Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« The Origin Of Lent | Main | Medicine & Avoiding Temptation »

April 10, 2007

Comments

Shane

Lust is not a sin? Is that a mistype? Even Jesus clearly identified lust as a sin. The Catechism defines lust as a sin.

Matt C. Abbott

Good post, Jimmy!

anon.

At this point some could be tempted to say that spiritual dangers are incommensurate with physical ones (mortal sin--i.e., spiritual death--is worse than physical death)

But doesn't the man sin mortally by endangering his wife against her will? I think the man's choice in the scenario is between taking on the temptation to sin mortally, and sinning mortally.

Maureen

First, one point some people get confused about. Desire and lust aren't the same thing. Desire is healthy and was installed by God as a feature to help folks multiply. Desire isn't a sin. Lust is the nasty, grabby, fallen form of desire.

Wallowing in lust on purpose, lust you give in to, is a sin. Feelings of lust that you don't give in to are just temptations or a tendency, not sin itself.

And yes, this goes for all the "Seven Deadly Sins". They're only sins if you give in. You don't sin unless you consent and go along with temptations. Otherwise, we would all just be puppets without free will, damned by body chemicals.

Breier

Jimmy,

I agree with your point but I think you're chasing a straw man. There is no physicial danger vs. spritual danger dichotomy. Lust is a sin, endangering someone's life is a sin. Look at this another way:

Imagine a man who is HIV positive. Doesn't he have an obligation to abstain completely from the marital act, no matter how difficult that is?

Go Maureen!

Tim J.

I agree with Matt, anon, Maureen and Brier.

Certainly if I somehow became HIV positive, I would never ALLOW my wife anywhere NEAR me, sexually speaking.

A man who would risk the life of his spouse rather than deal with some temptation is a sad example of a husband.

Puzzled

Maureen is right.

epithumaesai, the Greek word used, doesn't map onto the English word 'lust' 100%.

Epithumaesai is the word that is elsewhere translated 'covet'.

Lust can mean zest for life, or mere sexual attraction. It can also mean sexual covetousness.

In fundamentalist circles, the error which Jimmy warns against - unnatural avoidance of possible temptation - is a reality (been there, done that), and is taught. that only exacerbates the situation, analogous to St. Paul's description in Romans 7-8.

If I understand this modus humano properly, which is an if, then it is wrong to avoid situations that are a normal part of life, in order to avoid temptation or causing temptation - if it is a normal part of life, it isn't causing temptation, the source lies elsewhere. (not including where attempting to tempt is a normal part of life, that is to be avoided)

Martin Luther (yes, him) said that you can't keep the birds from flying over your head, but you don't have to let them build nests in your hair. Is that a helpful statement?

"However, the husband thinks that periodic abstinence will present him with temptations to impurity that he [i]will not be able to resist. Therefore, he concludes that he has a moral obligation not to use NFP, and so he insists on the "marriage right," against the wishes of his wife"

the problem is that this guy (and our culture) has transformed sex into a 600 lb gorilla that he carries on his back. he thinks if he does not feed the gorilla, it will consume him. Sex shols be a precious diamond that is cherished not a monster that must be constantly fed.

quasimodo

Quasimodo neither remembered to put his name on the previous anonymous nor learned to type and spell *sigh*

Realist

Eliminate the desire, eliminate the temptation. The drug companies need to address the issue with proper medication.

Tim J.

I think we are doped up enough, thanks... some more than others, of course (heh).

Hullucinogenics might be very helpful in making sense of J.D. Crossan, though. Suddenly it all makes sense!

materfamilias

Realist, so should everyone who is called to live a chaste life "eliminate the desire" in order to avoid temptation? Ot do I misunderstand you? You guys are good at finding the source of quotations: (I paraphrase)"Faith untested is no faith at all." To eliminate temptation entirely would eliminate our ability to grow strong in our faith. And I believe that the sacrifice that is involved by not weilding to lust in conjugal relations can strengthen the marriage bond. Eliminate desire, eliminate control, eliminate sacrifice, eliminate an act of love.

Tim J.

Sorry, that should be "hallucinogenics", above.

I can't spell today, either, quasimodo. You had a good thought, though, even if you are alphabetically challenged.

DPD

OK, someone is going to have to explain to me why NFP is licit and ABC is not.

Why isn't the bond between the uniative and the procreative as broken by the temporal barrier of avoiding relations during fertile periods as it is by physcial barrier of latex? (If abstinence was the real goal, NFP couples would abstain during non-fertile periods as well. NFP doesn't require that, which makes it just another form of birth control.)

Why is the use of a thermometer, calendar and mathematical equations any more "natural" than the Pill?

Given that any woman has a finite number of fertile years, why is "spacing children" any different than having fewer children?

Why do I have this suspicion that NFP is OK with the RCC only because it doesn't work worth a darn over the long term (no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP anymore than they can stay perpetually on a diet). Given human frailities NFP is a system designed and intended to fail.

amihow

I don't remember exactly where it is said, but somewhere I remember something like the following:

A demand on one spouse against their legitimate refusal is not a marriage act.

Can someone find the quote and Jimmy would you comment?

Thanks.

David B.

"Why isn't the bond between the uniative and the procreative as broken by the temporal barrier of avoiding relations during fertile periods as it is by physcial barrier of latex?"

The bond isn't broken. Neither the unitive, nor the procreative are used when abstaining. They aren't separated. With condoms, they ARE separated.


"Why do I have this suspicion that NFP is OK with the RCC only because it doesn't work worth a darn over the long term (no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP anymore than they can stay perpetually on a diet). Given human frailities NFP is a system designed and intended to fail. "

that is a baseless and baised argument. Where did you get such an idea?

David B.

...I have this suspicion that NFP is OK with the RCC only because it doesn't work worth a darn over the long term

Evidence?


(no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP anymore than they can stay perpetually on a diet).


Really? Evidence?

Given human frailities NFP is a system designed and intended to fail.

Evidence?

DPD

Dave B - yes th ebond is broken every time they deliberately have relations during known infertile periods.

DPD

Evidence?

Living in the real world instead of a perfect fantasy land.

DPD

Seems to me that NFP should be as evil as ABC, as they both result in the breaking the bond between the uniative and the procreative and are both artifical and unnatural (just in different ways).

quasimodo

A recent study done in Germany ( i think) and reported on in Scientific American has shown that NFP is as effective as the pill.

Tim J.

"Why isn't the bond between the uniative and the procreative as broken by the temporal barrier of avoiding relations during fertile periods as it is by physcial barrier of latex?"

The difference is exactly the same as that between eating a healthy diet (to avoid gaining weight) and bulemia (to avoid gaining weight). Would you really hold that one is no better than the other? In one instance you are abstaining from something, which has the added benefit of training you in self control and discipline... in the other you are indulging your appetite but unnaturally frustrating its normal function.

"Why is the use of a thermometer, calendar and mathematical equations any more "natural" than the Pill?"

Umm... because a thermometer doesn't fiddle around with an already healthy body chemistry? Because nobody ever got cancer from doing math (as much as my son may insist the contrary)?

"Given that any woman has a finite number of fertile years, why is "spacing children" any different than having fewer children?"

First of all, married couples - all things being equal - SHOULD want children. That is church teaching as well as natural law. IF there are serious reasons to space births ( I assume you are not arguing that), NFP does this in a way that is totally in harmony with the nature of the marital act and with human physiology. In addition, a faithful NFP couple is ALWAYS open to the possibility of life. If a baby comes, it comes. The point isn't to sacrifice everything to this idea that "we MUST not have a baby right now".

"Why do I have this suspicion that NFP is OK with the RCC only because it doesn't work worth a darn over the long term..."

Durned if I know. Sounds like a personal problem. And it's just wrong. NFP works whenever it is used properly, just like anything. Do you understand that lots of people use condoms improperly, or just skip it in the heat of the moment, or forget to take their pills, or take antibiotics without knowing that can weaken the effects... do those count? Do we get to judge ALL these methods by their failures? I mean, who can possibly be expected to remember to take a pill EVERY DAY??

"...no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP anymore than they can stay perpetually on a diet"...

So, I assume you've tried it? Or are you saying that it's abnormal to WANT to practice it? Nice. Much more natural to reach for a condom.

"Given human frailities NFP is a system designed and intended to fail. "

No. Again, have you tried it? Or do you speak from your own biased conjectures? Catholicism DOES teach that children are a blessing. We're funny that way.

If some granola-crunching field hippie/college professor had invented NFP in the Sixties as the natural alternative to all these man-made chemicals, he would have been hailed as a folk hero and would probably still be making speaking tours. It's like... nature, man... you know? Far out.

I don't get it... do you object to NFP because it works and results in fewer babies (just another form of birth control) or becuase it doesn't work and is a scam perpetrated by the hierarchy?

Or do you object just because it is Catholic?

M.Z. Forrest

In addition, a faithful NFP couple is ALWAYS open to the possibility of life. If a baby comes, it comes. The point isn't to sacrifice everything to this idea that "we MUST not have a baby right now".

One could argue the same with a couple using a condom. If God wills the child, he will allow the condom to break or some other sophistry. ABC failure inside marriage rarely results in an abortion, so the prima facie case is more difficult to establish that the couple is not open to life when they use a condom.

guacho

Here is the link for the article from Scientific American. The difficulty in using NFP usually makes it very ineffective, or it least it has for all the couples I know who practice NFP. I have seen some estimates between 75-80% effective in real world applications. I don't know if the difficulty is predicting the fertile times accurately or just that the couple can't keep their hands off each other.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=80D25E2D-E7F2-99DF-39F66842EB6BE952&pageNumber=2&catID=4

Slowboy

Tim J. Best answer award.
:))

Re: Temptation. The very practical St. Francis deSales compared it to a young, woman getting an offer for "a good time" from a young man. She may well blush at the compliment hidden in the offer and no sin in that but she is to send him away. If she sits up at night and begins to think more of the offer. Therein lies the sin.

DPD

First of all, married couples - all things being equal - SHOULD want children

So how many is enough? 3? 6? 12? More? At what point has a couple adequately shown themselves to be open to life? Or is it all open ended, even to the point of endangering the mother's health (there are only so many pregnancies a womean's body can take).

And if NFP is as claimed, more succesful in preventing pregnancies doesn't that make NFP less open to life than ABC? You all seem to want to have it both ways and are talking out of both sides of our mouth.

Tim J.

"You all seem to want to have it both ways and are talking out of both sides of our mouth."

No, actually you are. Please clarify, do you object to NFP because it works, or because it doesn't? We can go on from there.

David B.

"Dave B - yes th ebond is broken every time they deliberately have relations during known infertile periods."

No, it's not. You contradicted yourself. First you said the NFP, when used to avoid preganancy, will fail. then you say that it is impossible for couples using NFP to conceive, thereby separating the the unitive from the procreative.

But it is not impossible, while using NFP, to conceive. Only improbable. Therefore, it does NOT separate the unitive from the procreative. It merely lowers the possibility. Contraceptives however, DO separate them.

guacho

This topic brings something to mind that I have been thinking about for a while. What if a pregnancy will be very high risk, likely resulting in the death of mother and child, and the husband is unwilling/unable to practice NFP? Is the woman able to be sterilized to protect her life? Given that NFP can be a very ineffective means of birth control, when is sterilization allowed in the Catholic Church when a pregnancy will threaten the mother’s life?

Esau

So how many is enough? 3? 6? 12? More? At what point has a couple adequately shown themselves to be open to life?

There's actually a quota to the "open to life" theme?


Or is it all open ended, even to the point of endangering the mother's health (there are only so many pregnancies a womean's body can take).

Actually, if you consider the many traditional Catholic families who have had as much as 9 or even 12 children, this argument would seem to fail in that regard.

hfapmom

There's a helpful definition of Lust on the New Advent site, too: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm

Tim J.

"Or is it all open ended, even to the point of endangering the mother's health (there are only so many pregnancies a womean's body can take)."

A lady in the next town has had 16. She's not a Catholic, either (Gasp! How did the Pope and the Bishops get to her? They must have brainwashed her some way... no NORMAL person could live that way!).

It IS open ended... it is open. Open to life. The IDEAL would be simply to trust God (GASP again!!) and let nature take its course. BUT NFP is okay IF there are SERIOUS reasons to use it.

Then again, we actually used NFP to help us HAVE kids. How unnatural! All that math!

M.Z. Forrest

Is the woman able to be sterilized to protect her life?

No.

Given that NFP can be a very ineffective means of birth control, when is sterilization allowed in the Catholic Church when a pregnancy will threaten the mother’s life?

Sterilization is allowed only accidentally. For example, a cancerous ovary may be removed.

NFP as for instance taught by CCLI is very effective. Often anitquated techniques are included in NFP statistics to lower the effectiveness number. (For example counting x days since menstration is never taught in CCLI, but such a technique would be included many statistical abstracts on the topic.)

DPD

The difference is exactly the same as that between eating a healthy diet (to avoid gaining weight) and bulemia (to avoid gaining weight).

Putting aside my surprise at finding out that bulemia was a sin (and not a pyschological disorder), I have to say that you have missed the point completely. When a couple delibrately has relations during known periods of infertilty they are breaking the bond betweenthe unitaive and the procreative. THAT is why NFP is a sinful as ABC.

because a thermometer doesn't fiddle around with an already healthy body chemistry

Neither do condoms. And if changing already healthy body chemistry is a sin, then taking vitamins is sinful. So is drinking any form of alcohol in any quantity.

(Other points answered by MZ and gaucho)

Or do you object just because it is Catholic?

No I object because the logic is faulty, the reasoning is specious, the enforcement is hypocritical and the real reason transparently obvious.

Esau

A lady in the next town has had 16.

That certainly BEATS mine by far! WOW!

16!

The MOST I've heard of was 12.

Again, this would trump the stated notion by DPD that there are only so many pregnancies a woman can take.

All things considered, women are tougher than DPD gives them credit for.

Dan Hunter

Motu Proprio on April 16,Pope Benedicts birthday.
Alleluia,Alleluia.

Abigail

Re: the effectiveness of NFP: You can't really compare it with the effectiveness of condoms or the Pill or hormone shots, because NFP is an adjustable system. There's conservative NFP and loose NFP, each with its own rules, and a whole spectrum in between.

Furthermore, NFP is adjustable according to the couple's motivation. If they are not very serious about their reasons for using it, or if they have mixed feelings--extremely common--they will bend rules, take risks. Which if fine. It's their decision. My point is that when a baby is conceived under these circumstances, the conception is not a failure--not a failure of the system, and not a failure of the couple, who certainly have the right and responsibility to decide not to avoid conception. Since it's not a failure, it shouldn't be counted as one, either statistically or anecdotally.

As for whether couples can be expected to have that much self-control: well, sometimes the only two choices are between moral heroism and mortal sin. Ask the martyrs.

Esau

When a couple delibrately has relations during known periods of infertilty they are breaking the bond betweenthe unitaive and the procreative. THAT is why NFP is a sinful as ABC.


Please clarify on this point.

You haven't demonstrated that when a couple decides to have sex during times of infertility, that it actually breaks the bond between the unitive and the procreative and, therefore, sinful to the degree contraceptions are.

bill912

"(no normal person can perpetually keep up with the requirements of NFP any more than they can stay perpetually on a diet)"

Self-revelation?

Kevin Cary

The Devil can disguise himself in humility and charity, among other virtues, but never obedience.

I think that the primary objection most have to NFP, when it comes right down to it, is all about the abstaining part being natural. They cannot possibly consider how, in a world where any urge must be sated now, abstaining from sex of all things could possibly be natural. They view unnatural any type of obedience, even to one's own will. Latex and uber levels of hormones, on the other hand...

guacho

"Sterilization is allowed only accidentally. For example, a cancerous ovary may be removed."

Thanks for you answer. What is it that defines an accidental sterilization? I understand that sterilization to remove a perfectly functioning organ is not permitted, but what about when the reproductive system no longer functions properly? Amputating a limb is not desirable, but it is better than losing your life. It seems that the same principle would be applied for the reproductive system as for removing other body parts: they can be removed when they no longer function properly and keeping them poses a threat to the entire body.

bill912

"When a couple deliberately has relations during known periods of infertility they are breaking the bond between the unitive and the procreative."

Good thing Elizabeth and Zachary didn't believe that, or they never would have conceived John the Baptist.

So any couple wherein one of the spouses is infertile better keep their hands off each other and live as brother and sister! (Just "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd").

Esau

TO clarify on my recent post above, it can essentially mean the difference between taking an item that was provided for free by a store during a certain annual storewide special event versus stealing that item.

Esau

Amputating a limb is not desirable, but it is better than losing your life. It seems that the same principle would be applied for the reproductive system as for removing other body parts: they can be removed when they no longer function properly and keeping them poses a threat to the entire body.


Wasn't this specific notion actually discussed on the Torture threads way back when?

M.Z. Forrest

gaucho,

An accidental effect is unintended even if it may be foreseen. In reference to the reproductive system, the accidental effect would almost always be the loss of fertility. An action done to ameliorate the risk of impregnation done through the marital act would not be accidental, but direct. Reproduction is the intrinsic function of the sexual function organs.

vitabella-05

I can speak for two aspects in defense of Natural Family Planning: first, it's scientific accuracy in pinpointing fertile and infertile times, which helps couples try to achieve or postopone pregnancy, and even brings to light health issues that may be otherwise missed (i.e. infertility, endometriosis, etc). Moreover, when a couple talks openly about their reasons to postpone or try to have a baby on a regular basis (in keeping with their fertility charts), which is part of NFP, they tend to communicate about the most important things in marriage, and this leads to deepened trust, vulnerability, and happiness in their union.

The second aspect is the radical difference between a mentality that is open to life and one that isn't. I use the "wedding invitation" analogy to explain: say a couple has an "Aunt Elvira" that they simply cannot invite to their wedding. Would it be the "same" to send her a "dis-invitation" as to simply not send her an invitation in the first place? What happens if she arrives with a "dis-invitation" versus arriving unexpectedly? In the scenario of Aunt Elvira arriving at the wedding with her "dis-invitation" in hand, the newlyweds are very upset. For example, I know young adults who have confided that they were "mistakes" because their parents' birth control failed (to which I tell them, "YOU are always a blessing, not a mistake").

So you see two totally different views of the value of human life emerge, one that is opposed to life from the beginning (the "dis-invitation/contraceptive mentality), and one that is open to life (which NFP strengthens). I'd rather live and promote a way that leads to this second view, which is open to and values human life.

John Henry

When a couple delibrately has relations during known periods of infertilty they are breaking the bond between the unitaive and the procreative.

The logic undergirding this statement is that to be open to life means to do everything in my power to conceive with every sexual act. Which would rule out relations with those who are naturally infertile, between the elderly, and between spouses when the wife is pregnant. Which is, of course, ludicrous.

Which is precisely why that is not what being open to life means. All it means is not introducing something into the marital act that would prevent conception, if conception would naturally occur. To have relations when the marital act will definitely be infertile (e.g., when the wife is already pregnant) is part of the natural order. And thus licit.

But I know. The logic is faulty and the reasoning specious. Curses!

DPD

Good thing Elizabeth and Zachary didn't believe that, or they never would have conceived John the Baptist.

As I recall that was a miracle announced by an angel.

As someone else pointed out God could miraculosly cause the condom to break. A much easier miracle to acomplish than getting infertile women like Elizabeth and Sarah pregnant.

Angelic announcement would be optional.

Esau

M.Z. Forrest:

Curious --

What is your opinion of a couple where one of the two actually has AIDS -- would it be acceptable for the husband to use a condom if the condom wasn't being employed as a contraceptive but rather an anti-viral agent wherein the contraceptive effects were merely side effects?

DPD

You folks who site examples of women with extraordinay large families and try to pass them off as if they were ordinary don't seem to understand the difference between statistical norms and statistical outliers.

Hickboy.

"As someone else pointed out God could miraculosly cause the condom to break."

Why the hell put it on in the first place?

M.Z. Forrest

Esau,

I'm conflicted. I lean toward the side of saying it would be illict. Intrinsic to the sexual act is the transference of semen to the vagina. The condom does not help facilitate this, but works to the detriment of this. (KY jelly would not be illict although it is introducing foreign matter into the sex act, because it does not impede the act itself.) Pastorally, I believe doing so would be a venial matter.

Esau

You folks who site examples of women with extraordinay large families and try to pass them off as if they were ordinary don't seem to understand the difference between statistical norms and statistical outliers.

Really?

I believe there are these places called third-world countries where, in fact, many women have many children.

I wouldn't dare call the occurences of multiple births from the same mother in third-world countries as "outliers". I believe they would more likely be the "norm", all things considered.

John

Pope Pius XI taught about NFP in his encyclical Casti Connubii (Encyclical Letter on Christian Marriage, December 31, 1930) as did Pope Pius XII who later discussed the moral principles covering the use of the Rhythm Method as follows:

There is a vast difference between contraception and the Rhythm Method because the former consists in the abuse of the sexual powers, the later, in the non-use of these powers at certain times in the month.

A married couple may ordinarily use the Rhythm Method only when both agree to the restriction that it involves.

This method may not be used if the parties are yielding to sins of incontinence in the period of abstinence from sexual relations.

A couple may not lawfully use the Rhythm Method unless they have a very good reason for not having children, at least for the time being.

Pius XII said as well:

"We affirmed the legitimacy and at the same time the limits truly very wide of that controlling of births which, unlike the so-called 'birth control,' is compatible with God's law....

Serious motives, such as those that not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic, and social so-called 'indications,' may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint, and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned." (Pope Pius XII, Allocutions to Midwives, October 29, 1951, and to the Associations of the Large Families, November 26, 1951).

Why JPII needed to put together "Theology of the Body" which is subjective and has already been taught by two popes is beyond me, when the above is very clear and concise as to what is permitted and what is not. Theology of body...sounds like an "R" rated movie!

DPD

The Devil can disguise himself in humility and charity, among other virtues, but never obedience.

If it all boils down to obedience of the flock (all other arguments having failed) why bother trying to justify NFP in the first place?

Wouldn't it be simpler to just cut to the chase and command women to breed in an "open ended" fashion?

M.Z. Forrest

Wouldn't it be simpler to just cut to the chase and command women to breed in an "open ended" fashion?

Yes, although I suspect this is not the answer you were looking for. Breeding is a precept of marriage. Many are too eager to dispense with this precept.

Esau

Further to my statement above, if you were to actually exclude these data from third-world countries, you would actually have a very biased picture of things -- not statistically sound at all, wouldn't you say?

(Especially considering that third-world countries make up a signficant part of the world population)

Tim J.

"When a couple delibrately has relations during known periods of infertilty they are breaking the bond betweenthe unitaive and the procreative. THAT is why NFP is a sinful as ABC."

So, anyone having good ol' natural sex at an infertile time of the month is in sin? The horror!

Tell me, DPD... enlighten me... what is the transparently REAL reason for NFP? I mean, I actually have experience with it, where you seem to be arguing against it in order to justify your use of contraceptives, but DO go ahead...

DPD

I believe there are these places called third-world countries where, in fact, many women have many children

Where most children die in childhood, the people live in abject poverty and despair, women are subjegated and oppressed, filth and disease are rampant, hunger and malnutrition endemic, and ignorance is near universal.

Is this Catholic heaven on Earth? And if we breed in an "open ended" fashion too can we achieve this wonderful state of grace as we turn the entire planet Calcutta?

Oh joy.

Esau

Esau,

I'm conflicted. I lean toward the side of saying it would be illict. Intrinsic to the sexual act is the transference of semen to the vagina. The condom does not help facilitate this, but works to the detriment of this. (KY jelly would not be illict although it is introducing foreign matter into the sex act, because it does not impede the act itself.) Pastorally, I believe doing so would be a venial matter.


M.Z. Forrest:

Thank-you for your honesty.

However, I would argue that:

Intrinsic to the sexual act is the transference of semen to the vagina. The condom does not help facilitate this, but works to the detriment of this.

... this would actually be, as stated, merely a side effect of having utilized the condom as an anti-viral agent.

The couple would really be using it as such.

Their intention (purpose) isn't necessarily using the condom for its contraceptive effects but rather anti-viral.

I, myself, am conflicted as well in regards to this particular moral dilemma and this is why I wanted to know what your thoughts were on this.

John Henry

Where most children die in childhood, the people live in abject poverty...etc

DPD,
You are the greatest and smartest. But you still managed to miss Esau's point. Which was that they are not statistical outliers. It is you who introduced the red herring of their living conditions...

bill912

"If it all boils down to the obedience of the flock..."

It doesn't. Obedience is an individual thing. If all the rest of the world were disobedient, the individual would still be required to be obedient. God doesn't seem to be open to the "Well Johnnie's doing it, and Freddie's doing it" excuse any more than my father was.

David B.

DPD,

at first you were arguing in a somewhat reasonable manner. It looks like you've abadoned that, and that's unfortunate.

Esau

Where most children die in childhood, the people live in abject poverty and despair, women are subjegated and oppressed, filth and disease are rampant, hunger and malnutrition endemic, and ignorance is near universal.

Is this Catholic heaven on Earth? And if we breed in an "open ended" fashion too can we achieve this wonderful state of grace as we turn the entire planet Calcutta?

Oh joy.

DPD --

Did you not say:

Or is it all open ended, even to the point of endangering the mother's health (there are only so many pregnancies a womean's body can take).

This was what was being refuted.

Although, the fact that you have resorted to sarcasm makes me thinks your own illogical statements have frustrated even you.

DPD

Tim - if a couple knowingly and deliberately has relations with the intent to purposely avoid conception then they break the bonds between uniative and procreative and commit a sin.

HOW they break that bond (NFP's temporal barrier or ABC's physical/chemical barrier)is irrelevant. You may as well claim that there is a difference if murder is committed with a knife or a gun.

bill912

The Church, teaching with Her Christ-given Authority, says that NFP does not break that bond.

Esau

DPD,
You are the greatest and smartest. But you still managed to miss Esau's point. Which was that they are not statistical outliers. It is you who introduced the red herring of their living conditions...


Thank-you, John Henry, for pointing this out more clearly to DPD.

DPD:

If you have any knowledge at all of statistics, you would know that to exclude data such as those from third-world countries would introduce a signficant bias as they would not be reflective of the overall population data.

Moreover, you cannot actually call such data "outliers" since they aren't at all by the very nature of the data, which actually comprises the overall population data.

Esau

if a couple knowingly and deliberately has relations with the intent to purposely avoid conception then they break the bonds between uniative and procreative and commit a sin.

HOW they break that bond (NFP's temporal barrier or ABC's physical/chemical barrier)is irrelevant. You may as well claim that there is a difference if murder is committed with a knife or a gun.

NO it isn't -- as stated, it can essentially mean the difference between taking an item that was provided for free by a store during a certain annual storewide special event versus stealing that item.

With artifical contraception, there is definite intention by the individual, a definite break that occurs between the unitive and procreative aspects; whereas when having sex during supposed infertile periods, there isn't a definite break since having sex during those times does not necessarily mean that pregnancy would NOT occur (in fact, it CAN and DOES happen) and, thus, there is that "open-to-life" UNLIKE with artificial contraception.

Tim J.

"Where most children die in childhood, the people live in abject poverty and despair, women are subjegated and oppressed, filth and disease are rampant, hunger and malnutrition endemic, and ignorance is near universal."

I see... babies are the problem! They must be stopped! They're coming to steal your lifestyle... they're tunneling under your house!

That's the Western view of children, which is why immigration can not be stopped. Some people still believe in having kids, even if we don't.

But they're all ignorant savages. We civilized folk know better.

John Henry

if a couple knowingly and deliberately has relations with the intent to purposely avoid conception then they break the bonds between uniative and procreative and commit a sin.

DPD (the apotheosis of true logic),
It seems you are arguing that the only form of licit sex is when a) the person either knows they are fertile, or b) doesn't know they're infertile.

Under scenario a, the only thing I can think of to help the person know they are definitely fertile is NFP.

Under scenario b... a woman knows she is infertile for a few days after her period, and for a longer period of time before her period. So she definitely couldn't have licit sex then either, according to your (genius) plan. So the only time she could reasonably be uncertain about her infertility, and thus have licit sex, is during that time of the month closest to her fertility.

So when it boils down to it, you are de facto arguing that the only licit sex is during a woman's fertile phase or during a phase close in time to her fertile phase. The rest is sin.

Is this what you really believe? If so, Catholicism is much more lenient (and human) than you. If not, why the hell are you arguing this non-sense? Just a troll?

DPD

Tell me, DPD... enlighten me... what is the transparently REAL reason for NFP?

To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions (which is kind of Darwinian when you think about it).

The subjegation of women by forcing them into one and only one life role, that of brood mare, is a side benefit.

Esau

DPD:

Again --

With artifical contraception, there is DEFINITE INTENTION by the individual, a DEFINITE BREAK that occurs between the unitive and procreative aspects; whereas when having sex during supposed infertile periods, there ISN'T a definite break since having sex during those times DOES NOT necessarily mean that pregnancy would NOT occur (in fact, it CAN and DOES happen) and, thus, there is that "open-to-life" UNLIKE with artificial contraception.

I would encourage you to read JOHN HENRY's post regarding your statement (re-READ, if you have). Extracts of which are featured below:

The logic undergirding this statement is that to be open to life means to do everything in my power to conceive with every sexual act.

Which is precisely why that is not what being open to life means. All it means is not introducing something into the marital act that would prevent conception, if conception would naturally occur.

DPD

So Tim, have you volunteered to live in the 3rd world or due you have a nice, civilized Western lifetyle?

David B.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a troll.

Esau

<To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions (which is kind of Darwinian when you think about it).

The subjegation of women by forcing them into one and only one life role, that of brood mare, is a side benefit.


DPD:

WHAT THE ...???

Why do many Anti-Catholics hold this notion of Roman Catholics?

Unfortunately, this is NOT the first time I've heard this!

A Southern Baptist friend of mine actually said the same thing!

*sigh*

David B.

I said It further up, and I think it bears saying it again:


DPD, You contradicted yourself. First you said the NFP, when used to avoid preganancy, will fail. then you say that it is impossible for couples using NFP to conceive, thereby separating the the unitive from the procreative.

But it is not impossible, while using NFP, to conceive. Only improbable. Therefore, it does NOT separate the unitive from the procreative. It merely lowers the possibility. Contraceptives however, DO separate them.

bill912

"To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions....The subjegation of women by forcing them into one and only one life role, that of brood mare..."

Ah, the bigotry finally oozes to the surface.

David B.

DPD,

It is offensive that you think bearing children is akin to being a 'brood mare'.

M.Z. Forrest

HV is pretty clear that there is a definite intention not to have child with NFP.
It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.(HV 16)

The problem with ABC is not in wanting to avoid children. The moral problem is that it violates the sex act itself. "[The Church T]eaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (HV 11)

DPD

Esau - With NFP, there is DEFINITE INTENTION by the individual, a DEFINITE BREAK that occurs between the unitive and procreative aspects - otherwise why practice NFP? Unless you are trying hard to get pregnant then by all means do so.

Having sex using ABC, there ISN'T a definite break since having sex with ABC DOES NOT necessarily mean that pregnancy would NOT occur since ABC is not perfect (in fact, it CAN and DOES happen - more frequently than with NFP if the pro-NFP literature is to be believed.)

ABC's higher "failure" rate would seem to make it more open to life than NFP

Eric

But it is not impossible, while using NFP, to conceive. Only improbable. Therefore, it does NOT separate the unitive from the procreative.

Neither is it impossible, while using ABC, to conceive. Only improbable.

David B.

In behalf of my mother, you'd better apologize for making that statement.

David B.

"Neither is it impossible, while using ABC, to conceive. Only improbable."

But it is intended to be impossible. Not so with good Catholics who use NFP. With NFP, it is intended to be improbable.

bill912

You're right, David. DPD insulted every one of our mothers.

Esau

To get Catholics to breed like bunnies so that the RCC is not displaced by other religions (which is kind of Darwinian when you think about it).


DPD:

Your statement here makes me wonder --

Do you guys actually have tally boards to keep track of the population of Roman Catholics and data on their breeding habits?

My goodness!

Since I've heard this once before, it makes me wonder if you guys keep a tally count each and every time a Roman Catholic baby is born!

Further, that would not make any sense at all considering that many Cradle Catholics in the United States have ended up converting to Protestantism in their later years!

Therefore, your apparent bigotry blinds you to even these facts!

Tim J.

"HOW they break that bond (NFP's temporal barrier or ABC's physical/chemical barrier)is irrelevant. You may as well claim that there is a difference if murder is committed with a knife or a gun."

And was it Colonel Mustard or Professor Plum?

What is this temporal barrier you keep talking about? Is that from a Tim Powers book?

If I drink one beer a day for a month, is that the same as getting drunk, since I drank 30 beers? I mean, it's just this difference of time, which is no distinction AT ALL to a reasonable person...

How can a natural (no props or chemicals) marital act between husband and wife be illicit? Please explain. If I make love to my wife every day, am I sinning all those infertile days?. Yes or no? Are you saying that ONLY fertile sex is morally licit, and that any other time it is immoral? Please answer yes or no.

If not, is it the couple NOT having sex that is the great sin? How so? Please explain to me where the sin is in my sitting on the sofa and reading a book.

DPD

Dave - It is offensive that you think that all women should be allowed to do is have and raise children.

They are capable of doing other things, none of which they would have time for if they are busy raising 12 or more kids.

David B.

BTW, enough with the "artificial birth control". As Bishop Sheen once said, "it has nothing do to with birth, or control".

Esau

Esau - With NFP, there is DEFINITE INTENTION by the individual, a DEFINITE BREAK that occurs between the unitive and procreative aspects - otherwise why practice NFP? Unless you are trying hard to get pregnant then by all means do so.


WOW! That must explain why folks who actually do have sex during such periods STILL END UP GETTING PREGNANT!

THUS, the DEFINITE BREAK is only occuring in your (bigoted) mind!

bill912

No, DPD, what is offensive is your anti-Catholic bigotry.

David B.

"It is offensive that you think that all women should be allowed to do is have and raise children."

I didn't say that. I, personally, would rather vote for a margaret Thatcher in '08 (is she's pro-life) than most in these idiot men. I also applaud women who devote themselves to service of others, as Nuns.

DPD

But it is intended to be impossible. Not so with good Catholics who use NFP. With NFP, it is intended to be improbable.

Then NFP shouldn't have the higher success rates that its proponents claim for it.

Unless you're saying that it really is designed to fail.

David B.

DPD,

It is offensive that you think that there is something wrong with raising kids. It's a lot harder than your job or mine.

DPD

Dave - Oh wow, you'll let them be nuns too! How generous of you.

Maybe you all owe women an apology.

Esau

Then NFP shouldn't have the higher success rates that its proponents claim for it.

I'll attribute the non-sensical aspect of that statement to your failed knowledge of statistics.

bill912

David B, you approve of women who give of themselves for others, rather than selfishly gratify their appetites and egos? So do I. Men, too.

David B.

Improbable DPD, doesn't mean probable. sigh Do I have to draw a picture?

David B.

"Maybe you all owe women an apology."


Nah, you do. I'll tell my two sisters, who BTW, agree with me, that you said that.

bill912

"Maybe you owe all women an apology."

DPD owes my mother an apology for implying that she was a "brood mare", but I won't be holding my breath waiting for it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31