Contraception

[Bryne]

I think the typical RCC answer is: You are purposely doing something so that you can have sex in your marriage BUT do so in ways that will lessen the changes of conception, it's contraceptive!" Yeah - the same is true for what the RCC is so into these days (quite uniquely).

That isn't the explanation that I normally hear.

It isn't just that you are doing something to lessen the chance of conception...since, as you pointed out, NFP also can be used to lessen the chance of conception. It is the fact that you are artificially blocking part of the natural process. You are holding back something of yourself.

Even though NFP lessens the chance of conception, the entire natural process is allowed to take place and nothing is physically blocked or prevented.


It would be kind of like eating a delicious meal in order to enjoy the taste and then forcing yourself to throw up afterward to prevent it from digesting. You block the natural process of eating. If you do this to avoid getting fat, it is wrong. But, if you simply limit your intake of food and don't eat as much or as often, then you prevent fatness but still allow digestion to proceed naturally...and that is not wrong. Likewise, going a few days without food is also not wrong and not blocking the natural process of eating.

 

[sunlover1]

That isn't the explanation that I normally hear.

It isn't just that you are doing something to lessen the chance of conception...since, as you pointed out, NFP also can be used to lessen the chance of conception. It is the fact that you are artificially blocking part of the natural process. You are holding back something of yourself.

.

As opposed to holding back ALL of yourself.
And then both would be evil if any are.

 

[ivebeenshown]

As opposed to holding back ALL of yourself.
And then both would be evil if any are.

A wise man once wrote "it is good for a man not to touch a woman." But if a man DOES touch a woman...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You are holding back something of yourself.

... the essence of NPF. Yes, obviously, when something is proactively DONE with the purpose (and typical result) of being contraceptive, then that's contraceptive. Yes, the RCC actively supports, promotes and teaches contraceptive birth control techniques.


Um, for the "natural" part, I'm not aware that in nature we see such acting in purposeful contraceptive ways, how it is purposely and willfully normal to embrace birth control methods. Maybe, but I'm not aware of that. What's natural about contraceptive birth control techniques - purposely, willfully undertaken?

But, if you simply limit your intake of food and don't eat as much or as often, then you prevent fatness but still allow digestion to proceed naturally...and that is not wrong.

I never raised the issue of right or wrong - except to say I CAN see how the previous RC position on this COULD be seen in that light (although I see it as fundamentally UNethical), but all that is moot now. The RCC is no longer opposed to contraception, it promotes it in a unique fashion nowhere duplicated in any other denomination. But again, IF the RCC was saying, "Have sex - and take no responsibility for it" I could see the morality there, but that's not the current RCC position.

Yes, IF the RCC teaching was, "you may have sex every OTHER day but not EVERY day - and thus be contraceptive" - I could see how your analogy would "fit." But such would not be a contraceptive method (it would reduce the number of conceptions as a result, but the purpose here would be to lessen sex, not kids) but, as I understand it, the RCC does NOT say, "Consider how often you have sex now and divide that by half - and see if THAT results in fewer kids." No. If the typical couple has sex 12 times per month, the RCC has no problems with that. Twelve is a nice, biblical number! A couple can have sex that often - more if they like! The RCC is NOT asking ANYONE to have sex less. The point is do do it CONTRACEPTIVELY (if desired) - in ways that are less likely to result in conception (contra - ceptive). It's BIRTH CONTROL. How to have sex but not kids (or at least lessen the odds). Your illustration doesn't work: the RCC does not teach to have sex less, it stresses to have sex CONTRACEPTIVELY. It's not "natural" by anything I know in nature. And it seems odd (to me) to stress that contraception is sinful while being the world's biggest religious promoter of contraception (perhaps the only one).




.

 

[sunlover1]

A wise man once wrote "it is good for a man not to touch a woman." But if a man DOES touch a woman...

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” (1 Corinthians 7:1)
Obviously a man must touch a woman to obey God's commandment
to go forth and multiply. or God's command to give your wife her due...

Text taken out of context is pretext.

 

[Heavens]

This thread needs a cold shower

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

A wise man once wrote "it is good for a man not to touch a woman."

Are you confusing Catholic with Shaker?




.

 

[patricius79]

... the essence of NPF. Yes, obviously, when something is proactively DONE with the purpose (and typical result) of being contraceptive, then that's contraceptive.

that's just it. not having sex is not something proactively DONE. it is something omitted based on a right or wrong intention
.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

that's just it. not having sex is not something proactively DONE. it is something omitted based on a right or wrong intention
.

Well, I'd question that....

IF the RCC's new position was: "DON'T HAVE SEX!" then I think you could (possibly, with work) cast that as a moral thing and nothing contraceptive about it. But that's Shaker, not Catholic! The Shakers weren't concerned with birth control (they actually took kids in!), it had to do with the morality of sex, it was a moral position not a birth control one.

The RCC's position is to HAVE SEX (as often as before) just have it CONTRACEPTIVELY - and they'll teach you how. Practicing that (very unnatural) birth control method certainly IS doing something; how else can you post that you PRACTICE ('do') NFP?




.

 

[patricius79]

Well, I'd question that....

.

you are saying that NOT doing something is an act?

the CHurch's positions is consistent, since it condemns both contraception and the contraceptive intention of anyone, using NFP or not

it does not condemn abstinence--since then everyone woudl have to have sex all the time if they are married--or having sex during the infertile period

 

[ivebeenshown]

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” (1 Corinthians 7:1)
Obviously a man must touch a woman to obey God's commandment
to go forth and multiply. or God's command to give your wife her due...

Text taken out of context is pretext.

8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

It's not taken out of context. Paul wrote that if you can contain yourself, do so: but if you can't control yourself, go ahead and marry. Nowhere is it said that you must absolutely have sex solely because you are married.

Are you confusing Catholic with Shaker?

No. This is rather dishonest of you, as well. Sexual abstinence is no sin, and can be edifying.

 

[solarwave]

why doesn't it make sense to say that contraception is wrong?

we know as Christians that a means to an end--even a just end--can be intrinsically wrong

that is why I know that in principle NFP might be fundamentally different from contraception.

so isn't it at least possible that the Reformed and historic Trinitarian interpretation is correct?

I'm not sure why anything here goes against anything I said.

In my opinion 'spilling your seed' is no different from spitting.

I see no reason to think that sex without pregnancy would be wrong. Closeness to another person is also a good.

 

[sunlover1]

It's not taken out of context. [/qote]
I disagree. obviously

Sexual abstinence is no sin, and can be edifying.

If you're married ,... it is.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

you are saying that NOT doing something is an act?

the CHurch's positions is consistent, since it condemns both contraception and the contraceptive intention of anyone, using NFP or not

it does not condemn abstinence--since then everyone woudl have to have sex all the time if they are married--or having sex during the infertile period

Finally some reason.

 

[ivebeenshown]

If you're married ,... it is.

Does this mean you are sinning because you're not in the sack RIGHT NOW?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Condemning something that will save lives is immoral. So condemning forms of birth control such as condoms to parts of uneducated and religious Africa where aids is widespread should be considered manslaughter. Already millions have died.

As stated previously, contraceptives are abortive too and so many lives have been ended. It is just that we can only guess at how many.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I already stated that hormonal birth control was forbidden (because it is abortive). If he was speaking of the pill... then I am really baffled by his reply to my post.

I did not mean any confusion or to imply anything about you...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

which is why NOT doing something during the fertile period--namely, not having sex--is not contraception

there is a big difference between practicing self-control out of a sense of prudence and having sex whenever a couple wishes while using a condom, e.g.

the sociological data reflects this:

Protestant nurse Jill Stanek writes:

Marital bliss? Dr. Janet Smith reports, “ In fact, the divorce rate doubled between 1965 and 1975. Until the mid-1960s it was 25%. By mid-1975 it went up to 50%. Robert Michaels, a demographer from Stanford, discovered that as the contraceptive pill became more and more available, that line was parallel to the divorce line. The divorce rate leveled off in 1975, when every woman who wanted access to the pill had it. In his statistical scientific investigations, Michaels attributed three reasons why he thinks the use of contraceptives is tied to the massive divorce rate
http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/C...nAnalyzed2.htm

 

[patricius79]

.

I see no reason to think that sex without pregnancy would be wrong. Closeness to another person is also a good.

amen. what you say here is consistent with Catholic teaching

 

[Heavens]

It would sure be wonderful if all the babies that were prevented by contraceptives could be here with us right now eh?