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

[Luvtosew]

I think its a sin according to the Catholic Church.

 

[1ke]

…So do you mean to say we CAN use contraception

No. That is not what I am saying.

I am saying it is not a rule.

The discipline on eating meat on Fridays is a rule. We obey it as long as it is in force. The Church can change or abolish this rule at any time. It has changed throughout the Church’s history. It is not part of the divine law.

 

[Debora123]

No. That is not what I am saying.

I am saying it is not a rule.

The discipline on eating meat on Fridays is a rule. We obey it as long as it is in force. The Church can change or abolish this rule at any time. It has changed throughout the Church’s history. It is not part of the divine law.

“Rule” and “law” aren’t synonyms?

 

[1ke]

“Rule” and “law” aren’t synonyms?

No.

And there is a distinct difference between divine law and the Church’s canon law.

 

[Rence]

I think its a sin according to the Catholic Church.

I think it’s a sin according to the Catholic Church too.

 

[Debora123]

No.

And there is a distinct difference between divine law and the Church’s canon law.

Ah, I see. So sorry. In that case, let me re word what I said in my earlier post (#49):

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

 

[1ke]

Ah, I see. So sorry. In that case, let me re word what I said in my earlier post (#49):

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

It seems you aren’t interested in understanding from my point of view.

 

[Debora123]

It seems you aren’t interested in understanding from my point of view.

I just don’t see how changing one word can really make a difference, and feel this argument over wording is quite petty.

 

[Nate13]

I just don’t see how changing one word can really make a difference, and feel this argument over wording is quite petty.

Decent breakdown of the difference.
differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-rules-and-laws/

There is a reason we call it the law of gravity and not the “rule” of gravity. Laws are more binding, have greater consequences when broken, and are rigid.

For instance not eating meat on a Friday is a rule. There are a multitude of exceptions to the rule, and if its broken accidentally the consequences are not severe.

A law is on the other end of the spectrum. The law of gravity is for all intensive purposes unbreakable. We can work around/with the law of gravity (NFP for instance if you get the analogy), but any attempt to break the law of gravity or work directly against it is met with severe consequences.

 

[Luvtosew]

I don’t believe not eating meat on fridays is a rule, we never did we ate fish, but maybe its still a rule during Lent I don’t know.

The Catholic Church its a sin to use birth control except NFP. that is their rule or law, not sure if its a rule or law.

 

[Debora123]

Decent breakdown of the difference.
differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-rules-and-laws/

There is a reason we call it the law of gravity and not the “rule” of gravity. Laws are more binding, have greater consequences when broken, and are rigid.

For instance not eating meat on a Friday is a rule. There are a multitude of exceptions to the rule, and if its broken accidentally the consequences are not severe.

A law is on the other end of the spectrum. The law of gravity is for all intensive purposes unbreakable. We can work around/with the law of gravity (NFP for instance if you get the analogy), but any attempt to break the law of gravity or work directly against it is met with severe consequences.

Right, so I went back and changed my original statement and changed the word “rules” to “laws.”

… my point is, it doesn’t make a difference in the grand scheme of things - whether they are considered rules or laws or whatever, I still don’t understand the rationale behind them, and that’s all I was trying to say. That’s why it’s petty and doesn’t make a difference in the fact that I don’t understand the rationale.

 

[Nate13]

I don’t believe not eating meat on fridays is a rule, we never did we ate fish, but maybe its still a rule during Lent I don’t know.

The Catholic Church its a sin to use birth control except NFP. that is their rule or law, not sure if its a rule or law.

Haha to clarify its red meat that is not allowed on Fridays. That’s why everyone eats fish

 

[Debora123]

I don’t believe not eating meat on fridays is a rule, we never did we ate fish, but maybe its still a rule during Lent I don’t know.

The Catholic Church its a sin to use birth control except NFP. that is their rule or law, not sure if its a rule or law.

Lol apparently it’s a law. Although I don’t think it matter what you call it, bottom line is, according to the Church, you’re not allowed to do it if you want to stay in good communion with God, and doing it is considered a mortal sin.

 

[Nate13]

Right, so I went back and changed my original statement and changed the word “rules” to “laws.”

… my point is, it doesn’t make a difference in the grand scheme of things - whether they are considered rules or laws or whatever, I still don’t understand the rationale behind them, and that’s all I was trying to say. That’s why it’s petty and doesn’t make a difference in the fact that I don’t understand the rationale.

Is it that you don’t understand the rationale, or that you understand it but just don’t accept the rationale you have heard up to this point to be good enough to change your mind? I know your decently well read and have been apart of many discussions on the forum so I have to assume the later case is a better description correct?

 

[Nate13]

Not really. I’m married and have always been faithful to my husband thats all I need to know.

Haha I’m glad you are secure in your belief, but if you want to try and be able to explain that belief to someone else you have to put in the effort to put your belief into precise words that get your point across. Thus, why I suggested reading what the Catechism has to say on it as a start.

 

[Debora123]

Is it that you don’t understand the rationale, or that you don’t accept the rationale you have heard up to this point to be good enough to change your mind? I know your decently well read and have been apart of many discussions on the forum so I have to assume the later case is a better description correct?

The rationale I have heard does not make sense. There are a lot of holes in it, IMHO. That’s the best way for me to put it I suppose.

 

[Luvtosew]

Ok heres their rational behind it.

1. if one gets pregnant while using NFP its a unplanned pregnancy.
2. if one gets pregnat while using artificial birth control its unwanted pregnancy, which they feel will may lead to abortion.

 

[Nate13]

Ok heres their rational behind it.

1. if one gets pregnant while using NFP its a unplanned pregnancy.
2. if one gets pregnat while using artificial birth control its unwanted pregnancy, which they feel will may lead to abortion.

Worthy attempt, but what you are describing is the intent or attitude of a person using birth control. NFP could easily be used in the way you describe contraceptives being used in #2. In my first post in this thread I addressed a point similar to yours:

I admit people have used the phrase “open to life” to describe NFP in many ways that are not true. NFP objectively is no more open to life than contraceptives and has every possibility to be misused in a way that puts in on the same field as contraception. I do believe it could be said though that NFP lends itself to helping a couple take an attitude that is more open to life. Part of practicing NFP is that you have to abstain from sex for a time each month, and many people find this to be somewhat of a challenge. This can help inspire a discussion about why the couple is trying to prevent a child, and whether those are just reasons. This can lead to a couple being more “open to life”.

Let me get this straight though for you: there are just reasons for trying to prevent having a child. This intention in and of itself is not wrong. The true objective difference between contraception and NFP is the means, just as the true objective difference between allowing someone to die naturally and euthanizing them is the means by which each is achieved. Someone could have incredibly good intentions in euthanizing someone such as to try and allow someone to escape incredible pain. However the act would still be wrong because of the means used to get there. I.e murdering someone is wrong, whether you have good intentions or not or if the act achieves a good end or not.

Here is an analogy that might help get across the difference.

NFP to the “laws” of sexual morality is like a plane is to the law of gravity. NFP works with the laws of sexual morality and how we have been designed by God, just as a plane works in tune with the law of gravity. A plane works with the law of gravity and accepts that it is there.

Using contraceptives is like ignoring the law of gravity exists. It would be like trying to change the fact that that large bodies of mass create a pulling force that acts on the things around them.

 

[Luvtosew]

Well thats how 2 priests on EWTN said it.

 

[Debora123]

Well thats how 2 priests on EWTN said it.

Two priests said that people who use artificial birth control as opposed to natural birth control would likely get abortions if they got pregnant by accident??

Haha, oh God help us all… how ridiculous!