Contraception

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

using NFP is a sin, but that NFP is not intrinsically wrong

So, the Catholic family planning method is okay IF IT'S NOT DONE? If it's ignored and never put into practice?


So, all those couples at my parish, REQUIRED to take the course taught at the parish in how to do NFP, they should forget what they were taught to do? It is a sin if they do what they were taught to do by the Church?


:o




[This just keeps getting weirder and weirder]





.

 

[cobweb]

The Church's teaching on birth control applies to artificial birth control. (ABC)

Artificial birth control puts artificial barriers between the conjugal act. NFP does not, the conjugal act is still open to life.

Of course, I can recollect my history with ABC and it mainly involves having sex with women to whom I wasn't married and had no intentions of bearing or rearing children with.

I'm somewhat mystified at how some protestants have joined the atheists in their commitment to the condom, but then again, y'all get some strange bedfellows in your protest against the Catholic Church.

How can you be open to life if you know for a fact that you have not ovulated? The conjugal act is NOT open to life. There is no physical barrier, but without ovulation the prospect of conception is still nil. It removes the possibility of procreation completely from sex.

The result is still the same and the willful removal of the possibility of procreation from the conjugal act is the same. So why is the use of a piece of latex considered grave sin, but the willful plotting to avoid procreation via NFP is accepted?

Be morally consistant.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

How can you be open to life if you know for a fact that you have not ovulated? The conjugal act is NOT open to life. There is no physical barrier, but without ovulation the prospect of conception is still nil. It removes the possibility of procreation completely from sex.

The result is still the same and the willful removal of the possibility of procreation from the conjugal act is the same. So why is the use of a piece of latex considered grave sin, but the willful plotting to avoid procreation via NFP is accepted?

Be morally consistant.

One can abstain from sexual activity for chaste reasons much like one fasts from food. Intent seems to have some bearing IMO.

As a Eastern Orthodox do you use any of John Chrysostom's early church writings in discerning? John is a father of the Church that the RCC uses for helping in understanding.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

A couple of quotes from our good John Chrysostom:

Why sow where reaping is impossible, or rather even if you dost reap, the fruit brings you great shame? For even if a child be born, it at once disgraces yourself, and has itself had injustice done it in being born through you illegitimate and base. And if you leave it never so much money, both the son of an harlot, and that of a servant-maid, is disreputable at home, disreputable in the city, disreputable in a court of law: disreputable too will you be also, both in your lifetime, and when dead. For if you have departed even, the memorials of your unseemliness abide. Why then bring disgrace upon all these? Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth?

Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 24 on Romans (Chrysostom)

 

[patricius79]

so the Christian Church does agree that a bad intention related to using NFP is a sin, but that NFP is not intrinsically wrong

please note what I actually said here as opposed to Josiah's truncation of what I said

 

[patricius79]

.

So, the Catholic family planning method is okay IF IT'S NOT DONE?

why would you think that?

NFP is not intrinsically wrong. it can be used with a wrong intention, which would be a sin

having contracepted sex, however, is instrinsically wrong

 

[cobweb]

One can abstain from sexual activity for chaste reasons much like one fasts from food. Intent seems to have some bearing IMO.

I agree. Your fellow Catholic does not.

Fasting from marital relations is a part of our normal praxis. That is the main reason why our families are traditionally smaller. While a spiritual father may exempt a couple from this type of abstinence for the sake of their marriage (oikonomia).... many do fast. (and I would remind you how often corporate fasting is practiced in the Eastern Churches)

This is not the same as purposefully avoiding relations only on fertile days. The intent is different.

As a Eastern Orthodox do you use any of John Chrysostom's early church writings in discerning? John is a father of the Church that the RCC uses for helping in understanding.

Of course. I must remind you that we do not view any of the writings of the Saints as infaliable, however.

I am NOT pro-contraception. That includes NFP.

I do however believe (as does my Church) in oikonomia given by a spiritual father to use a non-abortive method IF the alternative would be more harmful.

 

[cobweb]

A couple of quotes from our good John Chrysostom:

Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 24 on Romans (Chrysostom)

Tell me how that does NOT apply to NFP.

 

[cobweb]

why would you think that?

NFP is not intrinsically wrong. it can be used with a wrong intention, which would be a sin

having contracepted sex, however, is instrinsically wrong

I would argue that its main use is as contraception. Most who do use it see it as a "Church-approved" way of avoiding pregnacy.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

why would you think that?

It's your position that it is NOT wrong to use NFP to purposely decrease the chances of conception (contraceptively). And it's not wrong to use NFP to purpose increase the changes of conception.

What other uses are there? Could you list for us all the other uses of it - the ones that would be "evil" "immoral" and "sinful?" Other than to increase or decrease the changes of conception, please list all the other options for us, the evil, wrong, sinful, not permitted ones, if you will. I think those two cover all possibilities - to INCREASE or DECREASE the changes of conception - and you're on record saying they are both okay. The only other possibility would be to be NEUTRAL, to have NO impact on the likelihood of conception, to be entirely moot and useless, is THAT was is sinful, evil, immoral, and contrary to Catholic teaching?

having contracepted sex, however, is instrinsically wrong

But you have twice stated that it's not wrong to use it contraceptively - to counter conception, to decrease the chances of conception. You're stated twice that this is okay. The former head of your denomination called it "evil" but you've made quite a point of saying it's okay.



.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I agree. Your fellow Catholic does not.

Fasting from marital relations is a part of our normal praxis. That is the main reason why our families are traditionally smaller. While a spiritual father may exempt a couple from this type of abstinence for the sake of their marriage (oikonomia).... many do fast. (and I would remind you how often corporate fasting is practiced in the Eastern Churches)

This is not the same as purposefully avoiding relations only on fertile days. The intent is different.

I think their is some prejudice in what Natural Family Planning is. For instance, it is not something taught as a way to stop procreation. That would be a contraceptive. It can be seen as a way of avoiding conceptive but even in this there is the possibility of procreation and so it is not contraceptive. It is a flawed thinking that places NFP in the same realm as contraceptives.

I think you know that practicing chastity has value in a family because it helps us learn and grow as a family. Husband and wife will need to make loving decisions in regards to their family while keeping God's design for man and woman in mind. But man and woman are not solely meant for procreation.

In regards to intent, the RCC teaches that intent is part of culpability and in cases of mortal sin vs venial sin the intent may be the deciding factor. Of course we keep in mind that no man can judge another in regards to their ultimate end.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Of course. I must remind you that we do not view any of the writings of the Saints as infaliable, however.

I am NOT pro-contraception. That includes NFP.

I do however believe (as does my Church) in oikonomia given by a spiritual father to use a non-abortive method IF the alternative would be more harmful.

I am not aware of any teaching that the Saints are Infallible. Merely that they are in Heaven and are good examples of Christian living. However, I should comment on the Doctors of the Church. These Saints have contributed significantly to understanding Apostolic Tradition that the Church has labeled 33 Saints as Doctors.

Again, NFP does not seeked to stop the conception of a child but uses known fertile periods to help the family make intelligent choices on their family's health and care while keeping God's commandments and living within God's design. Natural Family Planning still is open to life and many times a couple will become pregnant and that is a blessing still. Contraception seeks to stop the possibility of conception and this is not anything like NFP.

I cannot comment on your choice of method, I leave those choices to you and God (with your church's guidance). I believe you are pious and seek to do God's will above that of men. So, no judgment from me.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Tell me how that does NOT apply to NFP.

I have quoted something that Chrysostom taught regarding means of stopping the chance of pregnancy so as to enjoy sex with out the result of a child, contraception. I sought common ground and think in this little bit of his writing we both agree. I also think NFP is not a contraceptive and that it is not against what John Chrysostom was writing about here.

 

[cobweb]

I think that for the most part we agree. I still disagree about NFP. As it is most widely practiced.... I do believe that it is contraceptive.

I can't really ask the Catholics that I know in real life, but I have wondered. Does the Roman Catholic Church still practice marital fasting? We both seem to agree that it is beneficial. I was under the impression that traditional fasting practices had mostly been abandonned in the west. That is the impression I get from the folks that I know. I could be mistaken.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I would argue that its main use is as contraception. Most who do use it see it as a "Church-approved" way of avoiding pregnacy.

Our Churches have a long history of some that use doctrines in ways that they are not meant. They ignorantly do it or they purposely do it regardless of what they know. But our Church's doctrines are not those of the ignorant or the disobedient. The Church doctrines remain the same even when others seek to twist their intent and meaning. I think you know that but only want to clarify.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think that for the most part we agree. I still disagree about NFP. As it is most widely practiced.... I do believe that it is contraceptive.

If we look at the word "contraceptive" does it not mean "contra" as against and "ceptive" as against fertilization. In NFP there is nothing that is opposing the fertilization of an egg.

 

[cobweb]

If we look at the word "contraceptive" does it not mean "contra" as against and "ceptive" as against fertilization. In NFP there is nothing that is opposing the fertilization of an egg.

Actually.. yes. The entire reason that I personally use it is to avoid (contra) conception.

Sadly, until the Church would be willing to provide regular respite care and help with the additional financial burden that having another autistic child would add.... I will be using NFP with the blessing of my priest. Our marriage (and likely my sanity) would not survive otherwise.

 

[patricius79]

I would argue that its main use is as contraception. Most who do use it see it as a "Church-approved" way of avoiding pregnacy.

avoiding pregnancy isn't intrinsically wrong. contracepted sex is.

the meaning of the marital act is total self-giving.

--------------------------------------

here is St. John Chrisostom:


"n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

 

[Vendetta]

I was under the impression that morality had mostly been abandonned in the west.

Fixed that for you.

 

[ivebeenshown]

But you have twice stated that it's not wrong to use it contraceptively - to counter conception, to decrease the chances of conception. You're stated twice that this is okay. The former head of your denomination called it "evil" but you've made quite a point of saying it's okay.

'The former head of our denomination' -- by this, do you mean Pope Paul VI? It might make your posts clearer if you just named this person outright. In any case, if you are citing Pope Paul VI, keep in mind that he wrote this:

"If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained." (Humanae Vitae, paragraph 16)

Furthermore:

"It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love." (ibid.)