Contraception

[sunlover1]

NFP can be done with a contraceptive mindset
and that is a bad thing

Or not.
It is certainly sin if it's sin to you.
Bummer too because all of the RCC's I that know are now living in sin


To the man who does not see it as sin at all,
then since Scripture does not even mention it
why would we lay a heavy burden on him?

Or do you think that it makes God mad when we use
the brains He gave us, or when we use the authority
He gave us over our own bodies? And no I don't mean
prochoice as someone accused me of earlier in this thread...

IMO, it's a matter OF opinion and a personal choice betweeen
a man and his wife and His Lord...

Be blessed

 

[sunlover1]

Is this what you are thinking of?
.

That type of thing, yes.

 

[patricius79]

So, abortion is evil but moral if the intention is good and the means taught by the RCC? ? .

I don't think you are really listening. nobody said anything of the sort.

this is what was said:

the difference between using a knife and salt is not a moral difference

but there is a moral difference between aborting a child through blowing up a building with people in it and aborting a child through normal means


Larry and Allen both wish to avoid pregnancy

Larry wishes to avoid pregnancy because he is concerned seriously about his wife's health. so he abstains during fertile periods.

Allen wishes to avoid pregnancy because he wants to deprive his wife of happiness and keep playing a lot of golf. so he uses a condom


the intention is morally different and the means is morally different, as the Biblical Church teaches

 

[patricius79]

Or are you saying that the ONLY intent and purpose of Catholic Family PLANNING (and ergo birth control) is solely and particularly to have the MOST children biologically possible: and this is clearly and consistently taught and stated by the RCC?

of course not.

again, there is nothing wrong with avoiding pregnancy for serious reasons.

the Christian Church does not agree with current Protestantism that contraception is a licit means to attain this end

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

of course not.

.... think about that. READ what I've posted.




.

 

[patricius79]

.... think about that.
.

I have.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have.

Good. Then you know that Catholic Family PLANNING, Catholic Birth CONTROL may have the purpose, the intent, the goal, the design, the end of being contraceptive. Why you won't admit it - I don't know, but you know it.

'Enough said.





.

 

[patricius79]

Good. Then you know that Catholic Family PLANNING, Catholic Birth CONTROL may have the purpose, the intent, the goal, the design, the end of being contraceptive.

.

I quite agree that an act which is not intrinsically wrong--such as abstaining from sex in the fertile period--can be used for a contraceptive intention.

(i.e. using NFP to avoid pregnancy without a serious reason, such as the health of one's spouse')

the Catholic Church condemns such an intention

 

[bbbbbbb]

I quite agree that an act which is not intrinsically wrong--such as abstaining from sex in the fertile period--can be used for a contraceptive intention.

(i.e. using NFP to avoid pregnancy without a serious reason, such as the health of one's spouse')

the Catholic Church condemns such an intention

Then virtually all married Catholic couples, at least in the United States, stand condemned by the Catholic Church. If they were obedient to the Catholic Church we would be seeing Catholic familes with a minimum of seven children as it was prior to the last decades of the twentieth century.

 

[patricius79]

Then virtually all married Catholic couples, at least in the United States, stand condemned by the Catholic Church

the Biblical Church condemns acts, not persons

If they were obedient to the Catholic Church we would be seeing Catholic familes with a minimum of seven children as it was prior to the last decades of the twentieth century.

perhaps not if they are abstaining from sex during the fertile period for the spacing of children for serious reasons

this intention and means are morally permissable

 

[bbbbbbb]

the Biblical Church condemns acts, not persons





perhaps not if they are abstaining from sex during the fertile period for the spacing of children for serious reasons

this intention and means are morally permissable

I am unsure as to what constitutes "serious reasons". I suspect that the same definition has prevailed for centuries. It seems most peculiar that these "serious reasons" have become so prevalent within the past fifty years when they apparently were not so prevalent in previous centuries.

As for your church condemning "acts" and not persons, then I suppose "acts" ought to go to the confessional and not persons. The Bible assuredly condemns sinners who sin (e.g. Romans 1:18-32). If a church claims to be biblical it ought to follow the biblical example, do you not agree?

 

[patricius79]

I am unsure as to what constitutes "serious reasons".

e.g. if one's spouse has serious psychological problems and already has great difficulty taking care of her/his children

It seems most peculiar that these "serious reasons" have become so prevalent within the past fifty years when they apparently were not so prevalent in previous centuries.

why do you think that?

As for your church condemning "acts" and not persons, then I suppose "acts" ought to go to the confessional and not persons. The Bible assuredly condemns sinners who sin (e.g. Romans 1:18-32). If a church claims to be biblical it ought to follow the biblical example, do you not agree?

if your point is that most "Catholics" are not living this teaching, then you are quite right.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

if they are abstaining from sex during the fertile period for the spacing of children this intention and means are morally permissable

1. That practice AND that intention are both contraceptive....


2. By design, purpose, intent, goal and end....


3. The practice is something DONE. With the intention and goal of "rendering procreation impossible" - which the former pope called "evil." Evidently, it's "evil" but not "immoral."





.

 

[patricius79]

Originally Posted by patricius79

if they are abstaining from sex during the fertile period for the spacing of children this intention and means are morally permissable
​

I refer to the reader to post 470.

Josiah, did you doctor my quotation?

my actual quotation says in post 470 that they are abstaining from sex for the spacing of children for serious reasons


​

1. That practice AND that intention are both contraceptive....

the Christian Church does not agree that abstaining from sex during the fertile period for serious reasons is morally equivalent to having sex with a condom, or having sex with a condom for selfish reasons

 

[patricius79]

Or not.
It is certainly sin if it's sin to you.
Bummer too because all of the RCC's I that know are now living in sin


To the man who does not see it as sin at all,
then since Scripture does not even mention it
why would we lay a heavy burden on him?

Or do you think that it makes God mad when we use
the brains He gave us, or when we use the authority
He gave us over our own bodies?

this presumes that contraception is NOT immoral, as the Protestant denominations unanimously held until recent decades, with the Catholic Church

between 1965 and 1985 contraceptive use increased greatly as the divorce rate doubled.

 

[sunlover1]

this presumes that contraception is NOT immoral,

Certainly, because that's my belief..

as the Protestant denominations unanimously held until recent decades, with the Catholic Church

Even if one could prove that this is true, I personally go to the source of life
for my understanding of life.

between 1965 and 1985 contraceptive use increased greatly as the divorce rate doubled.

[/QUOTE]
And that not in a bubble., so why would we try to say that the
one is the CAUSE of the other?
A WHOLE lotta shakin going on besides contraceptive use.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

this presumes that contraception is NOT immoral, as the Protestant denominations unanimously held until recent decades, with the Catholic Church

You've REPEATEDLY stated (and quoted your denomination as saying) that contraceptive sex IS moral. In fact, you've specifically stated (more than once) that Catholic Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL may be used contraceptively. I don't think your denomination taught this before the sexual revolution of the 1960s', but you've repeatedly confirmed it does now.


Please list at least 5 Protestant denominations ( of the 18,000 - 50,000 such denomination some Catholics claim exist) that officially stated that contreptive sex practices was "evil" or "bad" or "immoral" "some decades ago." I've asked this question many times of Catholics, none has been able to provide such. It's your turn since you just stated it as a matter of fact.



Yes, doing sex contraceptively is up. But then the largest religious organization in the world is passionately promoting it, holding classes in how to do it right there at the parish hall, at times even requiring couples to learn how to do it. That probably has had some impact on the increase of such practices, don't you think?





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Christian Church does not agree that abstaining from sex during the fertile period for serious reasons is morally equivalent to having sex with a condom, or having sex with a condom for selfish reasons

1. Please provide a quote from The Christian Church. So far, you've only quoted from one denomination - yours.


2. I don't think you've been reading what I've posted. I never so much as even MENTIONED condoms or "selfish" anything. Do you have me confused with another poster (I can't image who)?


3. "'Abstaining from sex during the fertile period" is having sex contraceptively. It has one purpose: To not conceive (contraceptive), to control birth (Birth Control). I think your Catechism says that whatever is done "to render reproduction impossible" is "evil". Of course, this statement actually means "to reduce the changes of conception" which is what you said is moral and sound (it is IMPOSSIBLE to render reproduction impossible, obviously - this is all about reducing the chances).


What is, is....




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am unsure as to what constitutes "serious reasons".

Kind of a "the means justifies the end" morality? Hey, if a person believes they have a "serious reason" for getting an abortion - then an abortion is just swell? OR is it a case of whether a knife is used or a salt solution? Using a knife is good (cutting a steak or a unborn baby - what's the diff?) whereas a saline solution is bad (to save a life or to burn an unborn baby to death) - the issue is the MEANS and not the end? Yeah, I too am trying to make some sense of the "the means justifies the end" mentality.


But MY issue has not gotten into that rather obvious moral problem and contradiction. I'm just confused by why doing sex contraceptively is not contraceptive sex? Why doing sex contraceptively is a PASSION of the RCC as the world's biggest promoter and teacher of how to do/practice that, but contraceptive sex is "evil?"







Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[patricius79]

Kind of a "the means justifies the end" morality? Hey, if a person believes they have a "serious reason" for getting an abortion - then an abortion is just swell?.

that's interesting because I think your position implies "the ends justify the means"

and your argument would only work if there were something intrinsically wrong with abstaining from sex (during the fertile period, for example)

the Christian Church's position on this, however, is simply true