F
felra
Guest
Show me where NFP erects a barrier against conception in the marital act? Also, where in your “logic” does continence fit in as a mutually honoring, rational choice between married couples?
- Status
P
PalletBoy
Guest
Neither does clothing .
I was under the impression God was omnipotent.
I wish you’d respond to the actual question, not create rabit trails and tangents, it’s really frustrating.
A regular condom doesn’t kill. It merely blocks the sperm.
NFP, again, exists, by it’s own definition, as a method of controlling birth. The two are exactly the same.
NFP = Birth Control. Condom = Birth Control.
Let us talk about the intentions of the heart. You use NFP so that you may be a good steward while maintaining relations with your wife.
I use condoms so that I may be a good steward while maintaining relations with my wife.
**Please address this directly! Why do we say that condoms are bad? Is a bandage bad because it stops bleeding? The body would eventually stop the bleeding anyway? We’re interfereing with the natural, God-Created process according to your school of thought!
**
Y
yochumjy
Guest
Mercygate,
It’s Christopher West, not White. He is an amazing speaker.
christopherwest.com/
John
M
mercygate
Guest
It isn’t CONTRA anything. It doesn’t “block.” It requires the exercise of the virtues of patience and self-restraint. Think of it as aceptive rather than CONTRAceptive. Even Paul allows couples to abstain from marital relations for a time (I Cor 7:5) – abstaining is not thwarting, distorting or perverting the “natural human act.” Others have agreed with you that using NFP with a contraceptive intent is wrong but let me propose a parallel: Because there is rape, does that make our chaste sexuality in marriage evil? Of course not. An abuse does not invalidate the proper use.
M
mercygate
Guest
Right! Thanks for the correction.
P
PalletBoy
Guest
NFP, by it’s very definition, is a method for how not get pregnant.
It may not be a physical barrier like a condom, but the intent is exactly the same! Therefore, how can you justify it as moral while saying a condom is immoral??
M
mercygate
Guest
Because there ARE good and holy reasons to manage the size of one’s family. Because it works WITH our God-created nature and not against it. I realize that this distinction may be too subtle for our culture, but once you “get it” the lights will go on all over the place for you in your marriage.
You could pray about this. It is one of the areas where the Holy Spirit is particularly eager to make inroads.
Y
yochumjy
Guest
You forgot about the fig leaves, now didn’t you.Neither does clothing .
That is completely irrelavant, since God doesn’t guide you like a puppet on a string. You choose whether to allow him in or not. By discerning how to interact naturally with your wife you are more open to God than mindlessly pulling on a condom whenever you want and ignoring the natural beauty of your wife’s cycle.
And I thought you weren’t trying to be hard headed. Listen, if you don’t want to actually discuss this, then please continue to dig in your heels, we can’t stop you. But if you actually want to open up your mind and discuss this, then do so with out accusing me of derailing this. I am giving you the reasons why ABC is not natural and why it is NOT in line with your marriage vows. If your frustrated, consider why. Is it because I’m challenging your views only, or because this challenge is upsetting because you see something in it and you’ve already made up your mind.
I agree that both are birth control, but the ends does not justify the means. So let us start here. Yes they both result in the same thing. Happy? Now, at least you can admit that the way they acheive the result is different. If you can’t, then we have no common ground to talk on and the whole conversation is worthless.
The issue is whether both approaches allow us to live properly within the framework that God created. Please note that I am going to say the next sentance in an ABSURD way. I am not saying you do this, but I am going to exagerate. “You could also maintain relations with your wife by raping her, and just claim that maintaining relations is what God wants us to do” Yes, it is absurd, no I don’t think you do this, but do you get the point? Just because you continue relations with your wife, does not mean that the MEANS is correct. What we are discussing is the MEANS of controlling birth. NFP and ABC have conflicting MEANS.
Then show me how NFP is not natural. Another poster reminded you that women have NATURALLY non-fertile times. Was that a mistake by God? Did he make us and say, “Darn, added some infertile time, oh well, I’ll just make it up by sticking stuff into the bible” . No, God does not make mistakes. Since there is an infertile time, relations during that infertile time is not wrong. NFP identifies that infertile time. Condoms don’t care about the natural process of the body. They work even when your wife is FERTILE. Having relations during the FERTILE time and using a condom is just like telling God that his cycle means nothing to you. Condoms are not natural.
John
F
felra
Guest
I will try (perhaps one last time) with a simple analogy:
God gave married couples an on/off light switch for conceiving children (i.e., natural cycles of fertility/infertility and the rational ability to abstain/engage in the marital act). ABC is putting duck tape over the on/off switch (i.e., a rude way to manipulate the Designers intended function and purpose of human sexuality). What you need to ask yourself in your ultimate emphasis on intention, is, who is the ultimate Giver and* Creator* of life? Put another way, who is ultimately Lord and Savior in your life?
Y
yochumjy
Guest
Actually, NFP can also be used to try and GET PREGNANT. Any clue as to how to use a condom to do that? Please note my previous reply, so that we can get to the MEANS of not achieving pregnancy.
John
M
mercygate
Guest
So I ask you, PalletBoy, if they are “exactly the same,” then what is your problem with NFP? Why would you not want to use the means that works WITH the divine plan rather than AGAINST it?
BTW, “NFP” doesn’t mean “Not For Protestants.”
S
Scotty_PGH
Guest
felra said:“non-artificial birth control” …this should accurately read “God given cycles of fertility and non-fertility”. Interesting to note how ABC is always spoken in negative terms against God’s design for reproductive capacity.
Click on here for citation of contraceptive references in the bible: catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0663.html . (And please read this time before responding, or else, I may not keep providing you with these very helpful link resources).
Wow, this is a very powerful statement from the essay linked above:
I would love to see the Church make such strong, authoritative statements today. If they thought we were in moral ruin in the '30’s, they should see the state of affairs today!
D
demolitionman65
Guest
Pallet, you are being obstinate. Replies have been given to you, by Mercygate, fix, felra, mlchance and me that have adequately answered your concern. Through what appears to be your interpretation of logic, you refuse to admit the legitimacy of these arguments.
I have one slight filip to add: condoms do nothing to facilitate the self-mastery of the married couple; they still can “do it” whenever the urge hits, while NFP requires discipline on the part of the married couple. They have to refrain during certain periods of the month. (And this refraining actually STRENGTHENS the marriage bond in a way condoms cannot).
My only other response is in the Chestertonian mode:
Assume that in your lights that NFP and condoms are morally equivalent. Condoms are condemned by the Church and this teaching defended by its followers. Furthermore, NFP (when done correctly) is MORE effective than condoms. If your concerns are good stewardship AND being morally clear, don’t you owe it to yourself to practice NFP, just to be morally safe?
I have one slight filip to add: condoms do nothing to facilitate the self-mastery of the married couple; they still can “do it” whenever the urge hits, while NFP requires discipline on the part of the married couple. They have to refrain during certain periods of the month. (And this refraining actually STRENGTHENS the marriage bond in a way condoms cannot).
My only other response is in the Chestertonian mode:
Assume that in your lights that NFP and condoms are morally equivalent. Condoms are condemned by the Church and this teaching defended by its followers. Furthermore, NFP (when done correctly) is MORE effective than condoms. If your concerns are good stewardship AND being morally clear, don’t you owe it to yourself to practice NFP, just to be morally safe?
F
fix
Guest
PalletBoy said:
A bandage is for pathology. Condoms and BCPs, and the like, interfer with the normal functioning of our bodies. The exact opposite of medicine.
As someone pointed out, the ends do not justify the means.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
My favorite analogy of this is eating disorders versus dieting for very same intention of weight loss.
If someone wants to loose weight, they can skip eating desserts and other fattening foods and follow a diet…
But some people with the eating disorder of bullemia eat all those foods and then throw up get rid of the calories and loose weight. They have both accomplished the same thing: weight loss.
In the case of dieting, it is a legitimate means of loosing weight, meant to be followed as long as their is a significant reason to loose weight.
In the case of bullemia, it is a disordered way of thinking about food.
WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY OF SEXUAL BULLEMICS,
Just as we can legitimately choose not to eat when we want to loose weight, we can legitimately choose to abstain from marital relations when we need to avoid pregnancy. Natural Family Planning is a legitimate way to avoid pregnancy, *if *you have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy.
F
fix
Guest
- Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, Mother and Teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, they did not also support mankind in the honest regulation of birth amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. The Church, in fact, cannot act differently toward men than did the Redeemer. She knows their weaknesses, she has compassion on the multitude, she welcomes sinners. But at the same time she cannot do otherwise than teach the law. For it is in fact the law of human life restored to its native truth and guided by the Spirit of God. (24) Observing the Divine Law.
- The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself. And yet there is no doubt that to many it will appear not merely difficult but even impossible to observe. Now it is true that like all good things which are outstanding for their nobility and for the benefits which they confer on men, so this law demands from individual men and women, from families and from human society, a resolute purpose and great endurance. Indeed it cannot be observed unless God comes to their help with the grace by which the goodwill of men is sustained and strengthened. But to those who consider this matter diligently it will indeed be evident that this endurance enhances man’s dignity and confers benefits on human society.
J
jlac001
Guest
Does anyone else get tired of these debates about the churches teachings. If you disagree with the churches teachings and refuse to follow them, then why are you catholic? There are plenty of other religions out there that would probable fit your specific beliefs. God knows the future and if he wanted is to use condoms etc… the bible would have read “be fruitfull and multiply but only until the birth control pill, condoms and other ABC are created”.
P
PalletBoy
Guest
Sorry for the delay, I was out for a bit, back and reading the posts again.
John: I’m reading and reading your post. I need to think a bit, you’re very astute.
Mercy: I’m definitely **not **against NFP! I, at this point in time, do not see what the difference is between NFP and ABC as far as to say that “using a condom is sin”
demolitionman: I’m not a Christian just for fire-insurrance or as you put it “just to be morally safe”. I refuse to accept anything without a great amount of study and thought. I understand that you accept every Catholic Teaching as if Christ himself said it; I cannot do that. I must understand the reason I believe something, or I do not believe in it.
While I’m reading and thinking, let us go to the end result:
Let us accept (for arguments sake at this point) that condoms, blocking sperm, are different than NFP, which does not physically block sperm.
How does the blocking of sperm become a sin? is it an implied sin because, since it is a deviancy from the design of God, it must be against God and is therefore sinful?
BTW Demo: “Pallet, you are being obstinate.”
Obstinate is Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action. Yes. When I believe I’ve studied something out and come to a final conclusion, without a valid rebuttel in contradiction to my thinking, why should I change my mind?
Now I have food for thought. I’ll be reading and thinking a bit and will respond in a while.
John: I’m reading and reading your post. I need to think a bit, you’re very astute.
Mercy: I’m definitely **not **against NFP! I, at this point in time, do not see what the difference is between NFP and ABC as far as to say that “using a condom is sin”
demolitionman: I’m not a Christian just for fire-insurrance or as you put it “just to be morally safe”. I refuse to accept anything without a great amount of study and thought. I understand that you accept every Catholic Teaching as if Christ himself said it; I cannot do that. I must understand the reason I believe something, or I do not believe in it.
While I’m reading and thinking, let us go to the end result:
Let us accept (for arguments sake at this point) that condoms, blocking sperm, are different than NFP, which does not physically block sperm.
How does the blocking of sperm become a sin? is it an implied sin because, since it is a deviancy from the design of God, it must be against God and is therefore sinful?
BTW Demo: “Pallet, you are being obstinate.”
Obstinate is Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action. Yes. When I believe I’ve studied something out and come to a final conclusion, without a valid rebuttel in contradiction to my thinking, why should I change my mind?
Now I have food for thought. I’ll be reading and thinking a bit and will respond in a while.
P
PalletBoy
Guest
Sorry for the delay, I was out for a bit, back and reading the posts again.
John: I’m reading and reading your post. I need to think a bit, you’re very astute.
Mercy: I’m definitely **not **against NFP! I, at this point in time, do not see what the difference is between NFP and ABC as far as to say that “using a condom is sin”
demolitionman: I’m not a Christian just for fire-insurrance or as you put it “just to be morally safe”. I refuse to accept anything without a great amount of study and thought. I understand that you accept every Catholic Teaching as if Christ himself said it; I cannot do that. I must understand the reason I believe something, or I do not believe in it.
While I’m reading and thinking, let us go to the end result:
Let us accept (for arguments sake at this point) that condoms, blocking sperm, are different than NFP, which does not physically block sperm.
How does the blocking of sperm become a sin? Is it an implied sin because, since it is a **deviancy **from the design of God, it must be **against **God and is therefore sinful?
Or is it a “Paul won’t eat meat” sin?
BTW Demo: “Pallet, you are being obstinate.”
Obstinate is Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action. Yes. When I believe I’ve studied something out and come to a final conclusion, without a valid rebuttel in contradiction to my thinking, why should I change my mind?
Now I have food for thought. I’ll be reading and thinking a bit and will respond in a while.
John: I’m reading and reading your post. I need to think a bit, you’re very astute.
Mercy: I’m definitely **not **against NFP! I, at this point in time, do not see what the difference is between NFP and ABC as far as to say that “using a condom is sin”
demolitionman: I’m not a Christian just for fire-insurrance or as you put it “just to be morally safe”. I refuse to accept anything without a great amount of study and thought. I understand that you accept every Catholic Teaching as if Christ himself said it; I cannot do that. I must understand the reason I believe something, or I do not believe in it.
While I’m reading and thinking, let us go to the end result:
Let us accept (for arguments sake at this point) that condoms, blocking sperm, are different than NFP, which does not physically block sperm.
How does the blocking of sperm become a sin? Is it an implied sin because, since it is a **deviancy **from the design of God, it must be **against **God and is therefore sinful?
Or is it a “Paul won’t eat meat” sin?
BTW Demo: “Pallet, you are being obstinate.”
Obstinate is Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action. Yes. When I believe I’ve studied something out and come to a final conclusion, without a valid rebuttel in contradiction to my thinking, why should I change my mind?
Now I have food for thought. I’ll be reading and thinking a bit and will respond in a while.
F
fix
Guest
Continuing in this vein, the great Pontiff rightly emphasized the “essential difference” between contraception and the use of natural methods in exercising “responsible procreation”. It is an anthropological difference because, in the final analysis, it involves two irreconcilable concepts of the person and of human sexuality (cf. Apostolic Exhortation * Familiaris consortio, n. 32). It is not uncommon, in current thinking, for the natural methods of fertility regulation to be separated from their proper ethical dimension and to be considered in their merely functional aspect. It is not surprising then that people no longer perceive the profound difference between these and the artificial methods. As a result they go so far as to speak of them as if they were another form of contraception. But this is certainly not the way they should be viewed or applied. On the contrary, it is only in the logic of the reciprocal gift between man and woman that the natural regulation of fertility can be correctly understood and authentically lived as the proper expression of a real and mutual communion of love and life. It is worth repeating here that “the person can never be considered as a means to an end; above all never a means of ‘pleasure’. The person is and must be nothing other than the end of every act. Only then does the action correspond to the true dignity of the person” (cf. * Letter to Families, n. 12).
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...nts/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980227_fertilidade_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...nts/hf_jp-ii_spe_19980227_fertilidade_en.html
- Status