Contraception question...again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thoughtfulone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
samiam1611 said:
“The language of the body that is meant to express self-gift becomes mixed with another message, a contrary message—namely, the refusal to give oneself entirely”

Can I interject with a question? I mentioned this in my very first post but it was never answered to my satisfaction and y’all seem to to know your stuff. With regards to the red statements in particular:
Having sex while on birth control - I would be giving myself to my spouse - self-giving - out of love, for the unitive purpose any time I want or he wants.
I understand (well sorta) that having sex while on birth control is not giving oneself entirely, it’s the unitive without the procreative purposes, etc, and why that’s wrong. But I don’t understand how abstaining - and not just from sex, but from all sexually pleasing acts - is better. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this and I still don’t get it.

I don’t see how denying my partner the gift of my body because it is a fertile time of my cycle is preferable to using contraception. Isn’t **better to give MOST of myself than NONE of myself? **It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely!
Click to expand...
By using contraception one is not engaging in marital intercourse. One is not giving oneself to ones spouse but engaging in a non-marital sexual act of intercourse which is by its very nature is (as contraceptive) a* lustful act* by definition. Even if one seeks to “give to” one spouse there by.

Contraception ruins what could be a wonderful enactment of their marital love.

(similarly a non-marital sexual act of intercourse by a couple who are not married where in one seeks to “give” to the other…is also lustful…no matter what the intention is and no matter what “signs of affection” are exchanged during it)

NFP is simply knowing ones fertile time and that has some serious reason to avoid that month…so the couple decide to abtain during that time while of course continuing to express their love in all the varied ways in life that one can do so (and it remain love…not lust…)
 
samiam1611 said:
“The language of the body that is meant to express self-gift becomes mixed with another message, a contrary message—namely, the refusal to give oneself entirely”

Can I interject with a question? I mentioned this in my very first post but it was never answered to my satisfaction and y’all seem to to know your stuff. With regards to the red statements in particular:
Having sex while on birth control - I would be giving myself to my spouse - self-giving - out of love, for the unitive purpose any time I want or he wants.
I understand (well sorta) that having sex while on birth control is not giving oneself entirely, it’s the unitive without the procreative purposes, etc, and why that’s wrong. But I don’t understand how abstaining - and not just from sex, but from all sexually pleasing acts - is better. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this and I still don’t get it.

I don’t see how denying my partner the gift of my body because it is a fertile time of my cycle is preferable to using contraception. Isn’t **better to give MOST of myself than NONE of myself? **It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely!
Click to expand...
No-one will answer it because there is no good answer. The magisterium would tell you that if you really don’t want a baby or if having one will kill you, then you need to remain abstinent for the rest of your life/until you can no longer become pregnant again ever.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
so…?

Each act of intercourse must be ordered towards procreation…So what if the couple abstains six days, I can abstain for a year, and one act of intercourse with a condom would still be sinful.
Click to expand...
In other words, because the Church says so…
 
Thoughtfulone said:
No-one will answer it because there is no good answer. The magisterium would tell you that if you really don’t want a baby or if having one will kill you, then you need to remain abstinent for the rest of your life/until you can no longer become pregnant again ever.
Click to expand...
I think the answers provided by Church are sufficient…and the Church does not teach what you stated.
 
samiam1611 said:
“The language of the body that is meant to express self-gift becomes mixed with another message, a contrary message—namely, the refusal to give oneself entirely”

Can I interject with a question? I mentioned this in my very first post but it was never answered to my satisfaction and y’all seem to to know your stuff. With regards to the red statements in particular:
Having sex while on birth control - I would be giving myself to my spouse - self-giving - out of love, for the unitive purpose any time I want or he wants.
I understand (well sorta) that having sex while on birth control is not giving oneself entirely, it’s the unitive without the procreative purposes, etc, and why that’s wrong. But I don’t understand how abstaining - and not just from sex, but from all sexually pleasing acts - is better. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this and I still don’t get it.

I don’t see how denying my partner the gift of my body because it is a fertile time of my cycle is preferable to using contraception. Isn’t **better to give MOST of myself than NONE of myself? **It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely!
Click to expand...
I can only guess what the question is “giving oneself” is not a reference to relations exclusively. for example when an unmarried woman “gives herself temporarily” to a man she does not intend to marry, that is a different use of the phrase. Catholics who give themselves in marriage do so in ALL FORMS, old and young, good and bad, etc… That is why one must not only give in relations but outside of relations. Even give strength to the spouse when relations should be avoided which occurs for many reasons. Artificial means actually prevent the need to give oneself in the catholic way. Similarly unitive is not being used to refer to a temporary biological arrangement but rather a live long co-dependence.
Thoughtfulone said:
In other words, because the Church says so…
Click to expand...
By no means, you may reject all reason but you have only yourself to blame for such actions. Consequences are results of actions.

hope that helps
 
This also doesn’t bring into consideration of what couples are supposed to do if one of them has HIV. This “one answer fits all” type of logic doesn’t work when someone has HIV. No one on this board can convince me that they would become abstinent if they became infected with HIV. We are not robots. Condoms clearly are a blessing for those with certain STD’s. Everything has a purpose - it’s not all black and white or good or bad.
 
Observer3 said:
This also doesn’t bring into consideration of what couples are supposed to do if one of them has HIV. This “one answer fits all” type of logic doesn’t work when someone has HIV. No one on this board can convince me that they would become abstinent if they became infected with HIV. We are not robots. Condoms clearly are a blessing for those with certain STD’s. Everything has a purpose - it’s not all black and white or good or bad.
Click to expand...
on the level of physical life or death…

Did I hear someone say “Russian roulett” ?

(no offense to the Russians)
 
Observer3 said:
This also doesn’t bring into consideration of what couples are supposed to do if one of them has HIV. This “one answer fits all” type of logic doesn’t work when someone has HIV. No one on this board can convince me that they would become abstinent if they became infected with HIV. We are not robots. Condoms clearly are a blessing for those with certain STD’s. Everything has a purpose - it’s not all black and white or good or bad.
Click to expand...
So even with the known chance that a condom can break. I know we are not robots, we have choice, so make the right one, I mean if you had a spouse would you really put him or her at risk to satisfy your own needs. Even if it was the other way around where you had it, would you really give in to his/her demands for sex if you knew you would be potentially hurting them in the end. Love is sacrifice, Jesus himself showed us that. Is getting your rocks off for a small amount of time really worth it?
 
Lets look at what Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrande wrote:
Procreation and the communion of love must never deliberately be separated
Click to expand...
That a new human being should issue from it is certainly part of the solemn grandeur of this supremely intimate union. The wonderful, divinely-appointed relationship between the mysterious procreation of a new human being and this most intimate communion of love (which by itself alone already has its full importance), illuminates the grandeur and solemnity of this union.
Click to expand...
Thus it is that in order to preserve the reverent attitude of the spouses toward the mystery in this union, this general connection between procreation and the communion of love must always be maintained even subjectively, at least as a general possibility of this act.
Click to expand...
It is difficult to imagine a greater lack of reverence toward God than interfering with this mystery with desecrating hands in order to frustrate this mystery. How terrible to think of man wanting to destroy this unity which God has established so mysteriously, deeming those united in the highest earthly union of love worthy to take part in His creative power. To go against God’s purposes through a desecrating interference, perhaps even thus to throw back into the void a being that God had intended to exist - what sacrilegious presumption
Click to expand...
!

ewtn.com/library/marriage/sipmarrg.htm
 
  1. But why can’t a married couple simply choose the unitive aspect of marriage and temporarily block or even permanently prevent its procreative nature? The answer is as simple and radical as the Gospel itself. When spouses give themselves honestly and entirely to each other, as the nature of married love implies and even demands, that must include their whole selves – and the most intimate, powerful part of each person is his or her fertility. Contraception not only denies this fertility and attacks procreation; in doing so, it necessarily damages unity as well. It is the equivalent of spouses saying: “I’ll give you all I am – except my fertility; I’ll accept all you are – except your fertility.” This withholding of self inevitably works to isolate and divide the spouses, and unravel the holy friendship between them . . . maybe not immediately and overtly, but deeply, and in the long run often fatally for the marriage.
Click to expand...
  1. This is why the Church is not against “artificial” contraception. She is against all contraception. The notion of “artificial” has nothing to do with the issue. In fact, it tends to confuse discussion by implying that the debate is about a mechanical intrusion into the body’s organic system. It is not. The Church has no problem with science appropriately intervening to heal or enhance bodily health. Rather, the Church teaches that all contraception is morally wrong; and not only wrong, but seriously wrong. The covenant which husband and wife enter at marriage requires that all intercourse remain open to the transmission of new life. This is what becoming “one flesh” implies: complete self-giving, without reservation or exception, just as Christ withheld nothing of Himself from His bride, the Church, by dying for her on the cross. Any intentional interference with the procreative nature of intercourse necessarily involves spouses’ withholding themselves from each other and from God, who is their partner in sacramental love. In effect, they steal something infinitely precious – themselves – from each other and from their Creator.
Click to expand...
  1. And this is why natural family planning (NFP) differs not merely in style but in moral substance from contraception as a means of regulating family size. NFP is not contraception. Rather, it is a method of fertility awareness and appreciation. It is an entirely different approach to regulating birth. NFP does nothing to attack fertility, withhold the gift of oneself from one’s spouse, or block the procreative nature of intercourse. The marriage covenant requires that each act of intercourse be fully an act of self-giving, and therefore open to the possibility of new life. But when, for good reasons, a husband and wife limit their intercourse to the wife’s natural periods of infertility during a month, they are simply observing a cycle which God Himself created in the woman. They are not subverting it. And so they are living within the law of God’s love.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CHAPUTHV.HTM
 
Thoughtfulone said:
O.K., but there are artificial medical procedures and medicines that DO interrupt the way the body works (and SHOULD work) normally in order to achieve the desired results, and as far as I know, they are not sinful. Just a couple of examples of this would be gastric bypass surgery or lap-band implantation for weight loss (which causes a digestive system that functions normally to function abnormally by restricting the amount that a person is able to eat), or weight loss pills like ALLI (which cause the body to absorb less fat than normal). Even voluntary plastic surgery, while possibly frowned upon, is not considered to be a sin under normal circumstances (i.e., having a procedure on something that really bothers a person, such as their teeth).

So if the argument against non-abortive birth control methods is that they interfere with a normally perfectly functioning body to achieve results, whereas NFP is working WITH a God-given healthy body to achieve results, then why are the aforementioned medications/procedures considered licit?
Click to expand...
I asked the same question here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=501962

The difference is that the procedures you mentioned work by forcing you to consume food in proper amounts. Sterilisation works by thwarting the natural end of sex all the while allowing you to enjoy as much non-procreative sex as your heart desires.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
If they did you would not have posted, and it is abundently clear you did not want the answers to the original questions, so what are you really doing?
Click to expand...
I’m just asking WHY the Church teaches this, since all the reasons I listed that people generally give are not consistent, so there MUST be some other reason.

And yes, the Church does teach that if it will rupture my uterus and kill me to have another child, then I either need to use NFP and pray that I don’t die, or never have sex again until I am 55 and no longer able to have kids.
 
KostyaJMJ said:
I asked the same question here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=501962

The difference is that the procedures you mentioned work by forcing you to consume food in proper amounts. Sterilisation works by thwarting the natural end of sex all the while allowing you to enjoy as much non-procreative sex as your heart desires.
Click to expand...
But having plastic surgery does nothing to enhance anything except for appearances for the sake of vanity and yet it is not illicit. I don’t get it. Obviously the prohibition isn’t in changing a part of the body that works perfectly already for purely selfish reasons with no health benefit or nose jobs would be sinful.
 
Thoughtfulone said:
I’m just asking WHY the Church teaches this, since all the reasons I listed that people generally give are not consistent, so there MUST be some other reason.

And yes, the Church does teach that if it will rupture my uterus and kill me to have another child, then I either need to use NFP and pray that I don’t die, or never have sex again until I am 55 and no longer able to have kids.
Click to expand...
The “WHY” has been explained to you a number of times on other threads. Are you sure you want to understand? Through all of theses discussions the Church’s official teaching has not changed, and most of the inconsistency you see is due to your misunderstanding of individuals emphasizing specific aspects of these teachings.

If you truely want to understand I strong suggest you read Pope John Paul II’s book, Male and Female He Created Them.

How is the special circumstance above any different the a women, who due to accident or injury is no longer able to enjoy the marital embrace? We all have our cross to bear.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
I can only guess what the question is “giving oneself” is not a reference to relations exclusively.
Click to expand...
It was specifically a reference to two spouses having intercourse - the marital act. From this document. It is a paper you might want to read, Thoughtfulone.
Bookcat said:
By using contraception one is not engaging in marital intercourse. One is not giving oneself to ones spouse but engaging in a non-marital sexual act of intercourse which is by its very nature is (as contraceptive) a* lustful act* by definition. Even if one seeks to “give to” one spouse there by.

Contraception ruins what could be a wonderful enactment of their marital love.

(similarly a non-marital sexual act of intercourse by a couple who are not married where in one seeks to “give” to the other…is also lustful…no matter what the intention is and no matter what “signs of affection” are exchanged during it)

NFP is simply knowing ones fertile time and that has some serious reason to avoid that month…so the couple decide to abtain during that time while of course continuing to express their love in all the varied ways in life that one can do so (and it remain love…not lust…)
Click to expand...
Ok I kind of get what you’re saying. It’s the statement I highlighted in red that I am still not quite getting (I mean basically, I disagree with it, not that it is literally confusing.)

In differentiating NFP from ABC, the whole lust/restraint makes sense; that part of the issue is relatively clear to me. What I’m still struggling to understand (among other things :confused: ) is this:
The unitive aspect is not just about lust. Or not necessarily about lust. For instance, sometimes I’ll do it even if I don’t feel like it at first, bc I love him and want to please him and make him happy. Therefore - not lust (on my part anyway). It’s the gift of myself - self-giving. (borrowing that phrase from HV). Another instance - if we are having a spat, a little tension and discord that evening - neither of us might not feel like it but we do it anyway - and immediately, our bond is strengthened, our love reaffirmed.
Why is that so bad? Why would the Church/God want to deprive of us that just because it’s a fertile time of the cycle and we’re trying to avoid pregnancy?
It’s statements like “total mutual self giving between spouses,” “give themselves fully to one another,” “inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality” that make me not understand why preventing/reducing fertility is so bad - if we mutually give ourselves totally and fully and lovingly, how can that be a sin, just bc we are using ABC?
The popes, bishops, Church fathers, etc who wrote this stuff were not married, correct? Maybe they did not fully understand the dynamics within a marriage? How come unmarried people got to make the rules?
The thing that may help me understand why NFP is licit and ABC is not is to grasp the idea that love should be expressed through other ways when pregnancy is not desired, and that lust is not okay; giving into lustful feelings is not okay. You see, I am not Catholic, so that is not something I was taught. (And reading something written long ago isn’t exactly enough to change my mind just like that; just because it’s tradition does not convince me.) So before I can really embrace the whole thing, I think I need to first change my thinking on lust, and the value of restraint.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me guys, and for teaching me about your faith in a way the CCC and HV cannot. It’s all just a bit of food for thought for me. Sorry Thoughtfulone if I hijacked your thread a bit. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top