Sterilization followed by confession?

[LaSainte]

Let me tell ask you this, jocluc: right now, when I am typing at my computer, am i telling God I do not want a child?

Hopefully, you’ll provide the rational answer: no, PR, you are not telling God you don’t want a child. You are simply doing something that does not have the chance or producing a child.

Similarly, when a couple is engaging in the marital act at a time when it does not have the chance of producing a child they, also, are not telling God they don’t want a child.

When a couple checks mucous, cervical position, takes their temperature, uses an ovulation predictor kit and scientifically charts all of this information and then uses that information to make absolutely certain that they never, EVER have sex on a day when here might even e the slightest chance of the presence of an egg, whether they feel like having sex or not, for he sole purpose of NOT comceiving a child, then yes, that couple is most certainly telling God in no uncertain terms that they do NOT want a child.

 

[PRmerger]

When a couple checks mucous, cervical position, takes their temperature, uses an ovulation predictor kit and scientifically charts all of this information and then uses that information to make absolutely certain that they never, EVER have sex on a day when here might even e the slightest chance of the presence of an egg, whether they feel like having sex or not, for he sole purpose of NOT comceiving a child, then yes, that couple is most certainly telling God in no uncertain terms that they do NOT want a child.

And if they are doing it this way, they are indeed practicing NFP with a contraceptive mentality, and you are correct: there is no difference at its essence.

One ought not be endeavoring to use NFP with the above vehemence. You would indeed be telling God no.

 

[PRmerger]

And if they are doing it this way, they are indeed practicing NFP with a contraceptive mentality, and you are correct: there is no difference at its essence.

One ought not be endeavoring to use NFP with the above vehemence. You would indeed be telling God no.

QED:

Therefore, those who choose NFP wrongly, although they do wrong, they do not do the same thing as those who contracept. Strictly speaking, they do not, indeed cannot, have a “contraceptive intention,” although their frame of mind might be characterized by what John Paul II called a “contraceptive mentality” (by which I take him to mean, a mentality that sees the coming to be of new life as a threat, something rightly to take measures against).
source

 

[LaSainte]

And if they are doing it this way, they are indeed practicing NFP with a contraceptive mentality, and you are correct: there is no difference at its essence.

One ought not be endeavoring to use NFP with the above vehemence. You would indeed be telling God no.

Why would you it any other way? If you are using it to AVOID pregnancy, wouldn’t you do everything you could NOT to conceive? It only makes sense that you would try to be as accurate as possible to avoid error.

 

[crazzeto]

When a couple checks mucous, cervical position, takes their temperature, uses an ovulation predictor kit and scientifically charts all of this information and then uses that information to make absolutely certain that they never, EVER have sex on a day when here might even e the slightest chance of the presence of an egg, whether they feel like having sex or not, for he sole purpose of NOT comceiving a child, then yes, that couple is most certainly telling God in no uncertain terms that they do NOT want a child.

My wife has an app on her android phone to help her with a lot of this… Obviously not the physical aspects (checking mucus etc), but after that the application does the rest. Maybe it’s worth looking into getting something like that?

 

[crazzeto]

K…I get that. What about the elderly. They often get married and they have no chance of having children.

Luke Chapter 1

5 * In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah,b of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly. 7But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. 8 Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, 9according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. 11And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12And Zechari’ah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. 13But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.

(2009). The Ignatius Bible . Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Are you sure there is no chance the elderly will ever have a child? Theologically speaking, I’m not so sure about that. Oh yeah, Abraham was 75 when the Lord told him his decendents would be so numerous that you could scaresly count them.

 

[PRmerger]

Why would you it any other way? If you are using it to AVOID pregnancy, wouldn’t you do everything you could NOT to conceive? It only makes sense that you would try to be as accurate as possible to avoid error.

Yes, LaSainte, you must do it another way. Without the contraceptive mentality that is so blatant in your scenario. You have displayed an attitude in which, as Pope JPII states, “the life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, (and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.)”, which is why I asked you about your position on abortion.

You reflect such a palpable hatred and fear of the possibility of another pregnancy that abortions would seem to be the only decisive response.

 

[sw85]

When a couple checks mucous, cervical position, takes their temperature, uses an ovulation predictor kit and scientifically charts all of this information and then uses that information to make absolutely certain that they never, EVER have sex on a day when here might even e the slightest chance of the presence of an egg, whether they feel like having sex or not, for he sole purpose of NOT comceiving a child, then yes, that couple is most certainly telling God in no uncertain terms that they do NOT want a child.

And yet if they do all this and proceed to have an unprotected sexual act, the act itself is open to life and is therefore morally licit. Because it is intrinsically ordered toward procreation.

The exception, evidently, is when the intention is borne of selfishness and not of legitimate considerations about the welfare of any child possibly born.

 

[joclucsylv]

And if they are doing it this way, they are indeed practicing NFP with a contraceptive mentality, and you are correct: there is no difference at its essence.

One ought not be endeavoring to use NFP with the above vehemence. You would indeed be telling God no.

Well then, in that case a person may as well use ABC. Because I would be using NFP to make absolute darn sure no sperm ever ever reaches my egg. I do not want another child!!! That makes me sound like an ogre I suppose, but it is how i feel.

 

[joclucsylv]

I wonder how many people on this board sass about ABC but yet are also in sin because they use NFP with the contraceptive intent. It is none of my business just a passing thought.

And here I conclude. God knows our hearts weather we use NFP or ABC. I will leave it up to him to judge me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And yet if they do all this and proceed to have an unprotected sexual act, the act itself is open to life and is therefore morally licit. Because it is intrinsically ordered toward procreation.

I posted this analogy in another thread, but it might be relevant here:

Suppose I am a cab driver who gets paid by the hour, not by the number of rides I give. I am lazy and want to get paid without actually giving anyone a ride. So here is what I do. On the nights when the opera is playing, I wait around the ballpark. And on nights when there is a baseball game, I sit outside the opera house. Neat, eh? Needless to say, my cab is rarely hailed and I get to sit a lot. Now my boss complains that I am not doing my job. My response to him is that I am physically open to giving people cab rides. I am doing the very thing that, at other times, would result in getting customers. But I am using my knowledge of timing (like NFP) to avoid that consequence.

Now there is another cab driver (call him “Bill”) who also is lazy like me, but he avoids work a different way. He waits in his cab at the proper venue, but he hangs a dead fish in the window to discourage customers with the smell (like contraception). Needless to say, our boss is not very happy with him either.

So is there a substantial difference between my technique of avoiding work and the one Bill uses?

 

[joclucsylv]

When a couple checks mucous, cervical position, takes their temperature, uses an ovulation predictor kit and scientifically charts all of this information and then uses that information to make absolutely certain that they never, EVER have sex on a day when here might even e the slightest chance of the presence of an egg, whether they feel like having sex or not, for he sole purpose of NOT comceiving a child, then yes, that couple is most certainly telling God in no uncertain terms that they do NOT want a child.

AND THAT MY FRIENDS IS THE CONTRACEPTIVE MIND!!! You are all doing NFP, but it is indeed contraception because you are saying NO to God.

 

[sw85]

I posted this analogy in another thread, but it might be relevant here:

Suppose I am a cab driver who gets paid by the hour, not by the number of rides I give. I am lazy and want to get paid without actually giving anyone a ride. So here is what I do. On the nights when the opera is playing, I wait around the ballpark. And on nights when there is a baseball game, I sit outside the opera house. Neat, eh? Needless to say, my cab is rarely hailed and I get to sit a lot. Now my boss complains that I am not doing my job. My response to him is that I am physically open to giving people cab rides. I am doing the very thing that, at other times, would result in getting customers. But I am using my knowledge of timing (like NFP) to avoid that consequence.

Now there is another cab driver (call him “Bill”) who also is lazy like me, but he avoids work a different way. He waits in his cab at the proper venue, but he hangs a dead fish in the window to discourage customers with the smell (like contraception). Needless to say, our boss is not very happy with him either.

So is there a substantial difference between my technique of avoiding work and the one Bill uses?

Certainly. The former is illicit because of the intent; the latter because of the end.

 

[06convert]

I joined this wayy late. . and I’m sure this may have been mentioned. I just don’t have the time to read all of the responses .

As for the disagreeing with the church part. There is a truth that exits in this world and we have the freedom to choose whether we believe it or not. Choosing not to believe it is just a result of our sinful nature and us being convinced that we know better than God’s teaching. We do it all the time, we try to rationalize our sins. Often times we get so clever with it that after lots of consideration and prayer we convince ourselves that we are right, even though we aren’t. So we go and do something, then end up regretting it or feeling bad. Sometimes we do the wrong thing and don’t even realize it and feel good about our decision. It happens. We aren’t perfect. Good thing God is, He works it all out for us.

I would say. That no sin is unforgivable, although sins can have lingering effects long after they have been forgiven. Guilt, ongoing pain and suffering from the sin, etc are all very real, even though the sin has been forgiven. Sin can cause this damage that can only be repaired by being cleansed in purgatory, where the scars of your sins are cleaned.

If you skip out of the confessional thinking that you have pulled one over on God your purgatory may be a little more unpleasant than if you were truly sorry and felt bad for the sin. However that doesn’t mean the sin wasn’t forgiven, just that by your choices and response you “scarred” yourself a little more deeply.

 

[Bookcat]

AND THAT MY FRIENDS IS THE CONTRACEPTIVE MIND!!! You are all doing NFP, but it is indeed contraception because you are saying NO to God.

Again trying to talk about Math using definitions foreign to Math?

If one wants to examine these questions…one must use the language and definitions of the Church.

Compedium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

[ddarko]

When a couple checks mucous, cervical position, takes their temperature, uses an ovulation predictor kit and scientifically charts all of this information and then uses that information to make absolutely certain that they never, EVER have sex on a day when here might even e the slightest chance of the presence of an egg, whether they feel like having sex or not, for he sole purpose of NOT comceiving a child, then yes, that couple is most certainly telling God in no uncertain terms that they do NOT want a child.

Perhaps you might want to consider the following:-

Is there a sexual act that takes place when a couple is not having sex? NO.

Does a couple need to be continuously having sex? NO.

Can a couple choose when to have sex? YES.

Does it make sense to speak of contraception when there is no sex? NO.

Is there anything that is rejected, by use of NFP, that is 1) part of the other spouse at the moment when the sexual act takes place? NO.

So what exactly makes NFP immoral?

The important distinction between Contraception and NFP is that one involves the rejection of the fertility at the moment of the sexual act (Contraception), while the other, still accepts the fertility of the spouse.

It is very important that you understand this distinction.

Somethings that might also help you to better understand NFP is that it is not intended as a method of not having ANY children for the entirety of marriage. That would be an immoral intention which has nothing to do with NFP. To give a similar example, one may do charity work in order to get a good name. Though the act is moral in that case, the intention is immoral. So in the event that the couple wants to avoid children using NFP for the entire marriage, then it is an immoral intention, thought the act NFP is moral.

So who is NFP for? It is for either those who cannot have children at the given time due to extraneous circumstances OR for those who already have children and cannot support more.

NFP and Contraception are both solutions to the above problem. The difference is that NFP presents a moral way of addressing the above problem while Contraception provides an immoral way. Why is contraception immoral? Because it rejects the fertility of the spouse during sex.

Did that clarify?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I wonder how many people on this board sass about ABC but yet are also in sin because they use NFP with the contraceptive intent. It is none of my business just a passing thought.

And here I conclude. God knows our hearts weather we use NFP or ABC. I will leave it up to him to judge me.

It is better to understand the difference my friend.

The person who uses NFP with the intention of having NO children for the entirety of marriage is committing a moral sin due to the disordered intention, NOT the act of NFP.

The person who uses ABC on the other hand is committing a sin because he is doing something INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL. Intention doesn’t save him.

One cannot make an INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL act MORAL by having good intentions. That is a core understanding of moral theology.

So if you are thinking of justifying use of ABC’s with intent, I am afraid there is a logical error in your thinking.

Please read my previous post as well.

God Bless

 

[joclucsylv]

It is better to understand the difference my friend.

The person who uses NFP with the intention of having NO children for the entirety of marriage is committing a moral sin due to the disordered intention, NOT the act of NFP.

The person who uses ABC on the other hand is committing a sin because he is doing something INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL. Intention doesn’t save him.

One cannot make an INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL act MORAL by having good intentions. That is a core understanding of moral theology.

So if you are thinking of justifying use of ABC’s with intent, I am afraid there is a logical error in your thinking.

Please read my previous post as well.

God Bless

Bottom line, they are both Mortal sins.

 

[Corki]

Bottom line, they are both Mortal sins.

Yes, but not because of what they are using for birth control. It would still be a mortal sin if they decided to practice **complete abstinence **after their wedding night because they didn’t want children. It is the purposeful and willful exclusion of children after promising at the altar to welcome children, that makes NFP or total abstinence mortally sinful.

 

[joclucsylv]

Yes, but not because of what they are using for birth control. It would still be a mortal sin if they decided to practice **complete abstinence **after their wedding night because they didn’t want children. It is the purposeful and willful exclusion of children after promising at the altar to welcome children, that makes NFP or total abstinence mortally sinful.

Welp then…if I am going to commit a mortal sin, it may as will be ABC.

It just boggles me that NFPers are all out to save the ABCers souls, when their souls are probably in danger as well if they are using NFP with the contraceptive attitude. What it boils down to is that we are all on earth trying so hard to do our best.