Logically Catholicism becomes from a Family and Becomes again for all Creation in One Family through the life from the spirit uniting genders transforming Natures becoming again transfigured for all Creation in One Family One God in being.
The undefiled logical intelligence preexists and is created for all mankind from Gods conceived alive and living “In the Christ” following the pattern, “What would Jesus do in all cases from the fulfilled faith and morality becoming through the Christ from incorruption through immortality becoming again for all Creation Transfigured in One Holy Family One God in being.”
And this is not a question, I believe, for we already know.
Jesus would be rational, logical from the God from the Faith of Abraham for all becoming again.
Thanks, David, logically Catholicism is fulfilled Faith in the God from the Faith of Abraham, giving understanding for one becoming autonomous bound by The Moses Seat, through the logical formulas from the Wondrous Mysteries in the Catholic Faith becoming again for all in One Family, I believe.
Is the Catholic Church perfect? Nothing on earth is perfect, only more abundant, becoming perfect in both natures, incorruptible, immortal becoming again undefiled in One Family One God in being.
Your personal dislike of what Catholic teaching says about marriage and intercourse doesn’t make the argument false.
If you think the reasoning is wrong, identify the specific premise or inference that fails.
If you can’t do that, then you’re not refuting the argument — you’re just rejecting the conclusion.
I was listening to a debate today during a livestream between a man who had his Marriage annulled and who was arguing, as some have here, that there is no difference between Natural Family Planning and artificial means of contraception (morally speaking).
Tim, the hose of the show explained to the caller that he did not believe Natural Family Planning is even a thing, but besides this, he pointed out something that I never thought of.
Those who have argued above that couples who are engaging in the Marital act and are open to life, though practicing NFP are in error, because they are not actively trying to get pregnant, must also then see how they are also in error when if they are not trying to get pregnant on the most fertile time.
Say your most fertile day is around 33% and your least fertile day is around 1-2%. And say you miss the most fertile day and you and your spouse comet together in the marital embrace on a day where there is a 28% are you sinning because you didn’t on the 33% day? No.
Now, the individuals making the argument that NFP is sinful, might then argue, well it is the intent, not the fact that you are, in all times open to life, even though some days are less likely than others. To, which I agree with Tim, that that is incorrect.
This kind of thing is a reason why I look to the Church for moral teaching.
I consider myself up to date on natural family planning because six years ago, during marriage prep, my fianceé and I were not excused from the module on NFP even though we were in our 60s and already had adult children, having each been married and widowed already. We also had to learn about military family life, maybe in case we joined the National Guard or something. Otherwise, though, marriage prep was worthwhile.
I agree, however, as the one caller was stating, the Church, and some Bishops will not define certain phrases, but I also think the caller was not understanding. He was mad that the Church changed the word from “procreative” to “human,” and what the caller didn’t understand was the why for this shift.
Prior to the twentieth century, they were not creating life in a lab, like they are now. IVF was not a thing when the Church used the term “procreative” to describe the ordered purpose of the marital act. But, now, “procreative” could mean unnatural means, so the Church began using the term “human” to describe the ordered means of the marital act, which emphasizes the “unitive” aspect, which before was not separated from the procreative. Since, though, it has been separated and, therefore, the Church began talking about the “human” aspect to emphasize the unitive with the procreative.
It makes sense to me, but for some reason that caller was confused by this. It would be like Kool-Aid always being pre-mixed (water, powder & sugar). Then times changed where they separated these and sold the powder packets. Now you had to clarify that Kook-Aide needs “water, powder & sugar,” whereas as before you could just say “Kool-Aide” and the water and sugar was implied.
In Junior High I remember a fad where kids were putting sugar and Kook-Aide powder in an empty chew can and they would lick the mixture during class. This was not the intended use for Kook-Aide. They had removed the water from the order.
The same is true of the marital act. When you remove the “procreative” from the “unitive” (or human aspect) it is no longer what God has designed, and you have removed something from the order that makes it what it is. I know analogies always fall short, but I hope this illustrates why the Church’s teaching shifted or needed to be clarified, because society has changed; God nor the Church’s has changed.
The specific arguments that have been presented to you over and over are futile since you keep making the same illogical and incomprehensible statements in response. Your distinction between “moral intent” and"moral object" doesn’t mean anything. You’ve created a distinction without a difference. You’re simply making up terms that make no sense. This is the last time I will state this; NFP and AFP are no different. No amount of assinine argument on your part can change this fact.
But it is not a fact. What is the average conception rate of someone who engages in the marital act during the least fertile time? You are therefore still open to life, even if your desire is not to conceive. But if you use artificial means to take that average to zeror, then you are no longer open to life. So, factually, they are not the same.
You are comparing the desire. If I desire to rob a bank, but I not rob a bank and you desire to rob a bank and do rob a bank, are these the same thing?
It’s comparable to using other forms of birth control, or so it is touted. So even if your argument was that there is a significance in a difference of degrees, the statistics betray you.
To show how you are still open to life when using NFP, even if the chance is very low.
Let’s look at how each works.
The Barrier Method: where you are not completing the marital act, because you are blocking or putting obstacles in the way, and thus removing both the unitive and the procreative from the embrace. If you were to do this on your Wedding night, your Marriage would not be consummated.
The Chemical Method: where you make a hostile environment by thinning the uterine lining or by stopping ovulation and thus separating the procreative from the unitive. This would not prevent a Marriage from being physically consummated on the Wedding night, but the act would be disordered.
And in the case that conception does occur, creating such a hostile environment could result in an abortion at the earliest stage of life.
Natural Family Planning: where you are not separating the unitive from the procreative and in fact are giving fully of one another in the embrace. If you consummate your Marriage on a night where you are least fertile, your Marriage is indeed consummated.
I hope this helps you see that there are indeed distinctions, though you want to believe these are all the same. They are in fact, not the same.
They are to me. And again, you’re the one that brought up the probability, assuming that NFP is less likely to prevent pregnancy, assuming that it makes the couple “more open to the possibility of pregnancy” or whatever, when in fact it is regularly touted as being as effective as other forms of birth control.
The intent is the same. So to me, I don’t draw a distinction and I’m not obligated to because I’m not Catholic. In my view, you’re hypocrites and nothing you say is going to change that. Hypocrite.
If you think the distinction between intention and moral object is “made up,” then identify which part of Catholic moral theology you believe is fabricated.
The moral object is simply the chosen behavior itself.
In NFP, the chosen act is either abstaining or engaging in the marital act unaltered.
In contraception/sterilization, the chosen act is performing the marital act while deliberately altering its procreative structure.
If you believe those are “no different,” then explain how abstaining and altering the act are the same behavior.
If you can’t do that, then you’re not refuting the argument — you’re just repeating your conclusion more loudly.
Civil law also recognizes the distinction between intent and result. That’s why someone could be convicted of murder or manslaughter for the same death, depending on whether, or to what extent, the death was intended.
Can’t you just use condoms before you mutilate your body? Also you can have sex in ways that do not lead to pregnancy. Finally, in jewish belief oral sex is not actual sex so you can just do that. Funny trivia: Bill Clinton did not lie then, he did not have sex with Monica lol.
“Moral intent” vs “moral object” is meaningless doubletalk. I am incapable of making an argument in response to the kind of illogical nonsense you keep repeating. Let me be specific; My wife almost died after giving birth to our third child. Her doctor told us she would probably be killed by her next pregnancy. Given this reality it was my considered judgement that NFP would be insufficient to insure the welfare of the most important person in my life. So I got a vasectomy. Please explain why I should prioritize catholic “teaching” over my wife’s life.
That is not at all what I said. I said that the same killing could have different degrees of guilt. I didn’t say that murder and manslaughter are both bad, although that is true.
