F
fix
Guest
Abstaining, for a good reason, is not breaking the unitive aspect. Breaking the aspect would be having the marital embrace while intentionally frustrating the act by contraception.
- Status
B
BibleReader
Guest
By wording your assertion the way you do, you avoid problems, and the issuer that concerns me. Let me add some terms.
Unilaterally abstaining contrary to the Magisterium’s requirement in 1 Corinthians 7, and by that method shoving celibacy down the husband’s throat, against his will, and depriving husband of the unitive aspect, against his will, though the marital promise implied the contrary, in order to avoid the tiny chance of conceiving an ova that must die naturally, before quickening, in any case, and might take the wife’s life, is not breaking the unitive aspect. Breaking the aspect would be having the marital embrace while intentionally frustrating the act by contraception.
Now it sounds a little different, doesn’t it?
Let me change the hypothetical slightly.
The wife has one of those bodies that refuse to do anything but miscarry. She goes to a reproductive specialist after pregnancy #15 commences, and says, “Doctor, I’ve had 14 miscarriages, always in the fourth month, always right after the baby quickens. And the baby is always so active. What is the problem?” Blood tests confirm that the woman’s pituitary gland is simply not sending a subtle chemical instruction to the body’s immune system, suppressing it. So, her body regards the quickened fetus as “the enemy.” The doctor explains that science has not devised a method to stop the rare condition, yet, so that every one of her babies will always die in the fourth month. The baby is so active because the death by the immune system’s attack is painful to the point of being astonishing – her womb is a true “torture chamber.”
The husband and the wife both go to their priest and say, “Look, it’s immoral for us to conceive these children who can’t be born, because we are conceiving little ones doomed to die, and doing so in a natural ‘torture chamber’ which inflicts truly astonishing pain to an innocent. We want to do a Fallopian tube litigation to stop the unnecessary torture, but not lose the unitive aspect. If the Church advises us that we can’t do this, we’re separating. We don’t want to put ourselves through that. We’d rather live alone, than spend the next 20 years fighting temptation. Can we get the litigation, since the babies can’t be born anyway?”
F
fix
Guest
Let me be sure I understand your argument. You are claiming that in a situation where it may be harmful to the mother to become pregnant, she decides that abstaining is the best course and the father disagrees, then the mother is wrong? Is that the case you are making?
I would say that they have recourse to NFP. If they reject NFP, then abstinence is the only moral option. If you are claiming the husband has an unmitigated right to the marital embrace without regard to the wife’s health, then I would think the husband has no such right. He has no right to commit a moral evil such as contraception or force another to contracept. I see no conflict with Church teaching.
B
BibleReader
Guest
No. You are not completing the statement again, saying it in the form that is most brutal to your own poosition.
If you are right, then you must say, "Even though it is absolutely medically impossible that this couple can conceive offspring that can gestate past two months in a dysfunctional womb, this couple may not use any contraceptive method. Even though her womb just can’t do it, she is barred from having a hysterectomy, and the couple are barred from ever having sex, because Humanae Vitae in effect establishes the rule against contraception as a kind of god we must worship even if it kills the unitive aspect which Humanae Vitae itself says was established by God."
That is a fair statement of your position.
J
josea
Guest
Dear BibleReader,
If the priest is in communion with the Catholic Church he will advice this couple to use NFP and no to separate “to avoid temptation”. By the way… what kind of love will be this that prefers to have the beloved one out of sight rather than trying to cope with the problem together?
I think you are streaching the situation to a point of nonsense.
If the man or the woman would have a medical problem impairing them to perform normal sexual relations, should they separate too to avoid other type of temptations?
In general I see your point of view, and I am struggling with a real situation concerning the danger of a putative pregnancy for my wife’s life. I have problems to accept the reasoning of the Catholic Church regarding this issue too. But I guess I have to accept it if I want to be in communion with the Church.
Regards,
Jose
F
fix
Guest
is a fair statement of your position.*
Nope, that is your attempt to twist my statement.
F
fix
Guest
Pardon me, but this is medically and morally somewhat muddled. Let me rephrase this so that we can see what your actual intent is.
Your position is that one may do an evil act so that some good may be brought out of it. In other words, the ends justify the means.
N
NFPfamily
Guest
The devil seems to be working overtime on you and your thoughts. There is something that happens when we choose to humbly accept the burdens God gives to us, not find meaningless hypotheticals to try and beat His system. That something is grace and salvation. You are trying to corrupt other people to join you in your quest to see your way around God’s plan for us. Sex is wonderful in every aspect, but it is not why we were put on this earth. We were put here to accept things as they may come to us and to live according to the Church’s teachings. Why can’t this couple simply choose NFP? Ligations have a failure rate anyhow, so why aren’t you asking about having a female castration performed (removal of ovaries) or even…shock…a male castration! Those, or abstinence, are the only 100% effective ways to avoid a pregnancy. NFP is effective and in accordance with God’s plans- it is accepted by the Church. Humble obedience is something we should all strive for- saying “Lord, I don’t know why this is the way it is, why we are made to suffer, etc., but I will obey Your ways in accordance with the Church” is a way to come to live by Grace. We don’t know why things are the way they are sometimes, but that is when we turn to the Church- that’s why we have a Pope, Bishops, Priests- to help us understand what God would want of us. If you can’t come to understand why in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES that contraception and sterilization are intrinsically evil, then I suggest you pray for enlightenment. Sometimes we have to pray and ask God to help us come to understand and accept things the way they are. Maybe the imaginary people in your hypothetical world were made to carry that cross and suffer along with Jesus- and God will bless their efforts. You can’t say how these people would feel in that situation (I don’t want to be tempted forever, etc. etc. etc.) because when faced with suffering, people don’t carry on as usual. God gives us graces to deal with different issues at different times. To underestimate that power is to have little faith in the wonders God can do for people who ask and devote their lives to Him. I stated in another post that in some cases it is physically impossible for people to have intercourse- those marriages can survive as can any with the grace of God. Each and every married couple must face challenges and make sacrifices for each other and for God, some are harder than others to make, but we should all hold fast to the reason we are married- to try to help our spouse get to heaven.
B
BibleReader
Guest
**NFPfamily: The devil seems to be working overtime on you and your thoughts. **
fix: Your position is that one may do an evil act so that some good may be brought out of it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m the Devil incarnate. This is what I really look like…
jamesryman.com/fantasy/gallery/Evil%20goblin%20demon.jpg
I’ve thought about it, fix, and you ARE wrong.
Since you agree that because the moral law makes it immoral for the woman to risk her life by having sex at all, you are REALLY saying that the moral law requires that she retain a womb which all agree she is morally barred from ever using, anyway, over getting it removed, even though the womb can’t produce a viable baby, so that she and her husband may enjoy Humanae Vitae’s unitive aspect.
It’s crazy. You’re telling that woman, “Ma’am, the moral law requires you to retain a homicidal womb which can’t possibly create a fully gestated person, which you’re morally barred from ever using anyway because it can kill you too, in order to create the result that you can never have sex again and unilaterally deprive your husband of the sacred unitive role of sex.”
fix: Your position is that one may do an evil act so that some good may be brought out of it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m the Devil incarnate. This is what I really look like…
jamesryman.com/fantasy/gallery/Evil%20goblin%20demon.jpg
I’ve thought about it, fix, and you ARE wrong.
Since you agree that because the moral law makes it immoral for the woman to risk her life by having sex at all, you are REALLY saying that the moral law requires that she retain a womb which all agree she is morally barred from ever using, anyway, over getting it removed, even though the womb can’t produce a viable baby, so that she and her husband may enjoy Humanae Vitae’s unitive aspect.
It’s crazy. You’re telling that woman, “Ma’am, the moral law requires you to retain a homicidal womb which can’t possibly create a fully gestated person, which you’re morally barred from ever using anyway because it can kill you too, in order to create the result that you can never have sex again and unilaterally deprive your husband of the sacred unitive role of sex.”
F
fix
Guest
I never agreed to that.
I never agreed to that.
If all the chromosomes are present it is fully a person no matter the stage of gestation.
Where did I agree with that?
There is no deprivation of any right. There is no right to do evil.
N
NFPfamily
Guest
BibleReader said:
Are you above being influenced by the devil? You are describing something as “sacred” and “unitive” but you are excluding God from the picture. Again, since ligations have a failure rate, why aren’t you promoting castration? NFP would be fine to use in your pointless hypotheticals- why are you so against that?
F
felra
Guest
Think about it some more (because *you *are wrong). The womb is a procreative good. You, or anyone else, is not at moral liberty to attack the procreative good, period.
You are advancing a line of reasoning by revisionist theologians called the “Preference” Principle or Principle of “Proportionate Good”, which supports the denial of the truth of moral absolutes basic to moral theology. They apply a principle of totality whereby that some hoped-for-good-to-come-about can justify the deliberate intention to act directly against a good here and now. They label acts of contraception as “premoral”. They have attempted to extend the principle of totality to justify contraceptive drug/procedures to prevent a future pregnancy that may be hazardous to the life of the mother, and thus will contribute to the total well-being of the person and to their family.
“As Paul IV made clear in *Humanae Vitae, *no. 14, the proposal to evaluate actions directed toward *premoral *goods by the proportionalist principle of the lesser evil does not avoid the inconsistency between proportionalism and the received moral teaching of the Church on the meaning of the principle that the end does not justify the means” and “To allow contraception one must deny that procreation is a good, or assert that it is sometimes permissible to act directly against basic human good”, (, p162-163). “It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow there from”(Humanae Vitae).
“In the contraceptive act, one freely and deliberately chooses to attack a great human good. The motive for this act may be upright; one may wish to avoid for oneself and others the harms that would be inseparable from the untimely realization of that good. But there are many ways in which those harms could be avoided, some good and some evil”, (**Catholic Sexual Ethics,Updated, p. 162, Lawler, Boyle, and May, with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Our Sunday Visitor, 1996).
B
BibleReader
Guest
After I wrote, “What’s the matter with the Bible? Is it crippled or something? Why does my respecting it AS a Magisterial teaching imply that I don’t respect Magisterial teaching? Tell me, please. Explain, please,” felra posted,
felra:
News flash: There’s no difference between the two. What makes YOU think that (a) the Bible ISN’T a Magisterial expression, or (b) that a non-Biblical Magisterial expression is somehow “immune” from needing further interpretation by the Magisterium.
I.e., if quoting the Bible, and relying on the Bible, is somehow “bad,” then quoting non-Biblical Magisterial expressions, and relying on non-Biblical Magisterial expressions, is ALSO somehow “bad.”
The implication of the criticism is that nobody should ever quopte anything that comes out of the Church, and should not try to interpret for himself or anyone else anything that comes out of the Church, because the Church is not only the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, but IT IS ALSO THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETER OF EVERYTHING THE MAGISTERIUM SAYS.
If the Church being the “authoritative interpreter” bars *Scripture *use, for that reason, then PLEASE STOP USING MAGISTERIAL AFFIRMATIONS FOR ANYTHING, BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER OF THOSE, TOO.
Do you get my point? Your position is absurd. You are implying that we should all stop listening to the Church.
YOU are pretending that there is a way to escape the interpretation problem. There isn’t. If I am criticized for quoting the Bible as opposed to an Encyclical, for instance, as one who “doesn’t recognize the Church’s authority,” there is an implication that expressions by the Magisterium DON’T need interpreting for some reason.
News flash: There’s no difference between the two. What makes YOU think that (a) the Bible ISN’T a Magisterial expression, or (b) that a non-Biblical Magisterial expression is somehow “immune” from needing further interpretation by the Magisterium.
I.e., if quoting the Bible, and relying on the Bible, is somehow “bad,” then quoting non-Biblical Magisterial expressions, and relying on non-Biblical Magisterial expressions, is ALSO somehow “bad.”
The implication of the criticism is that nobody should ever quopte anything that comes out of the Church, and should not try to interpret for himself or anyone else anything that comes out of the Church, because the Church is not only the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, but IT IS ALSO THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETER OF EVERYTHING THE MAGISTERIUM SAYS.
If the Church being the “authoritative interpreter” bars *Scripture *use, for that reason, then PLEASE STOP USING MAGISTERIAL AFFIRMATIONS FOR ANYTHING, BECAUSE THE CHURCH IS THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER OF THOSE, TOO.
Do you get my point? Your position is absurd. You are implying that we should all stop listening to the Church.
B
BibleReader
Guest
How DARE you “assign yourself the authority to make personal interpretation of the Magisterium’s non-Biblical expressions’ objective meaning in matters of faith and morals.”!!! I’m SHOCKED!!! You should be CONDEMNED!!!
Do you see the problem yet, felra?
Do you see the problem yet, felra?
B
BibleReader
Guest
In the end, we can’t logically escape the need to personally guess what BOTH the Bible, AND the Magisterium outside of Biblical expressions, mean by their words.
Therefore, my fellow Catholics here who criticize me for quoting the Bible or attempting an interpretation should relax. It really is no different than quoting Humanae Vitae or attempting an interpretation of Humanae Vitae, like the authors you yourself quote hereinabove attempt to do.
SINNERS! EEEEEVILLLLLLLLLLLLL! How DARE they attempt an interpretation of an Encyclical only the Church itself can authoritatively interpret!!!
Therefore, my fellow Catholics here who criticize me for quoting the Bible or attempting an interpretation should relax. It really is no different than quoting Humanae Vitae or attempting an interpretation of Humanae Vitae, like the authors you yourself quote hereinabove attempt to do.
SINNERS! EEEEEVILLLLLLLLLLLLL! How DARE they attempt an interpretation of an Encyclical only the Church itself can authoritatively interpret!!!
B
BibleReader
Guest
I’d make fun of you for posting something like this, but then the moderators would shut down the thread, so I’ll make fun of myself.
Not only is this a picture of me…
jamesryman.com/fantasy/gallery/Evil%20goblin%20demon.jpg
…but this is my wife!..
maskon.com/marti/Chante/Images/October%202003/SHE-DEVIL-119.jpg
F
felra
Guest
No, for quoting the bible in obvious exclusion of reference to authoritative Church teaching in a specific area and application for a matter faith and morals.
There is no such thing as a “non-Biblical Magesterial expression”–this is a large part of your confusion as you attempt to cite the bible alone in a vacuum, segregated from the integrated whole of authoritative Church teaching, the bible and tradition (this is what Catholics believe).
This is an erroneous term of your own creation (to suit your own argumentation ends) that has no bearing on the moral licitiness of your hypothetical situation.
Based on your false premise and personal opinion. It simply sounds like you are attempting to side-step/buck the legitimate authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals.
But they don’t, it is only your hypothetical musings/contrived logic that we have here.
Actually, if I stand on my head, hold my breath for 2 minutes, twist my head 180 degrees, then it sort of makes sense, but, even then …
F
felra
Guest
You heard it folks, WEEEEEEEE!!! all need to take our chill pill and relax!!!
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated.
- Status