homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Popery and condoms and gigolos (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Popery and condoms and gigolos
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I omitted the word "knowingly" from my last post sentence! I would agree with Multipara that the pope is maybe approaching the issue from a quite different direction and this may be the beginning of a new approach. Sorry, I forgot, there is never a new approach rather a reinterpretation of what has always been.

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Surely, to be logical, that has to be an intention for a sexual act to be procreative for it to be licit. If anyone has sexual intercourse with the intention to avoid pregnancy then that must be illicit. Naturally anyone having sexual intercourse where there is no possibility of pregnancy must be indulging in an illicit act.

Wrong. One only has not to intend deliberately to preclude the procreative possibility. Where there is no possibility of pregnancy through no fault of either party (infertility, post-hysterectomy, post-menopause) there can be no intent deliberately to frustrate the procreative process!

Since conjugal sex is a good independently of its procreative potential - as a legitimate fulfilment of a natural desire and as a bond between the spouses - then it retains that goodness when pregnancy is no longer possible so long as it is not delberately precluded.

[ 23. November 2010, 11:11: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

 - Posted      Profile for multipara   Author's homepage   Email multipara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, come on, this is not Abraham and Sarah territory!

--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Confused]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So you obviously agree that sexual intercourse between the fertile with an intention to avoid pregnancy must be wrong.

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
One only has not to intend deliberately to preclude the procreative possibility.

Which NFP does. It has been claimed - on this thread - that it is a more reliable method of precluding the procreative possibility than a condom!

quote:
Since conjugal sex is a good independently of its procreative potential - as a legitimate fulfilment of a natural desire and as a bond between the spouses - then it retains that goodness when pregnancy is no longer possible so long as it is not delberately precluded.
NFP is deliberately precluding the procreative possibility. Why else would anyone use it?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
So you obviously agree that sexual intercourse between the fertile with an intention to avoid pregnancy must be wrong.

With the intent deliberately to preclude it artificially, yes. To take advantage of the body's natural infertile period to enjoy conjugal relations, no - provided that there is a suffiently serious cause for the prolonged use of this method to the exclusion of relations during fertile periods also. Delibertely attempting to remain childless even by natural means (i.e., strictly never having sex when the symptoms of fertility are present) is considered illicit also.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I hadn't heard that before. How long is NFP OK for?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I haven't heard that before either....I wonder what the time limit is before you slip over from grace to sin.

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

 - Posted      Profile for coniunx   Email coniunx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
One only has not to intend deliberately to preclude the procreative possibility.

Which NFP does. It has been claimed - on this thread - that it is a more reliable method of precluding the procreative possibility than a condom!
But it's also been pointed out that it's each individual act of intercourse which should be considered, and that in using NFP no act of intercourse excludes the proctrative meaning. Do try to keep up.

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

 - Posted      Profile for coniunx   Email coniunx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.

Then why does it work?
Because with one notable exception, if you don't engage in intercourse you don't get pregnant. Did you really think otherwise?

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fuzzipeg and mdijon, the key phrase in my post was "provided that there is a suffiently serious cause for the prolonged use of this method to the exclusion of relations during fertile periods".

Here are some relevant, if extended, quotes from Church documents - the first from the VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE:
quote:
6. However, profoundly different from any contraceptive practice is the behaviour of married couples, who, always remaining fundamentally open to the gift of life, live their intimacy only in the unfruitful periods, when they are led to this course by serious motives of responsible parenthood. This is true both from the anthropological and moral points of view, because it is rooted in a different conception of the person and of sexuality.(35)

The witness of couples who for years have lived in harmony with the plan of the Creator, and who, for proportionately serious reasons, licitly use the methods rightly called "natural," confirms that it is possible for spouses to live the demands of chastity and of married life with common accord and full self-giving.

The note (35) references the following:
quote:
(35) "If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.

"The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love" (Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, n. 16).

"When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as 'ministers' of God's plan and they 'benefit from' their sexuality according to the original dynamism of 'total' self-giving, without manipulation or alteration" (John Paul II, Apost. Exhort. Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981, n. 32).

"The work of educating in the service of life involves the training of married couples in responsible procreation. In its true meaning, responsible procreation requires couples to be obedient to the Lord's call and to act as faithful interpreters of his plan. This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely. The moral law obliges them in every case to control the impulse of instinct and passion, and to respect the biological laws inscribed in their person. It is precisely this respect which makes legitimate, at the service of responsible procreation, the use of natural methods of regulating fertility" (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 97).



--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sounds like a bunch of legalese designed to provide a loophole that enables couples who don't want children to avoid having children while staying "licit".

Surely the intention is what counts, and in both cases the intention is to have sex without having babies? Surely a couple using NFP is by definition not open to procreation? Surely it's the fact that you've arranged things so that procreation can't happen that matters, not the means by which you do so?

Or is this basically just the church saying "yes, OK you can arrange things so you can get your kicks without having kids, but you have to do it our way"?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sure the average Sicilian confessor is quite conversant with these subtle distinctions, Chesterbelloc and your average married Brazilian Catholic no doubt juggles his or her motives before bedtime every night or even siesta time. I gather you would advocate a little bedside book in which to record moments of ecstasy when maybe your motives are on the dark side of the line ready for your next confession.

It reminds of me of a subtly nuanced booklet published in 1916 for Scout Patrol Leaders (only to be read under the supervision of a Scoutmaster). What was at stake there was mere blindness, here it is eternal damnation!

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
With the intent deliberately to preclude it artificially, yes. To take advantage of the body's natural infertile period to enjoy conjugal relations, no - provided that there is a suffiently serious cause for the prolonged use of this method to the exclusion of relations during fertile periods also. Delibertely attempting to remain childless even by natural means (i.e., strictly never having sex when the symptoms of fertility are present) is considered illicit also.

Aren't most of the techniques used in NFP also artificial (i.e. products of human artifice)? Mathematics, calendars, and various ovulation monitoring techniques are all artificial creations. It seems like you're not opposed to artificial contraception, just to certain levels of artifice.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
+Chad

Staffordshire Lad
# 5645

 - Posted      Profile for +Chad   Author's homepage   Email +Chad   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I rather like Fr Hunwicke's take on the Papal statement:

quote:
Having contemplated the BBC translation of the German texts, I see what the Holy Father's words mean. He is saying that if a rent-boy has unprotected sex, he is committing two sins: the mortal sin of homosexual genital intercourse; and the mortal sin of risking communicating a lethal infection. If, however, he uses a condom, while he is still committing the first of those mortal sins, he has to a degree excluded the second. By so doing he has, as we might say, taken a step in the right direction.


--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)

Where there is tea there is hope.

Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by +Chad:
I rather like Fr Hunwicke's take on the Papal statement:

quote:
Having contemplated the BBC translation of the German texts, I see what the Holy Father's words mean. He is saying that if a rent-boy has unprotected sex, he is committing two sins: the mortal sin of homosexual genital intercourse; and the mortal sin of risking communicating a lethal infection. If, however, he uses a condom, while he is still committing the first of those mortal sins, he has to a degree excluded the second. By so doing he has, as we might say, taken a step in the right direction.

*Stepping into this discussion, mortal sin means you are condemned to hell anyway unless you repent. What difference does it make in the fires of gehenna if you commit one mortal sin versus two?

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Aren't most of the techniques used in NFP also artificial (i.e. products of human artifice)? Mathematics, calendars, and various ovulation monitoring techniques are all artificial creations. It seems like you're not opposed to artificial contraception, just to certain levels of artifice.

Thank you Crœsos - my thoughts exactly, I was working out a succinct way of saying it.

If family planning is 'allowed' to sensible, thoughtful couples then the means shouldn't be an issue.


The RCC needs to drag itself into the 21st century somehow, otherwise 'don't ask, don't tell' will become the norm.

I just hope the good and faithful couples who do so won't feel any guilt about it.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then why does it work?

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Because with one notable exception, if you don't engage in intercourse you don't get pregnant. Did you really think otherwise?

Did you really think Marvin didn't understand that bit? If you use your imagination you could assume that we are intelligent people who simply disagree with you. You could then imagine ways of communicating what you think that don't assume our problem is just stubborn stupidity.

I haven't really understood the argument that explains why timing an event to avoid pregnancy is morally different to altering the mechanics of the event.

You have some definition of "open to procreation" that includes engineering the timing but excludes engineering the mechanics.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Fuzzipeg and mdijon, the key phrase in my post was "provided that there is a suffiently serious cause for the prolonged use of this method to the exclusion of relations during fertile periods".

It all sounds pretty case by case to me. But I couldn't find anything in your post that addresses the reason that indefinite NFP isn't moral. It seems that temporary NFP is considered "open to procreation" but indefinite NFP is not. On the other hand neither temporary nor indefinite contraception is considered "open to procreation".

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Am I reading this clarification correctly as saying that responsible use of condoms to protect the life of another is potentially appropriate in any circumstance (including within marriage), and that perhaps Benedict's point is more generous than initially interpreted?

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[repeat post deleted as otiose, redundant and unnecessary]

[ 23. November 2010, 14:54: Message edited by: dyfrig ]

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Hmm. Ok, lets' take this to a more basic level.

- the problem is that an act of intercourse which fails to express the procreative meaning of sex is wrong

Invalid premise on two counts.

1: What you should have written is that Roman Catholics believe that that an act of intercourse which fails to express the procreative meaning of sex is wrong. Most of the rest of us think that the mandatory celibates in cassocks have fetishised sex because they are not allowed it. And are therefore declaring something to be wrong when this isn't true.

2: Your beliefs are (according to IngoB) based on a mistranslation of Humanae Vitae. It is not intercourse, it is the conjugal act that is spoken of in specific.

quote:
- if you use a condom or a pill, you are still engaging in an act of intercourse which is not open to the procreative meaning.

- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.

And here most non-Catholics IME see blatant sophistry.

quote:
Does that make it clear? The point is that each individual act of intercourse matters; it's not some sort of fuzzy 'overall group of all acts of intercourse'.
"When I feed the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist." Apparently only acts of charity matter, not the overall impact of the situation.

But I'm always happy to see the Roman Catholic line on contraception brought up in the press in situtations where the audience is unlikely to be Roman Catholic and not already know the teachings of the RCC. That is because:

1: I believe that to anyone who is not morally crippled by their beliefs, "Save them all - God will know his own" is going to be seen as far more moral than "We must remain morally pure. Who cares if this leads to sinners or the unfortunate catching fatal diseases? They should have followed our teachings. Sucks to be them."

2: I believe that following that comparison most neutrals will take a step away from the Roman Catholic Church because the consequence of the Roman Catholic line is morally abhorrent.

3: I believe a few Roman Catholics may take an introspective look at their beliefs when reminded and the consequences are pointed out and possibly change their mind. Because they realise that you need to take the world on its terms to try to change it. And Jesus of Nazareth was a winebibber who hung round with prostitutes and tax collecters rather than someone who lived in The Temple or The Vatican and pronounced acts of self-preservation sinful. So a wedge will be driven between these Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church.

4: With luck the Roman Catholic Church will hear enough of the controversy that they morally enter the twentieth century (Atheist organisations were hashing this one out in the ninteenth). Or, as those with actual moral sense leave it, leaving it as a more obviously concentrated rump of those who don't care about the effects their teachings have on human life, the departures will accelarate. Fortunately Benedict XVI appears to have just taken a step towards the late 19th century.

I have issues with the Roman Catholic Church beyond their sexual behaviour. Mostly to do with their platonic and binary thinking that's almost as black and white of those of an RTC (that Mortal Sins are Mortal Sins) and the level of authoritarianism that allowed the abuse scandals. But far the greatest and far and away the deepest is the willingness to sacrifice human lives to sexual purity by opposing contraception. I don't care what sophistry you come up with. When you are actively getting in the way of people who are trying to save lives because of your morals, it's alway time to re-think those morals.

And I'm glad Roman Catholics keep talking about it. The more it's talked about, the more it's pressed forwards. And the more it's pressed forwards the sooner one of the two endgames is likely to be approached - either the lowering of opposition and a huge moral step forward by the RCC or a continued exodus from the RCC. I don't care which in a way because either is good for everyone.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't think it would take Justinian long to turn this into his usual attack on the RCC....talk about a red herring!

Fortunately it will long survive you, Justinian, and for all its faults, sophistry and often wicked members I am proud to call myself a Catholic because it is only in the Church that I really feel God's presence and see Him working through ordinary people to bring in His Kingdom. To dismiss the power of good that is so evident in what the Church does and is in a snide comment on fetishist sex only reflects on you not the object of your attack.

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
]I can see you are aching for the Pope to have made a major face-egging blunder here. But he has hasn't done anything of the sort.

Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth.

There's a tradition it seems among US presidents that they don't discuss their personal thoughts on issues while they're in office. At the least, they do so to a minor extent; everything they say will be received as if it is the view of the POTUS (and therefore will be acted on by the gov't., etc....) The gag comes out once they're out of office. The POTUS has no personal opinions. The POTUS has professional opinions.

Benedict would do well to emulate this. Set up an official biographer a la Bill Clinton who is hired and will write a book when he's dead w/ all the inside scoops. Until then, zip his trap.

Obviously his words carry far more impact than those of any other priest or bishop or cardinal. He should recognize that and if he doesn't want to make something official, just not say it.

quote:
There are no "de facto" encyclicals: all official doctrine is officially promulgated in official documents precisely so that the faithful will not be misled. This was not an offcial document, or an endorsed finding of a commission, or a sermon or even a lecture to a group of moral theologians: it was an opinion expressed in the course of a biographical interview.
Really? Thanks for the dictionary lesson. My point still stands - just by talking, he is issuing might-as-well-be-official guidance. Given the range of opinions on what he actually meant from people on this thread trying diligently to figure it out, he did so very sloppily too, which would be worse than if he had kept his yap shut in the first place.

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Fortunately it will long survive you, Justinian, and for all its faults, sophistry and often wicked members I am proud to call myself a Catholic because it is only in the Church that I really feel God's presence and see Him working through ordinary people to bring in His Kingdom. To dismiss the power of good that is so evident in what the Church does and is in a snide comment on fetishist sex only reflects on you not the object of your attack.

You assume the good is so 'evident.' Looking from the outside and from a longer historical view, it's a very mixed bag at best. Lots of good, and a shitton of bad.

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I didn't think it would take Justinian long to turn this into his usual attack on the RCC....talk about a red herring!

If I may be so gauche as to quote myself earlier on this thread:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]

yadda yadda yadda yawn


--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Am I reading this clarification correctly as saying that responsible use of condoms to protect the life of another is potentially appropriate in any circumstance (including within marriage), and that perhaps Benedict's point is more generous than initially interpreted?

"Benedict's comments about condoms and HIV essentially means the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging that its long-held, anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting someone's life at risk. 'This is a game-changer,' said the Rev. Jim Martin, a Jesuit editor and writer." ...

"The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi,...said 'I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,... He told me no. The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.'"
article on clarifications from the Pope

The specific discussion is HIV/AIDS, and apparently the Pope has clarified that it applies to sex with either male or female. I can't help wondering why the same reasoning wouldn't apply to sex that may be deadly in a way other than AIDS. It may be rare that another pregancy is likely to kill the woman, but the situation happens.

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I didn't think it would take Justinian long to turn this into his usual attack on the RCC....talk about a red herring!

Fortunately it will long survive you, Justinian, and for all its faults, sophistry and often wicked members I am proud to call myself a Catholic because it is only in the Church that I really feel God's presence and see Him working through ordinary people to bring in His Kingdom. To dismiss the power of good that is so evident in what the Church does and is in a snide comment on fetishist sex only reflects on you not the object of your attack.

I have never said there is not that of the Light in the Roman Catholic Church. Or that ordinary people from all walks of life including the churches you so blithely dismiss by being unable to see God's presence in them do not do good. Much good comes from the Roman Catholic Church. And much ill comes from the Roman Catholic Church.

As you are apparently so blind as to be unable to see Light, goodness, and truth outside the Roman Catholic Church as well as inside it, you have my pity.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ex Justinian... s you are apparently so blind as to be unable to see Light, goodness, and truth outside the Roman Catholic Church as well as inside it, you have my pity.

Your pity I don't need and don't credit me with the same degree of blindness as yourself.

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Aren't most of the techniques used in NFP also artificial (i.e. products of human artifice)? Mathematics, calendars, and various ovulation monitoring techniques are all artificial creations. It seems like you're not opposed to artificial contraception, just to certain levels of artifice.

Artifice is no problem, what it is for, is. But before we come to that, let's clarify something else. The difference between "NFP to avoid pregnancy" and artificial contraception is clearly not in the outcome (if they work, they will both keep the couple childless). The difference often is, but does not have to be, in the intentions. For example, the intention of spacing children appropriately is good as such. Thus one can employ artificial contraception with good intentions to reach a good end. Rather, the difference is actually located in the object, the act itself, or possibly in other related acts.

Now, what parts of the sexual act must we actually perform in a right manner, so that it can be considered morally "good" (or at least "neutral")? Simply those parts over which we have natural control. According to the Church, we should perform the act in such a manner that a child could result from it. But what if one of the partners is infertile? No matter. That's not under our control, it's not something we do (or cause by not doing), hence we are not responsible. Likewise we cannot be blamed if a zygote actually does not nest into the wall of the womb, etc. God made the world that way, not we.

An analogy: I wish to play the drums. But you are my neighbor and complain to the police every time I do. I do not want that hassle. I now devise the following "artifice". I watch carefully whenever you leave the house. I make a table of all your comings and goings. I note that Thursdays and Saturdays you are regularly away from the afternoon to the late evening (actually you are going bowling). Therefore I start playing my drums during those time slots, hassle free. Am I culpable of you leaving the house? No, you are responsible. Am I not playing my drums properly? No, I'm playing them just fine, only less often. What if instead of all this I would just "shadow-drum" (stop the stick just before it hits the drum)? Then I could play all the time, but I would not be playing my drums properly. What if I went over to your place and beat you up, so that you do not dare to call the police again? I would be culpable for that attack.

The key difficulty is to realize that this is not about the end of the actual act (we are not responsible for making sex actually result in procreation) but about making our performance itself ordered to procreation (we are responsible for having sex in a procreative manner). I do not have to annoy you with loud drumming, but I do have to play my drums properly. For this reason I can play my drums loudly when you are not home, which is not the same as shadow-drumming or beating you up.

In summary: given good/neutral intentions and end, NFP keeps the object, the sexual act itself, also good/neutral. Hence it is licit. All other methods to avoid pregnancy either corrupt the procreative ordering of the sexual act directly (e.g., withdrawal prior to ejaculation) or acquire additional responsibility for its failure to result in procreation through related acts (e.g., taking the pill makes the woman infertile when she would not be so without it). And that is illicit.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
An analogy: I wish to play the drums. But you are my neighbor and complain to the police every time I do. I do not want that hassle. I now devise the following "artifice".... Thursdays and Saturdays you are regularly away from the afternoon to the late evening (actually you are going bowling). Therefore I start playing my drums during those time slots, hassle free.

It seems to me that if NFP is timing drum playing for when I'm out of the house, contraception would be fitting a muffler to the drum to stop the sound carrying. It's the moral distinction between those two that I'm struggling with.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
All other methods to avoid pregnancy either corrupt the procreative ordering of the sexual act directly (e.g., withdrawal prior to ejaculation) or acquire additional responsibility for its failure to result in procreation through related acts (e.g., taking the pill makes the woman infertile when she would not be so without it). And that is illicit.

This is where I still don't get it. Why are all those artifices illicit, but the artifice of timing licit? And I'm doubly confused now by the suggestion that the artifice of timing becomes illicit if it is used for too long without "serious" cause.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ingob, that does not make sense. If the intention is to avoid pregnancy then that is the intention no matter what method is used. No-one in their right mind intends avoiding pregnancy and leaves open the possibility of conception knowingly.

There is no such thing as "natural birth control" other than abstinence. Similarly attempts to measure periods of infertility are, by their very nature, unnatural particularly if you take into account a woman's physical response to a man during periods of high fertility. Any attempt to avoid intercourse during a woman's period of high fertility is completely contrary to the law of nature....dare I say natural law!

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Artifice is no problem, what it is for, is.

<snip>

Now, what parts of the sexual act must we actually perform in a right manner, so that it can be considered morally "good" (or at least "neutral")? Simply those parts over which we have natural control.

As I explained previously, I think you (and Chesterbelloc) are straining to create a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" which doesn't really exist. Virtually all the methods used in NFP are "artificial". Mathematics and calendars are such old technologies that we often don't think of them as such anymore, but they're technologies just the same. A lot of ovulation-tracking methods are of a more recent vintage, however, and seem at least as artificial/unnatural.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
According to the Church, we should perform the act in such a manner that a child could result from it.

Which is where NFP falls down. It's billed as sex that couldn't result in a child. Either it's a massive deception or it doesn't fit (your summary of) the Catholic Church's stated criteria for illicit contraception.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

 - Posted      Profile for coniunx   Email coniunx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then why does it work?

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Because with one notable exception, if you don't engage in intercourse you don't get pregnant. Did you really think otherwise?

Did you really think Marvin didn't understand that bit? If you use your imagination you could assume that we are intelligent people who simply disagree with you.

Well, if he doesn't think that, then the question of how not having sex during a fertile time (the basis of NFP) works to prevents you getting pregnant was a bit of a strange one to ask, wasn't it? I frankly couldn't even see what point he could be making that would merit that sort of question.
quote:
I haven't really understood the argument that explains why timing an event to avoid pregnancy is morally different to altering the mechanics of the event.You have some definition of "open to procreation" that includes engineering the timing but excludes engineering the mechanics.
I really struggle to understand how this can not be understood.

I don't engineer the timing of any one act of intercourse: either it takes place, or it doesn't. It's not the same act if it takes place at a different time, because my wife and I aren't machines; we are people, and we are never the same at two different times.

So I'm not changing the timing of an act of intercourse: I'm choosing not to engage in an act of intercourse at this time, and those are two rather different things.

Whereas if I decide to engage in an act of intercourse but modify it so as to exclude the procreative meaning (which is not the same as actual procreation, another distinction you perhaps miss) then I've modified the act itself.

Does that make it any clearer?


I'm wary of analogies as they never quite work, but try this one: a man visits his local store (which never offers credit) regularly to buy a newspaper. At times when he has money available, he can take the newspaper and pay for it. If he hasn't money, he has two options:
- Choose not to take the paper
- Take the paper and leave without paying

What he can't do is come back next week when he has money and buy that paper, because it will then have been thrown out as it's out of date.

In the same way you can't defer an act of intercourse: things and people change, and if sex is personal (as the Catholic church says it very deeply is) rather than mechanical, then that specific act is no longer possible; the persons it involves have changed.

So if what matters is the morality of that act, then it matters now, not next week; and if intercourse which is changed to exclude the procreative meaning is wrong, then it's wrong now whatever its status would be next week.

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

 - Posted      Profile for coniunx   Email coniunx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As I explained previously, I think you (and Chesterbelloc) are straining to create a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" which doesn't really exist. Virtually all the methods used in NFP are "artificial". Mathematics and calendars are such old technologies that we often don't think of them as such anymore, but they're technologies just the same. A lot of ovulation-tracking methods are of a more recent vintage, however, and seem at least as artificial/unnatural. [/qb]

Whether the means used to track them are artificial or not, what is natural is the fertility cycle itself, and it's respecting that aspect of human nature which defines the methods as natural.

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

 - Posted      Profile for coniunx   Email coniunx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
According to the Church, we should perform the act in such a manner that a child could result from it.

Which is where NFP falls down. It's billed as sex that couldn't result in a child.[/QB]
It's not billed as providing any act of sex that is prevented from generating a child, nor as changing the manner of the act of intercourse, so it's billing doesn't contradict the teaching at all.

At any time that a couple using NFP make love, they do so in a manner which could lead to the gift of a child; they know that at some times it's very likely to do so, and at other times it's impossible that it would do so. But the manner in which they make love, and the nature of the act itself, are unchanged.

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

 - Posted      Profile for coniunx   Email coniunx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
According to the Church, we should perform the act in such a manner that a child could result from it.

Which is where NFP falls down. It's billed as sex that couldn't result in a child.
It's not billed as providing any act of sex that is prevented from generating a child, nor as changing the manner of the act of intercourse, so it's billing doesn't contradict the teaching at all.

At any time that a couple using NFP make love, they do so in a manner which could lead to the gift of a child; they know that at some times it's very likely to do so, and at other times it's impossible that it would do so. But the manner in which they make love, and the nature of the act itself, are unchanged.

[ 23. November 2010, 21:12: Message edited by: coniunx ]

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I don't engineer the timing of any one act of intercourse: either it takes place, or it doesn't. It's not the same act if it takes place at a different time, because my wife and I aren't machines; we are people, and we are never the same at two different times.

OK now I get the sophistry that allows this. It rests on the idea that a couple would have sex say four times per month on average - but on using NFP they have sex twice per month. Therefore the timing has not changed, but two acts of sex have been forgone.

I wonder if anyone keeps tabs on frequency to be sure about that? For instance if they had sex 4 times during the non-fertile period, that would be cheating.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

 - Posted      Profile for pjkirk   Email pjkirk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But somehow using a condom, which they claim is even more likely to result in a pregnancy, intrinsically changes this because you're somehow avoiding pregnancy differently? Makes no damn sense.

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
"Benedict's comments about condoms and HIV essentially means the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging that its long-held, anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting someone's life at risk. 'This is a game-changer,' said the Rev. Jim Martin, a Jesuit editor and writer." ...

"The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi,...said 'I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,... He told me no. The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.'"
article on clarifications from the Pope

The specific discussion is HIV/AIDS, and apparently the Pope has clarified that it applies to sex with either male or female. I can't help wondering why the same reasoning wouldn't apply to sex that may be deadly in a way other than AIDS. It may be rare that another pregancy is likely to kill the woman, but the situation happens.

I never thought I would be saying this. But if that summary of why he's saying what he is is fair and accurate then three cheers for Pope Benedict! If the game is really changing in the way indicated then I can't say I'll be a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. But they will have at one stroke simultaneously removed their teaching, the consequences of which are vile (I am not exaggerating in the slightest when I compare it to human sacrifice - the making of others die for your purity rules) and demonstrated that when they are categorically wrong they are prepared to change if slowly. Which would move the Roman Catholic Church out of the category containing anti-vaccination campaigners and into that of honourable opposition.

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
It's not billed as providing any act of sex that is prevented from generating a child, nor as changing the manner of the act of intercourse, so it's billing doesn't contradict the teaching at all.

At any time that a couple using NFP make love, they do so in a manner which could lead to the gift of a child; they know that at some times it's very likely to do so, and at other times it's impossible that it would do so. But the manner in which they make love, and the nature of the act itself, are unchanged.

Fine. In which case every single method of contraception in existance except abstinance should be legal under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church because they all have a failure rate. And the nature of the act itself is unchanged by e.g. the Pill. It is simply that it becomes very unlikely for there to be conception. Which is precisely what NFP claims.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Whether the means used to track them are artificial or not, what is natural is the fertility cycle itself, and it's respecting that aspect of human nature which defines the methods as natural.

Which would be more convincing if the Church were more consistent in its "respect" for aspects of human nature. For example, most Catholic hosptitals will ruthlessly disrespect the natural state of their patient's immune systems, ruthlessly and artificially stimulating them with vaccines. While most sane people regard this as a tremendously good thing, it certainly isn't consistent with the position that the natural state of the human body must be "respected" by not altering it.

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
At any time that a couple using NFP make love, they do so in a manner which could lead to the gift of a child; they know that at some times it's very likely to do so, and at other times it's impossible that it would do so. But the manner in which they make love, and the nature of the act itself, are unchanged.

. . . which is complete and utter bullshit. We're expected to believe that if a woman has a tubal ligation (a Catholic no-no) she has completely changed "the nature of the [sexual] act itself", but that a woman who has a hysterectomy to prevent the spread of cancer (which is okay by the Vatican) has not?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

 - Posted      Profile for multipara   Author's homepage   Email multipara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Reminds me of the surgeon's notes on an operation report I read as a student: the 35 year old Catholic mother of 4 had had an abdominal hysterectomy and in the "pathology found" section the surgeon had written "Menorrhagia and desire for sterilisation".

That was one helluva big deal compared to a tubal ligation-and irreversible to boot.

m

--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
NFP natural? - no way!

I can't think of anything MORE intrusive, off putting and unnatural to lovemaking than having to time it. We were very infertile and had to do NFP and all the temperature and maths stuff in order to try to conceive - it was awful.

[ 24. November 2010, 05:28: Message edited by: Boogie ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree with Justinian though, thanks to the extremely high levels of HIV infection caused by the previous Mbeki Government's criminal lack of response to the problem, the use of condoms as prophylactics has long been advocated by Catholic Health Agencies.

In this instance it was certain myths relating to HIV/AIDS, the reluctance to provide antiretrovirals as they were considered poisonous when traditional African medicines would be more effective and criminal neglect by the government, not the so-called Catholic Purity Laws that caused the problem to escalate.

I would imagine it is only the lunatic fringe of the RCC who would disagree with this...along with those who see HIV/AIDS as "God's Punishment" for any number of reasons.

[ 24. November 2010, 08:13: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Another thought: Further up the thread I was chastised for my inability to control myself. The parrallel of controlling myself to avoid marital rape was suggested.

Well, if abstinence is such a trivial hurdle, why bother with NFP at all? Why not simply abstain completely until a child is actually desired? Then one would be truly open to the procreative potential. Wouldn't that be better?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107

 - Posted      Profile for Fuzzipeg   Author's homepage   Email Fuzzipeg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, Mdijon. That makes life much simpler and everything easier to understand. Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.

--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za

Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, the other approach is to just have the children early. They seem pretty good at enforcing abstinence to me. (How anyone manages to get pregnant after the 2nd child is beyond me).

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me that if NFP is timing drum playing for when I'm out of the house, contraception would be fitting a muffler to the drum to stop the sound carrying.

Yes, that was basically my point.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's the moral distinction between those two that I'm struggling with.

It would be equivalent to saying "If you are going to play drums, play drums like they are meant to be played: loud and proud." However, I completely agree that this is the point that should be discussed. Is it (morally) important that the sexual act remain "ordered to procreation"? Unfortunately, this point gets lost since most people are not getting what this means in the first place.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is where I still don't get it. Why are all those artifices illicit, but the artifice of timing licit? And I'm doubly confused now by the suggestion that the artifice of timing becomes illicit if it is used for too long without "serious" cause.

You've answered your first question yourself. The other methods are not licit, because they do not result in the drums of sex being played loudly. There are two considerations: playing drums loudly ("ordering the act to procreation") and avoiding hassle from the police ("avoiding actual procreation"). Only NFP does both by virtue of timing.

The problem with using timing "too much" is not that the act itself is affected. The problem there is different, though related. Namely, you are supposed to enter Catholic marriage actually being open to procreation. You should want some kids, that's one of the overall "aims" of this sacrament. If you are using NFP to completely abolish all chances of offspring ever, then you are not causing a problem with any of the individual sexual acts, you are causing a problem with one of the overarching points of the sacrament of marriage.

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Ingob, that does not make sense. If the intention is to avoid pregnancy then that is the intention no matter what method is used. No-one in their right mind intends avoiding pregnancy and leaves open the possibility of conception knowingly.

OK. Now try reading what I actually wrote. Hint: read the first paragraph, and pay close attention to the words put in bold. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Any attempt to avoid intercourse during a woman's period of high fertility is completely contrary to the law of nature....dare I say natural law!

Without any doubt is the timing "artificial". However, that is not the relevant "naturalness". This timing artifice relates to the end and the intentions for it. And as I've stated above, the goal of spacing children appropriately is good. An artifice that achieves good is good. The question is whether the nature of the sexual act is preserved. The problem is that there are more subtle ways of messing with it than withdrawal before ejaculation. But in the end it boils down to this: You are free to decide when you want to have sex. You are (according to the RCC) responsible for performing the sexual act in a "child-making manner" (not: such that a child will actually come of it). That's it. Given these two statements, NFP is OK (it uses the freedom of timing to perform "proper" sex when no offspring is likely to result, for reasons not otherwise under one's control), artificial contraception is not OK (one is not performing the act "properly", or adding other acts that prevent it from continuing as it would, thereby becoming responsible for its ultimate failure).

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As I explained previously, I think you (and Chesterbelloc) are straining to create a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" which doesn't really exist.

OK. You clearly did not understand what I wrote. Can you please go back and read my previous post again? The point is one of responsibility, not of artifice. We are not responsible for how nature is, God is responsible for that. Making use of how nature is, by "artifice", is not a problem. If I sow my crops at the right time of the year to have them grow healthily, I do not become responsible for the seasons. We are responsible for what we do to change nature though. If I grow my crops under artificial light with hydroponics, then I am responsible if they taste crap. If the summer was rainy and the crops were rotting on the fields, then I am not. I did "my bit" right. The question is then what "my bit" is that I actually have to get right in having sex. If I get that right, and if I then use the "artifice" of using my observations of nature to time sex as to achieve a good end (spacing kids), then that is good and "natural" in the sense of having done what I should do and having made use of how nature is rather than trying to change it.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which is where NFP falls down. It's billed as sex that couldn't result in a child. Either it's a massive deception or it doesn't fit (your summary of) the Catholic Church's stated criteria for illicit contraception.

The rocket science of sex... [Roll Eyes] NFP is about having sex in a child-making manner, just not on days that happen to be good for child-making. Whereas artificial contraception (including stuff like withdrawal under the label) is either about having sex in a "non-child-making manner" in the first place, or about "doing something that disturbs the child-making ability at the time of having sex".

I'm responsible for: "having sex in a child-making manner". I'm not responsible for "the existence of days that are no good for child-making". I am responsible for "having child-making sex on days that are no good for child-making". However, my end there is good (spacing of children) as is my object (I bonk the right way), so that's fine. If I bonk in the wrong way, e.g., by withdrawing before ejaculation, then I'm responsible for that. If I arrange circumstances so that the days when I want to bonk are no good for child-making, then I am also responsible for these changes made to how things are. I am not allowed to do the latter two contra child-making.

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm merely hoping that the distinction itself becomes clear, and indeed, is shown to be a valid one "logically". My analogy to drumming given above was rather clear, I thought.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

 - Posted      Profile for multipara   Author's homepage   Email multipara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mdijon, abstinence until children are desired is a very Catholic notion ( the so-called "Josephite marriage except in that case it is presumed that no further children were desired after that conceived of the Holy Ghost). As far as I ma aware the only other sect which enforces that rule is the Hare Krishna, which might explain the drop-out rate from that particular cult.

As for children being hr ultimate contraceptive-too bloody right!

Chronic sleep deprivation and the sheer hard yakka of rearing a family ( Dad earning and Mum slogging away at home especially if the family is run on "traditional" lines) means that the average couple goes to bed to sleep.

Trouble is, slip-ups d occur between sleeping and waking....

m

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools