How is it not "birth control" if a couple uses timing and temp to prevent conception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bartolome_Casas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church does not require children out of a marriage

Do you mean in marriage. I’m sure you must. Well a couple gets married and don’t want to have kids for whatever reason, I know some, what is wrong with a vasectomy as long as they are faithful?

I see nothing wrong with that, or the pill where one doesn’t ovulate, or tubal ligation,
I’m sorry but I know many Catholics including myself that have used some form of the above, that surely doesn’t give anyone a liscense to cheat.

I realize the Catholic Church is trying to look out for people best interest, but I think they should concentrate on chasity before marriage and faithfullness when married.🙂
 
First lets drop the ABC language. The term really to use is ** “contraceptives”**. (otherwise people think that them being “artificial” has anything to do with it.
 
Rence said:
My arguement is this: ABCs are against the rules of the Church.
Click to expand...
Nope tis not about rules.

Rules are for Monopoly.

Rather “Contraception” is contrary to the nature of the marital act …is contrary to truth and love …contrary to moral truth.
 
Its a pretty mute discussion anyway, either commit sin or do what the Church says.
 
Luvtosew said:
I think according to the Catholic Church the only reason to get married is to have children,
if you don’t plan on having children you should not get married and never have sex.
Click to expand...
This can’t be entirely true, otherwise women who have had hysterectomies or gone through menopause wouldn’t be allowed to get married, which they are. And they are not required to adopt, either.
 
Debora123 said:
This can’t be entirely true, otherwise women who have had hysterectomies or gone through menopause wouldn’t be allowed to get married, which they are. And they are not required to adopt, either.
Click to expand...
Well I guess medical reasons are ok then.
 
Not really. I’m married and have always been faithful to my husband thats all I need to know.
 
Debora123 said:
This can’t be entirely true, otherwise women who have had hysterectomies or gone through menopause wouldn’t be allowed to get married, which they are. And they are not required to adopt, either.
Click to expand...
Well, you’re right, it can’t be entirely true for the reasons you cite. But in the CCC it says children are the ‘crowning glory’ of marriage, and requires one to be open to life and forbids the use of ABCs. Without complete abstinence, that ‘openness to life’ speaks for itself. Of course, not wanting children, while at the same time being open to life, is not an impediment to marriage. So you’re right that it’s not “entirely” true 🙂
 
Rence said:
Well, you’re right, it can’t be entirely true for the reasons you cite. But in the CCC it says children are the ‘crowning glory’ of marriage, and requires one to be open to life and forbids the use of ABCs. Without complete abstinence, that ‘openness to life’ speaks for itself. Of course, not wanting children, while at the same time being open to life, is not an impediment to marriage. So you’re right that it’s not “entirely” true 🙂
Click to expand...
Correct. :yup:

I know all about these sex/contraception/abstinence/birth-control rules like the back of my hand… I just don’t understand the rationale behind them.
 
Luvtosew said:
The Church does not require children out of a marriage

Do you mean in marriage. I’m sure you must. Well a couple gets married and don’t want to have kids for whatever reason, I know some, what is wrong with a vasectomy as long as they are faithful?

I see nothing wrong with that, or the pill where one doesn’t ovulate, or tubal ligation,
I’m sorry but I know many Catholics including myself that have used some form of the above, that surely doesn’t give anyone a liscense to cheat.

I realize the Catholic Church is trying to look out for people best interest, but I think they should concentrate on chasity before marriage and faithfullness when married.🙂
Click to expand...
I worded it that way because I was quoting the previous poster. The point was the Church requires openness to life, which is not the same as requiring children. The problem with a vasectomy is that it makes you not open to life.
 
Incomplete said:
I worded it that way because I was quoting the previous poster. The point was the Church requires openness to life, which is not the same as requiring children. The problem with a vasectomy is that it makes you not open to life.
Click to expand...
Saying something is wrong because its not “open to life” is ambiguous because everyone thinks something different when you say “open to life”. The clearest way of saying it is that you are making a fertile act of sex infertile on purpose when you get a vasectomy or use any kind of contraception. You are purposefully breaking how your body works and has been designed to work.
 
Nate13 said:
Saying something is wrong because its not “open to life” is ambiguous because everyone thinks something different when you say “open to life”. The clearest way of saying it is that you are making a fertile act of sex infertile on purpose when you get a vasectomy or use any kind of contraception. You are purposefully breaking how your body works and has been designed to work.
Click to expand...
Let me reword that. By “open to life”, the Church is not ambiguous. They mean that you have to be willing to accept that children are a natural result of sex.
 
Incomplete said:
Let me reword that. By “open to life”, the Church is not ambiguous. They mean that you have to be willing to accept that children are a natural result of sex.
Click to expand...
From personal experience the “open to life” argument just results in confusion. I believe Rence said it well earlier that being “open to life” is a way to describe the attitude or intent we have when we decide to have sex. Objectively NFP is no more “open to life” than contraceptives and has every possibility of being abused. My point earlier was that you can claim NFP lends itself to helping a person develop an attitude that is more open to life because of the required abstinence, but it is going to far to just blindly say if your using NFP you are open to life.

Also, are you sure the Church is the one who coined the phrase “open to life”? I cannot remember seeing the Church use that particular phrase in the Catechism.
 
Ah wait I found the phrase in the Catechism:
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, 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” is intrinsically evil:159
Click to expand...
Code: 
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
Click to expand...
However it appears the use of “open to life” is how I have described above. Being “open to life” describes the attitude or intent of the person using NFP, not NFP in and of itself.

I also checked the encyclicals “Humane Vitae” and “Casti Cannubii” and no where in those encyclicals does the phrase “open to life” appear.
 
Debora123 said:
Correct. :yup:

I know all about these sex/contraception/abstinence/birth-control rules like the back of my hand… I just don’t understand the rationale behind them.
Click to expand...
They aren’t rules.

In tryin to understand the Church’s teaachin, I suggest starting there.
 
1ke said:
They aren’t rules.

In tryin to understand the Church’s teaachin, I suggest starting there.
Click to expand...
No contraception allowed isn’t a rule? :confused:

Forgive me if I used the wrong “wording.” Either way, it is what it is.
 
Debora123 said:
…So do you mean to say we CAN use contraception without putting our relationship with God in “time out?” 😛
Click to expand...
Well, if it’s not a rule… 😃

But alas, according to Webster-Merriam, it is a rule…
a: a prescribed guide for conduct or action
b: the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members
c: an accepted procedure, custom, or habit
d (1): a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties
(2): a legal precept or doctrine e: a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top