Simple question?

Quote: Dalex64

Re: Humane Vitae

Just because it is written it does not mean:
He is right
The reasoning is sound
The reasoning is logical

I personally disagree with many of the opinions presented there, and the logic and reasoning behind them.

I would be very interested in particular about why you disagree with the logic and reasoning behind them.

Quote:

I think we should stick to discussing this as if it were always between two married people for now. The reasoning seems to be: they want to ban birth control, so pick a method of birth control and then come up with a reason to declare it immoral.

I think you are starting off on the wrong foot. The reasoning really begins by looking at the nature of marriage. It is a covenant of love between two people who give themselves fully to each other and who are open to the possibility of new life being created from their union. Then we have to think what is the best way possible to allow a married couple to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time reasonably plan their families. Any type of artificial means including barriers does a couple of things. It puts all the decision making and pressure on one part of the couple stifling discussion of one of the most intimate and important parts of married life. It also puts up literal and figurative barriers to the other person and their virility or fertility. It's kind of like saying I want you, but not all of you. I want to enjoy your embrace but only by hindering or eliminating this important aspect of who you are. It is also unhealthy, especially in regards to the chemicals, synthetic hormones, and implanted devices. Finally, I forget if Paul VI goes into this but some of the contraception devices work by inhibiting an already fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, which is really an abortion. Anyway, all this is to say you will reach faulty conclusions if you begin with faulty reasoning. The Church doesn't begin with a desire to ban contraception, I think you yourself pointed out that the Pope had a panel of experts, many of whom recommending to lifting the ban. The Church begins with a reflection on the beauty of married life and the gift of sex. The ban of contraception naturally follows.

Quote:

Regarding condom use: one of the popes never said it? Ok, that is worth further pursuit.

It seems that in fact checking Pope Francis about the nuns in the Congo that no one has been able to show that such a decree was ever made.

Quote:

It seems that in fact checking Pope Francis about the nuns in the Congo that no one has been able to show that such a decree was ever made.

Re: Pope Paul VI and condoms in the congo: it looks like a case of 'silence implies consent'
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2016/02/20/pope-takes-classic-vatican-approach-to-birth-control-and-zika-virus/

wrong pope, too:
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/no-congo-contracepting-nuns

Quote: FrGamble

I think you are starting off on the wrong foot. The reasoning really begins by looking at the nature of marriage. It is a covenant of love between two people who give themselves fully to each other and who are open to the possibility of new life being created from their union.

Right there, the first premise that I disagree with. I don't think that "open to the possiblity of new life" is a necessary part of marriage.

Quote:

Then we have to think what is the best way possible to allow a married couple to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time reasonably plan their families. Any type of artificial means including barriers does a couple of things. It puts all the decision making and pressure on one part of the couple stifling discussion of one of the most intimate and important parts of married life.

disagree. both people agree to use NFP. or both people agree that the man will wear a condom. or both people agree that the woman will take the pill.

Quote:

It also puts up literal and figurative barriers to the other person and their virility or fertility. It's kind of like saying I want you, but not all of you. I want to enjoy your embrace but only by hindering or eliminating this important aspect of who you are.

disagree. condoms are a literal barrier, but I do not think it implies at all that I don't want all of you, or are hindering an important aspect of who you are. I also think that you can apply that logic to NFP, in so much as there is no intent to get the person pregnant, so you want all of them except for their fertility.

Quote:

It is also unhealthy, especially in regards to the chemicals, synthetic hormones, and implanted devices.

You continue to ignore condoms, and the FACT that birth control pills can have a healthy benefit to women. As with all medications, there are risks and benefits, tradeoffs. you continue to point out the risks without acknowledging any of the benefits that are achieved by taking these risks. What is unhealthy about condoms?

Quote:

Finally, I forget if Paul VI goes into this but some of the contraception devices work by inhibiting an already fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, which is really an abortion.

fine. see condoms.

Quote:

Anyway, all this is to say you will reach faulty conclusions if you begin with faulty reasoning. The Church doesn't begin with a desire to ban contraception, I think you yourself pointed out that the Pope had a panel of experts, many of whom recommending to lifting the ban. The Church begins with a reflection on the beauty of married life and the gift of sex. The ban of contraception naturally follows.

I don't think it naturally follows at all, I still think it is a case of putting the conclusions first and then finding reasons/evidence to support them.

I no longer ask Christians "why." usually they have one answer: Jesus/God. and if you dare keep questioning, they channel their inner Jehovah and grow indignant you dare question "God."

Here is an exercise in word gymnastics:

http://casuistrycentral.blogspot.com/2016/02/nuns-in-congo-non-authoritative-but-true.html

Quote:

This means that an intention not to have a baby is not intrinsically immoral. What is intrinsically immoral is this intention coupled with the intention to engage in a sexual act (as opposed to not engage in such an act). To clarify, a couple using NFP will not engage in the marital act with the intention of not conceiving. That intention wouldn't make sense, because they have not done anything in relation to that act which will impede its leading to conception. Rather, the acts which they perform with an intention not to conceive are, in fact, ommissions to engage in the marital act at this or that time. There is no marital act whose 'natural force and power' towards procreation has been deliberatly frustrated by the couple; it is just that the potential marital acts which would have the most efficacious 'force and power' don't take place at all.

What he is saying here is that when a couple has sex when they know the woman isn't fertile, that they aren't having sex with the intention of not conceiving.

I disagree - they are definitely having sex with the intention of not conceiving, and are planning on when it is safe to have sex without conceiving.

categorizing nfp as an 'omission' to have sex when conception is possible is word gymnastics, and I don't see how this isn't deliberately frustrating conception.

This is also related to the catholic mandate that there is only acceptable way for a man to orgasm. I'm not sure on their position on nocturnal emissions, i.e. wet dreams, but I seem to recall that the explanation was visitation from demons (succubi) and was sinful. I might be getting it confused with the 'conservative christian' position again, though.

edited

Quote: Dalex64

Right there, the first premise that I disagree with. I don't think that "open to the possiblity of new life" is a necessary part of marriage.

In the Church's idea of marriage this is definitely a necessary part of marriage. This doesn't mean of course that the couple will necessarily be blessed with the gift of children. It doesn't even mean that the be physically capable of having children, in the case of an older couple or a couple that is infertile. It also doesn't mean that the couple agrees to start having babies right away. It simply means that they are open to the possibility of new life. After all there is precedent for miraculous births.

Quote:

disagree. both people agree to use NFP. or both people agree that the man will wear a condom. or both people agree that the woman will take the pill.

Yes in a perfect world and in a healthy couple any form of family planning will be agreed upon an discussed. However, practically once a woman goes on the pill then the discussion kind of ends and it is not talked about much after that. If using condoms then the man can just strap up when he desires sex. If natural family planning is used then the couple is constantly talking about each other's desires and readiness as well as reexamining their reasoning for trying to have a baby or deciding to postpone having one. Natural Family Planning is not only healthy for the woman but healthy for communication the absolute most important part of any relationship.

Quote:

disagree. condoms are a literal barrier, but I do not think it implies at all that I don't want all of you, or are hindering an important aspect of who you are. I also think that you can apply that logic to NFP, in so much as there is no intent to get the person pregnant, so you want all of them except for their fertility.

Here again we disagree. Remember you can have a contraceptive mentality in using NFP, but in using that method you are respecting the woman and here natural cycle of fertility and infertility. You are accepting the woman as she is and her healthy, normal, and natural cycle of fertility.

Quote:

You continue to ignore condoms, and the FACT that birth control pills can have a healthy benefit to women. As with all medications, there are risks and benefits, tradeoffs. you continue to point out the risks without acknowledging any of the benefits that are achieved by taking these risks. What is unhealthy about condoms?

Birth control has been shown to help women with certain illnesses, that is true. If you are using birth control to control your acne or cramps and there is no other medication that seems to work besides these synthetic hormones than we are having a different discussion. I assumed we were talking about using the pill specifically to combat the healthy fertility of a woman.

Quote: Nareed

I no longer ask Christians "why." usually they have one answer: Jesus/God. and if you dare keep questioning, they channel their inner Jehovah and grow indignant you dare question "God."

I have not and promise to never do this. Questioning God is how I came to faith and how I think ever saint and believer grows in their faith.

Quote: Nareed

I no longer ask Christians "why." usually they have one answer: Jesus/God.

If you're a non Christian a lot of believers
won't even talk to you about it. They're
embarrassed, they know how ridiculous
it sounds and how loony they sound
talking about it. It's very much like a
secret society, you have to get on the
inside to see just how whacked out these
people are.

Quote: FrGamble

Questioning God is how I came to faith and how I think ever saint and believer grows in their faith.

It's how you'll eventually get to atheism
if you go on long enough.