Contraception

[patricius79]

.


"Fasting" is something done for spiritual/religious purposes; Family PLANNING is done for the purpose of PLANNING births (ie conceptions).

.

family planning is done for spiritual reasons: to do the will of God. it requires self-control Gal 5:22,23

 

[sunlover1]

family planning is done for spiritual reasons: to do the will of God. it requires self-control Gal 5:22,23

It wouldn't be the will of God to leave it up to His will?
Isn't GOD the Lord of our body and our family size?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If we look at the word "contraceptive" does it not mean "contra" as against and "ceptive" as against fertilization. In NFP there is nothing that is opposing the fertilization of an egg.

I thought this worth repeating.

I thought it was common sense that contraception would deal with something during sexual intercourse to keep an egg from being fertilized. Otherwise, I guess the television on game night might be considered "contraception" since it interferes with the husband and wife from having sexual intercourse and so it avoids conception by not acting. So prayer and fasting must now be considered a form of "contraception". To me this seems nonsensical.

But in a world where Pluto is no longer a planet and when a fruit like a tomato can be classified as a vegetable I am not surprised that we leave logic for self proclaimed wisdom and change what the root of a language is to suit our self (IMO).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It wouldn't be the will of God to leave it up to His will?
Isn't GOD the Lord of our body and our family size?

Until we interfere with God's design in favor of a wiser one created by man.

Right?

 

[ivebeenshown]

... birth control.

... sex done contraceptively.

... purposely doing sex so as to avoid conception.

It's not 'doing sex to avoid conception', it's 'refraining from sex at certain times to avoid conception', which is not a contraceptive. 'Contraceptive' is that which disrupts the natural process that occurs during sex, that is, deliberately preventing the woman from receiving seed during the act of intercourse, or deliberately preventing the woman from being fertile.

A mutual agreement to not have sex at any chosen time is not contraceptive, nor is a mutual agreement to have sex at a time when the fertility of the woman is low or non-existent due to natural causes.

You keep going to GREAT lengths to document my point for me. Thanks.

Is there a condescending tone here?

 

[ivebeenshown]

More, from Pius XI, and his encyclical 'Casti Connubii':

"53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act."

Notice how 'virtuous continence' is permitted for married people to avoid offspring in this encyclical?

Furthermore, 'frustrating the marriage act' would include deliberately preventing the reception of seed or deliberately altering the woman's fertility.

 

[sunlover1]

Until we interfere with God's design in favor of a wiser one created by man.

Right?

We're dang good at that
Too bad we're not one
Now THAT would be a sight to behold.

And the LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one
language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing
that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

WOW

 

[patricius79]

It wouldn't be the will of God to leave it up to His will?
Isn't GOD the Lord of our body and our family size?

sometimes people over-emphasize freedom of choice and other times they pit God's will against ours

but in some situations it is not God's primary will for a couple to procreate another child. these situations can be very dire.

so he has given us a licit means--NFP-- to do his will in this regard.

likewise, with trying to concieve through NFP. we are choosing to do his will because we believe he desires to procreate

so there is no conflict between our free will and God's or betweeen nature and grace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It's not 'doing sex to avoid conception', it's 'refraining from sex at certain times to avoid conception',

.

Oooookkkkaaaayyyyyyyyyyy......


When something is done (the practice of NFP, the practice of birth control, the practice of Family Planning, the "rescheduling" of sex PURPOSELY, INTENTIONALLY, with the sole reason to counter conception) is that practice not contraceptive?

A mutual agreement to not have sex at any chosen time is not contraceptive

... well, IF it has nothing to do with conception, birth control, family planning, yes. If the reason, purpose, intent is to lesson the odds of conception, then - yes, obviously - that's a contraceptive move.

And remember, as you've noted, such couples are WELCOME to have sex just as often as non practitioners of this RCC birth control method. It has nothing at all to do with abstinence or being a sexless couple, it is entirely about having that sex is ways that won't likely permit conception. That's the whole point.






.

 

[ivebeenshown]

When something is done (the practice of NFP, the practice of birth control, the practice of Family Planning, the "rescheduling" of sex PURPOSELY, INTENTIONALLY, with the sole reason to counter conception) is that practice not contraceptive?

'Contraception', or 'the prevention of fertilization', applies to that which either artificially alters the fertility of the woman (or the potency of the man) for the purpose of intercourse or prevents the woman from receiving seed during the act of intercourse. Choosing to refrain from sex at a particular time is not contraceptive. It is simply practicing continence.

'Contraception' involves disruption of the natural fertilization process as it relates to the act of intercourse; abstinence and continence avoid the act of intercourse altogether -- they neither alter fertility/potency nor initiate a process or act which may be disrupted.

 

[D'Ann]

Originally Posted by patricius79

yes, of course. it's not intrinsically wrong like contraception is. but must be used for serious reasons and under the right circumstances

the Biblical Church's teaching is that it is fundamentally different to have sex without giving oneself fully
​

Originally Posted by D'Ann No, the Catholic Church does not say it's okay to use NFP or any contraception for the sole purpose to not conceive.

Perhaps you guys should have a brief huddle and get back to us when you can agree on an answer.

We are saying the same thing, but using different words.

patricius 79 is saying that b/c and NFP is allowed as a medication for a serious health issue.. that is correct.

And we both agree that it is against Church dogma to use NFP and/or bc for the only sole purpose to prevent pro-creation. NFP may be used for infertile couples to help medically to help them be more fertile... which is some thing I don't understand myself.

I know this is confusing, but it's best to read Church dogma and realize that the laity are some times unaware or not knowing of the Church dogma on pro-creation. And that there are a few within the Church herself (priests/nuns/archbishops) seeking to reform the Church.

But dogma never changes. It can't be changed. Dogma is dogma. Doctrines, teachings, Traditions and disciplines can evolve, but they can never contradict dogma.

So, when a Catholic shows evidence of Church dogma... that is what Catholics are taught and what most Catholics believe and they may struggle with it too.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

'Contraception', or 'the prevention of fertilization', applies to that which either artificially alters the fertility of the woman (or the potency of the man) for the purpose of intercourse or prevents the woman from receiving seed during the act of intercourse. Choosing to refrain from sex at a particular time is not contraceptive. It is simply practicing continence.

'Contraception' involves disruption of the natural fertilization process as it relates to the act of intercourse; abstinence and continence avoid the act of intercourse altogether -- they neither alter fertility/potency nor initiate a process or act which may be disrupted.

I find whatever distinction you are making entirely moot - and frankly, just muddies the whole issue STILL more (is that possible?).

Ethics has to do (at least in part) with intent, purpose, design, desire. As all but one Catholic here has stressed, the intent, purpose, design, desire of Catholic family PLANNING is to control conception, birth, family. That the intent, purpose, design, desire of Catholic Birth Control is to control births (and that INCLUDES to do things to prevent such). What this is about is DOING things, PRACTICING things - intentionally, purposely, by design - to have sex contraceptively.

Now, anyone can play games with that or dance all around it or insist that a rose isn't a rose if a Catholic grows it - but what is, is. And yes - you can say that some METHODS of accomplishing the goal are "better" than others but the intention, goal, purpose, design - it is what it is.

And again, you keep retreating into a pointless issue - abstinence. This has NOTHING to do with abstinence. Abstinence = no sex; it does not mean "sex except for 15 minutes per day or 3 days a month" - that's just silly, I CANNOT believe Catholicism now understands that concept the way you are using it, as if the Virgin Mary now means she had sex 25 times a month; no, of course not, "virgin" "abstinence" - they mean all the time, not 3 days a month. There is no "abstinence" here, there is no reduction in sex at all; the RCC is NOT saying that couples must stop having sex or even have it less; the whole point is to HAVE IT - lots of it - but it will teach you HOW to HAVE it in ways that are purposely, intentionally, by design and desire - contraceptive, birth control, family planning - that will not likely result in a bambino. Spin that any way you like, it is what it is. And that's what virtually all Catholics (what few DO this) DO with it. It's what those classes at the Parish Hall teach them to do. Am I all "wet" here?

Friend, I never ONCE said or implied that such is good or bad - I'm not evaluating it. I do NOT doubt - for a second - anyone's piety or morality or honesty here. Frankly, as a single virgin - I rather think I have no right to tell you HOW to have sex or WHY - or WHAT to do with it. That's between you, your spouse and your God. Not me. But it is what it is - and, IMO, amazingly silliness results from denying that (read this thread!).


That's MY perspective....


If you don't agree, I love, respect and embrace you no less....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Does the Catholic Church say it's okay to use NFP so as to NOT conceive, so as to not conceive now?

.

Yes, of course.

D'Ann, you and patricus79 are saying the same thing?




.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I find whatever distinction you are making entirely moot - and frankly, just muddies the whole issue STILL more (is that possible?).

Ethics has to do (at least in part) with intent, purpose, design, desire. As all but one Catholic here has stressed, the intent, purpose, design, desire of Catholic family PLANNING is to control conception, birth, family. That the intent, purpose, design, desire of Catholic Birth Control is to control births (and that INCLUDES to do things to prevent such). What this is about is DOING things, PRACTICING things - intentionally, purposely, by design - to have sex contraceptively.

The distinction I was making was not 'moot'. Birth control is not synonymous with contraception, though many utilize contraception as a form of birth control. The Church approves the use of periodic continence for birth control, but not the use of contraceptives.

It would seem to me that you are trying to define a word to fit your own desire to pit the doctrine of the Church against itself. Yes, the Church approves of continence. Yes, the Church disapproves of contraceptives. No, continence and contraception are not one in the same.

And again, you keep retreating into a pointless issue - abstinence.

I was only trying to make the point that 'contraception' does not apply to 'not having sex', whether it be abstinence OR continence (both of which I mentioned, each as a distinct concept.) I fully acknowledge that periodic continence (a.k.a. NFP) is distinct from abstinence. Therefore your tangent was moot.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

It might be worth noting that refraining from having sex during a certain period of time does not propose to render procreation impossible in the anticipation of intercourse (because no intercourse will be had), in its accomplishment (again, because there is no intercourse to be accomplished) or in the development of its natural consequences (there are no consequences of intercourse where there is no intercourse!) Furthermore, having sex when the woman is naturally less fertile or infertile does not in itself propose to render procreation impossible in anticipation of intercourse (because no effort is made to render procreation impossible), in its accomplishment (because no contraceptive devices or coitus interruptus are used) or in the development of its natural consequences (provided no plan B pill is taken, or any similar action.

 

[D'Ann]

Does the Catholic Church say it's okay to use NFP so as to NOT conceive, so as to not conceive now?

.

Yes, of course.

.

Cobweb posted:

yes, of course. it's not intrinsically wrong like contraception is. but must be used for serious reasons and under the right circumstances

the Biblical Church's teaching is that it is fundamentally different to have sex without giving oneself fully

Yes... with his quote above is what we both are saying, but using different words.

 

[patricius79]

When something is done (the practice of NFP, the practice of birth control, the practice of Family Planning, the "rescheduling" of sex PURPOSELY, INTENTIONALLY, with the sole reason to counter conception) is that practice not contraceptive?
.

contraception is having sex in which one deliberately blocks one's natural state of fertility (or infertility).

again, one can practice NFP with a contraceptive mentality, however. I think this is much less likely than with contraceptives, since it requires much more of self-control

btw, everyone, here is Megan Morris's summary of the scientific survey of Dr. Robert Lerner as to NFP users:



The results presented from the three surveys analyzed revealed that compared to other women in general and to Catholic women of similar age, NFP users:

• have a dramatically low (0.2%) divorce rate;
• experience happier marriages;
• are happier and more satisfied in their everyday lives;
• have considerably more marital relations;
• share a deeper intimacy with spouse than those who contracept;
• realize a deeper level of communication with spouse;
• Divorce Rate Comparisons Between Couples Using NFP & Artificial Birth Control

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

contraception is having sex in which one deliberately blocks one's natural state of fertility (or infertility).

I think that's playing word games...

The REALITY seems to be Catholic Family PLANNING, Catholic Birth CONTROL, is all about having sex in ways that are contraceptive in purpose, design, intent and (almost always) desire. That makes it contraceptive.

Yes, having sex in a way that deliberately avoids fertility - so that the couple may have sex but avoid conception - that IS a contraceptive practice, a deliberately contraceptive practice of sex. It's family planning. It's birth control. It's contraceptive sex, in ways that are are intended to not result in conception.

It is what it is. You (and several others) have clearly agreed, some have even used the word "contraceptive" and "contraceptively" - you just (for reasons I TOTALLY don't understand) keep affirming and then disagreeing with yourselves. Seems like word games to me.... It is what it is. And the "morality" of it flows from what it is - the purposeful, intentional, actions to have sex but contraceptively.




.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I think that's playing word games...

The REALITY seems to be Catholic Family PLANNING, Catholic Birth CONTROL, is all about having sex in ways that are contraceptive in purpose, design, intent and (almost always) desire. That makes it contraceptive.

Yes, having sex in a way that deliberately avoids fertility - so that the couple may have sex but avoid conception - that IS a contraceptive practice, a deliberately contraceptive practice of sex. It's family planning. It's birth control. It's contraceptive sex, in ways that are are intended to not result in conception.

It is what it is. You (and several others) have clearly agreed, some have even used the word "contraceptive" and "contraceptively" - you just (for reasons I TOTALLY don't understand) keep affirming and then disagreeing with yourselves. Seems like word games to me.... It is what it is. And the "morality" of it flows from what it is - the purposeful, intentional, actions to have sex but contraceptively.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I think you're the one playing the word game, you think I am, whatever.

What is your point, Josiah?

Are you trying to say that the Church contradicts itself by approving of periodic continence and then saying "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil"?

Please, tell me -- what is your point?

 

[patricius79]

We are saying the same thing, but using different words.

patricius 79 is saying that b/c and NFP is allowed as a medication for a serious health issue.. that is correct.

And we both agree that it is against Church dogma to use NFP and/or bc for the only sole purpose to prevent pro-creation. NFP may be used for infertile couples to help medically to help them be more fertile... which is some thing I don't understand myself.
.

sorry! you are right. we are not allowed to use NFP for the sole purpose of not concieving. correct.

that would be the contraceptive mentality. however, we can use NFP in order to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons like health of the spouse, etc (i.e. out of love for God and spouse and neighbor)

thanks for the correction. let me know if I am making any other mistakes in my phrasing

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What is your point, Josiah?

The one I've consistently made throughout this thread....

Family PLANNING, Birth CONTROL, intentional, purposeful, deliberate, practice of sex so as to be contraceptive IS contraception.


I never said that's good or bad - only that it is what it is.



Yes, there does seem to be some contradiction (or at the very least - word games) when Catholicism (and according to your quoted sources, the RCC in official statements) argues for contraceptive sex and then declares contraceptive sex to be evil.

The comments in this thread that you guys should huddle and make up your mind, the comments that NFP IS contraception, the comments that when the RCC makes up it's mind - let us know, those all refer to the puzzling spin, the double talk. I don't have a CLUE why it's done. Why not say what it OBVIOUSLY is - and then why you think it's sometimes okay and sometimes not, rather than trying to say "contraception is not contraception when it's done the Catholic way." I strongly suggest you READ this thread. Just READ it. Not to rebuke or to make your spin - just READ it. Even limit such to the RC and EO posts. It's so very obvious. It's so strange. It's so unnecessary. It's SO confusing - obviously especially to Catholics who have to TRY to make sense of this double speak....







.