The intent behind our actions and choices

[tossolul]

Someone please explain some things to me… If it is our intent that causes us to sin, then how can NFP be any less sinful than using birth control. The intent in both is to be able to have marital relations without conceiving a child. How is one really better than the other, when the intent is the same?

Another point my Lutheran husband brought up to me ( a catholic) that I had a hard time explaining is this… Where in the bible does it specifically tell us that it is wrong to have relations with your spouse in ways that do not allow you to become pregnant? I pointed out the part in the bible where God became angry with the brother of her dead husband for not getting this woman pregnant and wasting his seed on the ground instead, but my husband seems to think that verse does not apply these days. That it was talking about a specific incidence and that was their custom (for the wife to go to the next of kin) and it is not ours-- so it is not to be taken literally.

Any help?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

tossolul:

Someone please explain some things to me… If it is our intent that causes us to sin, then how can NFP be any less sinful than using birth control. The intent in both is to be able to have marital relations without conceiving a child. How is one really better than the other, when the intent is the same?

Another point my Lutheran husband brought up to me ( a catholic) that I had a hard time explaining is this… Where in the bible does it specifically tell us that it is wrong to have relations with your spouse in ways that do not allow you to become pregnant? I pointed out the part in the bible where God became angry with the brother of her dead husband for not getting this woman pregnant and wasting his seed on the ground instead, but my husband seems to think that verse does not apply these days. That it was talking about a specific incidence and that was their custom (for the wife to go to the next of kin) and it is not ours-- so it is not to be taken literally.

Any help?

The difference between NFP and ABC is the difference between not doing something and doing something and trying to thwart the divinely ordered consequences.

Rather than play Scripture tennis, it would be better to point out that every Christian denomination condemned contraception until 1930. Martin Luther specifically condemned it. So the question is, if contraception is acceptable, how come every church got it wrong until recently? Part of my conversion (and pehaps other more notables like Hahn, Armstrong, etc.) came from asking, if contraception is wrong, how come only the Catholic Church has it right?

And a bonus question: How come Martin Luther is wrong about contraception but right about Sola Scriptura? Who gets to decide? Why do they get to decide?

Scott

 

[Genesis315]

tossolul:

Someone please explain some things to me… If it is our intent that causes us to sin, then how can NFP be any less sinful than using birth control. The intent in both is to be able to have marital relations without conceiving a child. How is one really better than the other, when the intent is the same?

Actually, becuase certain actions are objectively immoral. Let’s say my intent is to get food for my kids. I can either steal it or buy it. Same intent, different actions. One sinful, one not.

Likewise, NFP is abstainance during fertile periods–making a sacrafice while respecting God’s design. Artificial birth control just tells God “to heck with your design.”

Another point my Lutheran husband brought up to me ( a catholic) that I had a hard time explaining is this… Where in the bible does it specifically tell us that it is wrong to have relations with your spouse in ways that do not allow you to become pregnant? I pointed out the part in the bible where God became angry with the brother of her dead husband for not getting this woman pregnant and wasting his seed on the ground instead, but my husband seems to think that verse does not apply these days. That it was talking about a specific incidence and that was their custom (for the wife to go to the next of kin) and it is not ours-- so it is not to be taken literally.

Because it specifically says sodomy is a sin. Sodomy is not just homosexuality, but any aberrant sexual behavior.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: sod·omy m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French *sodomie, *from Late Latin *Sodoma *Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

 

[David_Brown]

tossolul:

Someone please explain some things to me… If it is our intent that causes us to sin, then how can NFP be any less sinful than using birth control. The intent in both is to be able to have marital relations without conceiving a child. How is one really better than the other, when the intent is the same?

A good act must be good in its object, intention, and cricumstances (CCC 1750-61). An act failing any of these cannot be a good act. For an act to be a sin one must have freedom and knowledge.

Contraception is intrinsically wrong because it acts against life (acts against one of the essential goods of marriage); intention and circumstance can never make it right. NFP when done for “just reasons” (CCC 2368) is not wrong. It does seem possible that NFP can be done with a bad intention or under bad circumstances which would make it (conditionally) bad.

In your question you asked for a verse from the Bible to give an answer. You also mentioned that your husband didn’t like the one you gave him. You should keep in mind: (1) That Catholics are not limited to “Scripture alone;” (2) If your husband is asking for you to give Catholic teaching by Scripture alone, he is not being fair to or properly respecting your faith (and he is not being Biblical in assuming sola scriptura and not being rational in assuming that the Bible would clearly address every possible question we could put to it); and (3) There are good reasons for the Catholic position that will “line up with” Scripture and be Scriptural in that sense.

You can find many answers in Humanae Vitae and also the catechism, especailly 2360-2379. . Should either of you be interested in a more academic approach, Why Humanae Vitae was Right: A Reader, ed. Janet Smith is an excellent resource. The group One More Soul should be able to help (onemoresoul.org/) and, of course Catholic Answers has a helpful tract (catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp)

Good luck,

David

 

[tossolul]

Genesis315:

Likewise, NFP is abstainance during fertile periods–making a sacrafice while respecting God’s design. Artificial birth control just tells God “to heck with your design.”

We both agree that using birth control is wrong to do. The problem he is having is with the intent behind NFP. Is it really a sacrifice? You know that it is 99 % effective, so how are those 2-3 weeks where you know you will not get pregnant any different than the verse in the bible? Parts of me are having a hard time disagreeing with him. It seems that it may be stretching the line pretty thin and more manipulation of the act than should be. I don’t know what to think. I know that it is safest to go by the teachings of the church, and that is what I will adhere to . I’m just trying to find the right words to convince him it’s different, but am struggling more than I thought I would have to.

Thanks for all the help, and any future help is greatly appreciated.

 

[LindaS]

Kimberly Hahn has a book entitled Life Giving Love in which she addresses these very issues. As you may know, she was protestant when she recognized that the Church’s position on contraception was right. In the first chapter of her book, she gets right into it. Maybe you will find this helpful.

Peace,
Linda

 

[mlchance]

tossolul:

Someone please explain some things to me… If it is our intent that causes us to sin, then how can NFP be any less sinful than using birth control.

Well, since it isn’t solely our intent that renders an action sinful or not sinful…

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[YinYangMom]

tossolul:

We both agree that using birth control is wrong to do. The problem he is having is with the intent behind NFP. Is it really a sacrifice? You know that it is 99 % effective, so how are those 2-3 weeks where you know you will not get pregnant any different than the verse in the bible?

My answer will probably upset your husband more…as I lean toward Theology of the Body, as explained by Christopher West’s book Theology of the Body for Beginners and his CD on Marriage and the Eucharist which you can get for free from the Mary Foundation.

Before Theology of the Body though, there’s the part of ABC being a direct conscious act of blocking a pregnancy knowing without it one would take place. ABC enables a couple to have sex even during the peak of the women’s fertility cycle because they are actively doing something to block that pregnancy from happening. This is not being open to God’s plan.

NFP respects a woman’s fertile cycle because the couple plans their sex accordingly…if they want children they engage during the peak, if they don’t, they wait until the appropriate time - both situations remaining open to God’s will. A child may or may not result, but it won’t be because of what they did as much as it will be the way things worked out (according to His plan).

Now going into Theology of the Body, we take a closer look at what is really going on with a couple who discerns they are not ready to have children (or another child) yet want to be able to have sex whenever the mood strikes. Is the desire to have relations lust or love? Married couples are called to engage in the marital embrace as a celebration of the covenant they entered into with God on the day of their marriage. This covenant is between husband, wife and God, allowing the couple to enter into the mystery of the Trinity as co-creators of life. When they have sex it is man, woman and God which can lead to the creation of new life. It is such an awesome gift that it warrants celebration, praise and repect whenever it is entered into. The passion of the embrace comes from the awesomeness of what it all means - love, life, joy.

Lustful married sex is where each party uses the other to relieve or fulfill their sexual desires…it’s not so much that they want to get lost in each other’s embrace because they are so overwhelmed with love for the other as much as they get aroused and want to satisfy their desire then and there (the secular view of the purpose of sex as we’ve been inundated with for years). We know biologically that men can get aroused 24/7 and women have a window of time each month where the hormones rage and arousal is easy (God designed this so that life would continue). Take away ABC and the couple has to decide each time the mood strikes because of hormones whether or not satisfying their desires for the moment is more important than the spacing of children they discerned is necessary for their family. Suddenly, it’s not about just him and her…but it involves thinking about the children…it brings to the forefront their responsibilities as a married couple…the desire subsides…or not.

Sex is the giving of oneself completely to the other. One must be free to do so. Free from lust, free from contraceptives, free from anxieties, etc. If we want sex because we had a lousy day at the office, or we want sex because we’re feeling especially insecure today, or because it’s been 3 weeks already, or because those scenes in the movie that night were hot, that’s not the marital embrace we’re intended to have. Listen to the CD about Marriage and the Eucharist and it’ll make a difference in how you view marital sex.

 

[tossolul]

Yin Yang Mom-

Thanks for your post. There are a lot of good points there.