Sterilization followed by confession?

[Little_One0307]

What is your point? Contraception teaching is not infallible?

If so, think again.

Read the following:-

ewtn.com/library/christ/confatal.txt

ewtn.com/library/Theology/AUTHUMVT.HTM

So as you can see, the church teaching contraception is infallible.

God Bless

Thanks for posting this. I will check it out too.

God bless.

 

[Bookcat]

From the Vatican’s Vademecum for confessors:

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, emphasis added].

 

[LaSainte]

Well I mean is it not obvious that it does not/does violate (1)?

If you do not see how it logically proceeds, then you must surely have a counter argument why (3) does not follow from (1) and (2). But you have not yet presented one.

Sure. So whats wrong here? You seem to have made up a moral yourself which does not exist i.e. you MUST always have SEX so that you can have children.

But that is not a position of the church. You are fabricating a false position so that you may disqualify NFP also as a possible choice.

The church position is that a couple should be open to life. They should never marry if they think they don’t want to have children forever.

Yes, you see, again, you are basing your argument on a fabricated position that has nothing to do with church teaching.

The amount of effort you put in, or the amount of time you stay without having sex has NOTHING to do with the morality of NFP or Contraception.

The right and wrong of the act is determined by what takes place during the act. Contraception is holding back fertility/rejecting fertility. NFP is accepting everything in the spouse at the moment of sexual intercourse. Thats where the argument ends.

What you’ve done is, perhaps unknowingly, made up a position that the church teaches that one cannot put effort to avoid having a child during a certain period of time where they cannot support a child. But that is NOT church teaching. In fact, if the spouse cannot have sex during a certain period of time due to a disease, there is a moral responsibility to abstain from sex.

So while you keep saying that you’ve looked in this issue a lot, it appears that you are looking to justify your position rather than learn the truth.

God Bless

I KNOW Church teaching. Your argument makes nonsense to me. I keep giving you my objections and you continuously say “But that is not the Church position”, which I knownis for you, a silver bullet argument. Not so much for me.

I KNOW that the Church teaches that spouses are not totally giving of one another if the semen doesn’t go into the vagina without anyone doing anything to stop it or make the environment less hospitable to it. I would counter that spouses are not totally giving of themselves if they are using NFP but wracked with worry and thinly “please don’t let us get pregnant” the entire time and cometely unable tomparticipate in the act mentally and spiritually. Now you can say again, “That is not Church teaching” and I know that. All the Church cares about is the physical form of the act, which, if done correctly (insert tab A into slot B and press button) is “unitive”. Well I don’t see how it can be unitive if one or both spouses is totally checked out mentally. I disagree with their very definition of unitive sex and “holding nothing back” and so the rest of the argument collapses from there.

 

[PRmerger]

I KNOW Church teaching. Your argument makes nonsense to me. I keep giving you my objections and you continuously say “But that is not the Church position”, which I knownis for you, a silver bullet argument. Not so much for me.

So here’s the thing, LaSainte. You want that “silver bullet argument”, and I have to tell you, sadly, that there is no silver bullet.

Just like discussions with atheists who want the proof for God’s existence: we can provide all sorts of apologia and facts and theological, philosophical, scientific arguments that have helped us in our belief, but they always want that “silver bullet” that’s going to tell them He exists.

It ain’t gonna happen, unless they pray.

And, when they pray, watch out. It rocks their world!

 

[Corki]

I KNOW Church teaching. Your argument makes nonsense to me. I keep giving you my objections and you continuously say “But that is not the Church position”, which I knownis for you, a silver bullet argument. Not so much for me.

I KNOW that the Church teaches that spouses are not totally giving of one another if the semen doesn’t go into the vagina without anyone doing anything to stop it or make the environment less hospitable to it. I would counter that spouses are not totally giving of themselves if they are using NFP but wracked with worry and thinly “please don’t let us get pregnant” the entire time and cometely unable tomparticipate in the act mentally and spiritually. Now you can say again, “That is not Church teaching” and I know that.

I get that. But if what you are saying was true, the response would be to reject NFP **as well as **contraception. What is left is total providentiallism or total abstinence.

All the Church cares about is the physical form of the act, which, if done correctly (insert tab A into slot B and press button) is “unitive”.

Actually, the mechanics has nothing to do with the unitive dimension. “Tab A into slot B” is what make the act ordered to procreation.

Well I don’t see how it can be unitive if one or both spouses is totally checked out mentally. I disagree with their very definition of unitive sex and “holding nothing back” and so the rest of the argument collapses from there

That’s true too. If one of the spouses is “checked out” or submitting to sex against his/her will, the marital act would NOT be unitive.

I think you are closer to agreement with the Church’s teaching than you think.

 

[ddarko]

I KNOW that the Church teaches that spouses are not totally giving of one another if the semen doesn’t go into the vagina without anyone doing anything to stop it or make the environment less hospitable to it. I would counter that spouses are not totally giving of themselves if they are using NFP but wracked with worry and thinly “please don’t let us get pregnant” the entire time and cometely unable tomparticipate in the act mentally and spiritually. Now you can say again, “That is not Church teaching” and I know that. All the Church cares about is the physical form of the act, which, if done correctly (insert tab A into slot B and press button) is “unitive”. Well I don’t see how it can be unitive if one or both spouses is totally checked out mentally. I disagree with their very definition of unitive sex and “holding nothing back” and so the rest of the argument collapses from there.

What exactly is being held back in NFP during sex? PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

WHAT PART OF THE SPOUSE IS REJECTED DURING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WHEN USING NFP?

The answer to the above, if you are thinking straight is NOTHING.

An act is unitive based on what takes place during the act. NOT what takes place before an act. You are honestly being illogical. Whats the point of talking about what happens before the act when talking about the actual act’s unitive nature? Whether the couple spends ages without sex or whether HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UNITIVE nature of the act during sex. Seriously, I can’t believe you are arguing this for so long.

If you want to get that specific, you still loose. You must reject both NFP and ABC. Not pick one. For it is never right to pick an intrinsically immoral act to justify a GOOD end. NEVER!!!

But the NFP act is still unitive at the moment of sex while the ABC one is not. So there is a DISTINCTION between the two. What exactly do you not get about that?

Have you considered the possibility that you might be a little too biased towards justifying ABC’s? What you are writing here sure does look like that.

You are simply not listening to what is being said. You are creating morals for your benefit. IF that is your goal here, then you might as well call everything YOU WANT and does not interfere with your personal life MORAL and everything else as IMMORAL. That seems to be your moral compass.

Unless you honestly want to evaluate arguments, and you think you are logically capable, I really see no point in what you are doing. You are out on an agenda to justify your lifestyle.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I get that. But if what you are saying was true, the response would be to reject NFP **as well as **contraception. What is left is total providentiallism or total abstinence.

EXACTLY!!! I really don’t get this person.

She has a moral which she holds true without even the church stating so. She does that to undermine NFP. But she is totally blind to the fact that it also invalidates her use of ABC’s.

Instead she makes the absurd conclusion that since NFP cannot be practiced, she must resort to ABC’s perhaps as a lesser evil

She seems to be unaware that lesser evils do not apply to practicing intrinsically immoral acts. One cannot justify an intrinsically immoral action because it will lead to a favorable result. Lesser evil does not apply here. So I am confused as to what this person wants.

God Bless

 

[LaSainte]

LaSainte,

I can see where you are coming from right now. In fact I would be a hypocrite if I did not say what I am struggling with right now. I am struggling with Vatican II and how some things were implemented as a result of the Council. It has gotten to the point where I have almost become very bitter on it, I certainly don’t agree with all the implementations and things of that nature, and am having to beg God for the graces to accept the Council and the Implementations of the Council. Everything that I have said to you about Church and God, I have had to swallow the bitter and hard Truth as well. Truth is not easy. And I have to say becuase of your struggle with contraception and seeing it as Church Teaching, it makes me feel better that there are others out there struggling with some of the Church’s Teaching. So now, I am going through the Documents with my Spiritual Director and we are working through them slowly and prayerfully. I still get angry if I think too much about it. SO please pray for me as I struggle through this. Please pray that I may see the beuaty of the Council rather than the shortcomings.

I had debated about posting it becuase it seemed to me to be off topic and it certainly is talking about a bannable topic, but I think its okay to share what I am struggling. After much prayer, I feel that I needed to post this, so that you can see that I too have problems with some of the Church’s Teaching per say.

To those following the thread, I am in no means wanting or intendeing to derail this thread, I wished to post it for the reasons given above.

I will definetly go and check out the Infallibility document. IN fact it is pulling up right now. Thanks so much for sharing this source. As there is much I too can learn when it comes to infallibility.

God bless you.

Wow Lottle One, thank you SO much for sharing your struggles with me. As much as I wish you did not have to go through those struggles, please know how helpful it can be to know that other people are going through something similar, especially someoneike you, whose faith and love for the Church and God really comes through in everything you write. It gives me strength to know that these struggles can be met with grace and faith! You are in my prayers

 

[LaSainte]

So here’s the thing, LaSainte. You want that “silver bullet argument”, and I have to tell you, sadly, that there is no silver bullet.

Just like discussions with atheists who want the proof for God’s existence: we can provide all sorts of apologia and facts and theological, philosophical, scientific arguments that have helped us in our belief, but they always want that “silver bullet” that’s going to tell them He exists.

It ain’t gonna happen, unless they pray.

And, when they pray, watch out. It rocks their world!

Well, I do pray about this. I pray to understand it and to be able to accept whatever the right teachin may be. I hear a lot of crickets, but I keep trying I assume that God will resolve my anxieties in His time, not mine.

 

[LaSainte]

Ddarko, what is being withheld during NFP for many couples are their hearts and their minds. I have read a lot of posts where women and men simply cannot enjoy being with their spouse at all because the enitre time they are having sex they are in a state of near terror that it will lead to pregnancy. This is not unitive, not by a long shot. So for me, the Church’s argument that a sex act using NFP is always unitive And withholds nothing just because there is no physical barrier there is wrong. I think there is a lot more to having unitive sex than that.

And yes, since I see NFP and ABC as morally equivalent, then if one is wrong, both are wrong and vice versa. Personally, I think that both are fine depending on how they are used and for what reasons and he state of the minds and hearts of the couple. But for the Church to tout NFP as somehow automatically morally superior to ABC? Sorry, I don’t see it. If all you care about is sperm and where it goes, then I guess the Church has a point, but I personally think there is a lot more to marital sex than that.

 

[Corki]

Ddarko, what is being withheld during NFP for many couples are their hearts and their minds. I have read a lot of posts where women and men simply cannot enjoy being with their spouse at all because the enitre time they are having sex they are in a state of near terror that it will lead to pregnancy. This is not unitive, not by a long shot. So for me, the Church’s argument that a sex act using NFP is always unitive And withholds nothing just because there is no physical barrier there is wrong. I think there is a lot more to having unitive sex than that.

The Church does not teach that using NFP is always unitive. She says that using NFP allows sex to be unitive in a way that contraception does not. Whether or not sex is truly unitive when practicing NFP depends on many other factors including those areas you have already mentioned.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I would counter that spouses are not totally giving of themselves if they are using NFP but wracked with worry and thinly “please don’t let us get pregnant” the entire time and cometely unable tomparticipate in the act mentally and spiritually.

This is an excellent point. I agree wholeheartedly.

No one should be “wracked with worry” over their chosen method of birth control. That defeats the purpose. If a Catholic married couple lacks confidence in NFP, along with prayer, they need to ensure they’ve learned their biology very well. There are great Catholic resources available for this but I found secular sources more to my liking. Authors like Toni Weschler and Katie Singer are so clear and readable. They also tend to discuss issues affecting fertility cycles that I’d never considered before (ie. nutrition, night-lighting). These things can make a big practical difference when using NFP.

 

[LaSainte]

I get that. But if what you are saying was true, the response would be to reject NFP **as well as **contraception. What is left is total providentiallism or total abstinence.

Actually, the mechanics has nothing to do with the unitive dimension. “Tab A into slot B” is what make the act ordered to procreation.

That’s true too. If one of the spouses is “checked out” or submitting to sex against his/her will, the marital act would NOT be unitive.

I think you are closer to agreement with the Church’s teaching than you think.

Thanks Corki! I hope so.

 

[LaSainte]

This is an excellent point. I agree wholeheartedly.

No one should be “wracked with worry” over their chosen method of birth control. That defeats the purpose. If a Catholic married couple lacks confidence in NFP, along with prayer, they need to ensure they’ve learned their biology very well. There are great Catholic resources available for this but I found secular sources more to my liking. Authors like Toni Weschler and Katie Singer are so clear and readable. They also tend to discuss issues affecting fertility cycles that I’d never considered before (ie. nutrition, night-lighting). These things can make a big practical difference when using NFP.

Thanks! Do you know of any of this is available online?

 

[Little_One0307]

Well, I do pray about this. I pray to understand it and to be able to accept whatever the right teachin may be. I hear a lot of crickets, but I keep trying I assume that God will resolve my anxieties in His time, not mine.

And God will do so. I am praying for you. This reply has encouraged me greatly.

God bless you.

 

[LaSainte]

And God will do so. I am praying for you. This reply has encouraged me greatly.

God bless you.

I’m glad Little One. Your faith inspires me and you will be in my prayers at Mass tonight. God bless you too!

 

[ddarko]

Ddarko, what is being withheld during NFP for many couples are their hearts and their minds.

You are not making any sense here.

Hearts and Minds being withheld is measured objectively. Not by how you feel, the couple feels etc.

So objectively speaking, there is nothing withheld when couples practicing NFP engage in sex. They might feel that way but its just a “feeling”.

I have read a lot of posts where women and men simply cannot enjoy being with their spouse at all because the enitre time they are having sex they are in a state of near terror that it will lead to pregnancy. This is not unitive, not by a long shot. So for me, the Church’s argument that a sex act using NFP is always unitive And withholds nothing just because there is no physical barrier there is wrong. I think there is a lot more to having unitive sex than that.

Maybe this is where YOU are wrong.

A couple abstaining due to not being able to support children at the time is MORAL. They are doing nothing wrong. If they are avoiding children with UNJUST reasons, they are being immoral. The reason why that is immoral has nothing to do with Contraception or NFP.

NFP is also respectable. It accepts the fertility of the other spouse. Then rather than rejecting it outright, the couple decides mutually to abstain from sex. That is called respect between spouses. It is objectively MORAL. What you are talking about is feelings. That stuff is subjective nonsense.

You say you think there is a lot more to having unitive sex than that. But you are the same person who thinks that it is ok to go at it wearing a condom. Do you see my difficulty in understanding where you are coming from?

And yes, since I see NFP and ABC as morally equivalent, then if one is wrong, both are wrong and vice versa. Personally, I think that both are fine depending on how they are used and for what reasons and he state of the minds and hearts of the couple.

How on earth does that follow?

You have two things that are INTRINSICALLY IMMORAL (NFP is not but for the sake of argument, lets go with your flow). How you USE it has nothing do with it. Do you understand the meaning of the word INTRINSIC?

If something is intrinsically immoral, then it doesn’t matter HOW you use it, WHEN you use it etc. IT IS IMMORAL. That is a basic axiom in Moral Theology.

But for the Church to tout NFP as somehow automatically morally superior to ABC? Sorry, I don’t see it. If all you care about is sperm and where it goes, then I guess the Church has a point, but I personally think there is a lot more to marital sex than that.

What you personally think is honestly not so valuable. As you can see above, you are in personal error with respect to lot of things.

Here is a list of errors in your personal reasoning

1. If two things are intrinsically immoral, I can choose one and depending on how I use it, it will be morally tolerable
2. There is more to sex than giving one self completely to each other at the moment of sexual intercourse and within marriage
3. If a couple feels that they are not being able to have sex when they want to in order to avoid pregnancy, it is always immoral to abstain from sex

I suggest you either back the above errors up with sound reason as to why we should accept your position or go back to the drawing board, correct them, and re-evaluate your position.

God Bless

 

[Calliso]

Ddarko, what is being withheld during NFP for many couples are their hearts and their minds. I have read a lot of posts where women and men simply cannot enjoy being with their spouse at all because the enitre time they are having sex they are in a state of near terror that it will lead to pregnancy. This is not unitive, not by a long shot. So for me, the Church’s argument that a sex act using NFP is always unitive And withholds nothing just because there is no physical barrier there is wrong. I think there is a lot more to having unitive sex than that.

And yes, since I see NFP and ABC as morally equivalent, then if one is wrong, both are wrong and vice versa. Personally, I think that both are fine depending on how they are used and for what reasons and he state of the minds and hearts of the couple. But for the Church to tout NFP as somehow automatically morally superior to ABC? Sorry, I don’t see it. If all you care about is sperm and where it goes, then I guess the Church has a point, but I personally think there is a lot more to marital sex than that.

Yeah I agree sex isn;t automatically fully uniative simply because one has sex without barriers or without using contraception. I mean sure maybe it is physically uniative but like you said if a person is terrified of getting pregnant the whole time it is not emotionally uniative. So to say that sex without contraceptives is always uniative or that is all it takes to be uniative is not true.

And yeah I see very little moral difference between NFP and most contraceptives. I mean I feel that if all these other contraceptives are immoral then why not NFP too? Specifically the practice of carefully charting your fertility then purposely avoiding sex during any fertile times. I mean I donlt think abstaining is necessarily sinful but it has got to be at least a grey area when your only abstaining at specific times to avoid fertility. And you know isn;t that perhaps another way of rejecting a spouses fertility? I mean what is the difference between someone wearing a condom rejecting their spouses fertility and someone purposely avoiding sex whenever their wife is fertile?

But yeah I agree there is more to marital sex then making sure the semen goes a certain place.

 

[ddarko]

Yeah I agree sex isn;t automatically fully uniative simply because one has sex without barriers or without using contraception. I mean sure maybe it is physically uniative but like you said if a person is terrified of getting pregnant the whole time it is not emotionally uniative. So to say that sex without contraceptives is always uniative or that is all it takes to be uniative is not true.

And yeah I see very little moral difference between NFP and most contraceptives. I mean I feel that if all these other contraceptives are immoral then why not NFP too? Specifically the practice of carefully charting your fertility then purposely avoiding sex during any fertile times. I mean I donlt think abstaining is necessarily sinful but it has got to be at least a grey area when your only abstaining at specific times to avoid fertility. And you know isn;t that perhaps another way of rejecting a spouses fertility? I mean what is the difference between someone wearing a condom rejecting their spouses fertility and someone purposely avoiding sex whenever their wife is fertile?

But yeah I agree there is more to marital sex then making sure the semen goes a certain place.

The difference is obvious.

Sexual morality deals with WHEN you are having sex. Not before, not after, or in the distant future. With me so far?

Now ABC’s kick in to action AT THE moment of having Sex. So at the moment of having sex, sexual morality is violated since they do not accept the other spouse completely during the moment of having sex. With me so far?

Now NFP doesn’t have anything kicking in. Whenever the spouses choose to have sex, whether it be in the fertile or infertile period, they accept the other spouse completely.

So you, LaSainte, and many others who do not understand NFP are a bit confused on sexual morality. They seem to think that sexual morality applies BEFORE, AFTER, DISTANT PAST, DISTANT FUTURE of the act. Oh and the famous mistake, its not ok to have sex if you are trying to avoid pregnancy. None of those are church teaching or have logical reasons to think they are true.

Now even if you are in the same boat as LaSainte with respect to her views, the same applies to you on not being able to use ABC’s as well. Because in both your views, ABC’s and NFP are both intrinsically immoral. One cannot do intrinsically immoral acts under any circumstance or intentions. Hence the pre-fix is INTRINSIC.

God Bless

 

[Calliso]

The difference is obvious.

Sexual morality deals with WHEN you are having sex. Not before, not after, or in the distant future. With me so far?

Now ABC’s kick in to action AT THE moment of having Sex. So at the moment of having sex, sexual morality is violated since they do not accept the other spouse completely during the moment of having sex. With me so far?

Now NFP doesn’t have anything kicking in. Whenever the spouses choose to have sex, whether it be in the fertile or infertile period, they accept the other spouse completely.

So you, LaSainte, and many others who do not understand NFP are a bit confused on sexual morality. They seem to think that sexual morality applies BEFORE, AFTER, DISTANT PAST, DISTANT FUTURE of the act. Oh and the famous mistake, its not ok to have sex if you are trying to avoid pregnancy. None of those are church teaching or have logical reasons to think they are true.

Now even if you are in the same boat as LaSainte with respect to her views, the same applies to you on not being able to use ABC’s as well. Because in both your views, ABC’s and NFP are both intrinsically immoral. One cannot do intrinsically immoral acts under any circumstance or intentions. Hence the pre-fix is INTRINSIC.

God Bless

Ok I admit you totally lost me at the bolded part there. How do contraceptives kick in at the moment of sex? I mean ok maybe condoms but other wise?

I feel both NFP and other forms of contraceptive are morally ok. However based on the arguments I have seen here I just feel the teaching would be more consistant if both contraceptives and NFP were not allowed.

I should note I donlt actually agree with the Church teaching on sex or do I think NFP is morally wrong. I just feel there is a lack of consistancy and sense to the teachings. I mean I still would disagree with them if the Church came out and said ok NFP is bad or NFP can only be used in dire circumstances but at least I think I could say ok I donlt agree but at least its consistant!