From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[Blacksword]

:yup::yup::yup: …meaningless and objectively selfish…and indeed non marital.

I cannot agree with this. Giving pleasure to another is by definition an unselfish act.

 

[SonCatcher]

Hahaha, love the choice of wording!

It’s as good a reason to try it out as eating pesticide-free veggies and free-range meat.

 

[Bookcat]

I cannot agree with this. Giving pleasure to another is by definition an unselfish act.

Such is not the case…it can be…but need not. The Contraception renders the act selfish and non-marital. (thus it is also an act of lust objectively)

 

[Debora123]

Yes, you can still be Catholic and disagree with a teaching…but you must still adhere to the teaching even if you disagree. The **rejection **of the teaching is where you reject the Authority of the Church, and thus reject the Church…a Church that Christ established…and Authority that Christ gave. If you know the Church’s teaching on contraception (which you do) and you disagree (which you do), you still haven’t crossed that line. However, if you reject that teaching by engaging in the condemned behavior (which you say you do, please tell me if I’m wrong) you are now rejecting the Church.

Okay, you disagree bariers are intrinsically evil. How familiar are you with the Catechism? If I do some research on this will you actually read it or am I wasting my time?

Ok, I’ll reword it. One can still be Catholic while doing something that is against the teachings of the Church. I’m not excommunicated, I’m not a protestant. And until the Pope speaks out and says “those who use condoms are no longer Catholics and banned from the Church,” I will still be a Catholic.

I appreciate you volunteering your time, but yes, I am familiar with it and have read up on this issue A LOT. I’ve pretty much heard every reason out there for why this is wrong. Chances are, whatever you tell me will be something I’ve heard before, many times. Thanks anyway though.

God bless.

 

[puzzleannie]

from the combined experience of women of my generation who are the first who came of age, courted and married when the sex revolution was in full swing and reliable chemical contraception first became available (and there are studies on this):
sex with ABC is distant, ungiving and unreceptive and frustrates growth of true intimacy and almost universally is reported by older women who divorce to have made them feel used and unloved. It is about each individual’s response and enables and even forces disregard of the other partner’s responses and needs.

sex with NFP means both man and wife are intimately connected with and aware of her body and its biology, cycles, needs and responses. decisions and actions are mutual so the element of control, threats, sex as reward/punishment and other unhealthy dynamics are usually eliminated, frankly because nfp leaves no time for those games. Consistent use of NFP requires cooperation in the most intimate areas so fosters true intimacy.

Even better, total trust and reliance on God for timing of children leads to stronger spirituality for both partners and for the family.

ABC-endless medical, psychological and marital problems are almost guaranteed. The physical toll alone from long term artificial chemical manipulation of the female cycle is only now being documented and fights an uphill battle with the death-dealers to even be recognized and publicized.

 

[Bookcat]

Now of course the comment can come where someone says “contraception is good for my marriage”. My experience of it is good.

Not to get into the all the details that it is not good…(one can read all sorts of books etc on the subject)…instead lets look at the general idea of something being good that in fact is an objectively grave evil. Where a person may think their “experience” justifies such an action.

Lets use a different moral issue (though still a grave matter like Contraception) Sometimes this helps …and though they are fictional…and hopefully more far fetched then real (though given our world it is possible) …I hope they will help.

Leo and Sally are married…they are engaged in adultery with others…and are very unhappy. They have a conversion …and repent of their deeds and set out to follow Christ faithfully and to be faithful to each other. The find this really also helps their marriage. And they find that they have new life in him here…and look forward to being with him…happy they are not longer living in a way that would send them to hell but are following he who is life. Many like couples experience the same and objectively they are doing good.

Sam and Sue are married. Their marriage is troubled. They are always fighting about Sam’s unhappiness about Sue not want sexual relations so often. They are terribly unhappy. Sam prays about it…and decides that God will understand if he finds a companion on the side for the sake of his family…heck men have done so in all ages. Sam decides to have an affair on the side. The fighting practically goes away entirely…the affair continues for years and years…and they report their marriage is now happy. Sam in a discussion with a friend with similar problems…suggests he get a girl on the side…for this has saved their marriage and they are now happy.…and when he later meets with his friend…he finds his friend has had the same experience…so he is confirmed in his feeling…I had to save my family…it was good for my marriage…

So it can be said that some find that adultery is helpful to their marital happiness…

Does that make it “good”?

No.

Can there be spiritual consequences to such…yes …of the most grave kind.

The ends do not* justify* the means.

Adultery and other gravely evil proposals are well… evil …they are contrary to God…and* even if someone experiences some “temporal” happiness* …even if they think “this will help my marriage”…or “this is good for such and such”…“I need to do such and such otherwise such and such will happen”…

It is the age old thing that the Bible talks about…the choosing of some temporal or “apparent” happiness…over God and true happiness…true life.

Now is it possible that they have a really erroneious conscience that God will take into account?..it is possible…is it possible for some other things to reduce the culpability?..yes it is…but I would not count on either…for often we can be at least guilty along the way in getting there… (read Pope Benedict XVI in Spe Salvi!) and these are very dangerous waters…to say the least…and we have a duty to correct a conscience in error…

Many though perhaps listen to their feelings or even rationalize things away…and think in terms of the temporal good…“this helps my marriage” …“I need to do what the Church thinks is wrong but it is the Church that is wrong” (misunderstanding the nature of the Church and her authority etc)…or “If I do not do X …Y will happen and Y will be bad for me or for my family”…etc…

Such is not the way to go…we are to find another way…the right way.

A “temporal benefit” …a “temporal happiness”…is not necessarily a true happiness and certainly not the final happiness we are called to. A temporal happiness is not worth the exchange.

Jesus is very clear though: what does it profit for a man to gain the whole world…and loose his soul…? ( see Mark 8:36)

 

[Muze]

What is quite interesting is to actually read the words from Human Vitae:

Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

It seems to me that NFP is a method that, in anticipation of the conjugal act, purposes to render procreation impossible. In this case by determining when the conjugal act might result in procreation, and planning the conjugal act to specifically avoid that period.

It’s also interseting that the Church appeals to “natural law” when establishing this “ordered act”, and yet even in nature, there are many species who have sex without any intent of procreation, but appear to do it purely for pleasure. Dolphins come to mind.

It also seems clear from the text that the purpose of the sexual relationship is to reflect God’s image in marriage. “In His image He created them”… and “… the two shall become one flesh.” The clear implication, here, is that the sexual act is intended to reflect the nature of the trinity as two become one in marriage. There is no hint of procreation in this act. Only the unity of the sexual bond.

Thus, we can easily conclude that sexual intercourse that has no intention of procreating, and indeed may even use contraception can still reflect the image of God, because there is no need for the act to be procreative to be reflective.

How odd for the Church to elevate natural law over the text of Scripture.

Finally, the Church, in its zeal to condemn contraception, has corrupted the story of Onan, making his disobedience to the order to produce children for his dead brother to continue his line of no importance, and rather elevating coitus interruptus to be the heart of the story, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Onan was put to death for not producing offspring for his brother. The means was irrelevant. Had Onan used NFP, he still would have been killed.

Perhaps the Church would be better off leaving disputable matters as disputable.

 

[Odell]

Basically, YAY to natural, mutual, loving, and equally involved sex in marriage, BOO for “Ok, we have to do it now to make a baby so get on with it already!” sex. Very, very BOO.

I’m not ready to assent to every aspect of Humanae Vitae’s rules in the bedroom, but not saying I dissent from the whole thing either…

What you have here is an illusion of mutual natural loving

It dosent come from their doing its not the result of the will its purely the emotional stage, at which no decision of the will, no act of choice. At most the will merely consents to the existence of the emotion and the direction it takes.

Emotions are important but not the whole of love. The most profound element is the will and so emotional love will always and can be there but it must develope into a friendship

 

[Debora123]

Finally, the Church, in its zeal to condemn contraception, has corrupted the story of Onan, making his disobedience to the order to produce children for his dead brother to continue his line of no importance, and rather elevating coitus interruptus to be the heart of the story, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Onan was put to death for not producing offspring for his brother. The means was irrelevant. Had Onan used NFP, he still would have been killed.

Perhaps the Church would be better off leaving disputable matters as disputable.

Absolutely. It is a HUGE pet peeve of mine when people use the Onan story to back up their claim about contraception being wrong. Onan wasn’t punished bc of contraception per se, he was punished for being disobedient to his duties as a brother. If Onan had used NFP to avoid pregnancy instead of interruptus, I’m willing to bet he would have gotten the same punishment.

The only reason people use this crazy old testament story to back up the contraception argument is because it is the only thing in the entire bible that comes close to even suggesting that contraception is wrong. And it doesn’t even do that.

 

[ahs]

What is quite interesting is to actually read the words from Human Vitae:

It seems to me that NFP is a method that, in anticipation of the conjugal act, purposes to render procreation impossible. In this case by determining when the conjugal act might result in procreation, and planning the conjugal act to specifically avoid that period.

Awesome!! I was afraid to mention any encyclicals to a protestant, thinking you would not value them. Okay, now read the rest of Humanae Vitae and find where he discusses “periodic continence” (which NFP is) and see what he says about it. You’ll see clearly why NFP is not contraception, does not render anything impossible. If you are still unclear then, copy/paste teh text referring to periodic continence as you did the other and we’ll discuss it…

 

[Bookcat]

What is quite interesting is to actually read the words from Human Vitae:

It seems to me that NFP is a method that, in anticipation of the conjugal act, purposes to render procreation impossible. In this case by determining when the conjugal act might result in procreation, and planning the conjugal act to specifically avoid that period.

It’s also interseting that the Church appeals to “natural law” when establishing this “ordered act”, and yet even in nature, there are many species who have sex without any intent of procreation, but appear to do it purely for pleasure. Dolphins come to mind.

Perhaps the Church would be better off leaving disputable matters as disputable.

Your understanding of natural law (involving the dolphins) is not what is meant by natural law…and nor is your understanding of Humanae vitae.

It is not a disputable matter…

In fact contraception has been rejected by Christians since the beginning…

Even by Protestant Christians until around 1930…when some opened up the possibility…and then it went down hill since then.

 

[Blacksword]

Objectively …contraceptive acts by anyone who is married are both non-marital and selfish and gravely disordered…such is the nature (aside from any intent).

You keep using the word “objective”, but as you are repeatedly applying it to something that so clearly is NOT so, I am not sure it means what you think it means.

Here’s the crux: no matter how stridently you state that every statement and line in Humanae Vitae is infallible and dogmatically declared, it is NOT. The teaching on total prohibition on all ABC has never been declared ex cathedra, though I fully admit it cannot be meryl tossed aside. But it is not tantamount to the Nicene Creed. Do you agree fully with every statement ever declared in an encyclical? Do you even agree with everything taught today completely? My experience on these boards is that there is a WIDE variety of disagreement on any number of the understood and declared teachings of the Church, such as: the death penalty, social justice, immigration, circumcision, torture, the law of war, the accepted forms of the Mass, evolution, and many others. In fact I think I have yet to find a Catholic who avowedly holds to every single item ever stated by the Church. Why not worry about your own soul, and not spend so much time declaring to others (including some, what, 85-90% of fellow Catholics!) how “objectively” selfish and perverse their marriage is?

 

[Muze]

Your understanding of natural law (involving the dolphins) is not what is meant by natural law…and nor is your understanding of Humanae vitae.

It is not a disputable matter…

In fact contraception has been rejected by Christians since the beginning…

Even by Protestant Christians until around 1930…when some opened up the possibility…and then it went down hill since then.

And it seems that Christians rejected it upon the faulty theology of an early church father. Just because someone long ago made a mistake doesn’t mean I have to latch onto it.

 

[ahs]

…Onan wasn’t punished bc of contraception per se, he was punished for being disobedient to his duties as a brother…

According to whom? According to the Church, to whom you claim unity (the Church to whom God gave Authority to interpret Scriptures and complie them into the Bible), or to your own interpretation (that very personal interpretation that Scripture itself forbids…see 2Pet1:20)?

 

[Bookcat]

You keep using the word “objective”, but as you are repeatedly applying it to something that so clearly is NOT so

Indeed it is …very objective

(some just do not accept it subjectively)

 

[Muze]

According to whom? According to the Church, to whom you claim unity (the Church to whom God gave Authority to interpret Scriptures and complie them into the Bible), or to your own interpretation (that very personal interpretation that Scripture itself forbids…see 2Pet1:20)?

2 Peter 1:20 is poorly translated with respect to the word translated “interpretation.” Peter is speaking of a prophet not producing his own writings, but rather the writings come from God as the Holy Spirit bears them along.

 

[Blacksword]

Right, I know contraception is not the only teaching, and I also know most Catholics actually practice contraception…but that doesn’t make it okay. The Church’s teaching on contraception is just as authoritative and valid and true as its teaching on Christ in the Eucharist, and the succession of the Apostles, and the Holy Trinity.

Dont’ take this as an attack, but you can’t pick the teachings you agree with and ignore the ones you don’t and still procliam union with the Church. If you reject a teaching, you are rejecting the Church. That actually puts you in the same mind of a Protestant…that’s how it all started in in the 16th century, and even before in the first centuries of the Church.

And the part that makes it the most dangerous is that contraception is gravely sinful. Whether you agree with the Church or not, whether it feels good or not, it is a grave sin. That makes it a mortal sin, Debora123, not just for you, but for every one of the majority of Catholics who use it…(if you know it’s a sin…which you now know).

Please, can you tell me which part of the Church’s teaching on contraception you disagree with? I’m not that great of an apologist, but maybe I can shed some light?

The fact that you and other ultra-conservative Catholics on an Internet site SAY something is a grave sin does NOT mean others now know it to be so. It’s interesting that as much as I’ve talked about this in my own conversion to the Church with my Deacon and Priest (you know, the educated trained seminarians and people who are SUPPOSED to be the confessor and spiritual advisor and thus in a position to help discern what is and is not a grave sin or mortal in nature) none of them seems to be on board with this.

 

[Debora123]

You keep using the word “objective”, but as you are repeatedly applying it to something that so clearly is NOT so, I am not sure it means what you think it means.

Here’s the crux: no matter how stridently you state that every statement and line in Humanae Vitae is infallible and dogmatically declared, it is NOT. The teaching on total prohibition on all ABC has never been declared ex cathedra, though I fully admit it cannot be meryl tossed aside. But it is not tantamount to the Nicene Creed. Do you agree fully with every statement ever declared in an encyclical? Do you even agree with everything taught today completely? My experience on these boards is that there is a WIDE variety of disagreement on any number of the understood and declared teachings of the Church, such as: the death penalty, social justice, immigration, circumcision, torture, the law of war, the accepted forms of the Mass, evolution, and many others. In fact I think I have yet to find a Catholic who avowedly holds to every single item ever stated by the Church. Why not worry about your own soul, and not spend so much time declaring to others (including some, what, 85-90% of fellow Catholics!) how “objectively” selfish and perverse their marriage is?

Thanks Blacksword.

 

[Bookcat]

Do you agree fully with every statement ever declared in an encyclical? Do you even agree with everything taught today completely? My experience on these boards is that there is a WIDE variety of disagreement on any number of the understood and declared teachings of the Church, such as: the death penalty, social justice, immigration, circumcision, torture, the law of war, the accepted forms of the Mass, evolution, and many others. In fact I think I have yet to find a Catholic who avowedly holds to every single item ever stated by the Church.

I Profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety. I give the proper kind of assent to the various teachings. My YES is to them all.

 

[Debora123]

According to whom? According to the Church, to whom you claim unity (the Church to whom God gave Authority to interpret Scriptures and complie them into the Bible), or to your own interpretation (that very personal interpretation that Scripture itself forbids…see 2Pet1:20)?

I do not “claim unity.” I already explained to you that I AM still Catholic, regardless of what I claim and don’t claim.

So are you saying that Church doctrine DOES interpret the story of Onan to be about contraception?