Contraception

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If a couple PRACTICES birth control by PURPOSEFULLY, deliberately, scheduling sex (DOING that) so as to render procreation unlikely, by DOING sex purposely contraceptively, is that ergo "intrinsically evil? NOTE: There is no sexless marriage here, no abstinence - there is AS MUCH SEX as otherwise, just as often, just as good, just as loving, just as much - but DONE contraceptively, DONE specifically, purposely, willfully so as to "render procreation unlikely" (I won't use the word "impossible" since such doesn't exist where God exists, Catholics need to remember the Virgin Mary, lol), is that intrinsically evil - according to this former head of your denomination?

I don't really see the Christian Church as a "denomination". there is isn't any denominationalism in Scripture.

I wholeheartedly agree (which is why it's moot what the head of your denomination says - beyond speaking for that singular denomination).

See what I asked; thanks!





.

 

[MrPolo]

Would singing hymns take FROM the above described evil?

Which described evil?

 

[MrPolo]

I don't think it's necessarily additive. If I'm committing adultery or rape, then that is really what needs to be addressed, not whether or not a wore a condom. If you go to the doctor with cancer, do you also show him your hang nail? I do not deny that there are situation where IS a problem, but even in these cases the real illness lies else where, not in the contraception itself. Why would a young health couple chose to use contraception? Selfishness? Fear? Why would a middle aged couple choose to use contraception? Fatigue? Lost intimacy?

Sure cancer is worse than a hangnail, so yeah, you can start with the severe stuff. But if we believe contraception is an evil, are you saying we should put that on the shelf until the couple in question learns that sex isn't just for lust satisfaction?

 

[D'Ann]

The foremost one is the RC denomination.

It's YOUR denomination that suggests abstinence is not necessary (no more sexless marriages) but that sex CAN be shared PURPOSELY and DELIBERATELY to counter conception. It is the only denomination known to me to officially endorse birth control and even to teach such techniques - often right there at the parish, at times even REQUIRING couples to learn now to ACT contraceptively. IMO, the RCC (and Catholics) are the least qualified to rebuke contraceptive sex.




.

Hi CJ,

I disagree with your above statement. Please provide some evidence and/or some resource links to prove it. The Catholic Church does not allow any birth control or contraceptions for the sake of preventing pro-creation.

Jack proved this in another thread, but if you have some resource evidence.. please provide it.

Thanks and God bless,

D'Ann

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

if we believe contraception is an evil

... then you'd be opposed to anything which purposely decreases the odds of conception (thus being contra - ceptive).

SOME Catholics (unofficially) did take that stand prior to the 1960's sexual revolution (so my Catholic teachers told me): Just have sex - and forget about any responsibility for it; have sex - if kids result, great! If not - swell! NOTHING to counter conception. Such was "evil" these taught back then. But now we have Family Planning, a whole Pope approved system of birth control, and classes on how to have sex contraceptively.




.

 

[D'Ann]

1. Could you give the reference to this? I'm curious how The Christian Church gives definitions...


2. Ah. Then, according to The Christian Church, the RCC's promotion of having sex in intentional ways that render procreation impossible (well - nothing is impossible with God) is evil.





This is a new concept for me; the RC denomination keeps changing things so quickly and so much, it's just hard for me to keep up! When I was a teen being taught in the RCC, "abstinence" = no sex (in any form, including oral sex). This idea that one is practicing abstinence if they don't have sex for an hour a day - but do the other 23 hours, or have sex 25 days a month but not 5 - this is a whole new definition from Catholicism from what I was taught (not so long ago). Is one now a virgin if they just don't have sex 5 days a month - but do the other 25? Does this concept apply there, too?




.

Please provide some resources to prove what you are stating above.

God bless

 

[cobweb]

I believe that the Church-approved contraception that he is speaking of is NFP.

 

[D'Ann]

Thank you...

So, it's YOUR position that this is a statement from the RCC, not The Christian Church?

If a couple PRACTICES birth control by PURPOSEFULLY, deliberately, scheduling sex (DOING that) so as to render procreation unlikely, is that ergo "intrinsically evil? NOTE: There is no abstinence, there is no sexless marriage - there is AS MUCH SEX as otherwise, just as often, just as good, just as loving, just as much - but DONE contraceptively, DONE specifically, purposely, willfully so as to "render procreation unlikely" (I won't use the word "impossible" since such doesn't exist where God exists, Catholics need to remember the Virgin Mary, lol), is that intrinsically evil - according to this 1968 statement of your denomination?





.

CJ,

Sometimes terminalogy can cause so many unnecessary misunderstandings. We all belong to Christ aka the Christian Church... Christ Church.

We all are one in Christ and we all are brothers and sisters in Christ. Sometimes there are language barriers and sometimes we need to concentrate on what a person is actually trying to say instead of how they are saying it due to a language barrier and/or a terminalogy barrier.

As Jack has proven above, the Catholic Church is against birth control. They may allow a couple to practice Natural Family Planning due to health issues, but not to prevent pro-creation.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hi CJ,

I disagree with your above statement. Please provide some evidence and/or some resource links to prove it. The Catholic Church does not allow any birth control or contraceptions for the sake of preventing pro-creation.

Jack proved this in another thread, but if you have some resource evidence.. please provide it.

Thanks and God bless,

D'Ann

Debbie, the resource evidence has already been presented by the Catholics. I've already quoted their own verbatim statements from the Church.

At least as I was taught, NFP is about family planning - to help couples to conceive (and converse) when responsibility, medical issues, etc. so suggest. There is no abstinence (at least not by ANY definition I was taught in the Church) since couples are not told to not have sex, the are taught how to have sex so as to increase or decrease the changes of conceiving (thus, proactive things done to be pro-ceptive or contra-ceptive).

Now, my sister, IF you are telling me that NFP involves nothing, just have sex whenever the heart so mutually moves and leave whatever happens to whatever happens, that there is no "planning" involved, then I may have misunderstood. But, at least as described to ME - it does involve actions, plans, things done - with the purpose of being contraceptive (probably 95% of the time) or pro-ceptive (rarely). That Family Planning involves planning, actions, things done with a specific goal in mind: NOT simply having sex whenever the heart mutually moves. In fact, one of my Catholic teachers told me that she and her husband used this METHOD for the first five years of marriage (they were still in grad school some of that time) when it was best not to have children, then stopped using it for several years (while they had several children) then used it again. Quite successfully, she reported. Contraceptively - most years. Family planning - all of them. Was she evil?


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[D'Ann]

Also, marriage is both unitive and pro-creative. The Catholic Church has always taught this. When a couple can no longer have children, they are still to be "unitive".

If a couple can not have children either from old age or from health issues, they are still to be unitive.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ,

Sometimes terminalogy can cause so many unnecessary misunderstandings. We all belong to Christ aka the Christian Church... Christ Church.

We all are one in Christ and we all are brothers and sisters in Christ.

As stated, I wholeheartedly agree. However, the clear statement was that The Christian Church held to a view. I asked for this statement. What I was given was a statement by the Pope of The Catholic Church in 1968. While you know I regard Catholics as my full, unseparated, equal and in every sense equally blessed brothers and sisters in Christ - I do not believe that if I quoted from Matthew Harrison (the current head of my denomination) ERGO that's The Christian Church speaking. You see the difference, I'm sure...

As Jack has proven above, the Catholic Church is against birth control.

As I read it, he's revealed just the opposite. Isn't Family Planning, by definition, birth control? Isn't DOING things to increase or decrease births, in hopes of controlling births, isn't that birth control? And if people are encouraged (or at least permitted and instructed) to have sex contraceptively, isn't that contraceptive sex?



I hope this makes sense.



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[ivebeenshown]

As I read it, he's revealed just the opposite. Isn't Family Planning, by definition, birth control? Isn't DOING things to increase or decrease births, in hopes of controlling births, isn't that birth control? And if people are encouraged (or at least permitted and instructed) to have sex contraceptively, isn't that contraceptive sex?

I hope this makes sense.

I see where your questions come from: condoms, shots, and pills are artificial (that is, unnatural) means of preventing conception. A condom is just about on par with pulling out -- a form of abortion. Shots and pills disrupt the woman's natural and God-intended cycle. NFP does neither of these things. It does not disrupt the woman's natural cycle, and it does not abort -- the 'goods' are 'delivered'. Furthermore, choosing to abstain from sexual relations at any specific period is not in itself a sin. Otherwise, I'd be sinning by not having sex right this instant!

 

[D'Ann]

Debbie, the resource evidence has already been presented by the Catholics. I've already quoted their own verbatim statements from the Church.

Cool.

At least as I was taught, NFP is about family planning - to help couples to conceive (and converse) when responsibility, medical issues, etc. so suggest. There is no abstinence (at least not by ANY definition I was taught in the Church) since couples are not told to not have sex, the are taught how to have sex so as to increase or decrease the changes of conceiving (thus, proactive things done to be pro-ceptive or contra-ceptive).

That is my understanding too. Thank you.

Now, my sister, IF you are telling me that NFP involves nothing, just have sex whenever the heart so mutually moves and leave whatever happens to whatever happens, that there is no "planning" involved, then I may have misunderstood.

No, I'm not saying that, but I understand why we might be misunderstanding each other. What I'm trying to say (poorly) is that birth control for the "sake" of birth control is not allowed in the Catholic Church and that has never been allowed. There is a difference between using birth control to prevent pregnancy verses a plan in place due to a health issue. Catholic couples are not suppose to use NFP to prevent pro-creation. My understanding is that NFP is mainly for couples who may have health issues (serious health issues) and for the sake of their health and well-being, and the point of using NFP or even other types of b/c is not to avoid pro-creation, but due to their health, they have special permission.

For instance, some women have severe cramps and etc. during that time of the month and many doctors recommend that they take bc pills because some how those pills seem to help them. Now in that case, due to health issues, a person (Catholic) is allowed to take them for the sake of their well-being. Their purpose in taking a bc pill or using NFP is not to avoid pro-creating but to help them with their well-being. Do you see the difference?

I know that there are Catholics who do use NFP and birth control for the sake of preventing pregnancy, but that is not within the actual Church teachings.

But, at least as described to ME - it does involve actions, plans, things done - with the purpose of being contraceptive (probably 95% of the time) or pro-ceptive (rarely). That Family Planning involves planning, actions, things done with a specific goal in mind: NOT simply having sex whenever the heart mutually moves. In fact, one of my Catholic teachers told me that she and her husband used this METHOD for the first five years of marriage (they were still in grad school some of that time) when it was best not to have children, then stopped using it for several years (while they had several children) then used it again. Quite successfully, she reported. Contraceptively - most years. Family planning - all of them. Was she evil?


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

No, your teacher was not evil, but she may have used NFP for the wrong reasons and against Catholic teaching. Even teachers are human and we all struggle with some things. These things are so intimate and private... I won't judge anyone in an unkind or unloving way. Sometimes Catholics, even excellent Catholics will error and not always follow the full Church teachings on things that we struggle with. It's part of our struggle with how the flesh wars against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. Some how, I believe God understands these things so much profoundly deeper than we do.

God's peace,

D'Ann

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Debbie,

Would it be fair to summerize that...

Yes, The Catholic Church is in favor of Birth Control.

Yes, The Catholic Church DOES teach ways to DO sex that will increase the odds of conception - but if people use that for other purposes, that's "evil" according to the Pope's 1968 statement?

I know that very few Catholics USE the Church's method of Family Planning. But you'd know MANY more than I, lol. What percentage of them do you think use it solely to try to have MORE children, MORE quickly? How many do you think understand "Family Planning" as the equal of "Most Births Biologically Possible?" Is there any stats to support that those that use NFP have considerably more children than those that use no birth control at all, that more conceptions happen among Catholic now than say 100 years ago that might support this is the intention and result? (There may not be such data available easily to you, I understand, but if there is - I'd appreciate it).

My sister took the NFP course. Her report to ME was it was the Church's "alternative to condoms and birth control pills" and was presented in that light - including a presentation on the medical benefits vis-a-vis the pill and how the pill can - at times - act as an abortion. It seems to me, most people use condoms and "the pill" to DECREASE the changes of conception, not specifically and solely to INCREASE the odds of such. If this is presented by the Church as "the moral alternative" doesn't that suggest it can be used as an alternative?





.

 

[cobweb]

Condoms are not abortion. Either provide scientific evidence.... or stop insisting that they are.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I see where your questions come from: condoms, shots, and pills are artificial (that is, unnatural) means of preventing conception. A condom is just about on par with pulling out -- a form of abortion. Shots and pills disrupt the woman's natural and God-intended cycle. NFP does neither of these things. It does not disrupt the woman's natural cycle, and it does not abort -- the 'goods' are 'delivered'. Furthermore, choosing to abstain from sexual relations at any specific period is not in itself a sin. Otherwise, I'd be sinning by not having sex right this instant!

Lost me.... I never mentioned ANY of those things.

As for "natural," could you give me a few examples from nature where the specie counts the days of the females cycle or take her temperature or reschedules sex from when the heart desires to when the timing would be best? I'M NOT trying to be difficult here - not at all. But if you are going to argue that Birth Control is NATURAL - let's see the evidence for that (although I got to warn you: I don't ASSUME that if it's natural, it's good. You should have seen the cat toil with that bird out my window the other day - natural, understandable, but it was discusting to watch, hardly the loving approach).

When something is DONE for a specific purpose, it has that purpose. If I don't have sex tonight because the odds of her conceiving are better than normal - that's a purposeful, willful, deliberate, ethical ACTION on my part that is singularly contraceptive in purpose (and likely, result). If I use a condom - then that's a purposeful, willful, debiberate, ethical ACTION on my part that is singularly contraceptive in purpose (and likely result). In terms of purpose, intention - and result, I fail to see the significant difference, both are OBVIOUSLY contraceptive in nature, purpose, design, intent and result. Now, you may like one METHOD better than the other, but that's a whole other issue for another day and thread, both are equally contraceptive.

Again, your definition of "abstinence" must be causing my Catholic youth leaders to have a heart attack! BOY - we had it DRILLED in us - this former, older Catholic understanding of "abstinence." It USE to mean no sex. No vaginal sex, no oral sex, no masturbation (mutual or individual), it meant NO SEX. Now, you are saying the Catholic Church has changed the whole meaning: it just means "for a moment." Okay. You mean all these years I'm been a virgin, I could have been having sex 23 hours of the day - but if I abstained for one hour - batta bing, batta bang - I'm a virgin and I'm practicing abstinence. Boy, how things have changed in Catholicism! Frankly, I'm not buying it (and not because it makes a mockery of my virginity). Abstain = NO SEX. And clearly, that's NOT what the RCC teaches married couples (at least any more). What you are talking about has NOTHING to do with abstinence, it has to do with having sex contraceptively, as BIRTH CONTROL.

(You know, a good way to have lots of kids is to have sex every other night or so - which is pretty darn natural! You REALLY have to have lots of classes to TEACH people that? Catholics historically have done rather well in this department, lol. Are you telling me THAT'S the sole issue here - Catholics don't know how to make babies? Natural isn't good enough, we have to teach them unnatural ways to do it? Really? I'm not SURE I'm buying it...There are nearly 7 BILLION people on the planet - I don't think there's a HUGE problem with people not knowing how to do it or with the time-honored natural way being way inadequate).





.

 

[patricius79]

I wholeheartedly agree (which is why it's moot what the head of your denomination says - .

I don't see the historic Trinitarian Church as a denomination, and I really don't believe some of your oral traditions because nobody in the first millenium roughly shares the Protestant interpretation of the N.T. Canon, which has no historic source but Catholic Tradition

as to NFP being contraception, that would be to assume that periodic abstinence is morally equivalent to having sex without giving oneself totallly to the other

 

[D'Ann]

Debbie,

Would it be fair to summerize that...

Yes, The Catholic Church is in favor of Birth Control.

In all due respect to you, my sweet and kind brother in Christ, no, it is not fair, nor is it true. I kinda understand why you might be thinking this, but no, the Catholic Church is not in favor of birth control at all. The Catholic Church wants Catholics to have a lot of children and raise them up to be good Catholics and have more good Catholic children in the world from generation to generation. I know you are fair in general, but the above statement imo and according to Church dogma is not true. sisterly hug.

Yes, The Catholic Church DOES teach ways to DO sex that will increase the odds of conception - but if people use that for other purposes, that's "evil" according to the Pope's 1968 statement?

No and yes. The Catholic Church may encourage sex to increase conception, but if Catholics use other b/c purposes for the soul purpose to prevent conception, that is sin and that action is evil, but the people are not considered "evil", but rather... sinning and needing to pray that one through. The Catholic Church is very loving and compassionate and they understand humanity and forgiveness and mercy in such a profound way. The Catholic Church doesn't call "people" evil, but rather that sin ... is evil. Do you see the difference? I believe you do.

I know that very few Catholics USE the Church's method of Family Planning. But you'd know MANY more than I, lol.

Honestly, it's a subject that I really and I mean really avoid ever talking about and when this issue comes up even in the OBOB, I avoid it big time. That being said, I know that there are many Catholics who do not follow Church teaching on this issue and I can't judge in a hurtful way because who am I to judge? I have my own sinful things to overcome. Also, when I was young and thinking of family and I was married (age 19), I wasn't Catholic and therefore, I did use bc to prevent pro-creation. I didn't understand the whys, ifs and buts about pro-creation and God's plan or God's will. I regret this and always will. I have two children and if I had to do it over again... I really wish that I had a lot more children. My daughters are such a blessing and are such wonderful and kind and strong and courageous young ladies now. Both are adults now. One is 19 years old and my oldest is 25 years old and ... well, the 25 year old needs to find a good person and like get married and give me some grand babies... but that is another topic for another time or not. LOL

What percentage of them do you think use it solely to try to have MORE children, MORE quickly?

I don't know. It's a fair question, but I honestly don't know. It's really a private thing, between them and God. I can't speak for them.

How many do you think understand "Family Planning" as the equal of "Most Births Biologically Possible?" Is there any stats to support that those that use NFP have considerably more children than those that use no birth control at all, that more conceptions happen among Catholic now than say 100 years ago that might support this is the intention and result?

I honestly don't know how many understand "Family Planning" as the equal of most births biologically possible, probably not as many as should.

Actually, there probably are stats some where available on most woman having more babies a 100 years ago verses now because 100 years ago, they didn't have bc. Although, I may be missing the point your trying to make.

And honestly, due to bc and some Catholics not following Church teaching, I'm sure Catholics are having less babies now a days than 100 years ago, which is sad imo. I think a big family brings so many blessings with it and of course it more difficult to afford a big family... but a big family brings so much more to a family. My husband's mom has like 9 or 10 brothers and sisters and they all love each other and it's sooo nice being apart of a big family. His family was not Catholic, it was just the way of the world back then...

I also want to add that back in 100 years ago, doctors didn't know how to help woman with health issues and they didn't have the medicine to help woman with health issues and so comparing what happened 100 years ago verses presently is not really comparable, imo.

(There may not be such data available easily to you, I understand, but if there is - I'd appreciate it).

I wonder if someone else has some kind of data on this too. I have no idea how to even find this data myself if it is out there.

My sister took the NFP course. Her report to ME was it was the Church's "alternative to condoms and birth control pills" and was presented in that light - including a presentation on the medical benefits vis-a-vis the pill and how the pill can - at times - act as an abortion. It seems to me, most people use condoms and "the pill" to DECREASE the changes of conception, not specifically and solely to INCREASE the odds of such. If this is presented by the Church as "the moral alternative" doesn't that suggest it can be used as an alternative? .

The Church doesn't present any birth control as the moral alternative. The Church will allow certain things if there is a life threatening health issue involved. Unfortunately, there are some parishes and priests and laity that want to use NFP and other bcs for prevention of pro-creation and they might even teach that it's okay, but according to the actual Church herself, it is never okay to use NFP or any bc for the sake of preventing pro-creation.

God's peace,

D'Ann

Bob's home... need to go, will be back later.

 

[cobweb]

I don't see the historic Trinitarian Church as a denomination, and I really don't believe some of your oral traditions because nobody in the first millenium roughly shares the Protestant interpretation of the N.T. Canon, which has no historic source but Catholic Tradition

as to NFP being contraception, that would be to assume that periodic abstinence is morally equivalent to having sex without giving oneself totallly to the other

I'm not protestant and I agree with him that NFP is morally equivalent to non-abortive contraception. (and yes, I do use NFP for grave reasons)

Periodic abstinence is an active choice. It is inconveninent. It requires self-control. That does not negate the fact that is it purposefully avoiding conception.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't see the historic Trinitarian Church as a denomination

As I've posted several times here, I don't either. Which is why I don't accept a statement from a former head of your denomination as a statement of "The Christian Church" anymore than I'd expect you to accept a statement from Robert Harrison (current head of my denomination) as a statement of The Christian Church. He MAY be speaking for his singular denomination (I accept the statement you presented as such) but that's the most I think could be accepted. It has nothing to do with The Christian Church.

and I really don't believe some of your oral traditions

Which did I share in this thread?

the N.T. Canon, which has no historic source but Catholic Tradition

.... I'm completely lost what that has to do with ANYTHING.

as to NFP being contraception, that would be to assume that periodic abstinence is morally equivalent to having sex without giving oneself totallly to the other

Not a CLUE what you're talking about... Sorry.

And again, I'm just not buying this new Catholic definition of abstinence (I wonder what my Catholic teachers are saying about THAT!?!?).

When did I ever say anything about "giving self totally to another." YOU are the one who keeps mentioning this "abstinence" thing, YOU are the one suggesting couples shouldn't give themselves to others.


D'Ann - are you reading what the Catholics here are saying? "Periodic ABSTINENCE!" So as to have MORE babies?




.