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

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y
mcteague said:
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
Click to expand...
Your theory is based on a huge misconception. The Church does not narrowly define the primary purpose of sex as procreation. They ask all couples to be “open to life” but that does not mean that the Church demands a pregnancy as a result of every marital act.

You should read John Paul ll"s writings on the subject of sex and marriage to get a better and more thorough understanding of the Church’s teachings on this matter.
 
Jennifer_J said:
With contraception, you do something to the physical act (either an actual barrier or a chemical one) itself–you sterilize. That’s the point. When I use NFP, the act isn’t sterilized. It is either natually fertile or naturally infertile. It is never sinful to not have sex (unless you are unjustly denying your spouse).
Click to expand...
and this is the essence of the sinfulness of ABC. You alter the marital act thus making it an immoral action.
 
I’m sorry that some of you are having difficulty apprehending the nature of the Church’s teaching. Forums are probably not the best place to clarify this teaching if you are legitimately concerned about it and wish to further your understanding of it: we are not trained theologians here, only normal people, and we do not have the best command of speech (or at least I don’t). As always, someone in a position of authority in the Church is your best.

Personally, I don’t see what’s difficult to apprehend about the teaching at all.

The human sexual configuration arises from nature, and it is ordered toward procreation. Any sexual act that is intrinsically capable of procreation is therefore good because it is in accordance with natural law.

To obviate the purpose of this act with contraception is to pervert natural law. Therefore it is bad. It is possible that exceptions may be made for health reasons, because an individual’s life and health are logically superordinate to sex, but even in that case it is evidently necessary to at least make some concession to natural law (I’m not familiar with that teaching so please don’t quote me on it).

It may the case that NFP is more effective in preventing pregnancy than certain forms of contraception. That does not alter the teaching; to say that the morality of an act is determined by its outcome is rank consequentialism, which is a borderline heresy to my mind because it supposes there is no objective good. Condoms exist to subvert natural fecundity. NFP takes advantage of it.
 
Please use the term “Contraception” in these threads…not ABC

(it is the proper term and the artificialness is not the problem…otherwise the man with the artificial limb would be in big trouble)
 
LaSainte said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ll try to explain.

ABC using couple has sex when the woman is fertile, or the woman would be fertile, and commits some act to cause the outcome to be no pregnancy.

NFP couple avoids sex to avoid pregnancy.

Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but I’ve seen a variant of this objection:
But, the NFP couple is doing all this stuff to ensure that they can still have sex! How can that not be the same exact intent and action as ABC. They get to have infertile sex…no fair!
Click to expand...
(Paraphrasing with a small attempt of humor)

Perhaps Deborah was referring to my past use of “intent”. “Intending” to avoid conception does not “cause” infertile days. I can “intend” to try to conceive…but sex on an infertile day would still be infertile.

All NFP really is accepting the biological facts:

sex+ fertility= possibility of pregnancy.
No sex + fertility= no possibility of pregnancy.
Sex + infertility = no possibility of pregnancy.

On the other hand ABC use is to remove fertility as a variable:

Sex + fertility= no pregnancy. How does that add up? It doesn’t. In order to make it work, one needs to remove the fertility part of the equation.

Sex =/= pregnancy.
 
Bookcat said:
Please use the term “Contraception” in these threads…not ABC

(it is the proper term and the artificialness is not the problem…otherwise the man with the artificial limb would be in big trouble)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I’ve been using ABC mainly because it’s shorter to type…(ABC the term…:))
 
Humanae Vitae says
this about intent:

“It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.”

The intention here is obviously the same (with ABC and NFP, as stated by Pope Paul VI himself), so it is not intention that makes contraception licit or illicit, since the intention can be the same. If a couple is using a condom with a hole in it, the act MUST be procreative AND unitive or the Church would not allow it at all, even for the purposes of collecting a sperm sample, but they do. So what is illicit about simply using a condom with a hole poked in it when you have sex if you want to reduce the risk of pregnancy?

What about with just making sure that SOME of the semen eventually makes it into the vagina during the totality of the sex act even if it is not ejaculated there? (This scenario may or may not be used with the specific intention of reducing the chances of pregnancy…it may just be used because the couple feels like doing it that way).
 
LaSainte said:
Humanae Vitae says
this about intent:

“It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.”

The intention here is obviously the same (with ABC and NFP, as stated by Pope Paul VI himself), so it is not intention that makes contraception licit or illicit, since the intention can be the same. If a couple is using a condom with a hole in it, the act MUST be procreative AND unitive or the Church would not allow it at all, even for the purposes of collecting a sperm sample, but they do.

So what is the argument here? This is why I have a problem with the teaching. It doesn’t make sense!
Click to expand...
Right. This means intent is immaterial. What matters is objective reality in this case.

The problem with contraception is that is objectively ordered against procreation. Hence it’s name: contra (against) conception. If it fails in this respect it is only because it has failed in its purpose, which is to inhibit procreation.

NFP may be used with the intent to not conceive, but what matters is the objective reality: the penis is still going into the vagina and ejaculating there.

NFP is really just a heuristic. In no way is it different from the sexual act during fertile times.
 
sw85 said:
Right. This means intent is immaterial. What matters is objective reality in this case.

The problem with contraception is that is objectively ordered against procreation. Hence it’s name: contra (against) conception. If it fails in this respect it is only because it has failed in its purpose, which is to inhibit procreation.

NFP may be used with the intent to not conceive, but what matters is the objective reality: the penis is still going into the vagina and ejaculating there.

NFP is really just a heuristic. In no way is it different from the sexual act during fertile times.
Click to expand...
Please see my edit above.

Also, having sex with a condom with a hole in it cannot be objectively ordered against procreation or it would not be allowed by the Church for any reason, and it is allowed for the collection of a sperm sample.

Also, what about ejaculating somewhere else, yet ensuring that the semen makes it into the vagina within the context of the sexual act itself. This would be unitive and procreative with no contraceptive intent.
 
LaSainte said:
Humanae Vitae says
this about intent:

“It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.”

The intention here is obviously the same (with ABC and NFP, as stated by Pope Paul VI himself), so it is not intention that makes contraception licit or illicit, since the intention can be the same. If a couple is using a condom with a hole in it, the act MUST be procreative AND unitive or the Church would not allow it at all, even for the purposes of collecting a sperm sample, but they do. So what is illicit about simply using a condom with a hole poked in it when you have sex if you want to reduce the risk of pregnancy?
Click to expand...
I have already clearfied this…read the above posts explaining that there is more to intent than your proposing.

They do not have the same intent here.

The act would be contraceptive in intent. (et al)

An act must be entirely good. Object, circumstance and intent.
 
For those struggling with the Church’s teaching (and remember, it is** Christ** Who is teaching us through His Church), Dr. Janet Smith’s Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader, published by Ignatius Press, might be helpful.
 
LaSainte said:
Please see my edit above.

Also, having sex with a condom with a hole in it cannot be objectively ordered against procreation or it would not be allowed by the Church for any reason, and it is allowed for the collection of a sperm sample.

Also, what about ejaculating somewhere else, yet ensuring that the semen makes it into the vagina within the context of the sexual act itself. This would be unitive and procreative with no contraceptive intent.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m no full-fledged Catholic, but I can make some speculations based on what I know about natural law.

There are instances in which intent can mitigate the sinfulness of an act. Thus it is immoral to kill a person – but if circumstances arise in which it is necessary to kill out of self-defense, than it is permissible.

Using contraception is sinful for the reasons that have been outlined above. But that sin can apparently be mitigated if it is necessary to collect semen for medical purposes, although even then a concession must be made to natural law by poking a hole in it (I am, again, not familiar with this teaching). Again, intent mitigates the sin in that case; but if that intent is absent than the sin remains.

I suppose your last scenario would be acceptable if some situation necessitated it. I cannot imagine what it would be, though.
 
Calliso said:
Ok I canlt say I get things yet but this is makign a little more sense to me.
Click to expand...
Don’t feel bad, I converted to Catholicism in '99 and I’ve only come to understand most (and not even all of it) in the last three years. 😉
 
sw85 said:
Well, I’m no full-fledged Catholic, but I can make some speculations based on what I know about natural law.

There are instances in which intent can mitigate the sinfulness of an act. Thus it is immoral to kill a person – but if circumstances arise in which it is necessary to kill out of self-defense, than it is permissible.

Using contraception is sinful for the reasons that have been outlined above. But that sin can apparently be mitigated if it is necessary to collect semen for medical purposes, although even then a concession must be made to natural law by poking a hole in it (I am, again, not familiar with this teaching). Again, intent mitigates the sin in that case; but if that intent is absent than the sin remains.

I suppose your last scenario would be acceptable if some situation necessitated it. I cannot imagine what it would be, though.
Click to expand...
Hello,

As you continue your Catholic formation in life you will find that the Church actually teaches that a “intention” cannot make an objectively evil action into a good one. No matter how good it is.

In your first example …not only is intention good…but the object is good…it is a different object. It is “self defense” not murder.

And an evil intention (like to contracept …can make an objectively good action to be sinful…

Read this section: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

and this vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM

Keep studying! I too am a convert…

Praised be Jesus Christ!
 
LaSainte said:
Please see my edit above.

Also, having sex with a condom with a hole in it cannot be objectively ordered against procreation or it would not be allowed by the Church for any reason, and it is allowed for the collection of a sperm sample.

Also, what about ejaculating somewhere else, yet ensuring that the semen makes it into the vagina within the context of the sexual act itself. This would be unitive and procreative with no contraceptive intent.
Click to expand...
The problem is you keep applying a condition that the Church allows for collecting a sperm sample for medical testing to the every day act of the marital union. The hole in the condom in permitted by the Church in a medical scenerio. When the couple needs to collect a sperm sample, there is a medical necessity for the condom, usually because the couple is experiencing infertility and the only way medical tests can be done in compliance with Church teachings is to collect SOME of the sperm but still allowing the couple to complete the marital act as it is intended. The hole in the condom is so that the couple is still “open to life”, however God wants that to happen. The hole in the condom is not some kind of “loop hole” for the couple to avoid pregnancy.
 
In fact if one of the couple actually intended the medical test use…in a contraceptive way. We would have a case of one person doing good thinking the other is too…and the other sinning via their contraceptive intent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top