F
fix
Guest
As reported, the priest is very wrong. Lust is a grave sin.
- Status
J
jmv
Guest
Correct
‘But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart’
It is not because he looked lustfully at a woman who was not his wife that makes it wrong, it is precisely because he looked at a woman in this way. (More or less a quote from Christopher West’s 'Naked without Shame CD Set – highly recommended! www.nakedwithoutshame.com)
R
rec
Guest
True Knight:
Thanks, Ken. I just saw your site, from an ealier post, and will read the article. In my own defense, I may have used the term lust inappropriately - what I really meant was thinking about making love to my wife is sexually aroiusing to me - or, perhaps not, maybe that is the definition?
C
cynic
Guest
I don’t mean to be rude here, but yours appears to be the only human reponse here. To the other posters - when I said ‘lust’ I was generally meaning all sexual desire. I not going to argue what lust is, or what constitutes acceptable or sinful desire (unitive vs lust). How can you have a sexual relationship with your other half without desire of some sort, some desire for intimacy at least? I’m not neccessarily talking about objectification, though I’m sure some here would define all sexual desire as such. It’s a bit ridiculous. I’m assuming all you moral purists out there opposed to all pleasure do this teriible act throuhg a hole in the sheet when having children.
What i was saying was that NFP does one of the things you claim ABC does. It separates these two fundamental aspects (your words) of sex by DELIBERATELY and KNOWINGLY having sex when there is no possiblity of conception. Avoiding preganancy in any way separates the procreative from the unitive aspect. Creating irrelevant distinctions doesn’t change this. The couple is having ‘relations’ because they want to, not for the greater gola of procreation and this is the thing that is condemend as sin by other people here while at the same time advocating NFP?!? I’m not here to try and justify ABC, (I’m not married so what would I know) - but to point out an obviouse contradiction, and one that I bet creates a lot of anxiety for married people
C
cynic
Guest
True Knight:
I would never want to reduce the idea of intimacy in marriage down to physical attraction, but how on earth does arousal ocurr without some physical attraction of the flesh? Knowing and loving the other increases it and at the same time makes sex so much more than this, but to deny that such desires are part of it, or try to ‘purify’ sex into something totally cerebral and platonic is just plain delusional.
J
Johnny_C
Guest
Hey guys and gals, I’m brand new to the forum and I have a question in this matter. Here is my situation. I am Catholic since 1993, a convert from protestant. Around 1997 I gradually stopped going to church. In 1999 I married a protestant lady. She loves Jesus with all her heart. We attended protestant churches regularly till about one year ago when we moved to a different state. Just recently I have returned to the Catholic Church. My wife is also interested in the faith and is attending Mass with me. Ok, now to the point. My wife was not taught in the ways of the Church with regard to birth control. She was taught as a protestant that contraception was OK. She has been surgically sterilized and is now going through menopause. We are curious of her standing with the Church with regard to mortal sin in her case. Any help would be appreciated. 
F
felra
Guest
Somehow, dressing up in a condom, injesting a chemical compound, using whatever chemical barriers to conception …these do not strike me as “irelevent distinctions”.
To understand your above logic/contention correctly, any [married] couple having sex outside a known fertile period is the same as ABC?
The Church’s teaching regarding prohibition against ABC is not an easy teaching for alot of folks to accept. Why? Because it puts pleasing God first, and pleasing yourself second, third, …
C
cynic
Guest
Part of the reason a lot of people here are against ABC is because it ‘frustrates’ the procreative aspect. It allows couples in have ‘relations’ for non procreative reasons. To be consistent those with such beliefs would have to judge NFP in the same way.
Sure there are other reasons to be against ABC - it’s artificial, it prevents a life that would otherwise occurr etc - but that wasn’t what I was on about.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Johnny C.:
Welcome back! As you may (or may not) have learned for a sin to be a mortal sin, a person must realize that what they are doing is a mortal sin. However, it was still wrong. This should be confessed by you as you are Catholic (as well as your time away from the Church if you haven’t already done that.) Once it is confessed, you are obsolved, just as with any sin. Some people may desire having a reversal of the procedure, but the Church doesn’t require that. If your wife is interested in joining the Church, we welcome people who have been sterilized too. Her sterilization does not prevent you from returning to the Church or from your wife joining.Just recently I have returned to the Catholic Church. My wife is also interested in the faith and is attending Mass with me. Ok, now to the point. My wife was not taught in the ways of the Church with regard to birth control. She was taught as a protestant that contraception was OK. She has been surgically sterilized and is now going through menopause. We are curious of her standing with the Church with regard to mortal sin in her case. Any help would be appreciated.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
You underestimate us moral purists! It is not a “terrible act” that some of us merely put up with for the sole purpose of having children. To reduce it to only a function for creating babies when a woman is fertile is wrong, just as reducing it to just an erotic experience is wrong.
And you may have missed this in the discussion, but the Catholic Church teaches that there should be some serious reason for NFP to be used by married couples in the first place. Many find all kinds of reasons to say they shouldn’t have more children, but children are a great blessing. The Church encourages us to accept children lovingly from God.
It says in your profile that you are Protestant, so I will point out that God commanded Adam and repeated to Noah to “go forth and multiply.” Proverbs tells us that sons are a heritage from the Lord and that children are a reward. Sometime NFP is misused by people to prevent the Lord from blessing their marriage with more children and that is wrong too.
If the couple has a serious reason to avoid pregnancy or more children at that time, they may still enjoy married relations. God created females to be fertile only part of the time. He could have made women fertile 100% of the time, just as He made men that way, but He didn’t. NFP works within God’s plan of creation of how He creates us. But the normal state of most marriages shouldn’t be avoidance of pregnancy and children.
T
TZiggy
Guest
Palletboy,
Wow, what a thread you opened!
I couldn’t actually get through the whole thread with the time I have. I did read for 20 minutes or so. It would seem that everything logical and faithful that could be was said. Please read some of the books suggested. They will help.
I’d like to leave you with this thought.
You are questioning the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control for a reason. At some point to vet out the efficacy of her teachings you’ll have to experience the power of stepping out in faith on this matter. For if you ask me, anyone who has grappled with NFP (and actually tried it) has had to at some point stop intellectualising it and try.
My wife and I did, and found out in a hurry that God wanted to give us gifts way beyond our imaginations.
Good luck with your journey
Wow, what a thread you opened!
I couldn’t actually get through the whole thread with the time I have. I did read for 20 minutes or so. It would seem that everything logical and faithful that could be was said. Please read some of the books suggested. They will help.
I’d like to leave you with this thought.
You are questioning the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control for a reason. At some point to vet out the efficacy of her teachings you’ll have to experience the power of stepping out in faith on this matter. For if you ask me, anyone who has grappled with NFP (and actually tried it) has had to at some point stop intellectualising it and try.
My wife and I did, and found out in a hurry that God wanted to give us gifts way beyond our imaginations.
Good luck with your journey
F
fix
Guest
In particular, responsible fatherhood and motherhood directly concern the moment in which a man and a woman, uniting themselves “in one flesh”, can become parents. This is a moment of special value both for their interpersonal relationship and for their service to life: they can become parents—father and mother—by communicating life to a new human being. *The two dimensions of conjugal union, *the unitive and the procreative, *cannot be artificially separated *without damaging the deepest truth of the conjugal act itself.
This is the constant teaching of the Church, and the “signs of the times” which we see today are providing new reasons for forcefully reaffirming that teaching. Saint Paul, himself so attentive to the pastoral demands of his day, clearly and firmly indicated the need to be “urgent in season and out of season” (cf. *2 Tim *4:2), and not to be daunted by the fact that “sound teaching is no longer endured” (cf. *2 Tim *4:3). His words are well known to those who, with deep insight into the events of the present time, expect that the Church will not only not abandon “sound doctrine”, but will proclaim it with renewed vigour, seeking in today’s “signs of the times” the incentive and insights which can lead to a deeper understanding of her teaching.
…In the conjugal act, husband and wife are called to confirm in a responsible way *the mutual gift *of self which they have made to each other in the marriage covenant. The logic of the *total gift of self to the other *involves a potential openness to procreation: in this way the marriage is called to even greater fulfilment as a family. Certainly the mutual gift of husband and wife does not have the begetting of children as its only end, but is in itself a mutual communion of love and of life. *The intimate truth of this gift *must always be *safeguarded. *“Intimate” is not here synonymous with “subjective”. Rather, it means essentially in conformity with the objective truth of the man and woman who give themselves. The person can never be considered 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.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_02021994_families_en.html
This is the constant teaching of the Church, and the “signs of the times” which we see today are providing new reasons for forcefully reaffirming that teaching. Saint Paul, himself so attentive to the pastoral demands of his day, clearly and firmly indicated the need to be “urgent in season and out of season” (cf. *2 Tim *4:2), and not to be daunted by the fact that “sound teaching is no longer endured” (cf. *2 Tim *4:3). His words are well known to those who, with deep insight into the events of the present time, expect that the Church will not only not abandon “sound doctrine”, but will proclaim it with renewed vigour, seeking in today’s “signs of the times” the incentive and insights which can lead to a deeper understanding of her teaching.
…In the conjugal act, husband and wife are called to confirm in a responsible way *the mutual gift *of self which they have made to each other in the marriage covenant. The logic of the *total gift of self to the other *involves a potential openness to procreation: in this way the marriage is called to even greater fulfilment as a family. Certainly the mutual gift of husband and wife does not have the begetting of children as its only end, but is in itself a mutual communion of love and of life. *The intimate truth of this gift *must always be *safeguarded. *“Intimate” is not here synonymous with “subjective”. Rather, it means essentially in conformity with the objective truth of the man and woman who give themselves. The person can never be considered 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.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_02021994_families_en.html
C
cynic
Guest
By describing the act in this way you are basically saying that if procreation is not at least possible, then it is just about selfish gratification. By this logic any sex outside the fertile times becomes immoral, since the procreative aspect is not a factor. And yet the church allows couples to have this part of their relationship during these times. It’s a contradiction. One that isn’t logically explained.
I’m not sure I like the vaticans definition of ‘pure’ conjugal love, I’m not sure what the “person must be the end of the act” actually means. If you were talking about a pornographic objectification of your spouse as wrong then I could understand that. But intimacy and the associated pleasure subjugated to some vague and undefined goal of ‘unity’? It sounds like a unnecessary over-moralisation. Depressing.
F
felra
Guest
“person must be the end of the act” means that for the act of the marital embrace to preserve it’s intergity one must never dissassociate it from the person or relationship (conjugal relationship). Simply put, to have intercourse with an artifical barrier in place means “I love you, but you cannot have all of me”, which is not a full giving and vulnerable gift of self (intimacy) to your spouse (in the relationship exchange of full physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual aspects). Hence, ABC removes the other person as the “end of the act”, rather only part of the act, a partial giving. To try to equate ABC with properly understood and practiced NFP is to miss the most obvious – inserting an artificial barrier/block (ABC) to total self giving in the meaning and function of the unifying and procreative apsects of the marital act versus no artificial blocks (NFP) to a full marital embrace.
F
fix
Guest
One must be open to life with each martial embrace. One analogy I have seen used is that of a dinner party. If you wanted to invite 7 people to dinner, but then decided to only invite six and you had two choices to leave out the seventh person how would you do it? Would you just not invite the 7th person or would you invite 6 and tell the 7th you are having a dinner party and specifically tell him not to come? The result may be the same, but the intention and means are very different.
V
Vatican2_Worker
Guest
Unfortunately, we can’t really say contraception is “interfering with God’s design” as one poster said. This doesn’t seem to eb such a true statement because by that same token isn’t modern medicine interfering with God’s plan. SO really I think the speculation about what is or is not God’s plan should be stopped, though God would never plan immorality.
F
felra
Guest
Vatican2 Worker:
Moral beings made in the image of God, man as a rational and free will creature is culpable for creating and choosing immoral technologies/procedures against what God’s plan is as revealed by natural and divine law.
" …we can’t really say contraception is "interfering with God’s design…"–contra-ception (i.e., *against, opposite, contrasting *to conception) attacks, blocks, disables, creates barriers against what is healthy and functioning. Modern medicine in it’s proper application (morally licit) attempts to restore unhealthy organ functioning to it’s premorbid state, or to establish a healthy level/degree of functioning.
Moral beings made in the image of God, man as a rational and free will creature is culpable for creating and choosing immoral technologies/procedures against what God’s plan is as revealed by natural and divine law.
F
fix
Guest
Vatican2 Worker:
In addition to felra’s post I would add that medicine has the intention of curing disease and restoring the body to normal. Contraception is all about thwarting normal healthy bodily functions. God’s plan includes medicine, but medicine that is properly used, not abused.
E
ElizabethAnne
Guest
Yes, but we are not “commanded to engage in lovemaking” all the time. That passage even says that couples may have periods of time when they do not have sex. There is always abstinance in marriage, whether or not contraceptives are used. NFP just allows a couple with a serious reason for delaying pregnancy to use abstinance at a specific time.
I am very sorry that you believe that there may be a time where your wife “cannot emotionally handle more children.” Our culture likes to show us the “correct” number of children we can emotionally and financially “handle.” I would much rather through much prayer and concerned practice of NFP, to leave the number of children I will have up to God.
NFP is more effective than any form of artificial birth control, so it will not as though one will necessarily have more children using this method. It creates open communication, not friction from all of the NFP couples I have spoken with – communication about when and how often a couple is having sex, communication about when to have another child. This much communication can lead to a better sex life and can keep the couple open to the will of God when it comes to having another child.
NFP is not a way to prevent pregnancy. It is a natural, scientific method of following signals from a woman’s body to determine when she is fertile and infertile. It can be used to delay pregnancy, but this is not its very definition as the definition of contraceptives is “against conception.” NFP can also be use to achieve pregnancy, and as I said before, it promotes communication. Rather than putting fertility “on hold” so to speak it uses a woman’s natural, God-given cycle as way to fulfill God’s plan for all parts of sex – intimacy, pleasure and procreation – within a marriage.
- Status