Should we respectfully leave the Church

[Rence]

So is it your contention that gray areas only exist
in matters of conception?
That no gray areas exist in abortion?
That a woman due to cancer or some other
life threatening situation has no relief from culpability
in abortion while in conception gray areas exist?
Is that not rather arbitrary and harsh?

I realize that every single thread has to be derailed into an abortion thread, whether it’s remotely related or not. However, the OP is not pregnant, and is not considering abortion, or artificial contraception, etc. Her questions involve preventing conception from taking place in the first place by utilizing vasectomy…which makes bringing up abortion again a moot point.

 

[LongingSoul]

Before my reply I want to thank you very much. I really appreciate your responses.
You are the first person with excellent understanding of the discussed subject that I found in very long time.

Let’s talk the relationship and conversation.
It appears that women ‘words’ could be ovum, the men ‘words’ are sperms.
The ovulation suppression pill mutes woman and she does not contribute to the conversation. It’s broken. The woman does not give herself fully.
The condom builds a barrier between the words and they are not exchanged, the conversation is broken again.
It makes sense. The contraception is an easy way how to ‘break’ the conversation.

Let us now analyze the NFP couple. It appears it’s a hard working way how a woman is being muted. She does not contribute to the conversation. The conversation is broken, the woman is not giving herself fully. The ovum is not there as with the ovulation suppression pill.

It appears the ovulation suppression pill and NFP achieve the same thing, the difference is just a way how it’s done.

Now before you say that NFP is natural I’d like to point out that sticking a finger to check the cervix position or thermometer down there is not natural at all.

Thanks,
Jano

Thankyou for your kindly affirmation and I hope I can do your points justice.

Perhaps I could demonstrate the difference between the fertile and infertile phases of the natural cycle by different types of conversation. When a women is fertile the intercourse becomes a fruitful exchange of dialogue.

Outside of ovulation, the womb remains receptive in the exchange but more in a listening capacity. There is much to be said for the type of conversation where one can be a listener, not needing words in meeting the need of the other involved in conversation. The channels of communication have not been switched off. The words may not be there but the capacity to listen receptively remains.

Contraception is the act of becoming unreceptive. It is the deliberate switching off of the channels of communication. With contraceptive devices and techniques, the body is being told to shut down. It is there, and an act of sexual exchange may be happening, but it is no longer receptive. The listening capacity is voided. The mechanism shut down.

As for temperature taking and mucus checking, they are simply ‘reading’ the data. They are just a diagnosis… not a treatment that alters the natural course of the bodies functioning.

The teaching of the Church here places great emphasis on this special conjugal relationship. It is not just the natural instinct towards procreation that conjugal intercourse serves but also the transmission of love that manifests the great love that God had for us in creating us. That is why Christ took to Himself the role of bridegroom to His bride the Church, as His legacy of everlasting love for every generation to come.

I hope that isn’t too convoluted.

 

[mommy_k]

I think your justification for contraception and / or sterilisation relies principally on preferring that course of action to the alternative of limiting sex. You’ve not commented on why limiting sex is not the preferred option. Is it because you believe agreeing to limit sex would be a greater evil? If so, does the Catechism denounce that evil, or is that also an oversight?

I am sorry you misunderstood.When a medical procedure such as a hysterectomy is used to prolong or preserve a life, it is not a sin. Do you think it is?

Limiting sex is an option, but the op’s husband stated he wants a vasectomy, and that’s why It is in my post.

 

[mommy_k]

So is it your contention that gray areas only exist
in matters of conception?
That no gray areas exist in abortion?
That a woman due to cancer or some other
life threatening situation has no relief from culpability
in abortion while in conception gray areas exist?
Is that not rather arbitrary and harsh?

Life is from conception until natual death.

 

[Groo]

I realize that every single thread has to be derailed into an abortion thread, whether it’s remotely related or not. However, the OP is not pregnant, and is not considering abortion, or artificial contraception, etc. Her questions involve preventing conception from taking place in the first place by utilizing vasectomy…which makes bringing up abortion again a moot point.

Nice try, but this thread has long since taken a life of its own.

And yet I can’t look away.

 

[Rence]

but this thread has long since taken a life of its own.
.

That doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t have.

 

[Groo]

I agree, but I am still posting so I shouldn’t really complain.

 

[marywarfield]

Life is from conception until natual death.

Yes this true. But it did not answer the question. The
question I asked you was why were you disallowing
gray areas for abortion but insisting on gray areas
for conception?

You see here is my problem. You are focusing only
on what is produced not the producer it seems to me.
You realize people naturally question your gray
area discrimination.

Perhaps looking at it through another lens?

How does that “precious life” of the baby get there
Obvious answer is God created it. Now isn’t the fact that
God created it that which makes that life precious?
The life in and of itself is not previous- it is it’s source
that creates the preciousness, yes?
That source is always creating but He requires cooperation
of the married human couple to do so.
Does His creation, or constant expression of it,
become less precious before conception?
Of course not. So what in fact are we guarding?
The precious source of creation and the Creator.
If we use forms of birth control to frustrate the
creative activity of God’s yes our culpability may be
reduced by hardships making it difficult to
cooperate with Him.
We have to be clear- it is not us, the parents, creating
that life- it is God and our role is simply to
cooperate or not. And our culpability in refusal whether or not
we are discussing vasectomies and abortions remains
centered in our cooperation.
It seems to me if you are going to give people gray
areas limiting culpability in conception you MUST give them gray areas
in abortion as well or not grant them at all. Because
you see the sinful action is the same in both- refusal
to cooperate with God.

 

[mommy_k]

MaryWarfield-This is not my terminology “grey area”. It came from a priest, who I imagine much more educated in these matters than myself.

Abortion is murder, contaceptive devices are sinful, and interfereing with God’s plan, this I know.

Valid, medical intervention on any part of a human cannot be considered interfering with God’s plan. If it was, why would people go to the doctor?

The only thing throwing this off is the ailment is in the reproductive system. The intent is for the op to get better, and prevent something serious.

 

[marywarfield]

MaryWarfield-This is not my terminology “grey area”. It came from a priest, who I imagine much more educated in these matters than myself.

Abortion is murder, contaceptive devices are sinful, and interfereing with God’s plan, this I know.

Valid, medical intervention on any part of a human cannot be considered interfering with God’s plan. If it was, why would people go to the doctor?

The only thing throwing this off is the ailment is in the reproductive system. The intent is for the op to get better, and prevent something serious.

This still doesn’t explain your reasoning in giving
gray areas to one but not the other.
So let me ask you what constitutes a valid medical
intervention? If it is valid in the doctrinal sense no
gray areas even need to be considered, do they?

 

[on_the_hill]

Wow. Wow guys. This thread I started has really gotten off track and now I’m getting very strange, upsetting posts like this one.

Geeeez. I’m with you! It’s hard to know whether people truly believe what they’re typing or if they’re just spouting off for the sake of it.

As for your OP: No, don’t leave the Church. Personally, I’d rather be a Catholic sinner than a sinner.

 

[maryjk]

You could just accept that you might die.

I know, this is totally morbid, but God is in control, and he can literally wipe you off the face of the Earth tomorrow, you, your husband, or any of your kids. Maybe, this is that reminder as well for you and your community.

It’s a test from Our Lord Jesus, He says: Woman, Do You Love Me? He said, there is no greater love than laying down one’s life for one’s friends. He is putting you to the test in a severe way. He tests those he loves.

Ok, have faith, and cheer up! God’s blessings.

Really?

You truly believe that when a doctor tells a woman that another child might kill her, she should see it as a test from God?

That she should simply have faith, and make more babies. And if she dies, well it must have been God’s will?

This is your advice? Not to use NFP. But to allow what happens happen?

 

[MacQ]

Yes- for any life threatening diseases a man had that a vasectomy is performed to prolong or preserve his life.

There IS no other medical indication for a vasectomy other than elective sterilization.
Not that it’s pertinent to the topic, but just so ya know.

 

[Rau]

I am sorry you misunderstood.When a medical procedure such as a hysterectomy is used to prolong or preserve a life, it is not a sin. Do you think it is?

Limiting sex is an option, but the op’s husband stated he wants a vasectomy, and that’s why It is in my post.

I did not misunderstand. A hysterectomy for medical need is required medical treatment and is morally proper.

A vasectomy for sterilisation is contraception, a moral evil. It is not required treatment.

 

[Rau]

MaryWarfield-This is not my terminology “grey area”. It came from a priest, who I imagine much more educated in these matters than myself.

Abortion is murder, contaceptive devices are sinful, and interfereing with God’s plan, this I know.

Valid, medical intervention on any part of a human cannot be considered interfering with God’s plan. If it was, why would people go to the doctor?

The only thing throwing this off is the ailment is in the reproductive system. The intent is for the op to get better, and prevent something serious.

Do you think the priest has a different version of the catechism?

There is no principal of catholic teaching or morality that says intentional sterilisation is ok. You are hiding behind a priest we can’t quote or talk to, but apparently said “grey area” despite none being acknowledged in any catholic teaching on contraception.

May I ask you to reply to this earlier post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11950864#post11950864

 

[mommy_k]

I think your justification for contraception and / or sterilisation relies principally on preferring that course of action to the alternative of limiting sex. You’ve not commented on why limiting sex is not the preferred option. Is it because you believe agreeing to limit sex would be a greater evil?

NFPis the perferred option. But the reason the op wants to leave is because she and her husband think NFP is too risky. She asked for no lectures about this.

What I believe however, is no matter, this is not about me. I am perfectly fine with my beliefs and convictions regarding my faith and all are solid. Thank you for asking though.

In one of my original posts about this I stated that the husband and wife are united spirtually as one through the sacrament of marriage. And if a hysterectomy is approved for medical issues, why not a vasectomy, as it pertains to the sacramental union…

-Am I right? Who knows? It has not been looked at in this manner. But it is a point that may be of interest for the op when discussing this with her priest.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Rau;11950864:

I think your justification for contraception and / or sterilisation relies principally on preferring that course of action to the alternative of limiting sex. You’ve not commented on why limiting sex is not the preferred option. Is it because you believe agreeing to limit sex would be a greater evil?

It is the perferred option. But the reason the op wants to leave is because she and her husband think NFP is too risky. She asked not for lectures about this.

What I believe however, is no matter, this is not about me. I am perfectly fine with my beliefs and convictions regarding my faith and all are solid. Thank you for asking though.

In one of my original posts about this I stated that the husband and wife are united spirtually as one through the sacrament of marriage. And if a hysterectomy is approved for medical issues, why not a vasectomy, as it pertains to the sacramental union…

-Am I right? Who knows? It has not been looked at in this manner. But it is a point that may be of interest for the op when discussing this with her priest.

Wait, you mean if I start a thread about how I want to commit mortal sin that all I have to do is ask not to be lectured about it and then everyone will just give me positive feedback!?

I have been going about this all wrong!

 

[thewanderer]

I am sorry you misunderstood.When a medical procedure such as a hysterectomy is used to prolong or preserve a life, it is not a sin. Do you think it is?

Limiting sex is an option, but the op’s husband stated he wants a vasectomy, and that’s why It is in my post.

The problem is that the vasectomy talked about in this thread is not for the sake of prolonging or preserving life, but for the sake of allowing the couple to have more frequent relations. Not having a vasectomy will not cause the death of the OP, so you cannot say that the vasectomy is being used to prolong or preserve her life. Not at all the same thing as a medically necessary hysterectomy.

 

[marywarfield]

Rau;11950864:

I think your justification for contraception and / or sterilisation relies principally on preferring that course of action to the alternative of limiting sex. You’ve not commented on why limiting sex is not the preferred option. Is it because you believe agreeing to limit sex would be a greater evil?

NFPis the perferred option. But the reason the op wants to leave is because she and her husband think NFP is too risky. She asked for no lectures about this.

What I believe however, is no matter, this is not about me. I am perfectly fine with my beliefs and convictions regarding my faith and all are solid. Thank you for asking though.

In one of my original posts about this I stated that the husband and wife are united spirtually as one through the sacrament of marriage. And if a hysterectomy is approved for medical issues, why not a vasectomy, as it pertains to the sacramental union…

-Am I right? Who knows? It has not been looked at in this manner. But it is a point that may be of interest for the op when discussing this with her priest.

Well then maybe she should opt for a hysterectomy
if she can make a case for medical seriousness. The
hysterectomy would be hers and pertain to her health.
However since there is no valid medical issue for the
husband ( vasectomy is not done for any any any health risk)
the vasectomy remains a grave sin.

 

[Rau]

NFPis the perferred option. But the reason the op wants to leave is because she and her husband think NFP is too risky. She asked for no lectures about this.

What I believe however, is no matter, this is not about me. I am perfectly fine with my beliefs and convictions regarding my faith and all are solid. Thank you for asking though.

In one of my original posts about this I stated that the husband and wife are united spirtually as one through the sacrament of marriage. And if a hysterectomy is approved for medical issues, why not a vasectomy, as it pertains to the sacramental union…

-Am I right? Who knows? It has not been looked at in this manner. But it is a point that may be of interest for the op when discussing this with her priest.

This is the first time that you have conceded that limiting sex is the preferred course! Were either one of the couple faced with a diseased organ, addressing it by surgery would be licit. That is not the case. For this couple, the surgery is akin to a condom, the pill, or any other form of ABC.