Contraception

[Thekla]

I agree 100% that self-control is all that you say it is.
I disagree with you about birth control for reasons completely unrelated to self-control.
Because the issue is so much more complicated than self-control vs. contraception, I believe your attempts to simplify it into that are just attempts to refuse to think about the real issues being discussed.

It's not a simplification; it is a reasoned analysis of the ithos of self control vs. the ithos of artificial contraception. It is to look within the two, and likewise to look at what both require of the person, and also the "playing out" long term of their respective uses.

You are doing the same thing with the example I gave you.
Violence and hate and evil killed all those people, not the free-market.

Your example of Reagan and Thatcher, like the discussion of self control and artificial contraception, stopped short of an actual analysis of what was done and its relationship to how this played out in human lives.

I'm not advocating free-market or anything. This isn't about free-market at all.
But that's just it, isn't it?

Aside from the fact that we don't have a "free market", I am pointing out that there is much more to a reasoned logical treatment than a surface consideration of the two methods. Both methods have an inherent aspect which has been entirely skipped in the conversation.

You don't want to discuss what this thread is about. You want to discuss self-control, not contraception. Fine. Make a thread about it, and I'll be there agreeing with you.

The RC is being touted here as in some sense suspect because they do not consider self control to be artificial birth control. A fuller consideration of the ithos of the two in fact recommends that this is in fact the case. At the very least, the two approaches under consideration are indeed quite different and require a completely different interaction with self and other. As before, they have a different ithos.

And also, per the studies on estrogen mimickers, the use of "the Pill" may indeed be a contributor to infertility. It has already in animals (fish, specifically).

But this isn't about self-control. It is about contraception. Self-control is only one of the many things we can say about contraception and birth control. Great. You've said it. And in so far as you've said it, I agree with you.
But, don't neglect the fact that there are many other things to be discussed about this. The choices being condemned, though neutral in regards to self-control, are not so neutral in regards to other things. Therefore, now that we have discussed that particular aspect of it, can we not discuss the other things that actually make this an important issue?

It seems to me that the RC indeed has a different way of looking at this. Just as you have your way, is that in itself reason for condemnation ? Historically, and even through the 1980s in this country, that a view was RC was enough to invite complete condemnation regardless of the particular merits of the issue at hand.

Just as it seems prudent and reasonable to look beyond the surface of birth control, the "free market" a la Reagan and Thatcher, and self control in order to discern the deeper realities, likewise it seems prudent to inspect what is actually the source of the discomfort with the RC position on this issue. And whether this disagreement might be more than the issue - that this may upon inspection and self inspection be something else entirely.

It has seemed thus far in this thread to be at least somewhat not at all about this particular issue.

 

[sunlover1]

Can we deny ourselves; can we practice self control ? Or would we prefer not to practice self control ?

From the marriage bed??
I would prefer to practice self control.
Which means that even if I hated to go into that room.. I'd go there.
Self control...
Fruit of the spirit.

IMO

 

[Thekla]

From the marriage bed??
I would prefer to practice self control.
Which means that even if I hated to go into that room.. I'd go there.
Self control...
Fruit of the spirit.

IMO

This is one form (depending on the reason one hated to go there), indeed.

It is not the only expression of self control.

 

[cubinity]

This is one form (depending on the reason one hated to go there), indeed.

It is not the only expression of self control.

But it does effectively communicate the one-sidedness of your use of the term.
I mean, it is obviously beyond the scope of your consideration that a person would be using birth control methods as a form of self-control.
They want desperately to bear children, and yet for reasons unknown to you, they are controlling themselves and ensuring that they do not reproduce.

Btw, I don't have a problem with the RC, and I have said nothing negative or condemning about them or the statutes they choose to impose on the issue. I am only discussing the topic at hand.

 

[Thekla]

But it does effectively communicate the one-sidedness of your use of the term.
I mean, it is obviously beyond the scope of your consideration that a person would be using birth control methods as a form of self-control.
They want desperately to bear children, and yet for reasons unknown to you, they are controlling themselves and ensuring that they do not reproduce.

Btw, I don't have a problem with the RC, and I have said nothing negative or condemning about them or the statutes they choose to impose on the issue. I am only discussing the topic at hand.

I stated to Sunlover that agreeing to sexual intimacy can be form of self control as well.

Artificial methods of birth control do not require one to control one's desires; they allow one to avoid self control.

Given the findings on estrogen mimickers, is using (for example) the Pill in the interest of one's (future) children ?

 

[cubinity]

I stated to Sunlover that agreeing to sexual intimacy can be form of self control as well.

Yes, I know. I was there, remember?

Artificial methods of birth control do not require one to control one's desires; they allow one to avoid self control.

This is a subjective speculation with no meaningful evidence.

Given the findings on estrogen mimickers, is using (for example) the Pill in the interest of one's (future) children ?

What findings?

 

[Thekla]

This is a subjective speculation with no meaningful evidence.

Then how does the use of artificial birth control require the same sort of self control ?

What findings?

Links to two articles from Scientific American cited in a previous post.

 

[cubinity]

Then how does the use of artificial birth control require the same sort of self control ?

Did you not attest to the fact that there are various sorts of self-control?
Why must you attempt to limit me to answering within the boundaries of that one sort of self-control.

 

[patricius79]

Did you not attest to the fact that there are various sorts of self-control?
Why must you attempt to limit me to answering within the boundaries of that one sort of self-control.

if one belives in Sola Scriptura then they should limit themselves to beliefs explicitly in Scripture or shown to be inevitably deduced from Scripture. I don't think one can do that while defending contraception

there's no question for me that contracepted sex requires decision making. but then so does every other action, including every sin

contracepted sexs leads to much suffering I think but that doesn't make it holy in itself. divorce itself is not an ascetic practice. marital rape is not an ascetic practice; it is not explicitly condemned by Scripture, but it also obviously contradicts love.

but self control out of genuine concern for one's spouse and other children is true asceticism. and this asceticism leads to much romance. (NFP couples in general have more sex than contraceptors)

even addicts excercise some sort of discipline to be enslaved to alcohol or work or whatever

of course we are all in a sense addicts since we are all sinners

I think the deepest reason maybe for rejecting contraception and thus agreeing with teh reformers and the historic Church is because it is contrary to the idea of the Covenant and to belief in the Trinity

the doctrine of the Trinity is about complete and total self-giving. it is not about the enjoyment of pleasure while blocking the complete gift of self

Jesus gives His whole self and Body to to us on the Cross as the Bridegroom. "this is My Body"

someone may not accept this Gift of His BOdy, but He gives it fully. he could have saved us by some other act. but he had more to give.

The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher 8 eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 12 He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. 9 13 Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' 10 I did not come to call the righteous but sinners." 14 Then the disciples of John approached him and said, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast (much), but your disciples do not fast?" 15 Jesus answered them, "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 11 16 No one patches an old cloak with a piece of unshrunken cloth, 12 for its fullness pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse. 17 People do not put new wine into old wineskins.



early church saw contraception as an old wineskin, and a way of corruption. doesn't it seem like there is something really confused about deliberately and passionately spilling one's seed into a condom?

I think that is true, but not the sense of condemning anyone or being negative toward anyone

but just that we all want to be working towards not seeking pleasure for it's own sake but seeking the true pleasures of purity

for we all want to be loved with a complete and absolute love

14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 12 15 But if you go on biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another. 16 I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. 13 17 For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. 18 But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 14 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness

 

[Thekla]

Did you not attest to the fact that there are various sorts of self-control?
Why must you attempt to limit me to answering within the boundaries of that one sort of self-control.

There are indeed many forms of self control; the term Peter mentions denotes self control re the sensual (the senses, the sensible world).

But there is in everything its inherent character; my point is that the inherent character of artificial birth control is contrary to the notion of self control in the manner that Peter speaks of it. In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses a related term. IE both note that there is a lack of strength.

To use another example - it is not unlike eating a calorically reduced pastry instead of eating an apple, or nothing, instead. Eating an apple for dessert, or passing up dessert altogether, requires self control. Eating a diet dessert may likewise reduce caloric intake, but does not require the same force of will from the person.

 

[cubinity]

There are indeed many forms of self control; the term Peter mentions denotes self control re the sensual (the senses, the sensible world).

But there is in everything its inherent character; my point is that the inherent character of artificial birth control is contrary to the notion of self control in the manner that Peter speaks of it. In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses a related term. IE both note that there is a lack of strength.

To use another example - it is not unlike eating a calorically reduced pastry instead of eating an apple, or nothing, instead. Eating an apple for dessert, or passing up dessert altogether, requires self control. Eating a diet dessert may likewise reduce caloric intake, but does not require the same force of will from the person.

I don't know what forms of contraception you've had in mind this entire time, but I'm beginning to think they differ from my own.

Since I first came to this thread, I have had one question: What's condemnable about coitus interruptus that is not condemnable about NFP?

Your comments about self-control don't seem applicable to that issue in the posts you've made.

 

[Thekla]

I don't know what forms of contraception you've had in mind this entire time, but I'm beginning to think they differ from my own.

Since I first came to this thread, I have had one question: What's condemnable about coitus interruptus that is not condemnable about NFP?

Your comments about self-control don't seem applicable to that issue in the posts you've made.

NFP is like skipping dessert altogether; artificial contraception is akin to having a reduced fat dessert.

 

[cubinity]

NFP is like skipping dessert altogether; artificial contraception is akin to having a reduced fat dessert.

NFP is nothing like skipping desert as "desert," in this case, is being had during the NFP.

 

[Thekla]

NFP is nothing like skipping desert as "desert," in this case, is being had during the NFP.

At the particular point in time it is. One puts off one's desire. (As fertile periods are accompanied by chemical fluctuation intended to attract, this is especially so.)

 

[cubinity]

At the particular point in time it is. One puts off one's desire. (As fertile periods are accompanied by chemical fluctuation intended to attract, this is especially so.)

If this was strictly a feminine issue, I would agree.

And yet, looking at this from a masculine perspective, having unrestrained sex during most of the month not only doesn't require any self-control at all, but would actually be awesome if it actually happened!

However, to have to be attentive and conscious of your bodily functions during the peak of sexual enjoyment is a terribly masterful act of self-control.

What I can't figure out from your arguments is why a women's self-control during her fertile period is condonable by you, but a man's self-control all the time is condemnable to you.

What makes them fundamentally different to you?

 

[cowboysfan1970]

I'm not married so I can't speak from experience but I think that one of the biggest misconceptions of unmarried people is that when they get married that sex is going to be a constant and regular thing. Then when they get married they find out that just isn't the case. There is going to be a time in a marriage when sex for whatever reason just can't happen. If someone has no self control and is used to regular indulgence then they are going to have a hard time when that happens. The concept of self control for married people has more or less disappeared in many modern evangelical circles. It's as if it's a demonic idea. Self control and chastity are not evil ideas promoted by legalistic and Victorian hold overs but are important aspects of the Christian existence.

 

[cubinity]

I'm not married so I can't speak from experience but I think that one of the biggest misconceptions of unmarried people is that when they get married that sex is going to be a constant and regular thing. Then when they get married they find out that just isn't the case. There is going to be a time in a marriage when sex for whatever reason just can't happen. If someone has no self control and is used to regular indulgence then they are going to have a hard time when that happens. The concept of self control for married people has more or less disappeared in many modern evangelical circles. It's as if it's a demonic idea. Self control and chastity are not evil ideas promoted by legalistic and Victorian hold overs but are important aspects of the Christian existence.

I agree 100%.
However, it doesn't make any sense to condone one from of self-control while condemning another with no other reason than that you acknowledge the self-control of one and not the other.

 

[patricius79]

And yet, looking at this from a masculine perspective, having unrestrained sex during most of the month not only doesn't require any self-control at all, but would actually be awesome if it actually happened!

However, to have to be attentive and conscious of your bodily functions during the peak of sexual enjoyment is a terribly masterful act of self-control.

I'm not sure what you mean here. But I think that true self-control, a fruit of the Holy Spirit, is present during the marital act in a mature person, and that we should be aiming for such fruits

I've been in discussions where it is even urged that lust within marriage is not immoral. but that really doesn't make a lot of sense and I think is a false interpretation of 1 Cor 7.

I do think that NFP helps couples to grow in self-control as well as romance

 

[cubinity]

I'm not sure what you mean here. But I think that true self-control, a fruit of the Holy Spirit, is present during the marital act in a mature person, and that we should be aiming for such fruits

I've been in discussions where it is even urged that lust within marriage is not immoral. but that really doesn't make a lot of sense and I think is a false interpretation of 1 Cor 7.

I do think that NFP helps couples to grow in self-control as well as romance

But coitus interruptus does not? Why not?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Then how does the use of artificial birth control require the same sort of self control ?

What is condemned specifically as "evil" is something done BEFORE, DURING or AFTER that renders procreation unlikely.

Yes, I agree - talking a pill, purchasing and putting on a condom, redirecting sex to "infertile" days, using an spermacide are all acts of "self control" done BEFORE - but they all are done with the MEANS and END of being contraceptive - what the RCC condemns as "evil." All are self-control I suppose, all are contraceptive.



As to the "natural" and "articifical" points suddenly inserted into the discussion, such seems moot to the point which is whether sex done contraceptively (in a "self controlled" way with the MEANS and END being to have sex - more often than otherwise even) but 'to render procreation unlikely' to quote the RCC. If one can show, from history, biology and/or anthropology, that it is "natural" for mammals in general (and humans specificially) to count days and take temperatures so as to reschedule sex to infertile times, then I'll accept such is "natural." As for "articifical," what is natural about thermometers or calendars or counting days of fertility? What is "artificial" but natural female hormones or rubber or lambs skin? But again, all that is irrelevant to the issue, which is not whether themometers appear in nature or whether natural hormones are natural, the isssue is whether it is distinctively and specifically "EVIL" to employ a MEANS with the END of rendering procreation unlikely - before, during or after; is sex done contraceptively evil or pious? BOTH positions have been passionately defended by Catholics in this thread.





.