C
chadless
Guest
Here is another resource for you. Read here why you should choose Conception, not Contraception.
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
Totally false. The selfist chooses to ridicule reason and the Churchâs teaching. The infallible doctrine clarifies the natural moral law. The natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason. If his understanding is not obscured by his culture â which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism â the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and itâs for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit.
That the marital act may be completely divorced from its objective of procreation by self-imposing a barrier while acting, and thus having separated the act from its consequences opens the door to using sex with anyone or anything, such as masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, IVF, cloning. That is the fact.
Neither the act nor the couple is frustrated with NBR â the act is fully normal, the couple does what comes naturally. The misuse of NBR without serious reasons would be unnatural because to use the infertile periods only or without serious reasons would be thwarting the purpose of procreation, obviously.
Itâs not rocket science.
**Clear cut:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Churchâs teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.
A
Abu
Guest
The Dissenter
The âCatholicâ who is a dissenter has no reason to believe anything that Christâs Church teaches because he/she has turned his/her back on Christ and His Church. As faithful Catholics assent to all infallible teaching, and submit will and intellect to non-infallible teaching, such truths are part of our intellect and will. Consciences that are formed correctly, and followed, do not result in error. We do know that Christâs Church is infallible in defining faith and morals to the whole Church because it is His, with His authority. Yes all teaching on faith and morals is guaranteed by Christ.
One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he âwas on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.â (The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).
As Msgr Cormac P Burke (Law and Dissent, 1985) points out, for the Catholic, there is never a conflict between the authority of the Church and conscience, because belief that Christ has given His Church authority to teach without error is part of his conscience, freely accepted. According to Canon 205, Catholics are those in full communion with the Church through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.
If one holds a personal opinion that a particular course of action seems licit â contrary to the Churchâs teaching â he has a conflict within his own conscience. This is doubt or rejection of the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind, to accommodate a contrary opinion. We now have a house divided against itself.
He cannot escape the conclusion that his contrary opinion must be mistaken, as he would be acknowledging the accepted fact of the fallibility of conscience â it does not make truth. He then has to see where he has been mistaken, to reflect more deeply on the arguments for the Churchâs teaching. If he feels that he is not mistaken, then he must conclude that Christâs Church is mistaken and naturally his faith in Christ and His Church has started to collapse.
He has no grounds then to believe in any truths â the sacraments (especially the Eucharist), or in Her worship or any other aspect of Her life. Such a Catholic needs the counsel of a faithful priest.
The âCatholicâ who is a dissenter has no reason to believe anything that Christâs Church teaches because he/she has turned his/her back on Christ and His Church. As faithful Catholics assent to all infallible teaching, and submit will and intellect to non-infallible teaching, such truths are part of our intellect and will. Consciences that are formed correctly, and followed, do not result in error. We do know that Christâs Church is infallible in defining faith and morals to the whole Church because it is His, with His authority. Yes all teaching on faith and morals is guaranteed by Christ.
One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he âwas on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.â (The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).
As Msgr Cormac P Burke (Law and Dissent, 1985) points out, for the Catholic, there is never a conflict between the authority of the Church and conscience, because belief that Christ has given His Church authority to teach without error is part of his conscience, freely accepted. According to Canon 205, Catholics are those in full communion with the Church through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.
If one holds a personal opinion that a particular course of action seems licit â contrary to the Churchâs teaching â he has a conflict within his own conscience. This is doubt or rejection of the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind, to accommodate a contrary opinion. We now have a house divided against itself.
He cannot escape the conclusion that his contrary opinion must be mistaken, as he would be acknowledging the accepted fact of the fallibility of conscience â it does not make truth. He then has to see where he has been mistaken, to reflect more deeply on the arguments for the Churchâs teaching. If he feels that he is not mistaken, then he must conclude that Christâs Church is mistaken and naturally his faith in Christ and His Church has started to collapse.
He has no grounds then to believe in any truths â the sacraments (especially the Eucharist), or in Her worship or any other aspect of Her life. Such a Catholic needs the counsel of a faithful priest.
T
tjm190
Guest
I didnât intend to ridicule- I intended to give a summary of the teaching. I maintain that if our beliefs with respect to agriculture were similar to those of sex, that we must leave it as God made without changing it to suit our needs, most modern farming techniques would have to be thrown out the window.
A
Abu
Guest
How strange that you should âmaintainâ such an illusion. Our God-given reason enables us to identify or discover the natural law in ourselves through right reason. Man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfil his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfilment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit â to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of manâs control because created by God in manâs nature.
As in post #81, by the use of God-given right reason plant growth was improved, and that is how the monks in the ninth century initiated the development of agriculture and the free enterprise system. By the same reason we have developed Natural Birth Regulation, by Billings in Australia, which enables a couple to use the God-given infertile periods, for serious reasons, to space births as against the lie of contraception. The same developments enable a couple to achieve procreation through NaProTechnology (Dr. Thomas Hilgers, Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction in Omaha, Nebraska). It is reason with Catholic theology which enabled the Catholic Church to build Western civilization.
You have the source: Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN). You can enjoy his answers (and othersâ) to such questions at ewtn.com/vexperts/search.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm by inserting âcontraceptionâ. EWTN = Eternal Word Television Network
Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on May 14 2007:
I can give you a parallel example of the contemporary application of this principle that is not widely accepted by âmainstream medicine.â NaProTechnology (Natural Procreative Technology) aims at cooperating with nature in treating various physical ailments of women, and in assisting married couples to conceive. In the latter effort, NaProTechnology has a 76% success rate. In contrast, âmainstream medicineâ endorses in vitro fertilization, an approach that seeks to manipulate rather than cooperate with nature. (The success rate of in vitro, by the way, is 15%.)
Similarly:
Assisting nature for mankind
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on July 10 2007 (EWTN):
The art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is a wonderful thing. Human beings do it in many different ways. For example, the plumbing in your house assists nature in quenching your thirst. The moral problem arises when we oppose nature, as in the case, for example, of in vitro fertilization, so called âgay marriage,â and contraception.
P
PassingThru
Guest
Ummm, I was thinking along the lines of how taking the pill will cause a couple to have sex with animals and inanimate objects as you have proposed earlier.
But, I see you are crediting the Catholic Church with building western civilization, so, I think I have my answer! Ill drink some cool aid and head elsewhere⌠yikes!
A
Abu
Guest
For those not so enamoured with cloud cuckoo land, or immersed in âcool aidâ, Dr Alice von Hildebrand affirms: âDr Woodsâs book is a superb and scholarly refutation of the widespread and deeply rooted prejudice that the supernatural outlook of the Roman Catholic Church disqualifies Her to make any valuable contribution to the progress of humanity.â
What book? Merely, How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Jr., Regnery 2005, 280 pages.
T
tjm190
Guest
Youâre arguing against contraception from a different angle then the one I generally encounter- the one that says altering sex is immoral.
You havenât clearly stated your argument against contraception, atleast not that I noticed or recall so any attempt to respond to said argument would be ill-advised before I have a more complete understanding.
A
Abu
Guest
Itâs quite straightforward â the natural moral law is part of our God-given nature, understood through reason, and part of conscience. Reason associated with wanting to do good and avoid evil impels mankind to seek cause and effect in harmony with the natural moral law. Whether condoms or other barriers to conception are employed the intention is the same. Further, a number of benefits of NFP are cited below and the furtherance of self-control is one of them.
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 10-30-2003 (EWTN): **
A number of differences between natural family planning and contraception are worth noting.
First, the evil in contraception consists essentially in its deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the love-giving and life-giving meanings of the marital act. There is no such rupture in natural family planning. Moreover, anyone who attempts to morally justify contraception must face up to the logic of that attempt: the person must also accept the moral justification of homosexual activity, genital activity with anyone or anything, in vitro fertilization, and cloning.
Second, while natural family planning nurtures total mutual self-giving between husband and wife, contraception introduces a reservation into their nuptial union. Contraception communicates the message, âI love youâŚbut.â When husband and wife contracept, they lie to each other and to themselves. This may not be what husband and wife intend, but this is what they are objectively doing.
Thirdly, while natural family planning teaches a husband to respect his wife wholly, contraception not only does not teach this, but also permits a man to view his wife as a passive receptacle for his own passions. As noted previously, contraception imposes upon the wife the distorted masculine reduction of feminine sexuality (which includes conception, gestation, giving birth, and breast feeding) to the isolated coital act. Thus, while with natural family planning husband and wife together share the responsibilities of parenthood, with contraception the responsibility is laid on the shoulders of one or the other spouse.
Fourthly, while natural family planning includes growth in virtue, especially chastity, contraception requires no virtue at all. Moreover, while natural family planning deepens the marital bond, contraception weakens marriageâs unitive dimension.
Fifthly, while natural family planning involves a cooperation with the gift of fertility, contraception involves the manipulation and frustration of fertility.
Sixthly, while natural family planning has no adverse side effects but rather only a number of benefits, contraception has a number of serious medical side effects and is often abortifacient. As one moral theologian once put it, so called âpureâ or âcleanâ contraception is a virtual myth.
Finally, while among couples using natural family planning child abuse and divorce are rare, historically the use of contraceptives since the 1960s has increased hand in hand with the rising divorce rate.
**Onan
Answer by Fr. John Echert on May, 3, 2008 (EWTN): **
The sin is NOT that of adultery, which is to take the wife of another man. In fact, it was expected and eventually required that if a man died without a son to continue his posterity, his brother was to take his wife after his death as his own and raise up a family by her. So the sin was not in taking his deceased brothers wife but in spilling his seed on the ground. This action is explicit in the text â spilled his seed on the ground â and is the most obvious cause for which he was put to death by God Himself. This is an important text which supports the moral teaching of the Church â and nature â that contraception is mortally sinful.
Egoism motivates fornication and contraception, because the goal is not self-giving, but rather the immediate pleasure of self-satisfaction.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I think my fellow posters did a better job of that in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=449926
Bottom line - what the passage doesnât say is that you canât abstain from sex. It gives the circumstances under which you can. Your narrow view implies that one must be either copulating or praying. Of course, there are a few other things in life we get to do - eat, sleep work, etc.
Also, regardless of your interpretation, condoms are still wrong. The passage has no bearing on that fact.
T
tjm190
Guest
First- It has not been demonstrated that separating the two âendsâ of something is immoral. In addition, the ends are not âseparatedâ- for this to be true, contraception would have to be 100% effective. It simply downplays one âend.â
Second- The claim is made that contraception communicates a message. However, no justification is given. If weâre allowed to do that, 'When a couple uses NFP, they are saying âI hate you and I want you to die. This may not be there intent, but it is what they are objectively doing.â
Third- Contraception does not make the wife any more âpassiveâ- she is still free to engage or not engage in sexual activity. Contraception does not âimposeâ anything on anyone, but rather reduces the probability of an unwanted outcome.
Fourth- It has not been demonstrated that fluids passing from the husband to the wife strengthens the marital union. If there is some study on this, Iâd love to see it.
Fifth- Yes, contraception manipulates fertility.
Sixth- Not an argument against contraception.
Seventh- Correlationâ Causation
Onan
He spilled his seed on the ground when specifically mandated to provide children by divine law- he disobeyed a direct order, while still obtaining the benefits of that order. Secondly, not all forms of contraception âspillâ seed upon the ground. Thirdly, Leviticus goes through and names the sexual sins:bestiality, incest, homosexuality, and perhaps a few others. Contraception? Nope.
T
tjm190
Guest
Did you have one post youâd like to pick out?I think my fellow posters did a better job of that in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=449926
Bottom line - what the passage doesnât say is that you canât abstain from sex. It gives the circumstances under which you can. Your narrow view implies that one must be either copulating or praying. Of course, there are a few other things in life we get to do - eat, sleep work, etc.
Also, regardless of your interpretation, condoms are still wrong. The passage has no bearing on that fact.
And no, my interpretation implies that a couple may not practice ABSTINENCE for a period of time except for prayer. Abstinence is not just ânot having sex at any given momentâ but rather a âpatternâ of deliberately missing opportunities for sex when both parties would otherwise want to take.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I disagree with your definition. If the couple have prayerfully made a mutual decision, then they are not âotherwiseâ wanting to have sex at those moments. NFP is a prayerful, loving process/ideology that is used for having children and/or spacing children. It completely fits the passage.
As far as the other thread I posted, read the whole thing. There arenât that many posts.
M
mchale
Guest
Lets remember, we are not talking about just any âsomethingâ here, we are talking about sex, the fullest expression of love a husband and wife can share. I for one find it hard to see how it is possible to reduce any part of that expression without reducing the good of the sexual union of a husband and wife.
Sex, should be the total gift of one spouse to the other⌠it canât be a gift if you try interfere with its fullness.
I would love to see the reasoning behind how you can claim that NFP communicates this.
Contraception communicates that you are not willing to accept your spouse as they are. You want an âidealizedâ spouse who cannot get pregnant or cause you to get pregnant. In other words, you want the benefits of the spouse without accepting all the responsibility of having a spouse (i.e., kids (or more kids)).
Yes, but lets be honest, in many marriages, the wife is put under pressure by the husband to be available for more frequent sexual activity. With NFP, the husband and the wife must be active partners in deciding upon when to have sexual relations. In other words, the couple must communicate.
Its not a question of the fluids passing from one spouse to the other that strengthens the natural bonds. Rather it is the openness that both the husband and the wife must share that strengthens the bond.
I think it is becoming clear that you will not accept any argument that suggests that there are many, many downsides to contraception. Certainly if negative health effects does not at least give one pause about contraception, then nothing will.
This is true, but it is also true that it suggest that there might be a link. If I notice that it normally gets colder after the sun sets, it would foolish of me not to investigate a possible link between the two events. Likewise, if it is true that divorce rates have soared since contraception of various sorts started becoming available and legal in this country (starting in the 1930s) and remains low amongst couples who do not use contraception, it would be foolish not to suspect some link between the two.
Of course God has ordained sex within marriage as his method of bringing children into the world. So it seems reasonable to assume that using contraception is in fact violating Godâs law while obtaining the benefits of his law (though of course, I would like to think that children are benefit as well
).â
Bill
T
tjm190
Guest
There is nothing inherently prayerful or loving about NFP. A nihilistic couple is just as capable of practicing NFP as a religious one- in fact, if they really really really donât want to conceive they could combine NFP with condoms for a success rate in excess of 99.9%.
I did read the whole thing, but responding to 10 post at once is a bit over the top- I canât address all of their points simultaneous, albeit most are similar.
T
tjm190
Guest
What if one part was increased through fertility enhancing drugs? Would that âdivorce the two endsâ?
A gift that has consequences the receiver believes to be negative is a lousy gift.
And I would like to see the reasoning behind the claim I was responding to.
No, it communicates that you have mutually agreed to alter the odds in your favor.
Secondly NFP seeks to gain the benefits of marriage without the responsibility as well, it just does so less efficiently.
Contraception has the potential to be abused- congrats! You discovered our dark secret. The couple does not âhave toâ communicate for NFP to work, aside from âwhat does our monitoring method of choice say about today?â
So being open to the passing of fluids strengthens a marriage.
The negative health effects that some methods carry are not an intrinsic property of contraception itself.
People wanted more control over their lives- contraception was a means to that end. If you believe that end was immoral, thatâs fine. But contraception is a tool- it has no more alignment.
Of course God has ordained sex within marriage as his method of bringing children into the world. So it seems reasonable to assume that using contraception is in fact violating Godâs law while obtaining the benefits of his law (though of course, I would like to think that children are benefit as well
Children generally are benefits, but certainly when you lack the capability to care for those children, either fiscally, physically, or mentally then you should minimize the probability of having them. This is best done through abstinence, but if that is âtoo hardâ then other methods should be employed.
P
Priscilla_Ann
Guest
Of all the things I have deducted from reading about NFP, â'prayerful and lovingâ are the last things that come to mind. On the contrary, NFP reduces sex to something that is methodical, calculated and mechanical. If it were ânaturalâ, people wouldnât have to take classes to learn to do it absolutely perfectly (which is the only way it can possibly be reliable). I also understand that NFP classes can be fairly expensive.
Why canât you simply admit that NFP is not for everyone? It does not necessarily help a marriage; and, in fact, seems to create problems in many marriages. (One only needs to read some of the threads in these forums to realize that.) While NFP may work for a few couples who are committed to scrupulous observation and recordkeeping, most people donât have the discipline, time or energy to do this â itâs just one more thing on their âto doâ list.
Also, as mentioned earlier, contraception does not violate any of the ten commandments (in spite of what the Catholic Church teaches.) It truly is something that is between a husband and wife and God. Apparently, the majority of Christians (including Catholics) realize this.
If NFP works for you, great! It doesnât work for everyone, so donât judge those who choose a more practical method.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
No, it does not violate any of the ten commandments. But those are not the only laws we Catholics are required to follow.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Iâve never said NFP is for everyone. I freely admit that some people do great without using NFP. Some of my closest friends have chosen not to use NFP and are blessed with wonderful families. One of them has mostly boys, and they make up about 1/3 of our altar boys. I hope a couple of them become priests.
- Status