Would it be sin?!?

[Benedicta00]

The logical pattern I see is this.

1) if it IS sin to prevent pregancy, they have 2 options.

2) option 1, abstinence. Obviously, this is wrong, we are commanded not to seperate ourselves from sexual relationship with our spouse for anything other than fasting and prayer, but after a time, come together again, to prevent temptation. So, if you avoid one sin, you commit another.

3) second option is to state that they should continue, and risk the consequences, despite the evidence that pain, suffering, and death will be the result, in which case, the legalistic application of the rule will make God out as some kind of Ogre, expecting pain and death as opposed to following a doctrine of the RCC.

Either or, you find yourself in a quandary

Don't be so dramatic. There's NFP and it's not at all what you think. The abstinence is less than 2 weeks out the month.

And we're not animals, learning a little self control is not a quandary.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Or look for mercy.

quite. I think you are oversimplifying the problem, however.

 

[Theophorus]

The sin of contraception/ABC/sterilization is two fold. means and intent. A good intent does not justify using immoral means.

The primary question is not about mutilation and the obvious objections, but of virtue and the subjective questions that come into play.

Is the husband making a sacrifice? Is he trusting that his wife will never commit adultry on him? Is he giving up something for her well being and the her safety. Or is he thinking only carnally. Is he doing it for the safety of his bride, or is he afraid for his pension.

Is a hysterectomy OK?

 

[Theophorus]

I'm sorry, what?

Does felatio offer that opportunity.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Don't be so dramatic. There's NFP and it's not at all what you think. The abstinence is less than 2 weeks out the month.

And we're not animals, learning a little self control is not a quandary.

NFP is approximately 70% effective. Not good odds, given the risks. It isn't drama.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Does felatio offer that opportunity.

obviously not. (but that's sin to RCC, isn't it? what does EO think on the matter?)

 

[Benedicta00]

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

I said I really only wanted to have to say this once... here goes #2.

No. i did not contradict myself at all.

You can have a moral good reason to avoid pregnancy even indefinitely if you have to. There are circumstances that take away our freedom and we are made to have to choose not to have children there is no sin in that.

If our intent is to avoid pregnancy because you have to, not because you just don't want kids then you commit no sin.

The sin is what is in your heart.

BUT and I repeat BUT you are never free to use an immoral means, which sterilization is, to justify your good intent.

If you do, that is is sin #2. The sin of contraception is two fold, as i am saying this again for second time now.

We have other options if you can not have children.

 

[Benedicta00]

NFP is approximately 70% effective. Not good odds, given the risks. It isn't drama.

take it from me UPhill, I know this stuff well. It works as long as you work it.

 

[Theophorus]

obviously not. (but that's sin to RCC, isn't it? what does EO think on the matter?)

It is sin for conservatives in both I would think.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It's all academic anyways, as there is no biblical command against avoiding pregancy in the first place. (please PLEASE don't quote Onan... that's not what that was about.)

 

[Benedicta00]

The primary question is not about mutilation and the obvious objections, but of virtue and the subjective questions that come into play.

Is the husband making a sacrifice? Is he trusting that his wife will never commit adultry on him? Is he giving up something for her well being and the her safety. Or is he thinking only carnally. Is he doing it for the safety of his bride, or is he afraid for his pension.

Is a hysterectomy OK?

To treat a pathology, or course it is allowed.

but having tubes tied just to make yourself sterile is not.

Evil can never be used for good.

And you just touched on a good point.

The side effects of ABC and sterilization.

now, because we have just removed one of it's consequences, one has to 'trust' that their spouse does not commit adultery.

Another reason why ABC isn't any good for us, it has the potential to destroy marriages.

 

[Theophorus]

It's all academic anyways, as there is no biblical command against avoiding pregancy in the first place. (please PLEASE don't quote Onan... that's not what that was about.)

But there is a biblical stated purposes of marriage. One says be fruitfull and multiply, another says do not defraud one another. It is better to marry than to fall into sin. Love your wife as your self and as Christ loves the Church.

 

[The Princess Bride]

Is the sterilization sin? (given the doctrine that it is sin, according to the RCC.)

*technically* by text book definment, a vasectomy is not a "sterilization" surgery.

I say this for two reasons:

1)the testes are still producing sperm (they are just re-absorbed since they cant go anyplace)
2) *most* are reversable (providing the doc who did the clipping knew what he/she was doing)

So if the couple ever did want to try to concieve, a reversal would be rather simple.

It's not different than using a condom everytime.

 

[Theophorus]

To treat a pathology, or course it is allowed.

but having tubes tied just to make yourself sterile is not.

The pathology is being treated by the sacrifice of the other hopefully.

 

[Benedicta00]

The pathology is being treated by the sacrifice of the other hopefully.

But that's not a sacrifice, its taking the easy way out.

It's not a pathology to sterilize yourselves if their is no direct danger of dying or if you do not have a disease.

If I had to have my uterus removed in order to treat cancer- that's one thing but to remove it to avoid pregnancy is not acceptable.

If we are high risk then there are ways to avoid pregnancy and one does not have to abstain all the time either and thst is a true sacrifice. Sterilization is not.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Ok, situation regarding a bone of contention in regards to a particular doctrine.

Most protestant denominations do not believe that family planning via birth control (whatever method) is sin.

RCC states that it is sin. (I am not aware what the EO position is on the matter.)

Now, we have a married couple, who find out after a miscarriage, that she has a condition (I forget the name of it.) that will not allow her to carry properly, the odds of bringing a live child to term is 1 in 4, and the risk of septicemic infection, twisted uterus, etc... is about the same, 1 in 4. The risks are NOT worth having a pregnancy again.

So, the husband gets a vasectomy. They are still very much in love with each other, and want to continue their sexual relationship, just not risk a dangerous pregancy.

Is the sterilization sin? (given the doctrine that it is sin, according to the RCC.)

Yes, as it makes what God created to be fruitful purposefully sterile.

This is what the act of sodomy does . .it takes the fruitful act if sex and purposefully makes it sterile.

That is why sodomy is an abomination to God.

Deliberately sterile sex is the marital act of sodomy.


.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

I find it kind of odd that certain forms of birth control appear to be acceptable to the RCC - such as Natural Family Planning. Yet others are unacceptable, and called immoral.

But at the core, what's the difference? All are designed to avoid pregnancy.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Yes, as it makes what God created to be fruitful purposefully sterile.

This is what the act of sodomy does . .it takes the fruitful act if sex and purposefully makes it sterile.

That is why sodomy is an abomination to God.

Deliberately sterile sex is the marital act of sodomy.


.

Run that by me again? Huhh?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Deliberately sterile sex is the marital act of sodomy.


.

 

[Benedicta00]

I find it kind of odd that certain forms of birth control appear to be acceptable to the RCC - such as Natural Family Planning. Yet others are unacceptable, and called immoral.

But at the core, what's the difference? All are designed to avoid pregnancy.

because any ABC method is viewed immoral.

What is a sin is intent and means.

You can have a good intent to avoid pregnancy but if you use an immoral means, you sin.

you use morally acceptable means like NFP but your reason for using it is selffish, then you still sin.

It's a two fold sin- this makes the 4th time I'm saying this.

NFP is not contraception. It's just the knowledge of how one's body works.

When using NFP, It's the mentality of the user that make it contraception. When that mentality is a contraceptive one, then you enter into sin.