Is this an abuse of marriage?

[LongingSoul]

I understand your motivation here.

However, if the person holds the view that an act impedes conception and chooses that act for that reason alone, how is that not contraception?

Perhaps this point is obscured by the absurdity of the example, the normality of the act in question and its ineffectiveness? If so, ignore the actual act and just re-read my prior paragraph.

One is not required to optimize chance of conception, eg lying in bed undisturbed for 3 hours (if that had such an effect). One is free to get up whenever the desire to get up arises.

Praying “please God don’t let me be pregnant” expresses misgivings and leaves the matter with God.

The example has deliberately absurd elements and are based on the premise that NFP is impossible for this person which itself isn’t a reality. It reminds me of the shadowy conundrums that the poster Loki(name removed by moderator) used to post before she was banned. They were designed to undermined teaching in some way.

I know that to deliberately intercede in the process before, during or after intercourse with the intention of preventing conception is what constitutes contraception. What we have in this scenario is not actually an act. There is allowing something to happen a little longer that happens anyway on the basis of wishful thinking… but without actually any deliberate intervention. Like the omission of an act to preserve life as per an elderly person wanting to die and refusing meds. The intention is to die. There is no deliberate act but rather a giving nature a free run. It’s not the maturity of faith that one would hope to have, but it is not suicide.

 

[Rau]

The example has deliberately absurd elements and are based on the premise that NFP is impossible for this person which itself isn’t a reality. It reminds me of the shadowy conundrums that the poster Loki(name removed by moderator) used to post before she was banned. They were designed to undermined teaching in some way.

I know that to deliberately intercede in the process before, during or after intercourse with the intention of preventing conception is what constitutes contraception. What we have in this scenario is not actually an act. There is allowing something to happen a little longer that happens anyway on the basis of wishful thinking… but without actually any deliberate intervention. Like the omission of an act to preserve life as per an elderly person wanting to die and refusing meds. The intention is to die. There is no deliberate act but rather a giving nature a free run. It’s not the maturity of faith that one would hope to have, but it is not suicide.

I agree with you regarding suicide. Do you agree that the coffee drinking scenario as per my post above is contraception?

 

[LongingSoul]

If u believe 5 cups of coffee make u infertile, and you consume them for that purpose so that sex will not result in conception, and you have sex, did you employ contraception?

What if you believe the coffee will halve the chances of conception, but the rest is the same? Is that contraception?

There’s so many nuances to be factored in. If you are used to drinking 5 cups of coffee a day and you know that that has the effect of reducing fertility… are you meant to stop drinking the coffee once you marry because you know of its side effect making it contraception?

If you start up drinking 5 cups of coffee with the express purpose of reducing fertility, you have then fashioned it into a contraceptive product.

 

[Rau]

If you start up drinking 5 cups of coffee with the express purpose of reducing fertility, you have then fashioned it into a contraceptive product.

Right, and your actions are an attempt at contraception. * And if you formulate and adopt a strategy of standing upright immediately after sex, purely as a means to impede conception (in the belief that it does that), I cannot interpret this as other than an attempt at contraception.*

 

[tafan]

No, it’s about intentions.

If the person is doing jumping jacks/drinking 20 cups of coffee a day/wearing an amulet from a witch doctor/etc. with the intention of reducing fertility, that’s contraception. If the person is doing all of those things with no such intention, that’s not contraception.

The intent is what’s important. Consider, for instance, if a woman were taking birth control pills that were actually duds due to a manufacturing error. She’d still be attempting contraception, no matter how ineffective they were.

Is it only about intentions? I am considering of the teaching of the Church with regards to what makes a particular action a mortal sin:

1. It must be grave matter
2. One must know it is grave matter
3. and one must willingly do it.

It seems to me that if someone does something (eg drink 20 cups of coffee a day) he/she believes to be contraception, but in fact it is not, this would not be a mortal sin. Perhaps the intent still makes it a venial sin.

 

[Xantippe]

Is it only about intentions? I am considering of the teaching of the Church with regards to what makes a particular action a mortal sin:

1. It must be grave matter
2. One must know it is grave matter
3. and one must willingly do it.

It seems to me that if someone does something (eg drink 20 cups of coffee a day) he/she believes to be contraception, but in fact it is not, this would not be a mortal sin. Perhaps the intent still makes it a venial sin.

We aren’t discussing whether it’s a mortal sin or not in a particular case, just what is and isn’t contraception.

Here’s another example where intention is important:

Let’s imagine that a man believes that he is exchanging lewd emails with a very underage girl and arranging to meet her–but the underage girl is actually a 45-year-old male vice cop. The evil intent is there, but it’s unsuccessful.

 

[LongingSoul]

Right, and your actions are an attempt at contraception. * And if you formulate and adopt a strategy of standing upright immediately after sex, purely as a means to impede conception (in the belief that it does that), I cannot interpret this as other than an attempt at contraception.*

We could argue the point all day long but it would probably only be a theologian who could correctly identify the exact degree of sin and if it qualified as contraception. I’ve personally never used contraception so I’m not familiar with the contraceptive disposition enough to correctly identify it.

I tend to see an image of God and mother nature chuckling at some of the crazy antics of human beings who panic over the things of life and in a scenario like the OP… rather than them having conniptions about the intrinsic evil or violation of nature that a woman who ‘stands’ or ‘sits’ for a little extra time is committing… I imagine that objectively there’s another problem more prominent in the subject. Would God really have someone standing before Him on a murder charge if he was trying to kill someone with a feather?

 

[Rau]

We could argue the point all day long but it would probably only be a theologian who could correctly identify the exact degree of sin and if it qualified as contraception. I’ve personally never used contraception so I’m not familiar with the contraceptive disposition enough to correctly identify it.

I tend to see an image of God and mother nature chuckling at some of the crazy antics of human beings who panic over the things of life and in a scenario like the OP… rather than them having conniptions about the intrinsic evil or violation of nature that a woman who ‘stands’ or ‘sits’ for a little extra time is committing… I imagine that objectively there’s another problem more prominent in the subject. Would God really have someone standing before Him on a murder charge if he was trying to kill someone with a feather?

What poison did the would-be murderer believe the sharp end of the feather was tipped in?

 

[LongingSoul]

What poison did the would-be murderer believe the sharp end of the feather was tipped in?

Ha ha yes. The scenario could get all Poirot… but as a basic plot… it presents a subject who is rather simple or ignorant in their thinking and it really doesn’t have the mettle as an example to help define contraception I don’t think.

 

[tafan]

We aren’t discussing whether it’s a mortal sin or not in a particular case, just what is and isn’t contraception.

Here’s another example where intention is important:

Let’s imagine that a man believes that he is exchanging lewd emails with a very underage girl and arranging to meet her–but the underage girl is actually a 45-year-old male vice cop. The evil intent is there, but it’s unsuccessful.

From the OP’s second post:

Ok, so regardless of whether or not it works, if the woman’s intention in doing so is to prevent or lower the chances of pregnancy, is that a contraceptive act that needs to be confessed?

So your point is that if it is a contraceptive act, it needs to be confessed regardless of it being mortally sinful?

 

[Xantippe]

From the OP’s second post:

So your point is that if it is a contraceptive act, it needs to be confessed regardless of it being mortally sinful?

I think I would confess it whether or not it’s a mortal sin or not and try to do better in future (do actual NFP, perhaps with a fertility monitor, and stick to the rules).

Being continually anxious about possible pregnancy is no way to live.