Sterilization followed by confession?

[Calliso]

I think I agree with you on the above. I think they’re better off just saying “because we said so”. I think it would be easier for some to swallow because the reasons don’t make sense, and yes, they seem made-up. And not just to me obviously, considering the high rate of ABC usage among Catholics. I just can’t see anything beyond what I think is complete silliness about the claim that one isn’t totally giving onesself to your spouse because of using ABCs…especially when both want to use it. If one spouse is opposed, then I can see the argument – on both sides.

But then also, when one spouse insists on using NFP and the other is opposed, depending on the circumstances, one of them is being selfish and not giving completely of themselves, and it’s not always the one insisting on NFP and it’s not always the one who doesn’t want to use NFP.

The teaching about ABCs being a barrier to the unitive property also doesn’t wash with me, because there is also a barrier when a married couple can’t come together due to NFP. Yeah, I know, some will argue with their most obvious reasons why this isn’t true. But like with you, it doesn’t wash with me. It’s just another rule of the Church that we must obey in order to be in communion with the Church. End of story. They’re better off saying just that.

But you know, they had to come up with something LaSainte. Some people want answers to their questions, and no matter what the answer is, some are okay with an answer, and will accept it, as long as it’s an answer. Everyone’s different. Some will look at a rationale for a teaching and completely understand it, some will completely swallow it hook, line and sinker regardless of their understanding of it (or not), and others will not swallow it at all. So for you and me, the answers are silly, but some people really need the answers.

Like I said before on other threads, everyone has their stumbling blocks at one time or another.

.

Yeah I think you said it very well here.

 

[ddarko]

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?

Because at the moment of sex, the fertility of the spouse cannot be expressed. Therefore contraceptives have kicked in.

In the case of a hormone changing pill, it is the pill that prevents fertility. In the case of Condoms, it is the barrier. In the case of pulling out, same deal.

In all those cases, the spouses have chosen to ALTER the natural state of fertility of the other spouse in order to obtain sexual pleasure WITHOUT the fertility.

NFP is moral because it does not choose to obtain sexual pleasure this way. It merely respect the natural state of fertility in the spouse and abstains.

God Bless

 

[Calliso]

Because at the moment of sex, the fertility of the spouse cannot be expressed. Therefore contraceptives have kicked in.

In the case of a hormone changing pill, it is the pill that prevents fertility. In the case of Condoms, it is the barrier. In the case of pulling out, same deal.

In all those cases, the spouses have chosen to ALTER the natural state of fertility of the other spouse in order to obtain sexual pleasure WITHOUT the fertility.

NFP is moral because it does not choose to obtain sexual pleasure this way. It merely respect the natural state of fertility in the spouse and abstains.

God Bless

Ok so let me get this straight so other forms of contraceptives are immoral basically because they alter the body or the act in some way and NFP is ok because it doesn;t?

And you know another thought is how is fertility being expressed when one is only having sex during unfertile periods? And with NFP one is still obtaining sexual pleasure without fertlity the only real difference is NFP doesn;t altered the act. But perhaps that is all it comes down to that the only difference between NFP and contraception is just that.

And I admit I still donlt get the logic that me and my husband just to give an example using condoms by agreement or some other form of contraceptive means we are denying each other our fertility and not fully giving ourselves to each other. yet only having sex during unfertile periods is somehow completely different and we are considered to not be holding anything back, But to be honest I donlt think that is something that I will ever get.

 

[sw85]

And you know another thought is how is fertility being expressed when one is only having sex during unfertile periods? And with NFP one is still obtaining sexual pleasure without fertlity the only real difference is NFP doesn;t altered the act. But perhaps that is all it comes down to that the only difference between NFP and contraception is just that.

Once again, natural law is concerned with whether or not the sexual act is “ordered toward” procreation, not immediately capable of it. Ordered toward could be more easily understood as “suggestive of.”

What matters is that the sexual act is innately capable of procreation, not whether or not it happens to be possible at that particular moment. If that were the case the Church would deny chronically infertile couples the right to marry – but it doesn’t.

 

[ddarko]

Ok so let me get this straight so other forms of contraceptives are immoral basically because they alter the body or the act in some way and NFP is ok because it doesn;t?

And you know another thought is how is fertility being expressed when one is only having sex during unfertile periods? And with NFP one is still obtaining sexual pleasure without fertlity the only real difference is NFP doesn;t altered the act. But perhaps that is all it comes down to that the only difference between NFP and contraception is just that.

And I admit I still donlt get the logic that me and my husband just to give an example using condoms by agreement or some other form of contraceptive means we are denying each other our fertility and not fully giving ourselves to each other. yet only having sex during unfertile periods is somehow completely different and we are considered to not be holding anything back, But to be honest I donlt think that is something that I will ever get.

The difference in those other things is that DURING the sexual act, the fertility of the spouse is rejected by some un-natural means.

NFP on the other hand accepts the spouses fertility or infertility at the time of sex.

In Catholic Moral Theology, sexual intercourse within a marriage is only valid if the spouses give themselves to each other completely. Otherwise it does not fit the definition of a loving act.

Hence, in NFP the sexual act is still love while with ABC’s the sexual act is a lie.

God Bless

 

[Corki]

Ok so let me get this straight so other forms of contraceptives are immoral basically because they alter the body or the act in some way and NFP is ok because it doesn;t?

That’s one of the differences.

And you know another thought is how is fertility being expressed when one is only having sex during unfertile periods? And with NFP one is still obtaining sexual pleasure without fertlity the only real difference is NFP doesn;t altered the act.

I don’t understand the first question.

With NFP, it is not correct to say that one obtains sexual pleasure without fertility. Fertility is still unaffected. A woman is generally fertile only a few days each month. Even without any planning, most of the times a couple would have sex, the woman would not be fertile.

But perhaps that is all it comes down to that the only difference between NFP and contraception is just that.

No that’s not the only difference - at least for the Catholic application. Besides the issue of altering, using NFP morally ensures that a couple regularly consider (prayerfully) whether God is calling them to have another child at this time. It accepts that fertility and fecundity are gifts that come with marriage rather than supress them.

And I admit I still donlt get the logic that me and my husband just to give an example using condoms by agreement or some other form of contraceptive means we are denying each other our fertility and not fully giving ourselves to each other.

Using condoms puts a physical barrier between you and your husband. It expresses reservation.

yet only having sex during unfertile periods is somehow completely different and we are considered to not be holding anything back,

Well, if you only did that throughout your marriage, you would be holding back doing that too. That’s where the “serious reasons” comes in.

But to be honest I donlt think that is something that I will ever get.

 

[Calliso]

Once again, natural law is concerned with whether or not the sexual act is “ordered toward” procreation, not immediately capable of it. Ordered toward could be more easily understood as “suggestive of.”

What matters is that the sexual act is innately capable of procreation, not whether or not it happens to be possible at that particular moment. If that were the case the Church would deny chronically infertile couples the right to marry – but it doesn’t.

Yes but there is about as much chance of procreation lets say when one is using condoms and the pill versus using NFP while one is infertile. Actually since NFP is supposed to be more effective then condoms with condoms one could argue there is statistically more of a chance to procreate. I mean in many case even contraceptive sex is capable of procreation. I mean if we are going to say that having sex when one is infertile is innately capable of procreation…

 

[Calliso]

That’s one of the differences.

I don’t understand the first question.

With NFP, it is not correct to say that one obtains sexual pleasure without fertility. Fertility is still unaffected. A woman is generally fertile only a few days each month. Even without any planning, most of the times a couple would have sex, the woman would not be fertile.

No that’s not the only difference - at least for the Catholic application. Besides the issue of altering, using NFP morally ensures that a couple regularly consider (prayerfully) whether God is calling them to have another child at this time. It accepts that fertility and fecundity are gifts that come with marriage rather than supress them.

Using condoms puts a physical barrier between you and your husband. It expresses reservation.

Well, if you only did that throughout your marriage, you would be holding back doing that too. That’s where the “serious reasons” comes in.

Ok see it makes sense to me that this would only be for serious reasons. But what is confusing is you have people here who would argue that practically any reason is ok. And another problem seems to be is that there is no real guildlines for what is allowed! Which I can understand to a degree because it is a very complicated subject reasons to avoid.

 

[Calliso]

The difference in those other things is that DURING the sexual act, the fertility of the spouse is rejected by some un-natural means.

NFP on the other hand accepts the spouses fertility or infertility at the time of sex.

In Catholic Moral Theology, sexual intercourse within a marriage is only valid if the spouses give themselves to each other completely. Otherwise it does not fit the definition of a loving act.

Hence, in NFP the sexual act is still love while with ABC’s the sexual act is a lie.

God Bless

Ok I guess I get it I still think there are circumstances where even when using NFP and nothing else the spouse is not fully giving themselves to eachother there is more to sex then just the physical act but I think I understand in general what you are saying. The comment about the sexual act being a lie confuses me still unless by lie you basically mean immoral.

 

[Pug]

So for me, the Church’s argument that a sex act using NFP is always unitive

One thing that caused me endless trouble while I struggled to understand NFP was that I confused how various Catholics chose to explain NFP with the actual things that the Church says I must believe. You are not required to believe that all sex acts that are made with NFP are expressions of loving marital communion.

For example, if a wife wants to “get” her husband, she could go out and contract a disease and then come lie down with her husband on the day the chart says, just for the sole purpose of giving him the disease out of revenge. Even though the chart says this is the right day and even though the act is completed in the usual manner, she has done something terrible, even if he does not contract the disease. She has not loved him, and she has used her own body in a horrible way.

There is more to it all than just having the chart say “go” and the act being completed in the usual manner.

It is very hard to sort out what you actually have to believe and do from the assortment of personal understandings that you will hear. We all try to understand, so there are many ways of understanding, but those are not what you need to believe. :hug1:

 

[Corki]

Ok see it makes sense to me that this would only be for serious reasons. But what is confusing is you have people here who would argue that practically any reason is ok. And another problem seems to be is that there is no real guildlines for what is allowed! Which I can understand to a degree because it is a very complicated subject reasons to avoid.

You are right. My own pastor told me that any reason that wasn’t selfish was ok. The old translation said “grave reason” now it says “serious reason”. I am told that some of the Orthodox Churches allow contraception but ONLY after thoroughly discussing the reasons with their priest. Although I understand the Church’s teaching on contraception, it seems to me that NFP would be better served if the same thing applied to Catholics and NFP. If a couple has to first explain to a priest why they didn’t want another child yet, they would be forced to break down the reasons rationally and objectively.

**** What follows is just my opinion *****

Any couple who wants to use NFP to space their children to no closer than two or three years should be given the benefit of the doubt that that’s a good enough reason. Anything else should be discussed with their pastor or spiritual director.

***** the above carries no theological weight and is not supported by any Vatican or heretical documentation ******

 

[sw85]

Yes but there is about as much chance of procreation lets say when one is using condoms and the pill versus using NFP while one is infertile. Actually since NFP is supposed to be more effective then condoms with condoms one could argue there is statistically more of a chance to procreate. I mean in many case even contraceptive sex is capable of procreation. I mean if we are going to say that having sex when one is infertile is innately capable of procreation…

It’s not a question of what the outcome of the act is. (That’s rank consequentialism and an invitation to disorder in its own right). It’s a question of the act itself.

Is the act innately procreative? (That is, is it how babies are made in principle – penetrative vaginal sex concluding in ejaculation?) If so, it is licit.

 

[silentstar]

Is it a sin to give up a child for adoption simply bc you don’t want it? If NFP fails or (ABC for that matter) and you could support it but just don’t want it, is that something that needs to be confessed?

Just today I heard about a woman I knew slightly growing up who was about my age, almost 43, who died due to drinking/drug abuse. She had been troubled for a long time and had something like 2 kids, I haven’t seen or heard from her for years. Her parents adopted the children. I think when someone is troubled it is the right thing to do. Often there is enough money to support the child, especially if the mother were to go on welfare, but if “doesn’t want the child” means not capable of raising one, then it’s a blessing. I’ve found in this situation family members often want to adopt and they sometimes fight the court system.

However that usually happens when a troubled woman gets pregnant and then finds she can’t care for her kids. I don’t see why someone would, in advance, contemplate adopting out due to contraceptive failure b/c you’re going through with a pregnancy knowing you don’t want the child. The exception again would be illness or some other factor that makes caring for the child not possible - even if there are other kids.

I don’t know if there’s a rule on this but I don’t understand why people who don’t want kids but are physically and mentally healthy would think about adoption if contraception failed. Would it be fear of child abuse, or being unhappy as a parent?

 

[ddarko]

Ok I guess I get it I still think there are circumstances where even when using NFP and nothing else the spouse is not fully giving themselves to eachother there is more to sex then just the physical act but I think I understand in general what you are saying. The comment about the sexual act being a lie confuses me still unless by lie you basically mean immoral.

By lies I mean not an expression of love. The act, in denying/rejecting fertility, does not meet the criterion to be defined as an act of love. So in this sense, the couple is lying to each other.

And yes, there are circumstances in which NFP is immoral. But that has nothing to do with the discussion here. The argument here was to make the distinction between Contraception being INTRINSICALLY immoral and NFP being morally neutral. Therefore while NFP maybe moral or immoral based on some other criterion, Condom usage for sex is always immoral.

That is the key message to Catholics/Christians.

God Bless

 

[LaSainte]

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”.

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?

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.

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

I never concluded any of the last 3 things that you attributed to me. That is what you extrapolated. I honestly can’t figure out how you got there, but I don’t feel like I need to explain it any further. Of course if you believe that using a condom is objectively immoral, its use can never be moral. I never argued against that at all. Also, if you believe that feelings and state of mind during sex do not matter and are just “feelings” as you said, then of course all you are left with is the physical form of the act. I happen to think that feelings do matter, so we will never agree on this point. I also never said it is always immoral to not have sex. This is an absurd hyperbolic statement that pro-NFPers use to try and minimize the spiritual effects that intent has on the morality of sex and has no basis in reality. Anyway, we are obviously not going to come roman understanding here, because you are deliberately obfuscating what I have said and making unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations in an attempt to confuse the issue.

Anyway, God bless!

 

[LaSainte]

Once again, natural law is concerned with whether or not the sexual act is “ordered toward” procreation, not immediately capable of it. Ordered toward could be more easily understood as “suggestive of.”

What matters is that the sexual act is innately capable of procreation, not whether or not it happens to be possible at that particular moment. If that were the case the Church would deny chronically infertile couples the right to marry – but it doesn’t.

This has never made sense to me. “ordered toward”? Really? So then children who have reached the age of reason should be able to marry and have sex because even though they are pre-pubescent and incapable of reproducing, their sex would be “ordered toward” procreation. Obviously that is a ridiculous idea…right?

 

[LaSainte]

Calliso and Rence, I agree with pretty much everything the two of you are saying . I think you both make some excellent points and articulate what I am struggling with very well.

 

[LaSainte]

One thing that caused me endless trouble while I struggled to understand NFP was that I confused how various Catholics chose to explain NFP with the actual things that the Church says I must believe. You are not required to believe that all sex acts that are made with NFP are expressions of loving marital communion.

For example, if a wife wants to “get” her husband, she could go out and contract a disease and then come lie down with her husband on the day the chart says, just for the sole purpose of giving him the disease out of revenge. Even though the chart says this is the right day and even though the act is completed in the usual manner, she has done something terrible, even if he does not contract the disease. She has not loved him, and she has used her own body in a horrible way.

There is more to it all than just having the chart say “go” and the act being completed in the usual manner.

It is very hard to sort out what you actually have to believe and do from the assortment of personal understandings that you will hear. We all try to understand, so there are many ways of understanding, but those are not what you need to believe. :hug1:

Thank you Pug. Your posts are always kind and insightful and give me something to think about

 

[LaSainte]

I just have a little anecdote that some of you might find interesting.

I was thinking about this whole issue the other night and I thought a out the parable of the sower. Anyway, it occurred to me that the imagery used is very suggestive of the topic at hand-sowing seed into ground that for one reason or another may or may not be fertile. I started to wonder if this parable could in any way be applied to what I impersonally dealing with here and my struggles with this teaching.

Well, lo and behold, we go to mass tonight and the parable of the sower is the gospel, which I thought was quite a coincidence. We also brought our almost 2 year old son to sit in the pews for the first time, thinking it would be a disaster. He was an angel. He just sat there quietly and he even sang the “hosanna”, which was adorable

Anyway, it occurred to me that I have 2 issues with this teaching. The first is like the first example Jesus gave, where maybe I am not understanding the teaching in the sense that I am not looking at it correctly, through the light and wisdom of the Holy Spirit, and so perhaps as in the parable, Satan is snatching this teaching from me before it can take root. The second issue I have with this teaching is anxiety and concern about being overwhelmed either financially or emotionally, like the seeds that were sown among the thorns, but were choked out by the things of the world.

Anyway, I have decided that right now, I do not HAVE to predict the future or know exactly what I will do. I am pregnant now and intend (and have intended) to use NFP to avoid pregnancy after that. If I get pregnant again, I will obviously have to reassess my feelings, but thankfully, I don’t have to deal with that now. God doesn’t dump everything on us all at once, and I am confident that with prayer and trying to open my heart to God’s will as best I can, He will help me to make the right decision when and IF the time comes. For now, I am going to try to put away my anxieties, follow Church teaching, and hope and pray that NFP works for me and that I won’t be tested on this somewhere down the line. . If I am, God will help me through.

I hope that this gives hope to you Little One if you are reading this and that you can try to put away some of your anxiety as well. I can see that you love God very much and He would not let that go unrewarded, especially with as much effort as you are putting into conforming your thoughts to His will. I prayed for you tonight!

God bless!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

You wrote a touching post LaSainte. God bless! When is the new baby due?