S
St_Francis
Guest
We’re not in a courtroom, so the legal definitions are moot.
Why is "Natural Family Planning" ok when other contraceptive methods are not?
- Status
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Just a bit of counter-smugness going on…
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Which is just an appeal to authority.
D
davidv
Guest
The answer to why is: Because ABC unnaturally disorders that which God designed.
Gen 1:27-28:
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
…and so does NFP
D
davidv
Guest
Prove it.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Prove ABC unnaturally disorders that which God designed.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Emphasis on *counter… *Just a bit of counter-smugness going on…
D
davidv
Guest
Already did. See prior posts.
S
St_Francis
Guest
There is a shortcut across my neighbor’s land. He made it; I take advantage of it. This is all right.
I would like a shortcut across my other neighbor’s land. I create one. This is *not *all right.
I would like a shortcut across my other neighbor’s land. I create one. This is *not *all right.
R
Rico_S
Guest
But I have taken other shortcuts across his land and he doesn’t seem to mind. Why can’t I take this shortcut?
S
St_Francis
Guest
I do not know what these other shortcuts are.
V
Vico
Guest
I think you mean “and certainly to say that [of] contraception is bizarre”. I was not referring to contraception exclusively with the word mutilation, but if permanent damage did occur to the reproductive system, it would be. I was giving examples of mutilation as sterilization and drugs (with damage from side effects or from recreational drugs, including alcolhol).
You say the dictionary does not support my definition, however it does, there are many meanings there and it is one of them. The other definition of those you refer to is also there, which is what I agreed to.
About the term Natural Family Planning: that was not the term of the Apostolic Penitentiary, rather “the exclusive use of the agenesic (sterile) period”. And the Catholic teaching is that it is not to be used without serious and moral reason, they are defining “the exclusive use of the agenesic (sterile) period” as not sinful in each instance, but the continued use of it is sinful, without serious and moral reason.
About NFP and murder: interesting reaction. That means the unmarried women and those with husbands away from home, or those not interested or able to have sex during the most fertile days in a given month are letting their zygotes die without any hope of fertilization. So if they do so intentionally, they are culpable for murder.
S
St_Francis
Guest
When the Authority is God and the topic is morality, it makes sense.
Since I had already explained how there is no a-theistic explanation that I know of, my comment was just a reiteration.
S
St_Francis
Guest
There are no zygotes lost. If no conception occurs, there is no zygote; if conception occurs, the zygote is not “lost”.
You know, Passing Through presented arguments and tried to understand what we were saying. You on the other hand are twisting words and facts to make your points…
V
Vico
Guest
St Francis is right, and the unfertilized cell is called a gamete.
P
PassingThru
Guest
Just some brief comments:
The act of NOT doing something can also be “wrong”. Simple example. Sitting on a bench is perfectly acceptable. Sitting on a bench while a child is about to be hit by a bus is morally questionable. Why and under what circumstances you remained seated, or you repeatedly avoid sex, are both open to questioning.
For the whole “higher power” defense. In a debate/discussion, this is the “throwing in the towel” moment. I see Doc was not to nice with his commentary, but falling back on “because God said” is a bit like saying “my mom told me so”. I could pull out some Lutheran or Anglican theological teachings, referenced by some biblical quotes, say “God said and my Church Teaches…” but that is a bit dishonest in a discussion. We can discuss many topics without referencing specific church dogma, if you will. (What I mean is not use it as a basis of defense, or hold it as an unquestionable truth).
To try to pull back a bit, we are at the again at the point where one side says “NFP does not modify they act, ergo good” (which is true). Sometimes this sounds to me like the fact that it doesn’t behave like ABC is enough to deem NFP as good without much additional thought, but I digress. Further points made are that NFP is natural (true), does not violate the intent , ie procreation (true, at least when looked at on an individual basis).
OK, now, I usually hate analogies, but with so much trouble getting my, and other, point of view across, I have to do one. Sorry. Please keep in mind the following: I am not making the case for ABC, I do not disagree with Church teaching on ABC, and we can NOT use any “God said” or “the Church teaches” arguments to derive a specific conclusion as to ABC vice NFP. This is only to answer the question: What makes NFP acceptable, while ABC is not? That is ALL we are answering. With that said, here is how I see this…
There are 2 people. Both hate Joe.
Charlie decides to do something about it. Over the course of many weeks, Charlie builds a machine, or contraption, around a door that he knows Joe uses daily. Every day, Charlie adds a piece to his contraption. A sturdy shelf. Some rope. A pulley. A rock. Some twine. After many days have passed, Charlie is done, and heads home happy with his work.
Monday morning, Joe walks through the door, and is promptly smashed in the head with a 100 pound boulder and dies instantly.
Conversely, Amy also hates Joe (he miraculously recovered from the boulder incident
Amy walks up and blows Joes brains out with a .45.
In court, our friend Amy is obviously screwed. She will undoubtedly be spending 50 to life in San Quinton.
Charlie, however, feels he has an iron clad way out of any culpability for Joe’s death. He carefully lays out how none of the actions he took killed Joe. One day he put up a shelf. Another he attached a pulley to the doorframe. Another day he tied a rope to the rock. And so on, and clearly, none of the actions he did killed Joe. He then went on to explain how he is not responsible for the conditions present at the time Joe was killed. After all, Charlie did not create physics, or more specifically gravity. Nor did he create Force, which combined with the gravity and the Mass of the boulder to smash poor Joes skull. It is also not Charlies fault that he is observant enough to know that Joe walks through that door. Charlie didn’t make him walk there, his employer did.
So, did Charlie kill Joe?
The act of NOT doing something can also be “wrong”. Simple example. Sitting on a bench is perfectly acceptable. Sitting on a bench while a child is about to be hit by a bus is morally questionable. Why and under what circumstances you remained seated, or you repeatedly avoid sex, are both open to questioning.
For the whole “higher power” defense. In a debate/discussion, this is the “throwing in the towel” moment. I see Doc was not to nice with his commentary, but falling back on “because God said” is a bit like saying “my mom told me so”. I could pull out some Lutheran or Anglican theological teachings, referenced by some biblical quotes, say “God said and my Church Teaches…” but that is a bit dishonest in a discussion. We can discuss many topics without referencing specific church dogma, if you will. (What I mean is not use it as a basis of defense, or hold it as an unquestionable truth).
To try to pull back a bit, we are at the again at the point where one side says “NFP does not modify they act, ergo good” (which is true). Sometimes this sounds to me like the fact that it doesn’t behave like ABC is enough to deem NFP as good without much additional thought, but I digress. Further points made are that NFP is natural (true), does not violate the intent , ie procreation (true, at least when looked at on an individual basis).
OK, now, I usually hate analogies, but with so much trouble getting my, and other, point of view across, I have to do one. Sorry. Please keep in mind the following: I am not making the case for ABC, I do not disagree with Church teaching on ABC, and we can NOT use any “God said” or “the Church teaches” arguments to derive a specific conclusion as to ABC vice NFP. This is only to answer the question: What makes NFP acceptable, while ABC is not? That is ALL we are answering. With that said, here is how I see this…
There are 2 people. Both hate Joe.
Charlie decides to do something about it. Over the course of many weeks, Charlie builds a machine, or contraption, around a door that he knows Joe uses daily. Every day, Charlie adds a piece to his contraption. A sturdy shelf. Some rope. A pulley. A rock. Some twine. After many days have passed, Charlie is done, and heads home happy with his work.
Monday morning, Joe walks through the door, and is promptly smashed in the head with a 100 pound boulder and dies instantly.
Conversely, Amy also hates Joe (he miraculously recovered from the boulder incident
Amy walks up and blows Joes brains out with a .45.
In court, our friend Amy is obviously screwed. She will undoubtedly be spending 50 to life in San Quinton.
Charlie, however, feels he has an iron clad way out of any culpability for Joe’s death. He carefully lays out how none of the actions he took killed Joe. One day he put up a shelf. Another he attached a pulley to the doorframe. Another day he tied a rope to the rock. And so on, and clearly, none of the actions he did killed Joe. He then went on to explain how he is not responsible for the conditions present at the time Joe was killed. After all, Charlie did not create physics, or more specifically gravity. Nor did he create Force, which combined with the gravity and the Mass of the boulder to smash poor Joes skull. It is also not Charlies fault that he is observant enough to know that Joe walks through that door. Charlie didn’t make him walk there, his employer did.
So, did Charlie kill Joe?
S
St_Francis
Guest
And the act of avoiding sexual relations is to be undertaken only for grave reasons.
I wrote a whole long post on precisely this aspect of it. I said that as far as I could tell, without the inclusion of God, the immorality of abc could not be explained.
And I have something to say about this, but I think I will make a separate post ( a little later) for that.
Conversely, Amy also hates Joe (he miraculously recovered from the boulder incident
The problem with your analogy is that Charlie did indeed *do *something, and do something which could very easily and reasonably be seen to be able to cause harm to someone walking through the door. This is not only sinful, it is noted legally and is against the law.
NFP requires *not *doing something, in a context which is *not *sinful. We have explained that not a single action or non-action involved in NFP is sinful.
You are saying that abc is sinful because the couple are trying to avoid conception, and since people who use nfp are also trying to avoid conception, they are each equally sinful. But that is not the case, because the part which is sinful is *not *the avoidance of children.
Consider this: when a couple uses abc each and every time they have sex, they sin each and every time, *even when they do it during the infertile time. *
J
jhigh
Guest
I’m in a Protestant considering conversion to Catholicism, so take what I say with a grain of salt, obviously. Although I’ve been told that converts tend to be a bit more “rabid” than those raised as Catholics, because they come to it on their own. I’ve been voraciously reading everything that I can get my hands on about the Catholic faith, and the issue of contraception is one that I’ve taken a great deal of interest in, as I am fanatically pro-life, but it always confused me why Catholics protest the use of condoms.
I also must confess that I visit this site in spurts on and off…so I haven’t read this whole thread given its length. If these points have been made previously, my apologies.
I’ve come to the conclusion, and I don’t see how anyone can conclude otherwise, that the Church very clearly teaches that NFP is ok, but only in certain circumstances. From Humanae Vitea (emphasis mine):
As to the original poster’s question, again, turn to Humanae Vitae:
I also must confess that I visit this site in spurts on and off…so I haven’t read this whole thread given its length. If these points have been made previously, my apologies.
I’ve come to the conclusion, and I don’t see how anyone can conclude otherwise, that the Church very clearly teaches that NFP is ok, but only in certain circumstances. From Humanae Vitea (emphasis mine):
The bolded part pretty clearly indicates to me that NFP is not something to be engaged in lightly. Circumstances must warrant it. I’ve talked to a few of my friends that are devout Catholics, and they affirmed my understanding.
As to the original poster’s question, again, turn to Humanae Vitae:
This all seems pretty cut and dry to me…
S
St_Francis
Guest
The thing about moral discussions is that they are about morality. Morality was set up by God; therefore, He is the Prime Authority on these issues. The Catholic Church, as the institution set up by Christ to teach what He taught the Apostles and protected in Her teachings by the Holy Spirit, is the “vicar of moral authority.” So, saying that God said so, when He did in fact do so “publicly” (recorded for all to read in the Bible), is not at all the same as saying my mother said so. My mother can be wrong, God cannot be.
(I will admit that once having determined that God did indeed condemn onanism we would then have to work on the ramifications of that, why did God condemn it and whether the extension of that condemnation to abc is justifiable, etc. but I do not think that you can typify what I wrote as a mere appeal to authority.)
And your proposed solution, to discuss a Catholic dogma without referencing specific church’s dogma? The only place that leads to is religious indifferentism, well, this part of my religion is not important, and neither is that part, gee, I guess I’m just left with all the bits that everyone else will agree with!
Now, I understand that you don’t believe that what Catholics believe about the Church, so you don’t like it when Catholic thinking is used to prove a point. But the reality is that the only pragmatic argument that can be made is the abc contributes to social decline argument, and you had already rejected the fact of that, so I couldn’t use that point. I don’t know what basis Lutherans used to consider abc immoral before they changed and on what basis they decided it was all right, so I can’t go there, either.
In discussions I have had on more theological topics, I have seen people do things like this: Prove X from Scripture. Well, the thing is, some of those topics are nuanced and are taught more from Tradition* or you can only understand it through Tradition, but the other person refuses to accept anything other than the Bible.
Well, that’s sort of like saying, Prove this physics thing using only biology. I cannot “prove” Catholic teaching from *outside *of Catholic beliefs and understandings, I have to use Catholicism to prove it. I can give pragmatic reasons why something the Catholic Church teaches is useful, but looking at it from that point of view ultimately skews our understanding–you can only take that so far.
So I can “prove” something to someone who accepts the same standards of proof which I accept. Maybe I would run into a devout Catholic who happened not to know about the prohibition on abc–I could explain it to her. But I cannot explain it to you, for example, because you do not accept the same sources of information that I do.
In a court of law, the appeal to authority *can *be made, and often is: You should do X because the higher court ruled Y in a similar instance. And that higher court may well have ruled that way because of some other case in a parallel court, and so on. (Oddly enough, US law is built on English law, which is based on previous decisions… originally made using Catholic thinking.)
So I come to the conclusion that this is (yet another!) area in which all that I, at least, can do is to explain our position, not prove it. IE: abc is wrong because God condemned Onanism, and the reason that He condemned Onanism is that it frustrated the end of the sexual act, which is what abc does, so it too is wrong. That’s as far as I can go. (Altho consider this: suppose a married couple used condoms, but only during the fertile period. They would not be committing a sin outside the fertile period because they would be doing nothing at that point to frustrate the end of the act. Does that help?)
So I don’t think it is *dishonest. *I think that when people start off at different points, they each have to accept that, and allow the other to present the points from their point of view, and then if any debate goes on, it would have to start from the initial point of disagreement rather than be about something further along the trail of thinking. For me, God is very much really *there, *and very much affects how the world works. I see too many people trying to justify immorality by excluding God from a place where He ought to be. And of course I see God through the lens of Catholic theology.
And even then, it may have to be looked at like this: given your premises, I see the logic of what you are saying. I disagree only because my premises are different. I think that for one person to say that something has to be proven along lines outside the purviews of the antecedent thinking is asking too much. So we would end up talking like this: as a Catholic, I see this and that; As a Lutheran, I see something else.
*which is not regular tradition like it’s traditional for Western Catholics to make the Sign of the Cross a certain way but the body of teachings which come down to us from Christ
- Status