Humanae Vitae Debate Part III

[Ruthie]

You need to back up a bit yourself. God did not “separate” the two roles of the marital act. He just made it so that, in humans, the female is not necessarily fertile when she enjoys the act. This is not separation. It is a challenge; it offers us the opportunity to be faithful to one another. In animals, whether they mate for life or are promiscuous, there is no choice. But we humans have that choice.

Next point:
NFP is open to life because it can be used in a wide spectrum of ways. Couples may “join” at any time along the woman’s cycle. If they have a true need to postpone a child, they are restricted to a couple of days a month. If they want to get pregnant, they can join on her fertile days. We can’t do that with ABC. To use ABC is t be infertile all the time.

NFP also spreads the burden equally between husband and wife. There is no form of ABC that does that. “Did YOU take YOUR pill?”

Last but not least, NFP, by using the natural rhythms that God gave us, is lined up with life. But, because ABC is artificial, if it fails, one thinks of artificial means to deal with the “problem.” Like abortion.

 

[PennitentMan]

First, please forgive me if I sound a bit incoherent, I have a cold and am on serious meds

Once you allow them to believe (and yes they believe it strongly) that it is their right to have sex anyway they want with whomever agrees anytime they want without consequence, we have an uphill battle. The LIE here is “without consequence”. When you go against the nature of sex, there is a consequence. They just don’t want to believe it. They think its just pregnancy, but it’s a ton more than that as the stats of the trouble of the “sexually liberated” show.

But it’s not always only about the fornicator…it’s usually about sex inside a marriage, between husband and wife. And that’s where the line gets blurry.

You need to back up a bit yourself. God did not “separate” the two roles of the marital act. He just made it so that, in humans, the female is not necessarily fertile when she enjoys the act. This is not separation. It is a challenge; it offers us the opportunity to be faithful to one another. In animals, whether they mate for life or are promiscuous, there is no choice. But we humans have that choice.

God surely did separate the two. If he didn’t, then, like the animals, we would be pregnant every time we had sex. He would also have made us only get horny when our wives are fertile.

The fact that humans express a desire for each other (inside marriage in this example) shows the need for the unification aspect of sex. And that need is totally separate from the pro-creative aspect.
Husbands yearn to be with their wives, and wives yearn to be with their husbands and they do not want to have a baby every time. That is how god made us, so God made the two urges separable, so that we can still be unified with our spouse.

We are not run purely by an urge to pro-create, but also an urge to be unified with our wives. Even if no methods for spacing is used, there are times when a married couple has sex but do not get pregnant.

So if we, as husband and wife, can have sex without getting pregnant (apparently from the statistics that the NFP guys ate pushing) then there is definitely separation between the two functions of sex. Every time one uses NFP to space children, sex is only for unification, without getting pregnant.

Next point:
NFP is open to life because it can be used in a wide spectrum of ways. Couples may “join” at any time along the woman’s cycle. If they have a true need to postpone a child, they are restricted to a couple of days a month. If they want to get pregnant, they can join on her fertile days. We can’t do that with ABC. To use ABC is to be infertile all the time.

NFP also spreads the burden equally between husband and wife. There is no form of ABC that does that. “Did YOU take YOUR pill?”

NFP asks the same kinds of questions:
How about these lines that most Catholic husbands say:
Honey, did YOU take YOUR temperature?
Honey, did YOU check YOUR mucus?
etc.
There is still an action that needs to be done before there can be engaged in sexual intercourse to know whether the act is fertile or not.

 

[newbetx]

First, please forgive me if I sound a bit incoherent, I have a cold and am on serious meds

But it’s not always only about the fornicator…it’s usually about sex inside a marriage, between husband and wife. And that’s where the line gets blurry.

God surely did separate the two. If he didn’t, then, like the animals, we would be pregnant every time we had sex. He would also have made us only get horny when our wives are fertile.

The fact that humans express a desire for each other (inside marriage in this example) shows the need for the unification aspect of sex. And that need is totally separate from the pro-creative aspect.
Husbands yearn to be with their wives, and wives yearn to be with their husbands and they do not want to have a baby every time. That is how god made us, so God made the two urges separable, so that we can still be unified with our spouse.

We are not run purely by an urge to pro-create, but also an urge to be unified with our wives. Even if no methods for spacing is used, there are times when a married couple has sex but do not get pregnant.

So if we, as husband and wife, can have sex without getting pregnant (apparently from the statistics that the NFP guys ate pushing) then there is definitely separation between the two functions of sex. Every time one uses NFP to space children, sex is only for unification, without getting pregnant.

NFP asks the same kinds of questions:
How about these lines that most Catholic husbands say:
Honey, did YOU take YOUR temperature?
Honey, did YOU check YOUR mucus?
etc.
There is still an action that needs to be done before there can be engaged in sexual intercourse to know whether the act is fertile or not.

It’s hard for me to explain right now the fact the two acts ARE inseparatable. I’d have to go get the exact text out of TOB…
But if they are separate functions, barrier methods, then, would be justified. They are not. That’s the falicy of the argument.

But you are missing a key ingrediant (Sorry for the spelling errors. It’s been a rough day) That is, chastity within the marriage. It is unifying, also, NOT to have sex. It’s the fact that by avoiding when the couple agrees to, you are sacraficing for each other. The act here isn’t intercourse, it’s self sacrafice. And you STILL show love for each other in other ways. It’s not like you treat each other like toxic waste.

 

[down_under]

I have not read the whole exchange so sorry if someone already pointed it out. but according to humani vetai or on human life. there are 2 count them 2 purposes to sex in the marital union. (both are irrivocably bound to the marital union) and the other is the love of the spouses. in your first example he is stating that

Hence the “inseparable connection” is false and is in fact a rejection of God’s will and not “God’s will” as HV claims

but with nfp you avoid the menstral cycle while still haveing sex for the love of the spouses. that is fully giving yourself to your spouse. HV says that. So how is it a rejection of God’s will if you are using sex for what the church has stated sex is for?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Bruce K, if you can get your friend to understand what I’m about to attempt to explain to PennitentMan, I’m sure your discussions will become more productive.

PennitentMan, I keep trying to explain this to you because I care that you understand it. I think your questions are good and genuine.

God surely did separate the two. If he didn’t, then, like the animals, we would be pregnant every time we had sex. He would also have made us only get horny when our wives are fertile.

The fact that humans express a desire for each other (inside marriage in this example) shows the need for the unification aspect of sex. And that need is totally separate from the pro-creative aspect.
Husbands yearn to be with their wives, and wives yearn to be with their husbands and they do not want to have a baby every time. That is how god made us, so God made the two urges separable, so that we can still be unified with our spouse.

We are not run purely by an urge to pro-create, but also an urge to be unified with our wives. Even if no methods for spacing is used, there are times when a married couple has sex but do not get pregnant.

So if we, as husband and wife, can have sex without getting pregnant (apparently from the statistics that the NFP guys ate pushing) then there is definitely separation between the two functions of sex. Every time one uses NFP to space children, sex is only for unification, without getting pregnant.

Reproductive means “creates a baby”. Procreative means “tends to create a baby”. Do you see the difference? These terms are not always interchangable, and when you do interchange them, it hurts your ability to understand Catholic teaching.

In God’s design for sex, the unitive and the reproductive are often separated. The unitive and the procreative (ordered toward life) however, are meant to go together, even when reproduction is absent, as in pregnancy, menopause and cyclical infertility.

NFP asks the same kinds of questions:
How about these lines that most Catholic husbands say:
Honey, did YOU take YOUR temperature?
Honey, did YOU check YOUR mucus?
etc.
There is still an action that needs to be done before there can be engaged in sexual intercourse to know whether the act is fertile or not.

The action you refer to is making yourself aware of your relative fertility or infertility. This action is inoffensive because it makes no attempt to change fertility (or potential fertility) to infertility, which is the harm done with contraceptive use.

I wish my husband would ask those questions! I’ve never found NFP use brought us closer together as a couple. Not contracepting gives us a more solid spiritual foundation so, as a result, we value non-contraceptive birth control for postponing pregnancy.

I hope your cold gets better soon. Come on spring time!

 

[PennitentMan]

Reproductive means “creates a baby”. Procreative means “tends to create a baby”. Do you see the difference? These terms are not always interchangeable, and when you do interchange them, it hurts your ability to understand Catholic teaching.

In God’s design for sex, the unitive and the reproductive are often separated. The unitive and the procreative (ordered toward life) however, are meant to go together, even when reproduction is absent, as in pregnancy, menopause and cyclical infertility.

I cannot find the Catholic Church describing this term, or defining this term anywhere.
However, the dictionary puts it as follows:

pro·cre·ate
Pronunciation[proh-kree-eyt]

Pronunciation verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to beget or generate (offspring).
2. to produce; bring into being.
–verb (used without object) 3. to beget offspring.
4. to produce; bring into being.

Can you cite where the Catholic Church defines in their teaching that the word they use has a different meaning from the dictionary term?

This is as I understand it, and it makes logical sense. And thus, the two are separate.

To change actual word meanings just to suit a church teaching doesn’t really make sense.

The action you refer to is making yourself aware of your relative fertility or infertility. This action is inoffensive because it makes no attempt to change fertility (or potential fertility) to infertility, which is the harm done with contraceptive use.

Non-abortive ABC, like condoms does not change fertility either.

The means and the end is the same in NFP and ABC. You are using tools and methods to not get pregnant.
The only difference is that with Non-Abortive ABC, the couple is more unified than the NFP couple.

I wish my husband would ask those questions! I’ve never found NFP use brought us closer together as a couple. Not contracepting gives us a more solid spiritual foundation so, as a result, we value non-contraceptive birth control for postponing pregnancy.

You know, I feel the same as you, but to a greater degree. NFP actually drove us apart, in a big way.

I hope your cold gets better soon. Come on spring time!

Ah well, you know what they say:
A cold takes 14 days with medication, and 2 weeks without medication to go away.

I just gotta wait

In Christ,
PM

 

[newbetx]

Non-abortive ABC, like condoms does not change fertility either.

Not quite. If you consider the couple as one, it does change the fertility of the couple.

The means and the end is the same in NFP and ABC. You are using tools and methods to not get pregnant.
The only difference is that with Non-Abortive ABC, the couple is more unified than the NFP couple.

What if the couple chose to not have sex, at all, after conceiving the last child they wanted? No NFP… just abstenance. on a scale of 1-3 how do Abstenance, NFP and ABC rank for the couple?

You know, I feel the same as you, but to a greater degree. NFP actually drove us apart, in a big way.

I understand this. Actually, it wasn’t NFP that drove us apart like we thought it did. When we turned to ABC out of FEAR that NFP would “fail” we didn’t understand what exactly was failing. We were. We lost our faith in God and ourselves. After 8 years of guilt and selfishness of ABC, THAT drove us apart. Just like it drives others apart. But by His grace and TOB, we are well on the path to recover from this.

 

[PennitentMan]

Firstly, I want to say thank you for your honesty.

And I’ll be honest here too.

What if the couple chose to not have sex, at all, after conceiving the last child they wanted? No NFP… just abstinence. on a scale of 1-3 how do Abstinence, NFP and ABC rank for the couple?

This is exactly the point.
For a marriage, considering a life of love, partnership and unity of mind, body and souls, lets look at your question. I’d put it this way, as far as choices go: (I know what the Church teaches, but this is me, and I’ll supply reasons).

Abstinence (lowest) - This couple cannot ever have sex again. The integral part of marriage that God made “And the two shall become one flesh” is removed from the marriage. It’s torture. You live with your spouse, sleep next to them, see them naked, kiss them, yearn to share yourself with them, but it’s denied you. I’ve been there and it’s truly painful.

NFP (mid) - At least with NFP you can still be intimate. [My question for intimacy is more in respect to the couples for which NFP doesn’t work (for various reasons)] But again, with NFP, the periods of abstinence are such that when the wife is fertile, naturally she is wanting to be intimate during this time…and this is the time to deny each other. I’ve been there too. It’s a tremendous feeling of loneliness for both partners, no matter what other things you practice, there is a void when you deny the other person, continually, each month. Especially when you have to be super careful with NFP, the couple’s window is small, and more often than not, the window closes with complications. I have heard this from many people, and seen it in my life too. Very close to the above rules apply here.

** Let me say here, that if NFP works for you, and it allows you to have intercourse with your spouse where neither of you are feeling left out or lonely, that is great, good on ya! A great number of people on this board profess this, but a myriad of other folks cannot have this intimacy with their spouse whilst practicing NFP.

Non-abortive ABC (best) - At least with Non-abortive ABC, the couple having trouble with NFP has a means to be intimate and to share each other, binding their marriage and making it stronger.

The differences between NFP and Non-abortive ABC is small enough in my mind to at least afford the struggling couple a way to keep their marriage intact. Right now the rules are so strict that this either drives couples apart (nearly happened to me) or drives them away from the Church.

Okay, read on…

I understand this. Actually, it wasn’t NFP that drove us apart like we thought it did. When we turned to ABC out of FEAR that NFP would “fail” we didn’t understand what exactly was failing. We were. We lost our faith in God and ourselves. After 8 years of guilt and selfishness of ABC, THAT drove us apart. Just like it drives others apart. But by His grace and TOB, we are well on the path to recover from this.

The only thing that happened here, is your “Catholic conscience” taking over. I have had a guilty conscience…it gnaws at you…and yes, that probably drove you apart…

Let me ask you this…if the Church relaxed their views just a little to the point where couples that truly struggle and have exhausted all possibilities are allowed to use Non-abortive ABC, would your conscience have bothered you?
No.

But with the Church defining ABC as being intrinsically evil, they cannot go back on this teaching. They have to stand their ground and not open this little doorway for struggling, good Catholics.
Even tough Non-abortive ABC is not intrinsically evil. And I’ll tell you why it’s not: Let’s look at “intrinsic”:

(Intrinsic evil being defines as: n·trin·sic /ɪnˈtrɪnsɪk, -zɪk/
–adjective

1. belonging to a thing by its very nature:

If Non-abortive ABC was intrinsically evil, meaning evil in and of itself, by it’s very nature, then (technically speaking) they would not have been able to allow ABC for medicinal uses either. They do teach that no evil thing can be used for good…
It’s a paradox.

I have spent much time thinking about this and the inconsistencies are there, and the lines are blurred…much more than they want to make it appear.

I’ll say again, this is where I have an issue and I can’t understand it…
A good, practicing Catholic couple try their best and give their all, they are now at the point where another child will cause them certain ruin, either by financial means, or certain death, or something as drastic as this.
They know that NFP doesn’t work effectively enough for them, and their only other option is to abstain for ever.
The Church enforces this life of loneliness and yearning - without compromise, without leniency, without mercy.

The difference between Non-abortive ABC and NFP is small enough to allow these couples a way out, to rekindle their marriage…in stead the teaching opens the door for people with little perseverance, or a weakened spirit to express their loneliness in other forms, like adultery, pornography, masturbation, etc…

Which is more evil of these two? A piece of latex? I think not.

 

[BruceK]

I have not read the whole exchange so sorry if someone already pointed it out. but according to humani vetai or on human life. there are 2 count them 2 purposes to sex in the marital union. (both are irrivocably bound to the marital union) and the other is the love of the spouses. in your first example he is stating that

Hence the “inseparable connection” is false and is in fact a rejection of God’s will and not “God’s will” as HV claims
What you’re saying here isn’t altogether clear. Are you saying that there are parts of Humanae Vitae that are inheritly self-contradictory?

but with nfp you avoid the menstral cycle while still haveing sex for the love of the spouses. that is fully giving yourself to your spouse. HV says that. So how is it a rejection of God’s will if you are using sex for what the church has stated sex is for?
**Indeed. **

 

[Red_Beard]

First, as we have well pointed out sex has two ends: unity/fidelity and procreation/fertility. But we have not looked at sex itself. The inherent meaning of sex: “I give myself totally to you.”
For sex to not lie it must be inside the sacrament of marriage, and it must be capable of bearing fuit. God, in His wisdom, disigned that the ends of sex may be separated, as PennitentMan has pointed out. God’s way of periodic fertility maintains that sex can be the total gift of self, achieve union and joy for the indiviual spouses, and procreation to be fruitful and generous. Even when a baby is not conceived, the total gift of self is made.
Man has no way of separating the ends of sex without preventing the total gift of self. In order to be “sure” that sex will only be “unitive,” the couple withholds their fertility from each other. There is no total gift of self, therefore sex is a lie. What marriage can stand a constant lie?

 Second, the Church cannot and will not change their teaching on the evil of contraception, because they would have to teach that serious lies were acceptable.  It is unjust.
 Changing with the times is not a virtue.  The Church upholds the Truth, and Truth does not change.

God bless

 

[Good_Daughter]

I cannot find the Catholic Church describing this term, or defining this term anywhere.
However, the dictionary puts it as follows:

pro·cre·ate
Pronunciation[proh-kree-eyt]

Pronunciation verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.
–verb (used with object) 1. to beget or generate (offspring).
2. to produce; bring into being.
–verb (used without object) 3. to beget offspring.
4. to produce; bring into being.

Can you cite where the Catholic Church defines in their teaching that the word they use has a different meaning from the dictionary term?

This is as I understand it, and it makes logical sense. And thus, the two are separate.

To change actual word meanings just to suit a church teaching doesn’t really make sense.

I agree with your definition of the term procreate. I see no different meaning used in Church teaching (ie. Humanae Vitae).

The term we discussed in an earlier post however, was procreative. Dictionary.com cites Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, which defines procreative this way:

1: capable of procreating: Generative
2: of, relating to, or directed toward procreation

When the Church teaches sex should be unitive and procreative (directed toward procreation) she uses a pretty standard, secular definition of the term procreative. Naturally infertile sex can still be directed toward procreation (fertility has not been thwarted). And thus, the two need never be separate.

Non-abortive ABC, like condoms does not change fertility either.

It doesn’t change fertility, it thwarts it by making the sexual act sterile. In using non-abortive ABC we reject the natural, healthy, relative level of fertility God has given us and replace it with a “fake” infertility of our own making. Is there something so wrong with your wife’s fertility level on any given day that you need to fix it youselves, or has her fertility level just become ridiculously hard to determine?

The means and the end is the same in NFP and ABC. You are using tools and methods to not get pregnant.

I agree the end is the same and both use tools and methods. The difference is with NFP you gather information and have sex during natural infertility. With ABC you create sterility and have sex during fake infertility.

The only difference is that with Non-Abortive ABC, the couple is more unified than the NFP couple.

Because they have more sex? Maybe you should say they’re more often unified than the NFP couple.

You know, I feel the same as you, but to a greater degree.

Yeah, maybe. Everybody’s got a story.

NFP actually drove us apart, in a big way.

I’m not surprised. I’ve seen couples driven apart by less.

God Bless.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Let me ask you this…if the Church relaxed their views just a little to the point where couples that truly struggle and have exhausted all possibilities are allowed to use Non-abortive ABC, would your conscience have bothered you?
No.

This was to newbetx so I hope you don’t mind if I reply…Yes. We don’t even need God in the picture to see that contraception always takes fertility, something natural, healthy and useful and thwarts it. I’ve known athiests who wouldn’t contracept. To fix, kill, block or change something that already works exactly the way it should, either in my body or my husband’s, seems like a kind of madness. No one has ever explained, on a theoretical level, how it isn’t. (I do see the attraction on a practical level.)

They know that NFP doesn’t work effectively enough for them, and their only other option is to abstain for ever.

I wonder if this is really true for you or if, like many others, you’ve suffered from poor NFP promotion, education and support. While I could never condone turning away from Church teaching in this area, I certainly understand why couples do. My dearest wish would be to see NFP addressed by both the Church and the medical community. I’m not holding my breath, but I haven’t completely lost hope either.

 

[PennitentMan]

Sorry for not replying, we are having some major internet trouble, I’ll reply as soon as I’m able.

PM

 

[PennitentMan]

I agree with your definition of the term procreate. I see no different meaning used in Church teaching (ie. Humanae Vitae).

The term we discussed in an earlier post however, was procreative. Dictionary.com cites Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, which defines procreative this way:

1: capable of procreating: Generative
2: of, relating to, or directed toward procreation

When the Church teaches sex should be unitive and procreative (directed toward procreation) she uses a pretty standard, secular definition of the term procreative. Naturally infertile sex can still be directed toward procreation (fertility has not been thwarted). And thus, the two need never be separate.

But in this case NFP renders the two even more separate, since NFP’s success rates are higher (close to 99.8% quoted) than Non-Abortive ABC’s the chance of each act being “open to life” is less of a chance with NFP.

It doesn’t change fertility, it thwarts it by making the sexual act sterile. In using non-abortive ABC we reject the natural, healthy, relative level of fertility God has given us and replace it with a “fake” infertility of our own making. Is there something so wrong with your wife’s fertility level on any given day that you need to fix it yourselves, or has her fertility level just become ridiculously hard to determine?

Loads of couples find it so difficult to determine the female’s fertility that NFP is not effective at all. It’s ABC or nothing for them. And the scenarios are not easy to fix, it extremely sensitive matters, like medication, time when you wake up, fever, etc…

I agree the end is the same and both use tools and methods. The difference is with NFP you gather information and have sex during natural infertility. With ABC you create sterility and have sex during fake infertility.

Both are barrier methods. You put a barrier between yourselves and fertility.

This was to newbetx so I hope you don’t mind if I reply…Yes. We don’t even need God in the picture to see that contraception always takes fertility, something natural, healthy and useful and thwarts it. I’ve known athiests who wouldn’t contracept. To fix, kill, block or change something that already works exactly the way it should, either in my body or my husband’s, seems like a kind of madness. No one has ever explained, on a theoretical level, how it isn’t. (I do see the attraction on a practical level.)

And NFP doesn’t thwart fertility? It renders the sex act infertile, more effective than ABCs.
And the body may function fine, but by it’s very function it will destroy a marriage and a family.

PS: Let’s hope my internet connection lasts!

 

[Good_Daughter]

But in this case NFP renders the two even more separate, since NFP’s success rates are higher (close to 99.8% quoted) than Non-Abortive ABC’s the chance of each act being “open to life” is less of a chance with NFP.

The definition of render is “to cause to be”. NFP doesn’t cause you to be infertile, it simply shows you when you are. Healthy women are rendered infertile cyclically by nature.

Would you please show me exactly where the Church teaches each act must be “open to life”?

Loads of couples find it so difficult to determine the female’s fertility that NFP is not effective at all. It’s ABC or nothing for them. And the scenarios are not easy to fix, it extremely sensitive matters, like medication, time when you wake up, fever, etc…

I agree with you. Where I live, neither medical professionals nor the Church are much help when it comes to NFP. It’s no wonder couples contracept, they have little real choice in the matter.

I’m one of those “lucky” women who finds it nearly impossible to use standard NFP as taught in the manuals. I decided to dig though, and I’ve discovered some resources that are really starting to facilitate NFP use for me.

Both are barrier methods. You put a barrier between yourselves and fertility.

I understand what you’re saying here, but by your logic, my husband and I are putting a barrier between ourselves and fertility any time we’re not having sex. In order to say you’re using a barrier (in the true sense of the word), I think you have to actually be having sex.

And NFP doesn’t thwart fertility? It renders the sex act infertile, more effective than ABCs.
And the body may function fine, but by it’s very function it will destroy a marriage and a family.

NFP doesn’t bypass or change fertility in order to cause infertility, it’s only capable of helping us recognize when we’re naturally infertile. And yes, when nature has rendered us infertile it is very effective. The challenge for us is to learn what our bodies’ fertility signs reveal (and, in some cases, to help our bodies make those signs more clearly).

If you’re saying the use of NFP for pregnancy prevention can lead to prolonged abstinence, loneliness, fear, doubt and tremendous marital strain, then I agree with you, it certainly can.

PennitentMan, some day I would love to discuss ways to make NFP work (as birth control) in seemingly hopeless situations like yours and mine. First though, I think that you, like BruceK’s friend, need to hear something that helps Catholic teaching make sense. I hope you hear it soon.

Pray for me and I’ll be praying for you. God Bless.

 

[newbetx]

PM you said

The only thing that happened here, is your “Catholic conscience” taking over. I have had a guilty conscience…it gnaws at you…and yes, that probably drove you apart…

Let me ask you this…if the Church relaxed their views just a little to the point where couples that truly struggle and have exhausted all possibilities are allowed to use Non-abortive ABC, would your conscience have bothered you?
No.

You don’t know the whole story. We used condoms on “unsafe days” anyway. So we weren’t bothered at all about a “Catholic conscience.”
It would not have mattered if they “relaxed” the views. We were already there and doing fine with it.

What happened later was when we went totally on ABC. Not just sometimes. After years of that, and not helping each other with the NFP process. Not being “in tune” with each other. That’s what did us in.

Did you say once that you had not read any TOB materials?

 

[Michael96]

It is interesting that this seems to be a much bigger in the US than in Europe. In Europe methods of birth control are pretty much left up to couples to decide with no heavy guidance from the Church (we hear a lot on moral issues such as abortion, migration and third world poverty from the Church in the UK but I can’t remember the last time I heard the Church or any priest talk about birth control). ABC is pretty much accepted so long as couples don’t intend to permanently close themselves off from children. This perhaps is because much of Europe is already at much higher population density than the US and so there is much more pressure on housing and services.

But it’s interesting and thought-provoking to observe the differences in social/moral attitudes between Europe and the US.

 

[luvlife]

A good, practicing Catholic couple try their best and give their all, they are now at the point where another child will cause them certain ruin, either by financial means, or certain death, or something as drastic as this.

Which is more evil of these two? A piece of latex? I think not.

If I knew that another child were to cause certain “ruin” … something so drastic like you mentioned, I would NOT rely on a piece of latex.

Prior to becoming Catholic, My first born was conceived despite a piece of latex.

 

[PennitentMan]

Prior to becoming Catholic, My first born was conceived despite a piece of latex.

Exactly my point.

NFP seems more “closed to life” tham modern day ABC, but it’s the ABC that’s labelled as Intrinsically evil and closed to life.

sigh

PS: Since my “announcement” on this forum, I don’t think I can debate this any longer here.

Thanks.

 

[BruceK]

It is interesting that this seems to be a much bigger in the US than in Europe. In Europe methods of birth control are pretty much left up to couples to decide with no heavy guidance from the Church (we hear a lot on moral issues such as abortion, migration and third world poverty from the Church in the UK but I can’t remember the last time I heard the Church or any priest talk about birth control).