T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
And yet the Church has no problem with human interference when it comes to GETTING pregnant by manipulating your body/cycles through the use of drugs and hormones.
- Status
S
samiam1611
Guest
!!! good point !!!
B
Bookcat
Guest
AGAIN it is NOT about nature vs technology.
It is about the very nature of Marriage and the Marital act!!
One can do various things to help nature along…or even stop a natural process (like a headache). That is not the question. We are not “anti-technology” nor do we “put nature vs technology”
And by the way…as to the marital act and fertility…one can “assist” things…via drugs and hormones…but one cannot separate the unitive from the procreative here either!!
Hence IVF etc is contrary to Marriage and the Marital act. And gravely sinful along with contraception.
*
It is all about the reality and meaning of Marriage*
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
Not true. The Church is fine with medical intervention that restores health and normal bodily function (including fertility). It’s my understanding that much IVF technology is actually against Catholic teaching.
Thoughtfulone, if you have time, I responded to your Church/contraception question in post 111 and I’m wondering if you have a reply.
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
If this ids the case, I wonder why the Church doesn’t ever mention the mindset of the people having sex, only that certain physical requirements must be met.
For example, the “marriage debt” as they call it, where a spouse sins mortally if turning down a spouse for sex just because they might not feel like having sex. Where is this “total giving of self” here? Hey, as long as the body is there and nobody tries to physically prevent conception, the Church seems to care little about the psychological/emotional/spiritual side. It seems we are to consider a “total giving of self” to mean our bodies alone.
I know the Church would say this is untrue, but these points seem to indicate otherwise IMO.
D
davidv
Guest
Based on the small sampling below, your claim of Church omissions rings quite hollow.
The Church clearly teaches many things besides the physical when it comes to marriage and sexuality.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
If grandmother had been a good user of ABC this thread would be moot…
M
mark_a
Guest
At one point, we lived in a culture that thought, at least publically, that Onanism (which is really what condom usage is) was a sin, although it was widely practiced privately.
One of the benefits of the pill was that, at least on a technicality, Onanism was avoided.
And then the abortifecient properties (another technicality depending on when one believes life begins) of hormonal contraceptives, touted by the manufacturers’ own information included in the packaging along with the drugs, became widely known as something to be avoided by Catholics and sundry other Christians.
So now we’re back to the same arguments promoting Onanism, which has been condemned for 3000 years by the Abrahamic religions.
It’s all very confusing.
A
AndyT_81
Guest
Hi thoughtfulone,
If I may jump in again…
What we can’t do while avoiding error is to frustrate the final causes of natural things, i.e. in ABC. Just to re-iterate, this is not an artificial vs natural argument. Rather it is a final cause vs frustrating final cause argument.
Again, I hope this helps. God bless
If I may jump in again…
In such cases, drugs and hormones are assisting the function (i.e. final cause) of the reproductive organs, due to some deficiency. A similar example might be medicines to improve heart function. The final cause, function, or essence of the heart is to pump blood around the body. However, this doesn’t mean that in the fallen world we inhabit it will always operate according to plan - but that doesn’t negate the fact that hearts are supposed to pump blood around the body. We can use medicine to restore the original function or final causes of things, as this is using our rationality, which is also God given, to improve the world and make it more like God originally intended.
What we can’t do while avoiding error is to frustrate the final causes of natural things, i.e. in ABC. Just to re-iterate, this is not an artificial vs natural argument. Rather it is a final cause vs frustrating final cause argument.
Again, I hope this helps. God bless
S
samiam1611
Guest
I resent that. I did not think that I had made any indication that I thought y’all were clueless about real life, but if I did, you have my apologies, and please know it was unintentional. I’m not sure why you say I think I know best, am I not here, on a Catholic forum, to educate myself on what exactly is best, in the off-chance I’ve got it all wrong? I’m here to learn about your morals and how that translates into your actions. Christians often want other people to share their beliefs and to behave as morally as them (i.e. by evangelizing, and by not being pro-choice) so I assumed you too would at least subconsciously want me to see it your way. Apparently my assumption was as wrong as yours. I had hoped my questions would not sound purely argumentative, they are genuine I assure you. True, it’s very doubtful I’ll ever come around, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say what’s best for me is what’s best for you, nor would I say that what I am doing is right by God. It’s just right by me. I’m not questioning any persons’ faith, morals, or life choices, what I’m questioning is why the Church has declared certain things to be immoral and sinful when they don’t [necessarily] seem that way to me.
A
Abu
Guest
As the Christ’s sole Church, empowered with His authority, She explains and interprets His creation, which includes the natural moral law.
Women have been created with infertile periods by God and there is no divine law which mandates that they not be used. With Natural Birth Regulation, for serious reasons, they may be used legitimately.
By using contraceptives a couple intentionally puts a barrier against the procreative function ordained by God. This has no relation whatsoever to the assistance to better health by medical means as an aid to human well-being. The efficiency of contraception is irrelevant to its morality and the intention.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
Respctfully, this is a thread about contraception. When I addressed your concerns, you turned sharply to another topic. I totally get how the two are connected, but they are different issues. If you’d like to talk about the marriage debt, it may be better to start a new thread, if only to attract more interest. (I’ve noticed the phrase “marriage debt” is one of those lightning rods in thread titles, kind of like “contraception”.) Of course, if you want to talk about it here, it is your thread.
If you don’t want to start a new thread, I’d like to address your above post but first I am wondering if, to any degree, you’ve been able to put the contraception/NFP question to rest.
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
I wouldn’t say I’ve been able to put it to rest. I particularly do not see a true difference between NFP and condoms or even sterilization if one has had several children or medically should not become pregnant.
The Bible has proven time and time again that if God has a vested interest in a person becoming pregnant, they WILL become pregnant, no matter what. I don’t think He really cares all that much if I use NFP or some other method to contracept.
I think the whole “total self-giving” thing is a contradiction, and is not a good argument against contraception at all, considering the fact that my state of mind during the act doesn’t seem to be a major factor in whether or not I am giving fully of myself. Suffice it to say it is not a mortal sin for me to have sex when my mind is totally NOT into it, so “total self-giving” seems to refer only to the physical aspect of sex.
Anyway, for now, I’m obedient to the Church, and after this baby, I think we will be doing NFP, but if I get pregnant again, I don’t think I will have the strength to resist going against Church teaching because I just don’t find the arguments to be that compelling.
Who knows? If I’m lucky, maybe the doc will accidentally tie my tubes during my C-section
D
davidv
Guest
The substantial differences between NFP and contraception has been provided by multiple posters in a number of different ways. I am sorry you are unable to see the difference.I wouldn’t say I’ve been able to put it to rest. I particularly do not see a true difference between NFP and condoms or even sterilization if one has had several children or medically should not become pregnant.
The Bible has proven time and time again that if God has a vested interest in a person becoming pregnant, they WILL become pregnant, no matter what. I don’t think He really cares all that much if I use NFP or some other method to contracept.
I think the whole “total self-giving” thing is a contradiction, and is not a good argument against contraception at all, considering the fact that my state of mind during the act doesn’t seem to be a major factor in whether or not I am giving fully of myself. Suffice it to say it is not a mortal sin for me to have sex when my mind is totally NOT into it, so “total self-giving” seems to refer only to the physical aspect of sex.
Anyway, for now, I’m obedient to the Church, and after this baby, I think we will be doing NFP, but if I get pregnant again, I don’t think I will have the strength to resist going against Church teaching because I just don’t find the arguments to be that compelling.
Who knows? If I’m lucky, maybe the doc will accidentally tie my tubes during my C-section
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
Oh, I see a difference, just not a moral one.
D
davidv
Guest
That (the moral difference) is what was presented.
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
I am aware that you see a difference between ABC and NFP morally speaking. I do not.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
I didn’t know you were expecting, congratulations! I hope all is well with your pregnancy.I wouldn’t say I’ve been able to put it to rest. I particularly do not see a true difference between NFP and condoms or even sterilization if one has had several children or medically should not become pregnant.
The Bible has proven time and time again that if God has a vested interest in a person becoming pregnant, they WILL become pregnant, no matter what. I don’t think He really cares all that much if I use NFP or some other method to contracept.
I think the whole “total self-giving” thing is a contradiction, and is not a good argument against contraception at all, considering the fact that my state of mind during the act doesn’t seem to be a major factor in whether or not I am giving fully of myself. Suffice it to say it is not a mortal sin for me to have sex when my mind is totally NOT into it, so “total self-giving” seems to refer only to the physical aspect of sex.
Anyway, for now, I’m obedient to the Church, and after this baby, I think we will be doing NFP, but if I get pregnant again, I don’t think I will have the strength to resist going against Church teaching because I just don’t find the arguments to be that compelling.
Who knows? If I’m lucky, maybe the doc will accidentally tie my tubes during my C-section
Are you feeling like God has no intentions for sex other than occasional baby making and enjoyment for married couples?
In some ways there* is *no difference between ABC and NFP. They’re both methods of birth control often used for the exact same good reason. I do think that appreciating the difference in physical form between contracepted and non-contracepted sex is a starting point for us to learn about God’s intentions for the marital embrace. If you have the time or inclination, *Theology of the Body *takes a very good look at the physical, spiritual and emotional aspects of both sex (ie. male and female) and sex from a Catholic point of view. Even reading a few lines can give you something to ponder.
God will not make women pregnant without human participation. Even Mary said “yes” first. My children can’t comprehend how deeply I care about every part of their lives. I doubt we could comprehend the depth of God’s care.
If a married couple is having sex and one spouse’s mind is totally NOT into it, there certainly could be serious sin involved-on the part of the other spouse. How can any self-giving happen when one spouse is engaging in sex against the other’s wishes?
One last bit of unsolicited advice
: If you’re interested in making NFP work, consider how the secular world does it. Authors like Toni Weschler and Katie Singer are great resources for fertility awareness. Weschler even has a forum and, after years of struggling with NFP, I may have fixed my own long, irregular cycles using “lunaception” as described in one of Singer’s books. It’s good reading.During my last pregnancy, my doctor warned me that due to potential complications after delivery, I could require an emergency hysterectomy. My first thought was, “Hmm, no more NFP…”. So, I may have you beat on irrational sterilization wishes.
A
Abu
Guest
No really thoughtful Catholic can fail to differentiate clearly between the evil and the truth. No dissent is allowed from the infallible doctrine of Christ through His Church.
As Fr Stephen Torraco lucidly explains: re assisting nature in healing:
Assisting nature for mankind
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on July 10 2007:
The art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is a wonderful thing. Human beings do it in many different ways. For example, the plumbing in your house assists nature in quenching your thirst. The moral problem arises when we oppose nature, as in the case, for example, of in vitro fertilization, so called “gay marriage,” and contraception.
Clear cut:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on June 19, 2006:
If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. 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. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.
[Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church].
S
sherimarie
Guest
You were right to observe that the total self giving refers to the 'Phsyical aspect of sex", You just don’t see how your body language is effected by ABC during the sex act, YOU may be thinking you are giving yourself totally but the fact remains you are holding back. Nfp does not use the fertile time therefore there is no holding back.
- Status