Healthy contraception ?

[bquinnan]

mikew262:

I’m sure this person knows the Catholic “book” answer already. I believe he was seeking any other option. I give him a couple different directions to consider. I didn’t mention NFP, and that was my serious error.

You’ve referred to the Church as having a “book” answer in several posts within this thread. What do you mean by this qualifier? Is there, in your mind, a difference between the Church’s official teaching on morality and actual moral law?

However, if some form of contraception is their choice, try to minimize the harm by using non-abortion causing methods.

I’m trying to address this in a non-sarcastic way, but the logic here strikes me as flawed. To me, this is like suggesting that, while I oppose bank robbery as a Catholic, if someone were going to rob banks, they should try to minimize the harm by using a stun gun or by trying to inflict only non-lethal wounds if they must shoot, because killing is a much greater evil than bank-robbery.

 

[setter]

mikew262:

I think everybody knows what the guidelines are. However, if you are married, you do have a little better appreciation of what this person is going through. So, yes to a certain degree, it is relevant.

Personal empathy based on experiential knowledge is important to extending charity, but has absolutely NO bearing on what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals or it’s application based on known circumstances.

What seems more at issue here is what drives you for personal disclosure as a prerequiste qualifier for accepting the presentation of clear Church teaching by fellow Catholic posters.

 

[jrabs]

mikew262:

I think everybody knows what the guidelines are. However, if you are married, you do have a little better appreciation of what this person is going through. So, yes to a certain degree, it is relevant.

Not everyone knows the guidelines. That is why the OP started the thread. To lead one away from the proper guidelines and suggest there may be other options that the church would allow is bad. The guidelines are not in place to dance around when one wants to - for the sake of convenience. In this case, the church is clear about contraception.

The rules are not easy - there are many things of this world not easy.

 

[fix]

bquinnan:

You’ve referred to the Church as having a “book” answer in several posts within this thread. What do you mean by this qualifier? Is there, in your mind, a difference between the Church’s official teaching on morality and actual moral law?

That is why I asked in another post what other issues we are allowed to ignore? I notice that when I read about contracpetion the arguments used to reject it are that it is “hard”, inconvenient, illogical, or one’s conscience just can’t accept the teaching.

So, I ask with which other issues may I apply that logic? Racism? Robbery? Polygamy?

 

[bquinnan]

jrabs:

To lead one away from the proper guidelines and suggest there may be other options that the church would allow is bad.

Not to point a finger at you – I know this isn’t your intent – but I think we do a disservice by allowing the Church’s authoritative teachings to be referred to as “guidelines.” As anyone who has seen “Pirates of the Caribbean” knows, guidelines are meant only as general suggestions; they aren’t set in stone. If you have a good reason to break the Pirate’s Code, go for it; it’s really only meant as guidelines, anyway.

On the other hand, the Church’s moral teaching is binding on all Catholics, and the universal moral law that is its source is binding on all people. The Church doesn’t “suggest” that we not use contraception – she teaches us the truth that contraception is in every situation wrong.

 

[jrabs]

bquinnan:

Not to point a finger at you – I know this isn’t your intent – but I think we do a disservice by allowing the Church’s authoritative teachings to be referred to as “guidelines.” As anyone who has seen “Pirates of the Caribbean” knows, guidelines are meant only as general suggestions; they aren’t set in stone. If you have a good reason to break the Pirate’s Code, go for it; it’s really only meant as guidelines, anyway.

On the other hand, the Church’s moral teaching is binding on all Catholics, and the universal moral law that is its source is binding on all people. The Church doesn’t “suggest” that we not use contraception – she teaches us the truth that contraception is in every situation wrong.

Ahhh true true. You are correct and I stand corrected. Thanks

 

[Jennifer_J]

setter:

I never claimed as such. Your point?

My use of this oft quote was to make evident that however good and noble one’s intention may be, good intentions do not, cannot make bad (evil) ends good and the end does not justify the means.

1753

A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

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. (CCC)

According to The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002, GK Chesterton and myself are both guilty of being culturally illiterate in our respective adaptations for this quote, which in it’s theological application would refer strictly to sins of ommission.

bartleby.com/59/3/roadtohellis.html

Listen, I’m not aruging with your points on contraception–just pointing out that this quote, listed among Catholic references, isn’t Catholic and isn’t theologically sound. The road to hell ISN"T paved with GOOD intentions!!! Good intentions are just that–GOOD and won’t lead to hell and do infact, have VALUE. Even if we don’t follow through on a GOOD intention it doesn’t condem us to hell. I’ve read somewhere, and I can’t find it— just having the intention to pray can be effective. Having BAD intentions probably would lead one to hell (eventually), as you are more likely to take those thoughts and either act on them or continue with bad thoughts. Anyway, I think you missed my point. sorry…
Jennifer

 

[1ke]

mikew262:

I think everybody knows what the guidelines are. However, if you are married, you do have a little better appreciation of what this person is going through. So, yes to a certain degree, it is relevant.

I’m married. That fact does not in any way change the Church’s moral law.

As a married person, I am called to know, understand, and apply the Church’s teaching to my concrete situation. I am not free to disregard it if I do not like it.

 

[mikew262]

jrabs:

Not everyone knows the guidelines. That is why the OP started the thread. To lead one away from the proper guidelines and suggest there may be other options that the church would allow is bad. The guidelines are not in place to dance around when one wants to - for the sake of convenience. In this case, the church is clear about contraception.

The rules are not easy - there are many things of this world not easy.

Ok, we’ve danced this dance already. I gave him my advice, if you don’t agree with it, fine. He doesn’t have to follow it either, but he asked for (name removed by moderator)uts and I provided mine.

 

[mikew262]

1ke:

I’m married. That fact does not in any way change the Church’s moral law.

As a married person, I am called to know, understand, and apply the Church’s teaching to my concrete situation. I am not free to disregard it if I do not like it.

No argument from me.

 

[jrabs]

mikew262:

Ok, we’ve danced this dance already. I gave him my advice, if you don’t agree with it, fine. He doesn’t have to follow it either, but he asked for (name removed by moderator)uts and I provided mine.

Since he was asking on a Catholic Forum, it’s safe to assume he was looking for sound Catholic teaching, not your interpretation.

I do understand that you were giving your opinion, but you steadfastly hold that the options you suggest may be OK, when they are detrimental to one’s soul.

 

[setter]

Jennifer J:

setter:

Listen, I’m not aruging with your points on contraception–just pointing out that this quote, listed among Catholic references, isn’t Catholic and isn’t theologically sound. The road to hell ISN"T paved with GOOD intentions!!! Good intentions are just that–GOOD and won’t lead to hell and do infact, have VALUE. Even if we don’t follow through on a GOOD intention it doesn’t condem us to hell. I’ve read somewhere, and I can’t find it— just having the intention to pray can be effective. Having BAD intentions probably would lead one to hell (eventually), as you are more likely to take those thoughts and either act on them or continue with bad thoughts. Anyway, I think you missed my point. sorry…
Jennifer

I have registered and duly noted your point.

I am left wondering about all those suicide bombers (and similiar others) who feel that they are truly motivated by good and sincere intentions. What road are they on? The presumption must be that one’s “good intention” must be objectively ordered toward the human good in order for your theological construct to hold true?

BTW – I see no reason to object to non-Catholic references when making a moral point. After all, the entire Christian body is not Catholic.

 

[mikew262]

jrabs:

Since he was asking on a Catholic Forum, it’s safe to assume he was looking for sound Catholic teaching, not your interpretation.

I do understand that you were giving your opinion, but you steadfastly hold that the options you suggest may be OK, when they are detrimental to one’s soul.

I didn’t interpret anything. I told him to seek guidance from his priest, pray, and that the church considers contraception to be wrong. I also told him that if after taking everything into consideration, if contraception proves to be his option of choice for medical reasons, to consider the non-abortion types.

I presented the whole scope of choices, both from a Catholic perspective, as well as, from the secular point of view. In a matter this serious where maybe his wife’s life is at stake, I think he would want that. I know I would. If I’m wrong, then he is free to ignor my advice.

If you don’t agree, that’s ok. However, instead of bashing me as you and 1 or 2 others have done, why don’t you spend your energy in offering your own advice and let this man decide for himself.

 

[mike182d]

mikew262:

if contraception proves to be his option of choice for medical reasons, to consider the non-abortion types.

The only thing contraception successfully accomplishes is giving people a false sense of security. It is *not *100% effective and there are absolutely no scientific or statistical grounds on which someone can say that artificial contraception is better or more successful in postponing childbirth than NFP.

If fear of pregnancy causing death in the mother or child is *truly *the motivating factor, than abstinence is your *only *resort. Because no matter if you use contraception or NFP there is *always *a chance you are going to get pregnant. Period. So, if you are going to engage in the marital embrace with the possibility of getting pregnant present for both the pill and NFP, you have to ask yourself: who do I trust more? The inventions of men or God?

 

[bquinnan]

Jennifer J:

setter:

Listen, I’m not aruging with your points on contraception–just pointing out that this quote, listed among Catholic references, isn’t Catholic and isn’t theologically sound. The road to hell ISN"T paved with GOOD intentions!!!

I really think it depends what one means by the statement. Sometimes intentions are focused on something good – the love between a husband and a wife, or the desire to stay alive, for example – but unfortunately just don’t take the whole picture into account. From that perspective, the intent to do a good thing could lead someone to do evil, because they are so focused on that one thing that they dont take other factors into account.

 

[bquinnan]

mikew262:

I presented the whole scope of choices, both from a Catholic perspective, as well as, from the secular point of view. In a matter this serious where maybe his wife’s life is at stake, I think he would want that.

You write as if the Catholic answer and the best answer could ever be two different things.

If I’m wrong, then he is free to ignor my advice.

But what if you’re wrong, and you nevertheless persuade him to feel justified in choosing evil?

 

[mikew262]

bquinnan:

You write as if the Catholic answer and the best answer could ever be two different things.

Each person has to decide what the best answer is. You would hope the Catholic answer and the best answer are the same, but that may not always be true, depending upon the situation.

If one seeks guidance from God, more times than not, the right decision will be made.

 

[setter]

mikew262:

Each person has to decide what the best answer is. You would hope the Catholic answer and the best answer are the same, but that may not always be true, depending upon the situation

Why would the Catholioc answer and the best answer not be the same? Did you mean to say “You would hope the Catholic answer and the preferred answer are the same, but that may not always be true, depending upon the situation/person.”?

 

[mikew262]

setter:

Why would the Catholioc answer and the best answer not be the same? Did you mean to say “You would hope the Catholic answer and the preferred answer are the same, but that may not always be true, depending upon the situation/person.”?

I mean’t what I originally said.

As far as answering your question, whatever I say you are not going to agree with, thus another long back and forth discussion will begin. You have made it plain you don’t agree with my point of view, so what’s the use of pursuing it. Let’s stick to the thread topic.

 

[setter]

mikew262:

I mean’t what I originally said.

By way of observation, you often cloak your statements in vagueness which 1) does nothing to clarify the discussion at hand, 2) often has the effect (whether desired or unintended) of communicating ambiguity.

What you originally said:

Originally Posted by mikew262
I presented the whole scope of choices, both from a Catholic perspective, as well as, from the secular point of view. In a matter this serious where maybe his wife’s life is at stake, I think he would want that.