Reply to I follow Catholic teaching on contraception. Ask me anything.

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "I follow Catholic teaching on contraception. Ask me anything."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]How do you reconcile the fact that the church is ok with one effective way to prevent babies (nfp) but not other ways?

[/quote]

This is actually a very deep and a very simple question, and it speaks to another misunderstanding.

The default setting for married couples is to be completely open to the possibility of children.  If the couple faces serious reasons for not having a child, then they may not have sex--they need to express their love in chastity.

Women's bodies were designed to have long stretches of natural infertility.  Knowing that you're naturally infertile and making use of that time is not contra-cepting, as in preventing conception.  The unitive and procreative aspects are both still intact, and the couple would lovingly accept a baby no matter what.

But there is a lot of discussion among faithful Catholics about having a "contraceptive mentality.". Some believe couples should just trust in Divine Providence no matter what, as if that is the best way to live.

But there is no requirement for married couples to have sex at any given time.

So the focus is not on preventing babies;  it is on preserving the sanctity of the full meaning of sex.  Contraception is intrinsically wrong brcause it separates the unitive and procreative meanings of sex.  So while it is not a requirement to have sex, when the sex is had, it needs to be real, honest, true, complete sex.[/quote]

You are actually wrong here as a matter of doctrine. Humanae vitae makes clear that couples can discern for themselves when to use nfp if another baby would be emotionally or financially harmful for their family. It does not push abstinece as birth control.

The arguments for nfp have always struck me as totally specious. Nfp is ok because it takes advantage of "natural" infertility. But in no other area does the church make such a distinction between natural and unnatural - instead, in catholic bioethics, the emphasis is always on intent and effects. So how is the intent of nfp any different than the intent of using condoms? And what if you wanted to use condoms at infertile times in addition to nfp - why would this be wrong?[/quote]

And also, since abstinence is okay, even if it is for "contra-ceptive" reasons, why aren't other forms of bc okay? I get it, they aren't natural. They don't rely on some system already put into place by god (like a woman's cycle). But I mean from my understanding of what you're saying, it is technically permissible (or "licit" as you like to say) for a couple to say they will never have sex again, rather than risk getting pregnant. And that is okay, technically. Abstinence is okay. But that isn't open to life. And the intent is to keep from getting pregnant.

So it is okay (licit) for a married couple to cut themselves off from [b]both [/b]the unitive and procreative aspect of sex at the same time, but not just the procreative aspect. That doesn't make sense, except that it's probably unsustainable and the church knows it...so instead people will have sex and get pregnant and have more babies that they hopefully raise Catholic and let's stop bullshitting and admit that this is the real point of all this.

Point me to the part of the bible where Jesus talks about birth control.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics