The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#55551 08/12/02 07:16 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Brendan wrote:

Quote
. The marital bed is no more undefiled by a condom than is the arm of a child defiled by an IV when she needs it to recover from an illness.

I don't buy the analogy to Christian Scientist teaching, here.

No matter what we may think as to how scientific the understanding was the traditional interpretation of Onan's sin is very much similar to condom use (though a condom is, of course, much more effective). The modern understanding of the case of Onan is to disassociate it from any connection with birth control--for obvious reasons.

For a discussion on the application of the case of Onan to the question of birth control, see:

http://www.hli.org/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/001/461lorsr.asp

particularly this reference to the traditional Jewish understanding:

Jewish commentators, not to mention plain common sense as defined by most dictionaries, have thus never ceased to understand the sin of Onan to consist of coitus interruptus and, by extension, masturbation. The Encyclopedia Judaica sums up the traditional teaching regarding Genesis 38, concluding that “the Talmud sternly inveighs against "bringing forth seed in vain.' For this reason, condoms and some uterine devices are not permitted under Jewish law.

Curiously, a footnote mentions that Orthodox Judaism does permit the "pill."

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: DTBrown ]

#55552 08/13/02 11:58 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 769
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 769
"the traditional interpretation of Onan's sin is very much similar to condom use (though a condom is, of course, much more effective)."

And by extension this applies equally forcefully to the use of NFP for contraceptive reasons. In the latter case, it is the decision to concentrate sexual activity during the infertile time of the month that "brings forth the seed in vain", for if one is, per NFP-science, virtually certain that fertilization will not occur during that period, and this is the reason why one is "bringing forth one's seed" during that period, one is equally well bringing forth one's seed in vain, and with all due deliberation and premeditation.

Brendan

#55553 08/17/02 09:16 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Quote
Originally posted by Brendan:
And by extension this applies equally forcefully to the use of NFP for contraceptive reasons. In the latter case, it is the decision to concentrate sexual activity during the infertile time of the month that "brings forth the seed in vain", for if one is, per NFP-science, virtually certain that fertilization will not occur during that period, and this is the reason why one is "bringing forth one's seed" during that period, one is equally well bringing forth one's seed in vain, and with all due deliberation and premeditation.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

I would reply that when one uses Natural Family Planning for justifiable reasons and not trivial ones (as decided by the couple with their spiritual father's direction)they are in fact placing the seed exactly as GOD has designed them to place it only at a time when GOD has designed the woman not to be fruitful. Thus absolutely no distortion of nature or sin takes place. On the contrary, when one uses contraception again, directly disobeying the teaching of Scripture and Tradition a couple obstructs, sterilizes and frustrates GOD's design. Most importantly, with contraception, a potential human life who might be on a direct trajectory to being conceived is deliberately prevented from being.

But with Natural Family Planning the couple are not at all obstructing the conception of a new life, in a given marital act. Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season GOD HAS DESIGNED the wife to be infertile: WHEN NO NEW LIFE CAN RESULT.

But I would encourage those who think that NFP is just as sinful and unacceptable as contraception to follow their consciences and reject both. The Church and the Fathers certainly teach nothing against those who refuse to use NFP and contraception. I encourage you to use your fertility for God and allow many new lives into this world, to know and to love Him. He will certainly reward your generousity.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

"Is Contraception Orthodox?

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/apologetics.html

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

#55554 08/19/02 03:34 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 769
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 769
"I would reply that when one uses Natural Family Planning for justifiable reasons and not trivial ones (as decided by the couple with their spiritual father's direction)they are in fact placing the seed exactly as GOD has designed them to place it only at a time when GOD has designed the woman not to be fruitful."

Ah, but the issue remains as to the decision to time one's sexual activity to the infertile period of the month. One can never know whether God intended one to provide the sperm to the unfertilized egg in a given month -- one can pray about it and ask one's priest about it, but one can never know, really, if one is blocking an intended life from reaching its fruition. And so the decision to withhold the means of life from that potential incipient life is, in itself, contraceptive. You may say that if you do it for a licit reason (and in this regard its important to remember that Orthodoxy would also limit the reasons one can morally use a non-abortificient contraceptive), it is an acceptable contraceptive decision, but it is contraceptive nonetheless.

"Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season GOD HAS DESIGNED the wife to be infertile: WHEN NO NEW LIFE CAN RESULT."

And as a result that decision is 100% inherently contraceptive -- ie, one is delaying intercourse specifically to avoid a pregnancy. The flip-side of that timing decision is that the potential life that could have been conceived earlier in the month is starved of the means by which it might come to fruition -- and that is definitely a contraceptive action (ie, deciding to refrain during that period and actually refraining during that period).

"But I would encourage those who think that NFP is just as sinful and unacceptable as contraception to follow their consciences and reject both."

I think that this is the only place that a rigorous adherence to the logic behind NFP can lead -- everything else is "contraceptive in mentality" and action, and if one takes the view (as is often expressed with respect to NFP) that any act that is contraceptive in intention is immoral, NFP is on the same moral footing as any other non-abortificient means of preventing an egg from being fertilized.

Brendan

#55555 08/19/02 07:19 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 17
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 17
Brendan (and others),

A couple of points concerning the NFP discussion:

1. If God had intended that every act of intercourse result in a pregnancy, he would not have designed the woman with non-fruitful periods during her cycle. From this I gather that sex without pregnancy is fine according to the Divine plan.

2. Christians who practice NFP are also informed by their relgious traditions (or surely should be!). Part of that tradition is to be fruitful and multiply; another part of that tradition is to be a good trustee for your children (which does suggest some limits on the number of children). There's a tension in these two contrasting threads of tradition, but we must weigh them in the balance at any given time. Those NFP zealots who say that "every contraceptive act is immoral" are being one-sided in their application of tradition.

3. NFP is only one aspect of "natural" fecundity. Another important piece is breastfeeding. Breastfeeding mothers often do not ovulate for many months after delivery -- another of God's wonderful ways to balance the above tensions. Would you suggest that couples who have sex during these months of non-ovulation are practicing a contraceptive mentality?

In Christ,
Steven

#55556 08/19/02 08:54 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Originally posted by StevenH

"1. If God had intended that every act of intercourse result in a pregnancy, he would not have designed the woman with non-fruitful periods during her cycle. From this I gather that sex without pregnancy is fine according to the Divine plan."

reply:
I totally agree with your reasoning as long as you are not using it to justify contraception. The infertile periods are there for us to use if there is a serious reason to postpone a pregnancy. Thus there is no need to circumvent God's design, nor to distort it. He has provided us a way -in our very design- to limit births without distorting nature.

"2. Christians who practice NFP are also informed by their relgious traditions (or surely should be!). Part of that tradition is to be fruitful and multiply; another part of that tradition is to be a good trustee for your children (which does suggest some limits on the number of children). There's a tension in these two contrasting threads of tradition, but we must weigh them in the balance at any given time."

reply:
I agree with your observation of the tension between being open to life and being able to provide what's *needed* for one's children. I don't think there is a cookie-cut answer for this question either. Rather, each couple must constantly seek the Lord to ensure they are neither being selfish nor reckless with their gift of fertility. But they must always use sex in accord with authentic Christian morality.

"Those NFP zealots who say that 'every contraceptive act is immoral' are being one-sided in their application of tradition."

reply:
I'm not sure if I am understanding you correctly but if you are saying a contraceptive act is moral, I certainly have to disagree with you. I would like to know what part of Church Tradition, which Father or Scripture text you are looking to to justify the contraceptive act?

Certainly the Popes of Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, the Second Vatican Council and the entire Church tradition of East and West has always opposed the contraceptive act as a distortion of the gift of human sexuality.

I think it is o.k. to be one-sided when it is the truth you are being one-sided about. For all I have seen, the Church's Tradition on contraception is one sided, decidedly against contraception. Do know of information which contradicts this?

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

#55557 08/20/02 12:24 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Brendan,

I just realized you have replied to me twice and I missed both of them. I apologize for not attempting a response to your questions sooner. Here it goes:

I said:
"A potential human being who might be on a direct trajectory to being conceived is deliberately prevented from being. But with Natural Family Planning the couple are not at all obstructing the conception of a new life in their marital act. Instead, they are timing their undefiled marital act (cf. Hebrews 13:4) during the season God has designed the wife to be infertile: when no new life can result."

you said:
"It's possible, for example, that the same potential life was intended to be conceived in month X, but the couple, by deliberately and willfully restricting their sexual union to the non-fertile part of that cycle, has utterly thwarted that potential life from coming into being. NFP does this in the same way that a condom does -- ie, by preventing the egg from being fertilized. NFP simply differs in that the "prevention" comes from the premeditated decision of the couple to withhold that sperm, to deny that sperm to the egg that could be a potential life waiting to happen in the eyes of God, and thereby thwarting its future development. In short, the decision to delay intercourse -- which is the essence of the NFP contraceptive approach -- could very well be choking the very lifeblood of a potential human being. The critical point is that decision to delay intercourse, or to restrict it to certain times of the month, is a fundamentally contraceptive act, and an act which every bit as much thwarts the coming into existence of a potential life."

reply:
This is creative but, if you think about it, doesn't necessarily follow. Actually this child you mention is not on direct trajectory to being conceived but rather an indirect one smile . The point remains that the couple using NFP are using sex as it has been designed. The couple using artificial contraception are not. In essence, in the former case, God is the one by His very own design who prevents the possibility of conception. In the latter case, it is the couple who deliberately destroys the life giving aspect of their marital act and thereby violate God's design.

To carry your logic further, we could say that the same couple would also be sinful if they refrained from sex all together. Then we could take it even one step further by saying that if two individuals decided not to marry they also could be sinning by not allowing themselves to have offspring together. Or perhaps they married the wrong spouse and thereby had the wrong offspring???

I'm not going to pursue this reasoning because I think it takes us away from what I believe is the real crux of the issue: that artificial birth control is a distortion of human sexuality as designed by our Creator as I'll try to explain further on down.

you said:
I think that this is the only place that a rigorous adherence to the logic behind NFP can lead -- everything else is "contraceptive in mentality" and action, and if one takes the view (as is often expressed with respect to NFP) that any act that is contraceptive in intention is immoral, NFP is on the same moral footing as any other non-abortificient means of preventing an egg from being fertilized.

reply:
Not true. Artificial Contraceptors distort the very act, NFP'ers allow God's own design to prevail. I heard one theologian use a very extreme example to demonstrate the difference of the two acts. He said it is like someone receiving Holy Communion and then spitting it out. This is the contraceptor. They are engaging in a holy act and distorting it. The couple using NFP for valid reasons, is analagous to simply abstaining from receiving holy Communion. One takes something holy and disfigures it. The other doesn't engage in it until they are in the proper state to do so.

As St. Clement once remarked, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children).

And as the philosopher Lactantius said, those who "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power... or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife... the genital [generating] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (Divine Institutions 6.23.18).

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

#55558 08/21/02 05:57 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Dear Friends,

Reading through this thread again has made me think I should add a couple of things. An excellent discussion of the arguments for NFP over Artificial Birth Control is the 3 tape set called "Life Giving Love" by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

In it Scott Hahn gives strong arguments that the condemnation of A.B.C. is an infallible teaching of the Church. He shows the Jesuits in this coutry, prior to Vatican II and prior to Humane Vitae had a month long conference of all the leading moral theologians and came to this same conclusion that this was an infallible teaching. And Pope John Paul II himself has said that this is not an issue open to debate among Catholic theologians. Its infallibe not because the teaching was made by the Pope "ex cathedra" but rather because the condemnation of contraception is part of the continuous "ordinary majesterium" which is recognized as just as infallible as Papal "ex cathedra" statements.

The "majority report" was written and used as a tool to pressure Pope Paul VI into changing the Church's teaching. Since then there have been many theologians who have publicly repented of their initial dissent against the teaching of Humae Vitae. Here's the public confession of one RC theologian, William May (sp?) in September 1988, which he published in the "Fellowship of Catholic Scholars" newsletter:

"When I signed it (the letter of dissent against Humae Vitae) I did not believe that I could personally practice contraception. Nor would my wife who is truly courageus and who's intelligence is enlightened by a deep faith, would ever have allowed it. I was intellectually confused and I had been impressed by one line of argument in the majority report. But there was another baser reason why I signed this statement. Many of its signers had outstanding reputations as thinkers and scholars and I wanted to be counted among the elite, the illuminatee, the bold, the courageous, advanced thinkers in Roman Catholicism. I believe that I began to repent of my act almost immediately. Deep down I knew there was something wrong with contraception and I realized that my decision to sign this statement was, in part at least, motivated by base, vain-glorious considerations. In 1971, I began to teach Christian ethics and this forced me to study, and study carefully the nature of the moral argument. I began to see ever more clearly the sophistry of the majority report. I began to realize that the moral theory invented to justify contraception could be used to justify any kind of deed because it was consequentialistic and utilitarian and rejected the very notion of intrinsically evil acts. I began to realize how truly courageous and prophetic Pope Paul VI had been and how providential it was that he had been given the strength to resist the terrible pressures brought upon him to repudiate this priceless teaching of the Church -one rooted in a respect for our God-given power to give life and for the integral beauty of the marital act, which is meant to be life-giving and love-giving. I have, since my repentence over my cowardly act of 1968, done what I could to make known the truth of the Church's teaching on contraception (from 'Humanae Vitae in Context')."

I think this is important because it sheds a lot of light on the moral climate at the time of Pope Paul VI's encyclical and also how the "majority report" was used as tool rather than honest presentation of ethical investigation.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

#55559 08/21/02 11:52 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 769
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 769
"Actually this child you mention is
not on direct trajectory to being conceived but rather an indirect one."

No pun intended, but that is an artificial distinction. The child is just as directly on trajectory until the couple makes the deliberate decision to derail it by abstaining during the fertile period -- which, as you admit, if done for contraceptive purposes, is itself a contraceptive act, and hence per se immoral per your reasoning.

"In essence, in the former case, God is the one by His very own design who prevents the possibility of conception."

No, the couple does by choosing to refrain during that period. The critical fact is less the design of God than the decision of the couple to avoid intercourse during the fertile period to avoid a pregnancy.

"In the latter case, it is the couple who deliberately destroys the life giving
aspect of their marital act and thereby violate God's design."

But the life giving aspect is just as perfectly destroyed by restricting sex to periods in which conception is virtually impossible. One's seed is still spent in vain, because one knows that a conception will not occur.

"I heard one theologian use a very extreme example to demonstrate the difference of the two acts. He
said it is like someone receiving Holy Communion and then spitting it out."

But this analogy misses the central point that in conception we are speaking about a "potential" human life -- one can choose to give that potential reality, or not to. By critical contrast, the Eucharist is the Eucharist regardless of what one chooses to do. If one chooses to restrict conception -- using a non-abortificient means or by abstaining during the fertile period following NFP observations -- the inchoate life does not become a life -- hence, using the Eucharistic analogy, it is not the Eucharist yet -- it's not so much that one is abstaining from giving life, one knows that one cannot give life at a certain time -- so using this analogy, restricting sex to periods when conception of a life is impossible is akin to attempting to partake in the Eucharist when one knows that there is no Eucharist there to partake in (which we know is not the case when one chooses not to partake in the Eucharist, and hence the inapposite nature of this analogy). In other words, one abstains from partaking when one knows that an (inchoate) Eucharist is present, and one partakes when one knows that a Eucharist is not there. This does not seem like a laudable thing to be doing, but in any case it is obvious that the individual believer does not have the power, by an act of will, to determine whether or not an inchoate Eucharist will actually become the Eucharist, and to base one's decision to partake on that analysis, so the analogy is quite poor, and it's surprising to hear that it came from the mouth of someone considered to be a theologian.

"As St. Clement once remarked, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted"

And if you follow that reasoning literally, NFP is likewise condemned, because one is quite literally and deliberately using one's seed in vain, and wasting it -- in the sense that one is virtually certain that no conception will occur. Given that the seed exists for procreative purposes, when one ejaculates it *knowing* that a conception will not occur, that is every bit a waste of the seed and a bringing forth of the seed in vain, and this is why the true NFP zealots believe that NFP is only licitly used to time sex so as to encourage conception and not the reverse (barring extreme circumstances which apply to virtually noone in a developed country). Their logic follows St. Clement's concept here much more closely than yours does, in my opinion.

Brendan

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: Brendan ]

#55560 08/21/02 08:20 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 17
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 17
Brendan,

I'm having a hard time deciphering the main thrusts of your arguments here. Would it be fair to summarize your arguments as:

1. There is no moral difference between using NFP to arrange for sex during the woman's infertile times and using artificial contraceptives.

2. Among the NFP practitioners, the NFP "zealots" actually have the better arguments and are closer to Eastern Christian thinking on the subject.

Is this a fair summary?

In Christ,
Steven

#55561 08/21/02 11:01 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Dear Brendon (and Friends),

Thanks for your reply to mine. I appreciate your attempt to try to get to the truth of this issue. I share with you this desire. I trust neither of us are just playing the skeptic with our minds already made up (in which case we are both wasting our time).

I AM willing to change my practice if I find what I believe is not true. This, actually, would make sex much more convenient for us, think of the sacrifice we could now avoid. Would you, likewise, be willing to change your practice if you found what you believed was wrong?

Not only this, if NFP and ABC (artificial birth control) are identical morally, I have to question why people who argue this do not just choose NFP rather than ABC, since they are morally equivalent? What is it about NFP that makes it so unacceptable to couples who accept ABC? I think the reasons are obvioius and point to something very profound about the difference between the two acts and which one is more in line with the call of the Gospel.

First off, I think we have moved back to the ole' "the end justifies the means" argument. You are comparing the legitimacy of both acts based on the similar intention of the couples. I think this is a mistake. The end does not justify the means. Both couples could have equally justifiable intentions but their act could be immoral. The example I gave in a previous post of couples living together rather than getting married demonstrates this. But your reverting to this argument is partially my fault for not explaining something correctly. Allow me try this again.

The Catholic Church is clear that the primary ends of human sexuality are: the generation of offspring and the love and communion between the couple. "Babies and bonding" are the purpose of the marrital act. The Catholic Church teaches that any sexual act which eliminates either one of these ends or aspects of human sexuality is guilty of distorting the essence of the marital embrace and sinful.

Now, I've been reviewing what I previously wrote and brushing up on my moral theology smile and I think I erred in something I previously wrote (something I'm very prone to do). This mistake has aided your confusion about our position on ABC. I took issue with those faithful Catholics who stated that those who use NFP are still open to life. After further review, I think they are right and THIS is one major difference between NFP and ABC. Allow me to elaborate.

Focussing on THE ACT and not the intention we can see a difference.

The Contracepting Couple usning ABC are in essence saying in their act:

"Lord, You have designed the marital act to naturally tend toward the begetting of children. By employing artificial birth control we are telling You, that for all we know You may want to create a life in this marital embrace and we wont let You."

Thus the embrace is a lie and a distortion of God's design.

The Couple using NFP (for just reasons) are saying:

"Lord, You have designed the marital act to tend toward the begetting of children. We have serious reasons for delaying the conception of another child. Therefore, we are delaying our union until the time You have designed the wife to be infertile. But if You want to create a life as a result of this marital act, we remain open to Your will and trust in Your Providence. When we do engage in the marital act, we will plant the seed where it belongs. Thy Will Be Done!

This second couple is indeed still open to new life as Elizabeth, Sharon Mech and Athanasius have alluded. God can still use that seed to create new life. Contrary to what you have said, it indeed has not been wasted. Doctors confirm that sperm can live up to three days inside the women. Therefore in reality the sperm has been placed according to God's design and God retains his sovereignty to use it as He sees fit. The likelyhood of procreation is much lower, no doubt... but it still exists. Prationers of ABC, on the other hand, usurp this right which belongs to the Creator. They have accepted the pleasure built in to the act but have distorted its purpose by making a positive act to eliminate the possibillity of procreation.

Now as for the direct trajectory thing: this is very clear to me. Perhaps I'm not explaining it very well. I'll try it again a little more methodically.

A couple using ABC who engage in sex during the fertile time could very well be stopping the conception of a child that is meant to be conceived IN THAT ACT. They engage in the marital act and frustrate its natural operation. Those using NFP do not do this.

In other words, in this example, the women is fertile and the man has the seed to complete the fertilization. The human life is set on a direct trajectory to conception. But when they engage in sex the male stops the seed from acheiving what it has been designed to achieve. That potential life which was set to be conceived in that sexual act is denied conception.

This ties into the other example I gave (rather poorly) of the desecration of something holy. The argument is that the marital embrace is a renewal of a convenental act. This is its relationship to holy Communion. Those who employ ABC go through the motions of renewing the marital convenant but then destroy its inner meaning by sterlizing a potentially life giving act. This is analagous to going through the motions of renewing the convenental act of the Holy Eucharist and then taking a potion which makes you vomit up the consecrated host. By so doing that Divine Life that was meant to be communicated the receiver is desecrated. The recipient thus denies the inner meaning of that convenental act.

I hope these explanations are a little clearer and help somewhat. Thanks for your patience with my inability to communicate truths that I, myself, have seen so effectively communicated.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

[ 08-23-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

#55562 08/22/02 04:06 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391
Likes: 30
Dear Brendan,

Is not the sperm used in periods in which pregnancy will virtually not occur a "more natural" use than the other?

You make your point about the "wasting" aspect. But is not the former use at least qualitatively and even morally distinct from the latter?

Yes, a couple has a responsibility to not only be open to the possibility of children, but also to bear those it can feed and educate, according to Catholic principles.

And yes this recognizes the need for couples to control their child-bearing capacity.

And yes . . .

But I still can't help notice what I will call a qualitative, moral difference between sex intercourse in infertile periods (and abstention in fertile ones) and the alternative you've discussed.

Perhaps it's just that I'm hopelessly "Humanae Vitae."

Alex

#55563 08/24/02 03:03 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 191
Jenny Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 191
I have read all the posts on this topic with great interest since I started this thread. Everyone's responses have been very helpful. Even though I had a hard time seeing the difference between artificial contraception and NFP, I was willing to submit to the Church's teaching on it if I became Catholic. However, I do see the difference now. Wm. Der-Ghazarian's last post on this really made the difference. What he wrote just clicked with me and I was able to understand.

God Bless!

Jenny

#55564 08/24/02 03:25 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Dear Jenny,

Thank you first of all for beginning this thread. I am humbled if anything I have said has helped you. I also am thankful to those who have helped me to understand this teaching better. May God be Glorified by your openess and courage to understand His truth. May He grant us all to learn from your openess to always be open to this truth.

In Christ's Light,

William Der-Ghazarian

#55565 08/24/02 03:48 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
p.s. And Jenny, if this is not too personal, I wanted to add that if you ever have questions about NFP and the practice of it, I'll include some links you can look at. Also, my wife would be very willing to answer any questions about it from a woman's perspective.

Our email is:
DerGhazarian@juno.com

Couple to Couple League Learning the "Art of Natural Family Planning"
http://www.ccli.org/

One More Soul An excellent Roman Catholic Pro-Life Resource
http://www.omsoul.com/

Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5