"Open to Life" and "Intent" - NFP vs ABC

[fix]

vluvski:

I don’t know, maybe I’m grasping at straws here. I admit this looks like it could be a pretty weak argument, but for some reason it makes more sense to me than saying that sometimes an act is good and holy and other times it is sinful.

Help me out here. All actions are evil, good, or benign. All intentions are also evil, good, or benign. Thus in every circumstance in life, both the intent and the action must separately be judged as evil (illicit), or good or benign (licit). An action is arguably tied to the intention (the means and the end).

We know that a good intention cannot cause an immoral act to become good or even benign. Is a good or benign (licit) action rendered evil (illicit) because the intent is evil (illicit), or is the sin committed by way of the intent alone? In other words, can a bad intention cause a licit act to become illicit? Oh, dear! :whacky: :ehh:

I give up.:crying: I hope someone here knows about all this and can help me out?

 

[vluvski]

Well, I posted the question as succinctly as I could on AAA. Maybe they’ll answer there!

 

[setter]

fix:

I give up.:crying: I hope someone here knows about all this and can help me out?

Excuse me for jumping in, and I hope to not further muddy the waters between intent, means and object in determining if a given act is holy or sinful, but here is an a CCC citation that at least covers these three apsects in determing if a given act is morally good:

A *morally good * act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The *object of the choice * can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.(CCC 1755)

 

[vluvski]

So it seems that fix, you are right, and I am wrong here. I guess that if a good action is corrupted by bad intentions, it kind of means that there is no such thing as “intrinsically good” except God himself?

Thanks setter.

 

[fix]

setter:

Excuse me for jumping in, and I hope to not further muddy the waters between intent, means and object in determining if a given act is holy or sinful, but here is an a CCC citation that at least covers these three apsects in determing if a given act is morally good:

Yes, many thanks. So, do you think my line of reasoning is correct in this discussion. I mean may the use of NFP be illicit if the intent is to act in a contraceptive manner, or am I expressing this incorrectly?

 

[vluvski]

I’d say you’re applying that properly fix, and that “using NFP with contraceptive intent is sinful.”

It still makes more sense to me to exclude NFP from the sentence because its moral objectivity is irrelevant once we determine the intent immoral, but the CCC quote makes clear that it is not incorrect to include it anyway.

I would also add that while the “contraceptive intent” alone would apparently make ABC immoral, ABC is still intrinsically evil without the contraceptive intent. Actually, some couples who practice ABC may not have a contraceptive intent.

The key to my point here is that the while the intent can and will differ, it has no bearing on the fundamental difference between NFP and ABC because one is intrinsically evil and the other is not. This is explained in the second paragraph so kindly posted by setter.

 

[setter]

vluvski:

So it seems that fix, you are right, and I am wrong here. I guess that if a good action is corrupted by bad intentions, it kind of means that there is no such thing as “intrinsically good” except God himself?

Thanks setter.

Originally Posted by vluvski
Well, I posted the question as succinctly as I could on AAA. Maybe they’ll answer there!

Addendum: As obediant Catholics, if the AAA apologist decides to weigh in otherwise, we will of course defer to that higher authority.

 

[vluvski]

Right, kind of like when Mom says no go ask Dad.
I do feel kind of silly for posting a question that is stated pretty obviously in the CCC. Hopefully they won’t answer and only the people who look at this thread will know how dumb I am.

 

[uncleauberon]

vluvski:

We know that a good intention cannot cause an immoral act to become good or even benign. Is a good or benign (licit) action rendered evil (illicit) because the intent is evil (illicit), or is the sin committed by way of the intent alone? In other words, can a bad intention cause a licit act to become illicit? Oh, dear! :whacky: :ehh:

The answer is Yes.

A good action remains “good” in the intrinsic order of the cosmos –
However, for the person that commits it for an evil intention it is a sinful act.

The questions are – “Is this intrinsically evil ?”
“Is this a sin a for me ?”

Not quite apples and oranges - but they are different questions.

ABC use is intrinsically evil. Its very nature is the corruption of sex (a natural good). Therefore, a sin for all, under all circumstances.

NFP is by nature a good thing. But, all good things may become corrupted. Therefore, may become a sin for some but not for others.

A Holy Chalice is intrinsically a good thing. If it is used unjustly to bludgeon someone to death - the Chalice remains a good thing but a sin has been committed by the person wielding it.

It is God that make all actions, despite intention, work for the ultimate good.

It is our own personal duty to make our actions work for the ultimate good - and ask forgivness when we do not.

In short the question of ABC vs. NFP are twofold.

1 - Should we try to avoid conception ? or rather - Is it a sin right now for us to try to avoid conception ?

2 - If we are not sining to avoid conception, then by what means should we engage (or not engage) in to accomplish this ?

To avoid sin :
We must first answer Question # 1 correctly before we move onto question # 2.

 

[manualman]

cynic:

so your point is…sex is only for children, use it for something else and it’s selfish and lustfull. I’d ask again, if that is so, and a couple have a reason to avoid children - why not completely abstain then?

You seem to be saying that a little bit of non-procreative intentioned sex is ok (nfp), but too much is a sin (abc). That doesn’t make sense.

It doesn’t make sense, because it is NOT what I am saying. I said NOTHING about the AMOUNT of sex the couple has being related to its morality, nor did I say sex is exlusively for having kids. Let me try again. Those who had a medically necessary hysterectomy, those who are past menopause; the fertile time is over and sex retains its dignity as a unitive act. Those married folks who have a romantic moment during her naturally unfertile time are free to go all out and enjoy the full unitive experience God built into sex. There is nothing wrong and everything right about this experience as it is in complete harmony with God’s total design for sex, which includes ample non-fertile times.

The couple who is both fertile AND amorous, however, is in an entirely different situation. If they choose to have sex and contracept, then they reject the link God created between the passion and the generation of new life. They also discard the assistance God built into us to wake up and THINK about what a blessing children are regularly. Those who have a serious reason and choose to abstain FOR THOSE FEW DAYS still retain that link, still posses that regular reminder of the special link between sex and life in a way that the contracepting couple (who will tolerate no sacrifice) does not.

One last time for the record: Sex is NOT just for kids. It is also not JUST for the pleasure and bonding. It’s for both. A loving God granted that it naturally be available often for just the unitive aspect. Selfish man desires to change it to just the unitive on his own terms.

I can understand how an atheist or agnostic could never accept catholic teaching in this matter. If there is no loving God who created sex in the first place, then there is probably no compelling reason to respect the random forces that shaped the human sexual experience. But those who believe in a loving creator really ought to give His creative genius a bit more consideration before altering it with technology.

 

[vluvski]

manualman:

One last time for the record: Sex is NOT just for kids.

Exactly, sex is for adults, too!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I really hope cynic is paying attention because you put it so well!

 

[cynic]

you were saying that a couple who use contraception must be doing so out of lust. I’ll ask, why are they lustful? because - according the to the reasoning of your church - psychologically they have separated the idea of making babies from the act and turned the goal of it into pleasure seeking. . Which is what an nfp couple has done - just to a lesser extent by periodially abstaining.

The individual sexual encouters are done for the reasons that you and others have deemed sinful if done in isolation - but your only prepared to apply that judgement to contracepting couples.
The judgement being this:

manualman:

The contracepting couple gives up nothing. They chop off the nudge God installed in each of us that is intended to help overcome our selfishness and use it simply for indulgent pleasure instead. .

Put a simply, why are a couple practicing nfp having sex during the off times? Not indulgent pleasure? if not then what makes their sex pure while a contracepting couples selfish and indulgent? In the mind I mean. What exactly is the difference in the ‘desires’.

 

[vluvski]

cynic:

The only argument left that doesn’t contradict itself is that contraception interferes with the body, while nfp doesn’t.

Now you’re getting the idea!

Oops, well, you took that part down. Maybe you thought you were on to something and then decided to erase it because the Catholic Church MUST be wrong here…

 

[vluvski]

cynic:

Put a simply, why are a couple practicing nfp having sex during the off times? Not indulgent pleasure? if not then what makes their sex pure while a contracepting couples selfish and indulgent? In the mind I mean. What exactly is the difference in the ‘desires’.

A married couple has sex during off times to renew their marriage vows. A couple practicing NFP says with their bodies, “I give myself to you fully and without reservation. I do so as often as I am able, and I am willing to give this gift in other ways as long as we must avoid pregnancy.”
A contracepting couple says, “I love you and I give myself to you, except the part that allows God to create a new life between us. The love between us is only worth an exchange of most of me.”

And again, the entire point of this thread is that the immorality of contraception is not about the desire of the couple because contraception is intrinsically evil. It is impossible to prove that contraception is different from NFP based on desire alone, because sometimes the morality of the desire does not match the morality of the act.

 

[Lorarose]

On a side note, practicing ecological breastfeeding provides a two to two and a half year average spacing of children that helps minimizing mommy burnout.

Hee hee!
I’m one of those unfortunate women who found breastfeeding to be very painful and very stressful.
I was able to to it successfully with one of my children…but the other 5 were awful.
The idea of using breastfeeding as birth control makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

But it worked nicely for my sisters and many of my friends.

Alot of things did not come easily to me -like they seem to for others.

 

[otm]

vluvski:

A couple can selfishly or even legitimately practice NFP without being open to life in their hearts; another couple can habitually use a condom and be fully open to the possibility of a surprise pregnancy when the condom fails. This is why the ‘intent’ and ‘open to life’ arguments are inherently flawed.

To say that a couple can use a condom and be open to life is an oxymoron; it is the attempt to match two opposing thoughts or ideas or actions together and say they mean the same thing. The use of a condom in and of itself is an attempt to frustrate the possiblity of cnception. and to tack onto the use of a condom the postion that if the frustration fo the natural consequences of the act doesn’t succeed in frustrating the act - the condom falls off or breaks - and they will then be open to life is to say not much more than they won’t abort. that is not what being open to the transmission of life is about. Being open to life is about more than just saying “If we conceive, we will carry to term”. Saying that one will use a condom and if it doesn’t work, will accept a child is the equivalent of picking up a gund and pointing it at someone and saying that if it doesn’t fire, you will be open to their continuing to live.

vluvski:

Why is it so hard for some to see that this same right way/wrong way can also apply to the NFP vs ABC argument. ABC is wrong because… it is wrong, it is not God’s will. The Church and promoters of NFP can come up with all the words and explanations they want, but in the end it’s wrong for the same reason murder is wrong and taking the Lord’s name in vain is wrong and disrespecting your parents is wrong. It is just wrong.

The action itself is inherently WRONG.

This is where you are confusing yourself. ABC is wrong because the intent is to do an act which frustrates the natural intended end of coitus of conception. Both the intent and the act are purposely frustrating the possiblity of conception. There is no other intent in using ABC except to frustrate that end, with the possible exception of use of the pill for medical purposes other than contraception.

NFP in and of itself is morally neutral, unlike ABC which is in and of itself morally reprehensible. Having intercourse is a gift from God, and He did not limit it to only times where conception can occur. It has a twofold purpose, the conception of children and the strengthening of the marital bond.

If NFP is used to avoid having any children, or to avoid having more children when there is not a legitimate and moral reason to do so (e.g. the physical and/or emotional health of the mother, economic ability to have another child coupled with economic responsiblity to the ones you already have), then it is not NFP which becomes morally reprehensible, but rather the intent of the parties. It would be like picking up a garden sprayer with the mistaken notion that it was a weapon, and aiming and pulling the trigger with the intent to kill. The garden sprayer is morally neutral and doesn’t change by your intent; but you still intended to kill.

You seem to be saying that there is a moral duty to have intercourse any time that the woman can conceive, but the Church does not and has not taught that. while it is theoretically possible that a woman could conceive at any time, practically it is not. God neither requires us to have intercourse each and every time a woman can conceive, nor doe He require one to have intercourse during that period of time if one has had intercourse during the time she could not conceive.

 

[John_Kearns]

Artifical Birth Control.

Thank you.

 

[setter]

you were saying that a couple who use contraception must be doing so out of lust. I’ll ask, why are they lustful?

because - according the to the reasoning of your church - psychologically they have separated the idea of making babies from the act and turned the goal of it into pleasure seeking. . Which is what an nfp couple has done - just to a lesser extent by periodially abstaining.

The individual sexual encouters are done for the reasons that you and others have deemed sinful if done in isolation - but your only prepared to apply that judgement to contracepting couples.
Ask women who use ABC in their marriage, and they will tell you that they begin to feel like objects of pleasure for their husbands. It is very difficult not to go down that road when you seperate the unitive from the procreative and check out the need to thoughtfully communicate in rational and prayerful discernment the real possibility of bringing an eternal soul into existance. Yes, the fullness of the marital act is more than pleasure which ABC by design inherently severs and disjoins (as in physically, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, interpersonally). There is a wholistic qualitative difference between NFP and ABC. I wonder sometimes if females do not appreciate the different hard drive wiring of men and how ABC especially lends itself to husbands objectifying the conjugal act for self-pleasure in satisfaction of their God given sexual desire and urges (not that women are exempt).

Put a simply, why are a couple practicing nfp having sex during the off times? Not indulgent pleasure? if not then what makes their sex pure while a contracepting couples selfish and indulgent? In the mind I mean. What exactly is the difference in the ‘desires’.

Sometimes you have to take the experiential route to fully understand and appreciate the difference.

 

[fix]

uncleauberon:

In short the question of ABC vs. NFP are twofold.

1 - Should we try to avoid conception ? or rather - Is it a sin right now for us to try to avoid conception ?

2 - If we are not sining to avoid conception, then by what means should we engage (or not engage) in to accomplish this ?

To avoid sin :
We must first answer Question # 1 correctly before we move onto question # 2.

Thanks. That is what I was trying to get across and you did it very well.

 

[fix]

otm:

T It would be like picking up a garden sprayer with the mistaken notion that it was a weapon, and aiming and pulling the trigger with the intent to kill. The garden sprayer is morally neutral and doesn’t change by your intent; but you still intended to kill.
.

Thanks, I think that is a good analogy.