P
pensmama87
Guest
Right, because condoms never break.
(BTW, did you notice the part of her post where she said she wants more children?)
- Status
(BTW, did you notice the part of her post where she said she wants more children?)
T
Thinking10
Guest
This is contracepting. This makes little sense. Look through previous threads I have posted in. This idea of contracepting while being procreative is self contradictory.
B
Burdock
Guest
Yes I realise condoms can break, and yes I noticed that she said she would have another child if she concieved, but that would be extremely detrimental to her health and could potentially leave other children without a mother. Im sure our lord wouldnt want that. Im not a c troll, im a convert. As ive said before! Those of us who are converts whose spouses dont share their faith cannot be expected to follow this teaching
P
PaulGH
Guest
If this is contracepting, then please tell me what specific action are the husband and wife taking to prevent conception, in any given episode of marital intimacy? For example, if a husband and wife are using NFP to avoid pregnancy for a serious reason, and if they engaged in marital intimacy this morning, what action did they take which rendered that episode of marital intimacy sterile?
T
Thinking10
Guest
What is the point of using NFP if not to render sex sterile?
M
Memaw
Guest
Some where along the line did you miss the word “Natural” in Natural Family Planning!! NFP works with Nature, not against it. Artificial Birth Control is just that. “Artificial” God Bless, Memaw
P
PaulGH
Guest
If that is the point of NFP, then please tell me: What specifically did the hypothetical NFP-using couple in my example do, in order to render that specific episode of marital intimacy sterile?
T
Thinking10
Guest
If we applied this “natural” vs. “artificial” way of comparing things to every other aspect of our life, we would be living like the Amish.
T
Thinking10
Guest
NFP wasn’t possible until recent scientific advances made it possible. If it wasn’t possible 300 years ago, it isn’t natural.
T
Thorns
Guest
The action they took was the choice not to have sex during fertile periods. Just because NFP isnt that reliable doesnt mean the intention behind it isnt contraceptive. And yes, the decision to take inaction is itself an action, much like how Sins of Ommision are still sins.
T
Thorns
Guest
Thats a good point.
Someone can say that talking on the telephone isnt natural. However, talking on the telephone is just an artificial extension of a natural action, which as talking. Therefore, talking on the phone is a natural occurence, even if the means arent.
But one could say the same about condoms then. Condoms are just an artificial extension of NFP. If NFP isnt disordered and unnatural, then it logically follows that neither is condom use, even if the means are unnatural (although there are natural condoms too, like thw first ones ever used which were lamb intestines).
IMO NFP and contraception is a black and white issue. Either its all unnatural or its all natural, not to mention that the intention is still the same.
P
pensmama87
Guest
Except condoms work by impairing function. Choosing not to have sex at certain times doesn’t impair natural reproductive functioning whatsoever.
T
Thorns
Guest
NFP clearly impairs the natural function of sex and most definitely the natural function of reproducing. Abstaining from sex when you most want it and having sex when you dont is a disruption in the nature of sex. It’s similar to gluttony: Eating even when you’re full and your body is telling you no more, or like Anorexia when your body is telling you to eat but you choose to starve yourself instead. Clearly disordered. The fertility cycle is impaired.
Actually a condom least impairs the sex act, because you’re still having sex even during fertile periods. And since the reality of condoms breaking exists, according to one of our past Popes, condom use actually results in more pregnancy.
Either it is all disordered or it is not. Cant pick and choose.
M
mommamaree
Guest
I feel compelled to point out that there are real people reading and participating in this thread and on this forum for whom this hypothetical scenario is very real. Some of them have written passionate defenses of the teachings of the Church, acknowledging that while they endure this trial, they will be faithful. Those who are advocating an easy way out (which is neither safe nor easy) or a more compassionate response from the Church (the Church is most compassionate about both the physical and spiritual wellbeing of every member of the human race) are doing injury to these faithful souls. I respectfully ask you to stop advocating against the teachings of the Church, to stop insisting that the use of NFP and abstinence by marriage couples is wrong. And please do some research or go talk to your priest or both.
The Church has never said that a couple must have as many children as possible.
She has never said that a couple must intend to conceive with each act of intercourse.
She has never said that a couple must completely give up their married sexual life if they need to avoid future pregnancies.
She has only stressed the intrinsic link between sexual intercourse and procreation, and the twofold purpose of the marital act (procreative and unitive).
It is not a sin to intend to avoid pregnancy. It would be a sin to attempt to engage in sexual relations while rendering the act sterile. The Church has fully explained Her meaning about this, so there can really be no misunderstanding for those who have read the teachings.
Finally, there is a difference between the intent and the means. The ends do not justify the means. Sometimes the end (what you intend to have happen) are moral, but we might be tempted to use evil means to accomplish that end. But as Catholics, we all know that we may never do evil that good may come of it. Therefore, using contraception to avoid pregnancy is wrong; however, using abstinence, either periodic or total, to avoid pregnancy is acceptable.
If you cannot understand or accept the reality that the means and the end are not the same, but are in fact different moral aspects to consider when deciding upon an action, then this is a crucial time to speak to a priest about this matter. But please for the love of God, and out of true compassion for the many couples who must endure the trial of using NFP or complete abstinence in their marriages, stop insisting that abstinence (including NFP) in marriage is the same as contraception. And please stop insisting that it is immoral for a married couple to abstain. This is patently false and it is stubbornly hurtful to many people who will view this thread.
The Church has never said that a couple must have as many children as possible.
She has never said that a couple must intend to conceive with each act of intercourse.
She has never said that a couple must completely give up their married sexual life if they need to avoid future pregnancies.
She has only stressed the intrinsic link between sexual intercourse and procreation, and the twofold purpose of the marital act (procreative and unitive).
It is not a sin to intend to avoid pregnancy. It would be a sin to attempt to engage in sexual relations while rendering the act sterile. The Church has fully explained Her meaning about this, so there can really be no misunderstanding for those who have read the teachings.
Finally, there is a difference between the intent and the means. The ends do not justify the means. Sometimes the end (what you intend to have happen) are moral, but we might be tempted to use evil means to accomplish that end. But as Catholics, we all know that we may never do evil that good may come of it. Therefore, using contraception to avoid pregnancy is wrong; however, using abstinence, either periodic or total, to avoid pregnancy is acceptable.
If you cannot understand or accept the reality that the means and the end are not the same, but are in fact different moral aspects to consider when deciding upon an action, then this is a crucial time to speak to a priest about this matter. But please for the love of God, and out of true compassion for the many couples who must endure the trial of using NFP or complete abstinence in their marriages, stop insisting that abstinence (including NFP) in marriage is the same as contraception. And please stop insisting that it is immoral for a married couple to abstain. This is patently false and it is stubbornly hurtful to many people who will view this thread.
P
PaulGH
Guest
Thank you. I agree. The only “action” that this hypothetical NFP-using couple has taken is actually an inaction – namely the choice to refrain from marital intimacy at certain times. They have done nothing to render the marital act itself sterile, on those occasions when they do engage in the marital act.
It is hard for me to see how a married couple making a mutual decision to abstain from marital intimacy could be morally wrong, especially if they have a serious reason for doing so. If you have a reason why this would be morally wrong, please explain.
But you mentioned the intention behind NFP. Perhaps then your reasoning is like this:
Contraception is used with the intention of avoiding pregnancy, and the Catholic Church teaches that using contraception is morally wrong. NFP also can be used with the intention of avoiding pregnancy. Therefore, by the same reasoning, it must also be morally wrong to use NFP to avoid pregnancy.
But there is a fatal flaw in this line of reasoning: The Catholic Church does not condemn contraception because of the intention, but rather because of the method of achieving that intention. The intention to avoid pregnancy is not always morally wrong; in some cases this intention can be morally good or morally neutral.
So in trying to understand the moral difference between contraception and NFP, it does no good to compare the intention of a couple who uses contraception with the intention of a couple who uses NFP, because either couple might have morally good intentions or morally bad intentions. The comparison needs to be made as to the methods, not the intentions.
M
Memaw
Guest
Natural Law is part of GOD’S law, ALL should respect it! . God Bless
T
Thinking10
Guest
Why are we not living like the Amish if, on principle, we are not to use man made methods of doing things in place of “natural” methods?
It is because man made “artificial” means of doing things are not forbidden on principle. This rule is applied to sex, but is not applied anywhere else.
J
Jobis
Guest
‘the marriage bed is undefiled’; condoms are an offence to the sanctity of marital sex. They sever the link between husband and wife and deny the merest chance of pregnancy; no one would use a condom if they thought it would break, but NFP allows for the possibility of conception. There are periods when it is unwise to actively induce pregnancy, but that is not to say Husband and Wife cannot experience the unitive effects of conjugal sex for their own sake. They become one flesh; not one flesh interrupted by a plastic barrier. God gave women a monthly cycle built into their bodies; a creative design. Why is it a sin to observe that natural cycle and respond with wisdom and a positive desire to pleasure one’s spouse?
J
Jobis
Guest
Notice that sex is sacred. It belongs only within marriage and has the power to create** life**; that is, human life.
If we were talking about using telephones, or the process of making clothes, you might be justified in making comparisons to Amish people, but lets not be ridiculous and equate these things with conjugal love.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
- Status