Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FREEP THE CARDINAL April 12th Boston MA
http://www.survivorsnetwork.org/ ^

Posted on 04/12/2002 3:13:14 PM PDT by rumplestiltskin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: Fred Mertz
Lol ... it was a good story, though, was it not?

What a narrow escape! What a perfect punchline!

41 posted on 04/12/2002 9:35:58 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
This "every sexual act must be open to children" is problematic

What a blessing there is no such thing.

In fact, HUMANAE VITAE insists upon the openness of every sexual act to conception.

Sex is not always procreative.

No, it's not. Which means that the CONTEXT of avoiding conception is important. Does the couple wish to avoid children altogether? Or, does the couple have five children, and feel that they can't afford any more? In which case, how does a condom differ from NFP?

42 posted on 04/12/2002 9:36:42 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: sinkspur
I got the impression -- and I'm sure one of the better educated Catholics will correct me -- that the marriage had to be open to children and that it was always okay to use restraint to "plan" your family.

Technically, that leaves every sexual act open to conception (God willing), but you and I and the scientists know that this will not be the case.

The way you stated it, it sounded like every sexual act had to have conception as its end and I don't think the Church has ever held that ... defending as she does the unitive aspect of sex.

44 posted on 04/12/2002 9:41:52 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur;Askel5
In which case, how does a condom differ from NFP?

I believe I asked askel this once and she posted a thread to discuss it and her reasons. I believe her stance was that using NFP to avoid children is wrong because it is twisting the meaning of it for selfish use. Askel, correct me if I am wrong on exactly what you said.

I may not agree, but I do know that she has addressed this before.

45 posted on 04/12/2002 9:45:53 PM PDT by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
It is not possible to condemn pederasty while sanctioning birth control, unless one’s determined to reduce the mystical body of Christ to a welfare agency, deeply concerned with a practical “quality” of life, and utterly unconcerned with what the Greek theologian John Zizioulas calls “Being as Communion.”

Since NFP is also "birth control," we're discussing methods, aren't we?

46 posted on 04/12/2002 9:46:11 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
The way you stated it, it sounded like every sexual act had to have conception as its end and I don't think the Church has ever held that ... defending as she does the unitive aspect of sex.

Every sexual act between married couples must be open to conception, according to HUMANAE VITAE.

I got the impression -- and I'm sure one of the better educated Catholics will correct me -- that the marriage had to be open to children and that it was always okay to use restraint to "plan" your family.

You and I seem to be in full agreeement. Congratulationas.

47 posted on 04/12/2002 9:49:22 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Oh dear ... we've agreed again? I best doublecheck my post!

You know, Sinkspur, utopian logic is a such slippery thing.

I speak from experience when I say that every sexual act -- even those committed with all due confidence in the birth control on is using -- IS open to conception ... God willing.

Strange and sad, isn't it, that it's this ability of God's will for Life to trump our selfishness which resulted in the sanctioning of death with Legal Abortion.

48 posted on 04/12/2002 9:57:08 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
The way you stated it, it sounded like every sexual act had to have conception as its end and I don't think the Church has ever held that ... defending as she does the unitive aspect of sex.

Not as its "end," but every sexual act must be "open" to children, according to HUMANAE VITAE.

Now, we know that sexual acts in which couples who use NFP aren't open to children, and acts in which couples who use condoms aren't open to children.

In CONTEXT, the couple who use the condoms have five kids, and the couple who used NFP have no kids.

So, which relationship is "open" to children?

49 posted on 04/12/2002 9:57:16 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Silly ... there's a difference between USING a condom and refraining from sex on fertile days.

When you refrain from sex, you're not having it. So there's no conjugal sexual act be perpetrated that's willfully unopen to conception.

50 posted on 04/12/2002 10:00:17 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
and the couple who used NFP have no kids.

Lol ... that'll be the day.

Folks who resist the urge on a regular basis generally end up with far more desire -- lasting YEARS longer than your average couple.

It's inevitable they screw up, so to speak.

51 posted on 04/12/2002 10:01:48 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
Mea culpa.

#@#@# internet, reading a lot of poorly spelled posts.

It's getting so I can't even proof my own posts. Might help if I got a dictionary.

I think I spelled opossum with two 'p's yesterday, too.

52 posted on 04/12/2002 10:02:21 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I speak from experience when I say that every sexual act -- even those committed with all due confidence in the birth control on is using -- IS open to conception ... God willing.

No, that's not true. When a couple uses the natural female cycles, the couple can KNOW when to have relations and when not. Which means that certain sexual acts are NOT open to conception.

This differs not at all from those acts which use condoms or barrier methods, in which chosen sexual acts are NOT open to conception.

Do you see now why Catholic couples have a hard time distinguishing between natural and non-natural contraceptive acts?

53 posted on 04/12/2002 10:03:36 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
When a couple uses the natural female cycles, the couple can KNOW when to have relations and when not. Which means that certain sexual acts are NOT open to conception.

Maybe.

Perhaps we should see if -- in the history of religiously practiced NFP -- we can find the Catholic couple with no kids. =)

I understand what you're trying to say, it's just that folks who really don't want ANY kids probably will just sterilize themselves or use contraception.

I think NFP's a perfectly moral alternative to artificial contraception which has benefits far beyond the spacing of children for college tuition purposes.

54 posted on 04/12/2002 10:07:46 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
When you refrain from sex, you're not having it. So there's no conjugal sexual act be perpetrated that's willfully unopen to conception.

So, if a couple uses NFP to avoid having children altogether, though the ACT is sanctioned by HUMANAE VITAE, do they sin?

If they sin, is it because their relationship is not OPEN to children? How is that different from a couple whose marriage is OPEN to children, but uses a different method of avoiding conception?

55 posted on 04/12/2002 10:10:54 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Well, I think the sin there lies in the false oaths they took when contemplating marriage and vowing not only to give entirely of themselves to each other but enjoy a union open to the transmission of life ... the natural state of human affairs and conjugal love absent alarm clocks and thermostats and electricty and pharmaceutical plants.

The family, not the individual, is the basis of society. You know that.

56 posted on 04/12/2002 10:13:41 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru; Sinkspur
Askel & Bella Chat about NFP

You know, I'm a little disappointed OPH and Riley have never in all this time gotten tanked up and come over to TP that particular Sex Thread ... =)

Ciao, Bella ... trust all is well.

57 posted on 04/12/2002 10:18:04 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I understand what you're trying to say, it's just that folks who really don't want ANY kids probably will just sterilize themselves or use contraception.

Really. What about a couple who doesn't want children but follow the dictates of HUMANAE VITAE and use NFP for twenty years?

How is a couple with five children who use contraceptives morally inferior to a couple with no children who use NFP?

58 posted on 04/12/2002 10:18:46 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
I knew that you would have that thread somewhere!

Yes, all is well here. Hope things are good with you too.

59 posted on 04/12/2002 10:23:56 PM PDT by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Askel is a sick, sick broad.
60 posted on 04/12/2002 10:25:43 PM PDT by Palladin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson