Abortion proponent: Contraception and abortion “two sides of the same coin”
Women seek an abortion if they have an unwanted pregnancy, legal and safe or not, because it’s too late for contraception.
There is no split between contraception and abortion from women’s perspective, they are two sides of the same coin.
Even so, many of the biggest supporters of “family planning” refuse to support women’s need for safe, legal abortion. Even worse, they always talk about abortion in negative terms. They mention it along with STIs, as if it were a disease, or treat it as an annoying problem that they wish would go away, and consider it inferior to use of contraception. They even claim that use of contraception will (or should) make it go away.
But this is about the realities of people’s sex lives and how sex happens, not just about well-thought-out, planned-in-advance decisions about family formation.
~ Reproductive Health Matters founding editor Marge Berer, RH Reality Check, July 23
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
yeah. The contraception side is the one without the blood on it.
“There is no split between contraception and abortion from women’s perspective, they are two sides of the same coin.”
Another lunatic presuming to speak for all women.
Sex, you know, just Happens.
Bumper sticker: Sex Happens.
I was walking down the road and … sex happened.
We we out on a date and before you know it… sex happened.
I went grocery shopping, minding my own business, when all of a sudden … sex happened.
Rapist: I don’t know your honor, I was minding my own business when sex happened.
—
Sex has a consequence – children, and if people are not in a married relationship that desires children then they should not be having sexual intercourse. Like a petulant child, they want what they want, when they want it.
So, the very same people who claim guns are not toys, have no problem with sex as a toy-like recreational activity. More people have died from their careless sexual activity than all the mass murderers combined. That itself has a huge emotional cost. To ignore that, is to ignore reality.
Women seek an abortion if they have an unwanted pregnancy, legal and safe or not, because it’s too late for contraception.
Because simply keeping the baby and being his mother is, of course, out of the question. It’s contraception that works, OR abortion…what else is there left to a woman?
RH Reality Check is constantly blindsided by a few simple facts that are obvious to most women in this country:
Abortion kills a child.
Abortion is a dark decision that a woman must live with for the rest of her life.
Abortion is not safe and free of risks, even if it is legal.
RH Reality Check can keep on insisting that abortion is “just another tool for family planning,” but women know better.
This is what I concluded in my impromptu survey recently, here on Jill’s comments. Abortionistas don’t want contraception to work better. THEY DON’T WANT A BETTER CONTRACEPTIVE PRODUCT. They want to continue exactly as things are, and worse, they want ALL OF US to pay for it with OUR money. Abortion advocacy is clearly the result of inferior intellects. As Dr. Nadal would say, “Get well soon.”
“There is no split between contraception and abortion from women’s perspective, they are two sides of the same coin.”
She speaks a truth I’m certain she didn’t mean to. They are two sides of the same coin, which is precisely why the Church says contraception is morally wrong. It’s not such a leap to go from demanding the right to have sex without babies, to eliminating the babies when they have the nerve to show up despite your “birth control.”
I realize that many women and men will say they don’t see contraception this way, that they are against abortion but still use contraception, but the fact is that contraception has flung open the door to abortion because it’s simply the next logical step. It’s what happens when you abuse the purpose and gift of sex. The Church is absolutely right and Pope Paul VI was a prophet. Everything he said would happen has happened.
the fact is that contraception has flung open the door to abortion because it’s simply the next logical step.
Not when you use contraception AND have respect for human life and familial obligations.
Jen; I’m perfectly willing to rake NFP over the coals in this thread again if you’re going to pretend its practitioners are somehow immune to charges of abusing it the way many Catholics seem to think others use contraception with an “abortion mindset,” or whatever.
Seriously, the bane of this forum is the identification of contraception with abortion. We’ve been told that contracepting is like having gay orgies.
Ludicrous.
The only people who see a huge connection between abortion and contraception are those that are the most extreme in the pro-life and pro-choice movements. I guess that makes me a moderate :)
“We’ve been told that contracepting is like having gay orgies”
rasqual, please tell me this is an exaggeration. Oh who am I kidding, someone actually said this didn’t they?
My goodness! RH surReality Chumps certainly are liberal with their comment removal. It appears they even remove comments from those supporting their position should they be deemed insufficiently eloquent!
That is a laugh riot.
Oh who am I kidding, someone actually said this didn’t they?
Yep. I think a lot of us were dumbfounded by that comment.
This is ludicrous. I think birth control is still murder because it flushes already fertilized eggs from your body but condoms are not the same thing. I am married to my first husband, we have three children and one on the way. However, we will be using condoms after this baby is born. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise since we are not rich and I will not refuse to lay down with my husband just to keep from getting pregnant. That leaves room for temptation and lust to enter into our hearts. I will do what God has told me to do but He has never said to me “Don’t be responsible”
Abortion is related to and the result of what I call “the “Contraceptive Mentality.” (It’s part of what John Paul II called the “Culture of Death”.)
It is the notion that we deserve to have complete control over our bodies and our consequences. It is the notion that we deserve to have sexual relations, even when are not open to receiving new life.
There is a simple reason why Planned Parenthood promotes contraception and abortion: They know that more contraception results in more abortions.
Rasqual — Yes, you are correct. There are many who abuse NFP with the Contraceptive Mentality. They demand control, and are not open to life.
JDC — The contraception/abortion connection was prophesied by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, in 1968. He also predicted that government would get into the business of promoting and eventually coercing contraception.
The gay sex/contraception connection is this: Both relationships are intentionally and unnaturally infertile.
Rasqual, abstaining from sex in order to not conceive a child is not the same as enjoying the pleasure of sex while trying to prevent conception. That’s trying to have your cake and eat it, too. I’ve never said that NFP can’t be used incorrectly, only that it is not the same as using chemicals or barriers to prevent the intended purpose of sex.
Again, this is where the abortion mindset begins. I want sex, but I don’t want babies. So, I’ll find a way to have sex without babies, because I want what I want, when I want it, and I don’t want to make any sacrifices. I shouldn’t have to deny myself what I want just because I don’t want babies. Besides, it’s only responsible of me to make sure that I don’t accidentally create an unwanted baby. And since no one can say no to sex, the only responsible thing to do is to use contraception.
But then, that contraception fails. Now what? Well, I still don’t want babies. Why should I have to sacrifice what I had planned? I never meant to create this baby and it wasn’t my choice. I just wanted sex. It’s my body, and I should still have priority. I don’t want to be pregnant, so I’m not going to be pregnant. It’s settled.
Rasqual, this is just the continuation of contraceptive thinking. Once you separate sex from babies, it’s all downhill from there. Those who use NFP honestly are not separating sex from babies. Abstaining is not contracepting.
“Contraception,” as the name suggests, should prevent conception from occurring. Condoms, diaphragms, NFP (yes, NFP, get over it), and other methods that act by preventing a conception from happening in the first place are good examples. Abortion kills an already conceived child.
So…yeah, not really alike at all in any way whatsoever.
“people are not in a married relationship that desires children then they should not be having sexual intercourse.”
So sex is strictly for procreation. What century are you living in?
“Abortion is a dark decision that a woman must live with for the rest of he life.”
Many women are very open about their abortions and have absolutely no problem with it.
“The Church is absolutely right and Pope Paul VI was a prophet. Everything he said would happen has happened.”
Meanwhile, other faith communities couldn’t disagree more!
And thanks to folks like “Del,” there is a widespread belief, in the pro-choice community (and we are legion) that the pro-life movement also wants to take away our birth control.
“The gay sex/contraception connection is this: Both relationships are intentionally and unnaturally infertile.”
Ah, the Catholic view of women as happy breeders rears its ugly head. I guess even married people, who can’t have more kids for economic or medical reasons, are committing a grievous sin.
” I think birth control is still murder because it flushes already fertilized eggs from your body”
That happens, naturally, during routine menstruation in women who are not using birth control. Oh,nooooo, all those cute little babies getting flushed down the toilet.
Rasqual: “Seriously, the bane of this forum is the identification of contraception with abortion.”
Actually, that’s one of the saving graces for this forum and indeed of the entire pro-life movement.
Contraception and abortion are both ultimately of the same mindset: that of wishing to separate action from consequence. It’s just that the damage of abortion is easier to see in both the short and long term.
But you are correct that declaring otherwise faithful Catholics (or anyone else, for that matter) to be “immune to charges of abusing [NFP]” is sadly untrue. For too many, it’s merely their version of condoms and they’ve completely missed (or ignored) the point.
Also Rasqual: “We’ve been told that contracepting is like having gay orgies.”
Perhaps not in form (or number, I would hope), but they are similar in function and intention in enough important ways for comparisons to be made.
(and no, I’m not saying that contracepting makes you homosexual or an advocate of group sex)
JDC: “The only people who see a huge connection between abortion and contraception are those that are the most extreme in the pro-life and pro-choice movements.”
So basically, at least all faithful Catholics along with a number of groups who are now seeing that Humanae Vitae wasn’t just a shot in the dark? That’s a pretty big swath, JDC.
How much of the movement must we comprise before we become the moderates and you unfortunately become the merely lukewarm? 51%? 75%?
I have some personal squeamishness about artificial contraception, but I’m not wagging my finger at those who use it. They’re on the same side of the coin only in that the goal with both is not to have a newborn. One (if it is true contraception) will prevent a new life from beginning (hence my squeamishness); the other ends a human being’s life that has already begun. Large difference.
I think the point here is that this Marge Berer is saying, “Hey, if you believe in contraception, gang, you should accept abortion with no reservations whatsoever.
Rasqual: “Seriously, the bane of this forum is the identification of contraception with abortion.”
I believe the bane of this forum is the hostility to homosexuality. No one opts for gay sex because (s)he’s trying not to have a baby.
My bible says to me that my body belongs not to me but to my husband and likewise his belongs to me and the only reason for abstaining is for prayer and meditation and then we are to come back together. That women are being libeled that if they get pregnant while using a condom that they will abort is a ridiculous and extremist view. If I got pregnant despite the use of a condom I would see it as a gift from God, that apparently He still saw fit to give me another child. I would never kill my child. That’s outrageous.
Oh my goodness, Chris and Rasqual! I laughed so hard at your first two comments…
Like guns, like food, like really anything, most BC (or maybe rather the act of contracepting) is not in and of itself a bad thing. It’s the intention of those using it, and how it is used. Arguably, there could be health considerations. But I don’t think people who drink coke are sinning just because it’s not the healthiest beverage of choice. I don’t personally use the hormonal contraceptive because I hated the way it made me feel and I don’t like the thought of pumping all those artificial hormones in my body…
But the fact that me and my husband do use contraception of some sort does not make us evil or bad. We are open to life. We recognize that God can overcome the barriers if He wants us to have children, and we will welcome any children He blesses us with.
Folks, it’s the attitude, not the method. Yes, for people who are having promiscuous sex, BC can make it easier, but I think they’d figure out a way to have sex flippantly anyway. I think general societal attitudes have more to do with a culture of flippant sex than BC.
And thanks to folks like “Del,” there is a widespread belief, in the pro-choice community (and we are legion) that the pro-life movement also wants to take away our birth control.
W.O.W. Do you know where that phrase originates from?
He asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “Legion is my name. There are many of us.” Mark 5:9
What women flush during menstration is NOT fertilized eggs! And btw I’m not Catholic so they probably already think I’m doomed to hell.
Folks, it’s the attitude, not the method.
No. Intention and method are both important. Otherwise, what’s wrong with euthanasia? Or suicide? The intent is to eliminate suffering, yes?
Hey Raven, I like your points! :) God did give sex to married couples as an expression of love for each other and as a glorification of Him. And I agree that we are not to withhold ourselves from each other except for a mutually agreed upon time of prayer. I’d like to know what our Catholic brothers and sisters think of that verse.
And wow, no offense, but you who so blithely condemn all forms of contraception as an “abortion mentality” are really alienating those who are on your side. I respect your beliefs, I really do, but I think it’s cruel and false to call Christians. pro-life Christians, who use contraception as being evil. Is it really so impossible to believe that we can make decisions about being stewards of what God has given us (waiting to have children), and yet also being willing to accept any surprise babies as a delightful surprise? So maybe our faith is weaker than yours; you’re not exactly doing a good job of encouraging those who might be struggling in this area!
And it’s absolutely preposterous for you to say that in “function” a contracepting straight, married couple is the same as a gay couple! It’s not the same thing at all.
Besides, I’m pretty sure that the motivation of homosexuals to engage in that type of sexual relationship is not contraception.
“And btw I’m not Catholic so they probably already think I’m doomed to hell. ”
Seriously, let’s all clam down. The hysteria that ensues on BOTH sides whenever contraception’s possible connection to abortion is brought up is out of control. Let’s try and listen to each other and respond in charity, knowing that those on both sides are only seeking to do God’s will and would rather die than do anything that displeases God, whether that be sinning by using artificial contraception if it is inherently evil or sinning against the truth by falsely claiming that something good that God has given us (contraception) is evil.
Exactly Jen. And just because many people on this board who use contraception would NOT take that next step to abortion (ie they think their responsibility kicks in once a life is created – and truly thank God they see the difference – I’m not downplaying that), does not mean that the contraceptive mentality you describe has not completely pervaded our culture. Our culture has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the lie that sex can be divorced from the consequences of children as long as you’re “safe” (ie use contraception). This dramatically increases people’s feelings that pregnancy is something that just unfairly “happened” to them, through no fault or negligence of their own. I have even heard people say (with straight faces), that a woman who got pregnant while using contraception is justified in getting an abortion b/c it’s not her fault, while condemning the same action if the woman was not using contraception b/c she was irresponsible and just using abortion as birth control. This is not an uncommon thought pattern.
I’m not saying contracepting is the same as having an abortion. There is a CLEAR CLEAR distinction there. But the contraceptive mentality DOES exist and DOES pave the way for many (not all) people to lower their moral reluctance toward abortion.
As for the NFP v. contraception argument, I think it’s related to the overall argument about the dignity of the human person and a properly ordered view of sexuality. BUT as we see, there are people who do contracept and still abhor abortion so the question of the morality of contraception in and of itself can be a separate debate as long as those who support it don’t expect those who do NOT to embrace it as part of an effort to reduce abortion. That will never happen.
I think they’re both banes, myself.
Lrning, while I agree with you, you did take one teensy line from my whole post. I’m not saying that in everything intention and method are the same. Heck, if that was true, I’d be pro-abortion! My baby is going to suffer? Just send her to heaven now!
I’m saying that certain things, in and of themselves, are not inherently bad or good. They are. Guns are not evil.
If I use a gun for hunting and feed my family, that is a good use for it. If I use my gun for killing another person, that is evil.
It’s the people who use things, not the things themselves. Again, in all instances this isn’t the case. But I believe in the case of contraception, this is the case.
There’s a world of difference between a girl getting on birth control at 16 so she can bang whoever she wants and not have to deal with the consequences and a married couple who don’t think it’s the right time to have babies yet, but still recognize the very real possibility of having a baby and welcoming that possibility.
Hi LibertyBelle.
“And I agree that we are not to withhold ourselves from each other except for a mutually agreed upon time of prayer. I’d like to know what our Catholic brothers and sisters think of that verse.”
Catholics would agree with that verse. When they choose not to come together to avoid conception, it is an agreed upon time. This is roughly 3-4 days a month. To sum: a couple who practices NFP (not just Catholics BTW) mutually agrees to withhold themselves from each other for 3-4 days of the month in order to avoid pregnancy, certainly in line with St Paul’s teaching here. God love you.
BANE!!! I like that word. hahaha
LibertyBelle says:
I’m saying that certain things, in and of themselves, are not inherently bad or good.
I know. You’re saying that contraception, in and of itself, is not inherently good or bad, it’s the intention that matters. And I don’t agree. But while I believe there is a link between contraception and abortion, I also recognize that many pro-contraception people are anti-abortion. And I happily stand side-by-side with them to fight the evil of abortion.
Hey Bobby, Thanks! I was genuinely wondering what the Catholic teaching was on this (I have many Catholic family members, but tend not to discuss things like sexuality with them… Doesn’t make great dinner conversation with your grandparents haha).
Yeah I can see that point. My parents are Protestants and they practiced NFP as contraception. It’s a great option. :)
Lrning, Sounds good. Just so we understand each other. Just wanted to make sure you know I’m not some sort of moral relativist!
Our disagreement comes down to whether or not contraception itself is bad. And we can politely agree to disagree and stand side-by-side in the fight against the wanton killing of babies. I’m cool with that if you are. :)
The only people who see a huge connection between abortion and contraception are those that are the most extreme in the pro-life and pro-choice movements.
We now know that Catholics who actually follow what the Catholic Church teaches are extreme pro-lifers according to JDC, but who else is lumped in with these extremists? Who else are you thinking of when you say extreme pro-lifer, JDC?
And btw I’m not Catholic so they probably already think I’m doomed to hell.
And btw Catholics don’t already think you or any one else is doomed to hell and it gets old reading the Catholic bashing. We already have joan and CC for that for crying in the rain.
That leaves room for temptation and lust to enter into our hearts.
Not trusting that your spouse can’t go a few days a month without sex will cause communication and trust issues in the long run.
The last time I debated this topic with rasqual, I agreed to disagree with him. I don’t agree with his perception that he raked NFP over the coals but it’s his story and I’m sure he’ll stick to it. I personally wasn’t out to rake anything over anything and that is probably where he and I are quite different.
I respect everyone’s right here to not believe that there is a correlation between contraception and abortion. I am asking the same respect be given to those of us who believe that there is one.
The only people who see a huge connection between abortion and contraception are those that are the most extreme in the pro-life and pro-choice movements.
We now know that Catholics who actually follow what the Catholic Church teaches are extreme pro-lifers according to JDC, but who else is lumped in with these extremists? Who else are you thinking of when you say extreme pro-lifer, JDC?
And btw I’m not Catholic so they probably already think I’m doomed to hell.
And btw Catholics don’t already think you or any one else is doomed to hell and it gets old reading the Catholic bashing. We already have joan and CC for that for crying in the rain.
That leaves room for temptation and lust to enter into our hearts.
Not trusting that your spouse can’t go a few days a month without sex will cause communication and trust issues in the long run.
The last time I debated this topic with rasqual, I agreed to disagree with him. I don’t agree with his perception that he raked NFP over the coals but it’s his story and I’m sure he’ll stick to it. I personally wasn’t out to rake anything over anything and that is probably where he and I are quite different.
I respect everyone’s right here to not believe that there is a correlation between contraception and abortion. I am asking the same respect be given to those of us who believe that there is one.
lol at the comments on that post. These people are barely coherent. No wonder they can support such asinine, unscientific positions.
“I have many Catholic family members, but tend not to discuss things like sexuality with them… Doesn’t make great dinner conversation with your grandparents haha”
Nah, go for it! Take em to task! I think I heard once (though this is really shady and I couldn’t confirm this with an internet search) that Protestant Jerry Falwell called out Catholic Bill O’Reily for O’Reily somehow dissenting from the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control. I don’t know whether or not Falwell agreed with the Catholic Church, but I thought it was really cool that from the outside Falwell could recognize that it isn’t a noble thing to be a professing Catholic and rebel against its teachings. Again, not sure if this is true, and maybe I have names mixed up, but the story illustrates my point nonetheless.
Oh, I should also add in regards to that 1 Cor 7 verse, though. There are exceptions to it that are not mentioned by St Paul, but that he clearly would agree with- point being that we should not understand that verse to mean “one spouse wants sex so the other one needs to give it to them.” When women are experiencing menstruation, it usually isn’t a good idea to engage in the conjugal act as one normally would, at least not initially. But in this situation, both parties may desire to engage in the act but choose not to for a greater good. Or we can look at the case of a woman who has just delivered a baby vaginally or by C-section. Usually it is at least 6 weeks before she can engage in teh sexual act, and so the couple must show restraint during those 6 weeks even though they both may very much desire to perform the conjugal act. They could even be on the point of “burning with desire” for one another, but I would be quite sure that St Paul would not recommend engaging in the sexual act in that case and possibly damaging the woman’s vaginal area (or whatever).
So these would be a couple of things I would keep in mind when understanding 1 Cor 7.
Alice, sorry but NFP is not contraception, since there is no act of sex to attempt to make unfertile. Without sex, obviously there’s no conception. Contra-ception is trying to have the sex act without it’s natural, intended results. It’s trying to subvert the purpose of sex while still enjoying its pleasure.
LibertyBelle, I’ll go a step further with Bobby’s response and ask, if married couples are contracepting, are they truly “coming together”? Are they not withholding something very intimate from each other by making their union sterile on purpose? I’ll give you most of me, but not the part that may create new life.” This is another reason why the Church says no to contraception. The union of husband and wife should be total, complete, and without restriction. When they come together, they give of themselves entirely to each other, holding nothing back. They are open to each other and open to life.
And before someone screeches that according to the Church infertile couples must somehow be living in perpetual sin because they can’t conceive, get a grip. We’re talking about artificially intentionally preventing conception while still using sex for pleasure, not infertility that’s beyond someone’s choice or control. The Church knows the difference, and has never anywhere said otherwise. If you’re going to attempt to bash the Catholic Church, you’re going to have to do it honestly, folks.
And thanks to folks like “Del,” there is a widespread belief, in the pro-choice community (and we are legion) that the pro-life movement also wants to take away our birth control.
My name is Del, so there is no need for scare quotes.
And Obama’s minions are the only ones who are talking about banning contraception. They say that Republicans want to ban it. Don’t be as foolish as the pro-choice legion in believing that big lie.
Ok, if you’re pro-life and contracept, you must understand that if the method “fails” you better plan the baby shower.
If you’re not pro-life and you contracept, riddle me this: If you had a sinus condition (be it allergies or whatever) and you buy a product to use for your sinusitis, it might cost $12. Just an example. Now, say that product works fairly well, 85% of the time. When it “fails”, you now are faced with having to go to an office where a trained technician will, for the price of about $400, perform an extremely painful and bloody procedure on you.
Would you really fight for the ”right” to be traumatized for hundreds of dollars when you already paid for a product that was supposed to prevent it?? You would really fight for that, rather than EXPECT and demand from the marketplace a better sinus product?
Cuz that’s what you’re looking like, pro-choicers, and you, as I said above, now want MY tax money to do it.
LOL Bobby! Well if Falwell did in fact call OReilly out on that, good for him! Sure, I’ll talk to them about it. :) I don’t actually have much contact with that side of the family (not by choice; rather, as a tragedy of modern life, we are scattered across the US making it difficult to see each other much). But I appreciate our reasoned discussion, Bobby!
And yes, I concur that there may be other times when the spouses can agree not to engage in physical intimacy other than prayer. If my husband is just too tired/feeling ill, I’m not going to pull out the Bible, open to 1 Cor 7 and berate him for withholding from me. ;)
There’s a lot to keep in mind when reading the whole Bible, in fact. One could spend ones whole life studying the Word and still never cease being mystified. I do believe Paul was more discussing a spirit of “Oh, I see, you say something wrong, I’m going to not let you have me. Fine.” ;)
Dear Jen, please understand that I have a very dear friend who, although he is Protestant, holds to your same view in regards to fertility, marriage, and sex. And my husband and I have spent hours upon hours discussing and debating with him regarding this issue. And my answer to your argument is this: I’ve made love with my husband with and without contraception. And I can honestly say we gave ourselves completely, wholly, to one another in both instances. We’re going to have to agree to disagree that using contraception diminishes the union between a husband and wife.
You make it sound as if a person who uses contraception is sneakily withholding something from their spouse on purpose – and that, dear Jen, is simply not true. You can hold to your belief, okay, but don’t say that by trying to prevent the sperm from uniting with the ovum, a couple is not truly giving themselves to each other and that somehow their love is diminished. Invalidating someone’s marital love is a pretty hefty, harmful thing to level at people.
I respect your Catholic faith; I don’t bash it, I don’t call you out for what you believe that I disagree with. Why would you level such an accusation at those who believe so differently from you?
I wish people would call it what it really is. Choice implies that they support women whether those choose life or abortion. They are pro-abortion or pro-murder. I heard no cries of outrage from the “pro-choice” community when Feng Jianmei was forced to abort her 7 month pregnancy while tied to a bed. Her choice was taken from her. Where was the “pro-CHOICE” community then. They only care about women who choose murder over life. I won’t even go into how much our President sets aside annually to help fund Chinas family planning which is responsible for these forced abortions.
“Contraception and abortion are both ultimately of the same mindset: that of wishing to separate action from consequence.”
And abstinence timed with NFP is seeking to avoid conception. It is contra – ception. “We don’t want a baby now.” And couples avoiding conception that way are expending much more effort than couples using a condom. They’re conspiring over periods of weeks and months to be as closed to life as good science makes possible. They’re no more “open to life” than someone casually donning a condom. I fail to see how this veritable plotting, this conspiracy, to avoid conception somehow sanctifies the conception-evasive practices of the conspirators. It’s like a major operation leveled against God’s intentions.
Jen: “Rasqual, abstaining from sex in order to not conceive a child is not the same as enjoying the pleasure of sex while trying to prevent conception.” Right, it’s worse. It’s abstaining from relational intimacy — God’s gift — because you selfishly wish to have no conception. It’s conspiratorially timing the reception of God’s gift to coincide with infertile times. It’s planning, plotting, using science to thwart God’s intention. It’s “open to life” only in the “oops, that thermometer must be broke — oh well, yay, a baby!” way. But that’s the same way in which contracepting pro-lifers are open to life. Yet self-righteous NFP practitioners demonize contracepting couples as if NFP sanctified their active, conspiratorial avoidance of conception.
“Again, this is where the abortion mindset begins. I want sex, but I don’t want babies.”
Rank hypocrisy. Why do NFP at all? Just abstain from sex entirely. “But we want sex.”
Seriously. I’m accusing you of utter, self-righteous hypocrisy. How is what you’re saying not so?
Abstaining IS contracepting. It’s doing over a period of weeks what someone using a condom decides in minutes. NFP is not less dire for being more of a long-term conspiracy and less casual. It’s more dire, more an offense against God’s plan for sex, marriage, and offspring.
All this hypocrisy does is make it obvious to non-Catholics that some Catholics are self-righteous. It’s then easy to dismiss pro-life belief as mere bigotry. I’m not Catholic-bashing with that remark; I would not “bash” Catholics. I’m absolutely bashing self-righteous hypocrisy.
“It’s more dire, more an offense against God’s plan for sex, marriage, and offspring.”
You’ve said this before, but you haven’t proven your case.
LibertyBelle, I leveled no personal accusations. I do not at all mean to diminish the love between spouses, including spouses who use contraception. I don’t know their hearts.
I’m simply pointing out the fact that when we purposely try to make our lovemaking sterile through contraception, we are in fact withholding something. We are taking advantage of the pleasure and bonding of sexual intercourse while doing everything in our power to make it a sterile act (no conception). We understand the procreative purpose and design of sexual intercourse, yet we are thwarting that purpose intentionally. We are not participating in it completely.
That’s not an accusation toward anyone, it’s just the fact. I’m not saying that as a judgment statement or a defamation of anyone’s marital union; again, it’s just the fact. It may be an uncomfortable fact, but it’s still a fact. I meant no offense or insult, believe me.
@Jen: rasqual covered most of what I have to say on this subject, so my point will be short. NFP is a contraception method. It simply uses biology to arrive at the goal of timing when pregnancy does or doesn’t occur. This idea that it is somehow superior to use biology to time a pregnancy, versus some other, non-abortifacient technique, is double-minded. The one is no more superior to the other, provided no unborn children are harmed by either.
That is the whole point. Not to harm the innocent. You can not harm someone who is not conceived. It is irrelevant whether your method of not-conceiving is NFP or a condom, the result of not harming an innocent party is accomplished in both cases.
Rasqual, get angry much? Good grief, you don’t even know me.
By your reasoning, celibate religious are abstaining from the gift of relational intimacy and somehow committing an offense? Yes, sex is a great gift, but choosing to abstain from it is not an offense against the gift or God.
There are many serious and legitimate reasons for a couple not to conceive, and so to practice NFP. Which I will continue to maintain is NOT the same thing as enjoying sex while trying to make that sex unfertile through contraception. That you refuse to see the difference there is telling.
It’s not much different than realizing that if you don’t want to gain a hundred pounds, you’d better not eat all that cake and ice cream to your heart’s content. Likewise, if you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.
I’m not denying that NFP can be used with a contraceptive mindset that is not open to new life. Of course it can! NFP can also be used with a heart that is truly, desperately seeking God’s will over our own, navigating difficult circumstances in which things are not crystal clear. Yes, conception is prevented for a time, but the method DOES matter. It takes considerable grace, sacrifice, and self-control for a married couple to abstain from the pleasure of sex because of their grave reasons, rather than just satisfy their bodily desires while at the same time doing their level best not to have any “consequences.”
You are presumptuous and arrogant to assign me the label of self-righteous hypocrite when you know nothing at all about me.
Jen, you did say “I’ll go a step further with Bobby’s response and ask, if married couples are contracepting, are they truly “coming together”?” Which maybe is not a direct accusation, but is an accusation for anyone who is married and uses contraception: ie, me and anyone else in my situation on this board. So even if you meant no offense, that is what your words implied, unfortunately. By saying that contraception diminishes the quality of lovemaking between two spouses, you are in fact invalidating their love (or at least their physical love). But if you meant no offense, none taken.
Well, I have to disagree with you that this is a “fact.” I fail to see how on earth choosing to abstain during fertile periods is any less contraception than choosing to prevent those sperms from uniting with an ovum. And I don’t see how that diminishes the quality of the lovemaking, I really don’t. So we’ll simply have to agree to let it go. When a husband and wife make love, contracepting or not, I believe that whether or not they are totally giving themselves to each other is a matter of heart and soul. I understand the arguments about how you shouldn’t have the pleasure of sex without the possibility of life, bu there’s *always* a possibility of life; and people get that. It’s okay. God is bigger than contraception.
I just think you absolutely cannot say that just because someone’s method of contraception is not NFP (which is contraception), they are less open to life. So many Christian pro-lifers who use contraception would gladly welcome a surprise baby, and in fact, many want the babies, but because of the resources and their attempts to be good stewards of what God has given them, they may have discerned that now is not the ideal time to bring new life into the world. However, so many of these couples would be thrilled should God give them a child.
Rasqual
“It’s more dire, more an offense against God’s plan for sex, marriage, and offspring.”
Lrning
You’ve said this before, but you haven’t proven your case.
Indeed. I do not understand the reasoning behind Rasqual’s conclusion. It sounds like Rasqual believes that sex is a necessary part of God’s plan, and we offend God by abstaining for a time. But accepting children is an option that we can turn off medically, and this interference does not offend God’s plan at all.
Alice, sorry, but just not true.
Abstinence: refraining from the action that allows conception to take place.
Contraception: engaging in the action that allows conception to take place while using chemicals or barriers to prevent conception.
NOT THE SAME THING.
Except that you aren’t refraining from the action, are you? Not entirely. You still have sex with your husband, you just avoid the most fertile periods. Which, as I said, is still trying to time out pregnancy/lack-of-same, but just uses biology as the mechanism. Your distinction here is very semantic, so, yeah, I’m sticking to my guns on this one.
I apparently cannot “like” other people’s comments from an iPhone but I just wanted to say thank you to LibertyBelle for so thoroughly explaining the point I was trying to make and doing so in a gentle manner. I pray that God would grant me the humility to face (indirect) accusations the way you have. Abortion is one area that raises my haunches and I could definitely afford to be more humble.
Raven, thanks! :) But trust me I could be more humble too… Thankfully, we’re talking about contraception, not abortion. It’s much harder for me to discuss abortion than methods of avoiding pregnancy. ;) It just annoys me a little when people try to say that by using a barrier method, I’m somehow withholding myself from my husband. Sigh. But it’s just a big difference in the way we view it, you know? It’s not one of those cut and dry, salvation issues, I’m not going to get too worked up about it. I’ve prayed with my husband about this and I’m confident we’re making a God-honoring choice.
Alice, I 100% agree.
I think I could have kept my cool if it wasn’t said that those that use barrier methods would then abort if they got pregnant. It has the same effect on me as if they had set fire to my hair. My children are a God given blessing that doctors told me if I tried to carry they would kill me. God knew better and guess what? I didn’t die :) I abhor abortion so I admit I lost it a little so I do apologize but I will not be lumped together with abortionists.
Alice, yes, you’re right. I still have sex with my husband, just not when we are most likely to conceive based on my cycle. That’s true.
But it’s not merely a semantic difference. Engaging in sex while actively working to prevent it’s natural outcome is NOT the same thing as refraining from sex because you’re trying not to conceive. We’re not demanding to have our cake and eat it, too. We’re choosing to sacrifice the bodily pleasure because we have grave reasons for not having another child. The integrity of the marital act as God designed it is not being compromised. It’s cooperating and working with the natural fertile cycle, not working against it or trying to subvert it. That is NOT the same thing as Pills and condoms.
It’s like the diet pills that say you can still eat whatever you want and this magic pill will keep you from getting fat. It’s incongruent thinking. If you’re trying to keep a healthy weight, then you know you must control your diet. Likewise, why do we have some “right” to enjoy sex while refusing or trying to subvert its intended purpose? When married couples abstain for a time, it’s an act of sacrifice and reverence for the gift of marital love, life, the human body, etc. At least that’s what it should be. That’s the goal. That’s what we aim for.
Hey Jen,
I think what we’re all a little irked about is that you appear to pass judgement on our sex lives. We (at least I) think it’s great that you use NFP for all the reasons you stated. Me, I’m still learning my cycle because after a bout of intense stress about a year ago, my cycle’s been going haywire. So I’m actually learning NFP and will use the diaphragm on fertile period (I know, many Catholics do not think this is NFP). However, what I don’t appreciate, is taking your belief about something that is not in the Bible and passing judgement on our relationships with our spouses for using contraception.
It’s the language you use; instead of saying “We do this because x, y, z and I think this is beneficial” you say “All couples who use something other than NFP are withholding intimacy from each other.” Ouch!
I really don’t think that it’s anyone’s place to tell married couples who use contraception that their lovemaking is less legitimate than someone else’s (and some even go so far as equating it with homosexual acts, which is in the Bible and spoken against there). most of us who use contraception are not under the authority of the Catholic Church, and we believe we answer directly to God. So the fundamental authority that you’re using for your argument does not apply to us, dear Jen. I know it’s very different for both of us, I just ask that you avoid language that paints couples who use contraception as somehow less than those use NFP or don’t even try. We’ll answer to God for our choices, so please leave it at that.
But it’s not the same thing as diet pills because, for one thing, a baby isn’t bad for your health (as being overweight is).
And anyway, I believe that if God really wanted us to be pregnant, He could overcome any barriers we put up.
:) that’s what we aim for too, dear Jen, just in different ways. I seek to respect my body and my husbands and honor life, love, and the human body and God’s design for that to the best of my ability. :)
“Not entirely. You still have sex with your husband, you just avoid the most fertile periods. Which, as I said, is still trying to time out pregnancy/lack-of-same, but just uses biology as the mechanism.”
Exactly – there is a natural God given fertility cycle. To understand that and respect your sexuality in light of it is not the same thing as trying to subvert your body’s mechanisms so that you can divorce an activity from its natural consequences. To take the food analogy further it’s like saying binging and purging is no different than a healthy diet if your goal is to maintain your body weight. One just happens to work with the natural biological mechanism of metabolism. The problem is that the spiritual health ramifications of contracepting are not always as readily apparent, so it can very easily feel like no big deal. Same outcome, so what’s the biggie. Again, this is not to say that NFP cannot be used with a contraceptive intention. It can, just as rigorous healthy eating can be used to satisfy psychological control issues (which would be just as unhealthy as the binging-purging). Intent AND method matter.
Artificial birth control takes a perfectly functioning organ and disables it. How is that cooperating with God?? Most medicines fix poorly functioning organs.
How is Jen passing judgement on anybody’s sex life? She’s speaking in general, objective terms, not specific ones.
Kudos, Jen, on giving a very good explanation as to the difference between NFP and contraception.
Alice, think of it this way. You know the abortion proponents who claim that there’s no difference between a miscarriage and an abortion becuse the end result is the same? That’s basically how you’re thinking about NFP and contraception.
You seem to be saying that since the end result is the same (avoiding pregnancy) then the means are also be the same. But they’re very, very different. NFP works with the body’s natural fertility cycle, and contraception works against it.
@JoAnna: I disagree. With your premise, your example, and your conclusion. For all the reasons I have previously stated. But, at this point, the conversation can only devolve into you defending the semantic argument and me getting even more angry at you comparing me to a pro-abort (honestly, it is a major act of self-control that I am not tearing into you right now, and I’m only not doing that because I quite like you generally and I’m hoping you didn’t spot that implication before you hit post), and I see no point in continuing it. Suffice to say, you’re not going to sell me on any of the points that you’ve made and I stand by all of mine. Good day.
Good heavens, Alice. I wasn’t comparing you to a pro-abortion supporter, I was comparing the two mindsets. I wish you could explain, logically, how the mindsets are different, because to me they seem very similar indeed.
LibertyBelle, truly I am not passing judgment on anyone’s sex life, and I really don’t see where or how I did that. I’m sorry if that’s what you heard, but it’s not what I said. I am simply explaining what the Church teaches and why, and how it relates to the RH quote above. I was not indicting anyone in particular. Yes, I asked a provocative question. It’s worthy of discussion. I’m trying as dispassionately as possible to explain that contraception and abortion are inseparably linked. It’s a very touchy subject, certainly, but we can’t just dismiss it.
I’m sorry if my remarks have irked you. I have nothing but admiration and respect for the folks here who defend the child in the womb, including you. I hope the feeling is mutual. I will take all the references to “dear Jen” as affectionate rather than patronizing. :)
CT, Karen, and JoAnna, thanks! :)
It has been brought to my attention that one of my above posts contained an exceptionally poor choice of words. I merely meant to point out that there are elements in both the pro-life and pro-choice communities who see a connection between contraception and abortion and that I felt it was generally the more conservative members of the former group and the more liberal members of the latter group. I was not trying to insult pro-life Catholics, of whom I have the deepest respect. I sincerely apologize to anyone who may have been offended.
Can a mature person please explain how a person who is in the act of contracepting views sexuality and procreation? Does contracpeting during (or immediately before) sex involve making a split in one’s thinking? Is this healthy? Does contracepting influence they way a person views their partner? Does contraception influence or cahnge a person’s sexual behavior? Is there a subtle difference between NFP and technological contraception that might allow a person to avoid having this split in one’s thinking (if it is there)? Are all the “means” of contracepting of equal value, morally licit, and spiritually uniting?
There are contraceptives that technically kill the embryo and shouldn’t properly be called contraceptives; however, that is not what I am trying to get at. I am trying to understand the mentality of the person who contracepts, whther that person uses a condom, an IUD, oral contraception, or RU486.
Haha, I loved that whole comparing people who use contraception to people having gay orgies thing. That was one of my favorite threads ever. So ridiculous.
Rasqual and Alice
I don’t think I can improve on Jen’s fine responses. I would only like to shift the emphasis a little bit. Rather than simply trying to compare “contraceptive” methods (and Iwill include NFP in that label for argument’s sake) I would like to focus on how the people who use the various contraceptive methods view the sexual act itself and new life. Catholics who practice NFP view the sexual act as something sacred that involves three participants: the wife, the husband, and God. God’s “role” in this union is to threefold: fidelity, sacramental, and procreative. The sexual union represents a fidelity which is to say that each partner recognizes the weakness of other partner to their own sexual desires. Each partner says to other my body is yours, I give it up for you (not to be to blasephous), and I will not give it to any other. Each partner accepts the other’s body, implying that don’t want that body to go to another – please remain faithful to me. The sexual act is sacramental in that it takes place within a marriage, which is sign of Christ bringing all the tribes of Israel into one Church. The procreative part reflects the fruit of the sacramental union, showing it to be Holy. Children are blessing from God, so their creation is of utmost value. Catholics cannot risk destroying these creatures if we honour our God – for us, there is no room for any error, not matter how small. It is on this last point, that Jen’s differentiation between abstinence and contraception becomes clear. No matter what technological contraception is used their is always risk that new life will be created during a sexual union where the people’s intentions were not to have children, there can be no such risk when a couple abstains. The intentions of the couple matter for Catholics, because they believe intentions matter to God.
I am sorry if this is all very confusing and poorly written. The beauty that the sex life is supposed to be for a Catholic couple is a difficult idea to get across.
I’m just glad that RH Reality Check admits that the pro-aborts think abortion is just another back-up for failed birth control, and we all need more of it.
Meh. Here’s my 2 “Protestant” cents. I think NFP is wonderful. It is 100% natural and free. However, it absolutely is a form of birth control.
Condoms are what my Catholic husband and I choose to use. As a woman I love them. Less mess etc… but using latex condoms can cause health problems if used longterm so user beware.
I am against the pill because of it’s detrimental effects on women and because it can cause failed implantation of a newly conceived human.
As far as what Jen and other Catholics say…well, let them say it. They are entitled to share their opinions. I don’t get upset. It doesn’t bother me in the least that they think my husband and I are not coming together. They’re not in the bedroom with my hubby and I so I don’t care at all what they think. And I don’t hate them that they think that way about us who use contraception. If they think that way, fine. I’ll keep on using a barrier method with my husband. Ironically, I would love to use no bc and have like 7 babies but my husband isn’t too keen about that. However, we did have birth control failure with our oldest and we didn’t ever even THINK about aborting.
The church I go to is Baptist and it is amazing how many families don’t use any contraception. It used to be a big thing in the Baptist church to be on the pill etc… but lately I’ve seen more and more “Protestants” stepping back from bc. And thats fine for them. I don’t judge couples either way.
Karen, how is using a condom “disabling” my husband’s penis? Trust me, it ain’t disabling it! lol.
I really don’t think the God that parted the Red Sea is wringing His hands over a piece of latex. If He wants to bless us with another baby He will.
Most of the contraceptives used today are abortiicients. And wow, no offense, but you who so blithely condemn all forms of contraception as an “abortion mentality” are really alienating those who are on your side. I respect your beliefs, I really do, but I think it’s cruel and false to call Christians. pro-life Christians, who use contraception as being evil.
I would not say they were evil. As for hormonal contraception I would say that breakaway ovulation is occurring and they are conceiving and the hormones are disrupting the woman’s biorhythm and preventing the implantation of the embryo. A secondary effect that pro-life Christians conveniently place aside.
but I think it’s cruel and false to call Christians. pro-life Christians, who use contraception as being evil.
Did anyone here actually call another prolife Christian evil? I can’t find where they did and my apologies if I am wrong.
I really don’t think the God that parted the Red Sea is wringing His hands over a piece of latex. If He wants to bless us with another baby He will.
Sydney, Even if He did, you would call it a bc failure. Studies are finding benefits that the husband’s “mess” provides for the well-being of their wives. As a woman, I sure hope my husband doesn’t consider any part of my fertility a mess.
Hey Jen,
It absolutely was an affectionate use not patronizing! :) I really do respect your beliefs, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I understand what your argument is now – I just don’t agree with it.
So I’m willing to still be friends. :) And yes, I absolutely admire all who fight against abortion – regardless of their views on contraception, etc.
Sorry I got worked up – it’s a hard thing to swallow when it seems like someone is indicating that my husband and I don’t fully come together just because we use a barrier method. But it’s not a big deal in the end. :)
Sydney, I appreciate your balanced view on the subject. I concede that if a person strictly looks at the end result of ”birth control” methods then clearly NFP would have to be included as a birth control method since birth is controlled. Indeed, looking at the end results of each birth control method can illuminate many important differences, such as the difference between barrier contraceptive methods (such as condoms) and birth control methods that are actually abortifacients like RU486. However, in my opinion, people should try to look at more than just the end results of the birth control methods. Life requires us to be have more nuanced persepctive on birth control methods. We need to look at the means of the birth control methods as well. With the means of the various birth control methods in mind it would be difficult for NFP to be considered a contraceptive because one would have to consider the time a person spends not engaging in sexual activity, such as going to work, as a birth control method as well. But to consider going to work a contraceptive method would be stretching the truth – work is not a birth control method. For Catholics, NFP is more akin to work than it is to using a condom.
The NFP method recognizes that human beings are complex creatures and that sexual intimacy, although important, is only one part of the marriage relationship. NFP encourages the couple to communicate so that each person in the relationship is looking out for all of the needs of their partner.
This is not to say that the people who use a barrier method can’t or don’t look out for all the needs of their partner but that the use of such methods might introduce obstacles to beneficial discussions that would help the marired couple have a more mature, fulfilling and loving relationship. The use barrier methods can change the way people look at the sexual act, and can foster an outlook that the marital act is merely a form of recreational activity or exercise, devoid of any spiritual meaning.
Sadly, many Catholics were taught, incorrectly, that the choice to use contraception, was a matter of conscience. This is not what the Church teaches. Sydney, you might want, at an appropriate time, to discuss the Catholic’s view on contraception with your husband to ensure that he understands that using a Condom is not consistent with the Church’s teaching on life issues.
By the way, thanks for pointing out that longterm use of latex condoms can cause health problems.
Of all the contraceptive methods available (excluding NFP as a contraceptive method) barrier methods (such as condoms) are probably the methods least likely to foster an abortion mentality. However, the Catholic Church doesn’t just want the Catholic couple to not have an abortion mentality. The Catholic Church wants the couple to trust as much as they can in God’s Grace, and accept the beauty and responsibility of all of his creation.
<somewhat aside from topic>
“Condoms are what my Catholic husband and I choose to use.”
Sydney, as a practicing Catholic, I must regretfully inform you that, in this case, your husband must choose between either using condoms or being Catholic. There is no compromise available in this and any that he claims to have found will simply mean that he has chosen to put his Catholic faith aside.
And before you or anyone else jumps down my throat accusing me of being spiteful, arrogant, or of declaring your husband to be a bad person, let me be clear; I have not and will not make any judgement regarding your husband’s character (at least, not without more information that’s really none of my business), but rather I am simply drawing your attention to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If he doesn’t want to follow it, that is and always will be his choice to make, but if he believes these two are reconcilable, then he clearly does not know the Church’s teachings in this matter. He should inform himself of the Church’s stance and decide if he still wishes to be Catholic.
(and just to address how the term CINO – Catholic In Name Only – applies here, since it may come up in future conversation)
Sydney, we hear a lot about people claiming to be Catholic while living in obvious and direct contradiction to said claim, and we rightly call them CINO’s and they are stigmatized. What a lot of people understandably may not realize is that this particular stigma is not due to their actions in and of themselves but rather from their continued insistence – even after being clearly (and often publicly) informed otherwise – that their actions and their claims can co-exist.
In other words, it has nothing to do with the exact nature of the two conflicting aspects of their lives; they are in essence living a lie and they and we all know it.
In the case of your husband, though, it is easily possible (and I sincerely hope that it’s true) that he has simply not been told what the Church’s teachings are regarding contraception, and thus he is unaware of the incongruity of his actions. It is for this reason that I will not say anything against him in this regard.
Also, I’m not going to say he’s a bad person or anything like that. There are four reasons for this:
1) It’s probably not true.
2) You’ll argue, using examples and experience.
3) I’ll have no concrete defence against or counter to your arguments.
4) I’m not quite that stupid.
But he does need to choose, and in this situation as in many others, not choosing is making a choice; staying the course means forsaking his faith.
I wish you and your husband well, Sydney, and I truly hope your husband is prepared to make his decision and accept the consequences, whatever he decides.
Liberty Belle,
I respect your citing your different beliefs on contraception with Sydney as merely a difference of opinion; however, for Catholics it is more than that. It is a big deal to Catholics. When we can’t show other people the beauty of the faith, including NFP, we have failed to show others the full glory of God.
However, we that said, please note that I value the views you posted in that they help reveal you to me. Yet, I hope one day those views change, and that you not only accept the Catholic view on life issues but that you accept the Catholic faith in its entirety. I hope you see that when a Catholic say this he/she does not hope to impose their views on you, but instead, see that he/she only wants to share a life of the (C)catholic faith with you.
What would convince you that NFP is different from contraceptives in kind and not only in degree?
If contra is “against, in opposition to” and conception is “fertilization; inception of pregnancy”, then how is contraception pro-life?
@Maestro, I think many people Catholic and non-Catholic do not know, for whatever reason, that it is not just the Roman Catholic position. The teaching that birth control is intrinsically wrong was even taught by the Protestant Reformers.
Maestro, yes my husband is a CINO. I’ve talked with Bobby Bambino about this in private messages on facebook. My husband hasn’t been in church since we baptized our oldest when I was still Catholic. My husband doesn’t understand or know church teaching on a lot of things. I had many questions when I was going through RCIA. He says he is Catholic because he was raised that way and he was raised that way because thats what Italians do. He says its part of his ethnicity. So I doubt if I raised the issue about what the Catholic church teaches about contraception he would really care, unfortunately.
Praxades, you are correct. I remember reading that and talking to my husband about it last year when I wanted a second child and he was saying no, no , no. Semen has been shown to battle depression in a woman and the semen of one regular partner helps her. The semen of many partners deteriorates the cells of the vagina and cervix and can lead to cancer.
I would like to use no bc, if I had my way. Unfortunately my husband is a hard-headed man. He is a good man and a loving husband and my best friend in the world but he has such a fear of a large family. He came from a small family and I came from a bigger one so I have no such fear of a large family. He feels the financial pressures of taking care of our family. But he is pro-life. When our first son was conceived after a bc “oopsie” he was excited and never so much as hinted at abortion. He is horrified by abortion but he is a “silent pro-life” person. He feels uncomfortable speaking out about it and says its “my thing” and not his.
Anyhow. I understand both sides of this debate although I don’t really think bc in a marriage is a big deal if the couple understands bc can fail and are open to any new life that is conceived.
And thanks Tyler for your kind words. I understand what you’re saying and I respect your views which are based on your faith.
Hey Tyler,
I greatly appreciate your reasoned comments and explanations of the Catholic view on BC. I understand that for Catholics, NFP is more than just another form of contracepting. The problem is that I just don’t necessarily agree with the distinction that Catholics make.
You ask what would convince me. Hahah, Oh Tyler, if I knew that, wouldn’t I already be convinced? ;)
While I completely understand the benefits of NFP, and I see what Catholics believe regarding how it is different entirely from any form of contraception, I simply don’t agree.
The reasons you cite in your 11:27 post essentially appear to be: that the use of BC can change the way we look at the marital act of sex, and making sure the relationship is focused on more than simply sex.
These are beautiful, good, reasons. However, I fail to see how a couple cannot have that same reverence for sex while also using a barrier method (for us, a diaphragm) or other form of contraception. Maybe it’s personal experience, but I know for me, that I certainly realize that our marriage is about more than our physical union, and every act of our physical uniting is a glorification of God and His plan for us and the Love that He has bestowed upon us. It’s still an act of worship for us. Doesn’t this have more to do with what is in our hearts rather than the act of using a condom or whatever?
Also, you mentioned this: The Catholic Church wants the couple to trust as much as they can in God’s Grace, and accept the beauty and responsibility of all of his creation. Again, isn’t this is a heart issue?
LibertyBelle, if I may ask, how can a couple be truly united if there is a barrier between them?
How timely for this discussion. For anyone who’s interested.
http://www.catholic.org/hf/family/story.php?id=47061
As for hormonal contraception I would say that breakaway ovulation is occurring and they are conceiving and the hormones are disrupting the woman’s biorhythm and preventing the implantation of the embryo. A secondary effect that pro-life Christians conveniently place aside…….shhhh
IMO anything that disrupts the woman’s ability to conceive is also unhealthy for the pregnancy and the unhealthy for the embryo.
Liberty Belle
You are correct when you say that the marital act is a heart issue. I would only add that it is also more than a heart issue, since it causes us to participate in God’s creation of other human beings who are made in his image. The marital act has two dimensions: it is an unitive act (an expression of love between the married couple) and a procreative act. By engaging the marital act while contracepting the couple is negating one of God’s purposes for the marital act. NFP does involve self-denial, but the purpose is not so much to thwart God’s plan, but to establish way to best achieve it. For those without a Catholic faith, NFP can appear, simultaneously, foolish, rash, prudish, frightening, and irresponsible while for those with a faith in God’s provision see NFP in quite the opposite light – they see it as liberating, loving, rational, and life-affirming.
To be fair a person who contracepts cannot have the “same” reverence for the marial act if they deny one of the purposes of that act. Sure they can revere the marital act, but it is not in exactly the same way as a couple who practices NFP.
Sydney M, your respect for your marriage, and your husband’s viewpoint is very nice. and it as important as having a discussion about the Catholic view of contraception. Your prudence and discretion on this matter is admirable.
I agree about Sydney. She has thought her position this through on contraception in an open-minded and considerate way not just today but over the course of years.
Wow guys some serious doctrinal education going on, I really enjoyed reading through all your posts. Especially (w/a few exceptions) since they were written respectfully.
My own personal opinion from my walk with Jesus: there is the way God intended human sexuality to work (in marriage between a man & woman with no thought to controlling the amount of blessings received—>children) and then there is us, fallen creatures trying to become more like Jesus, and messing up but redeemed by His grace alone.
There is no judgement in my heart for people that choose to try and control this area of life, only sorrow and memories from when I felt the same way.
As far as this article goes, I personally believe that yes contraceptives and abortion go hand-in-hand. what do I want to do about it? Change the hearts of people so they no longer desire sex outside of marriage or abortion for a child.
Yeah people think we’re crazy– but God… :)
Jen:
“Good grief, you don’t even know me….You are presumptuous and arrogant to assign me the label of self-righteous hypocrite when you know nothing at all about me.”
The argument is with expressed ideas, not people. That’s actually the way rational arguments work. Your rational claims are judged on their merits, not on the basis of your personality or character.
As I said, “I’m accusing you of utter, self-righteous hypocrisy. How is what you’re saying not so?”
See there? How is WHAT YOU’RE SAYING not so. Do you seriously wish for your words to be inconsequential in conversation, do you wish to not be held accountable for what you say, merely because your interlocutors don’t know you? If that’s how you really feel, you shouldn’t be on the Internet in a forum dealing with something as controversial as abortion — and you certainly shouldn’t be baiting fellow pro-lifers by claiming superior contraceptive morality to people as open to life as you are.
“By your reasoning, celibate religious are abstaining from the gift of relational intimacy and somehow committing an offense? Yes, sex is a great gift, but choosing to abstain from it is not an offense against the gift or God.”
There’s a huge difference between unmarried and married people, as I think you know. You can’t apply what I’m saying about married to unmarried, and I think you know that as well.
“There are many serious and legitimate reasons for a couple not to conceive, and so to practice NFP. Which I will continue to maintain is NOT the same thing as enjoying sex while trying to make that sex unfertile through contraception. That you refuse to see the difference there is telling.”
What’s it tell? How will you establish that my “refusal” is not due to sound reason? You’re welcome to maintain any self-righteous position of deeming others’ reproductive ethic inferior as long as you wish, but don’t anticipate much respect for it from pro-lifers who rightly resent being relegated to second-class status in your mind because their non-NFP, non-abortifacient methods are someone cut of the same cloth as abortion itself in your mind.
“NFP can also be used with a heart that is truly, desperately seeking God’s will over our own, navigating difficult circumstances in which things are not crystal clear.”
Right, and anyone not using NFP is incapable of comparably sincere reconciliation of methods with their faith.
“It takes considerable grace, sacrifice, and self-control for a married couple to abstain from the pleasure of sex because of their grave reasons, rather than just satisfy their bodily desires while at the same time doing their level best not to have any ‘consequences’.”
B.S. I’ve known spouses who’ve gone years without sex because of spousal mental health issues, illness, or other issues. They’ve remained faithful. And they’re people who’ve used contraception when they were sexually active in their marriage. Tell me that NFP people have a corner on the market of valiantly exhibiting great character in this respect.
Good grief.
When NFP is about avoiding conception, the only difference from casually pulling out a condom is that NFP requires conspiratorial attention to detail. If the condom thwarts God’s intention casually, NFP thwarts it obsessively.
Del: “It sounds like Rasqual believes that sex is a necessary part of God’s plan, and we offend God by abstaining for a time. But accepting children is an option that we can turn off medically, and this interference does not offend God’s plan at all.”
I have no idea how you infer the second part, there, from anything I’ve ever said in this forum. My concern isn’t as much whether someone DOES offend God with conspiratorial abstinence for the purpose of avoiding conception. My concern is whether they’ve turned NFP into an idol that absolves them of guilt they’re content to impugn others with, who haven’t seen the NFP light. What I’m seeing here is such self-unaware idolatry of this kind that it resembles a complete moral slumber. “I don’t understand, rasqual.” That’s a symptom not that I’m being irrational; it’s a symptom of complacent ignorance.
Jen: “Abstinence: refraining from the action that allows conception to take place.”
Be honest. It’s strategic abstinence that awaits an infertile period to enjoy sex without the consequence of conception. With NFP used this way, it’s not abstinence. There’s still sex. Think of it this way — it’s “temporal contraception.” It does with time and planning and fastidious application of good science, what a condom does in moments with a thin layer of latex. Which is the greater lunacy — someone who plots across the weeks to ensure their desired sexual pleasure occupies the least fertile periods and then accuses condom users of offending God, or someone who casually uses condoms and, if conception happens, welcomes it as enthusiastically as the NFP practitioner?
See, I think there’s some bigotry here, I think NFP defenders — many of them, at any rate — seriously believe that contraceptive users really aren’t as open to life as they claim. The first commitment of such NFP idolaters is to the propositon that contraception and abortion are two sides of the same coin, ERGO the contraception users’ claims that they’re as open to life are simply not credible. The fact that they use contraception requires this assignment of non-credibility. Or so it seems.
“We’re not demanding to have our cake and eat it, too. We’re choosing to sacrifice the bodily pleasure because we have grave reasons for not having another child.”
Then abstain completely.
Why not?
The “cake and eat it too” thing sounds like more idolatry. NFP confers righteousness, but the price you pay is that you can’t “have your cake and eat it too.” So obviously, anyone having their cake and eating it is unrighteous. They’re wanting what they’re obliged to not have. But they’re only obliged to not have what they want, of course, if NFP is a worthy deity. But it’s not. It’s just a pharisaic hedge.
Bear in mind, I don’t think anything’s wrong with NFP at all. I think something’s terribly wrong with those who lean on it as a petite little deity for absolution of sexual sins they’re content to find in others. And that’s what you and others here are doing.
“Likewise, why do we have some ‘right’ to enjoy sex while refusing or trying to subvert its intended purpose?”
Who said anything about “rights?” But seriously — NFP doesn’t subvert sex’s purpose? Women are most desirous of sex while fertile, that’s known. That seems to signal God’s INTENTION, no? That desire, within marriage, is a good thing. NFP practitioners actively deny that good thing for one sole purpose: to avoid one of God’s other fine gifts in contraception.
Karen: “Artificial birth control takes a perfectly functioning organ and disables it. How is that cooperating with God?”
Fine, NFP takes those perfectly good organs and doesn’t use them. Try that with your lungs. Avoid breathing the good air of fertile times, so to speak, and inhale only when you’re infertile. How is it cooperating with God to conspire, using great science, to have sex only when you’re infertile? He made female desire to peak during fertile times. That should tell us about his intention. But NFP users desire to subdue that natural, God-given desire for one purpose — to avoid conception.
Then some of them accuse others of courting an ethic that makes them no different, morally, than someone participating in gay orgies. Here, at Stanek. Saying that of their fellow-pro-lifers.
I mean, wow.
Then we get all this “Hmm. That’s telling!” stuff, where NFP idolaters feel intellectually empowered to infer weird things about the rest of us.
Jen: “I’m trying as dispassionately as possible to explain that contraception and abortion are inseparably linked. It’s a very touchy subject, certainly, but we can’t just dismiss it.”
Um, yes, we can. Abortion and conception are “inseparably linked” as well. It’s vague remarks like that that just aren’t helpful. And when we turn over the rocks and examine anything substantive NFP idolaters have to say on the subject, the assertions are without foundation and ignore the way NFP itself runs afoul of its practitioners self-righteous judgmentalism. Judgmentalism not of specific persons, mind you gentle reader — but of what they know quite well their specific interlocutors practice.
Tyler: “Catholics who practice NFP view the sexual act as something sacred that involves three participants: the wife, the husband, and God.”
And lots of people who contracept see it the same way. Yes, yes, I know — you’re incredulous. “Impossible!” :-/
“No matter what technological contraception is used their is always risk that new life will be created during a sexual union where the people’s intentions were not to have children, there can be no such risk when a couple abstains.”
But we’re not talking about abstinence, we’re talking about NFP-calculated abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex. So there’s “risk” of conception with NFP as well. For that matter, during abstention between sex using condoms, there’s no risk either. Right? I mean, it’s not as if contraception users are not sometimes abstaining.
NFP users work hard and apply a lot of effort and good science to ensure that their sexual activity is during an infertile period of time. Condom users don’t need to expend much effort to ensure that their sexual activity is circumscribed by mechanical infertility.
Bear in mind, nothing I’m saying in this thread is at all in advocacy of mechanical (or other) contraception. I’m simply apalled at the NFP idolatry and self-righteousness I’m seeing.
“I am sorry if this is all very confusing and poorly written. The beauty that the sex life is supposed to be for a Catholic couple is a difficult idea to get across. ”
Nothing confusing about it at all. And the beauty isn’t just a Catholic thing, because Catholics don’t have a corner on a Christian view of marriage — not even a corner on a sacramental view of marriage. Millions of “separated brethren” understand it well. Likewise, millions of Catholics “get” the idea that abortion is a great way out of a tight spot, just like millions of non-Catholics.
Marriage, as you know, is not holy only if you’re Catholic. Nor if you’re only Christian. It was a creation ordinance. The marriage bed is sanctified for atheists as well as Catholics. Whether everyone’s experience of it is fully understanding of God’s purposes is, obviously, another matter. Not everyone Amens God’s good gifts.
“The NFP method recognizes that human beings are complex creatures and that sexual intimacy, although important, is only one part of the marriage relationship. NFP encourages the couple to communicate so that each person in the relationship is looking out for all of the needs of their partner.”
I’m trying to avoid yawning. Not because what you’re saying is meaningless, but because it’s obvious. But how does “a method” “recognize” anything at all? I think you mean that NFP somehow empowers people to better recognize certain things. There’s another possibility, and that is that people who for whatever reason were once blithely unaware of such things may have discovered them through NFP. And that’s fine. That’s good. That was their particular path. But it’s like diet approaches, or workouts — you get folks who swear by one thing because it’s how they, themselves, discovered something they’d been oblivious to. But they’re dead wrong if they imagine that others not practicing the same thing could not possibly have learned the same things.
Are couples who don’t use NFP somehow not understanding that humans are complex creatures, and that sex is just part of a marriage? Please. Or that couples not using NFP are not encouraged by other things in life to communicate, or to look out for their partner’s needs? Please. I’m not denying that NFP does these things. But I’m hoping you’re not trying to claim that without NFP, couples are in some kind of jeopardy of missing out on such obvious things.
“By engaging the marital act while contracepting the couple is negating one of God’s purposes for the marital act. NFP does involve self-denial, but the purpose is not so much to thwart God’s plan, but to establish way to best achieve it.”
Nonsense. Just abstain until you want children. Why not? What is the reason you want to have sex, if not to have children?
“To be fair a person who contracepts cannot have the ‘same’ reverence for the marial act if they deny one of the purposes of that act. Sure they can revere the marital act, but it is not in exactly the same way as a couple who practices NFP.”
NFP practitioners are denying one purpose of the act, and are martialling great science, intimate examination, and calendars in order to do so. These people SCHEDULE sex to avoid procreation, for crying out loud.
Thank goodness those who revere sex aren’t obliged to revere it the way fastidious NFP practitioners do!
LibertyBelle says: “Doesn’t this have more to do with what is in our hearts rather than the act of using a condom or whatever?”
I think part of the disconnect in understanding is that Catholics believe in an inseparable unity between body and soul. (At least until death.) We are not souls trapped in bodies. Our body and soul is one. What affects our soul affects our body, what affects our body affects our soul. That is one of the reasons why we believe there cannot be a true union between husband and wife if there is a barrier.
“Our body and soul is one.”
… contrary to that CS Lewis quote that goes around about “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” Quite Cartesian, which is unfortunate.
Joanna, um, not to get too graphic here, but even in the case of the condom, the man is inside the woman still. SO yeah, I’d say they’re united still. I don’t routinely go around sticking body parts in other people’s bodies. But anyway, in my case, we use a diaphragm. Any idea how those things work? My husband literally has no contact with the device – it’s only preventing his sperm from uniting with my ovum. But we as husband and wife, are, in fact, quite united, I can assure you. ;)
Tyler, and Jen, this is where we simply have to part ways. I think much of what Rasqual is saying is true – many of your comments are coming off as rude and judgement – in what you say, not how you say it. I understand that, as Catholics, it’s not the same. But I have news for you: I’m not Catholic. Therefore, I am not beholden to the same doctrinal missives you are.
So I’m terribly sorry that you think couples who don’t practice NFP are less holy and don’t revere marriage in the same way, but I’m just trying to tell you that, yes, outside the Catholic church, there are plenty of couples who revere marriage and life and all that the same as you. I have not been trying to say that your point is invalid, or that that’s not what the Catholic Church says; I know what the Catholic Church says regarding life and contraception and sex. But what I’m trying to tell you – and now realize I’ll never be able to convince you about – is that outside of the Catholic Church, other Christians can, in fact, have a holy marriage, revere the martial act, be open to life, and enjoy a vibrant, beautiful faith – even without NFP.
Y’all are getting so wrapped up in the act of NFP, you’re ignoring the heart issue of those who do not hold the tenants of Catholic belief as highly as you do. I’m a Protestant for a reason – I’ve prayed about it, searched the Scriptures, etc. I know what I believe and why, and while I don’t claim to know everything, for now, I’m comfortable with where I am, spiritually and in my sexual relationship with my husband. I’m always seeking to learn about God more and seeking to serve Him more and in better ways, but your comments often come off as high-handed. We’re not talking about something that is clearly laid out in the Bible – but rather Humane Vitae, a Catholic document that I, in fact, do not believe to be equal to the Bible.
So I guess my question is, knowing I’m not a Catholic, why are you trying to pass judgement on my contraceptive decisions when I’m not under the same church authority as you? I appreciate the dialogue I’ve had with both of you, but really, you’re just going to have to let it rest because you’re not going to change my mind. I agree with most of your points, just not that NFP is the ONLY way to please God in a marriage relationship.
So, in good grace and good faith, I bid you all a good day. :) Not trying to rile anyone up, just explaining why many of us non-Catholics are offended by what you say. Thanks, y’all! Carry on and fight the good fight for life!
“I think part of the disconnect in understanding is that Catholics believe in an inseparable unity between body and soul. (At least until death.) ”
Heh. This non-Catholic can one-up all of ya. I’m a traducianist. You’re not. ;-)
Furthermore, frankly, all secularists are traducianists too — at least, non-theologically speaking. So they have a leg up on the vast majority of Catholics (who generally have a creationist anthropology) as well.
LibertyBelle,
But there is still a barrier preventing the skin of your husband from touching your skin during condom use. You aren’t fully united in that regard – there is still a barrier there, however thin.
And both the diaphragm and the condom prevent semen from entering the woman’s cervix, meaning that a part of the man is being rejected. An essential part of him is being “told,” “Stay away! I don’t want anything to do with you!” Frankly, it breaks my heart that I ever sent that message to my husband (or him to me) while we contracepted, even though we didn’t realize it at the time.
Fertility is an integral part of a man (or a woman), and the Church teaches that neither a man nor a woman should reject any part of their spouse during the marital act. Both the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marital act need to be kept intact, or else parts of the spouse are being rejected as bad.
Argh. Correction above:
“to avoid one of God’s other fine gifts in contraception. ”
Should have been “conception.”
JoAnna: “An essential part of him is being ‘told,’ ‘Stay away! I don’t want anything to do with you!’ Frankly, it breaks my heart that I ever sent that message to my husband (or him to me) while we contracepted, even though we didn’t realize it at the time.”
And with NFP practiced to avoid fertile periods, the couple is telling EACH OTHER, “STAY AWAY” because we don’t want a baby right now.
“But it’s not the same, it’s not the same!” is kind of what I keep hearing from NFP fans. Well of course it’s not the same means of avoiding conception. Of course its different. But NFP fans in these parts — at least, the self-righteous ones — keep using each difference as if that difference constituted some innately superior moral case for NFP. The problem is that every time I turn around, you’re neglecting the ways in which NFP and contraception are IDENTICAL — with one exception: NFP involves a level of planning that borders on a conspiratorial plot. A condom — not so much.
“Fertility is an integral part of a man (or a woman), and the Church teaches that neither a man nor a woman should reject any part of their spouse during the marital act. Both the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marital act need to be kept intact, or else parts of the spouse are being rejected as bad.”
Heh. But it’s fine to reject your entire spouse’s body during fertile times, specifically, as carefully determined by martialing science and the calendar. But somehow this strategic location of sex within the temporal confines of infertility is touted as being “open to life” in ways those contraceptives are not.
Please.
Let me explain why, as a Catholic, I am a bit riled up about these conversations.
I have used both contraceptions and NFP and do see the major differences (although I respect those who have used both but don’t find a difference).
When I have attempted to explain those differences as I see them, rasqual came in with a large rake with the intent of “raking NFP over the coals.” And this is what he still believes he has done today although others still disagree with him.
Is there any argument that can be made, in rasqual’s opinion, that proves abortion and contraception are related? I don’t think so. Therefore any of us who believe there is a relationship between abortion and contraception are filled with “utter-self righteous hypocrisy” and many on this thread agree with him, according to the likes on his posts.
However, I would ask rasqual and those of you who agree with him to think about what others call Catholics who do not believe and practice what the Catholic Church teaches us. I have seen it here — these Catholics are also accused of hypocrisy.
I have never meant to rile anyone up on this topic either but rather had hoped to share what I have noticed to be an improvement in my family’s life because of NFP. And to let you know that the offending here goes both ways.
Catholics will be accused of hypocrisy no matter what they believe on this issue.
Praxedes: Well how’s it feel to be riled? That’s not my purpose in these arguments, but I think it would be a great exercise for NFP idolaters to consider how their own self-righteous judgmentalism feels to those they impugn — however implicitly.
Why does this blog continue to post entries that amount to veritable trolling of the commenters? Seriously.
But to your remarks: “Is there any argument that can be made, in rasqual’s opinion, that proves abortion and contraception are related?”
Related in what way? Here’s a huge problem with much Catholic teaching. A teaching is dispensed, and then the faithful take it and run with it in all directions. It’s an easy critique to make of Catholic teaching, because in her missions the Church has seemed almost indifferent to syncretism destructive of the faith itself. It’s no coincidence that the craziest hybrid religions on the planet are the result of Catholic missions with insufficient devotion to truth, or followup to distinguish the faith from superstition. Rather, the practice has often seemed to be to co-opt superstition, without regard for whether such superstition offers any innate hooks for the gospel.
In short, Catholic teaching is, as an institution, careless and either inconsequential for many (how many Catholics abort, or use contraception?) or consequential in non-productive ways — such as NFP idolaters clucking their tongues at genuine pro-lifers using condoms.
Note that there are some ways in which abortion and contraception are related, and have been noted in this forum, that I’ve not taken exception to. But likewise I would not disagree with some ways that the relationship between conception itself and abortion could be affirmed. It’s weird that I have to put it that way to make the apparently non-intuitive point, in these parts, that the “relationship(s)” between things are not means by which the vile evil of one of those things besmirches the “related” thing inevitably. Yet that’s what some Catholics seem to do with Catholic teaching — just blithely deem some imprecisely stated “relationship” between two things a sufficient reason to despise ’em both.
“Therefore any of us who believe there is a relationship between abortion and contraception are filled with ‘utter-self righteous hypocrisy’ and many on this thread agree with him, according to the likes on his posts. ”
Entirely unfair, and I think you know it. The ways in which abortion is related to contraception have not been broadly illuminated. The current dispute has focused on a very few narrow ways in which NFP and contraception are taken by me to be quite similar, identical, or even the worse for NFP in its practitioners own terms. If you wish to enumerate the ways in which abortion and contraception are related, you’re welcome to field my responses and judge the merits, rather than pre-judge them on the merits of a much narrower conversation from which I don’t think you have warrant to draw your inference, just there.
”Catholics will be accused of hypocrisy no matter what they believe on this issue.”
Oh good grief. That’s an easy, woe-is-me-because-non-Catholics-don’t-understand-us way out. I’d not have expected this kind of answer from you, P.
Meh. Try not to let it bother you Praxedes. I’ve noticed that rasqual becomes a bit unhinged whenever NFP is mentioned. And it results in gems like this: “Abstaining IS contracepting.” And NFP use is “more dire, more an offense against God’s plan for sex, marriage, and offspring” than condom use.
And I note, with a chuckle, that rasqual was the first one to bring up NFP in this thread.
And both the diaphragm and the condom prevent semen from entering the woman’s cervix, meaning that a part of the man is being rejected. An essential part of him is being “told,” “Stay away! I don’t want anything to do with you!”
Wow. Okay can we just drop this? I’ve already explained to you that, theologically and otherwise, I don’t agree with this. Why keep using language that incites spite? Can you not see that you are doing more harm than good by using the language you are choosing to use? I do understand your point, I just don’t believe it. Why would you tell me that using a diaphragm is saying “I don’t want anything to do with you” to my husband. That’s just pure hyperbole.
Hey Prax, at least for me, I think it’s awesome if you share how NFP has helped your family. I’m not trying to get into an anti-Catholic rant; I know a lot of you on here are earnest, and good people. And I really try to do my best to respect that. Then I get asked questions like: But if you use a diaphragm, are you and your husband really united? and the like. And when people try to claim that a husband and wife, even a Christian, pro-life couple, who are not using NFP is essentially the same as a homosexual union, surely you’ve got to see how that wounds your non-Catholic brothers and sisters?
Rasqual,
All these years… all this time… how could I not have known that I was engaged in a stealthy, wicked, carefully orchestrated conspiracy against God and humanity and marriage and sex? How can I ever thank you for showing me the light?
My goodness, but now what do I do? I still refuse to let anything, physical or chemical, come between me and my husband. It could be quite a conundrum for me…
OH! I know! I’ll learn my own body’s natural fertility cycle and cooperate with it. That way, the marital act of lovemaking will retain its integrity as God designed it, and we can still tend to the other physical/health restraints that cause us to postpone pregnancy.
I can tell you are quite angry about this vast conspiracy you think NFP is, and I’m sorry. There’s no conspiracy. It’s not done with stealth and guile, or with sinister manipulation despite what you think. There actually is a distinct difference between abstaining during fertile periods and using a condom. There just is. In the first case, the couple acknowledges that at that time they should not conceive and so they do not attempt to make their sexual union sterile. In the second case, the couple also doesn’t want to conceive, but they still want physical pleasure so they render their sexual union sterile.
There is no sin in refraining from sexual union during fertile periods. It’s not a crime against the gift of sex in marriage. It’s not conspiratorial plotting, for heaven’s sake. It’s cooperating with the natural cycle of fertility that God designed.
You seem quite pleased with yourself and your arrogant pronouncements, and I’m content to leave you there.
God bless you.
Oh good grief. That’s an easy, woe-is-me-because-non-Catholics-don’t-understand-us way out. I’d not have expected this kind of answer from you, P.
No, my friend, that is the truth and your statement above is pure baloney. I don’t need an easy way out because I have already told you my beliefs and you see these beliefs as hypocritical no matter what I say.
Catholics have gone round and round with you on this issue but you are still carrying your Big Rake. I see that most on both sides of this issue at least agree to disagree with each other — but not you. You are bound and determined to be right.
If I agree with your views, I am a hypocritical Catholic who doesn’t follow her own Church; if I don’t agree with your views, I am hypocritical in your eyes. Because you have the inability to understand me, doesn’t put the “woe” on me, R.
Maybe you need to look at why you would want Catholics to go against the Catholic Church. Many Catholics and non-Catholics alike believe this is why abortion has gone on so long in the first place or was even legalized in the first place. As a child, before Roe v. Wade, I remember holy priests and other leaders coming into our parish and begging Catholics to follow the Church teachings because we would regret not doing so. I didn’t understand the importance of their desperation at the time, but I sure do now.
There is nothing left to debate with you. You already realize there is much to be found online and if you’ve read through all that and still disagree then we will be at a stalemate. Actually, you can have the win because it appears that is what it is about to you. Maybe you should contact the Pope.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt
In short, Catholic teaching is, as an institution, careless and either inconsequential for many (how many Catholics abort, or use contraception?) or consequential in non-productive ways — such as NFP idolaters clucking their tongues at genuine pro-lifers using condoms.
It bears repeating.
If falsehoods are worth repeating, sure.
Catholic teaching is… careless. Sure, because everyone knows Catholic teaching was just slapped together heedlessly. Pay no attention to all those footnotes.
Catholic teaching is…inconsequential. Sure, if lack of recognition of importance = unimportant. But then, perception = reality is not a Catholic teaching.
Catholic teaching is…consequential in non-productive ways. It can be. But that’s not saying anything about Catholic teaching, it says something about how the teaching is used.
You seem quite pleased with yourself and your arrogant pronouncements, and I’m content to leave you there.
God bless you.
It bears repeating.
“Think of it this way — it’s “temporal contraception.” It does with time and planning and fastidious application of good science, what a condom does in moments with a thin layer of latex.”
Think of it this way – God created us so that we would be “infertile” the vast majority of the time. If you have a sufficiently serious reason to avoid conception, it is better to cooperate with God’s plan by abstaining during the times you are fertile – by not thwarting the procreative nature of the sexual act. When you have sex during naturally infertile periods, the only one who thwarted the procreative aspect of sex is God through the way he designed you. It’s not you saying, I’m going to alter the functioning of my body or the interaction of mine and my husband’s body, and God can get around it if he wants. Now if, as you say, people practice NFP and use it to avoid conception over long periods of time for non-serious reason, then they have a contraceptive intent – to sterilize their union and retain it only for pleasure. They too are thwarting God’s plan and his design of us.
Liberty Belle: “And when people try to claim that a husband and wife, even a Christian, pro-life couple, who are not using NFP is essentially the same as a homosexual union, surely you’ve got to see how that wounds your non-Catholic brothers and sisters?”
From reading the comments, it seems like that was a remark made on another thread, and indeed was obviously so startling that it has become a story worth repeating. Given that, and the fact that NO one has said anything remotely like that here, I think it’s safe to say that it’s not a common view. So I don’t think it can really be fairly used to justify the hurt feelings here.
“So I guess my question is, knowing I’m not a Catholic, why are you trying to pass judgement on my contraceptive decisions when I’m not under the same church authority as you?”
Because we believe it’s a truth. Not true for us and not true for you, but true for everyone, whether they believe it to be or not. So of course, when it comes up we would try to impart that (most of us very respectfully).
“just explaining why many of us non-Catholics are offended by what you say”
Everyone keeps saying that it’s the way things are being said that hurt, but what’s being said is just Catholic teaching. So short of Catholics (and others of like mind) saying absolutely nothing or giving some sort of approval to contraceptive sex (oh it really is the same, I guess you’re right), we’re going to be accused of offending. No one is saying you’re bad, or that there is no holiness in your sex life or marriage. Just that the act of contraceptive sex is bad and undermines the full dignity of the spouses and the marriage as a whole. From what I’ve seen, I know that sentence alone will be enough to cause great offense. There are many ways that people undermine our dignity as God’s creations, contracepting being just one. So many people who use NFP (and don’t have a contraceptive mentality) may fall short in other areas. It’s not an automatic, “I do this so my sex life is holy and I’m holy and can kick my heels up” view, and I don’t think anyone here has suggested otherwise.
CT, thanks for explaining. I am sorry if I gave any offense to my Catholic friends here and if I did misconstrue what was said.
Re: the gay comment, actually, someone here did say that it wasn’t like a gay orgy, but in function, because it denied the conception aspect, contraceptive sex is the same as homosexual sex. SO yes, that was said. Just so you know I’m not pulling things out of the air.
Well I appreciate your views and your tone, I really do.
Well, Libertybelle, if they follow that line of reasoning all the way, to them, it WOULD be exactly like gay sex (not that I have a problem with gay sex, either, as long as it’s consensual). It would be taking advantage of the way God made the human body in order to have non-procreative intercourse. That wouldn’t be the goal of homosexual sex, but a side-effect, but the indication would be there.
Rasqual: But we’re not talking about abstinence, we’re talking about NFP-calculated abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex. So there’s “risk” of conception with NFP as well. For that matter, during abstention between sex using condoms, there’s no risk either. Right? I mean, it’s not as if contraception users are not sometimes abstaining.
NFP users work hard and apply a lot of effort and good science to ensure that their sexual activity is during an infertile period of time. Condom users don’t need to expend much effort to ensure that their sexual activity is circumscribed by mechanical infertility.
Rasqual, I think we have two different understandings of NFP.
My understanding of NFP is the following:
First, the goal of NFP is not to encourage sexual activity during the non-fertile periods. This is a common misconception of NFP.
Second, the purpose of NFP iit is designed to help the couple understand when the fertile period is. At those fertile moments, the couple can either decide to refrain or engage in sexual activity.
Third, knowing the fertile periods allows the married couple to plan their family naturally and by having sex during the optimal times.
Fourth, if the married couple decide to engage in sexual activity then it can be easily said that they are hoping to have children – please extend me courtesy of assuming that I am talking about a rational couple.
Finally, if sexual activity does occur during the non-fertile periods it is an act of acquiescence to weakness in either one or both persons.
In conclusion, NFP is not about trying to turn sex into sterile environment, it is about respecting the fertile moments and the fecundity of the marriage relationship. The NFP couple does not “schedule sex to avoid procreation.” As mentioned earlier, sexual activity sometimes occurs during the infertile periods due to the weakness of one spouse and the fidelity of the other.
I hope these distinctions made help to make you understand how I understand NFP and the differences I see between NFP and other forms of contraception.
Please let me know where I have been unclear.
It would be taking advantage of the way God made the human body in order to have non-procreative intercourse.
Strange comment for an atheist to make.
CT: “Given that, and the fact that NO one has said anything remotely like that here, I think it’s safe to say that it’s not a common view.”
LibertyBelle: “yes, that was said. Just so you know I’m not pulling things out of the air.”
CT, while I didn’t say that outright, I did mention it in one of my posts in this thread and point out that such a comparison can be made:
“Also Rasqual: “We’ve been told that contracepting is like having gay orgies.”
Perhaps not in form (or number, I would hope), but they are similar in function and intention in enough important ways for comparisons to be made.”
So, for the purposes of this discussion, that was said and it was in one of my posts (and possibly others that I didn’t notice). If you like (and/or require), I can elaborate on it for you.
Xaliase, by the way, my comment above was meant as a light-hearted joke/observation, not an invitation to argue.
P: “Maybe you need to look at why you would want Catholics to go against the Catholic Church.”
Can you cite anywhere I’ve implied that?
Since when does Catholic faith oblige Catholics to proclaim their judgment that contracepting pro-life friends are engaging in a morally inferior form of sex? Or that they’re engaging in something no different, morally, than gay orgies? Or that such people’s “contraceptive mindset” is of a kind with abortion?
Since when are Catholics obliged by their faith to behave that way? And then get indignant and feel insulted when challenged on it?
I still wonder why this forum continues to troll for this kind of discussion with posts like this.
Catholic pro-lifers may indeed face a peculiar burden here. If they really do believe that abortion and contraception are of a kind, then they may well feel a compulsion to convince their pro-life non-Catholic friends of that. Apparently, they sometimes imagine that bluntly declaring such friends to be gay orgy participants is a great avenue of moral suasion. Others, more subtle, merely proclaim the moral superiority of NFP. But few have attempted to convince in ways that are willing to field and dispense with counter-argument.
If it’s really that important, I think our Catholic friends should act like it, get a thick skin, and actually be persuasive. If it’s not really that important, stop raising the issue as if it were.
Jen: “All these years… all this time… how could I not have known that I was engaged in a stealthy, wicked, carefully orchestrated conspiracy against God and humanity and marriage and sex? How can I ever thank you for showing me the light?… I can tell you are quite angry about this vast conspiracy you think NFP is, and I’m sorry.”
You’re not understanding my point. I dare say you’re not understanding, even, that I think NFP is wonderful. You’re taking the conversation personally, instead of rationally. Stop it.
“There actually is a distinct difference between abstaining during fertile periods and using a condom. There just is.”
I don’t disagree. But you seem to imagine that saying such a vague thing constitutes a defense of claiming moral high ground over contracepting pro-lifers. THAT is what I object to.
Stop imagining that my attack on NFP is substantive, and understand that I’m expecting you to justify your position, since your own pronouncements claim a lack of justification for contraception as used by your pro-life friends. Just saying “they’re different!” is stating the obvious. Explaining how their similarities don’t make them “of a kind” is the burden you bear if you really believe you’re on the high ground.
I’m not claiming that some view of mine is morally superior. I’m claiming that your own view that yours is, is unwarranted. There’s a difference between making a positive claim for my own views (I haven’t offered any, really), and merely claiming that someone else’s positive claim is flawed in some way, not all it’s cracked up to be.
“There is no sin in refraining from sexual union during fertile periods. It’s not a crime against the gift of sex in marriage.”
Why not? You claim that denying penile access to the cervix is sinful. Why is not a wife’s access to her husband sinful? Or, better said, how can you generalize as if no imaginable conditions could make it sinful? Your language is generalizing, and yet other Catholics in this forum have sensibly concluded that NFP practitioners are as capable of using it sinfully as contracepting folk are — in short, NFP users, to use the language of Catholic NFP fans in this forum, are as capable of using it like gay sex orgies as any contracepting pro-lifer would be.
Bobby: “Can you give an example of an argument, either one you make on your own or one you find online, if favor of NFP that you would not accuse of being hypocritical, self-righteous, or with the flavor of moral superiority to it?”
You’re really, really gratuitously attributing to me a hostility to NFP that I don’t in the least possess. And nothing I’ve said could possibly be construed by anyone as implying hostility to NFP.
What I’ve tried to do is point out to NFP idolaters — those who vest it with more freight than it should rightfully bear as merest method — are vulnerable to the same criticisms they hypocritically level at their contracepting pro-life friends.
This engagement with NFP does not indicate any contempt for it whatsoever on my part, to the contrary I think it’s the best method of controlling for contraception possible — and I agree with my Catholic friends reasons for loving it. What I find abhorrent, however, is its elevation to the status of an absolving idol.
Catholics should be familiar with the idea that a good thing can be made bad through loss of proportion. Hello! Sex! Well dittos for NFP.
P: “Thus, the same teaching of the Church which condemns the use of the
unnatural methods of birth control explicitly approves of the use of Natural Family Planning when there is a sufficient reason to avoid or postpone pregnancy. With its emphasis on the necessity of a serious reason to use even the natural methods, the Church is warning against selfishness in family planning.”
So is just “not wanting children at this point in our lives” a “serious” enough reason? Or not?
“Unnatural birth control contradicts the symbolic renewal of the marriage
covenant. Instead, it says, ‘I take you for better but not for the
imagined worse of parenthood’.”
Well isn’t that just stupid? Not being insulting, just descriptive. This presumes that those using contraception are not willing to enthusiastically embrace conception if it occurs. The prevailing prejudice I’ve seen by NFP idolaters in this forum has been that contraceptive users are so very unlikely to welcome an “accidental” life. It’s a stupid prejudice, it really is.
If that’s “Catholic teaching” (and it’s not — as the author himself notes) then so much the worse for it — because it’s not morally teaching some positive thing of value to Catholics — its unfairly characterizing those who contracept as uniformly hostile to “accidental” life. The Church has no warrant for such a claim. This is simply a false slander.
A very good document, however.
Lrning: “Catholic teaching is… careless.”
Not a fair summary of my remark, which was qualified subjectively: “for many.” As a huge Aquinas fan, I’d be the last to say that Catholic teaching “was just slapped together.”
I work in an environment where Apple and Google are uncritically worshiped by naive consumers. I value the companies immensely myself — and this is why I’m their strong critics as well. I don’t excoriate them for occasional stupidity because I loathe them. I do so because they matter very much, and their potential for much good is impeded by their gaffes.
X, yeah, I get that. I was just pointing out to CT that, despite his/her protestations, Catholic teaching does in fact say contraceptive married sex is just like homosexual sex. So… That wasn’t some rogue commenter.
:) But like I said, oh well. You guys have your beliefs about it and I have mine. SO let’s just shake hands, sip some sweet tea and call it a day, eh?
Tyler, if you notice, I prefaced my comment with “if they follow that line of reasoning all the way, to them…”
I’ve never needed an invitation. ;)
^ Hence the offense, you dig? ;)
“Catholic teaching does in fact say contraceptive married sex is just like homosexual sex. So… That wasn’t some rogue commenter.”
I think a better way to summarize this would be that contraceptive sex is “like” homosexual sex in so far as they are both misuse the sexual act, but in very different ways. The latter is much more unnatural. But really, you can say that about many sexual sins. Fornication is like adultery is like homosexual sex in so far as they are an abuse of the sexual act- a missing of the mark or a privation if you will. But I think that’s about as far as one can take that. The only reason I think anyone would really say that they are alike when trying to explain to someone that contraception is immoral is for shock value. Otherwise, I don’t think it would really be very helpful in trying to persuade someone that there is something wrong with contraception, and as I said above, only be used to shock and even offend the person they are trying to convince.
Rasqual, by your logic, my husband and I are sinning right now because we’re not having sex. Catholic teaching (nor any other Christian sect, so far as I’m aware) teaches that a married couple are obliged to have sex at every opportunity, but that seems to be what you believe. Is it?
LibertyBelle, if my language is “harsh” that’s because the act of contraception is also harsh. I was taken aback the first time that I, as a Protestant, heard it relayed in those terms as well. It is harsh to tell your spouse, tacitly, that you reject a part of him/her because you want all of the benefits but none of the natural consequences of sex.
Catholic teaching does in fact say contraceptive married sex is just like homosexual sex.
No, that’s not accurate. Catholic teaching says that contraceptive married sex shares certain characteristics with homosexual acts — they are both sterile (or, in the case of the former, an attempt has been made to render it sterile), and they are both a misuse of the sexual faculties granted to us by God.
However, a key difference is that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong, by their very nature, whereas sex within a marriage is not intrinsically wrong. The intent and act of contracepting is intrinsically wrong, but not the marital act itself. It’s a key distinction.
Since when does Catholic faith oblige Catholics to proclaim their judgment that contracepting pro-life friends are engaging in a morally inferior form of sex? Or that they’re engaging in something no different, morally, than gay orgies? Or that such people’s “contraceptive mindset” is of a kind with abortion?
Since when are Catholics obliged by their faith to behave that way? And then get indignant and feel insulted when challenged on it?
Hi Rasqual, I apologize but I am not following what you are trying to argue here. I am also not following the link that you are trying to make between NFP and gay sex. Can you please break your argument/logic down for me. For whatever reason I am just missing it.
Liberty Belle,
I forgot to mention that although we have disagreed, I respect your devotion to your husband and marriage as I much as I respect Sydney M’s.
I had seen the reference to homosexual sex in this thread, but it seemed like the gay orgy story was being brought up from a previous thread and that comment didn’t sound like it had the same tone. Having not read the former (or not remembering it), I can’t say for sure.
“I was just pointing out to CT that, despite his/her protestations, Catholic teaching does in fact say contraceptive married sex is just like homosexual sex. So… That wasn’t some rogue commenter”
I’m a her :-) And Bobby and JoAnna have already addressed this better than I would have, but I agree that it’s fair to compare homosexual sex and contraceptive sex as being in the category of sexual sins and misuse of the sexual act, but no, Catholic teaching does not say they are the same. Just by the use of the phrase “gay orgy”, it seems like that was an attempt to be provocative not to draw a nuanced comparison.
P: “You seem quite pleased with yourself and your arrogant pronouncements, and I’m content to leave you there.”
I’m merely denying the proper warrant for pronouncements made by NFP practitioners who appear to have elevated the method to an idolatrous status. How is that more arrogant than those who insist that contraceptors are morally inferior?
How is taking issue with that kind of self-righteousness properly tagged as “arrogant?” Isn’t the shoe on the other foot?
Tyler: “First, the goal of NFP is not to encourage sexual activity during the non-fertile periods. This is a common misconception of NFP.”
The whole question-begging mess in some of this is expressed simply: “for whom?” NFP is malleable. This reifying of NFP and contraception, as if either foists some absolute reality on its practitioners, is kind of crazy. “The goal” of NFP is whatever its practitioners’ goal is / goals are.
“The NFP couple does not ‘schedule sex to avoid procreation’.”
Again, that depends on who we’re talking about. NFP is a method that can be used by couples for many purposes. I might as well say a gun doesn’t shoot people, it merely deters. Well, the latter is true. But in some cases, so is the former. You may be representing a pristine and morally squeaky-clean example of how some people use NFP. But in a church where most women contracept and many abort, I’m sure you’ll agree that Catholic teaching regarding the value of NFP is taken by many Catholics to mean that NFP is a great method to sanctify their avoidance conception using a method that enjoys a great reputation among their more fecundity-minded brethren.
Something like that.
CT: “Just by the use of the phrase ‘gay orgy,’ it seems like that was an attempt to be provocative not to draw a nuanced comparison.”
Then the provocation was from a Catholic NFP practitioner in this forum, not from me.
Are critics of NFP’s idolaters now to blame for quoting these idolaters? Are their terms fine on their lips, but not fine when attributed to them?
Seriously, the notion that it’s perfectly civil for contracepting pro-lifers to be compared with gay orgiastic sex but it’s uncivil for some of us to express umbrage with such craziness, is yet another weird instance of hypocrisy just here.
Note my charges of hypocrisy are not generalizations. They have a scope and are tethered to specific instances. For some reason, some in this conversation imagine that I’m just tossing such words around as pejorative epithets, loose cannons on the deck.
The simplest formula of NFP I can come up with is this:
NFP is aligning the couple’s reproductive intentions with natural rhythms of the wife’s fertility.
In the purest practice of NFP it can not at all be compared to any contraceptive method. Indeed, the purest form of NFP results in pregnancy, so that it can be said that every couple engages in NFP when they are trying to get pregnant, knowingly or unknowingly. So unless you want to compare sexual activity geared toward pregnancy and contraceptive sex I don’t think you should want to compare NFP to contraceptive sex.
NFP extends that period of trying to get pregnant over the life (many years) of the wife’s fertile cycle. This is why NFP is said to be not just a method, but also a way of life.
rasqual says:
I’m perfectly willing to rake NFP over the coals in this thread again if you’re going to pretend its practitioners are somehow immune to charges of abusing it the way many Catholics seem to think others use contraception with an “abortion mindset,” or whatever.
Your whole argument operates from a false premise. I’ve never seen a discussion of NFP that didn’t contain acknowledgement that NFP can be abused, this thread included.
rasqual says: “Yet that’s what some Catholics seem to do with Catholic teaching — just blithely deem some imprecisely stated “relationship” between two things a sufficient reason to despise ‘em both.”
We don’t “despise” abortion and contraception because of some “imprecisely stated relationship” between the two. We “despise” abortion because it is evil. We “despise” contraception because it is evil. No relationship between the two is even necessary for them both to be “despised”.
“And nothing I’ve said could possibly be construed by anyone as implying hostility to NFP.”
Okay, now that is just plain funny! If you meant it seriously, then you have no awareness of tone and connotation in your writing.
Rasqual: You may be representing a pristine and morally squeaky-clean example of how some people use NFP.
Rasqual, for argument’s sake and the sake of a lucid discussion, let it be known that I need to discuss NFP in its purest form otherwise my point about how it differs from technological contraceptive methods will be lost. However, since I know your intellectual abilities, I will accept your agreements where and when I find them. So thank-you for your agreement, even though it was reluctant. I think you should apologize to Jen – she was not moralizing.
Lrning: “Okay, now that is just plain funny! If you meant it seriously, then you have no awareness of tone and connotation in your writing.”
I think you may also lack self-awareness concerning the extent to which you let unwarranted inferences on your part determine what I happen to be intending with my remarks.
My tone and connotation is concerned with hypocrisy, idolatry, self-righteousness and judgment of pro-lifers who use contraception, by NFPers who seem intent on defending a method that’s as capable of being used by Catholics with a “contraceptive mindset” as any pro-choicer.
Taking my remarks as an attack on NFP itself is entirely unwarranted by anything I’ve actually said. Perhaps you’d have to have participated in earlier threads to well-understand this — and to understand my understandable and justified exasperation with fanatical NFP idolaters who deem their non-Catholic pro-life brethren to be on a par with orgiastic gays with deep, hidden guilt motivating “attacks” on NFP.
It’s stupid. It’s wrong. It’s smug. It’s contemptuous. THAT is what I’m taking issue with — as anyone not worshiping a method should be.
“You’re not understanding my point. I dare say you’re not understanding, even, that I think NFP is wonderful. You’re taking the conversation personally, instead of rationally. Stop it.”
Stop imagining that my attack on NFP is substantive, and understand that I’m expecting you to justify your position”
Rasqual, you are the one who’s been repeatedly using words like “conspiracy”, “conspiratorial”, “plotting” and the like in reference to NFP. So if that is what’s involved in using NFP, and I use NFP, then I am engaged in a conspiracy!
You coulda fooled me that you think NFP is wonderful. I don’t generally refer to something I think is wonderful as a conspiracy committed against the gift of sex in marriage.
You’re calling the design of NFP a conspiracy of plotting: then you say you’re not attacking the substance of NFP? Of course you are.
I don’t know of anyone who has elevated NFP to the level of tiny deity or idolatry. I’m simply not willing to say that NFP is equal to using condoms, pills, devices, etc. It’s not. That doesn’t mean I’m guilty of NFP idolatry.
That I’m unwilling to equate NFP with condoms, Pills, and devices does not mean I’m pronouncing judgement on anyone else’s marriage or sex life. It means that after examining the evidence, listening to the arguments, studying the teaching, and using my own powers of reason, I have concluded that the Church is right. It is, in fact, morally better not to use any form of artificial contraception. That, in fact, artificial contraception is morally wrong. That doesn’t make me self-righteous or arrogant. It makes me a faithful Catholic.
It might be good to remember that prior to 1930, EVERY Christian denomination agreed that contraception was morally wrong. Then one by one, the Protestant denominations gave in to societal pressure and decided contraception was okay. Is it really just a coincidence that the acceptance of contraception preceded the legalization of abortion?
Tyler: “Rasqual, for argument’s sake and the sake of a lucid discussion, let it be known that I need to discuss NFP in its purest form…”
Then let it be known that pro-lifers here who contracept — and to the incredulity of trigger-happy crazies here I suppose it will be a surprise that I am not among them — must not be lumped in with pro-choicers as if their use of contraception was “of a kind” with abortion.
Seriously. No special pleading for NFP. You want to limit conversation to its pristine form, fine — don’t presume that contraception users are not “open to life,” or that their use of contraception is so very like abortion.
Basically, if you want people to think the best of NFPs practitioners, folks, stop talking as if the worst attitudes of contraception’s use endure among even its pro-life users.
But of course, we can resurrect the threads where “there’s no such thing as pro-life contraceptive use,” can’t we? Yet folks proclaiming that, apparently, are not arrogant. :-/
Jen: “You coulda fooled me that you think NFP is wonderful. I don’t generally refer to something I think is wonderful as a conspiracy committed against the gift of sex in marriage. “
I’m simply pointing out how NFP use and contraceptive use are in one way not so dissimilar (when using either method to avoid conception), and in another way how their dissimilarity suggests that NFP is the more ambitious and dire plot against God’s intention if that’s what we’re calling avoidance of conception by use of methods.
I’m simply directing NFP idolaters’ critique of contraception against NFP. This doesn’t mean my critique is sound. It’s simply exploring whether consistent application of opprobrium against efforts to control conception leave NFP unscathed and contraception indicted as some seem to imagine would be an inevitable example of that kind of examination.
Leave your incredulity at the door. Take what I’m asserting about my respect for NFP in good faith. Or, of course, you’re welcome to call me a liar as well as imply that contraceptors (of which I am not one) are on a level with orgiastic gays. Whatever. The disrespect here is from NFP idolaters toward pro-life contraceptors. NFP idolaters don’t appear to like having NFP shown for being a mere method as capable of being similar to gay orgies as contraception. That’s why I call it idolatry. It’s not to be provocative. It’s in perfect symmetrical response to the undue laud accorded it by SOME in this forum. When you knock over a Dagon, a lot of Philistines get pissed. That’s how you tell who’s a Philistine, as far as I can tell.
If someone doesn’t want to be understood to be an NFP idolater, don’t act as if you’re defending a METHOD. Defend some people’s use of it, and lament others’. But the instinctive, reflexive defense of the METHOD suggests self-righteous idolatry to me.
Do you have a problem with someone calling out what he sees as genuine idolatry? Would you prefer that a fellow-Christian just not give a rip?
Rasqual: Then let it be known that pro-lifers here who contracept — and to the incredulity of trigger-happy crazies here I suppose it will be a surprise that I am not among them — must not be lumped in with pro-choicers as if their use of contraception was “of a kind” with abortion.
I said that NFP is different in kind from other contraceptive methods. I did not say that other contraceptives methods were “of a kind” with abortion, although some may be. I have heard it said that there is a contraceptive mentality that is similar to the abortion mentality since both mindsets involve trying to control fertility and life through technological methods, both spring from an anti-life perspective, if one strictly takes the definitional meaning of the words “contraception” and ”abortion.”
The phrase NFP, or Natural Family Planning, is not like the title “Planned Parenthood.” Natural Family Planning refers to an actual positive effort to plan and embrace life – to actually plan when to have new life. “Planned Parenthood” is the negative corrally to Natural Family Planning, where the planning is done to avoid life. It would be very insulting to Catholics to attribute the planning done at Planned Parentood to the kind of planning done by people who use NFP.
“Pro-life contraceptive use” isn’t that an oxymoronic phrase?
rasqual says: I think you may also lack self-awareness concerning the extent to which you let unwarranted inferences on your part determine what I happen to be intending with my remarks.
Pfft. Perhaps you could let us know where we can get a copy of your own personal dictionary so we can be assured that we’re not making undue “inferences” regarding words with commonly understood definitions and commonly accepted connotations.
I’ve never seen an NFP idolator. I have seen people speak of NFP imprecisely and theoretically. Since none of us can know whether a particular couple’s NFP use if abusive or not, many speak of NFP assuming (in charity) that the use is not abusive. You, rasqual, choose to speak of NFP as if the use is abusive. Meh. It doesn’t seem particularly effective from a communication standpoint. It might be more effective to simply remind everyone that using NFP to avoid conception is not necessarily a good thing and can be abused rather than launching into histrionic posts.
Although NFP can be abused, it is not inherently evil. Contraception is inherently evil.
Rasqual, there you go again. NFP is a “plot against God’s intention.” C’mon, you’ve got to admit that’s pretty negative, attack-laden verbage.
Sheesh, all I’m saying it it’s not a plot! It’s not a conspiracy! I’m not wickedly trying to outsmart God! Manipulate things and circumstances so that I can thwart His design. That’s exactly how you describe it, and it’s nonsense.
I will grant you that NFP is a METHOD. Okay? Never said it wasn’t.
I will not grant you that it’s no different from using condoms as a METHOD. Or using Pills as a METHOD. It is fundamentally different.
I’ll also grant you, again, that NFP can be used with a not-open-to-life mindset similar to the mindset of many who use the Pill or other contraceptives. The fault lies with the user, not NFP. Anyone is capable of misusing just about anything.
As far as a fellow Christian calling out idolatry… we will part ways. There’s no idolatry here, except in your perception. And I suppose if perception is reality, then you’re doing what you must. But I reject it. I certainly do not idolize NFP. I consider it a gift and a cross all its own.
No thoughts?
“It might be good to remember that prior to 1930, EVERY Christian denomination agreed that contraception was morally wrong. Then one by one, the Protestant denominations gave in to societal pressure and decided contraception was okay. Is it really just a coincidence that the acceptance of contraception preceded the legalization of abortion? ”
Rasqual: “Then the provocation was from a Catholic NFP practitioner in this forum, not from me. Are critics of NFP’s idolaters now to blame for quoting these idolaters? Are their terms fine on their lips, but not fine when attributed to them?”
What?? I understand that such a comparison obviously would not come from someone who supports contraception. That wouldn’t even make sense. Did I anywhere say it came from you? No, I said that what was clearly a provocative comparison (by one person? more?) on another thread, is being used to justify a lot of offense on this thread when nothing like it has been said. I maintain that saying that contraceptive sex is like other sexual sins that destroy one of the unities of the act is not saying that contraception users are the SAME as those having gay orgies (though YES I acknowledge and take everyone’s word for it that this the gay orgies comment HAS been made at another time).
“My tone and connotation is concerned with hypocrisy, idolatry, self-righteousness and judgment of pro-lifers who use contraception, by NFPers who seem intent on defending a method that’s as capable of being used by Catholics with a “contraceptive mindset” as any pro-choicer.”
We defend the method b/c it is the only one that is capable of cooperating with God’s plan for fertility,. Yes it can be misused, but all other methods are inherently wrong. Those methods are just as wrong as using NFP with a contraceptive intent (which many people do), except that contraception can never be right. It cannot be right even if the couple would, laudably, welcome a child if their contraception failed. Bravo to them, but that doesn’t retroactively make the contraceptive sex right.
“The disrespect here is from NFP idolaters toward pro-life contraceptors.”
Only if it’s disrespectful not to approve of contraception use. If we were all respectful in that way, we wouldn’t disagree in the first place.
Contraception and abortion are not the SAME sin. Not even close. I understand what people are saying when they say those with a contraceptive intent are not “pro-life” meaning they aren’t actively seeking to accept life, but I think it’s unhelpful to use the term that way because pro-life has a well known meaning as being against the direct taking of life through abortion. People can of course be pro-life in this well understood sense and still be in favor of contraception. But this truth does not negate the fact that in a broad general sense, the ready availability of quick, immediately available contraception has lead to a mentality among the populace that sex is something that CAN be divorced from procreation. So that if procreation occurs, it is some unfair injustice that has befallen a careful person rather than the natural result of their own actions. This mentality does lower people’s moral opposition to abortion (not all people, clearly). It makes the pro-life fight harder, not easier b/c the vast majority of contraception users are not couples who would be ecstatic if their contraception failed. It single and married people who would be upset (some VERY upset) if their contraception failed (which it so often does). And some of those people are going to look for what they see as an easy way out.
Well said CT.
Nonetheless CT, I would add that all contracepted sexual activity intends, by its very nature, to divorce sexual activity from reproduction – in the mindset of the contraceptive user they have already established that they are not open to/desiring new life. A true practitioner of NFP, and a holder of a Catholic view of life, would never willingly allow themself to think this way. The pro-life contraceptive user (notwithstanding unwilling and/or coerced partners) is only pro-life in the highly technical and narrow sense of affirming created life after the fact, after their intended wishes have been shattered; the contraceptive user is not pro-life in the sense of willing/wanting more human life to exist (and again save those spouses who, out of marital duty/honor, comply with their partner’s demands).
In short, there are reactionary pro-lifers and pro-active (NFP) pro-lifers.
I just come up with this terminology! I wonder if it will stick.
The Catholic Church wants more pro-active pro-lifers. The world needs more pro-active pro-lifers. The pro-life movement needs more pro-active pro-lifers. Pro-active prolifers give witness to the pro-life movement by their very lives and their families. It is beautiful. I wish to say thank-you to all the pro-active pro-lifers and to your large families – you not only talk the talk, you walk the walk.
Tyler, no offense, but I see no positive purpose or result that can come from dividing pro-lifers into your classifications. Count me out.
Tyler: “Nonetheless CT, I would add that all contracepted sexual activity intends, by its very nature, to divorce sexual activity from reproduction – in the mindset of the contraceptive user they have already established that they are not open to/desiring new life.”
Absolute, unapologetic, self-righteous judgmentalism.
Unbelievable.
Un-freakin’-believable.
Not even open to empirical evidence from people who use contraception and ARE open to life. Pure, undiluted Hegelian rationalism — you’re capable of knowing other people a priori, damn the evidence.
Good. Grief.
CT: “Those methods are just as wrong as using NFP with a contraceptive intent (which many people do), except that contraception can never be right. It cannot be right even if the couple would, laudably, welcome a child if their contraception failed. Bravo to them, but that doesn’t retroactively make the contraceptive sex right.”
To some here, it makes it more than merely not right. It makes it cut of the same cloth as abortion, and disqualifies them from being “truly” pro-life.
All kinds of polite chatter on this forum — but contracepting pro-lifers here will always wonder whether they’re being condescendingly tolerated as not being open to life as they claim, because some Catholics (see above) know better.
“I understand what people are saying when they say those with a contraceptive intent are not “pro-life” meaning they aren’t actively seeking to accept life, but I think it’s unhelpful to use the term that way because pro-life has a well known meaning as being against the direct taking of life through abortion.”
It’s more than that. Some here simply can’t imagine that someone using contraception could possibly shrug, laugh, and say “well, the adventure begins!” if their methods failed. They’re seriously committed to the idea that anyone using contraception cannot possibly be, attitude-wise, “open to life.” This mentality is expressed in the link P. helpfully provided as well, as I quoted above. It’s an incredible slander against other pro-lifers to presume — utterly presume — that their use of contraception either predisposes them to, or demonstrates that they are, not being “open to life.” An NFP practitioner [of a particular kind] avoids fertile periods, but they’re somehow more “open to life” than pro-lifers using contraception because, we’re to believe, something magical about the intrinsic wrongness of contraception, by some metaphysical osmosis, ensures that such folk are actually, secretly, despite their protestations, not so open to life as they delude themselves and seek to convince others to believe.
Please.
”…has lead to a mentality among the populace that sex is something that CAN be divorced from procreation.”
As opposed to the mere procreation/sex annulment conveniently provided by NFP to those who are reassured by rhetoric like we’re hearing that they’re sanctified for using it. :-/
I’ll happily assert, again, that I see no difference in making this separation temporally using NFP, versus spatially with a barrier method. Time and space are alike dimensions of God’s universe. Leveraging time to avoid conception is no different, morally, than exploiting the spatial qualities of barriers. Planning sex to coincide with the inaccessibility of a fertilizable ovum is the same kind of decision, whether the inaccessibility is due to control of time or of space. What I’m seeing, though, is that Sneetches who control that inaccessibility using time are really liking them stars upon thars. :-/
”This mentality does lower people’s moral opposition to abortion (not all people, clearly). It makes the pro-life fight harder, not easier b/c the vast majority of contraception users are not couples who would be ecstatic if their contraception failed. It single and married people who would be upset (some VERY upset) if their contraception failed (which it so often does). And some of those people are going to look for what they see as an easy way out.”
A couple who values life would not kill life merely because contraception fails. I disagree substantially with your characterization. The belief that enjoying sex while a fertile ovum is inaccessible (whether by controlling it with time via NFP or space with a barrier) is OK, does not by reason imply or cause a person to believe that killing inchoate life is an option. A person must already believe that such life is disposable. There are myriad things I might wish to prevent which, once realized over my preferences, would not cause me to nuke them. If I value them, their coming-to-be in whatever situation would impose their value on me.
This happens all the time in life. I think perhaps you et al. think abortion and contraception are such special cases of “something unintended happening” that you’re treating it in an unhelpfully fastidious and unrealistic way. People are NOT bound by the principles of one thing being bound to another that you find so inevitable.
Lrning: “It might be more effective to simply remind everyone that using NFP to avoid conception is not necessarily a good thing and can be abused rather than launching into histrionic posts.”
Care to speak to the efficacy of some commenters in these parts calling out contracepting pro-lifers here as being little different than gay orgies, or of accusations that they’re engaging in intrinsic evil and so forth? Not to mention the DUH factor: the scholastic definition of evil we’re talking about is abstruse to the many secularist pro-lifers who frequent these forums. Privation of good is the operative concern for “evil” just here — and yet that very important understanding of evil is never mentioned by Catholics impugning their pro-life acquaintances use of contraception. “Evil” is just hung out there as a word that means whatever the hearer understands it to mean. Red horns. Orgies. Long fingernails in the night while plotting Armageddon. Whatever. No matter. Just use terms blithely and wait for people like me to point out the carelessness.
But let me return to a phrase: “using NFP to avoid conception is not necessarily a good thing”
Can you cite occasions when using NFP to avoid conception is possibly a good thing? Perhaps when health or economic exigencies contraindicate another child?
So why not just abstinence? Why NFP at all? Why seek to have sex without the natural consequence of it? Why try to divorce sex from procreation by leveraging time?
As Tyler says, “I have heard it said that there is a contraceptive mentality that is similar to the abortion mentality since both mindsets involve trying to control fertility and life through technological methods, both spring from an anti-life perspective, if one strictly takes the definitional meaning of the words ‘contraception’ and ’abortion’.”
Ergo, anyone who wishes to avoid conception (they wish the contrary) is “anti-life.” Including NFP users who want to have sex despite health or financial problems that counsel against having new children about.
Why not just abstain?
Why the rutting demand for sex without conception as a consequence?
Lrning: Sounds like you’ve finally spotted one.
Lrning, being truthful about who and what are is always beneficial. If you believe more human life is better than less human life you should want to be counted in. Does truth need to have utility? From an earthly perspective there was no reason why Jesus should die on the cross, but Jesus knew their was.
If truly need a reason, it provides a way to have fruitful dialogue with the reactionary/reactive pro-lifers. It helps the pro-active/procreative prolifer to explain the problem his/her with contraception in a much simpler and easier way.
It help make the dialogue between secular pro-lifers and Christian pro-lifers easier because generally speaking secular pro-lifers are reactive pro-lifers and Christian pro-lifers are pro-active/pro-creative pro-lifers.
Finally, please remember I have only identified the terminology, the ideas preceded the terms; and who knows what else may result. Pro-active/procreative pro-lifers have been silenced in our society for so long, unable to communicate who they are. The pro-life message has been reduced down to the reactive pro-life position, but the pro-life position can be and is bigger than the reactive pro-life position.
What do you think Lrning? Are you still out or are you in?
Absolute, unapologetic, self-righteous judgmentalism.
Unbelievable.
Un-freakin’-believable.
Not even open to empirical evidence from people who use contraception and ARE open to life. Pure, undiluted Hegelian rationalism — you’re capable of knowing other people a priori, damn the evidence.
—–
Rasqual, you have lost me, what is your point in the above passage? Can you please try to provide the alternataive and the empirical evidence you say that you have?
Rasqual, do words have meaning or definitions? If so, please define “contraceptive” for me.
—-
Rasqual: Ergo, anyone who wishes to avoid conception (they wish the contrary) is “anti-life.” Including NFP users who want to have sex despite health or financial problems that counsel against having new children about.
Correct, I agree with this statement that a couple who decides to abstain from sex for these grave reasons, are anti-life for that moment/deciision. Words and actions have meaning. What is your point? Did I ever say that the NFP method is perfect or 100% pro-life all the time? You are the person making the contradictory claim that a person can contracept and be pro-life at the same time. I have just said that is the best method and that is the most natural and is consistent with God’s plan. Furthermore, the couple that abstains for grave reasons are not using their sex life as their own personal amusement park, and they are not immaturely risking creating a child that they reasonably determined beforehand that they could not afford. The NFP couple is being more responsible by abstaining from sex rather trying to have their cake and eat it too.
::::::::::::::::::::SIGH::::::::::::::::::::
Why would someone who’s ABSTAINING be practicing NFP?
Lrning, using the new terminology will allow the pro-life movement to become a personal and family/familial movement and not just a political movement. We don’t want to just be pro-life for our neighbour’s kid, we want to be pro-life so we too can have kids, and to have large families if we so choose. It personalizes and humanizes the abortion issue, it accentuates the differences between the proactive pro-lifer and the abortion minded person more clearly, and the comparison/contrast is even starker. Right now, the abortion person is being compared to the reactionary pro-lifer – and – well, the pro-lifer comes off looking reactionary, rather than pro-active. We need the media and the culture to start comparing the person who seeks an abortion with the pro-active pro-lifer.
The proactive prolifer values all human relationships and seeks to minimize any behaviour that destroys those existing relationships, or any actions that seek to destroy of forbid the creating of new relationships.
The pro-active prolifer helps us confront those who support abortion due to the so-called over-population problem.
Rasqual: Why would someone who’s ABSTAINING be practicing NFP?
I don’t know you tell me. I don’t get your point.
NFP is for creating babies. Abstaining only happens in rare occassions and when it does it is most definitely anti-life decision, it is ABSTAINING, and similarily, contracepting is CONTRACEPTING – also anti-life. But, here is the important thing: ABSTAINING is not CONTRACEPTING, and CONTRCEPTING is not ABSTAINING.
Do BLOCK letters help make this clearer? Why are we using them?
I still want to know — why are the mods trolling the forum with posts they know darned well are needlessly divisive among the pro-life folk who value the stanek site?
Who posted this? Why?
The prevention of life and the destruction of life are the difference between potential and actual, and I for one am distressed to see Catholics failing to mark such a fundamental scholastic/Aristotelian distinction.
Tyler: No, you tell me. You said “The NFP couple is being more responsible by abstaining from sex rather trying to have their cake and eat it too.”
What did you mean by an NFP couple “abstaining” from sex? If one is abstaining, why do NFP? Why would you need to know when you’re fertile if you’re abstaining?
Or are you now using NFP to refer to just bloomin’ anything “pro-active”, not specifically symptothermal or whatever?
The whole “cake and eat it too” thing, whether you know it or not, sounds like someone who just resents other people enjoying themselves. I heartily encourage you to come up with a better trope.
Rasqual: The prevention of life and the destruction of life are the difference between potential and actual, and I for one am distressed to see Catholics failing to mark such a fundamental scholastic/Aristotelian distinction.
Please use an example, and please shows how your idea relates to the discussion. Right now you have just written a bunch of fancy words and have not applied them to anything.
Also, how exactly is this topic divisive?
“Why would someone who’s ABSTAINING be practicing NFP?”
Because NFP provides valuable information about a woman’s body. I wish I had known/used NFP as an abstinent teenager — I have irregular cycles and it would have been nice to have known in advance when my period was due to arrive.
Rasqual, the goal ultimately in NFP is not too abstain, it is only for grave reasons (some of which you, yourself, identified in earlier post) so I know you know the answer to your question.
I already said the decision to abstain is anti-life decision – see my post at 12:06 am. But I must repeat that NFP is to plan for life, not to be constantly abstaining.
Now you have to explain your contradictory statement that someone can be pro-life and contracept at the same time. Aren’t these two ideas mutually exclusive?
If you think having contraceptive sterile sex is enjoyable, knock yourself out, but please don’t tell me that it represents a pro-life attitude toward sexuality.
You’re semantically confused, Tyler, and frankly you need to read Aquinas more and these boards less.
Anti-(potential)-life is not the same as anti-(actual)-life. In the first case, life does not actually exist. In the second case, it does.
You’re failing to distinguish potential from actual.
Again, read up on your Aquinas.
Contraception is ensuring that potential life remains potential, not actual.
Abortion ensures that actual life is destroyed.
From a profoundly Catholic standpoint, these could not possibly be more different.
Hold on! Wait! Don’t hit that add comment button!
Go read up on your Aquinas for a couple weeks.
Rasqual, to use my new terminology, your pro-life position appears to be reactionary. You only want people to be pro-life when or if a baby is conceived and not before. People who use NFP, on theotherhand, want more babies, they are pro-active, pro-creative, and they are pro-life in the sense that they are pro-more-life, more babies.
JoAnna: That makes a lot of sense. It’s not the sense Tyler was concerned to make, but what you’re saying is ridiculously sane.
From a strictly secular standpoint that makes great sense: Know thyself.
“I wish I had known/used NFP as an abstinent teenager”
Joanna, my sister and friend of hers say the exact same thing (as I recall, they were talking about the Billings method specifically); a lot of women use it to gain valuable knowledge about their bodies and their cycles, whether they’re sexually active (like my sister) or not (like her friend).
And Tyler, I would join in further, but Rasqual has already made it clear that nothing I say will help (being an obviously self-righteous, arrogant, judgemental Catholic and all), so I’ll have to entrust this to the Holy Spirit.
Really, I should be doing that anyway regardless of how the conversation goes, so no worries. :-)
I will point out two things, though; posts like this are not divisive, but rather draw attention to the divisions that already exist in the pro-life movement. These will need to be addressed sooner or later, because we (i.e. Catholics and those who agree with our view of sexuality) cannot and will not just keep quiet about the damage of artificial contraception and content ourselves to treat its symptoms like the societal attitudes against which we battle.
No, we will continue to admonish all people (beginning with ourselves, in case you’re wondering) to fully appreciate and respect the beautiful gift of sexuality and its proper use, because we want nothing less for everyone than to live fully in the truth.
Tyler: Dude, you have to start thinking more carefully.
“People who use NFP, on theotherhand, want more babies, they are pro-active, pro-creative, and they are pro-life in the sense that they are pro-more-life, more babies.”
So are many people who use contraception during some seasons of their life.
Since NFP-using Catholics don’t constantly have children, and since others don’t constantly contracept, you’re making a weird point.
To express my thoughts unoriginally: “Heck, that ain’t right. That’s not even wrong.”
What do you think Lrning? Are you still out or are you in?
Still out. I don’t think sticking unclear labels on people is actually conducive to “fruitful dialogue”. Just in the short time since you came up with these classifications you’ve already modified the “pro-active” label to include “procreative” in the hopes of making your point clearer. But it doesn’t. “Reactive” pro-lifer? What are they reacting to? If you must divide pro-lifers into categories, why not go with pro-contraception and anti-contraception? At least we’d all know what you mean. Or better yet, let’s all just fight abortion together as pro-lifers.
Maestro: “No, we will continue to admonish all people (beginning with ourselves, in case you’re wondering) to fully appreciate and respect the beautiful gift of sexuality and its proper use, because we want nothing less for everyone than to live fully in the truth.”
Many Catholics abort. Most Catholics contracept. My point in saying that is this: many Catholics hold those who contracept in judgment, while claiming special pleading for their own sexual ethics, which all too often privilege sexual pleasure under the secure cover of NFP’s reliability in avoiding conception.
In short, Catholics who fall short morally in reproductive matters are one cohort; Catholics who fastidiously pick at non-Catholic motes with a beam in their own eye are another.
I’m not sure how Catholics in this forum can ensure that they will not be perceived as mote-picking hypocrites, when their comments are so often as careless and arrogant as I’ve spotted all too often.
I understand the issues. I love NFP. I don’t contracept.
I hate idolatry. Simple as that. Many here are not idolaters. Some bear all the marks.
Lrning,
The Reactionary/Reactive pro-lifers are the people who become pro-life only after a failure in a contraceptive device and conception has taken place. The reactionary pro-lifers are generally pro-contraception, and have small families. (Unfortunately, this is the category I resided in and actually still reside in).
The pro-active pro-lifer is the person who is pro-life all the time desiring large families, and the like (think of the Duggards). These pro-lifers embrace life as often as they can. It is a much more powerful pro-life position. It is a lived pro-life position.
As Rasqual has pointed out some people who use NFP can fall into either category. These categories are slightly bigger than the categories of those who use contraceptives and those who don’t.
Rasqual, why did you bring up abortion when we have been primarily talking about NFP and contraception?
I certainly perceive the difference between abortion and contraception! – that made me smile, so thanks.
Tyler, now that you’ve explained your classifications in further detail, I not only opt out, I am running away. (Figuratively.)
Now it’s not enough to be anti-abortion and anti-contraception, but now a pro-active prolifer must desire a large family? What constitutes “large”? Four children? Twelve children? Nineteen children? Sorry, you’ve strayed off the Catholic reservation with this one.
Argh. You’re drawing dust from a dry semantic well, Tyler. The distinction you’re making sounds pretty original and, to my knowledge, stands on the shoulders of no giants. ;-)
Tyler: “Rasqual, why did you bring up abortion when we have been primarily talking about NFP and contraception?”
:-/
Never mind.
Rasqual: So are many people who use contraception during some seasons of their life.
The seasons can take place without a couple contracepting.
I have two kids and I don’t want anymore ever, I’ll probably get a vasectomy pretty soon. I am getting divorced. I don’t think sex is special, spiritual, anything like that. And….. I am just as pro-life as all of you that think that sex is some holy gift, that want big families, etc. Seriously, its an offensive insinuation and one of the reasons I get tired of the contraception wars. We ALL want to save already conceived babies. I don’t understand why pro- lifers can’t concentrate on that. Once we accomplish.our goals in that arena all of you who wish to can move on and oppose contraception, and I will oppose you! :)
But really, all kidding aside, isn’t saving babies more important than everyone’s moral problem with contraception?
Lrning I did not use any imperative sentences. I never said that the pro-active pro-life must have a large family. I aplogize for not being clearer. I meant to say that the pro-active pro-lifer is the person who is open to large family and desires such. The pro-active pro-lifer is open to God’s grace and he does not try to thwart His Grace through the use of technology. A proactive prolifer’s position towards God’s Grace does not change when he/she is about to have sex – he is open all the time, and allows God to change the seasons (to determine the size of his/her family).
Thanks Maestro, It was nice to read your post.
Jack sorry to hear that you are getting divorce. I hope you are doing ok. I know that can be tough.
Yes, saving babies - preborn babies and born babies - is very important. But I have to repeat Maestro’s point – do we honestly think there is no connection between contracepting and abortion? That one mentality doesn’t promote/influence (not determine) the other.
rasqual says: “Evil” is just hung out there as a word that means whatever the hearer understands it to mean.
I guess that’s true. Of course, that’s true of most words we use. If the hearer is unsure, they can always look it up. A Catholic dictionary is not required to eliminate the demonic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil?s=t
Can you cite occasions when using NFP to avoid conception is possibly a good thing? Perhaps when health or economic exigencies contraindicate another child?
So why not just abstinence? Why NFP at all? Why seek to have sex without the natural consequence of it? Why try to divorce sex from procreation by leveraging time?
From a Catholic perspective, “just abstinence” is fine if mutually agreed upon. No one has to use NFP. But NFP doesn’t “seek to have sex without the natural consequence of it”. Because the natural consequence of sex during the infertile period is realized with NFP, not avoided. And if sex is “divorced” from procreation by infertile periods, then that was according to God’s design.
That’s baloney Tyler. I don’t even believe in God, I don’t care about thwarting the desires of some being I don’t think exists. I am not open to more children. But, if another child happened, I would not try to have it aborted and I actively work towards ending abortion.
You. Do. Not. Have. To. Be. A. Christian. To. Be. Pro-life. It really is that simple. I would appreciate you cutting that crap out. I don’t have to believe or think the same way as you about God, sex, marriage, etc to be pro-life. What I do have to do is oppose abortion.
Lrning, perhaps a better label than “pro-active” is “receptive”.
Another two terms that could be used are 1) the open pro-lifer and 2) the closed pro-lifer.
Jack: Bill Cosby: “My wife and I have five children. And the reason we have five children, is because we do not want six.” :-D
Lrning: “Because the natural consequence of sex during the infertile period is realized with NFP, not avoided. And if sex is “divorced” from procreation by infertile periods, then that was according to God’s design.”
Not understanding. The first part especially. I’d welcome elucidation. As for the second part, the master left his servants with talents to steward. God’s design, in this world, is not the only design. We, his handiwork, have responsibilities.
Jack, you have identified exactly what the current pro-life movement is: it is, simply and only, anti-abortion, no more, no less. I find this dissatisfying and not very uplifting or motivating. It is almost a negative stance.
Lrning – yet another set of labels – perhaps there is a difference between a pro-lifer and an anti-abortionist.
Tyler: But opposing abortion is dealing with the wolf howling at the door. At our leisure, once we stem the crimson tide, we may abuse each other rhetorically on philosophical issues.
In time of war, squeamishness about “negative” vibes is effete. Time to man up.
Tyler. I am honestly sick and tired of this alienating attitude that some prolifers have got going on. The more restrictive you make being pro-life, the less people will be able to follow these stupid guidelines you people keep throwing up. And the less people able to work in the movement, the more babies DIE.
Do you not realize what a serious business this is? Dead babies. That’s our consequences if we don’t ends legal abortion. Now you can flit around and claim that I am not pro-life because I don’t think sex is speshul, or JDC is not because he is an atheist, or Xalisae is not because she had her tubes tied. We won’t go anywhere because we understand how important this is. But you people constantly constantly alienate those who might have been reached with your judgmental attitudes and all these religious and moral restrictions. Which the consequences of having less people in our movement is more DEAD babies. Seriously.
Rasqual: Tyler: But opposing abortion is dealing with the wolf howling at the door. At our leisure, once we stem the crimson tide, we may abuse each other rhetorically on philosophical issues.
In time of war, squeamishness about “negative” vibes is effete. Time to man up.
Funny. Good post.
Rasqual, I just think we need to leave some steel claw traps around the house so that the wolf understands he should never come back. We need to turn the howling into squealing. Without the traps (God, faith, pro-active pro-life position) the wolf is coming back again, and again, and again.
Tyler. I am honestly sick and tired of this alienating attitude that some prolifers have got going on. The more restrictive you make being pro-life, the less people will be able to follow these stupid guidelines you people keep throwing up. And the less people able to work in the movement, the more babies DIE.
Do you not realize what a serious business this is? Dead babies. That’s our consequences if we don’t ends legal abortion. Now you can flit around and claim that I am not pro-life because I don’t think sex is speshul, or JDC is not because he is an atheist, or Xalisae is not because she had her tubes tied. We won’t go anywhere because we understand how important this is. But you people constantly constantly alienate those who might have been reached with your judgmental attitudes and all these religious and moral restrictions. Which the consequences of having less people in our movement is more DEAD babies. Seriously.
Jack, I just don’t share your fear. These babies will need their faith as well. For me, I believe winning this fight against abortion is still ultimately up to God. We do our part to prevent and pray that the Mother’s have a change of heart, but we don’t give up our principles or faith along the way. So although saving babies may be sufficient to, how we save is important to me. If we don’t start changing the culture now these babies will grow up to do the samething their parents did. I am not making the pro-life position restricitve, I hoping to expand it from simply being an anti-abortion movement.
Jack if you can give me one reason to believe that tomorrow you won’t wake up pro-abortion that would be helpful. How do secularists justify being pro-life? Tell me Jack, why do you value human life?
Tyler. I am not playing that “you must secretly be a terrible person because you can’t force yourself to believe what I do” game with you. My ex-wife did that to me all the freaking time. “how do I know you won’t cheat, you won’t do something terrible? After all you won’t go to church!!!”. It’s manipulative and makes me feel like crap. I won’t play Tyler. You cant convert people by telling them that they have no moral code. If there was one evangelizing tactic I wish you guys would stop using on me, that would be it.
You are still wrong. Babies being legally murdered is more important than you getting to feel like you are better than people because they don’t agree with your religion.
I was not trying to make you feel like crap. I am sorry if I did.
More than your opinion I wanted to know why any secularist values life, but unfortunately, I realize every secularist’s reason would be different from the next secularist. This is why I had to ask for your opinion. As far as I am aware secularists do not share a common creed.
There is only one evangelizing tactic that works (across all faiths and non-faiths) and that is love – God’s love. Either you accept it or you don’t. This is spirituality more than religion.
Jack, can you please tell me why my questions weren’t legitimate. To me, a person beliefs act like a window into a person’s soul. To me, if a person does not have a set of beliefs that person lacks a certain amount of transparency and core. If people are likes boats floating in water, married couples need to ensure that they anchor their boats close to one another. If one of the boats doesn’t have an anchor, the other boat will worry about losing that other boat.
Jack I hope all works out for you and your family. You are a very nice man, and I would bet that you are a very loving father. I will pray for you and your family tonight. Is there anything you would like me to pray for?
Jack, I would like to recommend a book for you to read at this time in your life. It is by a Catholic Saint but I am sure that you like it. The book is called Confessions. It is by St. Augustine.
You can let me you think about the book later.
Yup. My marriage failed because I have no moral core and I’m a terrible person. Or something. You really don’t know what you are talking about.
And btw, there are thousands and thousands of denominations of Christianity, and they all believe different things. I find the proposition that Christians automatically have a better grounding for their beliefs than atheists and agnostics dubious at best. And just because someone claims something doesn’t mean they follow it.
I’m not having this conversation anymore. I am under an immense amount of stress and have no obligation to listen to some dude be rude to me and then act surprised that I am offended.
Tyler says: “I am not making the pro-life position restricitve, I hoping to expand it from simply being an anti-abortion movement.”
“There is only one evangelizing tactic that works (across all faiths and non-faiths) and that is love – God’s love.”
I understand what you’re saying. But you can’t be surprised when beating someone over the head with your version of “God’s love” isn’t fruitful. Perhaps take a more St. Francis of Assisi approach, “Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words.”
Tyler, live your proactive/procreative/open/receptive pro-life beliefs. You don’t need to label other people in order to do that. Classifications/labels/whatever, they’re words that can foster or hinder communication. I don’t really see them as being fruitful for conversion.
I find the proposition that Christians automatically have a better grounding for their beliefs than atheists and agnostics dubious at best.
Jack what I was trying to say was that the beliefs of people of faith are typically transparent, while an atheist’s and agnostic’s beliefs are highly individual, and typically unknown and not broadcasted to the world at large. For example, we ack chief executives what investments they own in order that shareholders and the Board of Directors can be aware of possible conflicts of interest that the CEO may have or run into. With this in mind, why wouldn’t a person want to know the beliefs of an atheist. I find it very immature when atheists and agnostics think they can go through this life never (or barely) telling anyone what they truly believe. From a human relationship standpoint, why should an atheist be privileged to change their belief at any moment or for any whim, and then expect people of faith to accept all of these inchorent actions to be perfectly raitional and plain for everyone else to see and, most importantly, understand. How can you be upset with your wife for having questions about what you truly believe. To me, that just shows me she has concern for, not that she is trying to convert you.
Finally, I never said that you don’t have a moral core… you are the only one who knows that. And I never said that you were a terrible person (I don’t believe that).
Jack, if I may ask, who ended the marriage? Was it mutual?
Lrning: I understand what you’re saying. But you can’t be surprised when beating someone over the head with your version of “God’s love” isn’t fruitful. Perhaps take a more St. Francis of Assisi approach, “Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words.”
Tyler, live your proactive/procreative/open/receptive pro-life beliefs. You don’t need to label other people in order to do that. Classifications/labels/whatever, they’re words that can foster or hinder communication. I don’t really see them as being fruitful for conversion.
All good points.
I appreciate that you agree that pro-active pro-lifers should not let reactionary pro-lifers define what the pro-life movement is for the pro-active pro-lifer.
Rasqual: Why NFP at all? Why seek to have sex without the natural consequence of it? Why try to divorce sex from procreation by leveraging time? “
Lrning: “Because the natural consequence of sex during the infertile period is realized with NFP, not avoided. And if sex is “divorced” from procreation by infertile periods, then that was according to God’s design.”
Rasqual: “Not understanding. The first part especially. I’d welcome elucidation. As for the second part, the master left his servants with talents to steward. God’s design, in this world, is not the only design. We, his handiwork, have responsibilities. “
From a procreation standpoint, each sex act has two possible natural consequences. Conception or no conception. NFP does nothing to change this. NFP provides information so the couple is aware which of the two consequences is most likely to result from a particular occasion of sexual intercourse. NFP neither imposes nor avoids the consequences of sex.
God’s design, in this world, is not the only design.
I disagree. God’s design for human sexuality is the only design. From a procreation standpoint, we can accept/cooperate with this design, we can use our “talents” to find ways to circumvent this design. But in the end, there is only one design. Theoretically, NFP seeks to cooperate with God’s design. Theoretically, contraception seeks to circumvent this design.
Aw, I’m being moderated. :(
Lrning. I disagree a litttle bit with your above point. I think these labels might be helpful in conversion (to the faith and to a more pro-active prolife position). For one, it allows believers to see more clearly the practical effects of a lack of faith on a person’s pro-life position. Second, it allows those who are reactionary pro-lifers to see and understand who and what they are – it brings the follwoing question to the mind of a reactionary pro-lifer: Am I only anti-abortionist? These labels might help people faith to question their own pro-life position, and examine whether it is everything it should and can be.
These labels challenge those secular and atheist pro-lifers who have stunted pro-life positions.
Sorry Tyler, but I do not think that your new labels for pro-lifers will do anything of the sort. Your labels, in and of themselves, are a hindrance in my opinion.
First off:
Atheists and agnostics are under no obligation to share their beliefs with you or anyone else. Neither are Christians or Muslims, for that matter. It’s really no one’s business. However, you belong to a proselytizing religion, so you apparently feel the need to share yours. Cool beans, share away. However, I am not trying to convert anyone to my evil agnostic ways. I have no interest in doing so, at all. Therefore, I feel no need to sit around and gab about my beliefs to you or anyone else. It’s no one’s business. The only people I feel comfortable with having an in depth discussion about faith are people I think actually have my best interests in mind. That means people like Carla, Sidney M, Kel, Paladin, Bobby, Pamela, or others that I know personally away from this blog. That does not include you. I do not generally enjoy discussing anything sensitive with you, because you routinely disregard people’s wishes and feelings when you are trying to make whatever point you are currently stuck on. I honestly suspect that you enjoy upsetting people, seeing as when someone tells you that something is difficult or painful for them you continue to bring it up.
And honestly the rest of your comment was just baloney. Yes, people of no faith or of great faith can change their minds about whatever for any reason they fancy, and it is up to them if they would like to disclose their reasoning.
And finally I’ll be blunt. Shut it about my ex wife and my marriage. You don’t know what you are talking about, and I am not sharing my personal business for you to do your pick apart abusive crap on it. BTW, the very dedicated, anti-divorce Christians I have confided in agreed that I needed to leave.
I think it is fairly difficult for a person to transition from a stunted reactionary pro-life position to a pro-active pro-abundant-human-life pro-life position without some kind of spiritual faith. The reactionaries can finally “see” what they are missing out on.
Jack you brought up your wife and your divorce. Not me. If you didn’t want to share it, then you should not have posted it. I am not addressing your marriage in general, but only the comments you made regarding the marital breakdown being due, in part, to your own atheism and your wife’s faith.
Your insults don’t bother me, nor does your lack of desire to discuss your situation bother me. However, I will still pray for you, your family, and your children. I wish you all the best in these difficult times. I am sorry to hear about your difficulties, and I apologize if I am not doing a good job at getting that across to you.
Periods of separation are sometimes needed. In those periods, people often can change, who knows what may happen. God’s grace will make everything work out.
I am glad to hear that you have friends that you can confide in. That is always helpful.
I still want to know — why are the mods trolling the forum with posts they know darned well are needlessly divisive among the pro-life folk who value the stanek site?
I think everyone here values the Jill’s site (I think even some of the proaborts secretly do). I personally learn a lot reading about everyone’s points of views. I disagree more with some than others but I care about each person who comes here, including our regular proaborts.
These posts will only be divisive if you let them be, rasqual. I don’t think everyone (or anyone) sees these as divisive as you do. Some posts may cause discomfort to some people but I hope we are all mature enough to let this discomfort go and not lose any sleep over it.
I am put off by some of the posts here — mostly yours (: – but I will not allow this to cause division between me and you. If division is caused, it will because you want it that way, not me.
Tyler mentioned a book called Confessions by St. Augustine. I read this book some years back when I was struggling with many issues. The reading level is way above mine but I still took a lot away from it. I enjoyed it on it’s historical level as much as on a personal level. I could relate to many of Augustine’s struggles in his youth when I was younger. Now I can relate to many of his mom’s struggles!
If someone disagrees with legalized abortion and works to try to change that, I believe they are a prolifer.
I don’t think everyone (or anyone) sees these as divisive as you do.
I take this back. After reading Jack’s post, I see that he is quite upset. I am going to give all prolifers here the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assume they are out to get me or any other fellow prolifer here.
Now the proaborts I will have to spend more time thinking about. . . . .
Lrning: “From a procreation standpoint, each sex act has two possible natural consequences. Conception or no conception. NFP does nothing to change this. NFP provides information so the couple is aware which of the two consequences is most likely to result from a particular occasion of sexual intercourse. NFP neither imposes nor avoids the consequences of sex.”
Right, NFP does nothing to change that — the moral agents making use of it to inform their actions do.
If a couple used a condom during a period when the consequence of uncontracepted sex would have been no conception, that condom did not “change” the result either. Is that a moral qualifier for its use? rasqual: “God’s design, in this world, is not the only design.”Lrning “I disagree. God’s design for human sexuality is the only design.”
I think you mean that it’s the only design we should in all cases defer to and in no cases supplement with our own designs. But that’s not obvious. Created in his image, we are designers who steward — clumsily and quite badly, short of creation’s ultimate redemption — the world. That was our calling, and it remains so despite the frailty and foolishness our fallen race brings to that calling. That we do, in fact, bring our designs to bear on what God has given us in creation — whether the world outside us, our own bodies, or how we interact with others — is the obvious thing.
Making a special case of sex while living out a very different ethic in many other areas (as I’m sure you do) seems inconsistent.
This is not to say, of course, that just anything we might wish to do is fine and dandy. But fear of what some might do (indeed, are doing) doesn’t warrant the claim that we’re wrong to do anything at all.
We are co-designers with God. That’s indisputable. Whether we ought to be in the case of sex is a case that needs to be made, not a truth that people should find self-evident.
rasqual: Right, NFP does nothing to change that — the moral agents making use of it to inform their actions do.
Really? How does knowing that sex during the infertile time is likely to not result in conception change the natural consequence of that sex act? How do you define “natural consequence”?
rasqual: If a couple used a condom during a period when the consequence of uncontracepted sex would have been no conception, that condom did not “change” the result either. Is that a moral qualifier for its use?
Are you making the argument that the morality of an action is determined by its end result?
rasqual: I think you mean that it’s the only design we should in all cases defer to and in no cases supplement with our own designs. We are co-designers with God. That’s indisputable. Whether we ought to be in the case of sex is a case that needs to be made, not a truth that people should find self-evident.
Hmm. Actually, I don’t see human sexuality as something that man is capable of designing. Man can study God’s design and separate/manipulate some of the elements in an attempt to achieve a particular outcome. But ultimately, I don’t see that as designing. Maybe it’s just a semantic difference. In any case, I agree that we are called to be stewards of God’s creation.
A few thoughts. First off, Jack is articulating my viewpoint better than I ever could. Next, Tyler, no offense but you’re saying the kinds of things I’m always trying to convince people pro-lifers don’t believe. You seem to be suggesting that being pro-life entails valuing an infinite amount of reproduction. Many people have tried to convince me this is the logical result of pro-life beliefs, on the grounds that they don’t see a difference between being aborted and never being conceived in the first place. From there, they conclude that if it is wrong to abort that which is conceived, it must also be morally required to conceive as much as possible. I’m probably misrepresenting your views a bit here, given that you are in favor of abstinence which stops people from being conceived who could have been. But anyways, I do see some similarities between the viewpoint you are promoting and that which is often attributed to us by our opponents.
JDC, in the view I am presenting there is no moral equivalence between aborting a child and not conceiving a child. Thie difference is so obvious one doesn’t have to argue it.
I am talking about married couples being open to conception not about requiring them to conceive.
Morality does seem to compel married couples to be open to new life. It is like God is trusting the married couple with the continuity of humanity. If a married couple is going to put aside this trust they should have very serious reasons for doing so. The call to multiply is profound and is a responsibility entrusted with the married couple. As prolifers we should try to understand this and promote it. To reduce the prolife movement down to trying to ensure the legal protection of those conceived really neuters our moral strength. It turns us into a bunch of people clamouring for some legalistic recognition for the conceived. If we believe the conceived have value, it is not inconsistent to want more conceptions.
I am not sure how this idea can be expressed in secular or atheist words. Perhaps you can translate this idea into some secular version, if it is possible.
Abortion is not wrong only because it kills the innocent preborn child – it is also wrong because denies two individuals the profound opportunity of being parents. It is a violation of a parent’s natural and existential role.
Abortion is not wrong only because it kills the innocent preborn child – it is also wrong because it denies two individuals the profound opportunity of being parents. It is a violation of an individual’s natural and existential role to be a parent that is linked to a particular child in an unique and unrepeatable manner.
Tyler says: “To reduce the prolife movement down to trying to ensure the legal protection of those conceived really neuters our moral strength.”
It seems to me that you are trying to expand the prolife movement, not that others are trying to reduce it.
Tyler says: If we believe the conceived have value, it is not inconsistent to want more conceptions.”
Nor does it necessarily follow. Do people have individual/personal value, or only in some aggregate sense? If you value Aunt Jane, must you want more Aunt Janes? To me, one of the most powerful arguments against a woman having an abortion is that although she may go on to have other children in the future, she will never again have this child. And this child has value and deserves to live.
I felt like I was channelling Albert Camus for a moment.
Do people have individual/personal value, or only in some aggregate sense?
No
If you value Aunt Jane, must you want more Aunt Janes?
No. Aunt Jane is valuable in her own right. She is unique, that is just a fact about human beings – each person is unique. There is no way to have more Aunt Janes (save cloning her – which explode this conversation into a billion other agruements, and besides I don’t think you had cloning in mind when you wrote your comment).
To me, one of the most powerful arguments against a woman having an abortion is that although she may go on to have other children in the future, she will never again have this child. And this child has value and deserves to live.
Correct; however, the uniqueness of each child is actually also a powerful reason to be open to conceiving more of them!
Lrning, the movement has laready been reduced to a legal fight (which I believe is an important fight).
However, the prolife movement was more, and can be more. It can be about changing our attitudes toward human life, about families and their size, about global population growth, about the importance of marriage and healthy relationships. It can be a lot more positive than it currently is.
Is this thread dead? I read every.single. comment…wow that was long!
And I still don’t get it! Someone ( I forget who, I think Tyler) said that having sex during an infertile time (using NFP) was a sin. That is was a spouse giving in to the weaker spouse who I guess wanted sex even knowing no baby would be made. That NFP is for MAKING babies.
See here’s the thing. I don’t need NFP to regulate my cycle. I have always had a regular cycle even as a young teenager. Like clockwork. I conceived my oldest while on the pill. I would never take the pill again but when i did take it and conceived my oldest I NEVER considered abortion! I was always open to life and still am.
My husband and I use condoms. Last June/July when my husband decided we should have a second child (which I had been wanting for YEARS) we got pregnant within a week of deciding. Boom. Just like that.
I have a suspicion my husband and I are very fertile. I don’t need NFP at this point in my life to help me conceive. I would like to use it to prevent conception because my husband feels that we cannot afford a 3rd child at this point. And quite frankly, call me selfish, but I haven’t lost hardly any baby weight and I want to slim down before another baby!
But if I got pregnant tomorrow I would be thrilled. I would love that baby. I would never consider an abortion.
But what you’re saying is that if my husband allowed our genital skin to touch and my body didn’t say “stay away!” to his sperm that it would STILL be wrong to use NFP to avoid pregnancy?
And if you say no, I have misunderstood your position…then how exactly is NFP not the same as using a barrier method?
I’ve read Rasqual and Tyler and Joanna and CT’s comments going round and round on this but I still haven’t seen it explained!
i’m not offended by the Catholics here, I am not trying to offend them. I seriously just want to understand this.
Sydney, while I don’t have time to answer your post right now (I’m on my break at work), I will look at this when I get home and I will try to answer your questions as best I can.
Hopefully, I’m successful with at least one of them in that regard. :-)
Bear in mind that my answers will not speak specifically for Tyler’s views or those of anyone else, but rather from the perspective of Catholic teaching. If he wants to write his own response, he is more than welcome to do so.
Sydney, it is not Catholic teaching that having sex during the infertile time is a sin. If that was said in this thread, then I missed it.
How is NFP different than a condom? A very quick answer is that NFP works with a couple’s natural fertility cycle (which we believe is a gift from God) whereas a condom is a deformation of the fertility cycle. A barrier prevents the “two shall become one” because it prevents the complete sharing of self. The love between a husband and wife is unique and special because it mirrors God’s love for us, including the life-giving aspect of God’s love. For a Catholic, sex should be a renewal of the marriage covenant and to purposefully cut out the life-giving aspect of that union is sinful.
It seems like there should be a simple answer to your question, but I’m afraid there’s not, because it involves God’s whole plan for love and marriage. I’m sorry if my answer ends up making things more confusing.
“How is NFP different than a condom? A very quick answer is that NFP works with a couple’s natural fertility cycle (which we believe is a gift from God) whereas a condom is a deformation of the fertility cycle. A barrier prevents the ‘two shall become one’ because it prevents the complete sharing of self. The love between a husband and wife is unique and special because it mirrors God’s love for us, including the life-giving aspect of God’s love. For a Catholic, sex should be a renewal of the marriage covenant and to purposefully cut out the life-giving aspect of that union is sinful.”
If it mirrors God’s love for us, then the incomplete expression of that love is authentic. God does not do a total dump of his love on each occasion where he loves us at all, so it’s not clear to me that each and every occasion of marital union need be complete. Indeed, I think we indulge a dangerous conceit if we suspect this is possible in all cases; who among is consistently in union with our spouse 100% of the time emotionally during sex — or even while merely sharing our emotions? Rationally? Physically? Is it a sin to speak on the phone with one’s spouse, merely because one is participating physically (acoustics) but not in all physical ways normally (“naturally”, as opposed to using technology) attending such presence?
Perhaps we’re obliged to give ourselves as much as possible. But an implication might be “as often as possible,” as well.
Something like that.
rasqual: “God does not do a total dump of his love on each occasion where he loves us at all,”
You are arguing that there are occasions where God does not love us, or does not love us completely? Please explain.
rasqual: who among is consistently in union with our spouse 100% of the time emotionally during sex — or even while merely sharing our emotions?
How is emotion related to love?
Jack, you have identified exactly what the current pro-life movement is: it is, simply and only, anti-abortion, no more, no less. I find this dissatisfying and not very uplifting or motivating. It is almost a negative stance.
That’s funny, I find it fulfilling, uplifting, and motivating as heck, buddy. I can’t imagine the universe where wanting to end the legal killing of children in utero would be a “negative stance”.
Sydney, I apologize up front for the length of this post, but I wanted to make sure I didn’t short you any answers or important information. Due to the subject matter, I will be making numerous definitive statements. I hope you can trust that I mean no offense to you or anyone else, and I have no intention of attacking or condemning you (or your husband), but this is what we believe.
I’ll start with some of the basic Catholic teachings on sexuality as it relates to contraception (both natural and artificial) and procreation, some of which you probably already know.
(and for expediency’s sake, when I refer to Catholics, I am referring only to those who actually practice their faith and follow the Church’s teachings: no CINO’s)
We believe that God instituted sex for two purposes:
1) To unify a husband and wife and serve as a renewal of their wedding vows.
2) To allow that couple to be co-creators with God.
We believe that every act must be fully open to both of those aspects. If either one of these is missing, their sexuality is being misused.
Naturally, this rules out artificial contraception and would appear to also rule out natural contraception (i.e. NFP). I blame no one for coming to that conclusion, as it is not immediately apparent what the difference is.
One of the most important things to remember about NFP is that, more often than many would care to admit, natural contraception IS forbidden, and this is due entirely to the reasons for its use. Being Catholic grants absolutely ZERO amnesty in this regard; on the contrary, it generally results in us being held more strictly to that standard, as we are expected to be more familiar with this and thus more responsible for it.
In fact, natural contraception is permissible under one and only one very clear condition: when the couple discerns that God does not want them to have anymore children, at least for the time being. Want is irrelevant, as are fear or uncertainty; we are expected to trust in God and His providence, especially during difficult times, and to remember that He will not give us anything that we cannot handle.
The greatest downside to that being the condition is that it’s practically impossible for anyone else to enforce, as it is exceedingly rare for anyone to be able to see into another’s heart clearly enough to determine whether or not their discernment is sincere (I’ve heard of only two people in the last century who had an ability similar to that, and at least one of them has since died).
In this, though, we find the crucial distinction in attitude and reason for its use: the couple either still wants children or at the very least is not trying to prevent their conception.
The reason they resort to NFP (and yes, the negatively-connotated “resort” is a very appropriate word to use there) is not because they want to prevent conception, but rather because they are working with God to fulfill what they believe to be His will for them at that time, and so they abstain during their fertile times so as to act in accordance with that.
At the same time, though, we also believe that God made sexual fertility a cyclic phenomenon so as to allow couples to enjoy and express that closest of marital bonds – sexual intimacy – during their infertile times. so far as we know, God does not want a husband and wife to be so separated for extended periods of time, hence the cycle.
Of course, conception during a woman’s infertile time is hardly impossible, as many will attest, so if the couple has discerned incorrectly, God is fully capable of overriding their efforts. In fact, I don’t imagine that He would have to make much more than the usual effort to give the couple a child, since the only thing preventing conception is the cycle with which He endowed women.
Overall, though, the essential idea is that the couple discerns that God does not want to give them children for a time and they therefore work within the framework with which He designed us to honor that belief.
Now, having laid that all out (I’m pretty sure it’s completely accurate, but I won’t claim perfection in that regard), I’ll go through your post and try to answer your questions more directly (and comment on a few points).
“Someone said that having sex during an infertile time (using NFP) was a sin.”
Provided this is between a husband and wife (and having sex wouldn’t constitute an obvious and grave danger to either party), this is completely and utterly false.
The only instance that I have EVER heard of where this might be true was with a friend of mine whose wife was undergoing major medical treatments for much of her body, including her reproductive system, and thus sexual activity was especially dangerous for her. In that case, it MIGHT (and I must stress again, MIGHT) be a sin, but I can’t make that call.
“NFP is for MAKING babies.”
It might surprise a lot of people, but from what I’ve heard from many publications and married friends, more Catholic couples use NFP to help them get pregnant than the other way around. It’s an excellent tool for women and their husbands to understand their bodies and cycles, and thus to know when the most favorable time is to conceive.
“I don’t need NFP to regulate my cycle.”
I’ve never heard of NFP regulating anything, actually. I have a few friends who speak quite candidly about the system, and everything they’ve said tells me that it only serves to track a woman’s reproductive cycle, not direct it.
Having said that, I know of at least one person who uses it to try to find out why her cycle is so terribly irregular, and it is proving to be very useful for that purpose.
“I have a suspicion my husband and I are very fertile. I don’t need NFP at this point in my life to help me conceive.”
From what you’re said, I would say that’s exactly right.
I remember an aunt of mine said (to my dad, not me) that her husband could wink at her and she’d be pregnant. I’m assuming that was a slight exaggeration, but probably not by much. :-)
“my husband feels that we cannot afford a 3rd child at this point”
This may or may not be a valid reason, I can’t tell. While I don’t think it is, I must again concede that it’s nearly impossible for anyone other than you and your husband to know, but two crucial questions to ask are 1) do you think God doesn’t want to give you another child at this time, and 2) whether or not you trust that God would provide for your family if you had a third child. Has He done so thus far?
As always, that simple promise comes to mind: God will not give you more than you can handle. This applies to EVERYTHING, including children.
“quite frankly, call me selfish, but I haven’t lost hardly any baby weight and I want to slim down before another baby”
Very well, I will also be quite frank; this does indeed appear to be a selfish – and thus insufficient – motivation for postponing another child. I try not to belittle people’s concern with their physical appearance (vanity is particularly groan-inducing for me), but as much as I’d like to, I can’t think of any way to reconcile this with properly-employed NFP.
“what you’re saying is that if my husband allowed our genital skin to touch and my body didn’t say “stay away!” to his sperm that it would STILL be wrong to use NFP to avoid pregnancy?”
Under the conditions that you submitted, and for the reasons I put forth, this would appear to be the case.
I hope this has helped you to understand where we’re coming from, Sydney. Please feel free to ask for clarification on anything you wish.
Sorry if there were any typos or grammatical errors, but I wanted to get this done in a somewhat reasonable amount of time this time. :-P
God bless.
Lady Xalisae, I think Tyler was saying that the movement seems entirely concerned with eliminating something (i.e. abortion), instead of being about creating something (i.e. a true culture of life).
No question, stopping abortion is an excellent goal, but I agree that this is a rather empty and ultimately futile goal in light of the greater problem of contraception (which I know you and others don’t see as a problem, but we do, hence our dissatisfaction).
An analogy would be a devoted gardener who wants to make a flower bed look beautiful but is not allowed to actually pull out all the weeds, instead being restricted to merely keeping them less than an inch tall.
Maestro, can you provide a link to something from the Church that supports the statements below? Thanks.
“In fact, natural contraception is permissible under one and only one very clear condition: when the couple discerns that God does not want them to have anymore children, at least for the time being.”
“Overall, though, the essential idea is that the couple discerns that God does not want to give them children for a time and they therefore work within the framework with which He designed us to honor that belief.”
Lrning: “Maestro, can you provide a link to something from the Church that supports [those statements]?”
Gladly. :-)
These are two short excerpts from the encyclical Humanae Vitae, written by Pope Paul VI and published in 1968, which can be read in its entirety here (not terribly long, actually):
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Near the end of section 10:
“From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.”
In the middle of section 16:
“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 first quote points out that a married couple is not free to use their sexuality however they see fit, but are instead bound by the sacrament of marriage itself (even moreso therefore than single people) to conform it to His will.
The second quote appropriately qualifies valid reasons as needing to be “well-grounded.” Given that couples are directed to pray together and to seek the will and counsel of God in all things, this naturally follows that any well-grounded reason will, if accurate, be in union with God’s will.
Now, I will freely admit that my statement is not explicitly stated in this document anymore than in these two quotes, but it’s all there; a couple, in always seeking the counsel of God, should naturally only seek to prevent conception when they feel it is His will for them to do so.
Lrning: “You are arguing that there are occasions where God does not love us, or does not love us completely? Please explain.”
Not at all. I’m saying we do not receive all his love, on each occasion where we experience any of his love. And yet this privation of his good we do not call an evil act on his part.
Likewise, I see no clear reason to suppose that each sex act must include all that any sex act might include.
HV only hints at addressing this, then goes off in a different direction.
“How is emotion related to love?”
You might as well ask “how is a cervix related to love.” My point is that if we insist on all goods being present in sex, we likely fail quite often indeed on the grounds that emotionally we do not always bring such goods as our nature is capable of bringing, to the act.
addendum: For that matter, some otherwise good people are obviously evil for not bringing sufficient stamina to the marriage bed. Why have they failed in their responsibility to steward the gift of their bodies, and develop their cardio-pulmonary endurance to its full potential? Who could imagine that a Thomistic understanding of vice/virtue (habit) could be applied to the idea that reliance on elevators and cars instead of stairs and walking, could have a bearing on how much evil one implicates in one’s sex life by failing to have sufficient staying power and robbing one’s spouse of the gift of time, thereby incurring the opprobrium of jillstanek.com Catholics who deem such failures morally equivalent to gay orgies. ;-)
Tyler: “the uniqueness of each child is actually also a powerful reason to be open to conceiving more of them!”
Then throw globs of wet clay against walls as often as possible. It appears there’s a powerful reason to do so — the absolute uniqueness of each result.
And if you’re a bus driver, never be quite exactly on time at each stop. Vary it significantly so that the uniqueness — not banal consistency — of your arrivals and departures is evident to all.
Hi Maestro, thank you for your response.
Btw, I was kinda kidding when I said I wanted to slim down before another baby. I mean, I do want to slim down but if my husband came to me tomorrow and said “lets try for another baby” I would be willing! Like I stated before, I would prefer to have a lot of children but my husband isn’t sure we could financially handle that. This will drive the feminists nuts, but I do believe God wants me to submit to my head…who is my husband.
I read all you wrote and it is a little more clear to me now. But my only question is, if a couple feels that God does not want them to have children right now couldn’t they still have sex during their fertile time? God would not create new life if He didn’t want to. That was the only thing that confused me.
Sydney: “God would not create new life if He didn’t want to.”
Some things God creates mediately, others immediately. Hate to break the news to ya, but God doesn’t create the new life immediately. That creation is mediated through the mother and father having sex. This means that you are responsible for its creation. The new life depends on human intention for its origin.
I can’t imagine how this responsibility could be responsibly put off on God: “Oh well, we’re pregnant. God must have wanted us to have more children!”
I do believe God wants me to submit to my head…who is my husband.
I believe this too, Sydney, but I will only submit if my husband is leading correctly. To me this means he is following the teachings of the Catholic Church. If he strays from these, I will not follow.
An analogy would be a devoted gardener who wants to make a flower bed look beautiful but is not allowed to actually pull out all the weeds, instead being restricted to merely keeping them less than an inch tall.
And I’m saying some things you all have determined to be weeds are actually decorative ground cover that is intended to be kept in the garden.
rasqual-
I hope to be half as clever as you are, one day.
Sydney: “I would prefer to have a lot of children”
I certainly got that impression.
As for your husband, his knowledge of your situation is far superior to mine, so I’m really in no position to argue (though I will admit that I have my misgivings about his reasons).
“This will drive the feminists nuts”
Not the real ones, but I know what you mean. All the more reason to say it. :-P
“I do believe God wants me to submit to my head…who is my husband.”
While women are indeed called to submit to their husbands, husbands are simultaneously called to die to themselves for their wives, even more so than for anyone else. Not intending to speak ill of him, but I hope he is giving your desires the weight they deserve, and may you be blessed abundantly for your patience in this matter.
And like Praxedes said, we must serve God first before anyone else. As difficult as it can be, this can put us at odds with those we care about. I myself have already been effectively cut off by a number of friends and some extended family members for my faith, but I knew the price when I made this decision and I stand by it.
(aside: for the same reason, I won’t even bother dating anyone who’s not Catholic)
Unless you request it, though, I will say no more on that subject, at least not in my posts directed to you.
“I read all you wrote and it is a little more clear to me now.”
Thankful to be of service. :-)
“if a couple feels that God does not want them to have children right now couldn’t they still have sex during their fertile time? God would not create new life if He didn’t want to.”
This reminds me of when Jesus was going through His temptations before beginning His ministry, and He was taken to the top of the temple and tempted to throw Himself down, since it was written that the angels would carry Him on their hands lest He “dash His foot against the stone.”
Jesus’ response was simply that we mustn’t put the Lord our God to the test.
It is absolutely true that if God does not want a couple to have a child, He is more than capable of ensuring that it never happens. However, if a couple feels that God does not wish for them to have children, it is an act of obedience to abstain during their fertile time, a submission of one’s own will and desires. It’s not because God needs them to abstain, but rather they simply choose to in order to honor and live by His will.
I hope that clears it up at least a little.
… and sadly, I can’t think of a useful analogy at this moment. If I think of one later, I’ll post it, if you wish.
(time for another anecdote)
Again, I’m reminded of that friend of mine whose wife was having major medical issues. We actually talked about it quite openly at great length (in a restaurant, of all places), and I reminded them of what sexual intimacy between a husband and wife is supposed to be: a total giving of self. I could somewhat sympathize with his difficulties in abstaining from sexual relations with his wife, since I wasn’t single at the time and my girlfriend was – and still is – very beautiful.
My recommendation for him was thus very simple; redirect his passions into another form of service for his beloved. Sexual intimacy may be arguably the most complete giving of self to one another (when done properly), but it’s hardly the only means; clean one of the rooms, play some music for her, arrange for her to have a day (or more) of complete rest (they already had two small and adorable children, which obviously occupied most/all of her time), set aside extra time to pray for her wellbeing, etc.
(that last one especially, since that way, she might be healed sooner and they could get “back to business” ;-) )
I’m not going to fault you for desiring relations with your beloved, Sydney. Our sexuality is one of God’s greatest gifts to us. It is one of the most powerful forces in our lives, is central to our being, and is truly a wondrous and beautiful thing.
But like everything else He has given us, it has its place and time and is meant to be used in a particular fashion.
I think I’ll leave it at that for the moment.
X: I think Maestro missed an even more important point. I’ll amend:
“An analogy would be a devoted gardener who wants to make a flower bed look beautiful but is not allowed to actually pull out all the weeds, instead being restricted to merely keeping them less than an inch tall.“ All the time needing to fend off lunatics who are trampling the flowers. Which explains why the gardener is not obsessed with whether on occasion the weeds go to one and an eighth inch while she’s otherwise occupied with the lunatics.
Alas, some in this forum deem that eighth inch a gay orgy.
Maestro, thank you. You explained it very well.
How can so many “pro-life” people be so willfully blind that high doses of steroids used to disrupt a woman’s reproductive cycle will also cause abortion of embryos. And it seems obvious that ingesting high dose hormones over prolonged periods of your life would be UNHEALTHY! All for inconsequential sex.
truthseeker: “All for inconsequential sex.”
No consequences?
OK, so if I anesthetized my penis and had sex for the rest of our fertile years (we’re actually well past that), and as a consequence we had 20 more children, would you be as willing to call the sex “inconsequential?” Because according to Catholic teaching, it would have been. Just different consequences (pleasure) would not have obtained.
I mean, not being open to life (God’s gift and design) and not being open to pleasure (God’s gift and design) are, alike, a lot like gay orgies. Right? ;-)
By inconsequential I was specifically referring to inconsequential heterosexual sex without offspring.
I know. ;-)
NFP and contraception both share the purpose of preventing conception so in that respect they are both contraception. But there are also obvious differences between different forms of contraception.
Gay orgies don’t produce offspring and the purpose of contraception is to try and prevent offspring; so they are similar in that way. But they are also diametrically opposed to one another in that homosexual the demographic would have absolutely no need for contraception.
And I am a catholic (I think that small “c” is correct there because the big “C” is used when referring to the Church itself) so if you have any serious questions about catholic teaching on anything please just ask and I will tell you what I believe the teaching to be.
I’ll be certain not to ask you, nor to care.
I just want to clarify a few things.
A while back when I was having a discussion with xalisae about the hormonal contraception, I got off topic and I said that one could be open and using barrier contraceptives. When I made this point, however, I was not specific enough in what I meant. To be more precise, a person who contracepts using a technological method (including the Pill) can only be open to life after the act of sterile sex. The couples who uses technological contraceptives is not entirely open to new life before or during the act of sex, otherwise they would not be using the contraceptives. Obviously, a couple who abstains from sexual intercourse also do not have a desire to have children, yet they have not put their bodies in oppositions to their mind/intentions nor tempted God/nature by engaging in sexual activity.
To continue the telephone analogy that Rasqual brought up. In his example use of the telephone was a substitute for the use of technological contraceptives, while in person conversation was assumed to represent the NFP method. My extension of this analogy would consist in showing that no one would want a marriage with someone based solely on telephone conversations. Because if that were the case, the couple would never actually meet, they could simply have endless phone conversations. Sure, it would be wrong to deny that this is a relationship – the telephone relationship involves two human beings, and they show concern for one another. Yet most reasonable people would discern that this telephone relationship is far from what God had optimally intended for all human relationships. Most people would note that lack of physical contact as a huge negative.
In short, I agree with Rasqual that to some extent that the choice of “contraceptive” method, including NFP, differ only in a matter of degree, but as the extension of his telephone analogy shows the degree to which something differs can matter a lot, and can end up pointing in one general direction.
Slight addition of the last paragraph.
In short, I agree with Rasqual that to some extent that the choice of “contraceptive” method, including NFP, differ only in a matter of degree, but as the extension of his telephone analogy shows the degree to which something differs can matter a lot, and can end up pointing in one general direction so that they eventually differ in kind.
“All the time needing to fend off lunatics who are trampling the flowers. Which explains why the gardener is not obsessed with whether on occasion the weeds go to one and an eighth inch while she’s otherwise occupied with the lunatics. Alas, some in this forum deem that eighth inch a gay orgy.”
No. Just no. What we have is all gardeners trying to fend off the lunatics trampling the flowers. But occasionally the gardeners get into a discussion about whether the weeds are in fact weeds and whether letting the weeds grow makes it harder or easier to fight off the lunatics. No one is suggesting that anyone stop fighting the lunatics because of the disagreement over the weeds. Not even Tyler who is (misguidedly I think) eager to change the terminology used to refer to the fighters. If we stop all the lunatics, the division over the weeds and how to prevent another onslaught remains. And always will remain.
I’ll be certain not to ask you, nor to care.
X, you have always been sensitive on this subject. Years ago it almost drove you away from this board. Do you use hormonal contraception?
rasqual: “I’m saying we do not receive all his love, on each occasion where we experience any of his love. And yet this privation of his good we do not call an evil act on his part.”
This contradicts what you said earlier, which was “God does not do a total dump of his love on each occasion where he loves us at all”. God is the actor in your first statement. Now you are changing it to be our action, in the form of how we receive God’s love. But if marital love is a mirror God’s love for us, you’ve not supported your argument that marital love need not be a complete giving of self each time. If God loves us always and completely, how do you support that it is okay for us to purposefully hold back from a complete giving of self? Or as you suggested, if “we’re obliged to give ourselves as much as possible”, how does contraception fulfill this?
rasqual: ” My point is that if we insist on all goods being present in sex, we likely fail quite often indeed on the grounds that emotionally we do not always bring such goods as our nature is capable of bringing, to the act. “
What “goods” are you referring to? If marital sex is to be a total giving of self, it doesn’t follow that the “self” is required to remain a constant or be perfect. If during a bout of depression the total giving of myself to my husband is “less” than when depression is not present, it is no less a total giving. If I purposefully hold something back from the union, say my fertility, then that is not a total giving of self. If my husband is unable to receive this full giving of myself, say due to a pornography addiction, it is still no less than a total giving on my part.
Nope. I used to at one point, but couldn’t keep it up because female hormones drive me batty (it was the same issue when I was pregnant with my daughter-sick as a dog). So, that really didn’t last very long. But, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business what they choose to do with each other as consenting adults, and as long as they’re not hurting anyone else, I find nothing wrong with it and will defend their right to do it. Even people who have sexual practices I might find revolting (my ex-husband for instance)-I don’t really care about their bedroom habits. I might think he’s a sicko and a bad person for other reasons, but his sexual practices no longer concern me, and more power to him (as long as he’s not hurting people or breaking the law).
Maestro, thank you for the clarification. I still have a bit of trouble reconciling my understanding of Church teaching with your phrasing “God does not want them to have anymore children, at least for the time being” and “God does not want to give them children for a time”. But I wholeheartedly agree that the Church teaches that our actions should be in union with God’s will.
Understandable, Lrning. God’s ways are infinitely beyond our ways, so while discerning His will can be very difficult, discerning His reasons is almost always done in hindsight.
It reminds me of a story about a father (whom I shall dub Bill) who went to a parent-teacher meeting along with many other parents. The focus of the meeting was sex education for their children, and when Bill found only passing references to abstinence in the curriculum, he inquired about it and why greater emphasis was not placed on it.
He was ridiculed as a fool.
Later in the meeting, there was a break and the parents were directed to refreshments at the back. They were also encouraged to meet and greet each other. Bill, however, very clearly heard someone (no one he could see) tell him to stay put and felt a very strong compulsion to do so, so he stayed in his seat while the others mingled.
When everyone came back, the teacher told everyone to look at the backs of their name tags, as she had drawn a butterfly on two of them. She then asked whose hands those two people had shaken, and whose hands those people had shaken afterwards, and so on. Not surprisingly, all the parents were eventually included. The teacher then told them that the butterflies represented an STD and the handshakes represented sexual relations, and that this exercise was used to demonstrate how easily and quickly STD’s can spread.
At this point, Bill heard the following, “Now, with humility.”
So he stood up and thanked the teacher for the very informative exercise and apologized to everyone if they felt he had been bitter or unkind.
However, before he sat down, he said, “One thing I wanted to point out, though, is that not everyone was infected; I abstained.”
Sometimes God moves in mysterious ways that don’t seem to make sense at first, but in time the reasons become clear. :-)
Some of the fighters are only PINOs – Pro-lifers in name only. Or they are PFOPCs – pro-lifers for other people’s children.
As long as technological contraception acts as a prophylactic it will always be a reactionary technology. It is funny that so many progressives support something so reactionary. Technological contraception methods are just advanced versions of the chastity belt. Yet, these modern chastity belts don’t even protect chastity; they merely and sadly prevent pregnancy!
“But, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business what they choose to do with each other as consenting adults, and as long as they’re not hurting anyone else, I find nothing wrong with it and will defend their right to do it.”
But it does hurt other people X it is just hidden. They have sex as often as they want and breakaway ovulation occurs and life is conceived and the same drugs that disrupt ovulation also disrupt the mechanisms in a woman’s body that make it prepare for embryo implantation. You are defending their right to flush embryos they conceive while on hormonal birth control.
Defending that “right” is one thing. I personally would not want that happening with me and my wife cause I respect life from the point of conception. Defending someone’s “right” to do something is different then denying what is actually occurring. I think it could change the hearts and minds of many pro-life women in regards to hormonal BC if they understand that they were actually conceiving and aborting while on BC.
Tyler says:
Some of the fighters are only PINOs – Pro-lifers in name only. Or they are PFOPCs – pro-lifers for other people’s children.
I fail to see how posts like this advance a culture of life. And I say that as someone that wholeheartedly believes that a culture of life is what we need in this country. And how does pointing a finger at others and essentially calling them names (labels, whatever) accomplish this? It is not instructive or motivating.
Lrning,
I here what you are saying. But something in my bones tells me that it is right and that it is just to do so. Even the PINOs will have to admit it is correct. If the labels are accurate and truthful and represent something in reality the labels, by themselves, can’t harm the pro-life movement or the advancement of the Culture of Life – however, those people who are accurately captured by the labesl definitely can and do harm the Culture of Life, by being witnesses, in their actions, to the Culture of Death.
If the labels are accurate and truthful and represent something in reality the labels, by themselves, can’t harm the pro-life movement or the advancement of the Culture of Life
What if your labels (which are nothing more than adjectives at best and name-calling at worst) prevent conversion because they turn people away? If someone has made the first step on the pathway to the culture of life, why would you rudely shove them and insist that they jump ahead to the spot on the path that you have decided they should be at? Why would you not choose, instead, to reveal the next step of the path with love and charity? Do you believe that there is only one path to the culture of life, that you know what it is, and that every single person that will end up embracing the culture of life will follow the exact same path? Is it possible that the “something in your bones” is pride and not the prompting of the Holy Spirit?
Lrning: “And how does pointing a finger at others and essentially calling them names (labels, whatever) accomplish this? It is not instructive or motivating.”
I think the real issue is that the labels are weird. They don’t seem to describe well.
rasqual: “I’m saying we do not receive all his love, on each occasion where we experience any of his love. And yet this privation of his good we do not call an evil act on his part.”
Lrning: “This contradicts what you said earlier, which was “God does not do a total dump of his love on each occasion where he loves us at all”. God is the actor in your first statement. Now you are changing it to be our action, in the form of how we receive God’s love.”
Argh. What do you mean “contradicts?” If someone gives, it’s possible for another to receive without contradicting. Both act. Or the recipient is passive. Come now. You’re missing the point by being grammatically sideways. I think you understand what I’m saying:
Lrning: “If I purposefully hold something back from the union, say my fertility, then that is not a total giving of self.”
Right. So when God does not give us — in each instance where he gives us anything of himself at all — all of himself, is this purposive on his part? I would think so. And yet we do not fault him for this.
Do we experience all of his mercy whenever we experience any of it? No. Do we experience all of his power when we experience some of his love? No.
Do we give all of ourselves to our spouses in sex? No. None of us do.
Must we give as much as possible?
If I use a condom and the next day give my life for my wife, have I shown an abhorrent “contraceptive mentality” that’s rightly faulted for failing to withhold sperm from my wife? No, it’s an abysmal judgment that would fastidiously strain that gnat and swallow the camel of my death.
A sense of proportion in judgments on these matters would go a long way toward helping non-Catholics understand that Catholics — who strive to put things in proportion in their own lives — are as concerned when they judge others to keep others’ matters in proportion as well.
CT: “No. Just no. What we have is all gardeners trying to fend off the lunatics trampling the flowers. But occasionally the gardeners get into a discussion about whether the weeds are in fact weeds and whether letting the weeds grow makes it harder or easier to fight off the lunatics. No one is suggesting that anyone stop fighting the lunatics because of the disagreement over the weeds.”
LOL
I’m going to call this metaphor exhausted — not because I didn’t understand that, but because I did and I’d like to get out of the trope at the top of its game. ;-)
rasqual: “So when God does not give us — in each instance where he gives us anything of himself at all — all of himself, is this purposive on his part? I would think so. And yet we do not fault him for this.”
We seem to be going around and around. If the something that God is giving us is love, in your sentence above, how are you not saying that there are times that God gives us either no love or incomplete love?
rasqual: Do we experience all of his mercy whenever we experience any of it? No. Do we experience all of his power when we experience some of his love? No.
You are again attributing to the giver the inability of the receiver to adequately receive.
But it does hurt other people X it is just hidden. They have sex as often as they want and breakaway ovulation occurs and life is conceived and the same drugs that disrupt ovulation also disrupt the mechanisms in a woman’s body that make it prepare for embryo implantation. You are defending their right to flush embryos they conceive while on hormonal birth control.
And my personal experience, combined with other sources I’ve read, do not support your claim. I’ll go with myself, my mother, and my sister-in-law who ALL conceived and carried to term while initially on birth control over your personal opinion given to you by The Church. Thanks for your concern though. Toodles! <3
Hey Jack! Just wanted to say hi and say that I hope you’re well. And that, as always, I agree with you. :)
My opinion is based upon logic and physiology. All peer reviewed studies have shown increased rates of miscarriage/conception when women are on BC but they have not as yet definitively proven the cause of the increase was due to BC. You can keep hiding it but the facts and LOGIC are not disputable. The fact that both your mother and your sister get pregnant on BC does not mean BC doesn’t increase miscarriage;rather it is likely that the BC caused multiple miscarriages besides the child that carried to term.
What if your labels (which are nothing more than adjectives at best and name-calling at worst) prevent conversion because they turn people away?
It is possible.
If someone has made the first step on the pathway to the culture of life, why would you rudely shove them and insist that they jump ahead to the spot on the path that you have decided they should be at?
I don’t think I have been rude; perhaps blunt and forward but not rude.
Why would you not choose, instead, to reveal the next step of the path with love and charity?
On the internet?
Do you believe that there is only one path to the culture of life, that you know what it is, and that every single person that will end up embracing the culture of life will follow the exact same path?
Yes and no. Yes, there is only one path/way – but multiple tributaries. The Church knows the path, and it is Jesus who is leading the way. (I would put a smiley face here but I hate those darn things. I expect to see a bunch shortly.) No I don’t think everyone will end up embracing the culture of life.
Why would you not choose, instead, to reveal the next step of the path with love and charity?
I’ll try harder. (You can imagine another smiley face here if you would like.)
Rasqual,
Do you see Jesus handing out condoms and IUDs and the Pill?
The same guy that said if you look at woman with lust in your eye you are committing adultery.
Lrning: Utter non sequiturs. Does God, or does not God, fully give us himself? Does he never withhold at least some of what he is?
Tyler, I have no idea how to carry on a conversation with you.
Rasqual, the feeling is quite mutual.
You are the Christian accusing Catholics of being idolators, I thought you would like it if I referred to biblical passages. Perhaps you can back-up your viewpoint with some bible verses to help understand your pro-contraceptive viewpoint.
PS – your earlier arguments were turning into pure rants. They were becoming boring – not typical of your posts.
BTW, Rasqual, why would you not accuse the pro-contraceptive crowd idolators – I think the accusation would fit better if it was applied to them. Aren’t they valuing the flesh, more than the spirit?
For bleeps sake, why can’t expression of beliefs and values be done without some taking it so personally. There are those of us who agree with the abortion/contraception link and those of us that do not.
Tyler, I’m sure you did not intend to offend anyone by the labels you brought forth. All of the comments I’ve read written by you in the past, imo, have been extremely charitable.
Hi Doe,
Thanks for your support. But don’t worry I know Rasqual (and some others) was just gaming me to prop up himself and his own view of Christianity. Rasqual, it was really bad form.
(Doe, this post turns into rant.)
Now back to my original post….
No, I did not intend to offend (and I highly doubt I did). But I did want some to re-think their position. I just thought that I needed to carve out some space in the Pro-Life movement for Catholics and Orthodox Christians. I feel the pro-life movement shrinking under the willingness of certain members to comprise on ancillary issues to abortion, such as contraception, without recognizing that the use of contraception promotes the idea that everyone can act and do anything they want as long as they personally think it is okay – that morality is in the eye of the beholder.
I can’t figure out how a person who doesn’t believe in God can turnaround, with a straight face, and tell another human being not to do something such as abortion. The person who doesn’t believe in God is the epitome of egoism – they just denied God and now they expect their neighbour to value human life because they said so. If the neighbour doesn’t just laugh in their face, the neighbour is as blind as the atheist. The “bad faith” of these atheists is that they fail to acknowledge the absolute absurdity of their own position/existence. If these atheists are going to be real atheists they should read their Neitzche and their Sartre. Neitzche went crazy, and Sartre lived the most agnst ridden life known to mankind (slept around, stabbed his own hand, etc..and Sartre believed Hell was other people, no less.) These popcorn atheists who are pro-life make me want to push a rock up a hill only to let it roll down again – they make me experience the unbearable lightness of my being!!
If an atheist is pro-life they are not really an atheist, and they should really stop lying to themselves and everyone else. Everyone sees through it, but no one says anything (or rather everyone beats around the bush).
By the way atheists, if you truly value human life don’t waste your own life by reading Neitzche or Sartre – go stare in a toilet bowl, you’ll learn just as much.
Sartre believed Hell was other people, no less.
Only when you speak am I inclined to agree.
rasqual: Does God, or does not God, fully give us himself?
God loves us always and completely.
You’re talking about having a sense of proportion when judging the sins of others and I’m talking about proper identification when reflecting on our own.
You seem to believe you rake NFP over the coals, when you’ve only hurled accusations at NFP supporters.
You’ve given no substantive arguments against NFP, only offering various analogies.
Do you believe contraception is sinful, rasqual? Why or why not?
Why do you love NFP?
Maestro,
After further thinking, I’ve figured out why your terminology doesn’t sit right with me:
“God does not want them to have anymore children, at least for the time being”
“God does not want to give them children for a time”
I’m not sure the Church teaches that there is ever a time that God wills for a married couple to not have children. Children are always a blessing from God. I view the teaching regarding NFP more as God’s concession to our human imperfections and the inequities that exist on earth. Perhaps similar to divorce under the Old Covenant.
Thanks for proving my point xalisae. (Does this comment require a smiley face or a winking face?)
xalisae, if you will allow me to be bold, I would say: forgive God, he has forgiven you.
Thanks for proving my point xalisae. (Does this comment require a smiley face or a winking face?)
I don’t know what would be appropriate for that comment, but from me it elicits a 9_9
Pretending to know my attitudes about and toward any God which may or may not exist is highly presumptuous and quite the pompous move on your part. My relationship with, beliefs about, and feelings toward such an entity are none of your business. And, simply because they are not the ones you have, does NOT mean it is okay for you to make judgements and assumptions about what sort of person I am in general (especially when you use that as an excuse to weigh my moral mass and find it lacking-you don’t know me).
“I view the teaching regarding NFP more as God’s concession to our human imperfections and the inequities that exist on earth.”
Actually, that’s directly related to what I said, though it is easily forgivable the one would not spot it. No worries, Lrning. :-)
As I’m sure you know, God never gives us anything unless He knows that we can handle it, right?
Were we all perfect people – and thus perfect parents in a perfectly supportive community – there would be no need for Him to withhold children from any couples. However, because we all fall short of the ideal, there are situations that we’re not yet prepared to deal with, either by ourselves or with the help of those around us, and God knows this. Even Jesus delayed sending out His apostles until He knew they were ready, despite knowing how desperately everyone needed to hear what they would say. Therefore, out of compassion for the parents AND the child yet to be conceived, He decides that it would be best to delay that conception.
And no, I will make no claim whatsoever to KNOW when those times are, even in hindsight; they may seem to have been present, but even then I would merely be inferring.
“Children are always a blessing from God.”
Yes. Yes they are. :-D
You must keep in mind, though; they always arrive with His consent. There are times when normally good things become a great burden or even a danger that outweighs any possible good outcomes.
I have a somewhat hypothetical situation to help illustrate what I mean:
A priest receiving the Stigmata is indeed a great blessing and encouragement from God, and I dare say no Catholic priest would be ashamed of it. However, during a time of direct and terrible persecution, there may only be one priest left in a certain area with no immediate means to bring in another if this one is discovered and killed. Were this the case, God may see fit to not bestow the Stigmata on this priest (or perhaps, even further, to remove it if he already bears it), having full knowledge of the situation. Or He may instead decide to make it fade whenever the priest is in danger of being discovered. Of course, He may know that this priest being martyred would actually bring about a far greater good for the people, and thus would allow the Stigmata to persist. Even with all the human knowledge available about the situation, I would almost certainly still be entirely unable to know what God’s plan was unless He told me.
God directs the arrival of children, despite any effort on our part to the contrary, and thus it is good.
“Perhaps similar to divorce under the Old Covenant.”
…you may very well be right. While the degree of similarity could obviously be a subject of great debate, I will not deny the possibly of a very real parallel inherent there.
Nice catch. :-)
“I’m not sure the Church teaches that there is ever a time that God wills for a married couple to not have children.”
From what I’ve seen and read, I agree, it’s not taught directly and explicitly, but I combine those two quotes I posted a while back with the trust that Pope Paul VI would not be allowed to err in dispensing teachings on faith and morals.
In other words, Paul VI declared that there are times when a couple could justifiably take action to discourage conception, while at the same time reminding them that they must direct their lives – and therefore, their sexuality – by the will of God. Were the will of God never to withhold children, Paul VI would have been in error in that statement, the infallibility of the papacy in teaching faith and morals would thus have been violated, and Catholic Church would have failed in its very nature.
This is my understanding of the situation, and I trust the Church’s teachings in this matter (as they mesh flawlessly with my corporeal understanding as well).
Having said all that, I must stress that this is MY understanding of the Church’s teaching. Like you, I don’t recall ever reading anything in official writing from the Magisterium or the Pope himself saying, in black and white, that God sometimes wills that a couple should not have a child. If I find something to the contrary, then may I be granted the humility to recant and apologize for misleading anyone in this matter.
God bless you always, Lrning.
So here’s what’s really going on, Tyler. You are just trying to remake the pro-life movement in your own image. You think that instead of merely opposing abortion, which was the whole point of this thing to begin with, it must also be a proselytizing force for your own religious beliefs. That plan will get us exactly nowhere because America is a very diverse society and simply put we can’t get everyone, or even a majority to agree with a particular, impossible to prove, worldview. So instead, you should be happy that people of different belief systems also oppose abortion, because a broad coalition of people is necessary in order to get this job done.
While we’re at it, let’s not forget that the ability to justify opposition to abortion without appealing to religious principles may very well be relevant to the constitutionality of any abortion laws passed in the future. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the first amendment may prevent the government from forcing a particular religious viewpoint on the public. After all, the government is specifically forbidden from establishing a state religion, so how could one religion’s viewpoint be privileged in the making of laws? All I’m saying is that it may be against your interest to try and reject secular justifications for the pro-life position entirely.
Tyler: “Perhaps you can back-up your viewpoint with some bible verses to help understand your pro-contraceptive viewpoint.”
As I said, I have no idea how to converse with you.
Please cite anything I’ve said that’s “pro-contraception.”
I’ve been concerned to point out that NFP is relatively vulnerable to the critiques its fans level against artificial contraception (I’ve focused on barrier methods).
I realize that many Catholics are teflon to such critique; it won’t stick. But you need to understand that many non-Catholics will find such critiques compelling. That’s important. Because Catholic assertions from authority (authority not recognized by many non-Catholics) need to be met rationally with propositions non-Catholics (by which I mean those who do not accept that Catholic word on this matter on authority) understand and may assent to.
Bear in mind that many of these propositions are just dandy to Catholics as well. Some may contradict church teaching; that’s fine — existentially far more Catholics abort than pro-lifers like me argue with Catholics about this matter. It’s a small matter for a non-Catholic to dissent with the teachings of a church whose own members dissent in practice orders of magnitude more significantly.
Bearing faithful witness to church teaching is, yes, your duty and privilege. Bear it with grief for your faithless brethren, brother.
Pretending to know my attitudes about and toward any God which may or may not exist is highly presumptuous and quite the pompous move on your part. My relationship with, beliefs about, and feelings toward such an entity are none of your business. And, simply because they are not the ones you have, does NOT mean it is okay for you to make judgements and assumptions about what sort of person I am in general (especially when you use that as an excuse to weigh my moral mass and find it lacking-you don’t know me).
xalisae, you’re getting quite good with the self-righteous tone. I didn’t make any presumptions or assumptions – you have stated your unbelief many times, ridiculed the Catholic Church and Faith, and yet you accuse me of being judgemental!! Have you looked in the mirror recently?
When have I referenced you in any of my comments? I only responded to your one snide, smart ___ remark. If your conscience is biting you, it is not my fault. I haven’t weighed your moral mass (nice try), I know you care about the unborn, and find your desire to help them very positive and moral. However, your comments about the Church are not really needed, but I never even brought that up or anything about you. Why did you think I was talking about you in my comments?
While we’re at it, let’s not forget that the ability to justify opposition to abortion without appealing to religious principles may very well be relevant to the constitutionality of any abortion laws passed in the future. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the first amendment may prevent the government from forcing a particular religious viewpoint on the public. After all, the government is specifically forbidden from establishing a state religion, so how could one religion’s viewpoint be privileged in the making of laws? All I’m saying is that it may be against your interest to try and reject secular justifications for the pro-life position entirely.
1) There is no secular justification for the pro-life position entirely, or at least, I have never heard one; (most secularists are just hanger-ons – lapsed protestants or Catholics thinking they are hip or trendy, too cool to belong to a religion.)
2) I was not talking about the legal argument;
3) The current pro-abortion laws are United Church endorsed laws – the State has established the United Church as the official church of the country. The United Church is pretty much in lock step with every trendy development of modernism, all the lastest dashing doo – including the spritzed and swirled unborn infant that you can take home in a Cuisnart glass jar. Bet you didn’t know the US had an official State church.
So here’s what’s really going on, Tyler. You are just trying to remake the pro-life movement in your own image. You think that instead of merely opposing abortion, which was the whole point of this thing to begin with, it must also be a proselytizing force for your own religious beliefs. That plan will get us exactly nowhere because America is a very diverse society and simply put we can’t get everyone, or even a majority to agree with a particular, impossible to prove, worldview. So instead, you should be happy that people of different belief systems also oppose abortion, because a broad coalition of people is necessary in order to get this job done.
Should we all sing kumbaya? I know you know the words.
Oy vey.
JDC, yes we are diverse society, and is great that a variety of people want to protect life. But should we be satisfied with the bare minimum, or should we have higher goals/standards. Typically a person or society rises to the standard that is set and no higher.
Why can’t we discuss these higher goals and stanadards, why must we satisfy only the bare minimum? Just because there is diversity in the world doesn’t mean we have to give up all hope of finding common ground. Perhaps, if people don’t close their minds, we may see that there might be a great truth that can unite us all, aside from our willingness to protect the unborn. Just maybe, but if people are constantly going to shout down people of faith anytime the conversation begins to get serious, we will continue to live in our life cubicles and rot as the cogs-in-the-wheel that we currently are.
Rasqual, let the person without sin cast the first stone.
I am done with this thread (applaud now) unless something half-way original is said. You all may return to your life cubicles.
“1) There is no secular justification for the pro-life position entirely, or at least, I have never heard one; (most secularists are just hanger-ons – lapsed protestants or Catholics thinking they are hip or trendy, too cool to belong to a religion.)”
Then there is no secular justification for a position against murder or rape or stealing either! It is not just faith, but reason that guides us. And reason can guide believer and non-believer alike. True, the believer understands that this capacity to reason is a gift from God, but the capacity exists whether a person acknowledges its origins or not.
Rasqual,
The discussion isn’t even about which sin is worse or whether Catholics sin too (or sin more or more seriously or whatever). The discussion here is simply identifying sin in the first place. And it does seem like there are some here who will be offended unless we say either, no it’s not a sin or yes it’s a sin but go right ahead because **wink wink** it’s not that bad (or go ahead b/c I’m a sinner too or b/c Catholics are sinners and some Catholics are worse sinners…which seems to be what you’re getting at). I understand and agree with what you’re saying about needing to defend NFP the basis of reason and not just authority, but your main beef seems to be that you think Catholics defend NFP even when used with a contraceptive intent. We don’t. That is not defensible and no one here has defended that. And we aren’t judging the severity of anyone’s sinfulness or the state of their soul. Just the wrongness of the action.
Hey Maestro,
I really enjoy reading your responses and I still have a long way to go in learning about the Faith, but isn’t it part of the teaching of the Church that God has a permitting will and an ordaining will? Could God not ordain that a couple, for grave reasons, not conceive a child? i.e. maybe one of the spouses has a nervous breakdown, experiences some type of personal trauma, etc. I understand the couple, if using NFP faithfully and correctly, should use Providence, Prudence, and Planning. I took all the classes, so I’m somewhat familiar. A married couple can be trying to trust in God’s Will, but He ultimately knows what a couple can handle and not handle.
CT please provide the secular justification for stealing or murder or rape or abortion. See how far its gets you without faith. CT if you are Catholic or Christian you should know better than to repeat such a misguided opinion.
Faith directs reason, gives it its ends, its purpose and meaning. That is how faith and reason go together. Reason is not a boat that sits in a vast ocean directionless, it has a rudder, a sail and a captain, and their name is faith. Reason without faith leads to nihilism and relativism, faith without reason leads to superstitution.
And reason can guide believer and non-believer alike.
No it can’t.
True, the believer understands that this capacity to reason is a gift from God, but the capacity exists whether a person acknowledges its origins or not.
The CAPACITY… who cares if we have the capacity? We need to use it.
Yes, reason is a gift form God, as is faith, and everything else. No one is arguing this point, at least not so far. The question is how does reason determine whether something is moral or not – the best reason can do is provide a utilitarian calculation of what would be the most beneficial for the greatest number of people. Reason can’t make sense of sacrifice or altruism. Reason has no understanding of the logic of love. And it is only the logic of love that allows us to bear the cross, it is the logic of love that turns some prolifers into a pissed-off Mother grizzly bear when they confront pro-aborts. It is not reason as much we all would like to think otherwise – reason just does not have that kind of passion. The logic of love is Christ. That is where we get our wisdom – nowhere else – be thankful atheist, Jesus was more of an existentialist than you or I will ever understand. Indeed, even Rasqual’s obnoxious, long-winded, and ornate posts are the result of love and not reason, even though he prides himself on being an intellectual.
I thought you said you were leaving this thread, Tyler? *sadface*
Tyler, the reason I am anti-abortion is because I love my life and would not have wanted my mom to abort me. I’m against murder being legal because I do not want someone to murder me. I am against rape being legal because I don’t want to be raped. It’s a pretty simple equation, dude, and if you don’t think you can reach the answer to it without religion, there is no use in talking to you further. You have NO RESPECT for people who are not religious, and do not think for a SECOND attitudes like yours do not damage the Pro-Life Movement. You claim we can’t reason if we don’t share your religious views? You are a lunatic. I LOVE many religious people on this board. Paladin is CATHOLIC, and I love and respect him VERY much. He is one of MANY. But they also doesn’t talk down to me like I’m a heathen moron, so, there’s that.
CT: “And we aren’t judging the severity of anyone’s sinfulness or the state of their soul.”
Pro-lifers not hell-bent on ranting about a “contraception mindset” being the sine qua non of abortion are rightly offended at some of the aspersions that’ve been cast on the authenticity of their pro-lifeness in these parts. I’d like to see more apologies from uncharitable Catholics who’ve insulted pr0-lifers repeatedly. I’m grateful to the several Catholics who’ve sought to draw such unhelpful brethren back to reason, prudence and proportion.
Tyler: “Indeed, even Rasqual’s obnoxious, long-winded, and ornate posts are the result of love and not reason, even though he prides himself on being an intellectual.”
I’m not sure that’s quite right. More like I’ve reconciled myself to my fate as an intellectual. And a piss-poor one, at that.
A person is an intellectual if they are animated by products of the mind, and themselves feel most accomplished when they’ve produced a mental product. Or if they tend to think more than emote (or, perhaps more accurately, ascribe value to their thoughts more than to their emotions, even when the latter might predominate — as when in grief their answer to that weight of the heart comes — or tries to — by applying thought to the matter).
Reconciling oneself to one’s personality is not a point of pride unless, I suppose, with Sinatra one sings “I did it my way.” I, for one, don’t and won’t.
Shakespeare certainly understood our grounds for humility, not pride: Our wills and fates do so contrary run. That our devices still are overthrown; Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own. (Hamlet, 3.2.208), Player King
*they also don’t talk down to me.
CT-
I would accept from Catholics a simple “We think contracepting is a sin, but we live in a free country, and respect your right to do so. We don’t think contracepting makes you evil or predisposed to kill your children, but our doctrine tells us it is wrong.”
What people don’t understand is that, I respect your religious stance on contraception. I really do. You all think it is sinful, and not something you would do. And that’s great. I respect that as your right to feel that way and practice a religion that teaches that. What really, REALLY bothers me though is when you REFUSE to recognize that people who agree with you on the abortion issue (AND HAVE LIVED THEIR LIVES THAT WAY, DEMONSTRABLY) yet disagree with you about contraception are told that they either are not authentically Pro-Life, or cannot authentically be Pro-Life because of it. That is where the friction begins, and it hurts our Movement. It angers me when I am willing to respect the beliefs of others and in turn respect them as individuals, and they are not willing to do so in kind.
CT: “your main beef seems to be that you think Catholics defend NFP even when used with a contraceptive intent.”
More that some Catholics here see the pro-choice mindset such a natural product of the “contraceptive mindset” that on occasion they’ve expressed doubt that putative pro-lifers who contracept could, after all, be as “open to life” as they claim in the event of conception. That, in this forum, is as bracing as a slap in the face.
It’s this incredulity that those who disagree with their propositions could value life as much as they themselves do, that I find offensive. It sure implies a “you need to get out more” aspect to such Catholics’ experience. They obviously need to meet and better know pro-lifers who disagree with their views of contraception.
Some are just stuck on the belief that a “contraceptive mindset” is itself responsible for abortion, as if wanting to prevent a life (let a thing remain potential only) has any logical relationship to wanting to destroy an actual life.
It may not be self-righteous hypocrisy, truthfully. It may just be a form of stupidity — confusing the belief that it’s OK to prevent something with the belief that it’s OK to kill something. Or to imagine that wishing to prevent something implies the wish to kill something.
I would prefer that my daughter not bring her friends over after school. With that preference frustrated by my daughter’s whim, well, it only makes sense for me to kill her friends. Riiiiight.
The Tylers and Bruces of this forum are only among the extreme examples showcasing much of the folly I’ve seen in these parts.
Well, this conversation has way outlived it’s usefulness. I’m out, have fun guys.
Tyler, the reason I am anti-abortion is because I love my life and would not have wanted my mom to abort me. I’m against murder being legal because I do not want someone to murder me. I am against rape being legal because I don’t want to be raped.
And why do you value your life?
Why don’t you kill other people, people who may prevent you from getting what you want?
Why don’t you rape, if you like sex? What is stopping you?
xalisae, you must have some other reason why you don’t do these things, you must care for your fellow humans, you must love them. And if so, why do you love? Why does any person love? Why is there love? It is only because of deep-seated faith in an all-loving God, that provides an after-life, for people who do good things. Xalisae, you have faith, you just don’t care to look within yourself and to acknowledge. Faith is inescapable, just as love is. If you want to differentiate love from God, you will not be able to do so because God is love, or conversely, and perhaps this is the formulation you need to hear, love is God.
xalisae, you may call me a lunatic, and I can call you a FREAK, but where does that get us?
Finally, I have never talked down to you or said that you can’t love. It is only because I know that you do love, like all humans, that I know you are a person of faith as well. We are made by and for God (aka love).
Furthermore, xalisae, don’t feign innocence like you have never taken potshots at the Catholic Church. Although you LOVE, you are also torn and led astray by personal demons, and have to sought to damage the name of the Church. You use your own version of tolerance as shield for your intolerance toward the Catholic Church.
I would accept from Catholics a simple “We think contracepting is a sin, but we live in a free country, and respect your right to do so. We don’t think contracepting makes you evil or predisposed to kill your children, but our doctrine tells us it is wrong.”
What people don’t understand is that, I respect your religious stance on contraception. I really do. You all think it is sinful, and not something you would do. And that’s great. I respect that as your right to feel that way and practice a religion that teaches that. What really, REALLY bothers me though is when you REFUSE to recognize that people who agree with you on the abortion issue (AND HAVE LIVED THEIR LIVES THAT WAY, DEMONSTRABLY) yet disagree with you about contraception are told that they either are not authentically Pro-Life, or cannot authentically be Pro-Life because of it. That is where the friction begins, and it hurts our Movement. It angers me when I am willing to respect the beliefs of others and in turn respect them as individuals, and they are not willing to do so in kind.
This is the longest lie (and to use one of x’s favourite words) EVER.
If a person wants to understand the link between abortion and contraception one has to reflect on the purposes of sexual intercourse.
Contraception directly affects the transmission of life, and is repugnant to the nature of man and of woman. Abortion directly ends a human life. Both ere evil and sinful and contrary to God’s plan and the natural order.
Both abortion and contraception, share this in common, they both put the wants of the couple ahead of one of the intended purposes of sexual intercouse, the purpose to create children – contraception prevents new life from being created, and abortion kills any new life that is created.
Rasqual, which denomination are you a part of?
I’m currently a member of the Christian Reformed Church. Before that I attended — but was not a member of — Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois. Prior to that we were members of an independent Assembly of God. Before that I fellowshipped at a small independent charismatic church. Prior to that I was involved with a parachurch ministry whose local association was with the Church of the Nazarene. During a period when local church affiliation was difficult (I was military during much of this paragraph), I fellowshipped with independent Baptists. I was raised a Lutheran, though during travels and sojourns my family did not restrict our visits to Lutheran churches.
My current association with Catholics has consisted of my children attending Catholic high schools, my attendance of Taize services at a nearby Catholic church, and my personal acquaintance with several Catholics. My first daughter-in-law is only nominally Catholic. In the past, I’ve read much by contemporary Catholic and Orthodox writers, and studied Aquinas modestly (and with much respect, since many of us Evangelicals share his epistemology).
I am comfortable in any church that grounds itself in commitment to Christian orthodoxy, does not chase the Zeitgeist, and does not multiply objects of veneration with the effect of diluting devotion to Christ.
Rasqual (Pronounced : Raz^cal?): Way to your cover bases! But, I also hope that what you are writing is not malarky.
Why have you drifted so much?
Rasqual, what attracted to the Christian Reformed Church?
Drift? Malarky?
“Way to your cover bases!”
All your base are belong to us! Somebody set up us the bomb! ;-)
Non-Catholics are not bound by denomination. In the military, I found myself among Christians wherever I’d go, and I’d base decisions for fellowship/membership on various criteria. Sometimes it was geographic. Sometimes that wasn’t the decider. Sometimes it seemed chosen by God. Sometimes it was a tough choice. Always the church/fellowship needed to be orthodox (the classic “antiquity, ubiquity, consensus” formula of “what has been believed everywhere, always, by all” is a fair guide). Living faith versus mindless fidelity to denominational traditions was essential. That and what I said about the Zeitgeist and devotion to Christ, are pretty pivotal.
In the case of the particular CRC church we’re at, the priority (given the other mentioned constraints) began geographically.
I’ll say just this additionally: I’m not, nor ever have been, on a quest for “the best church around,” any more than I embraced the folly of searching for “the perfect woman for me” when I was a-courtin’.
I well understand how this flexibility differs from Catholic understanding. The confessional mobility is handiest when moving from one place to another. Loyalty to a denomination is not what fellowship is about.
*resists the urge to link to Mel Brooks’ skit about The Inquisition*
Rasqual, what do you think of the Catholic Church?
*resists the urge to link to Mel Brooks’ skit about The Inquisition*
No negative Catholic reference in that comment.
xalisae, with friends like you I am sure Paladin doesn’t need any more enemies.
Rasqual, what does ‘devotion to Christ’ mean to you, and what constitutes a ‘living faith’ in your opinion?
Can, in your opinion, fidelity to denomination ever be mindful and not mindless?
Rasqual, what is your notion of truth with respect to the differing theologies contained within each denomiation? Even ‘orthodox’ Churches have different theologies. How do you personally reconcile the different theologies that each denomination represents?
Dude. Please. Fewer spirits in the staircase, OK?
In general, I believe we’re closer to each other (our given — not achieved — unity in Christ) when we’re at the center of our respective fellowships than when we’re trying to meet and compromise at the periphery. So the closer a Catholic is to the center of their faith, the closer I am to them. However, the center of their faith is Christ, as in my case. Catholics, no less than the rest of us, are capable of being distracted by shiny objects. In general, I believe Rome has made that lamentably easier to do.
Rome is broken, as is the rest of Christendom. I think in some matters, the Eastern church has been a more faithful witness.
Devotion to Christ, IMO, means that all else in life is ordered to his rule as Lord. Living faith is simply this: God is Father, not Grandfather. He has no grandchildren. You’re not a Christian because of your parents. Each generation and each person has to own his faith and experience it immediately through the Holy Spirit. Plenty is mediated through the church. One’s salvation is one’s own. There are no parental or traditional coat-tails to save us. Fidelity to denomination, for Catholics, is an understandable loyalty. Like the Mass, such loyalty simply doesn’t mean the same thing to people like me as it does to Catholics. I understand that. It’s apples and oranges.
As for different theologies, God apparently doesn’t give a rip about a huge number of our picayune theological differences. There’s more variation between Catholic orders on some matters than there are between some Protestant denominations. Again, God apparently doesn’t give a rip. Makes sense. It’s delusion to imagine that any of us confused, unsanctified lunatics would have it 100% correct. We tolerate differences that don’t make a difference — that is, if we’re realistic to appreciate that our feeble epistemologies will not get us to a place that can only be occupied by a sanctified and glorified mind — and even then we will clearly know only a limited (if rapidly and eternally growing) amount of what’s true.
I don’t need to reconcile variations. I need only reject heretics, hewing to the wisdom of the ecumenical councils. I cited the formula. It’s a good one. Were you familiar with it? If not, you have some history to catch up on.
I’ve always appreciated the earliest version of the Apostle’s Creed.
“I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (the life everlasting).”
Other creeds matter. This simple one matters most. Rejection of its fundamentals by so, so many cults and even mainline Protestant seminarians is sufficient to break fellowship. There’s no sense quibbling about some point of Chalcedon or Athanasius with someone who can’t stomach the virgin birth or resurrection from the dead.
The paint job doesn’t matter if the darned jalopy won’t even drive down the road.
Rasqual, last questions: How do you see yourself ever conversing with a Catholic? What would you ever talk about?
Are you prepared to listen to other points of view?
xalisae, with friends like you I am sure Paladin doesn’t need any more enemies.
I leave that to his judgement. We’ve been friends for a few years now, and still are, so his judgement must be lacking according to you. But that’s why you don’t get that what I put down wasn’t an insult to The Church, but an insult TO YOU, because The Church has learned from past missteps. With your barrage of questions and condescension displayed here, it is obvious that YOU have NOT.
Thanks for your opinion xalisae. Next time you want to insult me, please find a more direct way of doing so, without bashing the Church at the same time. I can take your insults, because most of the time they are very juvenile. You are old enough to hear the truth, IMO. But more importanly I know you are ultimately a good person (this is not kissing your butt, simply stating a fact).
I doubt Paladin’s judgment is impaired. More than likely he is exercising Christian compassion, something you think I lack, I know. If it is compassion it is highly unlikely that he will ever admit that to be the case.
To refresh your memory here is a link to your comment on July 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm . I am sure that comment was about me as well. As much, the statement is trying to state a fact, it is doing so in an insulting manner. I could say the opinions of xalisae are inconsequential to many – an objective truth – but nonetheless, insulting.
Tyler: “How do you see yourself ever conversing with a Catholic? What would you ever talk about?”
Um . . . anything at all? Like, every day I talk with Catholics?
Lrning: “Oy vey.”
Oh no…have I made it more confusing?
…or do you think I’m completely out to lunch and you’re trying to think of way to say so in a compassionate manner?
<engage super-satire mode>
Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr are you simply awestruck by the awesomeness of my awe-inspiring responses and you now see yourself as not being up to the challenge and are effectively saying “Awwrrrrrghghghghsackapoopoo!” in a cranky and religiously-ancestoral manner?
<disengage super-satire mode>
I’m pretty sure that last one is wrong, buuuuuut I’ll wait for clarification on that before I say anything else. ;-)
Doe:
Before I write my responses to your post, I must confess that I’m somewhat confused by your stance regarding mine: more specifically, I’m not sure if you agree or disagree with me. :-P
“Could God not ordain that a couple, for grave reasons, not conceive a child?”
He definitely could and I’m certain He has on many occasions. In fact, He has an infinitely better understanding of what constitutes an authentically-grave reason, and as such He is in the prime position to make such a decision.
“I understand the couple, if using NFP faithfully and correctly, should use Providence, Prudence, and Planning. I took all the classes, so I’m somewhat familiar.”
This may surprise you (and maybe a few other people here), but I’ve never actually taken any classes or anything dealing specifically with NFP. My knowledge of this matter comes from just about every other source: friends and family who use it, encyclicals, guest speakers at conferences not related to this, newsletters, and even those who absolutely hate it for various reasons. Meditative and direct revelation, my personal favorites, have also helped me understand much about this, though they must obviously be tempered with vigilance and certification, both of which take time and study; while they may not usually teach me anything entirely new in this area, they do tend to elaborate and expand on what’s already there, giving me new insights and avenues of thought that I would not likely have found on my own.
But I must say, those three P’s seem like a pretty good guideline. :-)
Providence: when a couple is faithful to God and mindful of His direction for them (to the best of their abilities and understanding, of course), He will work through them to fulfill His will, regardless of whether or not they are correct in their discernment. Also, their blessing will not (so far as I know) be tied to their correct interpretation but rather the sincerity of their efforts. So yes, trusting in the providence of God is always an excellent practice, especially when dealing with children (both before and after conception).
Prudence: It is indeed always important to distinguish between God’s will and one’s own, and sexuality is certainly no exception. Due to the Fall, this is naturally very difficult for virtually everyone, so caution must be exercised in making this decision. However, again, God sees the sincerity of our efforts and our decisions, and thus while I agree that prudence is an important aspect, I would also assure people that you needn’t be frozen in indecision by uncertainty; choosing incorrectly doesn’t close the door on God, and your genuine trust will allow Him to guide you back to the correct path.
Planning: In this context, I’m assuming that this is meant to be qualitatively synonymous with discipline; if I’m wrong in that regard, please correct me. As with all other aspects of our lives, God directs us but does not quite do ALL the work for us; we still have to put in our own effort. Regardless of the path one chooses, there are always sacrifices, and NFP is no different; it makes demands of your time, your trouble, and – the most difficult – your desires. The proper exercise of NFP practically never happens just by accident, but is instead a thoroughly conscious, objective, and deliberate action taken by a couple.
“A married couple can be trying to trust in God’s Will, but He ultimately knows what a couple can handle and not handle.”
I imagine we’ve all heard the same quip at some point:
‘What do you call people who use NFP? Parents!’
Besides the fact that many people who use it do so to ENCOURAGE pregnancy (it is, after all, simply a collection of tailored information that works both ways), I stand by my earlier statement that the frequency of God choosing to withhold children is far lower than many believe, and thus He overrides the efforts of many NFP users. I absolutely do not think any less of them for this; having gone two rounds with contemplating the priesthood, I have an often infuriatingly-clear appreciation of how difficult discernment can be.
It is indeed ultimately in His capable hands, and He will proceed in best possible way.
And after all’s said and done (and usually more is said than done :-P), He does not require us to succeed, but simply to try; He’ll take care of the rest. :-)
Maestro: “buuuuuut”
Thank you. Among younger people, of late, I’ve noticed a tendency when texting or commenting on line to do it this way instead:
“butttttttt”
or (“would you like a hamburger?”):
“sureeeeeee”
or
“okkkkkkkk”
Maybe it’s just the phoneticist in me, but it drives me bonkersssss.
Rasqual, please don’t bash the Church again. Or fallen away Catholics. If you want to judge others don’t complain if they judge you.
Be a friend to Catholics.
Maestro! Sorry, no, I appreciate your thorough response. I still feel in my gut that you took the Church teaching perhaps one step too far, but you explained your reasoning very well and it may just be that I’m not ready to see the matter that clearly.
No, my exclamation was regarding some of Tyler’s posts on this thread that I find painful to read. Sorry to confuse you.
Tyler, you’re very difficult to carry on a conversation with.
But if you don’t want me to “bash the Church” again, you’re going to need to quote specifically where you’re confident I’ve done that.
To refresh your memory here is a link to your comment on July 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm . I am sure that comment was about me as well. As much, the statement is trying to state a fact, it is doing so in an insulting manner. I could say the opinions of xalisae are inconsequential to many – an objective truth – but nonetheless, insulting.
I was simply stating a fact that to non-Catholics, Catholic doctrine is absolutely irrelevant and trying to hold non-Catholics to Catholic standards is like trying to teach a hamster to use the toilet. The fact that you seem to take this as a personal insult seems to me as though you are not of sound mind. Please, sir, feel free to say that my opinions are inconsequential to many! Guess what-I DON’T CARE-because I am not a megalomaniac who thinks that what I say should affect everyone always and be enforced with an iron fist. For me, simply stating my opinion is enough. Anyone can choose to hear it or not. Anyone can do whatever they like with it as well-including completely disregarding it!-and it makes me no difference. Do you honestly think that people care that much about YOUR opinion?
And oh noes, you called me “juvenile”! How terrible it is to have the joy of living in one’s heart, embrace comedy and laughter with open arms, and retain the ability to marvel at the simple beauty of the world around me well into adulthood! Whatever shall I do?
But for the record, you are the one stomping your feet, crossing your arms, and pouting because other people in this world refuse to do things YOUR way (which is the way of Catholicism).
;_;
Anti-Catholic remarks by Rasqual:
I’m perfectly willing to rake NFP over the coals in this thread again if you’re going to pretend its practitioners are somehow immune to charges of abusing it the way many Catholics seem to think others use contraception with an “abortion mindset,” or whatever.
They’re conspiring over periods of weeks and months to be as closed to life as good science makes possible. They’re no more “open to life” than someone casually donning a condom. I fail to see how this veritable plotting, this conspiracy, to avoid conception somehow sanctifies the conception-evasive practices of the conspirators. It’s like a major operation leveled against God’s intentions.
NFP is not less dire for being more of a long-term conspiracy and less casual. It’s more dire, more an offense against God’s plan for sex, marriage, and offspring.
As I said, “I’m accusing you of utter, self-righteous hypocrisy. How is what you’re saying not so?”
See there? How is WHAT YOU’RE SAYING not so. Do you seriously wish for your words to be inconsequential in conversation, do you wish to not be held accountable for what you say, merely because your interlocutors don’t know you? If that’s how you really feel, you shouldn’t be on the Internet in a forum dealing with something as controversial as abortion — and you certainly shouldn’t be baiting fellow pro-lifers by claiming superior contraceptive morality to people as open to life as you are.
When NFP is about avoiding conception, the only difference from casually pulling out a condom is that NFP requires conspiratorial attention to detail. If the condom thwarts God’s intention casually, NFP thwarts it obsessively.
My concern is whether they’ve turned NFP into an idol that absolves them of guilt they’re content to impugn others with, who haven’t seen the NFP light. What I’m seeing here is such self-unaware idolatry of this kind that it resembles a complete moral slumber. “I don’t understand, rasqual.” That’s a symptom not that I’m being irrational; it’s a symptom of complacent ignorance.
Which is the greater lunacy — someone who plots across the weeks to ensure their desired sexual pleasure occupies the least fertile periods and then accuses condom users of offending God, or someone who casually uses condoms and, if conception happens, welcomes it as enthusiastically as the NFP practitioner?
Bear in mind, I don’t think anything’s wrong with NFP at all. I think something’s terribly wrong with those who lean on it as a petite little deity for absolution of sexual sins they’re content to find in others. And that’s what you and others here are doing.
Here’s a huge problem with much Catholic teaching. A teaching is dispensed, and then the faithful take it and run with it in all directions. It’s an easy critique to make of Catholic teaching, because in her missions the Church has seemed almost indifferent to syncretism destructive of the faith itself. It’s no coincidence that the craziest hybrid religions on the planet are the result of Catholic missions with insufficient devotion to truth, or followup to distinguish the faith from superstition. Rather, the practice has often seemed to be to co-opt superstition, without regard for whether such superstition offers any innate hooks for the gospel.
In short, Catholic teaching is, as an institution, careless and either inconsequential for many (how many Catholics abort, or use contraception?) or consequential in non-productive ways — such as NFP idolaters clucking their tongues at genuine pro-lifers using condoms.
Note that there are some ways in which abortion and contraception are related, and have been noted in this forum, that I’ve not taken exception to. But likewise I would not disagree with some ways that the relationship between conception itself and abortion could be affirmed. It’s weird that I have to put it that way to make the apparently non-intuitive point, in these parts, that the “relationship(s)” between things are not means by which the vile evil of one of those things besmirches the “related” thing inevitably. Yet that’s what some Catholics seem to do with Catholic teaching — just blithely deem some imprecisely stated “relationship” between two things a sufficient reason to despise ‘em both.
“Therefore any of us who believe there is a relationship between abortion and contraception are filled with ‘utter-self righteous hypocrisy’ and many on this thread agree with him, according to the likes on his posts. ”
Entirely unfair, and I think you know it. The ways in which abortion is related to contraception have not been broadly illuminated. The current dispute has focused on a very few narrow ways in which NFP and contraception are taken by me to be quite similar, identical, or even the worse for NFP in its practitioners own terms.
Oh good grief. That’s an easy, woe-is-me-because-non-Catholics-don’t-understand-us way out. I’d not have expected this kind of answer from you, P.
Since when does Catholic faith oblige Catholics to proclaim their judgment that contracepting pro-life friends are engaging in a morally inferior form of sex? Or that they’re engaging in something no different, morally, than gay orgies? Or that such people’s “contraceptive mindset” is of a kind with abortion?
Since when are Catholics obliged by their faith to behave that way? And then get indignant and feel insulted when challenged on it?
I still wonder why this forum continues to troll for this kind of discussion with posts like this.
Catholic pro-lifers may indeed face a peculiar burden here. If they really do believe that abortion and contraception are of a kind, then they may well feel a compulsion to convince their pro-life non-Catholic friends of that. Apparently, they sometimes imagine that bluntly declaring such friends to be gay orgy participants is a great avenue of moral suasion. Others, more subtle, merely proclaim the moral superiority of NFP. But few have attempted to convince in ways that are willing to field and dispense with counter-argument.
If it’s really that important, I think our Catholic friends should act like it, get a thick skin, and actually be persuasive. If it’s not really that important, stop raising the issue as if it were.
The whole question-begging mess in some of this is expressed simply: “for whom?” NFP is malleable. This reifying of NFP and contraception, as if either foists some absolute reality on its practitioners, is kind of crazy. “The goal” of NFP is whatever its practitioners’ goal is / goals are.
Again, that depends on who we’re talking about. NFP is a method that can be used by couples for many purposes. I might as well say a gun doesn’t shoot people, it merely deters. Well, the latter is true. But in some cases, so is the former. You may be representing a pristine and morally squeaky-clean example of how some people use NFP. But in a church where most women contracept and many abort, I’m sure you’ll agree that Catholic teaching regarding the value of NFP is taken by many Catholics to mean that NFP is a great method to sanctify their avoidance conception using a method that enjoys a great reputation among their more fecundity-minded brethren.
We are co-designers with God.
If it mirrors God’s love for us, then the incomplete expression of that love is authentic.
God does not do a total dump of his love on each occasion where he loves us at all, so it’s not clear to me that each and every occasion of marital union need be complete.
Not at all. I’m saying we do not receive all his love, on each occasion where we experience any of his love. And yet this privation of his good we do not call an evil act on his part.
Who could imagine that a Thomistic understanding of vice/virtue (habit) could be applied to the idea that reliance on elevators and cars instead of stairs and walking, could have a bearing on how much evil one implicates in one’s sex life by failing to have sufficient staying power and robbing one’s spouse of the gift of time, thereby incurring the opprobrium of jillstanek.com Catholics who deem such failures morally equivalent to gay orgies.
I mean, not being open to life (God’s gift and design) and not being open to pleasure (God’s gift and design) are, alike, a lot like gay orgies. Right?
If I use a condom and the next day give my life for my wife, have I shown an abhorrent “contraceptive mentality” that’s rightly faulted for failing to withhold sperm from my wife? No, it’s an abysmal judgment that would fastidiously strain that gnat and swallow the camel of my death.
I realize that many Catholics are teflon to such critique; it won’t stick.
It’s a small matter for a non-Catholic to dissent with the teachings of a church whose own members dissent in practice orders of magnitude more significantly.
Pro-lifers not hell-bent on ranting about a “contraception mindset” being the sine qua non of abortion are rightly offended at some of the aspersions that’ve been cast on the authenticity of their pro-lifeness in these parts. I’d like to see more apologies from uncharitable Catholics who’ve insulted pr0-lifers repeatedly. I’m grateful to the several Catholics who’ve sought to draw such unhelpful brethren back to reason, prudence and proportion.
A lot these comments are against accepted Catholic teaching and doctrine. Most non-Catholics won’t catch your little digs, and you know it, so you leave them in your comments to incite Catholics while trying to make yourself look perfectly reasonable.
Many of the comments make inaccurate statements about NFP, its purpose, and its use. This would be okay if you were ignorant about NFP but you are not. You know that you are making erroneous statements and presenting a false of NFP, and the way Catholics practice. You have completely devalued anything that is natural. Walking is better than taking the car, and taking the stairs is better than taking the elevator for a human being’s biological health. Sure walking and taking the stairs are less convenient and more time consuming but they are more healthy activities – they correspond to man’s nature. Likewise, NFP corresponds to man’s nature, even though they involve self-denial.
Instead of dealing with the legitimacy of the teachings by themselves, you often raise the fact that many Catholics dissent – which is entirely irrelevant.
Many of your comments even appear to lack a Christian perspective, and reveal a man who has lost his faith.
Rasqual, you never did answer this question of mine:
Please explain your contradictory statement that someone can be pro-life and use contraception at the same time. Aren’t these two ideas mutually exclusive? (Why does a couple use contraception if they are pro-life? At the moment the couple decides to use contraception they are not, in their mind, pro-life. They may not plan to kill any baby that is conceived but, it is undeniable, that they don’t want to conceive. Hence, the only accurate label for the mindset of these individuals is ‘reactionary pro-lifer’ or ‘anti-life’. In reality, as opposed to their mindset, when a baby is conceived and they decide to keep said baby they are pro-lifers because their actions say they are.)
:) Ah… so *here’s* where all the action has been, as of late!
Good heavens… this thread is so vast that I’ve no idea where to begin! Let me put my thinking cap on for a bit, and read some more of this vast tome of a thread (not that I’m in any position to look askance at anyone for *that*, given my own logorrhea!), and see what I can cobble together.
(Although there seem to be clear signs of hurt feelings and rancor from earlier in the thread–heaven knows that I haven’t read them all, so I’m only guessing– have to admit, some of the latest comments have been exquisitely amusing… esp. Rasqual, Maestro, Lrning, etc.! :) )
xalisae, I was wondering how you would respond. If you would try to distort and take my comments out of context.
For the record, I was being sarcastic when I said “I am sure that comment was about me as well.”
Well, xalisae, by your own earlier admission, “stomping your feet, crossing your arms, and pouting” must not be the way of Catholicism, because according to you, your Catholic friend Paladin is not that way.
Once again, with friends like you Paladin sure doesn’t need anymore enemies.
…he says, as he leaps into the fray instantly, anyway… :)
One thing which I’ve already noticed: there seems to be some disagreement about definition of terms (and some equivocation between those definitions), in this discussion. For example: “pro-life” is a colloqual phrase which can mean a great many things to a great many people–ranging from Pope Benedict XVI (no abortion, no contraception, no pornography, no embrace of homosexuality, etc.) to Kathleen Sebelius (who called herself “pro-life” on at least one occasion, despite her embrace of all of the above).
I’d gently suggest (esp. to Tyler, whom I regard as a good fellow) that it’s not really logical–nor is it quite strictly fair–to say that those who tolerate and/or use contraception are “not pro-life”, especially since the most common colloquial definition of that term (to the extent that such a mushy term *can* be defined, in a public conversation) usually encompasses anyone who believes that any deliberate choice to kill another person (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, etc.) is morally evil. As a Catholic, I understand what you mean when you say that toleration of contraception is “not pro-life”; but especially on this forum (which does not subscribe to Catholic teaching per se, in general, though it may agree with it on many points), that sharp distinction may be more of a hindrance than a help, when discussing such things. It may be best to discuss contraception (and homosexuality) as distinct things, at least for the sake of equanimity and ease.
Re: “Catholic bashing”… I’ve seen enough of it to fill 10 life-times, frankly, but I wouldn’t go nearly so far as you’ve gone (Tyler), esp. re: Rasqual’s commentary. To disagree (or to criticise, so long as one is civil) is not to hate/disparage/bash… and that’s a distinction which is absolutely critical to remember. We who view homosexuality as an objective disorder are the first ones (and rightly so) to say that “a refusal to embrace the normalisation of homosexuality) is not equivalent to homosexual-hating, homosexual-bashing, or so-called ‘homophobia’, or any other such nonsense”. It would behoove us to live up to our own standards, yes?
Update, after having seen recent comments: Tyler, you wrote:
Once again, with friends like you Paladin sure doesn’t need anymore enemies.
Er… while I appreciate the thought, sir, I’d rather you not use rhetorical wedges between Xalisae and me. I’m extremely fond of her, in spite of (and sometimes even because of) our disagreements. I do think we can stick to the topic itself, and not veer off on such personal-type ventures…
Well, xalisae, by your own earlier admission, “stomping your feet, crossing your arms, and pouting” must not be the way of Catholicism, because according to you, your Catholic friend Paladin is not that way.
No, that is NOT the way of Catholicism. That’s why I cited The Inquisition earlier. It USED to be their way, but they grew out of it, and the pope even apologized for such transgressions of the past. And no, my Catholic friend Paladin is NOT that way, as evidenced in most recent post. As I stated earlier, most Catholics have learned from the transgressions of the past. Paladin is one of those.
Paladin, I am not putting rhetorical wedges between you and xalisae. She made her own anti-Catholic comments. It is not my desire to put any wedges between anybody, but I am not responsible for what she says.
Tyler: Pasting a huge chunk of text is not helpful in the least. It’s also lazy. Please narrow the scope of your citations to specific matters you’re then willing to point out and explain as instances of “bashing.” Show the conversational aptitude of actually explaining things — not just cut & paste imagining that others must surely be able to identify what you intend.
Focusing on a litany of NFP criticism when asked to cite “Catholic bashing” seems to make my point about idolatry, though. If the identity “Catholic” is so bound up in NFP that you take umbrage on behalf of all of Catholicism, well, you’re vesting more in NFP than you ought. I’m reminded way, way too much of Bruce’s “Another victory for God and NFP!” remark. Let’s just apotheosize NFP!
Tyler, with friends like you, Paladin doesn’t need enemies.
Now did I, or did I not, just model “putting a rhetorical wedge between” you and Paladin?
It was what you said, not what she said, that Paladin was referring to.
Heck, I’m almost guilty of it myself just by trying to explain it to you. :-/
Tyler, with friends like you, Paladin doesn’t need enemies.
Now did I, or did I not, just model “putting a rhetorical wedge between” you and Paladin?
No, because I have said nothing negative about Paladin or his religion. Also, I never claimed Paladin as my friend (although he is an admirable Catholic, I don’t know him personally) unlike xalisae.
Yes, if rhetorical means ’nothing of substance.’ But that is different from what I said, although the words were similar, my words had substance behind them, they referred to something concrete, and weren’t said for their rhetorical effect.
rasqual: Focusing on a litany of NFP criticism when asked to cite “Catholic bashing” seems to make my point about idolatry, though. If the identity “Catholic” is so bound up in NFP that you take umbrage on behalf of all of Catholicism, well, you’re vesting more in NFP than you ought.
Egads, I think I agree! I’m still in a bit of shock from reading through the list of what Tyler calls “Catholic bashing”.
Tyler, holy heck I don’t even know what to say. I hope you come to see that disagreement with and discussion about Catholic teaching is not necessarily “Catholic bashing”.
You all have jumped over Tyler earlier in this thread when he was merely trying to state his firmly held convictions. And I say that as a contracepting “Protestant” (hate that term. I’m not protesting anything…well except abortion ;-) )
I respect his fervor. If you really think something is wrong wouldn’t you speak out about it with passion? And if you REALLY believe you are not wrong then why are you all reacting so defensively? At least that is how it comes across to me.
Xalisae, Although I LOVE your wit and the amusing snark you pile on pro-aborts I do not understand your sensitivity towards God. You endlessly tell us that you are an atheist and then in the very next thread act offended when we assume you don’t have belief in God. Which is it? Are you or aren’t you?
Last summer you jumped all over me in a breastfeeding thread when I was talking to fellow Christian women that just because we are breastfeeding doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be modest as God’s Word calls us to be modest and to not tempt our brothers to lust. You got very angry with me and when I explained I was talking to Christian women you acted offended and said you weren’t an atheist and you DO believe in God now. WHOA. Okay…um, I can’t keep up! You upset me so much (didn’t realize I was hormonal and pregnant at the time) I had to quit this site for a little bit.
And you are correct that women have conceived and carried to term when taking the pill. I was one. But the manufacturers of the pill admit in their own inserts that the pill CAN cause an early abortion. Not that it always does but it CAN. And I know women who have taken the pill and HAVE lost the baby early in pregnancy. So it does happen. If the pills own makers can face this fact why can’t you?
Here you go Lrning:
Catholics, no less than the rest of us, are capable of being distracted by shiny objects. In general, I believe Rome has made that lamentably easier to do.
Rome is broken, as is the rest of Christendom. I think in some matters, the Eastern church has been a more faithful witness.
Lrning, do you think someone like Rasqual is going to directly attack the Church? He is too smart for that. He will attack everything else, Church teaching, fallen-away Catholics, the Mass, our fidelity to our denomination (indeed, he will call it denomination knowing Catholics don’t think it is one denomination among many). He will say anything and twist anything, even stuff he agrees with, in order tomake Catholics look bad. I am telling you Rasqual has bad intentions for Catholics. Calling them NFP idolators is merely one example. Sure, he will agree with Catholics, as longs as Catholic don’t believe in anything Catholic, and believe in his personal understanding of what Christianity is! You know like worship shiny objects.
Also, if you want to be charitable to Rasqual, that is fine, just leave me out of it, and don’t reference me in your comments. If you have something you want to say to me or about me, please say it directly to me, ideally in a separate post.
Is this thread still going?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI
I applaud your hanging in here Tyler in spite of Rasqual’s coal-raking attempts (what I call attempts he calls success).
Calling Catholics (those who believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches anyway) NFP idolaters is, imho, crossing the line into Catholic bashing. And I have personally dealt with my share as well. The shiny objects comment was quite nasty as well. After re-reading his comments, I do not believe that Rasqual has my or other faithful Catholic’s best interests at heart either.
There is no way any faithful Catholic can debate with Rasqual because he has already decided that we will be hypocrites one way or the other. His avoidance of pertinent questions to the topic have not been missed by some of us with IQs way below his own.
Tyler, I think rasqual has done plenty of attacking in this thread, which I think I’ve mentioned in my comments. And I think it’s regrettable that someone that loves NFP (as rasqual said he does) would spend so much time painting it as ugly as the worst abuses of it are instead of sharing what is beautiful about it.
But really, some of the statements you see as Catholic bashing are just rasqual sharing his theology. And I think we can actual learn something from some of his comments about how we share information about NFP. If someone reads our explanations of NFP and walks away with the belief that it is always okay to seek to avoid conception using NFP, then we have failed to share the full truth.
I appreciate your passion Tyler. But I deal with a lot of non-Catholics and anti-Catholics in real life, and I can’t help but read some of your statements in this thread as slaps in the face instead of invitations to learn more. Maybe it’s just me.
I think my participation in this thread has now become counterproductive. I’m out.
Sydney and Praxedes, thanks for your kind support. And Sydney, although we disagree on contraception, your good will, and pro-life values are easily recognized. If my good will hasn’t come across to any other Atheists or Protestants or Catholics I apologize.
If it was found offensive to say that contraceptive use indicates a contraceptive mentality that is akin to or a prelude to but not neccessarily indicative of an abortion mentality I apologize. Hurt feelings was not my intent.
Rasqual:
“Maestro: ‘buuuuuut'”
Ladies and gentlemen, you are witness to the accomplishment of one of my lesser goals in internet discussion; I have successfully gotten someone to comment on one of my posts in which quoting only one word is sufficient to do so accurately. The fact that it was the word “but” is the icing on the cake.
This makes me smile! :-D
Moving on…
‘Thank you. Among younger people, of late, I’ve noticed a tendency when texting or commenting on line to do it this way instead:
“butttttttt”
“sureeeeeee”
“okkkkkkkk”
Maybe it’s just the phoneticist in me, but it drives me bonkersssss.’
(bit of an aside here, but I feel it’s worth it)
In this, I am happy that we agree, Rasqual, and your rendition of this error has given me a new insight into a probably-related issue; poor spelling online.
Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone in this forum for helping to keep that particular phenomenon to a bare minimum! Gracias! :-D
Anyway, in preparing to attempt to pronounce what you wrote, I realized that it would involve a great deal of spitting, and then it hit me (not literally, thankfully); maybe those same people who write like that make so many spelling mistakes because they can no longer see their monitors, since they are perpetually glazed in a disgustingly-opaque layer of ballistic saliva.
The whole “should of” and “would of” is a whole other can of worms…
Lrning:
“I still feel in my gut that you took the Church teaching perhaps one step too far, but you explained your reasoning very well and it may just be that I’m not ready to see the matter that clearly.”
(not sure if you’ll read this, but I’ll post it anyway)
Lrning, if on further investigation, study, and prayer, you are still not convinced, you are more than welcome to ask me further questions. And while my explanations and beliefs make perfect sense to me, I must always be mindful of the limits of my mind and perspective, and thus of the fact that I am hardly beyond error.
In other words, you could very well be right and I accidentally cranked up my zealot mode a bit too much, in which case I hope you correct me. Blessings and best regards either way. :-)
Hans:
“Is this thread still going?”
As far as I’m concerned, Hans, I’m just here to help people understand NFP, at least from a Catholic perspective.
At this point, I’m waiting to see if Doe wants to ask anything else.
Hey, while you’re here, Hans, how was your day? :-P
Praxedes:
“There is no way any faithful Catholic can debate with Rasqual because he has already decided that we will be hypocrites one way or the other.”
As unfortunate as that is, I’m glad someone else said it too. Thank you, Praxedes.
“Catholics (those who believe in everything the Catholic Church teaches anyway)”
I’d like your opinion on this; for expediency’s sake, do you think it would be best if we just establish that whenever we refer to Catholics in this forum, we are specifically speaking of actual, practicing, faithful Catholics or at least those who genuinely try to be but may fail out of weakness (as opposed to those who knowingly and intentionally disobey and thus fail by their own will)?
In my opinion, we may as well, since that’s who we’re always talking about anyway; no sense having to constantly include that qualifier.
Thoughts?
Lrning, I think the disagreement with Rasqual arose because he has a different of concept of Truth than most Catholics. Unlike a Catholic he does not see that Christ’s and God’s truth extends to the natural world, and that the more human beings live in conformity with the Truth that can be discerned from nature, the better off are human beings. The Catholic understanding of Truth, expressed in their understanding of the Natural Law, will often make Catholics appear as idolators. However, this is an incorrect understanding of a Catholic’s perspective/theology. According to Catholics, we have a larget concept of what constitutes Truth, Beauty and Goodness. God not only gave us the Holy Spirit, we recognize that what He created was Good. We don’t beleive God’s creation is to be manipulated at will, with no consideration of human nature, or how human beings interact with His creation. This may appear as idolatry, if one only has a theology of the Cross and not a corresponding theology of the Incarnation.
Thoughts?
Agree.
Tyler: “Unlike a Catholic he does not see that Christ’s and God’s truth extends to the natural world”
Where do you infer that?
You’re dead wrong, so you may wish to rethink how you think.
Tyler, do this as an exercise; it will help you. Locate, please, things I’ve said that actually imply, to your mind, the above claim about my beliefs. Cite it to me — not in a huge dump lacking your commentary, but in a way that locates the source of the data (what I’ve said) that fund your inference.
Or are you just surfing across the conversation and supposing this and that and the other thing to be the case on a whim?
Seriously. You just bore false witness. What think you of that? Good grief: “I am telling you Rasqual has bad intentions for Catholics.” Now you’re just lying. Tyler, at this point I’m going to ask for an apology. As a Christian, you have a stake in reconciling yourself to other Christians. That’s your obligation and mine.
“The Catholic understanding of Truth, expressed in their understanding of the Natural Law, will often make Catholics appear as idolators.”
Really? How does THAT work? I mean, seriously, how is this even sensible: “We don’t beleive God’s creation is to be manipulated at will, with no consideration of human nature, or how human beings interact with His creation. This may appear as idolatry, if one only has a theology of the Cross and not a corresponding theology of the Incarnation.”
You’ve strung words together, but your claim that a thing may “appear as idolatry” “if one only has…” — well, your “if” doesn’t connect anything that could be perceived as idolatry. You’re just not making sense. I swear you’re randomly casting about for explanations for stuff you don’t understand. Now THAT will be confusing…
” If it was found offensive to say that contraceptive use indicates a contraceptive mentality that is akin to or a prelude to but not neccessarily indicative of an abortion mentality I apologize. Hurt feelings was not my intent. “
Hurt feelings? What about offended reason? Indulge not the conceit that others’ emotional fragility and not your own poor reasoning is at issue here, friend. It may flatter your rational self-image and your prejudice that non-Catholics lack reason and are left with mere emotion, but you’re not courting truth in framing the matter this way.
Prax: You’re bearing false witness, and it seems a consequence of refusal (not failure) to understand. It’s easier to dismiss critics of a particular mindset when you can skip actually thinking about their remarks and dismiss them as generalizing bigots. But that’s a form of lying as vile as you seem to think me guilty of. It seems I’m misunderstood. But I’m afraid I understand your remarks quite well. I have failed to be clear. You have not.
Think about that for a minute.
Lrning: You’re still not understanding, either. I guess I’ll have to accept that. But next time someone in this forum treats NFP as if it atoned for self-interest that would constitute a grave sin among those who contracept, I’ll be piping up again. And apparently, only a limited number of Catholics here (thank you, two of you) will understand and share my concern, if not my way of expressing it.
I’m distressed that Tyler and Prax have chosen — chosen — to believe me an enemy of Catholicism. Choosing to misunderstand in a way that permits you to believe the worst about others is an unseemly thing. My concern with NFP has been with a specific mindset about it, which I take to be identical among those who contracept. My brief is with those who imagine they find absolution for their own “contracepting mindset” while using NFP, while viewing contracepting pro-lifers as somehow inauthentically pro-life, and not “open to life.”
My beliefs about you are based on the words you’ve chosen over and over to put together regarding Catholics and what we believe, Rasqual.
You think about that for a minute.
God Bless.
Rasqual, just write out you think my response should be. I’ll agree to whatever you want to write. I’ll trust that you won’t bear false witness, and that you will do your best to present my views.
While you are at it, why don’t you tell us what you like about NFP and why you like it.
rasqual:
Tyler: “Unlike a Catholic he does not see that Christ’s and God’s truth extends to the natural world”
Where do you infer that?
You’re dead wrong, so you may wish to rethink how you think.
Tyler, do this as an exercise; it will help you.Locate, please, things I’ve said that actually imply, to your mind, the above claim about my beliefs. Cite it to me — not in a huge dump lacking your commentary, but in a way that locates the source of the data (what I’ve said) that fund your inference.
Rasqual, here is one of your posts that expresses a mechanistic view towards nature:
addendum: For that matter, some otherwise good people are obviously evil for not bringing sufficient stamina to the marriage bed. Why have they failed in their responsibility to steward the gift of their bodies, and develop their cardio-pulmonary endurance to its full potential? Who could imagine that a Thomistic understanding of vice/virtue (habit) could be applied to the idea that reliance on elevators and cars instead of stairs and walking, could have a bearing on how much evil one implicates in one’s sex life by failing to have sufficient staying power and robbing one’s spouse of the gift of time, thereby incurring the opprobrium of jillstanek.com Catholics who deem such failures morally equivalent to gay orgies. ;-)
By disagreeing with and then applying the Thomistic view of nature in the way that you have, you have relegated Man, and not God, as the ultimate authority over nature. You have pretty much presented a Deistic view of God.
Prax: You’ve seized on the simplest meanings to dismiss me as anti-Catholic, versus trying to understand. It’s false witness. Do you wish to reconcile, or not? What is your calling as a Christian? If you wish to reconcile, cite my specific offenses.
I’m not trolling.
Tyler, your responses to the citations you’ve offered seem almost random. They bear no relation to what I’m actually saying in them. It’s no wonder you misunderstand.
Do you understand that the paragraph you cite is a piece of reductio ad absurdum attempting some wit, invoking that provocateur of understanding called humor among those who can recognize it?
Why must I bear the curse of the perfect satirist when I’m such a lousy one? It’s not fair. ;-)
I think this is hopeless.
(*sigh*) It was my own fault, wasn’t it, that I jumped into a spit-fire thread on a day when I had such little leisure to reply? Ah, well… I’ll try to write a bit, tomorrow.
Cut the Gordian knot, strike a happy median, offer a tertium quid, and chart a via media.
Or join this legacy game of Twister we’ve been playing…
Tyler, your responses to the citations you’ve offered seem almost random. They bear no relation to what I’m actually saying in them. It’s no wonder you misunderstand.
Do you understand that the paragraph you cite is a piece of reductio ad absurdum attempting some wit, invoking that provocateur of understanding called humoramong those who can recognize it?
Why must I bear the curse of the perfect satirist when I’m such a lousy one? It’s not fair.
___
Rasqual, you know that I have pegged what you had said. For your own sanity, why don’t you try responding without satire and, instead, try responding in a straightforward manner. It will help you.
Rasqual, we are all still waiting to hear to what you like about NFP and why?
<<<crickets>>>>
Do you understand that the paragraph you cite is a piece of reductio ad absurdum attempting some wit, invoking that provocateur of understanding called humor among those who can recognize it?
—-
Do you always waste people’s time by making fun of your own point? (insert smiley face)
Your “attempted” reduction ad absurdum doesn’t work. There was no humour in it. The fact that you now want to deny responsibility for the point you were trying to make through satire only reveals that you didn’t have much of point to begin with.
Is it that difficult for you to be authentic? Must everything be a joke to you?
Praxedes, don’t cite any of Rasqual offences. He will not respond in kind and he will not take responsiblity for any of his comments.
Rasqual, there is a name for a person who uses satire as a crutch – that name is coward.
My comment was, “After re-reading his comments, I do not believe that Rasqual has my or other faithful Catholic’s best interests at heart either.”
I have now been accused of lying in spite of my stating this is what I believe, NOT this is what I know to be true. I have also now been told that I have skipped thinking about what has been written here. If I don’t agree with Rasqual, I am accused of refusing to understand. Who is bearing false witness against who?
Twister has never been my kind of game and had I known we were playing games, I would have opted out. I believe Rasqual is playing Twister with himself and doesn’t even realize it.
This is possibly the most ridiculous thread I have ever seen.
Tyler, in all seriousness, how does your mind work? Where does the “crutch” thing come from? And what of this gaping non sequitur: “The fact that you now want to deny responsibility for the point you were trying to make through satire”
Who’s denying responsibility for the point? Dude. You’re becoming almost impossible to converse with.
The fact that you’re wondering what I value in NFP demonstrates you have no idea what this conversation has been about. I value in NFP the same things you value. What I don’t value is idolatry, as I’ve been trying to explain. Some here have understood that basic point.
Prax: “There is no way any faithful Catholic can debate with Rasqual because he has already decided that we will be hypocrites one way or the other.”
That’s a complete misprepresentation, and you have no warrant for making the claim. You can’t. It’s impossible. Because it’s not true.
I’ll add one additional thing about that “already decided we’ll be hypocrites” thing. Wow is that a coward’s way out. Any actual charge of hypocrisy may be dismissed by applying a prejudice against the one claiming there’s hypocrisy. The one making the charge is deemed a “basher” who will always do so, ergo there’s no point answering any specific charge of hypocrisy. Nothing to look at here, move along!
Where did this conversation take such a weird turn? I think I’ll go look.
OK, I was pretty clear in my July 26 (3:08 AM) remarks.
I also see that apparently willful disregard of my clear concerns followed close on the heels of that post.
I’d begun to suspect today that the inexplicable allegations of Catholic bashing, insinuations of contempt for NFP and so forth were the fault of some obscurity, hyperbole, or imprecision on my part. In literal retrospect, I’m seeing more bad faith on the part of my interlocutors than I recall identifying at the time. And in fact, from people I’m most surprised to see that from.
Perhaps some of you are hypervigilant from too much exposure to actual Catholic bashing. I can appreciate that. But you have a responsibility to understand people, not just relegate them to a category (a “Catholic basher” who will inevitably see Catholics as hypocrites no matter what) that makes them simpler to deal with by dismissing them on unwarranted grounds of your own contrivance.
I issued clear disclaimers in that post from the 26th. I really do expect those to be honored by good faith interlocutors. Anyone interested in mere rhetorical gamesmanship and reflexive defensiveness is of course free to disregard them.
Sydney,
I am sorry if I ever upset you. However, I am also sorry that a good many people here say things without thinking of the implications towards others who do not share their beliefs.
And, even Dawkins has said that to assert 100% there is no God is ignorant. However, as I’ve stated before, any relationship I have or do not have with any God which may or may not exist is something that is intensely personal and not anything I would be willing to share with anyone.
If one looks at the mind of the person who abstains, such as it must be within a Nun or celibate Priest, as opposed to one who uses contraception one can see the difference between the abstaining done by a NFP user and a user of contraception more clearly. Both the celibate and the NFP user who abstains is doing so for spiritual reasons, to be pure, and to follow the will of God. In other words, they have a positive reason for doing what they are doing, and they are not just seeking to avoid sexual union. In particular, by abstaining during the fertile perods the NFP user can’t be considered anti-life because they are not even trying to engage in sexual activity. As I said before, if someone is going to consider abstaining during fertile periods anti-life that person will have consider that a couple must have sex during every fertile period. There is obviously no commandment to do this. As for having sex during the infertile periods, God himself, planned these periods so a person, who through weakness or a desire for union with their partner has sex, is not conspiring against new life, but proceeding in a way that is consistent with God’s own plan. To conflate the meaning of the word abstinence to have the same meaning as contraception is to completely fail to acknowledge in the literal definitions of these words.
Definition of ABSTINENCE
1: voluntary forbearance especially from indulgence of an appetite or craving or from eating some foods
2a : habitual abstaining from intoxicating beverages b : abstention from sexual intercourse
Definition of CONTRACEPTION
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation
—
rasqual, i think you may be guilty of idolizing your own opinions. You seem to assume that you have the super-human ability to get inside the minds of Catholics and know how and what they are worshipping.
Tyler: “Both the celibate and the NFP user who abstains is doing so for spiritual reasons, to be pure, and to follow the will of God.”
Really?
No secularists use NFP?
Tyler, are you identifying NFP with Catholicism? You do realize that NFP is fundamentally the use of sound science to determine fertile periods, right?
Who has said, anywhere, that NFP users are, by being NFP users, “Anti”-life? You’re not representing a position anyone in this thread has taken. Why waste your time burning straw men?
NFP is not about mere abstinence, Tyler. If it were, there’d be no need of the NFP. You don’t need to concern yourself in the least with the question of when you’re fertile or not, in the case that you’re merely abstaining. NFP is concerned either to increase, or decrease, the chances of conception by avoiding or embracing fertile periods (one party to this thread has indicated other uses of NFP and I’m not denying those; they’re merely the exceptions we’re not concerning ourselves with because such uses are not germane),
So for purposes of comparison with contraception, of course, we’re talking about use of NFP to avoid fertile periods. And understood that way, NFP is not merely abstinence. It’s a cycle of abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex that seeks to avoid conception. You simply can’t call such NFP mere “abstinence” — because if that’s all it were you could stop doing the NFP and everything would be just peachy. Can’t conceive very well if it’s only about “abstinence,” right?
Truthfully, fundamental NFP isn’t about abstinence or sex at all. The decision to abstain or have sex is funded by the knowledge NFP provides. My concern has been to compare apples to apples (contraception users and conception-avoiding users of NFP), but some here seem to imagine that I’m wishing to compare contraception users with all Catholics. That identification of a mere scientific method with the Catholic faith reinforces my hunch that there’s more idolatry afoot in these parts than I’d suspected.
<snip persecution complex snark>
Rasqual you have still yet to tell us what you like about NFP and why?
In that post you only explained that you think it is possible for a person to reconcile their use of contraception with their faith and/or their pro-life position. This is not a statement of your beliefs or views on NFP.
The following passage represents the main area of difference in our conceptions of NFP (from your July 26, 3:08 pm post):
Jen: “Abstinence: refraining from the action that allows conception to take place.”
rasqual: Be honest. It’s strategic abstinence that awaits an infertile period to enjoy sex without the consequence of conception. With NFP used this way, it’s not abstinence. There’s still sex. Think of it this way — it’s “temporal contraception.” It does with time and planning and fastidious application of good science, what a condom does in moments with a thin layer of latex. Which is the greater lunacy — someone who plots across the weeks to ensure their desired sexual pleasure occupies the least fertile periods and then accuses condom users of offending God, or someone who casually uses condoms and, if conception happens, welcomes it as enthusiastically as the NFP practitioner?
See, I think there’s some bigotry here, I think NFP defenders — many of them, at any rate — seriously believe that contraceptive users really aren’t as open to life as they claim. The first commitment of such NFP idolaters is to the propositon that contraception and abortion are two sides of the same coin, ERGO the contraception users’ claims that they’re as open to life are simply not credible. The fact that they use contraception requires this assignment of non-credibility. Or so it seems.
rasqual, you don’t think there is alink between contraception and abortion – that is fine. As Catholics, we think there is a link. The only way to see the link is if you first acknowledge the truth about contraception is, and then notice that anyone who uses contraception is, at best, a ‘reactionary’ pro-lifer. I don’t say this to degrade the pro-life beliefs of these people, but merely to be descriptive. A person who abstains is not reactionary because they are planning and going with the flow of a woman’s natural’s rthyms. Abstaining during fertile periods is not the same as using contraception. If it was, then you should have no issue with pre-marital sex.
rasqual, I was writing my 10:45 post at the time you posted your 10:33 post. But it appears we are getting to the heart of the issue. Give me a moment to read over your 10:33 post.
My concern has been to compare apples to apples (contraception users and conception-avoiding users of NFP), but some here seem to imagine that I’m wishing to compare contraception users with all Catholics. That identification of a mere scientific method with the Catholic faith reinforces my hunch that there’s more idolatry afoot in these parts than I’d suspected.
I will ignore these comments since they are mere speculation on your part and don’t help us get to the root of the matter. Like the non-conception avoiding NFP users it is not germane to the topic you are primarily concerned about.
____
NFP is not about mere abstinence, Tyler. If it were, there’d be no need of the NFP.
But, and this big but, this is exactly the way Catholics see NFP. You were correct to spot some confusion here. Catholics believe a married couple can be chaste. This means more than the couple simply having fidelity to one another and their marriage. It also means something larger, it means that the couple have a spiritual obligation to God first, even within their marriage. Being chaste, or abstaining, in the context of a marriage means following God’s will. Indeed, having sex within a marriage can be chaste act, because chastity doesn’t mean simply having a pure body, but having a pure mind – willing the good of the other, for example, when a spouse wilfully gives their body to the other for the benefit of satisfying that spouses moment of weakness. This is what it means to abstain and be chaste in a marriage.
A married couple needs to understand the idea of self-denial and total self-giving, and that sexual union is something good, and not sinful, in and by itself. Catholics don’t sexual union as sin, even though it is a weakness. Catholics, see things in a ordered way. Spiritual things have more value than bodily things and even an order among spiritual things. So in the context of a marriage giving oneself to one’s married partner, has more value then simply keeping the body pure because as you have pointed out they will eventually have sex anyway, for it is one of the goods of marriage.
rasqual, how do you see the sexual union? Do you see it is a good?
In short, NFP is very much about abstinence, but abstinence understood in this way.
Rasqual: NFP is not merely abstinence. It’s a cycle of abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex that seeks to avoid conception
It is abstinence in the sense the person is pure in heart to God’s cycle of fertile/fertile/infertile/fertile periods. Then, indeed, all couples, secular or not, who practice NFP in this way. The fact that NFP is cycle of abstinence and sex doesn’t diminish its value or raise it to the status of contraception, because these periods, or this cycle, was going to happen anyway.
If you focus just on the fertile periods, and the NFP users who abstain during that period. it is obvious that they are not using contraception since there is no need. At this moment, they are being chaste or abstaining. They are not attempting block one of the purposes of sexual activity, because they are not engaged in that activity. They have elevated their minds unto a different subject. They have surrendered their will to God’s plan for their life. Conversely, the couple who uses contraception are involved in blocking the transmission of life. Abortion blocks continuation of life. Both contraception and abortion prevent something that should naturally occur from occurring, both interrupt God’s plan. Abstaining does not to do this. If abstaining “blocks” something natural by the very act of not doing it, then every act of not doing, such as going to work, is a form of contraception as well, and the word ‘abstain’ has lost all meaning.
Rasqual, have you considered how your ideas about NFP impact the issue of pre-marital sex?
Rasqual, those who abstain do not do it to avoid conception – they do it for other reasons, particular to each couple, and there usually are multiple reasons why they do it.
The natural desire that a man and woman have during a woman’s fertile period doesn’t mean God’s intention is for them to have sex. God doesn’t just indicate his intentions to us through our bodily desires.
The fact that Condom users sometimes abstain is irrelevant. It is simply means that are acting like NFP users.
In your post of July 26 3:08 am you dismissed many of points in an unfair and arrogant way. In fact, by doing so, I think you may have misled a lot of people in the process. You agreed with much of what I said, but then dismissed, because you didn’t want to acknowledge that someone aside from yourself could also have a correct understanding of NFP.
In the end, no one on this site has been a NFP idolator as you have accused people of being. rasqual, where did this ‘NFP idolator’ come from? Did you make it up?
rasqual you said this in your earlier post:
Nonsense. Just abstain until you want children. Why not? What is the reason you want to have sex, if not to have children?
This captures NFP to some extent. I know you don’t think so, but it does. However, it goes a bit to far because it fails to acknowledge that humans are not required to have sex. It does not recognize the free will, also God given, of the participants.
Again you say:
NFP practitioners are denying one purpose of the act, and are martialling great science, intimate examination, and calendars in order to do so. These people SCHEDULE sex to avoid procreation, for crying out loud.
This is just a completely wrong way of presenting NFP. NFP does not deny the purpose of the act since they have not acted, they have abstained. They have not commenced the act that is required in order for them to deny the purpose of said act.
Dude. You are so freaking confused about this conversation. You’re talking past the issue, not to it.
Anyway, drafted with posts prior to that last one in mind:
TYler: “rasqual, you don’t think there is alink between contraception and abortion – that is fine. As Catholics, we think there is a link.”
Who says I don’t think there’s “a link?” Tyler, where do you come up with these notions about what I think? Not from anything I’ve said. Do you just make this stuff up?
But the problem with such language is that it’s so darned vague. Some people seem to think that “a link” — of any kind — proves something. Fine — in that case there’s a “link” between conception and abortion. That’s undeniable. So they must be similar, right? No, of course not. So can you please either expand on what you mean by “a link” when you make predications — such as claiming that I “don’t think there is a link” — or stop using “a link” as if in using that signifier you and I, in any context, surely have in mind the same referent? What specific link do you have in mind that I do not think exists, for example? Not just some vague “link.” Dude.
The Pope’s German! He has a “link” to the Nazis of old! That’s some stupid sh*t, don’t you agree?
Also, are you speaking for all Catholics (plural, signifying membership) are do you actually mean to speak for CatholicISM? Or would you qualify “Catholics” with the modifier “faithful,” so as to rule out CINOs who may not share your belief in whatever “links” you have in mind.
Also, your “reactionary” pro-lifer (versus “pro-active”) is, as far as I know, a usage peculiar to you. That doesn’t rule it out as meaningful, but you seem to be conjoining this conceptual framework to Catholic teaching without demonstrating that the magisterium recognizes the dichotomy. You’re expecting me to recognize your own gloss as necessary for me to even understand “the link:” “The only way to see the link is if you (a) […] and then (b) notice that anyone who uses contraception is, at best, a ‘reactionary’ pro-lifer.” You’re saying that I can’t even see the link you’re vaguely alluding to unless I accept on your own hearsay that contraceptors are only reactionary.
Since some of your own Catholic peers in the thread have taken a dim view of this dichotomy, are they as benighted as I?
It’s difficult to reason with you, Tyler. Thus: “Abstaining during fertile periods is not the same as using contraception. If it was, then you should have no issue with pre-marital sex.”
Right. How logical. Because other premises — such as that sex should occur during marriage — couldn’t POSSIBLY lead me to “have an issue with” pre-marital sex.
Why the non sequiturs, Tyler? How can I reason with you when you’re capable of that kind of simple gaffe? I make gaffes too — but dude. There are some bare minimum rational competencies involved in this kind of conversation. I’m not asking you to do some kind of heavy lifting. Just basic thinking. Please!
And you’re still not understanding that what we’re talking about regarding NFP is its use to superintend a cycle of abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex with avoiding conception as the objective. I have no idea why you don’t get this, and why you think I’m talking about NFP in general.
In conversations like this, Tyler, I hope you understand that economy of words demands some use of provisional proxy terms. So for example, when my interlocutors note that my concern is with “the use of NFP to superintend a cycle of abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex with avoiding conception as the objective,” it may be understood in good faith that an ensuing argument will, in my use of words, employ the term “NFP” to refer not to all uses of NFP, but to the particular uses of it that I have in mind, that give rise to my concern at all. I can understand how people with a persecution complex might forget what I mean and begin to impose their fears of what I MIGHT mean, on my words. But that’s their problem, for which I’m not culpable. I simply can’t say “the use of NFP to superintend a cycle of abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex with avoiding conception as the objective” everywhere, instead of merely “NFP.” Perhaps I could say “contracepting NFP” or somesuch to help you out, but then I’d get some ridiculous “there’s no such thing!” because, again, I swear, you’d take that phrase to signify that NFP itself is bu nature contraceptive in character, whereas my actual intention would be to signify those uses to which it’s put by people you’d say have a “contraceptive mindset” despite their preference of NFP to barriers and such.
Why do I get the impression that being patiently pedestrian with you is only going to earn me more non sequitur replies? :-(
You’re missing my point entirely about abstinence and NFP, imagining that I need to be tutored on the Catholic “bigger picture.” No, Tyler. You’re speaking of abstinence as if the uses to which NFP is put do not include timing sex to coincide with infertile periods. You seem actively resistant to focus on comparing those apples to artificial contraception (I’ve limited my conversation to barrier methods). You seem to want to actively confuse the issue — I dare say in order to sustain a delusion that you’re conversing with an anti-Catholic who hates NFP.
Please stop. It’s dishonest. And stop the condescending pap: “sexual union: do you see it as good?” Of course I do. And I understand your remarks about chastity. I have a theology of marriage, and it owes a debt to Catholic teaching because Catholic teaching is a superset of Christian teaching on marriage with which anyone concerned with marriage should be familiar. I hew to a traducianist anthropology (as a minor and negotiable point of a larger theological framework at variance in this respect with Rome), and in my case this fosters a somewhat fanatical conception of paternal responsibility for children. It also permits me to argue with secularists on an even keel (in that respect), which I’ve found to be an advantage (in that respect).
(I wonder whether my parenthetical attempts to qualify my remarks will stave off non sequiturs…)
“The fact that NFP is cycle of abstinence and sex doesn’t diminish its value or raise it to the status of contraception, because these periods, or this cycle, was going to happen anyway.”
This concern with “its” value is what’s leading me to consider idolatry as an explanation. We’re not assailing NFP itself. We’re talking about the uses to which its put.
“These periods, or its cycle, was going to happen anyway.” Yes, but if not for the use of NFP, sex at “uninformed times” would have “happened anyway.” The particular use of NFP is intended to modify how humans interact in order to avoid conception. Something that “would have happened anyway” — namely, sex unapprised of its timeliness in respect of fertility — is not happening anyway, because NFP is a game-changer that ensures, in the aggregate, that a great number of lives who would have come into existence were it not for this use of NFP, will in fact not come into existence.
So much for your “pro-active pro-life” thing. Not quite compatible with that use of NFP, is it?
Your remarks continue to dwell on abstinence. I have no idea why. We’re talking about apples/apples comparisons of sex among those who use NFP and those who contracept. You seem to keep wanting to talk about NFP users who abstain, and compare them to contraceptive users. I have no idea why.
Have I considered how “my ideas about NFP impact the issue of pre-marital sex?” No. But since you apparently have no comprehension of my ideas about NFP, you’d do well to limit your theorizing on that score as well.
“Rasqual, those who abstain do not do it to avoid conception…” Right. Those who have sex during periods NFP tells them are infertile, do. Obviously their reason for abstaining when NFP tells them they’re fertile can’t possibly have anything to do with what NFP has informed them about that timeframe. 9_9
“God doesn’t just indicate his intentions to us through our bodily desires.” So apparently we can’t infer that God intends us to eat, from the fact that we desire food. I see.
Tyler, among those present your own interactions have been the least helpful. Rationally, you’ve been a loose canon that requires high maintenance. I’m spending more effort trying to predict how the dice in your mind will roll, than with how reason lodged there might do right with the data of this conversation.
My gracious… I’ve read only a tithe of the comments on this thread, and it’s enough to make even the most focused among us giddy!
Forgive me if I’m re-treading already-covered ground, but I’m feeling an irrational itch to throw in my two pence-worth, anyway… :) (My guardian angel is most likely doing a face-palm, right about now.)
First: perhaps I’ve been through so many intense discussions, and perhaps I’ve been guilty (in the past, well before I came to this forum) of truly egregious breaches of civility and respect, that heated exchanges do not automatically “set me off”, nor do they lead me immediately to the conclusion that one or the other party was “bashing”, “nasty”, has “ill will”, or the like. (I will, of course, admit again to skipping almost 90% of the comments, so I might well have missed quite a bit. Please, however, I beg of everyone: do not regale me with stories of how nasty so-and-so has been; I’d rather pass over that issue, for now.)
Second: As I mentioned earlier, there seems to be quite a bit of (what may be unintentional) equivocation–i.e. invalid confusion between distinct definitions of the same word/phrase, on this thread. Case in point: the phrases “pro-life”, “not coming together sexually”, etc., can all be confusing (at best) if the definitions (and underlying assumptions are different. Surely there is no surprise at the fact that, given the variety of Catholics and non-Catholics, Christians and non-Christians on this board, some confusion might well result? Even with the most painstaking care about definitions, some ambiguity might result; so please, I beg everyone: keep a firm hand on tempers. They really do very little good, in a discussion such as this which touches on profoundly intimate and deep issues with which people of all types are intensely attached.
Third: for the record (though Maestro, Bobby, and a few others explained this admirably, already), the Catholic position on artificial contraception (yes, even condoms… and yes, even between married couples) is that their deliberate use for the express purpose of frustrating the fertility of any given marital act (i.e. sexual intercourse) is not morally licit… and that that lack of liceity is intrinsic (i.e. part and parcel of the very act itself). I realise that this claim may make some people angry (and feel judged)–and I regret that fact (as would anyone who cares about the welfare of others)–but I hope you can see why the Church will not retreat from teaching what She knows to be true, simply because a given audience might be upset. But as a thought-experiment: if you imagine, for a moment, how “judged/defensive” some non-Christians, atheists, abortion-tolerant people, etc., may feel when confronted with the Gospel and/or the pro-life message (e.g. “You’re calling me a murderer!”, “You’re saying that I’m a sinful and corrupt person!”, “You say that when I follow my heart, I’m doing wrong; how dare you!”, etc.), you might realise how “I am upset” and “that message is bad/wrong” have no particular logical connection, at all. Bad messages might upset, and they might not; good messages might upset, and they might not. Emotional reaction does not, in this fallen world, guarantee that the precedent message was or was not of any particular good-or-bad flavour, right or wrong, or what-have-you.
Summary:
1) Let’s please move on from the high-temperature comments, eh?
2) Let’s please be clear in our definitions, and aware that differences in definition are contaminating and frustrating the discussion.
3) The Catholic Church teaches, unequivocally, that any deliberate attempt to render sterile any particular act of sexual intercourse is morally wrong, always, no matter who does do (though they might, if they have inadequate freedom or information, not be morally culpable [or “as” morally culpable] for the action).
Perhaps we might pick up from there, at least out of mercy for the poor, late-to-the-party Paladin?
Hm. No idea why I didn’t use “tuppence” (above) instead of the awkward “two pence”; this discussion really *does* affect the mind, it seems… :)
rasqual: Who says I don’t think there’s “a link?” Tyler, where do you come up with these notions about what I think? Not from anything I’ve said. Do you just make this stuff up?
But the problem with such language is that it’s so darned vague. Some people seem to think that “a link” — of any kind — proves something. Fine — in that case there’s a “link” between conception and abortion. That’s undeniable. So they must be similar, right? No, of course not. So can you please either expand on what you mean by “a link” when you make predications — such as claiming that I “don’t think there is a link” — or stop using “a link” as if in using that signifier you and I, in any context, surely have in mind the same referent? What specific link do you have in mind that I do not think exists, for example? Not just some vague “link.” Dude.
The Pope’s German! He has a “link” to the Nazis of old! That’s some stupid sh*t, don’t you agree?
Rasqual, the problem is not my explanations, or their vagueness, but the lack of your reciprocation, and indication of what you think on the topic, You have not explained the link you see between abortion and contraception. You can point fingers at me, but you have done no better. If you had good will, you would have done so, or at said that you have no intention to identify the link as you see it. To merely complain about what I have written and how I have written it is simply bad manners.
Rasqual: And you’re still not understanding that what we’re talking about regarding NFP is its use to superintend a cycle of abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex with avoiding conception as the objective. I have no idea why you don’t get this, and why you think I’m talking about NFP in general.
rasqual, just say what you’re talking about and quit all the antics.
rasqual: In conversations like this, Tyler, I hope you understand that economy of words demands some use of provisional proxy terms. So for example, when my interlocutors note that my concern is with “the use of NFP to superintend a cycle of abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex with avoiding conception as the objective,” it may be understood in good faith that an ensuing argument will, in my use of words, employ the term “NFP” to refer not to all uses of NFP, but to the particular uses of it that I have in mind, that give rise to my concern at all. I can understand how people with a persecution complex might forget what I mean and begin to impose their fears of what I MIGHT mean, on my words. But that’s their problem, for which I’m not culpable. I simply can’t say “the use of NFP to superintend a cycle of abstinence/sex/abstinence/sex with avoiding conception as the objective” everywhere, instead of merely “NFP.” Perhaps I could say “contracepting NFP” or somesuch to help you out, but then I’d get some ridiculous “there’s no such thing!” because, again, I swear, you’d take that phrase to signify that NFP itself is bu nature contraceptive in character, whereas my actual intention would be to signify those uses to which it’s put by people you’d say have a “contraceptive mindset” despite their preference of NFP to barriers and such.
So we agree!!!
Rasqual: Why do I get the impression that being patiently pedestrian with you is only going to earn me more non sequitur replies? :-(
But contracpetion can cause cancer.
rasqual: “These periods, or its cycle, was going to happen anyway.” Yes, but if not for the use of NFP, sex at “uninformed times” would have “happened anyway.” The particular use of NFP is intended to modify how humans interact in order to avoid conception. Something that “would have happened anyway” — namely, sex unapprised of its timeliness in respect of fertility — is not happening anyway, because NFP is a game-changer that ensures, in the aggregate, that a great number of lives who would have come into existence were it not for this use of NFP, will in fact not come into existence.
The problem is I don’t think it is fair or appropriate to look in the aggregate, you must look at each act of sexual intercourse. By looking at each act, you can see there is purpose in each act; yet if these acts never take place, no lives are missed in the aggregate. You jumped too quickly from the particular to the aggregate. The problem is your aggregation.
Rasqual: So much for your “pro-active pro-life” thing. Not quite compatible with that use of NFP, is it?
Correct, To use NFP to avoid pregnancy is not pro-active pro-life thing. However, neither is that kind of use of NFP comparable to barrier contraception methods..
Rasqual: Your remarks continue to dwell on abstinence. I have no idea why. We’re talking about apples/apples comparisons of sex among those who use NFP and those who contracept. You seem to keep wanting to talk about NFP users who abstain, and compare them to contraceptive users. I have no idea why.
“Rasqual, those who abstain do not do it to avoid conception…” Right. Those who have sex during periods NFP tells them are infertile, do. Obviously their reason for abstaining when NFP tells them they’re fertile can’t possibly have anything to do with what NFP has informed them about that timeframe. 9_9
First of all, it is not true that you have not focused on abstinence. Go back and read your own posts. Second of all, the reason abstinence (during fertile periods) is so important is because it is the concept that you are associating with contraception. You have not showed how abstaining (during fertile periods) is like contraception. Indeed, you have avoided all of my comments above that have shown that abstaining, even during fertile periods, is not like using contraception. Until you focus on the individual sexual act instead of a couple’s fecundity over their sexual lives you will never get my point.
“God doesn’t just indicate his intentions to us through our bodily desires.” So apparently we can’t infer that God intends us to eat, from the fact that we desire food. I see.
I should have said more precisely: “God doesn’t only indicate his intentions to us through our bodily desires.” Furthermore, since you are Christian, you know that the flesh has the power to tempt and deceive.
Tyler, among those present your own interactions have been the least helpful. Rationally, you’ve been a loose canon that requires high maintenance. I’m spending more effort trying to predict how the dice in your mind will roll, than with how reason lodged there might do right with the data of this conversation
I won’t reciprocate in kind. Rasqual, please explain how abstinence (during fertile periods) is comparable to contraception. That is the only use of NFP that you seem to have a problem with.
Additionally, as a good sport, why don’t you say what you like about NFP and why?
This one needed repeating. My responsed got merged with Rasqual’s comment.
rasqual: “These periods, or its cycle, was going to happen anyway.” Yes, but if not for the use of NFP, sex at “uninformed times” would have “happened anyway.” The particular use of NFP is intended to modify how humans interact in order to avoid conception. Something that “would have happened anyway” — namely, sex unapprised of its timeliness in respect of fertility — is not happening anyway, because NFP is a game-changer that ensures, in the aggregate, that a great number of lives who would have come into existence were it not for this use of NFP, will in fact not come into existence.
The problem is that I don’t think it is fair or appropriate to look in the aggregate, you must look at each act of sexual intercourse. By looking at each act, you can see there is purpose in each act; yet if these acts never take place, no lives are missed in the aggregate. You jumped too quickly from the particular to the aggregate. The problem is your aggregation.
In fact, aggregation is not even relevant in our discussion. More than anything, you need to explain how abstinence and contraception are the same.
For rasqual
The link between abstinence – contraception – abortion
Contraception changes the couple’s relationship to the sexual act and the transmission of life. Abortion changes the couple’s relationship to new life. Both place the couple at odds with nature or natural events. Abstinence, on the other hand, is natural, so it does not change man’s relationship with nature.
Rasqual, now i see what you have done. You have attacked NFP on the grounds that it is not natural. Very sneaky…or I am just not observant. Wow…all this simply because you deny that Natural Family Planning is natural. Shoot. What a waste of time.
I’ll probably regret re-entering this thread. But I found an article that expresses so well what I was only able to fumblingly hint at. It explains Catholic teaching on sexuality.
This article gives a summary of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. If anyone is interested in why Catholics believe contraception to be sinful yet believe that it’s possible to use NFP without sinning, this article will explain it.
I think the numerous references to Scripture throughout will be appreciated by fellow Christians.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3426
Or to be more precise. rasqual you deny that Natural Family Planning is any more “natural” than using contraception.
rasqual, I did learn lots from all of your posts. I am sorry for ascribing a mischievous intent to your posts in my post of 5:43 pm.
Paladin,
If everyone could express the doctrine of The Church as eloquently and respectfully as you, this thread would not have gotten so long.
:) Xalisae, my dear lady, I think you forget the average length of my own on-list essays; this current batch would equal roughly 25 of my messages…! But thank you kindly!
Paladin: “I realise that this claim may make some people angry…”
Not sure why. For my part, I just see is Rome’s unfortunate relegation to morality what should have been confined to questions of wisdom. The Scholastic tradition has been appreciated by Rome to a certain level of granularity in moral judgments — and no further — permitting wisdom and discretion to bear the lesser weights in discrete instances at the individual or family level. The irony to me has been that in these matters Rome has strained at gnats while swallowing syncretistic camels in her missions. The Magisterium is important — except in parts of the world where she’s lost complete control over whether her teachings are received at all by laypersons who, in their culturally distinctive ways, simply know better (on their view).
All that to say that I reject as moralizing much of the minutiae in Roman teaching, while respecting those same teachings as expressions of generalized wisdom. Which is why charges that I’m “attacking” something I deem wise (merely not holy) are irritating.
Perhaps Catholics with little exposure to outsiders might profit from understanding that what they consider moral issues may simply be issues of wisdom for others — areas where discretion rules because God has not spoken on the matter to those who, nonetheless, see and value wisdom but consider themselves responsible for its exercise — a responsibility that differs in kind from moral agency. They may obey his command to be wise; they do not see their exercise of wisdom as obedience to an inflexible command.
It’s no surprise, then, that those who seek to responsibly exercise wisdom in matters where they see no command, would be open to contraception — which is a “sometimes you use it, other times in life you don’t” kind of thing. Catholics may see it as unwise to be immoral — I’d salute them. But it may also be immoral to be unwise; and if wisdom and not morality is the bottom turtle for the non-Catholic, perhaps Catholics should champion the exercise of prudence as a more moral act than they seem to imagine it can be.
Now how’d I get that far off in that direction?
Tyler: I’m done reading your posts in this thread. You are making no sense whatsoever, and you’re doing no lifting whatsoever to make communication better. You are NOT being offensive. You are merely being exceedingly non-rational. I won’t say “IRrational.” Your thinking is more of the “That ain’t right. Heck, that ain’t even wrong…” variety.
I’m quite earnest; I won’t be reading any more of your posts in this thread. You’re just too high-maintenance.
@Maestro,
“What do you call people who use NFP? Parents!” Haha, my hubby and I were the recipients of this joke when we switched to a different OB w/ our third child!!
Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote earlier in response to Lrning about the Church having no definitive statement about God willing a couple not to conceive? Sorry, maybe I was at the computer a little too late?:)
I meant no harm if some of what I wrote hurt anyone’s feelings. If so, I’m sorry.
I do have a question for the non-Catholic Christians on this blog, though. What does your Christian faith teach you about contraception? I know about the scriptural reference to Onan Genesis? Can anyone comment? Thanks.
Does anyone else see what Rasqual has done?
Greetings, Rasqual! Long time, no substantial chat! (I’ve been frightfully busy, and I’ll be likewise for some time to come, but I’ll grab a few minutes, here and there.)
You wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
I realise that this claim may make some people angry […]
[Rasqual]
Not sure why.
Well… if my guess is correct, the thoughts go something like this: “The Church is being arrogant for saying that it’s intrinsically wrong to use artificial contraception [per se], and not simply saying that it’s their belief/opinion and/or binding only on Catholics! They’re saying that I’m performing an evil act… and since only bad people perform evil acts, they must be saying that I’m bad, and I’m angry about that! And how dare they presume to dictate to me about my sex life, which is none of their business? And how dare they suggest that my sexual intercourse with my spouse is impaired/defective/flawed when we contracept?” And so on… though I hope I needn’t point out that there would be many false starting assumptions buried in that cascade of reasoning.
For my part, I just see is Rome’s unfortunate relegation to morality what should have been confined to questions of wisdom.
Rome (if, by that, you mean the Magisterium of the Church) really didn’t have an option in the matter; She was bound to convey what She knew to be solemn moral teaching; to neglect it would have been gravely sinful. As to the point of whether it should be categorised as a “moral” issue… well… at the risk of sounding evasive for the moment: if something is expressly proscribed by Sacred Scripture, by Sacred Tradition, or by the solemn teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, then there’s no way to escape speaking of it as a moral issue. Objective evil is objective evil, regardless of whether someone has sufficient knowledge and freedom to make it a sin thereby, or not.
The Scholastic tradition has been appreciated by Rome to a certain level of granularity in moral judgments — and no further — permitting wisdom and discretion to bear the lesser weights in discrete instances at the individual or family level.
Well… half a moment, here. The standards by which objective (i.e. iron-clad, universal principles of the moral law) and subjective (i.e. what you call “wisdom and discretion” on the part of the agents, I think?) are rather clear, and they have not moved about nearly so much as you suggest. The idea that “sexuality is not simply our play-thing; it was created by God, and not simply as an idle toy” is not simply a platitude; it has always been known to be true by the Church. Certainly, individual cases might be harder to categorise and/or “sift out”, morally… but that is not the fault of any supposed weakness or ambiguity on the part of the moral law.
The irony to me has been that in these matters Rome has strained at gnats while swallowing syncretistic camels in her missions.
(?) You may need to “unpack” that camel for me; I don’t quite follow. :)
The Magisterium is important — except in parts of the world where she’s lost complete control over whether her teachings are received at all by laypersons who, in their culturally distinctive ways, simply know better (on their view).
The Magisterium’s importance is no more dependent on public consensus/recognition than is the existence God (how many people deny or ignore His existence, or relegate it to the level of the irrelevant?), the existence of the external world (with apologies to Bishop Berkeley), the existence of the nuclear strong force (how many people know or care about that utterly important facet of the physical world?) or the validity of the multiplication table (I can assure you that the number of students who know or care about it is not 100%). What is, is. What is neglected, is neglected… which says nothing, whatsoever, about the truth or falsity, or about the intrinsic importance or unimportance, of the item in question. Just so, with the Church Magisterium: Her teaching would be just as important and true, even if 100% of the people alive denied it with raucous laughter.
All that to say that I reject as moralizing much of the minutiae in Roman teaching, while respecting those same teachings as expressions of generalized wisdom.
Hm. With all due respect: it really isn’t logical to reject a science (and theology is certainly a science) because it is complex in its particulars; that very trait is considered a hall-mark of validity and importance in the empirical sciences, etc. [how complex are the factors (wave-lengths of light, minute functioning of parts of the eye which all have their complex names and categories, etc.] which allow us to see a brown wooden table as brown and wooden?)
Which is why charges that I’m “attacking” something I deem wise (merely not holy) are irritating.
It it sets your mind at ease; I do not consider objections to be “attacks”, in general.
Perhaps Catholics with little exposure to outsiders might profit from understanding that what they consider moral issues may simply be issues of wisdom for others — areas where discretion rules because God has not spoken on the matter to those who, nonetheless, see and value wisdom but consider themselves responsible for its exercise — a responsibility that differs in kind from moral agency. They may obey his command to be wise; they do not see their exercise of wisdom as obedience to an inflexible command.
Here, I’m afraid, we’ll have to part ways, a bit… since your position seems to invoke, at least somewhat, the spectre of moral relativism. The mere fact that person [x] deems a principle to be non-binding or non-objective, does not thereby make it so; the status of that principle can most usually be discerned through the principles of sane reason.
It’s no surprise, then, that those who seek to responsibly exercise wisdom in matters where they see no command, would be open to contraception — which is a “sometimes you use it, other times in life you don’t” kind of thing.
I’d gently suggest that the same sort of “sliding standard” would allow for some, or even many, types of abortion–while still allowing the individual to convince him/herself that his/her actions are morally licit (e.g. abortion in the case of Trisomy 13, rape, etc.). If personal taste is the litmus test for deciding which principles are binding absolutely, and which ones are simply “words to the wise” (i.e. suggestions), then all bets are off, regarding any coherent morality at all.
Catholics may see it as unwise to be immoral — I’d salute them.
I rather think that’s understating the case, quite a bit; it would be akin to saying that the detonation of a hand-grenade in one’s mouth might be expected to have some adverse effects on the full integrity of one’s orthodontics. A sin (i.e. knowingly and freely doing that which is immoral) is more than a mere violation of wisdom (which might well be unintentional, and quite possibly non-culpable); it is a deliberate choice to violate a moral absolute. Hell is not (except as a spectacular understatement) a place in which the unwise spend eternity; it is a place where unrepentant rebels against God spend eternity.
But it may also be immoral to be unwise;
In some cases, perhaps; but that could not possibly be a universal maxim, since immorality requires a free and informed choice, not simply an absence of a good which someone else might have neglected to pass on to you.
and if wisdom and not morality is the bottom turtle for the non-Catholic, perhaps Catholics should champion the exercise of prudence as a more moral act than they seem to imagine it can be.
I’m afraid that simply won’t do… since it would make an utter hash out of any coherent attempt to establish any understanding of morality at all. No coherent system of ideas (least of all, one which exists in objective reality) can stand on utter relativism; it must have an immovable base, or else all will fall apart.
Now how’d I get that far off in that direction?
:) Your guess is as good as mine. But I do hope you see my point: the Church doesn’t think that Her teachings are true because She teaches them; rather, She teaches them because they are true… and because their truth can be established (with sane reason) beyond all reasonable doubt.
(Mind you: I did not say that their truth could necessarily be established within the frame of patience of any given listener; thus, alas for the fate of moral theology in this era of sound-bytes and passion-driven actions!)
Rasqual, I will continue to praise the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I will now turn the other cheek. Do you what you must rasqual, I am yours to persecute.
Rasqial: The irony to me has been that in these matters Rome has strained at gnats while swallowing syncretistic camels in her missions.
Paladin, I think Rasqual might be referring to the Scholastic Tradition here, but I am not sure. It is vague enough so he can make it mean whatever he wants it to mean.
And finally I’ll be blunt. Shut it about my ex wife and my marriage. You don’t know what you are talking about, and I am not sharing my personal business for you to do your pick apart abusive crap on it. BTW, the very dedicated, anti-divorce Christians I have confided in agreed that I needed to leave.
Where do you share personal business?? is there a blog perhaps??
Paladin: “Her teaching would be just as important and true, even if…”
My concern in mentioning syncretism in missions is not that the laity fail to receive truth, but that truth’s importance is inadequately attested by the deferential treatment of the laity’s domestic religious practices by Catholic missions, specifically where those articles are antithetical to truth.
I’m basically saying that from the outside, it can be difficult to take the Magisterium entirely seriously when the Church itself — especially in missions — has not regarded Christian truth with its due respect.
Your remarks express satisfaction that the turtles actually bottom out where Rome begins with them. Non-Catholics, of course, may not be content to accept as axiomatic those propositions which are not, to their contentment, established by reason nor by special revelation.
“it really isn’t logical to reject a science (and theology is certainly a science) because it is complex in its particulars”
Not what I said, of course, which was ” I reject as moralizing much of the minutiae in Roman teaching.” I don’t reject the wisdom of weight training merely because some devotees like rhinestones on their gloves. ;-)
“Here, I’m afraid, we’ll have to part ways, a bit… since your position seems to invoke, at least somewhat, the spectre of moral relativism. The mere fact that person [x] deems a principle to be non-binding or non-objective, does not thereby make it so; the status of that principle can most usually be discerned through the principles of sane reason.”
Do you realize, though, that I could respond with respect to wisdom, mutatis mutandis? I’m certainly not speaking of moral relativism. I believe I’m speaking, though, to the way some people will moralize about matters of discretion. But we’re not likely to be productive without refering to cases.
“I’d gently suggest that the same sort of ‘sliding standard’ would allow” NFP users to exercise prayerful judgment and discretion. And note that my allegations of idolatry in some such cases share your concern that moral relativism can inhabit even these discretionary areas. There can be darkness where things are gray, as well as light. Were we perfect knowers, we’d do better. We’re not. In the absence of perfect knowing, it doesn’t necessarily follow, however, that our knowing is relative. Our knowing can be mistaken — and where some are mistaken, others may differ. This isn’t necessarily moralism. It’s the margin of error on the noetic influence of sin, if you will.
“No coherent system of ideas (least of all, one which exists in objective reality) can stand on utter relativism” — I misspoke in saying “bottom turtle” — my bad. I actually meant, simply, that people differ in where the moral axioms lie.
Gotta run watch the grandgirl. Thanks for the remarks.
Okay, except for one snarky comment here:
July 31, 2012 at 2:12 pm I haven’t weighed in on this. This may be my one and only real comment on contraception (because I’m just not that into it). Hopefully I won’t upset too many people. I consider myself a protestant of Protestants, so I’m sure to anger just about everyone.
I think only the First Parents were expressly commanded to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth” (Yes, I believe in the “Gap Theory”. So sue me. But I believe the original “plenishers” were dinosaurs, not other people.) Thus I don’t think we are obligated to emulate the Duggars.
I am against any birth control with the possibility of abortifacient properties. I think hormonal birth control may be unwise for health reasons.
In this interminable thread I’ve respected the comments of Rasqual, Maestro, and Paladin the most. If they strongly disagreed with one another, it shows that I may be getting dizzy.
I respect the beliefs of just about everyone who has weighed in, if they are sincerely trying to follow Christ. I just personally believe that the “narrow Way” is much narrower than any of us realize.
I would also ask secularists to consider giving a little leeway to those of us who try to adhere to what’s in the Bible. After all, it’s the greatest science fiction (or maybe not) story of all time. (How heavy-handed was that, x?)
I’ll go to my corner now. Please don’t hate me because I’m (almost) handsome.
Jake your crush on me is getting insanely creepy. For the last time, I’m straight! Get over it and stop being a weirdo.
I’m straight, get over it.
You sure about that? Not from what I have read…
*yawn* The abuse jokes are getting boring. Find new material. You are a crappy troll if you can’t make make me do more than roll my eyes. Now, go find a nice boy who actually returns your “affections” and leave me alone.
Jake,
You are psychotic. I urge Jack out of concern for himself and his family to get a restraining order. Email one of the admins for Jack’s IP and begin the investigation. I’m sure people here could help you if you need it.
Hans,
I would also ask secularists to consider giving a little leeway to those of us who try to adhere to what’s in the Bible. After all, it’s the greatest science fiction (or maybe not) story of all time. (How heavy-handed was that, x?)
Not heavy-handed at all, my friend. I do try my best, and I’ve not been NEARLY as active in this thread as I have been in past threads about contraception mostly out of respect for my friends here where I know this is a point of contention between us. I have mostly been responding to Tyler because he reminds me of my good ‘ol days here when I first began posting where it seemed that nary a soul had even any sort of regular interaction with anyone of a non-religious bent at all, and many aspersions were regularly cast out of prejudice. After many years of fighting for my position here, far more years than Tyler has been a guest here, I suspect, I sometimes feel echos of past (perceived?) slights when he speaks, and I suppose my rear begins to chafe a bit. ;P
Paladin,
People who maintain moral bare minimums are not moral relativists if those minimums are non-negotiable. There is even honor among the likes of thieves, I’m told. ;)
*JAKE’S IP!!! JAKE!!! JAKE!
(criminy, that’s what I get for posting before my brain has woken up!!! I AM SOOO SORRY!!!!)
Just so there is no confusion.
When I said I learned a lot from Rasqual I did not mean that I now endorse his views. This statement was not a compliment. It was not meant to inflate rasqual’s ego.
Jake, try not to let Jack and xalisae bait you.
It’s fine X, I find his obsession hilarious. And telling.
Tyler, please, please tell me you aren’t aware of Jakes behavior and don’t get what he was digging at me about. Because if you defend his behavior I don’t even know what to say.
Jack, what did he do? (I have been busy for a while, so I haven’t been visiting this site as often.)
On this thread, you seem to be accusing him of being attracted to you merely because he responded to some of your posts.
His digs about my blog (that I deleted because of his crap) and about me being gay is because he happened across a writing project blog that I was writing for my freaking therapy group and apparently he felt like our differing views on abortion meant he should troll me and make jokes about how I am gay and enjoyed being sexually abused. Because that’s what cool pro-choicers do, supposedly. Now he just follows me around on threads here and makes jokes about it. I just think it is funny that I am the supposedly gay one and he is the one obsessed with another guy lol.
Well, without getting into the middle of it, I would suggest just that you both stop responding to each other’s posts. Do a sign-off like rasqual – perhaps, a little kinder, and without the goodbye insult.
Tyler, I can attest (with no exaggeration) that Jake is something of a professional troll; he followed me here from a friend’s blog (*sigh* …an unintentional lapse for which I lament, even now), and his responses consist largely in throwing “flame grenades” with minimal substance, maximum heat and insult, and plentiful profanity/obscenity. He also, when he chooses to fixate on someone who’s wounded, chooses to maximize the pain that he can cause to such people, especially when they reply to him. He’s rather gleeful about it, in fact… and he’s far better left ignored. But please make no mistake: Jake has earned no sympathy, but rather a great deal of reprobation, both on the previous board and on this one. (His efforts on this board have been much more cruel and vicious, in fact; his disease seems to be progressing badly.) Xalisae and Jack (and others) have endured more from him (with a great deal of patience) than you might be able to imagine easily; I don’t say this lightly, but: even with your differences with Jack and Xalisae, please believe that they are in the right, in this case.
Xalisae wrote:
Paladin, people who maintain moral bare minimums are not moral relativists if those minimums are non-negotiable. There is even honor among the likes of thieves, I’m told. ;)
:) To be sure. And as stated, I agree with your statement completely!
And now, perhaps after a sip of a teetotaller beverage of choice, I’ll try to reply to Grandpa Rasqual. :)
(BTW, Hans… I hope this comes out correctly, but: it’s getting more and more difficult to keep a straight face when you post! :) The amusement value is increasing with age…)
Paladin, thanks for your providing your opinion. I don’t know Jake, and I am not much invested in their quarrel one way or another.
Actually, I have no issues with Jack. He has issues with me (or rather some of my opinions).
I have only one disagreement, as far as I am aware, with xalisae. And the word ‘disagreement’ is probably a very inexact, and too strong of a word for describing whatever it is. (At least from my perspective.)
Rasqual wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
[The Church’s] teaching would be just as important and true, even if…”
[Rasqual]
My concern in mentioning syncretism in missions is not that the laity fail to receive truth, but that truth’s importance is inadequately attested by the deferential treatment of the laity’s domestic religious practices by Catholic missions, specifically where those articles are antithetical to truth.
I may need examples of what you have in mind, before I can comment clearly on that point.
I’m basically saying that from the outside, it can be difficult to take the Magisterium entirely seriously when the Church itself — especially in missions — has not regarded Christian truth with its due respect.
Well… again: such as?
Non-Catholics, of course, may not be content to accept as axiomatic those propositions which are not, to their contentment, established by reason nor by special revelation.
Of course. But I assert that it is, in fact, possible to demonstrate, in the case of any particular proposition of that type, (1) sufficient reasoning to demonstrate its truth beyond reasonable doubt, and/or (2) sufficient reasoning to demonstrate the “pedigree” of the Catholic Church as the holder of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, Whom we may reasonably trust in matters which depend too much on Divine Revelation to verify or deny by means of pure reason and/or the empirical sciences. I do not, however, say that the above is possible in a sound-byte (not that I, a master of the verbose, would know a sound-byte if it bit me, anyway…), nor is it even necessarily possible in a short period of time. Deep questions usually require long, and intricate answers.
[Paladin]
“it really isn’t logical to reject a science (and theology is certainly a science) because it is complex in its particulars”
[Rasqual]
Not what I said, of course, which was ” I reject as moralizing much of the minutiae in Roman teaching.” I don’t reject the wisdom of weight training merely because some devotees like rhinestones on their gloves. ;-)
:) All right. Could you, then, explain *why* you reject such bits as “moralising”, as opposed to the bits which you do not reject thusly?
[Paladin]
“Here, I’m afraid, we’ll have to part ways, a bit… since your position seems to invoke, at least somewhat, the spectre of moral relativism. The mere fact that person [x] deems a principle to be non-binding or non-objective, does not thereby make it so; the status of that principle can most usually be discerned through the principles of sane reason.”
[Rasqual]
Do you realize, though, that I could respond with respect to wisdom, mutatis mutandis?
Yes… up to a point. But the virtue of wisdom is an *intellectual* (and speculative) virtue; it is an act of the intellect. As such, wisdom obeys (and reinforces, in fact) the laws of sane reason. My point is this: there is no point of Catholic doctrine which can be proven to be false. (N.B. This begs the idea of “How does one distinguish true and irreformable Catholic dogma from that which is merely disciplinary, or at least reformable?”–but that’s a distinct point, perhaps for another comment.) It is also possible to demonstrate that the Catholic Church did, in fact, get its authority to safeguard and interpret the Sacred Deposit of Faith (i.e. the sum-total of Divine Revelation which is accessible to us). As such, one who would seek to pick and choose which bits to esteem as “dogma” versus other bits which are esteemed merely as “worldly wisdom” (note: the Church’s definition of “wisdom” differs quite markedly from your usage) would, I think, have more of a burden of proof for claiming that prerogative (of picking and choosing).
I understand, of course, that my claim (above) rests squarely on the idea that I (or someone to whose ideas I have access) *can* demonstrate Catholic teachings either through pure reason or by proving Her authority. I’d be willing to try… though this sort of thing almost always seems to occur on threads which have surpassed the 300+ comment mark… :)
I’m certainly not speaking of moral relativism. I believe I’m speaking, though, to the way some people will moralize about matters of discretion.
All right. If that is strictly true, then the Church would have no argument, in general; “in necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.” The mere fact that something *is* a matter of discretion would leave people free to “moralise” (in your sense, so far as I understand it) about it. I would suggest, however, that this begs the question of: “How does one distinguish the necessary from the discretionary?”
“I’d gently suggest that the same sort of ‘sliding standard’ would allow” NFP users to exercise prayerful judgment and discretion.
You do note, of course, that this is due to the fact that the Church has *pronounced* such a case to be discretionary (within proper limits)? No Church law requires anyone to have 20 children (but God bless them, if they do), nor does any Church law require anyone to have two, or five, or none at all, nor does any Church law mandate the number of times per month/week/day that a couple is to have sexual intercourse. The norms governing the sexual act are iron-clad, but quite broad: “Do not sin, and aspire to image in your marriage the self-giving love inherent in the Blessed Trinity, since your marriage is, by definition, a living “type” [in the Biblical/theological sense] of the Blessed Unity of Three Divine Persons.” Details extend from there, for specific cases, of course… but many would be surprised how much latitude is given the prayerful Catholic couple, in this regard.
And note that my allegations of idolatry in some such cases share your concern that moral relativism can inhabit even these discretionary areas. There can be darkness where things are gray, as well as light. Were we perfect knowers, we’d do better. We’re not.
I agree completely; and I acknowledge (sadly) that NFP, like anything entrusted into
the hands of men, can be set up as an idol, or at least misused–perhaps even cruelly and blasphemously. That, however, says nothing especially about the truth/veracity of NFP as a set of principles and techniques.
In the absence of perfect knowing, it doesn’t necessarily follow, however, that our knowing is relative.
That is true. I was referring only to the fact that you have yet to supply an objective standard by which you discern “the necessary” from “the discretionary”… and you seemed (unless I misunderstood) to imply that such discernment ITSELF is discretionary. I hope you can see that, if such were the case, all would collapse into relativistic nonsense! One might as well insist that all shoes be 12 inches long, but have no consistent standard for the length of one inch (much less 12).
Our knowing can be mistaken — and where some are mistaken, others may differ. This isn’t necessarily moralism. It’s the margin of error on the noetic influence of sin, if you will.
I’d be rather cautious in making quite so broad a statement as that (though it’s certainly true, so far as it goes), without qualifiers. I become wary of relativism whenever there seems to be no “bottom turtle” (or floor, more likely), as such. :)
“No coherent system of ideas (least of all, one which exists in objective reality) can stand on utter relativism” — I misspoke in saying “bottom turtle” — my bad. I actually meant, simply, that people differ in where the moral axioms lie.
That is so. But it would be illogical to conclude anything about the truth/falsity of the positions of such disagreeing people, save only that the mutually exclusive ones cannot all be true at once (which isn’t saying very much). I’ve debated (sometimes on this very forum–with Doug, perhaps?) those who claim that “differences logically imply relativism” (which is nonsense), or that “our inability to know for certain implies relativism” (which is also nonsense); this is, perhaps, why I was getting a bit wary of your comments about “differences” (and the implications re: necessary vs. discretionary), above.
And just for the record, my issue with xalisae is not her sometimes snarky comments or her support for contraception. It is not even with her atheism! All these may be related, but it is not one of them, or even the combination of them.
Thanks Paladin.
There isn’t any “quarrel” between me and Jake, Tyler. There is one pro-choicer troll stalking people across the interwebs and making truly disgusting jokes about their traumatic experiences, and one pro-lifer who is mighty tired of it. Can’t really pretend him and I are on equal footing here. Do you seriously wonder why you tend to upset me? I really don’t get why you react to things the way you do.
Using a condom with your wife = you soooo aren’t pro-life. Mocking someone’s trauma on their personal blog that they were using for therapy = storm in a teacup. Really??
Is it my problem with authority? My sometimes bubbly personality? My juvenile sense of humor? It’s because I’m part Mexican, isn’t it.
XP
By the way, in my meanderings on the interwebs, I found a neat website that might help some people with starting NFP if they are so inclined:
http://monthlyinfo.com/
It’s interesting to see the history of these discussions here. Some key search terms help to narrow the field. Google searches here, limiting results to May 31 or earlier.
http://goo.gl/VQfyL
http://goo.gl/ecem1
http://goo.gl/JTIAI
Ah, I see I have meat to chew on. Back this evening.
Jack as I long it is clear that I have not done this one:
Mocking someone’s trauma on their personal blog that they were using for therapy = storm in a teacup.
That was Jake, according to you. (Imagine one of those yellow grinning circles)
Tyler,
You’ve jumped the shark defending Jake without knowing any of the history. “Yellow grinning circles” are called “smiley faces” here on Earth.
Paladin,
I aims to please. Discussing such somber topics, I try to bring a littkle levity here. But not like the maniacal would-be “Jokers” in a recent film and an even more recent outrage in Colorado. More like the court jester, trying to relieve some tension.
Tyler,
You’ve jumped the shark defending Jake without knowing any of the history. “Yellow grinning circles” are called “smiley faces” here on Earth.
lololololololol! Hans, that. was. BRILLIANT!
rasqual there have definitely been tons of discussions on this topic before – many of them very illuminating, on both sides. It was people here who, years ago, first convinced me to consider NFP, for example. And it was the debate about “contraceptive mentality” in NFP or contraception use, versus an “open to life” mentality in either, that really made me consider what sex is. I say this all as an agnostic, fyi, in case you weren’t aware.
What I have found most frustrating about trying to discuss things intelligently with Tyler is that he refuses to refer to any previous discussions (seen when I tried to say that I had read his previous arguments and agreed with xalisae, here https://www.jillstanek.com/2012/03/speaking-of-do-liberals-also-want-us-to-pay-for-prostitutes-contraceptives/ ) It’s pretty impossible to have a discussion with someone who practically insists that we go back and debate what to call each letter of the alphabet, and then how to define each word that it spelled by these letters, in our own terms – not the terms of some guy named Webster who previously said something that we all agree to accept – and so on and so forth, EVERY SINGLE TIME. Discussions build on each other. I suspect that someone who cannot build a discussion on a previous conversation only reveals that he has no material to “build” with. He can dig out a million basements if he wants, but most of us want to build a house. Regardless, it’s very tedious.
Paladin: Refreshing remarks, which I can amen almost in toto.
I’ll only comment on this: “Do not sin, and aspire to image in your marriage the self-giving love inherent in the Blessed Trinity, since your marriage is, by definition, a living “type” [in the Biblical/theological sense] of the Blessed Unity of Three Divine Persons.”
I agree — and not casually. But though that’s true, I don’t believe it’s the most practical guide to married life. More like a slap upside the head to let couples know how cosmic their domestic emprise really is.
We cannot understand the internal life of the Trinity. Jesus said more about it than anyone, especially of course in John’s gospel. His passion for the Father and intimate reliance on the Holy Spirit in his incarnation demonstrated for us as best we can understand, perhaps, what that internal life would be like.
I think it’s somewhat dangerous to ask people to guide their lives by something they cannot sufficiently understand to do so. It’s like the whole Dilbert thing at work: you get a promotion to a job where you have responsibility for something you lack authority to execute. In this case, though, the very fact that someone trusted urges you to do it, leads you to conclude that you have the tools to do the job. In some minds, this translates into the belief that what they happen know is that thing itself.
Argh. I’m not going to be clear on that. I’ll leave it with this related point: I’m one who’s reluctant, personally, to say the classic “this is that” of prophetic fulfillment. “this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel,” or whatever. Thank goodness we have the testimony of those who, under inspiration, could attest reliably to “this” being “that which was spoken of.” They were able, thank God, to put 2 and two together, to point out today what yesterday spoke of.
I’m a bit more agnostic (epistemically, not theologically, speaking) than that. One reason is that I’m alarmed at how few other people are. “Naive realism” is, to me, an alarming epistemology — but it’s the Walmart epistemology of the marketplace. Perhaps it always has been.
I digress. Thanks for your comments. If you’re ever in Chicago, I must buy you a dawg.
Alexandra: I don’t know what to say about Tyler. I don’t like speaking about people in the third person in their presence; I’ll just say I have the highest hopes that he’ll accept constructive criticism, that he’ll grow in wisdom and maturity, and that love of truth coupled with humility will serve him well. He’s bright. He just needs some rational competencies, um, augmented a bit. ;-)
Alexandra: I don’t know what to say about Tyler. I don’t like speaking about people in the third person in their presence;
LOL.
Alexandra, just for you, I will do my best to read every post on the Stanek website.
Failing that, I will be sure to remember all of your posts Alexandra because you’re special.
However, if I miss a few threads on Ms. Stanek’s site and I begin a new conversation with a person I have never conversed with before, I wiill be sure to go back and read all of their previous comments in order to be sure that they have not agreed or disagreed with someone else I may end up talking to on this website.
Alexandra, this is a sane request.
By the way, Rasqual, speaking about people in the third person in their presence is standing operating procedure around this website for more than a few posters – don’t sweat it.
I just keep a mental list of those who do it. I don’t think you would be surprised who is on it.
Ridiculing someone’s childhood abuse is a little more than a disagreement.
It seems to me I must’ve of hit a few hot buttons. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.
Hans I think you might of jumped onto the back of a guppy. (Winking yellow circle)
Alexandra, just for you, I will do my best to read every post on the Stanek website.
Failing that, I will be sure to remember all of your posts Alexandra because you’re special.
However, if I miss a few threads on Ms. Stanek’s site and I begin a new conversation with a person I have never conversed with before, I wiill be sure to go back and read all of their previous comments in order to be sure that they have not agreed or disagreed with someone else I may end up talking to on this website.
Alexandra, this is a sane request.
No, Tyler, nice try. I had never had a direct conversation with you before that and I NEVER asked you to remember things I had posted before that, but I had read conversations you’d had with other people, multiple times with the same people, most in recent history. So I referred YOU to THOSE conversations and said that I agreed with THOSE people in your previous conversations with them, as a way of bypassing the 500 comments of the same stuff over and over. I am not special and I don’t think that anyone should remember all the details of who I am every time I post, which is why I often rehash the key details when they are relevant.
What is interesting is that you said you were “amazed and worried” that I had read, and remembered, anything you’d said at all. I think you are special, Tyler, and I think everyone else who comments here is special. I do wish you saw it the same way but that’s neither here nor there.
Aw shucks, do I get a hug?
Tyler,
That was so funny I forgot to laugh. You sided with a despicable troll, telling him to buck up and not take the bait dished out by Jack and someone else. You made a big mistake, it would behoove you to own up to it.
Hans I don’t know Jake. He has not written anything horrible on this thread. I don’t slam people I don’t know. I will apologize to Jack, again, however for the horror I inadvertently caused him.
Hans, let me know if that suffices or what exactly you expect of me.
Alexandra,
For conversations to proceed in linear fashion there has to be agreement on some of the issues. On some of the topics you may have referred to (I have not checked) there is no agreement.
By the way, a little self-awareness, would be nice. Alexandra you writing on a pro-life website. How often have you written the same point in a thousand different ways in order to convince a pro-choice adversary?
If you or anyone has conversed with CC more than once, you will have to admit that you have repeated yourself. Is the repetition the fault of the speaker or the listener?
By the way, Alexandra, if the number of likes are any indicator I don’t think the people appreciated you saying that I was special.
Tyler,
I only expect you to not jump into a “disagreement” between a troll and the guy he has been pestering and needling about his being abused as a child. You made a very bad assumption merely because you haven’t had the pleasantest of exchanges with Jack.
You picked the wrong horse. And you know what they say assuming “makes of you and me.” Only in this instance it’s all about you, buddy.
Hans, why do you expect me to have known that Jake and Jack had more than a disagreement?
This is the first time I have seen Jake post. I thought Jack was being rough on a newbie to the site. I don’t think I made an assumption at all. Go back and read Jake’s posts on this thread – I did – he has only made two, I believe, and they were not offensive, unless you knew the history between the two of them which I did not.
I defended Jake because he was a newbie, and yes I defended him because Jack was on my case. I don’t thnk I was unreasonable or unfair.
Tyler, I really don’t get why it’s so hard to condemn Jake’s behavior. Disliking me is fine, there are plenty of people I am not fond of, but completely ignoring really sick behavior like Jake’s because you aren’t fond of the person they are directed at is kinda screwy. And you keep justifying it. Which is weird. Should I show you his previous comments? They are pretty vile and will need to be edited for this blog lol.
I wasn’t accusing you of doing that, I am perfectly aware that was Jake’s bad. My point was, you are so busy condemning the horrors of condoms between married couples, while not even caring about or condemning people actually doing fairly awful things. It doesn’t make sense to me. It would be like me ignoring someone beating up a woman while I chide someone for not cleaning up after their dog.
Why would I randomly accuse some newbie of hitting on me? Lol! Come on now Tyler. I generally at least attempt to be polite to people at first, with all my other flaws I don’t think rudeness to some random who hasn’t even done anything is one of them.
I hear what you are saying Jack, but you have to remember that this is the first I have heard of Jake’s behavior to you. More importantly, I did not witness it, so to me, this is all hearsay and alleged bad behavior. Now I give it more weight because so many people are testifying they witnessed this happen and say it is true.
Jack, what would you have me do? Tell me, and I will do it.
No offense Jack, but the first time we spoke it wasn’t a pleasant experience.
Also, Jake’s first comment, although on the surface it was not that offensive, was disagreeing with you something you said. I thought you were reacting to that.
I do notice a gathering of atheists – or is that a flock or school - lingering on this thread.
Repetez: “Mea culpa.”
I don’t want you to “do” anything. I am simply confused on why you tacitly condone his kind of behavior by not even saying, once, that it was a bad thing for him to do. After you were informed by like three different people of what kind of person he is, you might have wanted to stop defending him. That’s why you tend to freak me out a bit, it’s like you live in some alternate plane where there are different conventions of human conduct.
The first time we talked was a sarcastic jerk or did I refuse to seriously engage with you? I tend to be sarcastic and snarky with “opponents” which is a failing of mine for sure, but I will at least generally address the argument. With trolls like Jake I will make fun of them. I won’t randomly smack down some newbie nonsensically for disagreeing with me. Which I think that you are aware of, actually, you just don’t seem to want to admit any fault.
Hans, for what reason do you want me to say this?
If Jack thinks it neccessary I will say it.
He just said he didn’t need it. It might be nice for the rest of us who might want to give your comments the time of day. Calling three or so secularists / agnostics “a flock of atheists” isn’t a good way to mend fences, though.
Jack, I never defended Jake after I was informed of his conduct. You made an incorreect statement. I have only said one thing about Jake: I don’t know him.
Lest not forget that I only said one comment to Jake – “don’t let yourself get baited.”
Hans usually, if they are kind neighbors, they mend the fence together.
Fine. Just stop hitting your thumb with the hammer. I don’t swear myself, so using French and Latin in the same sentence is as far as I go.
Well, Hans, I learned one thing. If you are going to attack contraception for the evil that it is (insert french word here), be prepared for stiff opposition.
What a crazy ride it has been.
The funny thing is, most people intuitively know it is wrong; and funnier still, most people prefer sex au naturel.
Tyler, please just humor me and say “harassing someone on their personal blog by making jokes about them being sexually abused by their own dad and joking about them liking it is terrible.” If its easier for you, you can even pretend that it was directed toward someone besides me!
I’m very sorry I said that you deliberately upset people. But honestly this conversation isn’t helping me change my mind
Jack I agree that harassing someone on their personal blog by making jokes about them being sexually abused by their own dad and joking about them liking it is terrible. Jack when you told me your personal story before, I expressed my sympathies and how awful I thought it was.
To repeat, I think what you had to endure was horrible and that no person should have to experience that. For someone to try to make you re-live those events is gruelish. It is beyond hateful for someone to stock another person in order to bring up past events that the person is trying to overcome.
Oy vey !!!
Jack, I will try not to upset people.
However, I do find it very upseting that some people cannot see the link between contraception and abortion – a link I think is obvious – but difficult to concretely explain. It is similar to falling in love, you just know it when you experience it. I think if more people gave up contraception and simply tried NFP they would find that they liked it, and they would begin to look at sex and their entire lives differently. I think most people would find the use of NFP not only illuminating but refreshing.
Abortificients (hormonal BC) suck a million times worse then NFP.
THANK YOU!! Not sarcastically, honestly. I appreciate it. Now, if you had said something like that when you were first aware of the past behavior and what you had inadvertently defended, we could have avoided the whole mess! Saying something like ” That behavior is reprehensible, and I am sorry I appeared to endorse it” before you explain yourself would have been nice. Instead you said over and over that you “weren’t taking sides” which is a bit upsetting. You understand? But yes thank you for condemning his behavior.
I am not going to discuss the contraception thing again, except to say that I guess I can see why it upsets you that people don’t agree with it. It upsets me that people eat meat, so I get it. I just don’t get how you think that implying over and over that people are not Prolife and that the are willfully being terrible is helping.
BTW my wife and I tried a version of NFP several years ago. I hated it.
I apologize if my initial comment last night was mean. I didn’t intend it to be but I can certainly see how it would be read that way, and that’s no one’s fault but my own. I’m under an amazing amount of stress right now and am not always at my best, is my only excuse.
“If you or anyone has conversed with CC more than once, you will have to admit that you have repeated yourself. Is the repetition the fault of the speaker or the listener?”
Tyler, in that thread I asked you multiple times not to repeat yourself or make me repeat previously-discussed points. When you began to, I said, “I have read your feelings on this and understand them, and you should know that my feelings are the same as jack and xalisae’s.” At the time I did so because I was interested in taking the discussion further and knowing how your opinion lined up with something new that was said. You, in turn, claimed that I could not speak for myself unless I rehashed the entire discussion yet again. So in that case I would say it was the speaker’s fault, not the listener, if asked.
I don’t know what your comment about “likes” means but I am not really concerned with being popular. I don’t really know why a couple people liking my comment would mean they didn’t appreciate it but maybe I am just missing something. The fact is, Tyler, you are a special person – the only Tyler out there – whether anyone “likes” that or not.
This is what I mean when I speak of a “high maintenance interlocutor.”
I’m reminded of nothing so much as an unruly horse dashing into a saloon in some old western, and everyone and their dog is engaged in trying to keep him out front of the bar, away from the poker tables, out of the chorus line, and darnit get ‘im back outside! — all while trying to keep their beer from spilling, not letting Leroy get a peek at your hand, not getting your feet steppOW! and darnit, what’re road apples doing in hyar!
Now here comes Festus. “What in the Sam Hill is goin’ ON in here?”
Good heavens, but this thread has gone to Mars, and back…! And I’m not helping matters, any… :)
A few random observations:
1) In general, the fact that someone might mention the objective evil of contraception, or even its links (in mind-set, attitude, causality, or what-have-you) to other issues, does not logically imply that the “someone” necessarily sees contraception as being as equally grave or urgent an evil as is abortion. I can discuss the evils of verbal mockery of one’s peers, for example, without drawing an absolute moral equivalence between them. In short: it’s possible for someone to “harp” on the ideas of “contraception = evil” and “contraception aids and abets abortion in one or more ways” not because he thinks the two ideas to be equally grave.., but, rather, because contraception is the topic at hand, and because he might be encountering resistance to his point of view on that idea. Heavens, if everyone assumed that “amount of verbiage = extent to which I think a topic is important”, I would be guilty of finding absolutely everything utterly important… since I’ve offered no shortage of verbiage on virtually any and all topics! :) This post is ample evidence of that, in fact…
2) As gently as I can (and having learned this myself, the hard way, in years past): when an offense has been given, it’s never unwise to offer an apology (of sympathy, at least, even if an apology of culpability doesn’t yet seem to fit, quite) sooner, rather than later. Not only is it the kind thing to do (and people are infinitely more important than are discussion topics, per se, so we should act accordingly), but it removes a significant distraction from future discussion. I do not say that one needs to accept guilt for things which are not apparently one’s fault (unless/until it’s demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt); but one should be quick to care about having given needless offense, and one should also be open to the possibility that we are imperfect, and that we can easily word things in ways which can cause bruised feelings. For what it’s worth.
Now, then, as to the topic:
A good deal of the disagreement revolves about the question: “What’s so very wrong about non-abortive contraceptives, anyway, especially between spouses?” (This question is sometimes given a greatly inflamed intensity, since it is often asked by someone who is in that very position–i.e. uses it with his/her spouse–and the idea that they might have been committing a morally illicit act is alarming and offensive to them, as is the suggestion that it might be morally obligatory to give up something on which they rely.) I don’t pretend to know how to avoid the intense emotional dynamics (described above)… save, perhaps, to mention that I point “blame-fingers” at no-one, that I discuss this purely out of my life’s purpose to seek the Truth, no matter how painful it might be to me, and that I beg everyone to remember that I discuss these things with every good intention and with good-will toward all who engage the topic.
That being said, let me ask two “starter questions”:
1) Why is cannibalism bad? From what I can tell, nowhere is the practise explicitly condemned in the Bible; one would need to add to Scripture (even if only by interpretation) in order to reach the conclusion.
2) Why is it bad to use dead bodies of loved ones for utilitarian purposes, in general (e.g. food, clothing, furniture, etc.)? I see no Biblical condemnation of this, either.
My point is two-fold:
(1) There are many things which are evil, which are simply not in the explicit text of Sacred Scripture; we must often start from basic and iron-clad moral principles, and extrapolate logically from them, in order to settle our minds on such evils (aside from our emotional revulsion, which is not a very reliable indicator, to say the least).
(2) The principles mentioned above, I’d argue, are not simply social conventions or constructs; we do not avoid cannibalism, and we do not avoid the horrors of furniture, clothing, etc., made from human remains, simply out of a social taboo. No one denies that there is a taboo; I assert merely that the taboo highlights an *objective* facet of the moral law: that human bodies are owed special reverence, and that they are not mere raw material to be used at our whim. It is, in fact, possible to profane the bodies of the dead.
Here’s my challenge. Do the rest of you agree with my claims (that human bodies are, barring insanely extreme circumstances, not to be used for food or convenience items? If so, then… PROVE IT. Prove that the claims are true. I daresay you’d find it difficult.
This, I suggest, is akin to the position which befalls those of us who try to argue against contraception. We’re faced with the alarming (and emotionally-loaded) question, “What’s wrong with it? *I* use it!” We’re also faced with the reply, “Where does it say in the Bible that contraception is wrong?” The first reply (with all due respect) is clearly a fallacy; and the second has several problems (I’ll leave aside the self-contradictory notion of “sola Scriptura”, for the moment), not the least of which is the fact that the same principle would force one to accept cannibalism, casual use of human bodies for convenience items, human cloning, and any other evil which is not explicitly proscribed by the Scriptural text.
Food for thought…?
It is funny that a Protestant should subscribe to the idea that there is a noetic influence of sin when the Bible specifically teaches us that God has given us the knowledge and ability to follow his commandments:
“I will put my laws in their minds and I will write them upon their hearts. I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Heb 8:10)
Sure we can quibble about what these laws are, but that discussion will lead us back to my previous question about whether Jesus, himself, would support the use of contraception. I doon’t think the man who believed looking at a woman with lust in one’s eye is tantamount to adultery would say contraception is okay.
Jack, what didn’t you like about NFP. Discussing the pro and cons about NFP might be educational, helpful, and a practical way of resolving some of the differences between those for and against contraception. It will probably less emotional too, because everyone will simply sharing their experience, openly. This type of open discussion seems to be what Paladian indirectly called for when he said that anti-contraception comments could cause an emotional reaction in certain contraception users.
By the way, I definitely see why you would’ve liked a comment sooner from me. I apologize for not responding sooner. I think the reason that I didn’t comment sooner was because the whole scenario appeared so outlandish – who would think a someone would want to do such things. But most importantly, it appears that you are doing fine, and that the stocking is not affecting you.
Tyler, in that thread I asked you multiple times not to repeat yourself or make me repeat previously-discussed points. When you began to, I said, “I have read your feelings on this and understand them, and you should know that my feelings are the same as jack and xalisae’s.” At the time I did so because I was interested in taking the discussion further and knowing how your opinion lined up with something new that was said. You, in turn, claimed that I could not speak for myself unless I rehashed the entire discussion yet again. So in that case I would say it was the speaker’s fault, not the listener, if asked.
Since I did obviously grasp the full point you were trying to make in that thread I am sorry. If I remember correctly (and I don’t have best memory when it comes to the posts I make – which I think is hardly worth mentioning to you) the reason I requested you to rehash the conversations with xalisae was because I had a few discussions with xalisae about contraception and I wasn’t sure which conservation with xalisae you were referring to. I apologize for not making that clear to you when I asked you to rehash. Poetically, in this instance, I was the listner. I did not hear what you were asking.
Alexandra, your comments have not been mean. And thank-you for pointing my uniqueness. You are quite special yourself – sincerely. I am sorry to hear that you are experiencing a great deal of stress right and I hope I have not contributed to it. I find thinking about Wile E. Coyote helps to relieve stress. Here is a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJW7EF5aVk
Alexandra, I meant to say I did not grasp the full point that you were trying to make in that thread..
Rasqual: Now here comes Festus. “What in the Sam Hill is goin’ ON in here?”
Paladin: Good heavens, but this thread has gone to Mars, and back…!
Did I call that, or what?
LOL
“Jack, what didn’t you like about NFP. Discussing the pro and cons about NFP might be educational, helpful, and a practical way of resolving some of the differences between those for and against contraception. It will probably less emotional too, because everyone will simply sharing their experience, openly. This type of open discussion seems to be what Paladian indirectly called for when he said that anti-contraception comments could cause an emotional reaction in certain contraception users. ”
What I didn’t like? It seemed like a lot of useless work to get it on, basically. Sorry, that’s blunt. But honestly, I don’t get this life-affirming perfect union thing you guys insist sex is. I never have. Sex is sex, it’s a fairly pleasant thing you should probably be careful about because it can end up making you babies or give you diseases. I don’t understand the emotional component that everyone insists is there. People have tried to explain it and I just don’t get it. So NFP is just silly for me personally, doesn’t have to be for you or anyone else, but I don’t see why everyone gets all in a dither about perfect unions or “rejecting” part of your spouse and all that.
“By the way, I definitely see why you would’ve liked a comment sooner from me. I apologize for not responding sooner. I think the reason that I didn’t comment sooner was because the whole scenario appeared so outlandish – who would think a someone would want to do such things. But most importantly, it appears that you are doing fine, and that the stocking is not affecting you.”
All Jake does is annoy me and make me roll my eyes at his blatantly obvious attempts to push my buttons. He needs new material, imho. But thanks for the apology. We cool.
“1) Why is cannibalism bad? From what I can tell, nowhere is the practise explicitly condemned in the Bible; one would need to add to Scripture (even if only by interpretation) in order to reach the conclusion.”
Lol if you want to be somewhat utilitarian about it, one reason we don’t eat people because you can get prions from it, most specifically Kuru. The same reason Mad Cow disease was/is a problem, because cows were being fed ground up other cows <—- I just gagged typing that, it’s just so disgusting! So there is a biological reason against cannibalism. You don’t even need morality!
I really am just joking, that wasn’t a serious answer to your proposed thoughts.
Paladin:
I don’t know that cannibalism per se is bad. It may induce revulsion, and I’d think there are good reasons for that. Why is clothing good? Its conspicuous absence may also induce revulsion, and I’d think there are good reasons for that. Nudists, I think, are not so much immoral as merely mistaken. Cannibals, I would say, simply have bad taste.
There may be more to it than that, and I honestly do not doubt that there is. But God has taken pains to divulge some truths with crystal clarity, and yet leave others cloaked in mystery. Until the nations bow on the merits of what he’s proclaimed from the mountaintop, I’m not terribly concerned to poke the interior of myriad black boxes with sticks in an effort to divine the contours of their contents — only in part because I’d not want to risk coming away cocky about my findings and proclaim them authoritatively — only to discover when the box’s owner shows up one day, that I’d been quite a fool.
I can attest, subjectively, to what I sense (5, not 6, senses) in the box. Objectively, it seems clear something is there. Absent the owner’s clear instructions, I seem responsible to make best what I can of it.
But it gets weirder, because human knowing is so limited that it’s not even clear whether a particular thing set before me is a box, a collection of boxes, or an implication that boxes I can’t access are somewhere about.
It seems to me that God holds me accountable for what I cannot claim I cannot know. Those things I genuinely wonder about, which remain mysterious — not so much.
Mars Hill — “Let me acquaint you with that unknown God” — was not concerned with minutiae. Frankly, the epistles were not concerned with minutiae. The apostles concerned themselves with bread & butter, meat & potatoes exhortations. The gospel itself is huge — not something hidden in a corner. The later epistles did not give any indication that, as the church matured, she was becoming more and more concerned with more and more granular details of people’s lives. That was the pharisaic model of “hedging” the Law that they left behind. Human activity was no longer regulated by pharisaic pundits, but by the Law written on their hearts by the Holy Spirit.
Well, someone’s epistemology is thoroughly modern.
If the law is written on the hearts and mind of human beings by the Holy Spirit as Scriputre tell us, human beings can discern much about the “black boxes” he/she encounters in this world. For instance humans can differentiate between what is natural and what is unnatrual, and how to prioritize the relatvie Goods of the material/natural world. Human beings are able to recognize that human beings have a specific human nature, a fallen nature, that has specific needs. So allthough there are some mysteries in this world they are not as numerous as one would at first believe. We can discern the purpose and uses of certain activities and technologies and determine whether those uses comport with the natural world that God told us was Good and our human nature.
Rasqual, are you currently taking a course on epistemology? Why the heavy emphasis on our ability to know? Is there a theology that is based on this epistemology? If so, does it have a name? To me, the epistomolgy your embracing appears very Lockean.
What I didn’t like? It seemed like a lot of useless work to get it on, basically. Sorry, that’s blunt. But honestly, I don’t get this life-affirming perfect union thing you guys insist sex is. I never have. Sex is sex, it’s a fairly pleasant thing you should probably be careful about because it can end up making you babies or give you diseases. I don’t understand the emotional component that everyone insists is there. People have tried to explain it and I just don’t get it. So NFP is just silly for me personally, doesn’t have to be for you or anyone else, but I don’t see why everyone gets all in a dither about perfect unions or “rejecting” part of your spouse and all that.
Hi Jack, thanks for response. and your honesty. But before I begin I think I am goint to have to give you yet another apology. I shouldn’t have asked you this question, lest some bonehead try to use youur answer against you. Prudence failed me. So, if that does happen I am sorry, that was not my intention. Since you jumped in with two feet, I will do the same, so you are not alone.
With respect to the NFP your response has been very helpful to me by allowing me to see some of the difficulties and issues people have with NFP. For the record, I don’t how best to explain the unitive aspect of the marital act (the emotional aspect for non-Catholics), but I will work on it and get back to you about it. However, I can make one point about it from a Catholic perspective and that is that the unitive aspect is not just about the affection one person has for another – there is a spiritual dimension as well. This spiritual dimension is the hard part to explain and that I am going to have to get back to you about it (even though it is spiritual I don’t think the idea is confined to Catholics or Christians but can be expressed to secularists as well).
The procreative or life-affirming aspect of sex is a bit more obvious. When we talk about the procreative aspect, we are acknowledging the completely mystery surrounding the fact that the only way human beings are created is through the sexual union of a man and a woman. This sexual union can seem both pedestrian and profound.
Many people feel self-conscious and vulnerable when they are about to have sex. Especially for women. Women have to be much more sure about who they are going to sleep with than men. This inhibition is blunted a little bit by the secuirty (I’ll refrain from saying false) that women get from using contraception and the link. The vulnerablilty, and both should feel this equally, is due very much to the fact a baby can be produced by this simple physical act. Not only as individuals, bu as parents we know the amszing gift that life is. Children are a major responsibility and a blessing. They involve a commitment of time and energy from their parents. For most people, all of these wonderful thoughts are in their mind when they are about to engage in sexual intercourse. For me, I remember the great inner joy I felt when I discovered I was going to be a father, and that would not have happened if my wife did not give herself to me. She gave me her body to me that night, and gave my son her body for the 9 months after that. She was tremendously giving of herself and still is asmy son’s Mother.
There is one other aspect of the sexual act that involves the giving of one self. It is also the involves the approach one takes to sex. I don’t mean this in any vulgar way, but simply that in loving relationships each person seeks to provide the joy and pleasure to the other, and not so much to seek pleasure for oneself. This idea can be expressed more crudely in the concept of “satisfying your partner’s needs.” But I am not just refering to sexual neeeds, but also the love and affirmation that each person needs and crave. (Perhaps Alexandra can chime in here.)
Anyway, I hope that made some sense, but if there any other Catholics or Christians who to chime in and elaborate and correct what I have said please feel free. I would definitely appreciate it.
Rasqual, I just want to say that you have my respect and my curiousity peaked. Did you have any help in trying to integrate christianity and modernity? Are there any books on the subject that you could recommend?
Jack, as an agnostic person, I can say that I personally do find a unitive aspect in using NFP (or Fertility Awareness Method, as some of the more strident among my acquaintances insist it be called, since “natural” is a judgmental term in their eyes – fine, whatever keeps the discussion feeling neutral, lol). For me it’s almost like, there is so much more to this person than just THIS PERSON. And part of “him” is “his children” or potential children, and the same is true for me – and for us, the two of us, we are the only people who can make or not make those children. He’s not just a person who happens to be a lot of fun – he’s a father and a son and a brother as well as my partner in whatever comes next (I feel like this is a cheesy song). It is kind of a reminder of and respect for all the roles and potential that exists within one person, this one person I love.
There is something amazing and wonderful about the fact that we are two people with so much immense possibility when paired together – that even when it’s not ideal to take on the responsibility that comes with that immense possibility, it’s still incredibly bond-forming to remember it, just for the time it takes to check something or communicate something, every day.
And it is also in some ways a reminder that we accept each other – and all possible futures with each other – completely. I know that contraception does not necessarily mean a contraceptive mentality and I’m not AT ALL saying that people who use other forms of birth control don’t accept all possible futures together – just that they don’t get the constant, daily reminder of that acceptance. It’s a daily acknowledgment of the realities and potentials of sex, and a daily re-acceptance of those “potentials.” Almost like a renewing of vows – because even when you’re saying, “I’m not ovulating today,” you’re still remembering that sex does have two purposes – just by acknowledging the more easily forgotten one. And as we all know, birth control (all of it) fails, and so acknowledging the existence of the procreative aspect of sex means a conscious, daily acceptance of that possibility. Because of course even if you are aiming to not get pregnant – whether via FAM or other methods – the possibility is there. Just, other methods let you kind of…forget that. Some people find that a relief but I have found, contrary to expectation, that it’s beautiful to be reminded that even if all goes “wrong” (allegedly) it will still go “right.”
To me it’s kind of like cooking together. There is something symbolic and meaningful about nurturing and nourishing another person, and there is something so wonderful about nourishing and nurturing each other. And I REALLY don’t like cooking – nowhere NEAR as much as I like sex, lol.
Alexandra, I don’t how to ask this without it sounding offensive, but why do people feel a need to constantly co-opt Church teaching – FAM vs. NFP. It seems secularists do it more than most. Is there a reason for this? I realize it is backhanded compliment, but why don’t secularists then go whole hog, and accept the rest of Church teaching?
By the way, you did a good job describing the unitive aspect. However, there can be spiritual significance/implications [keeping vows, helping the spouse get to Heaven – I am still working on it] to the unitve part of marital intimacy as well, which I realize, as an agnostic, you weren’t aiming at.
I don’t know what you mean by co-opt church teaching. I don’t really care what you call it, as I said already when I said that other people – ie, not me – take issue with the term NFP; and the only people I know who DO care take offense at the word “natural” as they view it as an “unnatural” use of one’s cycles, no more natural than condoms. They are not co-opting Church teaching because they don’t even practice FAM or NFP at all. They just listen when I talk about it (admittedly not often, but when it comes up I don’t hesitate). If you care whether I call it NFP or FAM then I will call it NFP when I’m talking to you. Neither is an inaccurate term and so I have no problem using either.
I have roughly an infinite number of reasons that I don’t accept Church teaching but they can all basically be summed up as: I don’t believe it. It would be disingenuous of me to profess to accept something I don’t think believe. I respect it and I listen when people talk but I don’t believe it and I don’t appreciate attempts to denigrate me based on that. My agnosticism is nothing I am ashamed of and nothing I feel pressed to change (so I do admit to finding it od when people try to use it as an oblique insult).
I guess I can’t understand what you guys are talking about because I haven’t ever felt like that. Sex is just something that is physically enjoyable, to me. I don’t get all the emotions and bonding and stuff tied up in it. It’s on me, I don’t think I am typical or normal at all. But yeah, it’s like you are describing living on another planet. It’s completely foreign to me.
Alexandra, I doubt care what anyone calls it – as long as they see that it is natural and is different from artificial contraception.
BTW, Alexandra have you read much literature from the Church? (This is a sincere question.)
Jack, don’t sweat it, everyone is different and experiences life differently.
Jack: People are different. Sometimes the differences change in time. Sometimes they don’t. At my age, I can stare at a tree in the wind for an hour. It’s a cosmic thing, a mystery. As a Christian, how not to contemplate the Holy Spirit in flesh, the breath of God moving in us and through us until we can’t really quite answer: “Is this the tree moving in the wind, or the wind moving in the tree?” For the secularist, content yourself with Annie Dillard. But for most folks, that’d seem nuts. “It’s a freakin’ TREE!” Yet that same person might take great pains with a recipe which, for my part, I’d outsource to a fast food joint or whip carelessly together.
Everything has depth to it. We can’t all swim deeply in everything. Not, at least, this side of eternity. Which is why I enjoy other people whose passions plumb things I’d never think to ponder deeply. I don’t need to — nor want to — exhaust myself so broadly. I’ll go deep where I wish, and listen rapt to their own accounts, and observe their own pilgrimages.
Don’t suppose that sex is shallow for you and deep for others. It’s deep for you too, perhaps. We all swim the same reefs. Some scuba, others snorkel. It’s just a question of how far you want to explore. True of so many things.
Yes, Tyler. My favorites are CS Lewis and Peter Kreeft.
Jack, don’t sweat it too much. I think that – without being grossly stereotypical – it’s something that is easier for women to instinctively feel, because the risks/possibilities of sex are only forgotten for us with a certain amount of effort and self-delusion. I am in the minority here because I DO think that sex without love, or without unconditional love (but always between two consenting adults, of course) can be enjoyable and that that is nothing to be ashamed of, or to shame. But I do also know from firsthand experience that a history – any history – of abuse can make it a journey to even get to a place where sex is a good thing for an individual at all (“good” meaning “not used to harm yourself or be harmed by others”). If you are ever interested in looking further into NFP – not that you should, but just if – I would recommend Theology of the Body, or some of Janet Smith’s writing on the subject. I also believe that Christopher West has been something of a…NFP rockstar, if there is such a thing, giving talks and speeches and workshops etc that people fawn over. I don’t know as much about him but lots of people seem to find his work meaningful and accessible. You do have to just read it all with an open mind. There are not many non-Catholic resources for NFP out there as of yet.
Alexandra, I agree sex is not shameful. Without getting into the spiritual reasons, and there are some, the reason Society historically has wanted people to be married before having sex was for the sake of the children. This goes to show how far removed people are from the original practical meanings of our various institutions.
Since the advent of contraception people think you can have sex without consequences and in the context of a meaningless casual relationship. I don’t like to state the obvious, but this was not typically the case. Once upon a time, people actually understood that marriage and children were related to one another!! Surprise, Surprise. I guess it was because marriage was only “linked” to children that people have become so ignorant of the relationship.
Rasqual,
I love your black box analogy. The mystery wrapped in a conundrum that is this life won’t be truly explained until the next one.
Tyler,
It seems to me that God’s laws / ways won’t truly be written in our minds / hearts until that next life. No one now is truly “with that program”.
“It seems to me that God’s laws / ways won’t truly be written in our minds / hearts until that next life. No one now is truly “with that program”.
Hans, I take that must be a protestant position of faith (I mean no disrespect here).
Do you know where you get that idea? Is it personal? Is from the Bible? Is it from a particular Church or denomination? Does it have something to do with the idea of Sola Scriptura?
I would really like to know where this idea comes from.
Hans, I don’t know what is so appealing about that idea – it seems rather bleak to me. If we can’t truly know about this life on earth, how are we supposed to know anything about Heaven? Why would believe in Heaven, if this black box analogy is true? Why wouldn’t you just think Heaven is a figament of your imagination?
Tyler,
Against my better judgment, I’ll just give you a synopsis of what I believe or lean toward believing. I was nominally raised Lutheran. However since high school I have been very interested in the teachings of other groups, perhaps the largest and most well-known being the Seventh Day Adventists. That is why I have described myself several times as being “a protestant of Protestants.” That would make me even a further step away from your beliefs, forgive me.
My reading of the Bible (sorry again, but it’s “sola scriptura” for me) leads to the conclusion that “narrow is the way, and few there be who find it” is no joke. It was only Abel at first, then sporadic descendants of Seth, then only eight in a planet of billions at the time of the Flood. And then back to sporadic “saints”.
Of the hundreds of thousands that Jesus preached to, there were only, what was it, 130 who were “chosen” out of those called? And that Church, it seems to me, was always after described as a “small remnant.”
And I’ve got another troubling belief for you. I do not believe our goal is getting to Heaven. That was Lucfer’s goal and that of almost every religion in Mankind’s history, not to mention the builders of the Tower of Babel.
No, I believe the Bible describes, from cover to cover, the Plan to bring Heaven to Earth. When that happens, God’s laws will be “written in our hearts”, as I believe it says first in Isaiah. This is all off the top of my head, and I believe that Hebrews quote of yours might have been a reference to it.
I hope I haven’t disappointed too many people. I don’t believe everyone will be in that next life - only those who agree to be there when everything is truly explained.
End of sermonette.
*puts on her best southern belle accent*
Is it just me or is it getting hot in here?
*fans self* Whew! I think I’m getting the vapors!
(just a little comedy relief to lighten things up a bit :) )
Rachael C.,
Don’t worry about the heat. I don’t believe in the traditional idea of Hell, either. ;)
Hi Hans,
Thanks for sharing your beliefs.
If I may just ask one question: is this belief that God’s laws “will be written in our hearts” only when Heaven comes to Earth a major part of most Protestant faiths?
Tyler,
All right then. I just did a quick Google search. I really don’t know how most Protestant faiths teach on this at the moment.
The original quote appears to start around Jeremiah 31:31. Most would consider this a prophecy of the return of the Jews to Israel. But I would consider that only a foreshadowing of the climactic event when a New Covenant is made with Israel (who are a lot more than the Jews, I would tend to believe - but that’s for another topic) at the time called in much of escatology “The Day of the Lord.” It says there will be no teaching necessary since all will have God’s Laws / Ways written in their hearts and minds. That sounds post-merely-human to me, in the Millenial Reign.
Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 appear to be references to this. Romans 2:12-16 also, with an emphasis on those outside of the Law / Covenant.
Not too thoroughly researched. Just an indication of my thoughts on the topic.
Hans Johnson,
Thanks for sharing this with me. I definitely have a differnet interpretation of these passages.
My understanding of the Old Testament is that most of the prophecies contained therein refer, principly, to the coming of Jesus, and the new covenant he brought and instituted. Read in this way, Jeremiah is foreshadowing the time after Jesus, who writes the law unto the hearts of the Gentiles.
My understanding of the passage from Romans 2 is that God will judge Gentiles according to the law that has been written on their hearts (by Jesus – see my point about Jeremiah above). The assumption in the text seems to me to indicate that the laws are written in our heart in this life-time, and that if we don’t live up to those laws will be judged accordingly. If Gentiles don’t get the Law written on the hearts until after judgement, by what criteria will God be judging the Gentiles?
In any event, it amazes me how our interpretations can vary so much and how those different interpretations can affect our outlook.
But your sharing of your faith is much appreciated, and although we have different interpretations, my respect for your willingness to share your faith has increased my respect for you as person tenfold. It is much easy to converse with a person when they share their faith openly and courageously. I realsize not everyone has the strength to do this. Bravo Hans. I liked your posts before, I think I will like them even more in the future.
Alexandra says:
August 3, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Alexandra, thank you for sharing your wonderful experience of FAM/NFP!
Tyler says:
Alexandra, I don’t how to ask this without it sounding offensive, but why do people feel a need to constantly co-opt Church teaching – FAM vs. NFP.
NFP is not a Church teaching. It is a work of science, developed over many years, with many contributors. The Church merely recognizes NFP as being in conformity with Catholic moral principles.
Tyler,
Thanks. I believe no one on this Earth sees any better than “through the glass darkly.” My one point to you is that if the law has already been etched in men’s hearts, they would have no need of teaching and a lot of clerics should be out of business.
Hans: “Thanks. I believe no one on this Earth sees any better than “through the glass darkly.” My one point to you is that if the law has already been etched in men’s hearts, they would have no need of teaching and a lot of clerics should be out of business.”
The reference to 1 Cor13;12 is a valid reference. For Catholics these verses refer to the second coming of Christ. The end times is definitely hard to “see” and we must walk in the “light of faith.” In my opinion, these verses were not talking about our ability to discern earthly virtues, or moral rights and wrongs. They were talking about our inability to fully understand and know the fullness of God’s love. I believe these lines must be compared and contrasted to other verses in the Bible which show that humans can achieve a certain amount of pracitical wisdom as pertains to earhly matters in this life, and that we are supposed to exercise that wisdom. For example:
The Lord makes the blind wise (Ps 146:8)
The Lotd’s words are trustworthy and they give wisdom to the little ones (Ps 19:7)
If anyone is in need of wisdom, let that person ask for it from God, who gives generously to everyone and does not hold back, and it will be granted (Jas 1:5)
To me it seems clear that the God desires us to be wise and that if we want to live in the light he will grant us that request. The parable of the ten virgins also reminds that we have been given wisdom, and that we should try to use it.
Finally, in the Gospel of John, we read that Jesus is the Light for mankind:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:5)
But I am happy to agree to disagree.
Lrning, excellent distinction.
However, Lrning, although the Church did not technically create NFP, NFP is Chruch teaching in the sense that it is the only method of reproduction that the Church recognizes as being morally licit – See Humanae Vitae. Ture, it is not theological doctrine – but the endorsement of NFP is Church treaching, as well as the condemnation of contraception. NFP, more precisely, is given/created by God. – it is His preferred method of regulating births! The Church did help popularize and support this method when large numbers of people began to abandon the method.
Tyler,
Yes, absolutely I think that verse refers to our seeing clearly in the next life. And there’s no doubt we should have some discernment in this one. But the disciples were at Jesus’ feet for three and a half years and were still clueless until they witnessed the Resurrection. I feel almost as clueless with the tools we have.
Hans, I respect the humility in your position.
My concern is that some may take humility too far, and lead some into despair.
However,, I do recognize that there is an equally troubling opposite effect that could happen. We could become full with pride, and assume expertise where we have none.
I am good with your cautions.
NFP is Chruch teaching in the sense that it is the only method of reproduction that the Church recognizes as being morally licit
I think you meant the only method of spacing births that the Church recognizes as being morally licit, yes?
Man, you guys and gals are an exacting bunch.
I know my posts are littered with thousands of typos, spelling mistakes, missing words, poorly written sentences, and imprecise phrases. Sorry.
Greetings again, Rasqual! Terribly sorry about the delay; time and internet access are a bit patchy, as of late… and I’ll be off-line for all of tomorrow, as well (a new sort of resolution: I’m going “high-technology-free” [i.e. “unplugging”, I think it’s called, in some circles] for every Sunday, from here on out… to keep some balance in my life in this regard, and also to spend a bit more time and attention on my lovely wife… :) ). Let’s see what I can squeeze in, at the moment.
You wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
I’ll only comment on this: “Do not sin, and aspire to image in your marriage the self-giving love inherent in the Blessed Trinity, since your marriage is, by definition, a living “type” [in the Biblical/theological sense] of the Blessed Unity of Three Divine Persons.”
[Rasqual]
I agree — and not casually. But though that’s true, I don’t believe it’s the most practical guide to married life. More like a slap upside the head to let couples know how cosmic their domestic emprise really is.
Well, of course! I was trying (and rather imperfectly) to condense the Catholic Christian imperatives regarding marriage into a very brief summary–almost a slogan–which would hardly help much with guidance in specific courses of action. As I sometimes ask those who ask me questions: “Do you want the short, medium or long answer?” :) That was the short answer (i.e. easiest to read in 1 minute or less, least useful for practical purposes).
We cannot understand the internal life of the Trinity.
Not completely, no… but that’s not at all necessary; even a rough grasp of the internal life of the Blessed Trinity (which, as you mention, can only be known by having God reveal it to us, Himself–it could never have been “discovered” by pure reason) can give us a wealth of good and vital information about our own lives (since we are made in the Image and Likeness of God, not only individually [we have self-aware intellect, radically free will, and memory, as does God], but communally [i.e. we were designed for communion with other persons–to be One Body, not billions]. And no, I’ve not gone into any detail on that information, yet. :) ).
Jesus said more about it than anyone, especially of course in John’s gospel. His passion for the Father and intimate reliance on the Holy Spirit in his incarnation demonstrated for us as best we can understand, perhaps, what that internal life would be like.
Our Blessed Lord revealed a great deal about the Blessed Trinity, not only in His words, but by His life, and through other books of the Bible (and through other sources), as well. Here’s just one sample:
God the Father (the First Person of the Blessed Trinity) has, as we have (though ours is finite), an ability to have a concept of Himself in His Own mind; but His self-concept is not limited in any way; it is utterly complete, lacking nothing (since nothing of God’s Divine Nature can possibly be limited)… not even real, ontological existence. God’s Self-concept is full and complete enough to be God, Himself… Whom we call the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
God is, by His very nature, love (cf. 1 John 4:8, etc.)… and not just any love, but the love which the Greeks called “agape” (as distinguished from the other three types of love–storge, eros, and philia). Agape is “selfless, self-emptying” love; it is a love which gives completely, expecting absolutely nothing in return; agape gives–as a free choice, a free act of the will–for the sake of the best good of the beloved, and for no other reason. As such, God the Father loves the Son with total agape love (John 3:35), and gives everything He has to the Son (John 16:15, etc.). The Son, in turn, loves the Father in the same way, and gives absolutely everything back to Him. We humans can only give “part” of ourselves, since we are limited and (with wildly rare exceptions) sinful creatures; but God has no such limits. When God the Father and God the Son give absolutely everything of themselves to each other, that “exchange of love” is not partial, but total… and therefore, in this case, fully God. That very exchange of love is complete and full, and is a Person in His Own right: God, the Holy Spirit.
We were not made in the image and likeness of anything else on earth; we are made in the Image and Likeness of God Himself, and it is in Him, and Him alone, that we can find our complete fulfillment… a fulfillment that, if we are sane, sober and honest, we must admit we can never find in this life, no matter how fiercely we search among the pleasures and pains of the world. Therein lies one of the most powerful keys to understanding our very lives, and also to understanding marriage.
In Ephesians 5, St. Paul says something rather startling: he says that marriage is not simply a union of bodies (though that is not evil), or a contract between amenable humans for the sake of amusement, comfort and convenience (though these are not evil things). He says that marriage points to a meaning far beyond itself: it is a “great mystery, referring to Christ and His Church”. We, in our bodies, image the inner life of the Blessed Trinity from Whom all families get their name (cf. Ephesians 3:14-15)–the man being the initiator of the gift of life; the woman receiving the gift, nurturing it, and returning it to the man, transformed and transcendent; and the love between them becoming so real that, after 9 months, you need to give the love a name. God is not content to be represented by dead things; He writes His very Image into us, His adopted children, and His likeness is “stamped” into our very bodies and souls.
(To explore more of that idea, you might look up what Our late Holy Father, Blessed Pope John Paul II, wrote in a series of talks entitled “The Theology of the Body.” It’s very dense reading… but I suspect you’re up to the challenge. :) There are also excellent books which bring the material down to a more basic level [e.g. those by Christopher West].)
So… if we know this, then we’re given at least three powerful pieces of information that we never would have had, otherwise:
1) God is not “lonely”, and He does not “need us”, even as recipients of love… since God is an eternal and loving Trinity of Persons. This tells us that He created us not because He “needed” us for anything at all… but simply because it is the nature of love to overflow into superabundance. More importantly: God created us for our own sakes… not for the sake of anything else. Do think about this: if God “needed” us in order to praise Him, or to work out thus-and-so chore, then what would befall us if we failed to do so sufficiently well? Could we ever rest secure? I think not; that would be the position of a slave, not of a son or daughter (who should be loved for his/her own sake, and not for what the parent can “get” out of them).
2) The selfless love of God tells us that, in order to fulfill what we were meant to be (and to experience the complete joy that He means for us to have [John 15:11])–and to have a share in that joy, even in THIS life–we need to defy our fallen instincts (which are turned inward, seeking our own pleasure and our own escape from pain) and choose to love selflessly: to make a free choice to sacrifice of ourselves for the sake of the best good of our beloved. That is true love; anything else is a counterfeit, and anything else will be doomed to fail to satisfy, in the end. Anyone who’s tried to pursue relationships for the sake of mere companionship, sex, status, etc., can tell you that. Some have despaired, thinking that there is nothing else to be had… but that is not true.
3) The whole purpose of earthly life is to “train us” for Heaven… to condition us so that, when we get there, we’ll be able to breathe the air, so to speak. The air of Heaven is self-sacrificial love, since that is the essence of God Himself, and union with God is Heaven, by definition; and holy Matrimony is specifically designed by God to be one of the best “training grounds” to learn to breathe that air of self-sacrifice, dying-to-self, putting our selfishness to death, and becoming creatures of agape love.
That, friend, is from unpacking just ONE tiny piece of ONE facet of what God has revealed to us about His inner life of the Blessed Trinity. :)
I think it’s somewhat dangerous to ask people to guide their lives by something they cannot sufficiently understand to do so.
I agree. As a holy priest of yesteryear one said, on that point: “To presume that God did not leave us an infallible guide in matters of faith and morals, their interpretation and their application, is to say that God is indifferent to the damnation of the vast majority of all His children who ever lived.”
Argh. I’m not going to be clear on that. I’ll leave it with this related point: I’m one who’s reluctant, personally, to say the classic “this is that” of prophetic fulfillment. “this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel,” or whatever. Thank goodness we have the testimony of those who, under inspiration, could attest reliably to “this” being “that which was spoken of.” They were able, thank God, to put 2 and two together, to point out today what yesterday spoke of.
:) Hm. You’re coming quite close to a very important (though rather touchy, on this forum) point: the means by which the contents of Scripture were settled with 100% finality. (I’d gently say, in response to some theologians who retreat to the position of calling the Bible “a fallible collection of infallible books”, that they’re talking utter nonsense; if we cannot say with certainly that, say, the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans is truly and absolutely Sacred and inerrant Scripture [above and beyond a mere facile appeal to emotion–i.e. “It *feels* inspired, deep in my soul, when I read it!”], then all is lost, in that regard.
I’m a bit more agnostic (epistemically, not theologically, speaking) than that. One reason is that I’m alarmed at how few other people are. “Naive realism” is, to me, an alarming epistemology — but it’s the Walmart epistemology of the marketplace. Perhaps it always has been.
:) Believe me, I understand! But I do not say that Christianity is without such a secure foundation; time constraints prevented me from expounding as I’d like (and, alas, I’ll need to wait until Monday, I think, to make further comments on that!), but all is not lost, in the quest for certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I digress. Thanks for your comments. If you’re ever in Chicago, I must buy you a dawg.
:) Many thanks, good sir… though my own food allergies would collide with that generous offer! I could drink a bottled water, perhaps, while you polish off one for me? That, or we could actually have that “Jill Stanek Wisconsin Blog Barbecue” which we’ve been threatening to have, for some years now…
Gracious… this thread will hit 500 comments by the end of the week, at this rate!
Anyway… thank you to those (Jack, and Rasqual, at least, though I may be forgetting some others) who took a swing at my intellectual play-thing (i.e. question about cannibalism, etc.). Here’s what I was trying to do:
I assert that there are, in fact, things which even the most relativistic among us (I think of Doug, that good chap who’s one of the most thorough relativists I’ve ever seen) would refuse to allow, morally speaking… no matter what the circumstances. (I’ve contented, for some time now, that there are only three possible outcomes to moral relativism: solipsism, insanity, or conversion away from relativism.) As such, I contend that every sane person would forbid at least a hand-ful of possible actions, simply on general principle (and not simply because of cultural conditioning, social pressure, etc.).
I tried the cannibalism angle first, since it’s not likely to offend anyone (though it may nauseate some)… but other examples can be brought, even if that one fails. I’ll need to introduce them gently, though, since many people have bitter and agonising experience with one or more of them, and I have no wish to throw acid on an open (or poorly-healed) wound. For example: does anyone on this board think that any possibly circumstances could morally justify (i.e. render it completely free of moral evil) a 40-year-old adult male having sexual intercourse with his 6-year-old daughter? I do not (and I assert that such an action would be a very grave evil, causing damage incalculable and unguessed)… but I also assert that such an action cannot allow for any justification by any circumstances; it is a primal violation of the very core of human meaning, and even if death were the only alternative, that would not justify it. That sort of evil is intrinsic, not simply a cultural convention. And yet: could anyone, save by means of a mere appeal to emotion (albeit a very fierce one–and I could hardly blame you!), explain *why* it was wrong? Most people would not even bother to try; they’d turn away in exasperation and disgust, perhaps muttering about “debating dry theology and angels on heads of pins, while people suffer”.
My point? I assert that, even if the explanations are not readily at hand, it is reasonable to presume that there are absolute, objective, non-negotiable and iron-clad principles of morality, and that our natural earthly life (and knowledge) is insufficient to explain and account for them fully. We must appeal to something beyond ourselves in order to explain such things; they transcend the merely material (since, if we are merely random bits of animate matter, what difference does it make if one bit causes another bit to suffer and die merely in an attempt to gratify itself?).
Here, also, is my deeper point: all of the things in life which are immoral have a nagging, persistent sort of commonality between them. All of them ultimately appeal to the idea that humans are special, and that they have a purpose which transcends our understanding of it. They all, ultimately (with apologies to non-theists on the board), lead to a cause which must necessarily be one, eternal, infinite, unchanging, and the basis for all else that is… and a cause which is not uncaring or dead, but Who is very much alive–so alive, in fact, that our own life is but a pale shadow borrowed from that ultimate Life, where we have no life save to the extent that we participate in that Life.
…ad with that teaser, I expect that I’ll need to call it a day, until Monday. Cheerio, everyone! :)
Well said, sir!
Jake,You are psychotic. I urge Jack out of concern for himself and his family to get a restraining order. Email one of the admins for Jack’s IP and begin the investigation. I’m sure people here could help you if you need it
Really X?? Do you have a basic understanding of law? This is a public blog. I have threatened NOONE. Here is some knowledge for you, what has been posted here and on other public blogs is fair game for comments. Please point to a post where Jackie boy and his family are in danger. Where oh where has ANY comment been made that even hints at violence or even hints at any kind of threat???? I challenge you X. Please show me where o where a restraining order is necessary.
Also. Bravo to everyone posting on this thread. Whenever I try to justify why prochoice is the sane argument, I will link to this thread,which will convert anyone on the fence to the prochoice side of the argument!!!!! Hahaha bravo everyone, bravo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
“I do not believe our goal is getting to Heaven. That was Lucifer’s goal and that of almost every religion in Mankind’s history, not to mention the builders of the Tower of Babel.”
Hans, Lucifer didn’t just want to get to heaven; he wanted to rule heaven. Wanting to be in heaven with the Jesus is a good thing. Wanting to rule heaven is a bad thing.
Wanting to get to heaven was not where the builders of the Tower of Babel went wrong. Thinking they could get there without God’s help was where they went wrong.
truthseeker,
In my search for the Truth, it seems to me we can desire to go to our Father’s and Elder Brother’s Home (like we as children wanted to visit our father’s workplace). But I’ve seen the kaleidoscope shift to a clearer pattern.
We are the dust of Mother Earth, and it is we who first kicked God out of our lives, and we are awaiting His return. We’re waiting for the Day when His Will will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Then again, I could be wrong.
I agree. I am waiting for God’s will to be “more completely” done here on earth. But not just that His will be done in future but every day including the present. That is why Jesus sent his Father’s spirit down to guide us until he returns.
I am surprised that no one asked how I could say that “everyone experiences life differently” after I argued, indirectly, that there is a common human nature that we all share.
499
d “And I will walk 500 miles, and I will walk 500 more…” d
Aw, why not. Let’s make it 501 with this pro-abort quote proving that there is no link between abortion and contraception:
Kathi says:
August 8, 2012 at 3:18 pm
My abortion was based on a pregnancy that was a result of failed BC that was used correctly and conceientiously.
:::sigh:::
The issue, friend, is not that there is a link. It’s that some folk who notice that there is a link take it that this link is a pipe through which all that one is flows to make the other of a kind with it.
It’s like folks who impugn others on degrees of separation. “So and so is linked to an organization that blends puppies!” Yeah, his niece married a guy who use to work for an electric utility that supplies power to the cult’s well pump.
It’s just a straw man to pretend that those who object to HOW the claim that there’s a link is used, imagine there’s no link of any kind. And if we do use that language, it’s because we’re concerned that the causal links some imagine exist (“if you contracept, you have the contraceptive mindset which is linked to abortion and so you can’t be as open to life because you’re linked to those who would kill babies yada yada yada!”)
The road in front of my house is “linked” to porn shops and strip clubs. Freaking woe. is. me. :-\
Jake: “Please show me where o where a restraining order is necessary.”
I’d have to agree with this point. I can’t imagine that anyone would need a restraining order to scare Jake away.
And if we do use that language
LOL.
(*groan*) Thanks, Hans… now that song will be stuck in my head for another 6 weeks, as it was the last time I heard it… :)
Please show me where o where a restraining order is necessary.
Umm, the part where you chased him around the internet to mock abuse he’d suffered at the hands of his parents. I think that proves you have a screw loose, and that you are capable of anything. You see, Jake, normal people don’t do things like that. They don’t delight in the suffering of others, and they definitely do not take great pains to track one certain individual around just to take greater delight in that certain individual’s agony.
But that’s okay. Whenever I encounter someone on the fence, I’ll just regale them with the tale of the disgustingly spiteful poor-choicer who actually mocked and teased my friend about physical and sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents when he was a child. I can’t imagine ANYONE would want to be associated with THAT.
“Whenever I encounter someone on the fence, I’ll just regale them with the tale of the disgustingly spiteful poor-choicer who actually mocked and teased my friend about physical and sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents when he was a child. I can’t imagine ANYONE would want to be associated with THAT.”
Lol yup. And it’s funny, a LOT of pro-choicers seem to think that’s an appropriate way to deal with me not agreeing with them. It’s a bit ridiculous.
This conversations still going on, seriously?
It’s like a Deadhead thread. ;-)
Umm, the part where you chased him around the internet to mock abuse he’d suffered at the hands of his parents. I think that proves you have a screw loose, and that you are capable of anything. You see, Jake, normal people don’t do things like that. They don’t delight in the suffering of others, and they definitely do not take great pains to track one certain individual around just to take greater delight in that certain individual’s agony.
Hmm. So I guess the answer is yes, you have no basic understanding of the law then. Thanks for playing though.
Jake, why do you keep coming to this blog? You don’t add anything to the conversation, you don’t even troll very well.
Jake’s just glad we live in a civilization where the rule of law deters people who’d otherwise send ‘im down the road bruised and whimpering. ;-)
Jack can take care of himself. The law is here to protect twerps like Jake. That Jake acknowledges this is somewhat comedic.
Lol! That’s what I love about the internet. I know for a fact that Jake would never, ever have the stones to say anything to my face. He’s okay sitting in anonymity, saying disgusting stuff because he knows he can get away with it. It’s telling, Jake. People who can actually handle themselves feel no need to troll around on the internet like you do. ;)
Hey Jack,
Are you video-capable again? That YouTube video I linked to was of “They’re Coming To Take Me Away”. Seemed appropriate after the
“troll-who-shall-not-be-named” let off a few triumphant “Hahas!”
LOL yeah videos are working on my phone again, I just watched it. I do think it suits our buddy Jake quite a bit!