Contraceptives

[Cosmic Charlie]

Marica:

I see you've been doing research, I'm impressed.


Geocagun:

You've haven't tied contraception to the teaching quoted. You are just claiming there is a relationship. And a long discussion of ilict vs illicit acts is going to take us nowhere. Can we stay on morality ?

 

[geocajun]

Hello geocajun,

I highlighted in red a couple of things. I think I understand that murder is considered an evil regardless of intent. Although intent and context may be used in determining culpability, if I understood you correctly before and this part of the Catechism. Similiar to intent and other factors being used to determine if criminal charges would be murder 1, murder 2 or manslaughter. Or that 'murder' in the process of a war is something that is expected and would be judged differently than a similiar action outside of war.

yes, but keep in mind, murder is to take the life of the innocent.

Reading the prior paragraphs says this in 1755:

A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

yes, this is exactly right. So let me make an example of it.
Praying is a good thing right? the object of prayer is good of course.
But, if our intent when we pray is evil, then the act is evil, even though the object was good.

So the object must be good, the end good and the circumstances good TOGETHER. (yet if NFP lacks in 1 or 2 it might not be "morally good" yet never mortal sin, see below)

This is incorrect. Note the section I have bolded in your quote and see my comments as well.

So that would say ABC is always a grave matter by definition, NFP not a grave matter by definition. (And I agree with cosmin charlie in that I don't see the best of reasoning for making that case, and that NFP is always given the moral pass.)

NFP is not always given the moral pass.
I stated this before, and I will repeat it. What is sinful is the "Anti-baby" mentality. Anti-Baby is always sinful, regardless of NFP or ABC.

ABC is intrinsically disordered so it can never be good.
NFP is not intrinsically disordered so it can be morally good when used with a good intention.


I sure hope this helps.

The engineer in me wants to diagram this, but I can't so I will just give this simple formula below. I hope it helps.

(for simplicity, I opted to not include circumstance)

Good Intention + Good object = Good Act
Bad Intention + Good object = Evil Act
Good Intention + Bad object = Evil Act

 

[geocajun]

Geocagun:

You've haven't tied contraception to the teaching quoted.

Maybe you didn't accept it, but the Catechism quite nicely tells us that ABC is intrinsically disordered because of its object.
This is clear as a bell tone to me.. intrinsic means its built into its nature or design. So if evil is in its nature because of its object to make procreation impossible (this is all in the CCC) then it certaintly does make it an evil object when determining the morality of the act.

You are just claiming there is a relationship. And a long discussion of ilict vs illicit acts is going to take us nowhere. Can we stay on morality ?

I am here for you Charlie.
So do you want to discuss the natural law application of ABC versus NFP or not? I recall you saying that you had a better interpretation of the natural law than the Church, so I was going to give you my understanding of the Church's application to see if you could poke some holes in it.

 

[Benedicta00]

ABC is intrinsically disordered so it can never be good.
NFP is not intrinsically disordered so it can be morally good when used with a good intention.

This is it all wrapped up. It need not be complexed, it is rather easy to understand, it is just hard to have to assent to. This is one area we just do not want to let God into.

 

[BAChristian]

This is it all wrapped up. It need not be complexed, it is rather easy to understand, it is just hard to have to assent to. This is one area we just do not want to let God into.

And you know why? Because we don't have enough faith to think that God will be able to control our finances...we don't have enough faith to think that God can control whether or not we have a baby.

Part of us can accept things like our parents dying or whatever because we can just say, "Well it's God's will that it happened." So to increase our faith, we'll just say that it was God's will.

Some people say that, and actually believe that everything happens for a purpose -- that God was behind it 100% Some people say that, and actually believe coincedence.

Then there's the people that are somewhere in the middle. They know things have happened in their life and there's no way that God couldn't have been involved. But they still wonder...they still truly wonder about the hard stuff...ya know, like contraceptives for example...

Oh Lord, I'm going to have another kid, and before you know it, without birth control, it's going to be the Brady Bunch up in here, and I only make $50K a year, the wife works at the local gas station tryin' to make a dollar out of fifteen cents, and there's no way we can do this...

I think, like Shelb has pointed out so many times, we truly have to be faithful to our Lord.

I think everyone is different -- if you put people in a lineup, you could chart a faith meter and everybody would be on different levels.

The point is (and I'm speaking for myself and other RCIA'ers who may be reading this), don't let one, seemingly gigantic issue, keep you from coming home. Because in due time, our Lord, if you keep your eyes on Him, will convict you of this...

For those who are faithful in his calling...it will happen, all in due time.

 

[Benedicta00]

Christian,

But that is it, it is not a gigantic issue, it really isn't, it just asks a whole lot of us, it costs us to much personally to give ourselves over to this.

You are asking to do what many in our world today kill their own baby over, and that is to sacrifice your life for another and that, my friend, is the gospel message. So when we do what those on the outside looking in can not comprehend, which is share our lives with children, they run from it.

Jesus was not killed for no reason, no one wants to accept his message, "No greater love does one have than this, to lay his life down for his friends."

When a person grabs hold of this reality then they have no need for NFP or ABC. They are only living the gospel message and that is to love as Christ loves, and he loved to the point where he sacrificed his life for us.

Next time you run into the Brady bunch and wonder what would posses them to want to have that many kids or wonder why the Church wold impose on us this "burden" of not being able to control this our way, you know why, because no greater love is this - then to lay one's life down. That is why we do it.

 

[BAChristian]

That is why we do it.

I can see your point Shelb. Good post.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Michelle,
thank you for speaking from your heart. Good post.

 

[Preachers12]

Peace be with you.

GFP is the way to go!

God Bless,
P12

 

[marciadietrich]

NFP is not always given the moral pass.

I stated this before, and I will repeat it. What is sinful is the "Anti-baby" mentality. Anti-Baby is always sinful, regardless of NFP or ABC.

First you pointed to the catechism to say intent never impacts on morality of an issue - some things are always evil by nature of the object (and I can see that). But here I seem to get the impression you are saying NFP doesn't get a moral pass if there is wrong or evil intent. If there is an "anti-baby" mentality.


Is it ever possible for NFP to be a mortal sin? You have said that intent never impacts on the morality of an issue, never impacts whether something is a grave matter because that is a given by definition matter or object. Murder is always grave/disordered. ABC is always grave/disordered. NFP as an object good and not disordered. So we are back to intent aren't we?

ABC is intrinsically disordered so it can never be good.
NFP is not intrinsically disordered so it can be morally good when used with a good intention.


I sure hope this helps.

The engineer in me wants to diagram this, but I can't so I will just give this simple formula below. I hope it helps.

(for simplicity, I opted to not include circumstance)

Good Intention + Good object = Good Act
Bad Intention + Good object = Evil Act
Good Intention + Bad object = Evil Act

So bottom line I want to understand given Bad Intention + Good object = Evil Act can NFP misused be a mortal sin? Or is it always a venial sin because the object is good, therefore it isn't a grave matter in terms of mortal sin.

Or is the grave matter the bad intention? ... then that totally goes against what you have said earlier that intent never impacts the morality of an action.

Do you understand what I am asking? (not trying to be a jerk asking that, just I feel I am not being clear)

Marcia

 

[Benedicta00]

Marcia,

You are in mortal sin if you are not open to having baby, that is it; all there is to it. You can be sterile and be in mortal sin if you attitude is you WILL not have a child if you became pregnant.

 

[geocajun]

Or is the grave matter the bad intention? ... then that totally goes against what you have said earlier that intent never impacts the morality of an action.

I don't think I said that. I think what I said was that if the object was evil, then intention and circumstance do not make it OK.
I realize this is difficult, and I see you are putting much thought into it which is great, keep it up!

 

[geocajun]

Christian,

But that is it, it is not a gigantic issue, it really isn't, it just asks a whole lot of us, it costs us to much personally to give ourselves over to this.

You are asking to do what many in our world today kill their own baby over, and that is to sacrifice your life for another and that, my friend, is the gospel message. So when we do what those on the outside looking in can not comprehend, which is share our lives with children, they run from it.

Jesus was not killed for no reason, no one wants to accept his message, "No greater love does one have than this, to lay his life down for his friends."

When a person grabs hold of this reality then they have no need for NFP or ABC. They are only living the gospel message and that is to love as Christ loves, and he loved to the point where he sacrificed his life for us.

Next time you run into the Brady bunch and wonder what would posses them to want to have that many kids or wonder why the Church wold impose on us this "burden" of not being able to control this our way, you know why, because no greater love is this - then to lay one's life down. That is why we do it.

great post Michelle! I find our reputation system frusterating because I can't give you a "thumbs up" as often as you deserve one.

 

[marciadietrich]

I don't think I said that. I think what I said was that if the object was evil, then intention and circumstance do not make it OK.
I realize this is difficult, and I see you are putting much thought into it which is great, keep it up!

Then if the intention is wrong, then the choice of object doesn't make it OK either. Thus the good object + bad intent = EVIL act is on the same level morally as bad object + good intent = EVIL act ? ... but that is not the attitude I see displayed in most discussions on the issue. A misuse of NFP might be 'sinful' but almost never seems considered on the same level as ABC regardless of their intent or circumstances.

Other than Michelle saying that if you got pregnant and wouldn't have the baby intent is mortal sin (and I don't see how that can be the case if the object in morality issue equates to the grave matter in determining mortal sin) is the evil act of misuse of NFP as liable to be mortal as the bad object of ABC with good intent? Or is the only thing that is mortal bad object + bad intent? Are ABC users held to a similiar standard on the issue of the real sin being in the mentalility of if they got pregnant they wouldn't have the child? I don't think they are held to that standard to qualify but a lower one because the ABC is bad in itself, so the intent is usually always deemed bad as well. They are always considered to not be open to life or anti-baby somehow.

Here is what I am saying in a nutshell:

NFP = good object = no grave matter so could never be mortal sin
ABC = bad object = grave matter, always confessable and potential for mortal sin but depends on culpability

intent = part of culpability
circumstance = part of culpability

so how can intent (part of culpability) - an attitude that you wouldn't have a child if you got pregnant - make the case for mortal sin if NFP is a good object thus can never qualify of being a grave matter?

Is my hangup in equating object in morality with the grave matter qualification for mortal sin?

The only way I can see NFP use ever possibly being mortal, is if intent of use can make it a bad object (NFP as an object depending on intent) so thus you could have a grave matter in terms of mortal sin.

Marcia

 

[Benedicta00]

Marica,

In what circumstance do you see ABC being used with a good intent? I personally can not think of any.

The good intent with NFP is the integrity is not compromised, ABC no matter what your intent is, you are compromising the integrity of the act. That is why it is wrong, among other reasons.

 

[geocajun]

Is my hangup in equating object in morality with the grave matter qualification for mortal sin?

The only way I can see NFP use ever possibly being mortal, is if intent of use can make it a bad object (NFP as an object depending on intent) so thus you could have a grave matter in terms of mortal sin.

Marcia, I do approach this differently than you, but I think in the end we are saying the same thing.
The reason ABC as an object is intrinsically evil is that it renders procreation impossible (makes one sterile). This in and of itself is anti-baby which is evil.
The reason NFP is not intrisically evil, is that it leaves one to natural means, thus not denying God's will.
If a person uses NFP with the intinion of never having children, then NFP simply becomes a replacement for ABC.
This is where we get the serious matter part of the 3 qualifications for a mortal sin.
At this point it should be said that sin, mortal or venial is always an offense against God. Thus arguing that something is OK or not OK on the grounds of it being venial versus mortal is fruitless.

as far as applying the logic of the 3 critera for determining the morality of an act (object, intention and circumstance) goes, intention and object are primary elements, and circumstance is secondary to both and used for determining culpability and levels of good and bad in the act - beyond this I think we will get semantical - but who knows I will have to do some research to give a good answer to the questions you just asked - but if its important to you then we can look into it together. let me know.

 

[marciadietrich]

Marcia, I do approach this differently than you, but I think in the end we are saying the same thing.
The reason ABC as an object is intrinsically evil is that it renders procreation impossible (makes one sterile). This in and of itself is anti-baby which is evil.
The reason NFP is not intrisically evil, is that it leaves one to natural means, thus not denying God's will.
If a person uses NFP with the intinion of never having children, then NFP simply becomes a replacement for ABC.

Hi again geo ...

I am taking as a given that ABC is declared immoral and NFP moral as that is what the Church says ... not sure I totally agree on the reasoning for that decision but it appears to be what you have to work with in discussing this within current teaching.

I find the average ABC married couple to have similiar reasons and goals as NFP users ... spacing children, sometimes they set a number in stone but often just economic or health reasons to limit family size. I don't believe ABC users think they are being anti-baby or thwarting God's will, they believe they are being responsible and looking out for the well-being of their family. So even if ABC is intrinsically "evil" (as an object) I am wary of piling on someone for having made that decision (because they likely have similiar intent and circumstances to NFP users).

This is where we get the serious matter part of the 3 qualifications for a mortal sin.
At this point it should be said that sin, mortal or venial is always an offense against God. Thus arguing that something is OK or not OK on the grounds of it being venial versus mortal is fruitless.

Sure, agreed, all sin is an offense against God. But there is a pervasive mindset that ABC users are automatically in mortal sin (which I am not sure that is true), and that NFP'ers unless they are absolutely abusing NFP in their intent are generally not considered to be in a state of mortal sin on this issue. Mortal sin relates to if they should participate in the eucharist without having been to confession. It even is possible it could effect their salvation (surely that would be implied of those who knowingly use ABC against Church teaching).

Now I would say probably their priest should be involved in the loop - but obviously an ABC'ing couple might be caught in a cycle of not trusting a priest because they fear or don't understand why ABC is not accepted. Just as the priest is supposed to be involved in the NFP decisions, I would think NFP'ers might be more inclined to frequent confession - they would be more scrupulous in general - but do they discuss NFP beyond a mention, if that?

as far as applying the logic of the 3 critera for determining the morality of an act (object, intention and circumstance) goes, intention and object are primary elements, and circumstance is secondary to both and used for determining culpability and levels of good and bad in the act - beyond this I think we will get semantical - but who knows I will have to do some research to give a good answer to the questions you just asked - but if its important to you then we can look into it together. let me know.

Thanks for hanging in there with me thus far. I think I might need a break for a little while.

Happy Thanksgiving

Marcia

 

[geocajun]

Sure, agreed, all sin is an offense against God. But there is a pervasive mindset that ABC users are automatically in mortal sin (which I am not sure that is true),

yea, I agree that some folks do feel that way, and really we have no business judging someones culpability like that.
Its OK to talk about what is right and what is wrong even on personal terms, but its not OK to tell someone their level of guilt for their sins.
I can tell you that there is no sin without consent - period.
That does not mean the act is OK. The act of using ABC is always sinful, but the persons personal resonsibility for it will vary based on their knowledge and consent.

Now I would say probably their priest should be involved in the loop - but obviously an ABC'ing couple might be caught in a cycle of not trusting a priest because they fear or don't understand why ABC is not accepted. Just as the priest is supposed to be involved in the NFP decisions, I would think NFP'ers might be more inclined to frequent confession - they would be more scrupulous in general - but do they discuss NFP beyond a mention, if that?

My wife had a priest tell her she could use ABC during a confession once... I had a few face to face meetings with him after that to set him strait
the fact of the matter is that on discerning to use NFP or not, that is the complete responsibility of the couple - not a priest or anyone else for that matter (this was stated by Vatican II).

Thanks for hanging in there with me thus far. I think I might need a break for a little while.

no problem, I love this stuff
I dont blame you for taking a break. Might I suggest you read Familiaris Consortio, and pay particular attention to the concepts of Incarnate love, and disincarnete love. It will be well worth the study on this subject.

Happy Thanksgiving

Thanks, you too!

 

[Fireman's Wife]

I find the average ABC married couple to have similiar reasons and goals as NFP users ... spacing children, sometimes they set a number in stone but often just economic or health reasons to limit family size. I don't believe ABC users think they are being anti-baby or thwarting God's will, they believe they are being responsible and looking out for the well-being of their family. So even if ABC is intrinsically "evil" (as an object) I am wary of piling on someone for having made that decision (because they likely have similiar intent and circumstances to NFP users).

I am just coming in to this dialogue and I do not know how much time I can devote to it. I have discussed this in two other threads and I am almost afraid to go another round. That said, let me first say I use NFP, I am 32 with 6 children, ages 11 years to 6 months. I know many people who use NFP and many more who use ABC. I find the exact opposite of Marcia's findings. I find for the most part that ABC'ers are selfish. I find they are almost completely, if not totally closed to life! The majority of ABC'ers I know want material things over babies. It is as simple as that. They even say things like "We are spoiling ourselves before we have children", or "We are going to build our new house and furnish it before we have children." etc...I know of some couples who want to "prepare" for children by setting up college funds for the potential child before they actually begin "trying" for the baby and others who want to take trips and cruises and "enjoy each other" for several years before they begin a family. Some say they cannot afford children because their SUV payment is too high. By the time many of these couples actually have a baby, they project their selfishness on to their treatment of the child and the child grows up thinking that it is the center of the universe. Looking out for the "well-being of the family" for ABC'ers easily turns into "We would be better off with a new sofa". As far as ABC'ers not thinking they are "anti-baby", I do not think most think much at all, except about themselves. It takes a huge leap of faith and trust in God to accept God's ultimate plan for the marital act and quite frankily, most people are too selfish to do this. They want, want, want and the rest of this stuff doesn't outweigh that mindset. I am not saying there are not exceptions but I do not know many.

Fireman's Wife

 

[BAChristian]

I find for the most part that ABC'ers are selfish.

The majority of ABC'ers I know want material things over babies.

By the time many of these couples actually have a baby, they project their selfishness on to their treatment of the child and the child grows up thinking that it is the center of the universe.

Looking out for the "well-being of the family" for ABC'ers easily turns into "We would be better off with a new sofa".

I do not think most think much at all, except about themselves.

Wow.

I'm sorry, but your reasoning is absurd. If you knew me, on a personal level, you wouldn't dare say these things. And I bet most of the people on this board, who know me, would agree that they can probably tell that I'm not some selfish, materialistic individual who wants to, how did you put it, "project" my "selfishness" on to the "treatment of the child"...

The problem here is that you shouldn't make those kinds of remarks because you blatantly generalize, and you don't know people on a personal level. Your remarks, IMO, are foolish.