H
Hitetlen
Guest
Thanks for the good laugh! I could not have said it better myself.
- Status
P
Palamite
Guest
luvmykids,
And since you’re taking the conversation in this direction - since when can a couple be intimate using a condom and not manage to make physical contact with the other person? Last I checked, Trojan/whoever didn’t make hermetically sealed body suits.
Oh, and btw. - your whole thing about the “horror” of having a “barrier” involved is absolutely irrelevent to those couples using say, birth control pills. In which case, would you be willing to say that couples who go that route are not “putting a barrier between each other” (which for whatever reason is terribly important to you.)
If you could just live as brother and sister until whatever situation it is that makes you want to use NFP goes away (if it ever does), why not do that?
I’m sorry, but how does ABC disrespect someone’s body?
Let me get this straight - you don’t see any difference between a husband and wife being intimate while using a condom and someone masturbating?
And since you’re taking the conversation in this direction - since when can a couple be intimate using a condom and not manage to make physical contact with the other person? Last I checked, Trojan/whoever didn’t make hermetically sealed body suits.
Oh, and btw. - your whole thing about the “horror” of having a “barrier” involved is absolutely irrelevent to those couples using say, birth control pills. In which case, would you be willing to say that couples who go that route are not “putting a barrier between each other” (which for whatever reason is terribly important to you.)
L
luvmykids
Guest
Ok, now you are comparing a coat with your spouse. No comparison. If you think there is, then I can see where you are coming from with your ideas about contraception and love, and there is no point then in arguing if that’s how you really feel.
L
luvmykids
Guest
And what?
L
luvmykids
Guest
Hmmmm, I guess you are on the same page. See my response post #123.
L
luvmykids
Guest
Not always, sometimes it’s called asking for trouble.
Where do you get this information from? This must be one of those imaginary consequences you were talking about. In fact I think I’ve heard this before from a couple of 16 year old boys.
Not true, it’s a risk for everyone, try reading the insert that comes with it. It’s not futile when you are talking about the health of someone you love. If risking the health of this person is worth the sexual gratification to you then I rest my case.
Yes it is. It’s also a gift from God, not to be taken for granted, and so are our bodies. Do you see how casual and meaningless sex seems to be to most people in our society? You do have the right to make your own decisions, I never said you didn’t. If you feel that it is the right thing, and deep down inside you feel you are doing nothing wrong and it’s not a sin, then why do you care what the Catholic Church says?
M
manualman
Guest
Cynic and others raise valid points that we catholics must remember.
It can be tempting to declare that couples contracepting aren’t being at all loving and get NONE of the unitive benefit of marital sex. But morality is far more subtle than such over-simplifications. The contracepting couple surely DOES get some, perhaps most of the benefits of the unitive aspect of sex. But that good doesn’t negate the BAD effects that also sneak in along the way like a Trojan horse (yes, pun intended).
I promise to be careful not to convey the impression that catholic teaching on this matter is that couples who contracept obliterate all the beneficial aspects of God’s design for sex. Not the case. The fact that they introduce sin into the act no more obliterates all the good that is in it than does an entire marriage become worthless when a men tells his wife a lie about how many beers he drank when out with the boys. It’s a sin. It has REAL negative effects. But those who DO practice it don’t automatically lose all the unitive benefits of sex. But like that husband’s lie, and like the bulemics stomach acid eating into his/her throat, the sin has steadily building consequences over time and repetition.
As for those who argue that the early Fathers faulty scientific understanding negates their moral teaching about contraception, BEWARE! The fact that they did not have a proper scientific understanding of the nature of conception, does NOT negate the legitimacy of their moral teachings. If you believe that, then you probably don’t believe in the Eucharist anymore since the scientific idea of all matter having both “substance” and “accidents” is archaic and superceded by advances in science.
In both cases, the religious truth is still entirely true even though the scientific basis for the way it was originally explained has been replaced.
Upon further research, I think it might be better to revise my analogy of contraceptives to those ancient Romans who deliberately used vomiting as a means to prolong enormous feasts rather than bulemia. The former is ENTIRELY about self-gratification, while the latter involves complicated body-image issues that have no correlation in contraception.
For any catholics here who are taking the pro-contraception position, I have a question? Have you tried NFP for avoidance of pregnancy (assuming there is a serious reason)? Why not? What’s to be afraid of? Even if you don’t undestand the reasoning, don’t the hand-picked successors of the Jesus apostles deserve the benefit of the doubt for at LEAST a trial period? Would a year of living with NFP really kill you? Is the consistent judgement of the church for 2,000 years really something that ought to be ignored without serious investigation/trial?
Non-catholics, ignore the above questions. Of course, I expect you to not feel that the church’s advice should be taken. Why would you if you believe that everything that comes from the Catholic church is just the ideas of mere men?
It can be tempting to declare that couples contracepting aren’t being at all loving and get NONE of the unitive benefit of marital sex. But morality is far more subtle than such over-simplifications. The contracepting couple surely DOES get some, perhaps most of the benefits of the unitive aspect of sex. But that good doesn’t negate the BAD effects that also sneak in along the way like a Trojan horse (yes, pun intended).
I promise to be careful not to convey the impression that catholic teaching on this matter is that couples who contracept obliterate all the beneficial aspects of God’s design for sex. Not the case. The fact that they introduce sin into the act no more obliterates all the good that is in it than does an entire marriage become worthless when a men tells his wife a lie about how many beers he drank when out with the boys. It’s a sin. It has REAL negative effects. But those who DO practice it don’t automatically lose all the unitive benefits of sex. But like that husband’s lie, and like the bulemics stomach acid eating into his/her throat, the sin has steadily building consequences over time and repetition.
As for those who argue that the early Fathers faulty scientific understanding negates their moral teaching about contraception, BEWARE! The fact that they did not have a proper scientific understanding of the nature of conception, does NOT negate the legitimacy of their moral teachings. If you believe that, then you probably don’t believe in the Eucharist anymore since the scientific idea of all matter having both “substance” and “accidents” is archaic and superceded by advances in science.
In both cases, the religious truth is still entirely true even though the scientific basis for the way it was originally explained has been replaced.
Upon further research, I think it might be better to revise my analogy of contraceptives to those ancient Romans who deliberately used vomiting as a means to prolong enormous feasts rather than bulemia. The former is ENTIRELY about self-gratification, while the latter involves complicated body-image issues that have no correlation in contraception.
For any catholics here who are taking the pro-contraception position, I have a question? Have you tried NFP for avoidance of pregnancy (assuming there is a serious reason)? Why not? What’s to be afraid of? Even if you don’t undestand the reasoning, don’t the hand-picked successors of the Jesus apostles deserve the benefit of the doubt for at LEAST a trial period? Would a year of living with NFP really kill you? Is the consistent judgement of the church for 2,000 years really something that ought to be ignored without serious investigation/trial?
Non-catholics, ignore the above questions. Of course, I expect you to not feel that the church’s advice should be taken. Why would you if you believe that everything that comes from the Catholic church is just the ideas of mere men?
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Good point. And the Church predicted that would happen if artificial contraception came into widespread use.
From Humanea Vitae:
17. Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance.
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Also good point. There is still the expression of marital love, but as opposed to a TOTAL gift of self, it is a PARTIAL gift of self. They might be expressing to each other, “I give you everything, except my fertility. And I accept everything about you, except your fertility.”
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
I still like your original analogy better. I think there can be some complicated body image issues regarding pregnancy that may drive many to contracept.
Women fear becoming fat. The enlarged belly of a pregnant woman hardly appears thin. And while men often prefer curves on a woman, protruding bellies are not considered sexy. Many women never regain their “girlish” figures, instead appear “matronly”.
I recently had my seventh baby, and one of the hardest things about my post-pardon recoveries is always “feeling fat.” People may tell me I “look good”, but it’s qualified with “for just having had a baby.” I think there was a scene in Gone with the Wind with Scarlet O’Hara trying to squeeze her waist into a corset after having a baby, and she didn’t fit.
Yep, the more I think about it, the more I think that body image may drive many to contracept and worse.
L
luvmykids
Guest
You do bring up some very good points. But tell me YOU see the difference between wearing a condom during sex, and putting a coat on when it’s cold out.
A
Aquarius
Guest
And here I thought you brought up the idea of unwanted consequences and how we should deal with them. (I have more success stories like the coat. I am very proud of them.)
A
Aquarius
Guest
Luv wrote:And what?
“If it’s nonsense to you, then great just keep doing what your doing. To me it is not nonsense. It makes A LOT of sense.”
If you recommend that I keep doing what I am doing, are you not saying it is up to the individual?
A
Aquarius
Guest
If someone has substantially incorrect knowledge of biology, then the object of their moral judgement doesn’t exist. Their moral judgement doesn’t matter.
A
Aquarius
Guest
There seems to be an idea that everybody expresses their love the same way in some predefined formula, and certain attitudes are always expressions of love for everybody. How on earth would anyone know?
A
Aquarius
Guest
Perhaps a raincoat would have worked better?You do bring up some very good points. But tell me YOU see the difference between wearing a condom during sex, and putting a coat on when it’s cold out.
L
luvmykids
Guest
Aquarius said:
Of course it is. We all have our own free will. But it doesn’t make it any less a sin. There is obviously nothing any of us can say to make you see where we are coming from on that point. Research it further if you like.
Coming from just a physical standpoint, all morality aside, there is not a contraceptive you can use that does not have a side effect, except maybe a condom, and even those ones with the spermicide cause yeast infections in some women. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t think those things are very intimate, unless maybe you are used to using one. That is the only point I’m trying to make about the condom usage.
L
luvmykids
Guest
Right, just like a lot of people can express their love without having sex at all! They find other ways.
By the way, gardenswithkids was stating a fact, when you contracept, you AREN’T giving your fertility are you? How is this just an idea or an attitude? What do you think the pupose of a contraceptive is? You wouldn’t be giving everything you had at that point it time, you ARE holding back something.
L
luvmykids
Guest
I’m sure you are proud of them, but sometimes when you don’t look at the big picture, the analogies don’t fit. But they are cute.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Is sin a function of the individual and God, or the chorus of busy bodies?Of course it is. We all have our own free will. But it doesn’t make it any less a sin. There is obviously nothing any of us can say to make you see where we are coming from on that point. Research it further if you like.
Coming from just a physical standpoint, all morality aside, there is not a contraceptive you can use that does not have a side effect, except maybe a condom, and even those ones with the spermicide cause yeast infections in some women. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t think those things are very intimate, unless maybe you are used to using one. That is the only point I’m trying to make about the condom usage.
Intimacy is also a function of the individual. Condoms may not be intimate for you. OK. But are you telling everyone else they too should deny the intimacy?
- Status