D
The church finally says ABC is ok!! What would you all think of that??
- Status
B
Bookcat
Guest
NFP is open to life more so than something that is more open to life??
Yes, yes, I know that this is what the Church says. I also know it makes absolutely no sense. It’s ok.
You wrote: “that barrier (condoms from the context) does not make the openness to life any less than NFP”
Which would be working with a definition of “open to life” which differs from that of the Church. The Church is very clear that NFP is open to life and condoms are not.
as to the last:
You can perhaps assert “it makes no sense to me” but to say that “it makes no sense” is to fly in the face of those for whom it makes grand sense. Sense full of life and liberty.
D
Debora123
Guest
I do not what?
D
Debora123
Guest
It makes no sense to me. But I am also not alone in thinking this.
You wrote: “that barrier (condoms from the context) does not make the openness to life any less than NFP”
Which would be working with a definition of “open to life” which differs from that of the Church. The Church is very clear that NFP is open to life and condoms are not.
as to the last:
You can perhaps assert “it makes no sense to me” but to say that “it makes no sense” is to fly in the face of those for whom it makes grand sense. Sense full of life and liberty.
B
Bookcat
Guest
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”.
M
mcteague
Guest
It took me a while to realize ABC means alternative birth control.
I had thought on April fools day that I would post that the official position on birth control had changed. But that Catholics were only allowed to use special Pope approved burlap condoms made in the Vatican. I am pretty sure that burlap is what medieval hair shorts were made of. Using it for a condom would not be a pleasant experience for either party. We said you could use them not that you could enjoy it.
But this sight is often so morose in it’s religiousity that few would have found any humor in it. And I would have just been banned. So I decided against it.
Still I think the idea is so ridicules that its hilarious. Just try to picture what a TV ad would look like. I just think it’s good sometime to not be so serious and laugh a little at ourselves.
I had thought on April fools day that I would post that the official position on birth control had changed. But that Catholics were only allowed to use special Pope approved burlap condoms made in the Vatican. I am pretty sure that burlap is what medieval hair shorts were made of. Using it for a condom would not be a pleasant experience for either party. We said you could use them not that you could enjoy it.
But this sight is often so morose in it’s religiousity that few would have found any humor in it. And I would have just been banned. So I decided against it.
Still I think the idea is so ridicules that its hilarious. Just try to picture what a TV ad would look like. I just think it’s good sometime to not be so serious and laugh a little at ourselves.
D
Debora123
Guest
Well, it is what it is. Whatever word you wanna use.
P
PatriceA
Guest
See that God naturally created the “barrier” as you keep referring to in, in NFP.
D
Debora123
Guest
Hahahaha. This is absolutely hilarious. I’m gonna steal this idea and use it myself next year.
Just kidding!
P
PatriceA
Guest
You could get millions of people to agree with you, it still will not change the Church’s teachings on this subject nor the fact that we are not to use ABC as a Catholic that is trying to stay faithful to the teachings.
D
Debora123
Guest
Ah, I see what you’re saying. So God created the barrier, aka, our decision to reject each others’ bodies during times of fertility.
I suppose I disagree.
D
Debora123
Guest
No prob.
It’s just nice knowing that I’m not so stupid for not understanding this if the majority of Catholics don’t, that’s all.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Ok…right now my wife is down stairs…and I am upstairs…
I must go check and see if our marriage is in trouble …for all that space.
“Honey…I am very sorry for this barrier I have placed between us today…”
“What??..have you been into the Schnapps again dear?”
I am being funny…(no offense intended) but really
NFP is not a barrier… it is life. And it is a way of virtue and love… there are many many ways to love ones spouse aside from the marital act.
P
PatriceA
Guest
You see it as “rejection”, I see it as us as a married couple humbling our own desires and free will to God’s will for us as a couple and as a family. You see it as a negative, I see it as opportunity to grow in my faith and trust in God and in His plan for me and in my husband and our marriage.
T
TimothyH
Guest
The Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception is both theologically and biblically sound, if not explicit in scripture. To see it logically, one must see it theo-logically: not with the logic of man but with logic in light of God. One must understand how God invites man to join with him in the genesis of human life. But to understand God’s law with regards to the practice, and hence the moral authority on which the Church teaches, one need only look at the Bible. My humble explanation is below.
God’s law as given to Israel through Moses upheld the traditional Jewish understanding of how important it was to have a male heir and to perpetuate the family name and blood line.
"When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’ Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’ his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’ And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as ‘the family of the man stripped of his sandal.’ (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
Perpetuating the family name and having a male heir was so important that if a married man died without a son, his brother was responsible for raising his heir with his dead brother’s widow. The surviving brother would incur the expense and bear the responsibility for caring for the widow and raising the son but the son would not be counted as his. Instead, the son would inherit the estate of his mother’s deceased husband. The God given penalty for not doing so was public humiliation.
Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Genesis 38:8-10)
Onan disobeyed God’s law but was punished far in excess of what God’s own law demanded. God himself set the punishment of public humiliation for not raising his brother’s heir yet God did not mete out the punishment which his very own law demanded. Instead God handed down the harshest punishment possible - death. Why?
Because when man and woman unite in sexual union, man brings the sperm, woman brings the egg and God brings the spirit. Without the spirit, the sperm may penetrate the egg but there is no conception. Without the spirit, there is no life. This is why sexual union between husband and wife in the context of a committed relationship is a holy act. When man and woman unite, God is present in a special way. Man and woman bring the created parts necessary for a human body but God alone brings the spirit created in His image, and which is required for that body to be alive. In so doing, God allows man and woman to become participants in one of his greatest acts - the creation of a human life. Man and woman thus become co-creators of human life in cooperating with God. It is a great gift which God gives us, and an honor, to be able to join with him in the creation of a new person.
And so under the mosaic law, Onan’s punishment made perfect sense. Any eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In the act of wasting his seed, Onan denied God the opportunity to create a human life. And Onan’s life was demanded of him in return. That is why Onan was not punished with humiliation for not raising an heir, but was punished for turning down so great a gift as to cooperate with God in creating a human life and denying God the opportunity to do so. Under the mosaic law it makes perfect sense - a life for a life.
To use a woman for your own personal enjoyment while denying God the opportunity to create a new life is an insult to God. Onan’s punishment, far in excess of what was demanded for refusing to raise his brother’s heir, bears witness to his real crime, which was denying God the opportunity to create a new life. This is not my own intepretation; it is the teaching of fourty centuries of Jewish and Christian belief, clearly laid out in the oldest books of the Bible for anyone who cares to read.
The logic of the Church’s teaching on contraception is clear only when the light of the Old Testament is shined upon it. And for the Church to change that teaching - given to man by God through Moses - would require repeal of the books of Genesis and Dueteronomy.
-Tim-
God’s law as given to Israel through Moses upheld the traditional Jewish understanding of how important it was to have a male heir and to perpetuate the family name and blood line.
"When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’ Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’ his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’ And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as ‘the family of the man stripped of his sandal.’ (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
Perpetuating the family name and having a male heir was so important that if a married man died without a son, his brother was responsible for raising his heir with his dead brother’s widow. The surviving brother would incur the expense and bear the responsibility for caring for the widow and raising the son but the son would not be counted as his. Instead, the son would inherit the estate of his mother’s deceased husband. The God given penalty for not doing so was public humiliation.
Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Genesis 38:8-10)
Onan disobeyed God’s law but was punished far in excess of what God’s own law demanded. God himself set the punishment of public humiliation for not raising his brother’s heir yet God did not mete out the punishment which his very own law demanded. Instead God handed down the harshest punishment possible - death. Why?
Because when man and woman unite in sexual union, man brings the sperm, woman brings the egg and God brings the spirit. Without the spirit, the sperm may penetrate the egg but there is no conception. Without the spirit, there is no life. This is why sexual union between husband and wife in the context of a committed relationship is a holy act. When man and woman unite, God is present in a special way. Man and woman bring the created parts necessary for a human body but God alone brings the spirit created in His image, and which is required for that body to be alive. In so doing, God allows man and woman to become participants in one of his greatest acts - the creation of a human life. Man and woman thus become co-creators of human life in cooperating with God. It is a great gift which God gives us, and an honor, to be able to join with him in the creation of a new person.
And so under the mosaic law, Onan’s punishment made perfect sense. Any eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. In the act of wasting his seed, Onan denied God the opportunity to create a human life. And Onan’s life was demanded of him in return. That is why Onan was not punished with humiliation for not raising an heir, but was punished for turning down so great a gift as to cooperate with God in creating a human life and denying God the opportunity to do so. Under the mosaic law it makes perfect sense - a life for a life.
To use a woman for your own personal enjoyment while denying God the opportunity to create a new life is an insult to God. Onan’s punishment, far in excess of what was demanded for refusing to raise his brother’s heir, bears witness to his real crime, which was denying God the opportunity to create a new life. This is not my own intepretation; it is the teaching of fourty centuries of Jewish and Christian belief, clearly laid out in the oldest books of the Bible for anyone who cares to read.
The logic of the Church’s teaching on contraception is clear only when the light of the Old Testament is shined upon it. And for the Church to change that teaching - given to man by God through Moses - would require repeal of the books of Genesis and Dueteronomy.
-Tim-
D
Debora123
Guest
I’m not talking about that type of barrier. I’m talking about the sex part. Likewise, using a condom wouldn’t keep you from coming to her aid either.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
Forgive my naivety, but, what is ABC?
D
Debora123
Guest
Likewise, you folks see using a condom as a rejection.
I’m only using the same mind frame as the rest of you.
I don’t see anything negative with NFP, but I don’t see anything negative with condoms either.
T
TimothyH
Guest
How is not having sex a rejection of your spouse’s body?
Do we not cook dinner for each other? Do we hide the toothpaste and toilet paper during times of fertility? If I’m too tired to cook for my spouse, have I rejected her body? And I I want to take a nap instead of watching TV with her, have I rejected her body?
The vagina and penis are not the only parts of the body.
-Tim-
B
Bookcat
Guest
Again discussing these issues …the definitions and languages of theology are need to be used.
Besides NFP in not a barrier by any definition…it is means even for personal and marital growth.
- Status