The church is comprised of human beings. Humans make mistakes - we all do. Obviously the people who comprise the church are not perfect, as the abuse scandals clearly indicate. The people who interpret the teachings of Jesus are capable of making misinterpretations as well.Yes, rules of the Church, who has been authorized by God, to speak on His behalf regarding this topic.
No, a couple using NFP is not “as free as anyone else” to engage in marital relations, because they will *refrain *during the appropriate time. If they do not, they are accepting that conception is a part of their action.If you want to make the the argument ABC = wrong on its own merits, that is fine. You originally made the argument instead about pleasure of sex and procreating. You seem to be in denial that NFP is primarily used to avoid conception, period. **And a couple on NFP is just a free to have carnal, thoughtless sex as anyone else. **Especially if they are good at it! (NFP that is)
Sorry, I don’t understand your point here, either.More speculation. Take any of the Catholic couples that had two kids in a row and no more for 20+ years of fertility and nothing that you just said would apply. At all. Your scenario can be accurate, surely. But common? Ehhhh, signs point to “no”.
I have stated that people using NFP *can indeed *fall into a contraceptive mentality; my point is that it is *less likely. *I wouldn’t say speculation, but definitely loaded. I will agree that ABC can make the pregnancy question an automatic assumption, and easier than NFP. However, the same can be said of NFP as well. You seem to think otherwise, but have not shown how this to be the case.
Which is precisely my point.Yes, I will agree that it is likely easier to slide into a contraceptive mentality with ABC, sure.
Look around you at what is happening in our society. Illegitimate births are close to 40% of all births, and the abortion rate is at about 800,000 per year, making the number of “unplanned” babies over 40% of all births.How much easier? Ehhhh, don’t know.
I was not talking about people but about the act itself. You seem to be putting words in my mouth…In short, I still contend that a couple using NFP can do all the things you spoke of originally. The parts about “stealing” and “evil”, etc. You seem to think they have this innate morality that prevents this. I disagree and think it is highly speculative. When you assign these properties to couples using NFP, and other negative properties to couples using ABC, you are, in fact, telling us what is in other peoples minds when in reality you have no idea whatsoever.
Look, at the end of the day, I think both are used with a contraceptive mentality. I don’t have the foggiest idea how people deny NFP is used as such. I am not interested in longwinded theological posts concerning this. Do Catholics use NFP, by and large, to avoid pregnancy? YES. If it didn’t prevent conception, NO ONE WOULD USE IT!!! Yes, it can help get pregnant too, i agree. But that is a side point, and we all know it.
Again, if people have a theological objection to ABC, that is great, and I have no disagreements at all. I don’t know how anyone would. But as soon as you bring it down to earth that all changes. Things like: Respect for women, levels of intimacy, reasons for delaying/avoiding, unitive properties, etc. All these things are unique to each and every couple. It bugs me to no end when someone tries to tell a couple what that couple is feeling. Or how much they respect their wife. Or how moral their reason for not wanting kids is. And tying it back to birth control. Absolutely baffling.
I think I have already answered these points, so will let them go.Sorry, rant over…
The *act, *however, differs, which is the exact point on which this all rests.To somehow divide family planning into ‘good family planning’ and ‘bad family planning’ when the ‘intent’ and the ‘end result’ is the same in both instances defies logic. .
The teaching of the Church of which you state yourself to be a member teaches that the Pope is protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit.The church is comprised of human beings. Humans make mistakes - we all do. Obviously the people who comprise the church are not perfect, as the abuse scandals clearly indicate. The people who interpret the teachings of Jesus are capable of making misinterpretations as well.
The ‘act’ with NFP - pleasure your partner and not have more kidsThe *act, *however, differs, which is the exact point on which this all rests.
The act is correctly ordered.The ‘act’ with NFP - pleasure your partner and not have more kids
The act is disordered.The ‘act’ with ABC - pleasure your partner and not have more kids
OK, but then finish that thought off. After they abstain for those x number of days, they can have sex with no realistic risk of pregnancy, yes? Its like you gloss over that every time. Are we back to the “sacrificial” part of NFP giving you a pass on contraceptive mentalities again?No, a couple using NFP is not “as free as anyone else” to engage in marital relations, because they will *refrain *during the appropriate time. If they do not, they are accepting that conception is a part of their action.
I have stated that people using NFP *can indeed *fall into a contraceptive mentality; my point is that it is *less likely. *
OK, good. Both can be used and viewed as contraception. ABC has properties that make it easier to fall into this mind set. So, these unspecified differences are enough to make one acceptable and one not? Hmmmmm.Which is precisely my point.
Look around you at what is happening in our society. Illegitimate births are close to 40% of all births, and the abortion rate is at about 800,000 per year, making the number of “unplanned” babies over 40% of all births.
So, there’s a whole slew of people with a contraceptive mentality.
So you say this, above, and I assume you are somehow placing this as a consequence of ABC, yes?I hear it all the time: I can’t wait til the children go back to school… We’re going to have X number of children and then I’m going back to (school, work, etc.), people with boats, vacation homes, etc., saying they can’t afford another child…
So after assigning the breakdown of the family in America on ABC and by direct association its users, you say I am putting words in your mouth when I say you are unfairly judging the mindset of ABC users? Ummmm, you just contradicted yourself in the span of 2 sentences.I was not talking about people but about the act itself. You seem to be putting words in my mouth…
No, you really haven’t. You have brought in lots of other issues, but failed to address your first point. Ill repeat it here:I think I have already answered these points, so will let them go.
Using artificial birth control to frustrate the ends of the marital act while enjoying its pleasures is wrong. The pleasure is secondary, a gift to help unify the married couple. To take advantage of the pleasure without accepting the demands of the act is like stealing: taking something without paying for it.
The difference between using NFP and abc is that the former requires abstaining from the act when there is a serious reason to postpone children. It is moral to abstain from sexual activity because then you are also refraining from the pleasure.
You haven’t shown how NFP doesn’t allow a couple to “take advantage of the pleasure without accepting the demands of the act”.Preventing procreation is not evil; taking the pleasure while avoiding conception is, because sexual activity and procreation need to be kept together.
Haha, nice one Mark!It’s been a while since I’ve posted this link which explains the traditional Jewish roots of the Catholic teaching regarding the marital act.
So you can agree or disagree, but here’s the history:
ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php
And for anyone who might be “Lutheran(ish)” or “Calvinist(ish)”, here’s what the early reformers thought of Onanism:
touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f
I didn’t read enough of your posts to get a good grasp of where you were coming from. My bad.And as I have been saying, I have no problem with all the differing religious teaching on birth control. Everyone has a right to believe as they see fit. Who am I to tell you otherwise?
I can agree with what you are saying. Disrespect or lack of mutual respect is unattractive no matter where it comes from.I just can’t stand it when people use their personal beliefs to then predetermine or judge what is in someone elses mind just because they disagree.
They’re the ‘same’ acts! The ‘intent’ is the same, and the ‘desired end result’ is the same - i.e. to enjoy sex with your partner without getting pregnant.The act is correctly ordered.
The act is disordered.
No they are not: In the first case the act is abstinence. In the second the act is artificially modified intercourse. How these the same?They’re the ‘same’ acts! The ‘intent’ is the same, and the ‘desired end result’ is the same - i.e. to enjoy sex with your partner without getting pregnant.
NFP and ABC are the same in that sex is for pleasure and not for procreation.No they are not: In the first case the act is abstinence. In the second the act is artificially modified intercourse. How these the same?
The morality of an act is dependent on three things:NFP and ABC are the same in that sex is for pleasure and not for procreation.
Obviously we don’t view this issue the same. We’ll have to agree to disagree.The morality of an act is dependent on three things:
Your statement above only address point 2). It alone does not determine the morality of the action.
- the morality of the object (act)
- the morality of the intention, and
- the morality of the circumstances
NFP
ABC
- The object is abstinence during times of fertility, or intercourse during the fertile period. This is moral
- Intention is not clear. The church teaches that for the intention to be moral, any abstinance must be for a valid, serious reason.
- Circumstance are what they are.
The morality of 2) and 3) cannot make an immoral act moral.
- Contracepted intercourse is intrinically disorder and immoral.
Proving that your position is simply an unsupported opinion. It not backed by any logical rationale in contrast to the Church’s position and teaching on the matter.Obviously we don’t view this issue the same. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
If you read back about a dozen pages, we were discussing the same point, namely, the act itself. This is kind of like a “round 2” of the issue without getting into detail.Proving that your position is simply an unsupported opinion. It not backed by any logical rationale in contrast to the Church’s position and teaching on the matter.
Obviously it would be nice to not use condoms, but we just aren’t ready for another child right now. In terms of how loving and emotional things are, it does not effect it one bit IMO.I see you understood exactly what I was speaking of.
If you had your preference, though, which would you choose???
From the Catholic perspective, the marital act should not be something that we “don’t mind” or need to get “used too”.
I, of course, am speaking only from a man’s point of view.
And there is a lot of pretending going on, that the act in NFP is the same act as in ABC. My post above demonstrated that they are not.If you read back about a dozen pages, we were discussing the same point, namely, the act itself. This is kind of like a “round 2” of the issue without getting into detail.
My only point would be, in all fairness, we haven’t really shown either way whether it is moral or immoral using any practical logic. Theologically, yes, as that is impossible to refute. As are many other beliefs. In a practical sense, however, it is not clear cut at all.
Well, I think everyone recognizes that the act itself is different. If it wasn’t there would be not ABC, as it would do nothing.And there is a lot of pretending going on, that the act in NFP is the same act as in ABC. My post above demonstrated that they are not.