B
Bookcat
Guest
We are discussing Catholic Moral Theology…and we must use the language and meanings of such science.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The church finally says ABC is ok!! What would you all think of that??
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bookcat
Guest
It has been the long understanding in the Church…one can find such in various Catholic Theology works and books…and one can study such in Orthodox courses of Catholic Moral Theology. And as I recall it was mentioned by…I forget what Pope…but even by a Pope.And I still do not see where this teaching can be found (a book, an encyclical, a letter)?
C
crazzeto
Guest
With regard to the man finishing some place other than “the usual place”, but then placing the sperm where it “should be”… These are my thoughts, as usual take the regular random forum poster grain of sault.
I think the problem here might actually be something other than the “openness to life” per-se, something in like now IVF isn’t necessarly closed to life (though it can and usually involves abortion). The problem rather, is the manner in which the sperm (or fertalized egg in the other) is getting there in the first place.
It denies the nature of sexuality by redefining the parameters. Then more over, the problem becomes one of mindset durring the act. One has to question why it is one needs to finish somewhere else… I can wager the answer has something to do with “excitment level”… Beleive me, as a man I can understand this particular reasoning very very well. But this too can be a problem, because in this senario it would seem to make the procreative aspect an after thought at best, basically an “acknowlegement” of the law, an attempt to find a loophole in order to persue greater personal sexual gratification. And when sex becomes this, I think it becomes hard to argue that it has lost it’s holy aspects.
God bless, I hope this is of value to anyone.
I think the problem here might actually be something other than the “openness to life” per-se, something in like now IVF isn’t necessarly closed to life (though it can and usually involves abortion). The problem rather, is the manner in which the sperm (or fertalized egg in the other) is getting there in the first place.
It denies the nature of sexuality by redefining the parameters. Then more over, the problem becomes one of mindset durring the act. One has to question why it is one needs to finish somewhere else… I can wager the answer has something to do with “excitment level”… Beleive me, as a man I can understand this particular reasoning very very well. But this too can be a problem, because in this senario it would seem to make the procreative aspect an after thought at best, basically an “acknowlegement” of the law, an attempt to find a loophole in order to persue greater personal sexual gratification. And when sex becomes this, I think it becomes hard to argue that it has lost it’s holy aspects.
God bless, I hope this is of value to anyone.
M
mcteague
Guest
I have suggested that examining this issue through the perspcective of public policy is really the best and most rational way. But people seemed to be obsessed with this mechanical hocus pocus analysis of the sex act and where semen goes. I can not help but think that many of you sex obsessed Catholics would be happier forgoing that religion, and starting a new one with an ejaculating phallus as its primary symbol.
I really think most of this conversation is really on the wrong path.
I really think most of this conversation is really on the wrong path.
L
LaSainte
Guest
I agree with some of what you are saying. We just get all these arguments as to why contraception or oral sex or coitus interruptus are wrong, and the when a solution (I prefer solution to “loophole”, haha) is found which negates all of these arguments yet still allowsfor a bit of marital “creativity”, then it’s shot down with no real argument except for “that’s not where it’s supposed to happen” with no real sources to back it up.With regard to the man finishing some place other than “the usual place”, but then placing the sperm where it “should be”… These are my thoughts, as usual take the regular random forum poster grain of sault.
I think the problem here might actually be something other than the “openness to life” per-se, something in like now IVF isn’t necessarly closed to life (though it can and usually involves abortion). The problem rather, is the manner in which the sperm (or fertalized egg in the other) is getting there in the first place.
It denies the nature of sexuality by redefining the parameters. Then more over, the problem becomes one of mindset durring the act. One has to question why it is one needs to finish somewhere else… I can wager the answer has something to do with “excitment level”… Beleive me, as a man I can understand this particular reasoning very very well. But this too can be a problem, because in this senario it would seem to make the procreative aspect an after thought at best, basically an “acknowlegement” of the law, an attempt to find a loopholehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=155970 in order to persue greater personal sexual gratification. And when sex becomes this, I think it becomes hard to argue that it has lost it’s holy aspects.
God bless, I hope this is of value to anyone.
B
Bookcat
Guest
…books are good or a nice course in Moral Theology…I with no real sources to back it up.
plenty of sources
C
crazzeto
Guest
Well I think what is needed is a clearer understanding of the issue, but unfortunetly that is difficult to come by… The fact of the matter is sexual morality is no simple issue, it is not easy to understand and that is why it is so hard to come by a single complete authorative teaching (Theology of the Body is probably the best single source).I agree with some of what you are saying. We just get all these arguments as to why contraception or oral sex or coitus interruptus are wrong, and the when a solution (I prefer solution to “loophole”, haha) is found which negates all of these arguments yet still allowsfor a bit of marital “creativity”, then it’s shot down with no real argument except for “that’s not where it’s supposed to happen” with no real sources to back it up.
I too felt the arguments made against your questioning was awkward, and I think that’s beacuse they just don’t quite fit. It isn’t necessarly an issue of being open to life (though the argumentation can go that route, I almost did in my posting). Rather I think it is generally more the otherside of sexuality, the way in which we view it.
Sex isn’t just fun after all, it’s holy. As something holy, we should not profane it.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Yes…have you read Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand?Well I think what is needed is a clearer understanding of the issue, but unfortunetly that is difficult to come by… The fact of the matter is sexual morality is no simple issue, it is not easy to understand and that is why it is so hard to come by a single complete authorative teaching (Theology of the Body is probably the best single source).
I too felt the arguments made against your questioning was awkward, and I think that’s beacuse they just don’t quite fit. It isn’t necessarly an issue of being open to life (though the argumentation can go that route, I almost did in my posting). Rather I think it is generally more the otherside of sexuality, the way in which we view it.
***Sex isn’t just fun after all, it’s holy. As something holy, we should not profane ***it.
C
crazzeto
Guest
No, I haven’t had the oppertunity… Actually now that my wife and I are raising our first little one I don’t get much time to read at all.Yes…have you read Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand?
J
joclucsylv
Guest
Bookcat!!! NFP IS THE CONTRACEPTIVE INTENT!!! Making sure there is no egg there so that one can’t get pregnant is the contraceptive intent weather or not you people want to admit it!!! :banghead:If one were to do anything with a contraceptive intent…it would be sinful.
C
crazzeto
Guest
No, the contraceptive intent is to steralize the sex act… The contraceptive intent is not to regulate births… This seems to be your error.Bookcat!!! NFP IS THE CONTRACEPTIVE INTENT!!! Making sure there is no egg there so that one can’t get pregnant is the contraceptive intent weather or not you people want to admit it!!! :banghead:
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
No. NFP does nothing to sterilize the act. I can’t do anything to make an egg appear or not appear by using NFP. NFP is knowledge of the fertility cycle. Couples can either choose to have sex or choose to not have sex at any given time. This is not contraceptive in nature.Bookcat!!! NFP IS THE CONTRACEPTIVE INTENT!!! Making sure there is no egg there so that one can’t get pregnant is the contraceptive intent weather or not you people want to admit it!!! :banghead:
Mary_Gail_36
New member
OK so anytime a couple is intimate on a non fertile day that’s contraception? So we must make sure to only be intimate on fertile days?Bookcat!!! NFP IS THE CONTRACEPTIVE INTENT!!! Making sure there is no egg there so that one can’t get pregnant is the contraceptive intent weather or not you people want to admit it!!! :banghead:
Mary_Gail_36
New member
It’s funny how the focus is on the days we can be intimate…but not so much focus is that for NFP (to avoid) for it to work, you have to give up intimacy.No. NFP does nothing to sterilize the act. I can’t do anything to make an egg appear or not appear by using NFP. NFP is knowledge of the fertility cycle. Couples can either choose to have sex or choose to not have sex at any given time. This is not contraceptive in nature.
On a 28 day cycle, lets assume ovulation is on day 13.
A couple is intimate days 1-6 abstains day 7 to 16 resumes intimacy on days 17- 28. Her period starts…proof that she did not conceive.
How come she didn’t conceive? Because she wasn’t intimate on days 7-16.
Not because she was intimate on the other days.
J
joclucsylv
Guest
But in the end it’s the same…with NFP or with contraception the couple does not want a baby.No, the contraceptive intent is to steralize the sex act… The contraceptive intent is not to regulate births… This seems to be your error.
Still don’t see the difference. This is taking me a while to understand.
J
joclucsylv
Guest
But I have read it is sinful to use with the contraceptive mind. Anytime you are using it to prevent a baby you have the contraceptive mind.No. NFP does nothing to sterilize the act. I can’t do anything to make an egg appear or not appear by using NFP. NFP is knowledge of the fertility cycle. Couples can either choose to have sex or choose to not have sex at any given time. This is not contraceptive in nature.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Joclucsylv!!!Bookcat!!! NFP IS THE CONTRACEPTIVE INTENT!!! Making sure there is no egg there so that one can’t get pregnant is the contraceptive intent weather or not you people want to admit it!!! :banghead:
Not it is not. (unless someone has such an intent…I have explained this in detail …see other posts)
Period.
If you wish to discuss the Teachings of the Catholic Church or Catholic Moral theology one must understand and define terms and actions etc as such is done by the Church and the science of Moral Theology.
Just as if you want to discuss Math…then use the definitions and undertandings of Math.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
NFP is allowed for “just” reasons. If you have “unjust” reasons you should not use NFP.But I have read it is sinful to use with the contraceptive mind. Anytime you are using it to prevent a baby you have the contraceptive mind.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your reducing the intent here…But in the end it’s the same…with NFP or with contraception the couple does not want a baby.
Still don’t see the difference. This is taking me a while to understand.
A policeman intents to find out where a gang is hiding out. So he questions a criminal in custody.
Another police man intents to find out where a gang is hiding out but he brutally tortures him.
Both can be said to have the same intent “to find where the gang it hiding out”
One one also intends an evil disordered means to do this.
D
Debora123
Guest
If you don’t want to have sex with your spouse because you have a headache, that’s one thing. If you don’t want to have sex with your spouse because you don’t accept their fertility, that is something entirely different.how is this any different than “No honey, I will not make love to you and give myself to you tonight. I have a headache”?
are you saying that every time a spouse doesn’t want to have sex it is a barrier?
it doesn’t change the fact that with NFP you leave God in charge by using the God created fertility cycle.
ABC is thumbing your nose at God and saying “I’m” in charge of my fertility.
I have no problem with NFP and with the above statement. I’m only using the same mind frame as you folks use while attacking barrier ABC. That is all.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.