Where does Catholic act-based morality come from?

[Bookcat]

NFP and condoms have the same purpose - to avoid conception.
One is OK the other not. I’d like to see that reasoning how it was concluded.

Yes one is a gravely evil means of birth regulation - gravely contrary to love and life.

The other is a good means that can be used to avoid a new conception (not hinder it! or ends its life).

Two rather different realities…Two very different means.

Many who have time can discuss with you this at length.

From the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**
497. When is it moral to regulate births?**

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced 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.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Jaaanosik]

Define unnatural! Nothing is justified by the end. Many acts don’t require justification - there is no standing prohibition on action! I tapped on the screen of an iPhone just now. Is this unnatural? How was it justified? Did it require justification?

Measuring temperature between the legs is not natural. It needs a good justification to do so.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes one is a gravely evil means of birth regulation - gravely contrary to love and life.

The other is a good means that can be used to avoid a new conception (not hinder it! or ends its life).

Two rather different realities…Two very different means.

Many who have time can discuss with you this at length.

From the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**
497. When is it moral to regulate births?**

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced 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.

**498. What are immoral means **of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Would you be able to back up the Church’s teaching by your own reasoning?

 

[Jaaanosik]

I have no idea what you are saying.

How did the Church reason to put the ‘and’ between the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act.
Remember the procreative aspect is nothing else just how the marital act is supposed to finish physically.

 

[Rau]

NFP and condoms have the same purpose - to avoid conception.
One is OK the other not. I’d like to see that reasoning how it was concluded.

Asked and answered many times on CAF. Many times, it was you who asked! You can read the relevant encyclicals too.

As you know, the ends are distinct from and don’t justify the means. Avoiding conception is not a wrong. It may even be a good. So two things having apparently the same ends is of little help in judging morality if the end is neutral or a (relative) good.

 

[Bookcat]

Would you be able to back up the Church’s teaching by your own reasoning?

Already provided above - my reasons are the Churches.

I do not have the time to go at on and on with you-there are so many resources out there if one wishes to look into boat loads of reading. Plenty.

 

[Rau]

How did the Church reason to put the ‘and’ between the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act.
Remember the procreative aspect is nothing else just how the marital act is supposed to finish physically.

No it’s more than that. Taking the pill to prevent conception destroys the procreative element.

Read the encyclicals, eg Humanae Vitae.

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/radio/shows/contraception-vs-nfp-3861

 

[Jaaanosik]

Asked and answered many times on CAF. Many times, it was you who asked! You can read the relevant encyclicals too.

As you know, the ends are distinct from and don’t justify the means. Avoiding conception is not a wrong. It may even be a good. So two things having apparently the same ends is of little help in judging morality if the end is neutral or a (relative) good.

Good, so why avoiding conception by using condoms is wrong?
Would you be able to put forward a good argument without citing any Church’s documents?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Already provided above - my reasons are the Churches.

I do not have the time to go at on and on with you-there are so many resources out there if one wishes to look into boat loads of reading. Plenty.

How did the Church reason?
… or it’s just the Church says…?

 

[Rau]

Measuring temperature between the legs is not natural. It needs a good justification to do so.

So if it were the case that a woman developed a mild headache during her fertile period, it would now be ok to take note of that?

Tapping on an iPhone is not natural either. Do you believe it requires justification?

Of course, both acts can be “justified” if someone asks why did you do it. But there is no standing prohibition against either.

 

[Jaaanosik]

So if it were the case that a woman developed a mild headache during her fertile period, it would now be ok to take note of that?

Tapping on an iPhone is not natural either. Do you believe it requires justification?

Of course, both acts can be “justified” if someone asks why did you do it. But there is no standing prohibition against either.

Do you agree that measuring temperature every day is not natural?

 

[Rau]

Good, so why avoiding conception by using condoms is wrong?
Would you be able to put forward a good argument without citing any Church’s documents?

So if someone else has expounded a reason before me, you will declare I have no reason? That makes sense…

 

[Rau]

Do you agree that measuring temperature every day is not natural?

Do you find internet exchanges unnatural? Define unnatural. Is there a standing prohibition against such things?

 

[Jaaanosik]

So if someone else has expounded a reason before me, you will declare I have no reason? That makes sense…

No, that’s why I am asking, please, show me the Church’s reasoning.
How it happened, how the teaching came to be.
If you accept the Church’s teaching so you either understand reasoning or you just take it as is.
Nothing wrong with either way. It’s fine to admit if you don’t know how the teaching evolved.

 

[Bookcat]

How did the Church reason?
… or it’s just the Church says…?

Reason, Revelation, the Holy Spirit, the Authority of the Logos himself - Jesus Christ…

Go read humanae vitae…the Theology of the Body etc etc etc

What do you want here long a course the nature of Marriage and of man and woman and marital relations?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Do you find internet exchanges unnatural? Define unnatural. Is there a standing prohibition against such things?

The Natural Law says life is good and it’s natural to stay healthy, to protect life.
Women increase risk of getting infection if they are not careful by the measurement therefore it’s not natural.

 

[Rau]

No, that’s why I am asking, please, show me the Church’s reasoning.
How it happened, how the teaching came to be.
If you accept the Church’s teaching so you either understand reasoning or you just take it as is.
Nothing wrong with either way. It’s fine to admit if you don’t know how the teaching evolved.

I am not a Church historian so cannot outline all the treatments the subject has received over 2000 years. I pointed you to an encyclical wherein you will find reasoning. It points to further historical treatments.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Reason, Revelation, the Holy Spirit, the Authority of the Logos himself - Jesus Christ…

Go read humanae vitae…the Theology of the Body etc etc etc

What do you want here long a course the nature of Marriage and of man and woman and marital relations?

I read many documents…
I still don’t see the logic there, I guess nothing new.

 

[Rau]

The Natural Law says life is good and it’s natural to stay healthy, to protect life.
Women increase risk of getting infection if they are not careful by the measurement therefore it’s not natural.

Life is full of risks.

So you agree it is ok to observe one’s fertility (with a view to regulating sexual activity) if it can be done with zero risk to self? Your objection to NFP is about personal risks?