T
Tom_of_Assisi
Guest
you may be on to something there…
- Status
you may be on to something there…
R
rayne89
Guest
So that would mean all unmarried people who do not have sex because the do not want a child out of wedlock are on birthcontrol.Only if all people that don’t have sex are not having sex specifically to prevent pregnancy.
In Christ,
Nancy
R
Rascal
Guest
Not just all night, but all day to! We all abstain at one point. That can’t make us all sinners.
As far as the Church teaching that birth control is wrong, that has been unfortunately mentionaed too often that people think it’s true.
See CCC2368 (vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#II):
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
R
rayne89
Guest
You should be a little more clear about this statement. NFP is the only acceptable method of regulating births. Birth control is normally thought of as the condoms, pill, patches ect, which are not acceptable to the Church
**2370 **Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:158
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159
R
Rascal
Guest
Thanks rayne89. I didn’t think of my post out of context, that NFP being birth control makes it wrong or hypocritical.
R
RichT
Guest
Tom of Assisi:
This argument is way too convenient!!! Drinking carrot juice and eating spinach also reduces the risk of cancer. As far as I am concerned, this just allows people to use the pill for one thing when the real reason is to prevent conception.
A
Agomemnon
Guest
Tom of Assisi:
Are there medical reasons that a doctor may prescribe a contaceptive pill other than to intend to prevent conception? YES
Is it morally permissible to use such pills in treatment? YES
Is it morally permissibl to have sex whle the woman is using contraceptive pills for treatment? NOPE NADA Heck NO!
Quit trying to find excuses to go against the teachings of Christ. Contraception is intrinsically evil.
The only hipocracy is in your thought processes here.
Are there medical reasons that a doctor may prescribe a contaceptive pill other than to intend to prevent conception? YES
Is it morally permissible to use such pills in treatment? YES
Is it morally permissibl to have sex whle the woman is using contraceptive pills for treatment? NOPE NADA Heck NO!
Quit trying to find excuses to go against the teachings of Christ. Contraception is intrinsically evil.
M
MariaGianna
Guest
This thread is very interesting to me, because I’ve come across a number of faithful Protestants who reject hormonal contraceptives due to their aborfacient properties, but who also reject NFP on the grounds that it is contrary to St. Paul’s directive in Corinthians that a married couple should only abstain from the marital act for prayer. They therefore advocate a method called Fertility Awareness Method, which promotes charting of cycles, but use of a barrier method during a woman’s fertile time. I must confess I find this absolutely baffling. Someone touched on this above, but wouldn’t it then be ‘wrong’ to not engage in the marital act every single night? What about if one party is simply sick or exhausted, or the woman has just given birth and for medical reasons must abstain? These instances are not ‘for prayer,’ but yet people who object to the use of abstinance in NFP would argue that of course in these instances abstinance would be acceptable.
I don’t have anything enlightening to contribute, but I appreciate the insights offered in this thread. As a woman preparing to be married in 2.5 weeks, I have loved learning NFP, and find Church teaching to be such a blessing in this area. I wish others could see it as I do.
I don’t have anything enlightening to contribute
, but I appreciate the insights offered in this thread. As a woman preparing to be married in 2.5 weeks, I have loved learning NFP, and find Church teaching to be such a blessing in this area. I wish others could see it as I do.
T
Tom_of_Assisi
Guest
Not my thought processes, buddy. My wife is pregnant with our 5th right now…I am asking to get information to share with a friend.
Thanks for your charitable response:tiphat:
P
Pinklady
Guest
It’s birth-control and don’t kid yourself that it’s not; it’s birth-control approved by the church.
P
Pinklady
Guest
How in heaven’s name could your friend’s sex life and method of family planning possbily be any of your business?
T
Tom_of_Assisi
Guest
Uhhhh, in heaven’s name, because he asked me if it was o.k. to use the pill. They have been struggling with the issue and he wanted to know, for sure, Church teachings. He knows I surf these threads a lot and could probably get a solid answer here. So I told him I’d pose the question to everyone here.
Is that ok with you pinklady?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear MariaGianna,This thread is very interesting to me, because I’ve come across a number of faithful Protestants who reject hormonal contraceptives due to their aborfacient properties, but who also reject NFP on the grounds that it is contrary to St. Paul’s directive in Corinthians that a married couple should only abstain from the marital act for prayer. They therefore advocate a method called Fertility Awareness Method, which promotes charting of cycles, but use of a barrier method during a woman’s fertile time. I must confess I find this absolutely baffling. Someone touched on this above, but wouldn’t it then be ‘wrong’ to not engage in the marital act every single night? What about if one party is simply sick or exhausted, or the woman has just given birth and for medical reasons must abstain? These instances are not ‘for prayer,’ but yet people who object to the use of abstinance in NFP would argue that of course in these instances abstinance would be acceptable.
I don’t have anything enlightening to contribute
I thought what you contributed was pretty enlightening. It sounds to me that your Protestant friends are behaving in a totally logical manner based on the Bible, without Catholic tradition.
Perhaps you are baffled at their use of barrier methods because the Church holds that barrier methods are intrinsically evil. It is not baffling to me, because that particular teaching tradition is not Biblical, except in a highly abstract, contrived, extrapolated way. Therefore, if I were bound by the Bible but not Catholic tradition it would make perfect sense to me.
Before somebody tells me about Genesis and “go forth and multiply” I’ll mention in advance that if this were a directive against barrier methods of birth control then it would also be a directive against all kinds of abstinence. Likewise, the story about the one dude “spilling the seed” where God struck him down is not an indictment of barrier methods of birth control, but of direct disobedience that had nothing to do with the “method.”
Alan
V
Vincent
Guest
Isn’t that kind of arbitrary though? The Jehovah’s Witnesses think that way about the Trinity.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear Vincent,
I’m not sure what you mean by “arbitrary” at least in connection with my claim that barrier method prohibition is not biblically supported except in a highly extrapolated fashion.
Without knowing what, specifically, Jehovah’s folks say about the Trinity, or what about it they don’t agree with, I don’t exactly understand your comparison. The fact that the Word was God, and that the Word was made flesh, that Jesus talked about His Father, and that Jesus sent a helper to teach us all things certainly is Biblical. Therefore, there at least is support for three persons in one God. There is no “reasonably” discernable prohibition in the Bible against barrier methods.
If you accept the teaching authority of the Church, which is not limited to the Bible, that’s fine with me. That makes it very simple – barrier methods are evil. My point was that the Bible does not back up her teaching on this particular issue so it’s reasonable and consistent for a Protestant whose morality is based on scriptures alone to behave in the way described by MariaGianna.
Alan
M
mlchance
Guest
That’s a bit disingenuous. The method and the direct disobedience were one and the same act.
By putting reasonably in scare quotes, you highlight the pitfall of ignoring Tradition and natural law in favor of private interpretation. Human reason, unmoored from Scripture, Tradition, and/or natural law, can torture itself into showing that anything is “reasonable” or “unreasonable.”
Where Scripture mentions contraception, contraception is condemned. It doesn’t matter if contraception is mentioned one time, ten times, or a hundred times. To quote from a tract found elsewhere on Catholic.Com:
Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
– Mark L. Chance.
T
Tom_of_Assisi
Guest
This is a bit baffling. For some Protostants to take the time to track their cycles to know when they are fertile and not fertile…but then instead of abstaining for a few days they choose to use condoms!!! So, logically, they must engage in relations every day come hell or high water…unless they pause to pray…(I’ll bet I know what the wife is praying for). Why not two or three times a day? It almost paints humans as animals who have no control and must do it every day. But…why would God want you to do it every day if no kids will be produced? These Protostants seem to put too much emphasis on their pleasure rather than on the purpose for the act. It’s like they’re saying “I’d better get it every day from my wife, or else I’m going to get some internet porn.” I thought God values self-control and even suffering. Well this shows the folly of people trusting in their own intellects to interpret scripture.This thread is very interesting to me, because I’ve come across a number of faithful Protestants who reject hormonal contraceptives due to their aborfacient properties, but who also reject NFP on the grounds that it is contrary to St. Paul’s directive in Corinthians that a married couple should only abstain from the marital act for prayer. They therefore advocate a method called Fertility Awareness Method, which promotes charting of cycles, but use of a barrier method during a woman’s fertile time. I must confess I find this absolutely baffling. Someone touched on this above, but wouldn’t it then be ‘wrong’ to not engage in the marital act every single night? What about if one party is simply sick or exhausted, or the woman has just given birth and for medical reasons must abstain? These instances are not ‘for prayer,’ but yet people who object to the use of abstinance in NFP would argue that of course in these instances abstinance would be acceptable.
I don’t have anything enlightening to contribute
V
Vincent
Guest
“Reasonably” discernable according to whom?
The JWs wouldn’t think our scriptural arguments for the Trinity are “reasonably” discernable.
The Torodes argued as Protestants that using barrier methods goes against Genesis 2:24. Some Protestants would say that that’s tortuously argued. The Torodes would say it’s “reasonably” discernable.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Dear Mark,
I don’t see how you get “disingenuous” out of it. He was specifically supposed to impregnate the woman. If he had used NFP techniques instead of withdrawal he still would have been disobedient. There is no evidence whatsoever that withdrawal v. abstinence (refusal to comply) would have made any difference in whether God struck him down. Moreover, the method he chose to avoid impregnating her, according to NFP teaching, was much less effective than NFP anyway. Therefore, if God had wanted the woman to become pregnant He could certainly have done it even in this instance, ostensibly a lot easier than He could when NFP couples are “remaining open to life” by not using barriers at infertile times. The only thing “disingenuous” I see is a claim that this story is an indictment of the method itself, unless one also intends to claim that planning space between children is also intrinsically evil.
This really does provide a good example of tortured human reasoning, if the whole prohibition against contraception depends on this Biblical example. The only way to be true to this reasoning would be to condemn any method of avoiding pregnancy, including NFP. He was struck dead because he failed to impregnate the woman he was supposed to impregnate, and yes he used the withdrawal method. As I said above, had he said to himself, “I know the natural fertility cycles of this woman, so I will make a deal that I will have intercourse with her one week from today” and thus avoided pregnancy, he would have been just as disobedient, and I would guess he still would have been struck dead by God. As you say, if every method does not have to be explicitly mentioned for the lesson to be true, than one would have indict NFP right along with any other method of spacing births.
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Vincent said:
According to me, of course. Since I know of no objective standard that defines “reasonable” I am forced to be the sole arbiter of what I consider reasonable.
I’m not sure I know what our scriptural arguments are for the Trinity, that the JW’s would think are unreasonable, so I guess I can’t dismiss them directly. That is, except for the comments I made in the last post.
The Torodes sound pretty interesting. I’ve often thought, in theory, the same thing they say about kissing, but never had the guts to express it for fear of being considered a kook. I don’t necessary agree with their point about Gen 2:24 being an indictment of artificial birth control, but I kind of see how they might construe it that way. Bringing that passage into the discussion, however, causes some other problems, such as reconciling the destiny of a man to cleave unto his wife with Paul’s preference for single people to remain single.
By the way, I’m not making the claim that anyone who believes artificial contraception, as opposed to NFP, is evil. My claim is that I have never heard a biblical argument to back it up that I consider a sound argument. The reason I jumped into the discussion is that is involved Protestant interpretations of scripture. Without the additional teachings of the Catholic Church, I can see how they can interpret scripture that way. If you believe in the Church’s teachings, then for you there is no discussion about NFP and ABC being morally different – it is a fact. If everything the Church teaches could be found in black and white in the Bible, then there really would be no need for her teachings now that she has given us the Bible.
Alan
- Status