Contraception

[Dorothea]

Well, the military spouses sure practice abstinence. lol There were times when hubby was still in the air force, where he'd been gone for 11 months. He'd come home in between the 12 months (gets 1 month leave), and so, we'd not see each other for around 6 months. You get into a routine and get used to it.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well, the military spouses sure practice abstinence. lol There were times when hubby was still in the air force, where he'd been gone for 11 months. He'd come home in between the 12 months (gets 1 month leave), and so, we'd not see each other for around 6 months. You get into a routine and get used to it.

TEMPORARY "abstinence" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) but was it solely, particularly FOR THE PURPOSE of having "more sex than otherwise" but sex that is contraceptive? No, it was not a decision AT ALL. For any purpose AT ALL. They weren't in the same vacinity for months - THAT'S why, lol. Hardly the same thing, IMO.

 

[Thekla]

TEMPORARY "abstinence" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) but was it solely, particularly FOR THE PURPOSE of having "more sex than otherwise" but sex that is contraceptive? No, it was not a decision AT ALL. For any purpose AT ALL. They weren't in the same vacinity for months - THAT'S why, lol. Hardly the same thing, IMO.

Other than during the draft, absence during military duty is indeed willful, a decision - it is understood to part of the job when signing up (and for subsequent promotions).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Other than during the draft, absence during military duty is indeed willful, a decision - it is understood to part of the job when signing up (and for subsequent promotions).

Understood. But not having sex during that time is not done for the purpose of not having children, it's done because man and wife can't be in the same room (making conception..... difficult). You understand the difference, I'm sure.




.

 

[Thekla]

Understood. But not having sex during that time is not done for the purpose of not having children, it's done because man and wife can't be in the same room (making conception..... difficult). You understand the difference, I'm sure.

Yes, I do.
But military service still has a contraceptive effect.
And still is abstinence for a purpose other than prayer.

 

[sunlover1]

Yes, I do.
But military service still has a contraceptive effect.
And still is abstinence for a purpose other than prayer.

This is a red herring fallacy.
Of course being away from each other deems it impossible to procreate.

 

[patricius79]

Yes, I do.
But military service still has a contraceptive effect.
And still is abstinence for a purpose other than prayer.

yes, and in a sense it is natural family planning



1 2 3 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman," 2 but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

yes, and in a sense it is natural family planning

Nope.

1. Nothing "natural" about it.

2. It has nothing to do with planning anything or controlling anything.

3. It's not done for the purpose of contraception.


What IS Catholic Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL and Contraceptive sex: Before, during or after, implmenting/doing/performing the METHOD taught by the RC denomination in order to have just as much sex as before ("MORE" as you have stressed 3 times now) but with this method, performance, implimentation, sex done contraceptively - so as to 'render conception unlikely" - what the self same denomination calls "evil" and what the RCC and Catholics here have also called "pious" and "moral."





.



http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians7.htm#foot1

 

[sunlover1]

yes, and in a sense it is natural family planning

Not at all. Would we say that he went to the service
becasue he doesnt want to hang out with his family?
Or to avoid taking out the trash?

In a sense
NO.. not in any sense lol.

imo

 

[patricius79]

Not at all. Would we say that he went to the service becasue he doesnt want to hang out with his family?

I see your point. the intent was not necessarily to avoid pregancy

but it does show that one can abstain from sex for serious reasons

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, the military spouses sure practice abstinence. lol There were times when hubby was still in the air force, where he'd been gone for 11 months. He'd come home in between the 12 months (gets 1 month leave), and so, we'd not see each other for around 6 months. You get into a routine and get used to it.

So... you were using "contraception" for 11 months.

That term sure has come to understand something other than it was intended for IMO.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yes, I do.
But military service still has a contraceptive effect.
And still is abstinence for a purpose other than prayer.

I agree to a similar affect but contraception and abstinence are two different thing altogether.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Contraception is being able to have sex without having children, to introduce something to the equation so two can satisfy carnal urges without concern for procreation because they have done something to prevent conception and still have sex. It is my opinion that the term "contraception" must be bastardized from it's root meaning to make something like abstinence equate to prevention taken to avoid conception (by removing sex altogether). It seems the logic with this word means that sex will take place and something is done to prevent conception for sex to take place. Even something like what Onan did.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Contraception is being able to have sex without having children IMO.

As in Catholic Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL - having sex ("MORE sex than otherwise" the opening poster thrice has stressed) but implementing, doing, performing a contraceptive METHOD taught by the RCC so as to not have children.




.

 

[sunlover1]

I see your point. the intent was not necessarily to avoid pregancy

but it does show that one can abstain from sex for serious reasons

No one was "abstaining" from sex.
Anymore than he was "abstaining" from going to his church.
This conversation is 'foolishness' and God HATES foolishness.

So... you were using "contraception" for 11 months.

That term sure has come to understand something other than it was intended for IMO.

nothing new under the sun.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I agree to a similar affect but contraception and abstinence are two different thing altogether.

Of course! If the husband is away, serving in the military for example - on the other side of the world - and there's NO sex for one reason (hard to do when there is a 12,000 mile separation) that's NOT having sex contraceptively. Such has NOTHING TO DO with purposeful Family PLANNING or Birth CONTROL or HAVING sex (contraceptively or otherwise).

But DOING sex ("MORE often than otherwise") cannot be called "abstinence" without rendering that term meaningless (and 100% contradiction to how my Catholic teachers and youth workers used it). One cannot say that having sex 60 times a month is "abstinence" from sex. But, of course, that abundance of sex CAN be done employing, implementing, doing, practicing a METHOD that makes the sex unlikely to result in procreation, the abundance of sex can be done so as to "render procreation unlikely" (to quote the Catholic Catechism?). The MEANS and the END - the intent, the design and the result - can be just that. Contraceptive. Making it contraception.





.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As in Catholic Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL - having sex ("MORE sex than otherwise" the opening poster thrice has stressed) but implementing, doing, performing a contraceptive METHOD taught by the RCC so as to not have children.




.

The Catholic Church does not teach how often to have sex. It is a fallacy based on a few examples that have not been back with any doctrinal teachings from the Pope and Magisterium. The teachings of the RCC are not from the parishioners but from the Church (Pope and Magisterium). It is absurd to equate a Catholic parishoner's opinion with that of a Doctrine of the RCC.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Of course! If the husband is away, serving in the military for example - on the other side of the world - and there's NO sex for one reason (hard to do when there is a 12,000 mile separation) that's NOT having sex contraceptively. Such has NOTHING TO DO with purposeful Family PLANNING or Birth CONTROL or HAVING sex (contraceptively or otherwise).

But DOING sex ("MORE often than otherwise") cannot be called "abstinence" without rendering that term meaningless (and 100% contradiction to how my Catholic teachers and youth workers used it). One cannot say that having sex 60 times a month is "abstinence" from sex. But, of course, that abundance of sex CAN be done employing, implementing, doing, practicing a METHOD that makes the sex unlikely to result in procreation, the abundance of sex can be done so as to "render procreation unlikely" (to quote the Catholic Catechism?). The MEANS and the END - the intent, the design and the result - can be just that. Contraceptive. Making it contraception.





.

I would like to believe that both husband and wife made that decision to not have sexual relations for 11 months. But I would not call it "contraception" even if they were trying to postpone children.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catholic Church does not teach how often to have sex.

Well.... to married couples (it does to we singles, as you might know)

Which is important to remember in this discussion. Since the sexual revolution of the 1960's, there is no Catholic teaching (official or informal) of "No Kids? No Sex!" Nope. In the Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control, sex is welcomed. As much as desired. "More than usual" as Catholic posters here have noted (one trice). It's not about abstinence (that's the former Catholic position - unofficially), it's about HAVING sex but contraceptively - with the means and end of not conceiving, with the intent of HAVING sex ("more than otherwise") but "rendering procreation unlikely." Sex done contraceptively. Contraceptive sex. Contraception. It is what it is. I'm not saying it's good or bad, moral or immoral, pious or impious (I'm actually entirely uncertain), I'm just saying it is what it is. (And that I UNDERSTAND why many regard it as "double talk", I'm not saying it is, I'm saying I sure understand why nearly EVERY Catholic known to me considers it so).

You seem desirous of noting the OFFICIAL position. Sure. So, what does it say? A couple (let's assume for valid reasons) wants no children - for at least the next 5 years. Is the official position now in Catholic Family Planning that ergo for at least 5 years they are to have no sex ("No kids? NO sex!")? Abstinence? OR is the official position that they may have sex (perhaps as much as desired, perhaps a great abundance of sex) but it will teach them how to do it contraceptively, so as to render procreation impossible? Contraception? Does NFP teach NO SEX EVER or CONTRACEPTIVE sex?





.

 

[Thekla]

This is a red herring fallacy.
Of course being away from each other deems it impossible to procreate.

I actually don't think it is a red herring; if the issue includes whether Scripture prohibits restraint from sex for any purpose other than prayer, then indeed being away from one another when it includes a willed restraint re: sexual desire, it is an abrogation of "what is written".