Avatar John Farrell

Submitted by LocutusOP on Sat, 04/17/2021 - 18:53
Author: 
AvatarJohann du Toit , disqus_IzaNrsLv3A  , Guest 2 , Manualman   , AvatarVincent Brandolini  , AvatarDeacon David Oatney, Avatarmrscracker , Diana Johnston,  AvatarJohn Farrell     
Date: 
Saturday, April 17, 2021 - 19:00
Article link: 
Avatar John Farrell
  •  
    Avatar
    Johann du Toit • a month ago

    The rejection of Church teaching on contraception is seeing a modern equivalent, in the rejection of Church teaching on the intrinsically disordered nature of sexual acts between persons of the same sex. Both are intimately linked, as they espouse the decoupling of the sexual act from reproduction, changing it from a means to an end to a goal in itself.

disqus_IzaNrsLv3A Johann du Toit • a month ago

And quite unsatisfying at that...

Guest 2 Johann du Toit • a month ago

Does that analogy really work? Sex between a man and a woman is contraceptive most of the time by God’s natural design, but still complementary. Homo sex is something totally different. It doesn’t seem like a good idea to associate the two things.

Manualman Guest 2 • a month ago

Faulty definition. Contraception is defined as an action taken by a participant in the sexual activity having the intent to render a potentially fertile intercourse into a sterile one. If the particular time of the month an encounter occurs is naturally sterile, this cannot be contraceptive by definition because neither participant has rendered it so.
The problem with your Alix reasoning is the failure to distinguish the difference between yourself and God.

  •  
     
     
     
    ... 
      Avatar
      Deacon David Oatney • a month ago

      The rejection by many Catholics of the Church's teaching on contraception is the source and font of a great many of the problems in the Church today.

  •  
     
     
    •  
       
      • −
      Avatar
      mrscracker Deacon David Oatney • a month ago

      I've found in several cases where people have left the Church for another denomination, citing disgust with the sex abuse scandals, bad behavior of clergy, etc. as the reason it really turned out to be more about Church teaching on family & marriage.

     
    Deacon David Oatney mrscracker • a month ago

    I have no doubt that people are disgusted by the scandals and cannot stomach many of our leaders, and they are struggling spiritually, they don't know what to do. In some cases, I have encountered and ministered to some very traditional people who are beginning to question the truth of Church teaching because these scandals have rattled their souls. That is real...

    But I also think that the abuse scandals provide a convenient exit strategy for those who had already left in their heart a long time ago.

       
       
       
     
  •  
     
    • −
    Avatar
    KyrieEleisonChristeEleison mrscracker • a month ago

    Many teachings are hard like on divorce, use of infertility help like invetro, use of euthanasia drugs and LGBT etc. God’s will is not ours. Pride makes us vain and blind. We think we know what is better than the early church fathers.

    • ...
    Diana Johnston • a month ago • 

    Howdy, y'all. Protestant commenter here.

    To the author - excellent article. Thank you!

    To the commenters - thank you for the excellent discussion. I am enjoying the civil discourse on this article (as on others!).

    As a Protestant, my husband and I started out very Protestant-y regarding birth control. In other words, every responsible person should use it, and we ourselves were on the Pill. Over a seven year period, we painfully re-examined our position and moved incrementally from hormonal contraception, to barrier contraception, to NFP, and now to nothing at all. We eventually rejected NFP because it was still, to our minds, a way of trying to take control from God regarding which persons were or were not born into this world. This is one of the only areas of life ethics from which we now differ from Catholicism. I have enjoyed the back-and-forth discussion on NFP here in the comment section.

    I'd write more, but I'm feeling too crummy - from morning sickness, which is perhaps fitting!

    Thanks so much, all. I learn so much from Crisis and its commenters. 

      Avatar
      John Farrell Fred Flintstone • a month ago

      Fred, you said "the only difference between NFP and artificial is the artificiality part." You are correct as far as purpose goes. Day baseball vs night baseball, etc. (Therefore) "you have to explain exactly how many children you expect people to have and why. Nobody can answer that. Ergo, the whole thing falls apart." Nope. Just don't avoid fertility and honor the marriage debt. God handles the details.

     
     
     
     
    Own comment: 

    If I understand the point of the article correctly, it is that ecumenism as it is generally understood is a pointless exercise. All the more pointless it is because what divides us cannot be overcome by mere niceties and concerns issues which have led to the coarse culture we have today, with the piece singling out contraception in particular.

    I do not disagree with any of that.

    The comment section is also interesting.