B
Bookcat
Guest
(Choosing though an evil like contraception…of course objectively throws a big moral and spiritual wrench into things)
- Status
B
Brav3N3wWorld
Guest
B
Bookcat
Guest
I do not see where it is a “banned topic” (except perhaps in regards to I heard one is not to give medical advice…but the topic as a moral topic I did not see banned)Sorry for bringing it up.I didn’t realize circumcision is a banned topic.
…but it is certainly off the topic of:
“From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?”
For more info the fact that Circumcision is NOT condemned…read:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8240774&postcount=714
B
Bookcat
Guest
N
Nate13
Guest
Actually the true sexual act is described almost entirely in the term unitive now that I think of it and I bet procreative is just a clarification. Any sexual act for which the goal is for a man to finish anywhere besides the vagina does not embrace the term unitive as both parties are not able to give of themselves completely in the way in which God designed the act. Procreative is just there to make sure we get the point that God inherently designed the act to be procreative.
The key is whether a person is convinced that God designed the act in this way. Our love is supposed to mirror how Christ loves the Church. Christ doesn’t have levels of love so in that Christ is able to do we aren’t and always be showing absolute love for the Church. The closest we get to this is during sex and we know that God designed sex to be the Ultimate act of love because we are created in his own image and likeness, the likeness of the Trinity. This points towards sex being the one act in which married couples have a chance at mirroring God’s love for us almost perfectly. Thoughts of lust hinder this goal as well contraception.
The key is whether a person is convinced that God designed the act in this way. Our love is supposed to mirror how Christ loves the Church. Christ doesn’t have levels of love so in that Christ is able to do we aren’t and always be showing absolute love for the Church. The closest we get to this is during sex and we know that God designed sex to be the Ultimate act of love because we are created in his own image and likeness, the likeness of the Trinity. This points towards sex being the one act in which married couples have a chance at mirroring God’s love for us almost perfectly. Thoughts of lust hinder this goal as well contraception.
B
Brav3N3wWorld
Guest
Well this thread is already WAY off that topic.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Oh…it is?Well this thread is already WAY off that topic.
B
Bookcat
Guest
B
Blacksword
Guest
Since when does what is realistic have any bearing on the discussion?! As many posters here attest, NFP does not always work for every couple, and yet they are then told to just abstain and live in total chastity until menopause. Completely unrealistic too I must say.
C
copperblade
Guest
Sorry, I cannot agree. You’re looking at the ends of the means: whether or not you need calories. This is not the Aristotilean/Thomist point of view which acts themselves have inherent purpose. As I already said, you may be guilty of gluttony, but the eating of a candy bar is not inherently evil by it’s nature. Calories are not of zero nutritive value, whether you need them or not.No it isn’t unless you literally are starving to death and the only food available is candy. It’s of zero nutritive value, indeed, white bread also is then evil, it’s nothing but sugar which is unhealthy and provides no nutritive value. If one is hungry, eat a piece of fruit. Eating candy, bread, crackers, French fries, basically everything most Americans enjoy, is pure pleasure-seeking as an end of itself, and is gravely sinful when one has access to actual healthy, nutritive food. I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Papal encyclical forbidding McDonald’s as gravely disordered and gluttonous!
I agree that the sexual morality is the only area which is defined as absolutizing the physical, if that’s what you’re really trying to get at. The food analogies fall short unless you compare something like a condom to a “stomach condom” or something like that.
B
Blacksword
Guest
I thought it was, though you sure keep bringing this up for someone not wanting to discuss. The Catholic Answers answer on the question is terrible and wrong. It ignores many historic statements of Popes on the topic, church councils, and also fails to differentiate between the minuscule cut made in Abrahamic circumcision from the modern medical procedure carried out in American (and ONLY American!) hospitals of radical and total foreskin amputation. What Abraham did and the Jewish people did until about 120 A.D. is not the same procurdure, and so cannot confirm the morality of the modern American cutting. Just like clitoral hood removal on a baby girl is not the same as infibulation. But please, carry on with the topic at hand.
S
sacredcello
Guest
I know it sometimes appears that couples who use ABC are perfectly happy with it and there is only a benefit and no negative side. I am glad to hear that you grew up in a very loving home and that you saw no problems with lust between your parents. That is very good, and the fact that you and your husband waited until you were married, is a testament to your parents love. I would like to add, however, that there are, perhaps, more subtle ways which ABC has affected all of our lives. It has to do with values about family size, i.e. small families are “responsible” and large families are “irresponsible”. I noticed in your earlier post that you made the comment about people who are “Catholic and careless”. Maybe you were referring to those who use no method of family planning whatsoever and that seems negative to you.Thank you for sharing your story and being honest with me, Sacredcello. I must admit that I do have a hard time relating though.
Also in many ways, I wish we had taken care of our professional goals early in our marriage, or at least been in a stable position before having kids. If we were more secure financially, I don’t think NFP would be as scary and as much of a hardship in our marriage.
But I am really glad the Church’s teachings on NFP have been a blessing for you.I hope one day, I’ll be able to stand up and say the same for my own marriage
In any case, I know with certainty, that I grew up with a prejudiced view of large families. In fact, when I married a Catholic in my twenties, he was from a family of six. My family was quite “alarmed” that anyone would “carelessly” have so many children. In fact, my ex-husband’s family was very self-conscious, because, as you can imagine, if everyone is always gawking at you for having a large family, well, it makes one a little defensive.
Lately, my husband and I have been watching The Waltons on DVD. It is a good antidote to all of the negative propaganda that we soaked up as children of ABC-practicing parents. Of course, it is too late for us (most likely) to have 7 children. I am now 41. But, at least we can teach our children to know that they are not burdens and that they are indeed, blessings, regardless of the cost. Incidentally, The Waltons is based on a true story of a Depression-era family. The author of the book, Spencer’s Mountain which is the basis for The Waltons is Earl Hamner and many of the stories in the TV series are real.
C
copperblade
Guest
I think the concept of something having an inherent purpose or virtue is a core point of Catholic philosophy/logic. Most people find Utilitarianism or Prioritarianism more intuitive in the modern world, but that is not the basis for Catholic theology. I found this video helpful for understanding that concept:
ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html
ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes…lets not got off into that Topic.
C
copperblade
Guest
I always understood that was because Christianity became predominantly gentile. I’m not sure the early Church believed circumcision was optional for Jewish Christians. But that should be it’s own thread…
A
ahs
Guest
I can relate to this as well…from both ends. After all my siblings and I had “our two”, my parents started getting weird…even seemingly annoyed, about the fact that we all wanted more. My wife and I are about to have our 4th (married 7 yrs) and one brother/sis-in-law already have 5. Now we get to hear (mostly from aunts and uncles) “don’t you know what causes that?”
(Uh, yeah…I know what causes it…and I quite enjoy it, thank you very much. )On the flip side is that my brother with 5 actually frowns on my wife and I for spacing our children with NFP…as though we somehow don’t “trust God”.
Anyway, I do think large families are a beautiful thing and it makes me happy to see them and to know that there are folks out there who don’t see children as a burden. But I also realize that not every couple can do that in their current situation.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
I realized that oral sex to completion between a heterosexual couple (married or not) is physically identical to oral sex to completion between a homosexual couple. I never said either was right or wrong, just noted that neither act requires the male/female compliment.The point here is that the fact that oral sex CAN be performed by any two people on each other of either gender configuration you like is NOT relevant to determining its morality. I can participate in oral sex with someone other than my wife, the fact that we are of opposite genders does not affect the morality of that action. It would be wrong regardless as that person is NOT my wife.
No, you were making a comparison between two very different things, a husband and wife having oral sex v. two unmarried homosexuals having sex of really any sort. These are not analogous UNLESS you first move the comparison to such a general level that you have thereby removed the very specific factors that differentiate the two things. A dog is just like a cat when move to a general level of comparison wherein we purposely take out the differentiating things about them.
No, this is kind of important, since it’s a basic logical fallacy in your argument.
As I said before, the argument you put forward would render ANY oral/genital contact, as foreplay or otherwise, immoral. Homosexual acts, or homosexuals participating in oral sex, are not considered disordered and immoral because they are taken to completion, they are considered disordered because they are between two unmarried persons who are of the same gender! So, my point is, if you are saying oral sex between spouses is essentially the same as it would be as between a homosexual couple, then it is essentially equally as immoral to participate in at all! The things that make there a clear moral difference between these two things clearly have nothing to do with completion in of itself, but rather the specifics of WHO is participating in the act, chiefly. Sexual contact between married spouses is different than between homosexuals or unmarried people, clearly. Again, unless you want to somehow argue that homosexuals having oral sex but stopping short of climax are somehow committing less of a sin?If you want to make that argument, go for it, but I think that’s a tough one to make!
I do accept the Catholic teaching that homosexual acts are ‘intrinsically disordered’. If an act is intrinsically disordered, how does changing the context (ie. who is doing it) make it okay? (Of course, if you disagree with Catholic teaching on the nature of homosexual acts, our dialogue may have nowhere to go.)
Who wants their teeth done by the Marquis de Sade? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
I just wanted to clarify, with **all **NFP the end is to identify fertility. The end of abstinence is to avoid pregnancy. I think that’s the big distinction between NFP and ABC. (If that’s not helpful to your understanding though, just toss it out.
)
N
Nate13
Guest
yeah I think it makes it more clear if you explain it as an inherent purpose and then go into describe from the Bible, Sacred Tradition, etc… to show why the Church has come to this belief. It’s definitely the Church’s territory though to talk about the purpose that God inherently made an act be about.
A
ahs
Guest
Yes, the marital act is indeed a source of joy and pleasure and the pleasure we get from it is not disordered as long as we adhere to just moderation and do not thwart the act by removing the unitive and procreative aspects of the act.
It is when this pleasure is a result of an act that is disordered, that the pleasure is disordered. For example, removing the procreative or unitive aspects of the act via contraception can still yieild in a pleasurable experience, but that experience is also gravely sinful because the act is performed in a disordered manner.
(See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2360-2379) vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM
Yet, there are still some who claim that they can use their conscience to decide if any form of contraception is okay or not, or decide if contraception harms or helps their marriage. Try as I might, I can not find any Church teaching to support this. Can someone please provide the Church teaching or Scriptural reference that states that contraception is okay or is a matter of personal discernment?
- Status