Please, let’s continue.

You say “…seems that your “marriage of the heart” may include relations appropriate only in marriage.” So let me ask you…what is marriage? Last Sunday the gospel addressed this very question. Jesus reminds us that man (or the at least the Hebrews) have fallen short of God’s original intention for marriage and calls us to a higher level but man still falls short. At what point does fornication cease to be fornication? When you first move in together? After your first child is born? When does a marriage become a marriage? Obviously when you take someone home that you met while drinking in a bar and have sex, you committed an act of fornication. But if you make a commitment to forsake all others and live together then the act must cease to be fornication. Jesus has set the bar on this one. He said that if a man looks at women lustfully then he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If I can commit adultery of the heart then that must be the place with the bond of marriage begins…in the heart. Many Catholics I know made the step of inviting God to the wedding but failed to invite him to the marriage. Which is more important?
On the Catholic condom question you say “You’ll “be open to life” but only if it restricts God to a miraculous event.” For starters, “restricting God” is an oxymoron. Who can restrict God? You? Me? I don’t think so. Reducing sperm counts to meager numbers seems like natural family planning to me. Each act is open to the real possibility of new life. I would even go so far as to say that both “‘coitus interuptus” and the two holed Catholic condom (a holey condom at that!) fail enough that one should really be open to children.

As for obstacles my friend, you have no idea the kind of baggage that human beings can acquire in a relatively short lifetime. But that would be another conversation.

Post edited 11:50 pm – October 8, 2009 by Michael

[Edited to correct coding error]

Zenobius:

“What is marriage?” is a fair question. Clearly there are a couple of definitions including “common law,” “legal,” and “Sacramental.” Earlier you said:

I don’t believe the Catholic Church is wrong in anything when it comes to teachings on faith and morals

I’m curious: When, in your mind, does Church teaching become authoritative? What sources must I reference to clearly demonstrate “marriage” as defined by the Church is a matter of “faith and morals” and that the Church has the authority to define and defend the practice for those who would claim to be members of the Body of Christ? I can start, perhaps most simply, with this; marriage, for the Catholic, is a Sacrament, instituted by Christ, to provide grace to the spouses.

But if you make a commitment to forsake all others and live together then the act must cease to be fornication.

If this were an argument about civil law, you might have a point. However, because we are on a Catholic forum, the discussion must go deeper. In the eyes of the Church, fornication is quite simply sexual congress outside of the Sacrament of marriage. Regardless of what you say to one another, the failure to make the act a Sacramental bond means that one continues in fornication.

If I can commit adultery of the heart then that must be the place with the bond of marriage begins…in the heart.

Let’s be clear: love, lust, hatred, dread, etc. are things that can be said to begin “in the heart;” they are emotions. But marriage is an act of the will, not of the heart. It is a mutual exchange between a man and woman of certain rights and vows, freely given, and sanctified by the Church, raised to the level of a Sacrament by Christ to give grace to both. Canon Law (1055) lays it out this way:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

Now on to this point.

Many Catholics I know made the step of inviting God to the wedding but failed to invite him to the marriage. Which is more important?

Niether, actually. The argument is specious. One can’t say that God wasn’t invited to the marriage if He was invited to the wedding. One may say that He was never truly invited at all, or that concupisence and our fallen nature led parties to reject His gift of grace.

On the Catholic condom question you say “You’ll “be open to life” but only if it restricts God to a miraculous event.” For starters, “restricting God” is an oxymoron.

You probably mean “contradiction” vs. oxymoron, I think. Regardless, St. Thomas points out that God has all sorts of restrictions that are defined by His nature. For instance, he is barred from the “impossible” (more closely defined as ridiculous) like creating a rock so big He can’t lift it. His nature also admits to the restriction that He cannot allow sin into His presence; that His infinite Justice would consign all who sin to Hell but His infinite Love provided us with a means of Salvation (in Jesus), remission of sin through Confession, and repatriation into his presence for those who die without the stain of mortal sin on their souls (Purgatory). But these are restrictions of nature. To say that you are not restricting God (through limitation) to a miraculous event when using chemical, pharmaceutical, or mechanical methods to severely handicap the possibility of a joining of gametes seems to be word-play. God could open a hole in a condom Himself, right. So why don’t you simply say that any act of intercourse is “open to life” if you believe that God to be fully unrestricted? If God wanted, he could make a man pregnant – is this an argument that homosexuality is “open to life?”

Reducing sperm counts to meager numbers seems like natural family planning to me.

The problem with reducing those counts is that you are relying on yourself, not on God. Coitus interuptus is not a true sharing of yourself. It is a really a selfish act, because you are saying to your spouse that you will take pleasure, but not give it. Or that if you give pleasure that you will not give her all that is you (meaning your gift of co-creating with God). The same holds true for a compromised condom.

Suppose that the person you marry becomes incapable of engaging in the marital act. Will she be able to trust that you will not be driven by your passions to find another who will satisfy them? Can she trust that you will truly “forsake all others?” Can you trust her should something happen to you?

As for obstacles my friend, you have no idea the kind of baggage that human beings can acquire in a relatively short lifetime.

I think I have some idea. This being the case, however, wouldn’t it be more fair to both parties to resolve these prior to getting a relationship to a point where the “baggage” may harm one or both?

In Christ,
Michael

Post edited 2:43 pm – October 22, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 2:49 pm – October 22, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

Zenobius:

Did I offend? I meant none.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael and Zenobius, The Catholic Condom thread has far greater implications which reach well into the issue of abortion in America. Abortion is a very complex issue as many believe it to be only a medical procedural issue when in fact the entire scope of abortion is enveloped withing the category of “family values and procreation”. There are many forms of contraceptive and abortive paraphernalia which impede and destroy the procreative act and most acts of abortive intent is not even medical which creates a sort of “duck blind” effect on Catholic efforts to petition legislators to pass laws requiring Americans of any belief system to adhere to a strictly Catholic Doctrine. The resultant petitioning of the government by Catholics conflicts primarily with the concept of Democracy and individual freedoms gained through the Constitution and many debates of legislature.

Rarely does any form of government comply with any religious Doctrine in whole or even in part and so Catholics are actually petitioning for a Catholic America and not a Democratic Catholic America or even a Republican Catholic America.

Both Democracy and Republican Constitutional values are in direct conflict with Catholic family values and procreative directives from the Vatican and especially with the Theology of the Body.

The only way to effectively reconcile this American nation with pro-life is to pray and Evangelize all national constituents to Catholicism which of course so far has been a losing proposition as the rate of protestantism rises and now other religions are rapidly becoming predominant in America ie: Islam, Buddhism and worse of all American atheism which is actually a form of Scientology to which many Catholic are being lost daily to become in effect Catholic Scientologists.

America needs conversion of heart to address the complex issue of abortion and to create a pro-life culture with deep roots in core family values that is open to conception and protects human life all the way to the grave and beyond. This effect would require a near total Catholic America which at this point in time is only a dream “somewhere over the rainbow” as Dorothy would sing from the Wizard of Oz fantasy created in Hollywood.

Father John Hardon wrote extensively on this subject so any of his publications accurately depict the complex issue of abortion in America in a very broad spectral image of what strikes at the heart of Catholic family values and pro-life efforts. Of course the Vatican is well aware also and has repeatedly exhorted American Catholics to “keep the faith” to avoid American Catholic Scientology as deceptive of Catholic Doctrinal fidelity. With the advent of new age practices in technology and medicine a large portion of Catholic are slowly but effectively are being lost to Scientology which translates broadly as atheism.

Post edited 11:27 pm – October 22, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 11:30 pm – October 22, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 11:37 pm – October 22, 2009 by saintstephen

ormom2 said:

Help me understand the logic that says NFP is more open to the possibility of life (God’s will) than artificial contraception.

Dear Ormom2, Artificial contraceptives either kill or spill reproductive body fluids and further, cause liver damage with continued use, sometimes permanent damage to the reproductive system and organs and psychological illness in the user from repeated denial of unitive affection. Killing or spilling reproductive fluids is obviously not open to the possibility of life at all.

NFP is more effective than any known contraceptive and can be practiced for the purpose of avoiding and promoting pregnancy. NFP does not prevent pregnancy and so is completely open to the possibility of new life. NFP merely makes a determined effort to time cycles to identify periods where sexual intercourse would likely or not likely result in conception. Use of NFP always leaves the entire decision of new life in your hands and in fact, cannot be manipulated to deception as contraceptives can be easily manipulated by the female [or male]for the purpose of deception.

NFP does not use any method of liver damaging chemicals nor does it cause spillage nor does it prevent the full and natural exchange of reproductive fluids.

Any chemical or device which interferes with the natural exchange of reproductive fluids is absolutely devoid of open-ness to creation of new life.

Post edited 12:19 am – October 23, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 12:23 am – October 23, 2009 by saintstephen

ormom2 said:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply but I want to clear up an inaccuracy. The pill does not spill or kill reproductive fluids. It prevents ovulation – it doesn’t kill anything.

Dear Ormom2, Of course you have the God-given right to use any method you prefer to prevent creation of life although God has reserved the right to judge you with justice and mercy depending on circumstance.

Any chemical that prevents ovulation does so by “killing” the natural effect of ovulation.

As I pointed out and this is well documented, any chemical you ingest will cause permanent damage to your health. I do not see how you can justify that and still consider yourself open to creation of life when you choose to damage your own life willingly.

Would you be willing to explain how damaging or destroying your own body cells with chemicals and the life of your intended children complies with “open to creation of life in the womb”?

Also if you would post the ingredients in the chemical you are swallowing I will look up the product warning labels to provide you with specific damage that chemical will inflict on your body cells?

Michael, my friend, I am sorry for the delay in responding. Two weeks in the bush and no internet…but oil for America!

You ask: “When, in your mind, does Church teaching become authoritative?” Answer: when it can stand the test of reason, knowledge and screams of truth both in practice and in teaching.

“…marriage, for the Catholic, is a Sacrament…” This statement is based entirely on the premise that the partners know, practice and embrace the Catholic Faith. If only the world and its relationships could be so blessed…I wish.

“…fornication is quite simply sexual congress outside of the Sacrament of marriage.” I say that fornication has lust as its foundation. Perhaps you could agree that the “lust” factor is the first emotion to leave the relationship (usually the next morning). How many children must I father before our union is no longer a continual mortal sin? Remember she is a-religious.

“…the failure to make the act a Sacramental bond means that one continues in fornication.” A sacramental bond cannot be formed when one partner is not baptized and continually reminds me of those “horny” pedophilic priests (and now recently a Bishop in Canada) running the Church. Oh yea, I’m living with a Catholic hater!

“But marriage is an act of the will, not of the heart.” Please elaborate the suggestion that it is an act of the will. Are you saying it’s a choice? Huh?

“The argument is specious. One can’t say that God wasn’t invited to the marriage if He was invited to the wedding.” Look at the stats: how many Catholic “sacramental” weddings do couples participate in only to never or at least rarely step back into the Church again?

An Oxymoron is putting two contradictory words together. “God” and “can’t” is an oxymoron if ever there was one. I think Aquinas uses the term “absurd”.

“So why don’t you simply say that any act of intercourse is “open to life” if you believe that God to be fully unrestricted?” I concur. Once copulation occurs, however brief, the potential for the passing of gametes is present. The act becomes morally acceptable and meets the requirement of openness to transmission of life. No act of contraception occurs.

“The problem with reducing those [gametes] counts is that you are relying on yourself, not on God.” When I abstain from sexual relations on highly fertile days (re: NFP) am I not relying on myself? I don’t see the problem.

“Coitus interuptus is not a true sharing of yourself. It is a really a selfish act, because you are saying to your spouse that you will take pleasure, but not give it.” Hold on a minute…are you married? My spouse never indicates that there is pleasure in the finishing of the act…but rather in the anticipation and the lead up. As far as I know the good Lord did not see fit to include the necessity of the completion of her pleasure in the procreative act (the planet would be without humans!). It appears He left that to other more…hmm…oral means. I recognize the fact that the Church likes to teach a higher order of sexual profundity but lets be honest…this coming from a supposedly chaste and celibate hierarchy. Hardly experts in the field…for the most part.

ormom2 said:

I think you are making a specious argument instead of addressing my point.

Dear Ormom2, I think you are a Scientologist who has come to get her jollies and has no intention to procreate according to the will of God. You want to see how far you can provoke me to argue againtst atheist's point of view.

ormom2 said:

Then you would be wrong.
I am a cradle Catholic who agrees with Church teaching on everything except contraception and I am sincerely trying to understand the moral difference between NFP and the pill when both are 98-99% effective at preventing pregnancy (i.e. when used as intended both are 1-2% likely to result in pregnancy over time). Do they not have the same openness to life?

Dear Ormom2, You may have been born a cradle Catholic although you grew up to be a rebellious self analyst and a proposition to disobedience.

Were you remaining faithful to the faith, there would be no doubt in your mind that your only option is NFP. If you still desire communion with the Catholic Church, I highly recommend you seek the reconciliation of the Sacrament of Confession with a Catholic Priest instead of delusional debate on this forum.

I have not overstated the danger of cell damage from the use of chemicals. I myself have been poisoned by chemical warfare while in military service and further poisoned by treatment of medical professionals so am well aware of the inherent dangers of chemicals in any form and liver damage and further damage to the uterus in use of contraceptives.

Any Priest will tell you that in order for you to remain in communion with the Catholic Church, you must demonstrate obedience to the Catechism of open-ness to creation of live without the use of contraceptives. Your desire for debate is motivated by your desire to disobedience and sin. I cannot help you as this is your intent, it needs to be resolve in the Confessional with a Priest. May God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit lead you to your act of contrition and amendment of life for the sake of your children should you decide for their right to birth.

Zenobius:

I am sorry for the delay in responding. Two weeks in the bush and no internet…but oil for America!

Yeah! Thanks! Glad you're back. Thanks for your detailed reply. I'll do my best to respond.

Answer: when it can stand the test of reason, knowledge and screams of truth both in practice and in teaching.

So, by your suggestion, "granted" authority holds no weight if one can reason against it? Where does that leave faith? At what point does one jettison entirely the moral teaching of the Church based on one's ability to reason against it? How can any moral instruction stand the test you set? Previously, didn't you indicate that you "don't believe the Catholic Church is wrong in anything when it comes to teachings on faith and morals?" Do you still believe this? Permit me ask the question a different way: By what authority can the Catholic church teach faith and morals?

This statement is based entirely on the premise that the partners know, practice and embrace the Catholic Faith. If only the world and its relationships could be so blessed…I wish.

This is a nearly true statement, in my assessment. Only one partner needs to "know, practice, and embrace" the faith. Implied in that statement is fidelity to the teaching authority of the Church for that one partner and an admission of understanding on the part of the other (Can. 1125-1127 (and others probably)). I've not said that you can't be in a common-law relationship or have the marriage conducted by civil authority. My marriage was initially conducted by the pilot on my aircrew because he had a Notary Public license. Our marriage was later convalidated by the Church. I am saying that the Church recognizes those marriages conducted in accord with its moral precepts and discipline to have a Sacramental character to them. That the couple receives particular graces through the marriage when conducted "properly."

I say that fornication has lust as its foundation. Perhaps you could agree that the “lust” factor is the first emotion to leave the relationship (usually the next morning). How many children must I father before our union is no longer a continual mortal sin? Remember she is a-religious.

For the sake of argument I'll stipulate that fornication has lust as a foundation. But this does not preclude a habit of behavior, even if lust "leaves" the relationship. The fact that she is a-religious has no bearing on whether she or you contravene moral law. For her, the fact that she hasn't had catechetical instruction may “mitigate” her culpability but does not eliminate it. For you, however, the fact that you know that the Church teaches that a behavior is morally wrong and that you engage in it of your own free will may actually increase your culpability. Please note all of the qualifications I am providing. I am not a member of the clergy so these are my opinions based on my reading of theology and philosophy.

To get the real answers is going to entail more work from you than simply asking questions of non-professionals. You really should seek the counsel of a priest or an office run by the chancery in your diocese.

A sacramental bond cannot be formed when one partner is not baptized and continually reminds me of those “horny” pedophilic priests (and now recently a Bishop in Canada) running the Church. Oh yea, I’m living with a Catholic hater!

There is a lot of theological opinion on whether a Sacramental bond can be made in marriage when one party is un-baptized. It is a recognized impediment to Catholic marriage but it may be approved. It is not specifically denied to the Catholic in the same manner as impotence. Christ's Great Commission is that you would seek to bring your loved one to the Truth taught by the Church. The priests she abhors were not fulfilling the precepts of the Church, but contravening them. But such behavior is found not solely inside of the Church but among other religions and the non-religious as well. You should be able to demonstrate to her that it is a non-issue with respect to what is taught by the Church.

Please elaborate the suggestion that it is an act of the will. Are you saying it’s a choice? Huh?

To be more clear – the choice to marry is an act of will. Marriage is not an emotion, but a submission – each to one another and, for the Catholic, to the will and by the Grace of God. I was contrasting it to your contention that marriage is "of the heart."

Look at the stats: how many Catholic “sacramental” weddings do couples participate in only to never or at least rarely step back into the Church again?

I think I addressed that in the remainder of the paragraph from which my initial reply came.

An Oxymoron is putting two contradictory words together. “God” and “can’t” is an oxymoron if ever there was one. I think Aquinas uses the term “absurd”.

I think you're right about "absurd." I didn't have a copy of the Summa with me at the time. But an oxymoron in not just the juxtaposition of contradictory words, it is that that juxtaposition produces something which is surprisingly true or paradoxical. My fault – I should have left semantics out of the conversation. It is a distraction from the topic, please forgive me.

What it distracted from is my point that, by your definition, any copulative act – or any act, really, causing ejaculation could be considered "open to life" because God can perform any miracle he wants. But you are not intending to cooperate in the manner natural to the act of procreation and acting in contravention to the Church's moral teaching on the subject. You are, in effect, attempting to limit God to the miraculous.

Once copulation occurs, however brief, the potential for the passing of gametes is present. The act becomes morally acceptable and meets the requirement of openness to transmission of life. No act of contraception occurs.

Perhaps you can find for me the Church teaching that the morality of the act is founded on gamete distribution. Again, I believe that you are tempting God to perform a miracle.

When I abstain from sexual relations on highly fertile days (re: NFP) am I not relying on myself? I don’t see the problem.

As I mentioned to Ormom2 above, I'm not an NFP practitioner nor a moral theologian. With respect to the use of NFP as a contraceptive method v. a regulatory method, my understanding is that it would be considered an illicit use. The morality of an action is not judged by its effects but by that which it is – the nature of the act and not the consequence. Thus "contraception" and "regulation" are of a different nature, and this is the reason why NFP may have both a licit and illicit use. A final note on NFP and then my understanding is exhausted: NFP must be a practice of necessity, not convenience – there have to be serious reasons to require spaced births including physical or psychological conditions of the husband or wife or external conditions. Still, abstinence during fertile periods is a sacrifice showing respect of the gift of sex and a proper end (procreation) while contraception does not.

My spouse never indicates that there is pleasure in the finishing of the act…but rather in the anticipation and the lead up. As far as I know the good Lord did not see fit to include the necessity of the completion of her pleasure in the procreative act (the planet would be without humans!)… I recognize the fact that the Church likes to teach a higher order of sexual profundity but let’s be honest…this coming from a supposedly chaste and celibate hierarchy. Hardly experts in the field…for the most part.

The marital embrace has as its object three "goods" and two "ends": procreation (good and end), unity (good and end), and pleasure (good). Whether pleasure is derived from lead-up, the act itself, or "after-glow" is still a good but, by Catholic moral definition, not in itself an end. So, I suppose that it is good that she derives pleasure from the "before" and not the "after," but it remains a selfish act since both "ends" are not and object of the act. I note that you conspicuously fail to address the second portion of my response from that paragraph.

Again, although you have indicated a belief that the Church is right in its instruction on matters of faith and morals, I don't know that you really believe this. You suggest that the teaching is coming from non-expert humans. But the Church, if you are a believing member, is a body ordained by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. So let's really be honest…Do you believe that the Church has any authority.

In Christ,
Michael

Post edited 7:19 pm – October 23, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 7:24 pm – October 23, 2009 by saintstephen
Post edited 7:26 pm – October 23, 2009 by saintstephen

Michael said:

Spool it back some.

Michael, Au cont-rare! Fast forward to the truth. I answered her question perfectly and she responds with argument. According to the Catechism my correct exhortation to her is to refer her to the Sacrament of Confession as she does not have a question, she has a direct opposition to the Teaching Authority of the Church and a desire to disobedience to Church Doctrine, Catechism and Canon now that she has identified her faith as Catholic. She does not have an argument with me personally. My response as it stands is not only correct, it is also required by Catechism in order to absolve myself and distance myself from cooperation with her sin. Please refrain from interfering in my Sacred Duty. What you choose to say to her does not need to agree with or disagree with what I have to say, nor do you need my permission to engage her in dialog.