The church finally says ABC is ok!! What would you all think of that??

[Bookcat]

The church isn;t actually God so it could be in error. I think some people just need to understand and see the logical reasoning behind a teaching before they accept it.

A good deal of Church teaching is protected by God …from all error…but yes of course not everyone realizes this. As for the last…the Church (and theologians …and the lived lives of of joyful Christians living it!) have articulated the reasons very well …even if some …for one reason or another are not convinced…or have not considered them without personal will being in the way (like it or not …this happens often I would gather in human workings)…or their emotions are impediments…or they have not yet encountered or understood the arguments …or they are still working on understanding them etc…

 

[Corki]

Agreed I mean if that is the case how exactly is NFP not sinful then? I mean I get the feeling that for those that have trouble understanding the reasoning behind the Church teachings on sex that if NFP wasn;t in the equation things would be perhaps a little clearer. But to me at least NFP seems like a pretty big bending of the rules. I mean how is using NFP to avoid not having a contraceptive mindset? I mean if your carefully charting and observing your signs and making sure you are only having sex on your most infertile of times how exactly is that anymore open to life then other forms of birthcontrol like a condom?

You are right that NFP can be used sinfully. But even if it is used selfishly, it isn’t contraception and it can never be contraception. Contraception is a sin. Ignoring your promise, made on your wedding day, to be open to life, is a sin. But they are different sins.

You could tell your spouse, “sleep in an other room, I don’t want to have sex with you” and that’s probably a sin too. But it’s not contraception.

 

[LaSainte]

If you use the hot tub even knowing it might lower sperm count but you really like hot tubbing, nothing wrong with that. Same thing for wearing tighty whities or becoming a marathon runner (women). If you did any of those things** as an attempt **to reduce your fertility, you might have a sin. It wouldn’t be the same sin as contraception, however. It would possibly be a sin in the same category as denying your spouse. Best to discuss that one with your confessor.

So if you did any of these things as an attempt to lower fertility, it would not be considered to be contraception? Would it still be grave matter?

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t get this because even Humanae Vitae admits that couples who use NFP and ABC may very well have the same intent. The intent is to reduce the chances that one will conceive a child in both cases.

a…no.

Your reducing the intent here…

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.

Contraception by nature involves a “contraceptive intent” …to hinder procreation.

NFP has no contraceptive intent.

 

[Calliso]

I guess I must be slow because I still donlt get the reasoning as to why NFP is allowed but condoms and other forms of birthcontrol are not. I mean my mind is going in loops trying to figure it out! I mean to me I would find the teaching far more logical if NFP wasn;t involved.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t get this because even Humanae Vitae admits that couples who use NFP and ABC may very well have the same intent. The intent is to reduce the chances that one will conceive a child in both cases.

NFP involves the intent to avoid an new conception “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.” ( Comp. CCC 497)

Contraception involves the intent to prevent …to hinder procreation (for what ever reason) using methods that are objectively disordered …are intrinsically immoral (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences). (Comp. CCC 498).

Intent embraces more than you proposed…

 

[Sullibe]

Agreed I mean if that is the case how exactly is NFP not sinful then? I mean I get the feeling that for those that have trouble understanding the reasoning behind the Church teachings on sex that if NFP wasn;t in the equation things would be perhaps a little clearer. But to me at least NFP seems like a pretty big bending of the rules. I mean how is using NFP to avoid not having a contraceptive mindset? I mean if your carefully charting and observing your signs and making sure you are only having sex on your most infertile of times how exactly is that anymore open to life then other forms of birthcontrol like a condom?

NFP is a thing, a pill lying on the table or condom in the store are things. It’s how you use them.

Yes, some people attempt to use NFP as a form of birth control and it is, unfortunately, touted often as such. In reality, NFP is a way of using the God-given, biological cycles of a woman’s fertility to initiate a discussion with one’s spouse AND God, about whether or not, right at this moment in time, their family is ready for another child. There are many reasons, albeit serious/just reasons, that a couple, after prayerful discernment with God, may choose to postpone pregnancy and therefore abstains from sex during the woman’s fertile period; or they may choose to enlarge their family and HAVE sex during the woman’s fertile period.

Abstention from sex is not a sin, whether or not it is done during a fertile or infertile period. Using a device created specifically (regardless of actual statistics) to prevent conception while having sex at any time during a cycle is inherently sinful and intrinsically evil. It’s the mindset that’s the key. Which is why NFP can certainly be abused, but that doesn’t mean that since NFP can be abused by people who don’t understand the meaning of it, that ABC must be okay then.

I understand where you are coming from, I get it. I used to think that if God is so powerful then He’s going to ignore the contraception anyway and a child will be conceived if He deems it necessary, so why not let a couple have “peace of mind” about their sex lives if it makes them feel better. God isn’t going to let a little piece latex or a few hormones stop Him.

And then I realized something. With this attitude, all I was trying to do was trick God, or worse, taunt Him. It was, “*Ha. Look, I’m going to do this and if You really want me to be pregnant I guess You’re going to have to make me. I don’t LIKE the way YOU created the biology of women, and I think I know better than You. I don’t want anymore children and if I get to the point that I do want more then I’ll stop using birth control, no big deal. So back off.” *

Talk about the arrogance. I’m still ashamed of it.

 

[Corki]

So if you did any of these things as an attempt to lower fertility, it would not be considered to be contraception? Would it still be grave matter?

I don’t think that technically or scientifically they would be considered contraception per se but it would still be wrong and probably grave matter. Fooling around with your fertility is not insignificant.

 

[Calliso]

NFP is a thing, a pill lying on the table or condom in the store are things. It’s how you use them.

Yes, some people attempt to use NFP as a form of birth control and it is, unfortunately, touted often as such. In reality, NFP is a way of using the God-given, biological cycles of a woman’s fertility to initiate a discussion with one’s spouse AND God, about whether or not, right at this moment in time, their family is ready for another child. There are many reasons, albeit serious/just reasons, that a couple, after prayerful discernment with God, may choose to postpone pregnancy and therefore abstains from sex during the woman’s fertile period; or they may choose to enlarge their family and HAVE sex during the woman’s fertile period.

Abstention from sex is not a sin, whether or not it is done during a fertile or infertile period. Using a device created specifically (regardless of actual statistics) to prevent conception while having sex at any time during a cycle is inherently sinful and intrinsically evil. It’s the mindset that’s the key. Which is why NFP can certainly be abused, but that doesn’t mean that since NFP can be abused by people who don’t understand the meaning of it, that ABC must be okay then.

I understand where you are coming from, I get it. I used to think that if God is so powerful then He’s going to ignore the contraception anyway and a child will be conceived if He deems it necessary, so why not let a couple have “peace of mind” about their sex lives if it makes them feel better. God isn’t going to let a little piece latex or a few hormones stop Him.

And then I realized something. With this attitude, all I was trying to do was trick God, or worse, taunt Him. It was, “*Ha. Look, I’m going to do this and if You really want me to be pregnant I guess You’re going to have to make me. I don’t LIKE the way YOU created the biology of women, and I think I know better than You. I don’t want anymore children and if I get to the point that I do want more then I’ll stop using birth control, no big deal. So back off.” *

Talk about the arrogance. I’m still ashamed of it.

Ok I canlt say I get things yet but this is makign a little more sense to me.

 

[HNA444]

You see…your creating your own definitions. This is a forum of Catholic Moral theology so we need to use the terms the way the Church and Catholic Theology use them…

Your creating new meanings of “barrier”. Space? Such has not been nor will be the definition. Your creating your own meanings…and then saying “see the Church is wrong”.

 

[Debora123]

I don’t get this because even Humanae Vitae admits that couples who use NFP and ABC may very well have the same intent. The intent is to reduce the chances that one will conceive a child in both cases.

Exactly!

Of course, I’ve pointed this out before and people will say intent doesn’t matter in this case.

Hmmmm

And then they proceed to contradict earlier statements they’ve made and the whole argument just goes in around in painful circles.

 

[Calliso]

Exactly!

Of course, I’ve pointed this out before and people will say intent doesn’t matter in this case.

Hmmmm

And then they proceed to contradict earlier statements they’ve made and the whole argument just goes in around in painful circles.

Yeah all too often it seems that is exactly how this goes huh?

 

[vsedriver]

Sure it does.

“No honey, I will not make love to you and give myself to you tonight. You’re fertile.”

OR

“No honey, I will not make love to you and give myself to you tonight. I’m fertile.”

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.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Exactly!

Of course, I’ve pointed this out before and people will say intent doesn’t matter in this case.

Hmmmm

And then they proceed to contradict earlier statements they’ve made and the whole argument just goes in around in painful circles.

You can have the same intent and two different ways to get to that intent. The example used earlier was about the police and criminals.

2 police officers want to stop a criminal–same intent

the first questions witnesses to find the criminal (licit way)
the second uses torture to get to the criminal (illicit way)

The same with NFP, the intent to limit children is not sinful. It’s how we do it that matters. NFP is licit–because it does not alter the ACTUAL ACT OF SEX. It retains it procreative intent and it’s unitive meaning.
Contraception is illicit because it rips the procreative intent out and often the unitive meaning as well.

 

[vsedriver]

Yup. I’ve pretty much given up hope of ever understanding this Church teaching.

can you tell me what is required to make a sex act holy and moral?

 

[Charlotte1776]

And then they proceed to contradict earlier statements they’ve made and the whole argument just goes in around in painful circles.

Frustrating, isn’t it? Whenever the topic of NFP comes up, contradictions and falsehoods tend to follow. And then come the defensiveness and ad hominem arguments! Fun fun.

I’m trying my very best to come to a point where I just accept NFP without caring whether I understand it or what impact it’s going to have on my physical health, my marriage, and my quality of life. It’s not a happy place for sure, but it’s where I need to be if I’m going to live with it. Fighting against it is a lost cause. My advice is just to give up hope and give up trying. I have and it’s honestly been surprisingly liberating. Surrender to God’s will like all the other posters tell folks who struggle. There’s no other option.

 

[mcteague]

I guess I must be slow because I still donlt get the reasoning as to why NFP is allowed but condoms and other forms of birthcontrol are not. I mean my mind is going in loops trying to figure it out! I mean to me I would find the teaching far more logical if NFP wasn;t involved.

Look at it from a social policy perspective. The Church believes that sex should occur within marriage because births occurring outside marriage have negative consequences. We can use condoms with anyone we meet. However NFP requires a little more knowledge of the female partner. It generally works best in a relationship where people have long term intimate knowledge of each other.
It is highly likely that the Church accepts NFP because it normally takes place within the relationship it considers correct. It does not want to accept ABC because it is to easily used in circumstances where it thinks sex is not okay.

Also because the Church narrowly defines the primary purpose of sex as procreation it must either accept NFP or prohibit intercourse when procreation is not possible. If it did prohibit it under all non procreative circumstances. It would have to include a great many. It prefers not to. But still seeks to maintain some logical consistency in it’s teaching. Therefore NFP okay, ABC not okay.
Yes there are other reasons. And personally I don’t think the Church’s position really makes sense. It makes a lot of dubious presumptions. But these would be reasons for the position it holds

 

[Bookcat]

Exactly!

Of course, I’ve pointed this out before and people will say intent doesn’t matter in this case.

Hmmmm

And then they proceed to contradict earlier statements they’ve made and the whole argument just goes in around in painful circles.

Certainly not meaning me.

I have laid out very clearly who intent is involved.

No circles.

 

[PatriceA]

Exactly!

Of course, I’ve pointed this out before and people will say intent doesn’t matter in this case.

Hmmmm

And then they proceed to contradict earlier statements they’ve made and the whole argument just goes in around in painful circles.

Can you point out the contridictions you are referring to?

 

[Bookcat]

Intent is not just one simple thing…

Joe intends to get a cup of coffee. He goes down and gets it out of his coffee pot.

I intend to get a cup of coffee. I go and at gun point make the coffee vendor give me a cup off coffee.

We both intended to get a cup of coffee. Joe’s intention embraced good means. Mine embraced evil means. (though here I could perhaps accept that the ends justify the means hee hee …:compcoff

NFP involves the intent to avoid an new conception “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.” ( Comp. CCC 497)

Contraception involves the intent to prevent …to hinder procreation (for what ever reason) using methods that are objectively disordered …are intrinsically immoral (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences). (Comp. CCC 498).