way, I saw it as good and saw contraception, masturbation, and fornication for what they are. Cheap immitations of true and total love.

I really only want you to know that concept, too. We have a choice in how we view love. You really do have to “take all of it or none of it.” Yes, removing one tree does spoil this forrest.

As I’ve told many here. One can not build the forrest one tree at a time. Logically, it makes no sense to anyone. One must accept the forrest in all it’s glory. To do so requires a journey, not a debate on a few stand alone subjects.

Peace to you.

 

[kage_ar]

Sad that people have come to feel that marriage was made for sex, instead of understanding that sex was made for marriage.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…" Communication. Prayer. "Lord, what do You want us to do the next time we have sex?
Point=made.
Point not made.

Couples using contraception can do that, in theory, but in practice most don’t or at least likely don’t regularly on a monthly basis.

Many common forms of contraception, (such as hormonal methods or IUDs), can’t be “turned off” immediately the next time the couple has sex. Barrier methods can, but habits are hard to change. Using contraception becomes a habit for many or most couples. NFP charting can become a habit, and I suppose avoidance during a woman’s fertile time might become habit for some couples. However, the sacrifice of abstaining encourages couples to re-assess the situation while couples who are not making such a sacrifice may be less inclined to think, talk and pray about it.

…And my point was this- A couple using contraceptives would say they are reducing the odds of an unwanted outcome of the act they are planning to engage in (although probably not in those words.) You would claim that they are denying their full selves to each other/altering the beauty of the sexual act.

…we were looking at the situation for what it is, but someone with no knowledge of our intention projected something completely different upon it. There is no refutation of such statements- projections can not be properly disputed in a logical way. But using your own terms to make something seem like more than it is is still not a valid form of argument…

Please stop trying to guess what I would say or think. I would recognize that they are both reducing their odds of pregnancy* and* altering the beauty of the sexual act.

And I probably wouldn’t guess too much at their intention. It is God who judges their hearts–I’m only discussing the action. I have known some very lovely, God-fearing Protestants who use contraception because they don’t know any better. I’ve also seen a Protestant pastor look at my large family with both a love and a little sadness while he told me, a virtual stranger at a funeral, how he wanted more children but how his wife refused. I have a wonderful Catholic friend whose husband made the decision for them that there would be no more children–no more discussion even though she wanted more. While we’re discussion how couples decide and discuss and pray about these things, the sad reality (that you don’t seem aware of) is often contraception is not a mutual decision. One person may be witholding the fertility the other spouse may desperately want.