Live and let live only applies to tolerating ideas and does not confine all behaviors. By following it, someone who doesn’t believe or follow the golden rule should be tolerated.
There are many who don’t have this reaction. And this only happens when you don’t follow the teachings.
These discussions always wander because people use terms incorrectly or vaugely.
NFP is not aimed at avoiding conception. NFP is what it says it is: Natural family planning. Should a couple plan a family, or should it not? Yes, a family should use prudence and wisdom in planning and raising a family.
“The glory of God is a man fully alive”. We are not accidents. Life does not just happen to us. God has left us in our own counsel to intentionally direct our lives.
Birth control is not intrinsically evil, contraception is. When we say an act is evil, we are evaluating it morally. Contraception means a sex act that is disordered in some way to prevent conception.
NFP can be said to be birth control, although that really doesn’t express well what NFP is ordered to. NFP is not contraception.
People use both birth control and contraception to mean substances.
“Did you get some contraception”? Did you take your" birth control?"
Some people take “birth control” pills to regulate their hormones.
This is not how the Church uses these terms. In fact I don’t think the Church uses the term “birth control” at all in her teaching documents.
The act of contraception is what is intrinsically evil. And the periodic abstinence practiced in NFP is not an act of contraception.
People, really. Do you believe that someone with the intent of contracepting would go through the time and trouble to practice NFP? I know of literally no one who does that, and have never heard of anyone doing it.
What if the woman enjoyed the food, then took some to her neighbor to share, while knowing the neighbor and husband were trying to conceive? And the woman ate it, then when her friend told her about the contraceptive properties, she failed to vomit it up, and then had still had relations with her husband.
Would this be a sin for either person?
Actually, it’s not.
Relativists would have us believe that. Morality is universal. Obedience to that morality is not, but obedience isn’t necessary for it still to be true.
It is an attempt to avoid conception by practicing abstinence in the fertile period. You can play semantic games, if you want to.
You are welcome to use words like “disordered” and “evil”. But be aware that not just the non-Catholics, but a sizeable (and growing) number of Catholics disagree with your assessment. Of course this disagreement does not (and should not) bother you in the least. After all, what happens? Nothing special, except your attempt to “spread the good news” will fall on deaf ears.
Partially true. But one can practice “non-vaginal” intercourse, which is just another way to enjoy sex without the unwanted by-product of pregnancy.
Of course none of these practices could hinder God to “bless” people with children if God so desires. And we can always use the logical and rational argument: “If God would disagree with what we do, he could override it, for example with a miracle (No uterus? No problem! No ovulation? No problem! Miracle coming up!). Since he does not, he endorses the practice - if not explicitly, but implicitly.”
It’s not a semantic game, it’s knowing what the words mean. Words mean things.
Contraception is an act that is morally evaluated. Is abstinence a sex act? No
Could someone theoretically practice NFP with ill will to avoid being open to life? Sure.
Do you actually know of someone who employs NFP with ill intent? I highly doubt it. Most of the NFP folks I know of have 4,6,8 children.
You are welcome to use words like “disordered” and “evil”. But be aware that not just the non-Catholics, but a sizeable (and growing) number of Catholics disagree with your assessment.
The popularity of a particular moral issue is no consequence. And it’s not “my assessment” it’s what the Church teaches.
Can you explain this a little more clearly?
The word “your” was used in “general”, not particularly and personally you. Sorry for the confusion. Also one of these days I will have ask what does the expression mean: “the Church teaches”. because the church is not an entity which can speak, or think or teach. The members of the church can, but that is not the same.
It is the lack of a sex act. I certainly do not evaluate it as being “moral” or not. Just like I don’t care if someone actively practices contraception. If someone practices it, it is her business. It is between her and God (if exists).
Well, if you don’t care about it, it is irrelevant. But since you have the task to “spread the good news”, you should be concerned with the opinion of those you wish to evangelize.
Why not? I think that God (if he exists) is a logical and rational being. Therefore whatever happens, he either actively endorses, or passively tolerates. Of course the difference in infinitesimal. A rational being would interfere if something would happen contrary to his value system. The lack of interference points to God’s lack of caring. If you would see a child picking up a loaded gun, and if you would care about that child, you would definitely interfere and take that gun away.
And if God wanted you have children, then no amount of contraception (or abstinence) would override God’s wish.
Morality isn’t decided by popular opinion.
The way to heaven is narrow, and the vast majority of people probably won’t make it. Popularity of an opinion is irrelevant in salvation.
This topic was automatically closed after 24 hours. New replies are no longer allowed.