Do you believe that practicing ABC is morally permissible? Answer if your Catholic only please.

[WetCatechumen]

That is soooo true. That distinction is important to make for a newbie. Especially since there is natural contraception too! (withdrawl) and ABC can be used for non-contraceptive purposes!!! It’s totally a misnomer.

It’s called natural because it is in accordance with the natural law, as well as not using artificial methods.

 

[Bookcat]

It’s called natural because it is in accordance with the natural law, as well as not using artificial methods.

You are meaning here of course “Natural Family Planning” (periodic continence)…(though it is called natural I think due to it being built into nature as a way of knowing if one is fertile or not…(but yes it is not contrary to natural law) which for readers sake is not a form of contraception…all contraception is contrary to the Teaching of the Church…

Compendium of Cat. …issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

---

(** I will be away for a week…pray my trip goes well**)

 

[Pseu]

Um . . . anyone know why I can’t vote?

If I could, I’ve vote no. But only b/c there is no “Oh heck NO!”

 

[LaSainte]

A note to all who have been reading this thread.

Earlier an article was posted …

This article has now been updated:

Here: ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM

Also note the links within the article…especially the commentary on the professio from the CDF

…

I forgot to say one must scroll down to see what was updated…it is at the bottom…the part under the -------------…where it starts commenting on the article above…starts with the words EWTN

I wonder why the Father himself didn’t update the article. The update almost seems like an attack.

 

[LaSainte]

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

This is where is scratch my head. I think that NFP falls under this description. Doesn’t taking one’s daily temperature, charting mucous, putting your hand inside your body to feel internal organs, using ovulation predictor kits, etc. for the sole purpose of determining when one is not fertile so that one can have sex only at those specific times fit this description as well?

I know that people will respond that all of those things do nothing to hinder anything, that they are just making observations, and that NOT having sex isn’t action, but rather INaction, but come on. We all know WHY these observations are made. We all know WHY these people are abstaining, verbal gymnastics aside. These things are all done/not done in order to prevent/avoid/hinder procreation. If only having sex (on purpose, for the sake of NOT conceiving) when the sperm are almost certain to be wasted and die inside your body isn’t hindering procreation, then I don’t know what is. Whether the man pulls out and the sperm die in a towel, or he intentionally only ejaculates into an infertile woman, I see very little difference.

And please do not use the argument that NOT having sex can’t be a sin, because I am talking about intent here (as is the above quote). If you just HAPPEN to have sex when the woman is infertile fine, just as if you accidentally ejaculate outside of the woman, it is not sinful. But to intentionally only ejaculate into a woman who you know to be infertile for the sake of preventing pregnancy seems equivalent to intentionally ejaculating into a towel. In both cases, you are intentionally placing the sperm where and when they have no hope or chance of accomishing their intended purpose.

I just don’t see a difference.

 

[Paxvobis]

The average Catholic who spends much time on this forum is probably more devout than the average Catholic who doesn’t. That might account for the poll numbers here being opposite of the poll numbers of Catholics nationally.

That said, most Catholics are for contraception because in my opinion,

First, we’re a little too much of the world these days,

And secondly, the teaching hasn’t been explained well on the parish level.

The view is very prevalent that the Church is against artificial contraception because they have a problem with sex in and of itself, which is not true. What the Church has a problem with is sex being viewed as one’s selfish goal (e.g. "I want to get laid tonight) versus sex being viewed as a means to an end (the end of producing a more fruitful union of mutual sacrifice and love between the couple, as well as producing children God willing).

Contraception divorces sex from it’s natural end, mainly the entrance of man into the creative power of God. It makes a mockery of the power God gave us in the Garden of Eden for that purpose.

Once one understands the natural end of sex, one stops believing in contraception, homosexual sex, premarital sex, and masturbation. They are philosophically incompatible with the Truth.

 

[Pug]

We all know WHY these observations are made…

because I am talking about intent here (as is the above quote)…

I just don’t see a difference.

The why and the intent can be the same. The Church acknowledges this. Yet for many goals in this world, there exist different ways to accomplish the same goal. Some ways are okay, some are not. The “means” is how one goes about accomplishing the “end”.**2399 **The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
The phrase “legitimate intentions” is saying that the ends are okay, often enough. The only issue is if the person tries to use the wrong means to accomplish the goal. So that you can know that this language I am using is standard, here is another paragraph:**1759 **“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

To summarize, if there is a good goal and two ways to get there, one good or indifferent, and one disordered, then it is fine to pick the good or indifferent way to get there, but you can’t pick the disordered one.

 

[Little_One0307]

Um . . . anyone know why I can’t vote?

If I could, I’ve vote no. But only b/c there is no “Oh heck NO!”

Pseu,

Yes Observing and Trial Members cannot vote in the polls.

But I will tally in your vote as well.

God bless.

 

[LaSainte]

The why and the intent can be the same. The Church acknowledges this. Yet for many goals in this world, there exist different ways to accomplish the same goal. Some ways are okay, some are not. The “means” is how one goes about accomplishing the “end”.**2399 **The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
The phrase “legitimate intentions” is saying that the ends are okay, often enough. The only issue is if the person tries to use the wrong means to accomplish the goal. So that you can know that this language I am using is standard, here is another paragraph:**1759 **“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

To summarize, if there is a good goal and two ways to get there, one good or indifferent, and one disordered, then it is fine to pick the good or indifferent way to get there, but you can’t pick the disordered one.

I suppose I just don’t see the moral difference between ejaculating into an infertile vagina and ejaculating into a towel. Technically, the man is ejaculating into a place where conception is impossible.

Honestly, I think this is just a slippery slope argument against homosexual sex, masturbation, etc. As long as the Church holds the front at ejaculation only in the vagina, it draws a clear line for them. The problem is that it doesn’t make amwhole lot of rational sense knowing what we know now about conception and timing and even the biological makeup of the semen itself.

 

[Debora123]

This is where is scratch my head. I think that NFP falls under this description. Doesn’t taking one’s daily temperature, charting mucous, putting your hand inside your body to feel internal organs, using ovulation predictor kits, etc. for the sole purpose of determining when one is not fertile so that one can have sex only at those specific times fit this description as well?

I know that people will respond that all of those things do nothing to hinder anything, that they are just making observations, and that NOT having sex isn’t action, but rather INaction, but come on. We all know WHY these observations are made. We all know WHY these people are abstaining, verbal gymnastics aside. These things are all done/not done in order to prevent/avoid/hinder procreation. If only having sex (on purpose, for the sake of NOT conceiving) when the sperm are almost certain to be wasted and die inside your body isn’t hindering procreation, then I don’t know what is. Whether the man pulls out and the sperm die in a towel, or he intentionally only ejaculates into an infertile woman, I see very little difference.

And please do not use the argument that NOT having sex can’t be a sin, because I am talking about intent here (as is the above quote). If you just HAPPEN to have sex when the woman is infertile fine, just as if you accidentally ejaculate outside of the woman, it is not sinful. But to intentionally only ejaculate into a woman who you know to be infertile for the sake of preventing pregnancy seems equivalent to intentionally ejaculating into a towel. In both cases, you are intentionally placing the sperm where and when they have no hope or chance of accomishing their intended purpose.

I just don’t see a difference.

THIS right here is EXACTLY what I cannot hope to understand no matter how hard I’ve tried. Let me know if it ever starts making sense to you. Maybe you’ll have a better way of explaining it than what I’ve gotten so far.

 

[Debora123]

The why and the intent can be the same. The Church acknowledges this. Yet for many goals in this world, there exist different ways to accomplish the same goal. Some ways are okay, some are not. The “means” is how one goes about accomplishing the “end”.

So if the intent doesn’t matter in this case, then you’d be suggesting that wearing a condom is a sin in and of itself, completely independent from the INTENTION involved in wearing a condom.

I don’t see why wearing a rubber glove over a penis is a mortal sin. If we’re not talking about intent here, then that’s all it really is - wearing a piece of rubber over a body part.

… And this, alone, is a mortal sin that would send someone to eternal damnation???

 

[Seatuck]

Do you ladies truly understand the purpose of the marital act? Do you understand that this is the way in which spouses renew their marriage vows with their bodies? Do you understand that there is a reflection of the trinity in the marital act? There is something lacking in your understanding of this. I haven’t p(name removed by moderator)ointed exactly what it is yet. If you seriously don’t see the difference between a husband and wife making love and a man and a towel then not sure what can be done .
Try this. I’ll see what else I can dig up. I’ve seen just about everything offered to you to with no gain in understanding being reached. Have really read the resources that others have suggested to you in these multiple threads on this topic? Theology of the Body etc?

christendom-awake.org/pages/may/summary-sexuality.htm

 

[Seatuck]

Look into some teachings on Marriage and the Eucharist. Here’s one and I’m sure Christopher West has one.

biblechristiansociety.com/download

 

[Debora123]

Do you ladies truly understand the purpose of the marital act? Do you understand that this is the way in which spouses renew their marriage vows with their bodies? Do you understand that there is a reflection of the trinity in the marital act? There is something lacking in your understanding of this. I haven’t p(name removed by moderator)ointed exactly what it is yet. If you seriously don’t see the difference between a husband and wife making love and a man and a towel then not sure what can be done .
Try this. I’ll see what else I can dig up. I’ve seen just about everything offered to you to with no gain in Have really read the resources that others have suggested to you in these multiple threads on this topic? Theology of the Body etc?

christendom-awake.org/pages/may/summary-sexuality.htm

LaSainte wasn’t referring to a man making love to a towel. She was referring to pulling out during climax.

 

[PatriceA]

I suppose I just don’t see the moral difference between ejaculating into an infertile vagina and ejaculating into a towel. Technically, the man is ejaculating into a place where conception is impossible.

Honestly, I think this is just a slippery slope argument against homosexual sex, masturbation, etc. As long as the Church holds the front at ejaculation only in the vagina, it draws a clear line for them. The problem is that it doesn’t make amwhole lot of rational sense knowing what we know now about conception and timing and even the biological makeup of the semen itself.

There have been plenty of couples that were deemed infertile by science but as Catholics were “open to life” and went on to become pregnant. God can and will perform medical miracles if its His will to do so. All married couples are to be open to life, unless there are serious reasons to avoid doing so. Ejaculating into a towel is not being open to life.

 

[LaSainte]

THIS right here is EXACTLY what I cannot hope to understand no matter how hard I’ve tried. Let me know if it ever starts making sense to you. Maybe you’ll have a better way of explaining it than what I’ve gotten so far.

Haha I’ll let you know, but honestly, without some sort of religious supernatural epiphany, I cannot even imagine that I will ever come to really get this teaching. I have thought about it 1000 different ways and it always comes down to this for me.

 

[LaSainte]

LaSainte wasn’t referring to a man making love to a towel. She was referring to pulling out during climax.

Exactly. Nobody is making love to a towel. I don’t consider the act of ejaculation to be the “be all and end all” of lovemaking. The Church does for some reason I will never understand. For me, everything leading up to the orgasm of either party is even more important than just that split-second release of semen into a vagina. Believe me, I get that we must be procreative. I just don’t think it has to be EVERY TIME. just like I understand that eating has to be nutritive, but I don’t have to eat all 4 food groups at every single meal or be guilty of a mortal sin. Every once in awhile, I can have cake for breakfast, so long as it’s not every day

 

[Pug]

I suppose I just don’t see the moral difference between ejaculating into an infertile vagina and ejaculating into a towel. Technically, the man is ejaculating into a place where conception is impossible.

Honestly, I think this is just a slippery slope argument against homosexual sex, masturbation, etc. As long as the Church holds the front at ejaculation only in the vagina, it draws a clear line for them. The problem is that it doesn’t make amwhole lot of rational sense knowing what we know now about conception and timing and even the biological makeup of the semen itself.

But with the towel, we are failing to execute the most basic of steps in our control to complete the act in a way suited to procreating, provided nature/our bodies/God provides the remainder. We are not responsible to ensure the fertility of the act, just its basic suitability to the purpose. We make a reasonable attempt to do what is suitable for the situation, but then other factors control the experienced outcome. Having sex when the woman is past childbearing is a reasonable attempt to be suitable, but other factors will control that outcome.

I truly wish I could set your mind at ease on this. I can only answer you with my understanding here, LaSainte. I felt that I did have the answer to your previous post, which was why I spoke, but this post of yours is harder for me.

For example, you might say that withdraw is in itself suited to procreation, since sometimes this method produces a child. But I don’t think it is reasonable to select this as a completed act. The act truly seems incomplete to me at that stage according to how things of themselves wish to be.

 

[LaSainte]

There have been plenty of couples that were deemed infertile by science but as Catholics were “open to life” and went on to become pregnant. God can and will perform medical miracles if its His will to do so. All married couples are to be open to life, unless there are serious reasons to avoid doing so. Ejaculating into a towel is not being open to life.

Sure it is. If God wants me to become pregnant, He can make this happen whether I use a condom or have my tubes tied or use NFP and I would certainly accept that pregnancy and love any resulting baby more than my own life. My attitude toward that lIfe is exactly the same regardless of the method of birth control. It will always be “Oh ****”, followed by acceptance, followed by unimaginable love for my baby.

 

[Corki]

But with the towel, we are failing to execute the most basic of steps in our control to complete the act in a way suited to procreating, provided nature/our bodies/God provides the remainder. We are not responsible to ensure the fertility of the act, just its basic suitability to the purpose. We make a reasonable attempt to do what is suitable for the situation, but then other factors control the experienced outcome. Having sex when the woman is past childbearing is a reasonable attempt to be suitable, but other factors will control that outcome.

I truly wish I could set your mind at ease on this. I can only answer you with my understanding here, LaSainte. I felt that I did have the answer to your previous post, which was why I spoke, but this post of yours is harder for me.

For example, you might say that withdraw is in itself suited to procreation, since sometimes this method produces a child. But I don’t think it is reasonable to select this as a completed act. The act truly seems incomplete to me at that stage according to how things of themselves wish to be.

How did this get to be about ejaculation? The ejaculating into a towel comment is just gross!

To stop in the middle of the marital act seems to be the exact opposite of being fully self-giving. I can’t think of anything more depressing than if my husband wanted to have sex with me but not “all the way”. This is so sad.