Birth control.

[Chany]

I piece is an old field hand crank phone generator. The other I'm still researching. It's battlefield equipment.

*Runs in*

It's still more advanced then your internet connection.

*Runs out*

 

[Michie]

*Runs in*

It's still more advanced then your internet connection.

*Runs out*

 

[The Fire Rises]

*Runs in*

It's still more advanced then your internet connection.

*Runs out*

*is confused*

 

[Michie]

*is confused*

I'm still on dial-up because I live in the woods. High speed is not available out here unless I can get it through satellite or get something that will work out here as a router. I haven't had a chance to have them test what would be best yet.

Chany likes to tease me about dial-up & imaginary fax machines.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

*Runs in*

It's still more advanced then your internet connection.

*Runs out*

...

Sorry Michie, but that was a nice burn. No hard feelings.

How is that satellite internet coming along?

 

[The Fire Rises]

For some reason when I read that, I thought of the stone television they have in the Flintstones.

(assuming you know what a television is. I don't want to overwhelm you with information)

 

[Kurama]

Okay so I don't want to cause unneeded drama but I have a hard time believing all types of birth control is wrong. I understand the pill and hormonal birth control because they can cause miscarriages and that I do agree with, but seriously condoms aren't okay? I mean how is that any different from nfp if you practice that correctly? Your intent is NOT to have children. Sex within marriage cannot just be for procreation. If that's the case all Catholics should be celibate until they want a child. Seems a bit much. Anyways I'm just looking for some honest answers. Every Catholic marriage seriously cannot result in 12 kids just because you aren't allowed to use some sort of birth control. I understand being open to life but everyone is not equipped to deal with a large family.

The contraceptive fails...oh how unfortunate, how about an abortion?

Contraceptives are among the greatest of evils, they are serious blasphemy against the Lord. Catholics should know better...

 

[ebia]

The contraceptive fails...oh how unfortunate, how about an abortion?

Contraceptives are among the greatest of evils, they are serious blasphemy against the Lord. Catholics should know better...

As an argument that's like saying "fences are evil because you'll shoot intruders if they get past the fence".

 

[Kurama]

As an argument that's like saying "fences are evil because you'll shoot intruders if they get past the fence".

Yet if they manage jump the fence, we'll still have to shoot them . Better we never had need of fences in the first place, just like we do with contraception...

Also God's law states that sex should only be used for procreation. If we do not abide His law, we are sinning and that separates us from Him.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

So I blasphemy God if I decide to wrap it up? Me thinks someone doesn't know what blasphemy is.

 

[benedictaoo]

But there is some Biblical foundation to this issue, is there not? The story of Onan?

Yes and no. Its not built on any verse/line because Catholics don't do that. We do not (like Protestants do) read a verse and then (on our own) come up with a teaching/doctrine around what we think the verse says. We don't make up any teachings based on what we read.

The teaching is already there and has been since day one. We have what we call apostolic succession, in which, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, the teaching that was taught before Christ by the old testament Jews and by Christ himself to His 12 is passed down to each generation. The bible backs up what they teach and is the evidence that this is what they always taught. It's true because the bible gives some evidence to it. It's not true because we read a verse and that's what we came up with.

So this, "every sex act must be open to life" is based on what was always practiced, taught and believed by the early Church/Christians and what was taught before that in the old testament/ Jewish culture.

The no condoms rule is because every single last sexual act preformed by married couples must be at all times open to the procreation and transmission of new life... even if the act itself won't result in it. It does not mean you have to have a baby each time you have sex. It means that you can not put any type of contraceptive devices or chemicals in the sex act's way.

It also does not mean that you can not avoid pregnancy if having a child or more children is not prudent. It does not mean you have to live permanently celibate if you must avoid pregnancy. It means this; every sex act must end with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] not outside the wife (which condoms are considered outside). So what a couple can do is not have relations during the times when the wife is fertile.

Its what we see the early Church teach and we see in scripture, like when Paul says to part for times of prayer. We see that this is what was always taught and we keep the teachings and we pass them down to each generation.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

But there is some Biblical foundation to this issue, is there not? The story of Onan?

Um, no, not really.

HV is based on entirely different underlying precepts having to do with marriage itself

 

[cmarie423]

Also God's law states that sex should only be used for procreation. If we do not abide His law, we are sinning and that separates us from Him.

Not totally, there's many Catholic books on enjoying sex in marriage. That would mean we're never to have sex unless it's for producing a child which isn't true. We're just not supposed to use any form of birth control, unless it's nfp

 

[cmarie423]

Yes and no. Its not built on any verse/line because Catholics don't do that. We do not (like Protestants do) read a verse and then (on our own) come up with a teaching/doctrine around what we think the verse says. We don't make up any teachings based on what we read.

The teaching is already there and has been since day one. We have what we call apostolic succession, in which, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, the teaching that was taught before Christ by the old testament Jews and by Christ himself to His 12 is passed down to each generation. The bible backs up what they teach and is the evidence that this is what they always taught. It's true because the bible gives some evidence to it. It's not true because we read a verse and that's what we came up with.

So this, "every sex act must be open to life" is based on what was always practiced, taught and believed by the early Church/Christians and what was taught before that in the old testament/ Jewish culture.

The no condoms rule is because every single last sexual act preformed by married couples must be at all times open to the procreation and transmission of new life... even if the act itself won't result in it. It does not mean you have to have a baby each time you have sex. It means that you can not put any type of contraceptive devices or chemicals in the sex act's way.

It also does not mean that you can not avoid pregnancy if having a child or more children is not prudent. It does not mean you have to live permanently celibate if you must avoid pregnancy. It means this; every sex act must end with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] not outside the wife (which condoms are considered outside). So what a couple can do is not have relations during the times when the wife is fertile.

Its what we see the early Church teach and we see in scripture, like when Paul says to part for times of prayer. We see that this is what was always taught and we keep the teachings and we pass them down to each generation.

I understand that, but (without trying to be graphic) I've also heard many priests talk about how other "forms" of sex acts in marriage are okay as long as they aren't degrading....so does that essentially mean it's okay but then you have to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] inside the wife? Sorry just trying to understand

 

[The Fire Rises]

Yes and no. Its not built on any verse/line because Catholics don't do that. We do not (like Protestants do) read a verse and then (on our own) come up with a teaching/doctrine around what we think the verse says. We don't make up any teachings based on what we read.

The teaching is already there and has been since day one. We have what we call apostolic succession, in which, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, the teaching that was taught before Christ by the old testament Jews and by Christ himself to His 12 is passed down to each generation. The bible backs up what they teach and is the evidence that this is what they always taught. It's true because the bible gives some evidence to it. It's not true because we read a verse and that's what we came up with.

So this, "every sex act must be open to life" is based on what was always practiced, taught and believed by the early Church/Christians and what was taught before that in the old testament/ Jewish culture.

The no condoms rule is because every single last sexual act preformed by married couples must be at all times open to the procreation and transmission of new life... even if the act itself won't result in it. It does not mean you have to have a baby each time you have sex. It means that you can not put any type of contraceptive devices or chemicals in the sex act's way.

It also does not mean that you can not avoid pregnancy if having a child or more children is not prudent. It does not mean you have to live permanently celibate if you must avoid pregnancy. It means this; every sex act must end with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] not outside the wife (which condoms are considered outside). So what a couple can do is not have relations during the times when the wife is fertile.

Its what we see the early Church teach and we see in scripture, like when Paul says to part for times of prayer. We see that this is what was always taught and we keep the teachings and we pass them down to each generation.

Okay, so going based off what you said, NFP would be an appropriate option available for married couples? (I've seen Catholic-sponsored videos promoting NFP, so I'm guessing that it must be somewhat agree upon)

 

[The Fire Rises]

I understand that, but (without trying to be graphic) I've also heard many priests talk about how other "forms" of sex acts in marriage are okay as long as they aren't degrading....so does that essentially mean it's okay but then you have to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] inside the wife? Sorry just trying to understand

Pretty sure I've visited Catholic sites that actually condemn these other acts, so who knows. This is a discussion that could probably have an entire thread devoted to it.

 

[cmarie423]

Pretty sure I've visited Catholic sites that actually condemn these other acts, so who knows. This is a discussion that could probably have an entire thread devoted to it.

Lol I'm sure

 

[Irenaeus]

Yes The Fire Rises, NFP is at present the most encouraged method of spacing births when necessary.

Kurama: Correction.

Not every sex act has to be done just for procreation. Procreation is part of it, but not the only part. The important thing is that we ourselves don't place any direct obstacle in the way of procreation occurring where it would naturally otherwise. That is why methods like NFP acknowledge the use of naturally occurring infertile periods as a licit means of spacing births.

 

[The Fire Rises]

Yes The Fire Rises, NFP is at present the most encouraged method of spacing births when necessary.

Kurama: Correction.

Not every sex act has to be done just for procreation. Procreation is part of it, but not the only part. The important thing is that we ourselves don't place any direct obstacle in the way of procreation occurring where it would naturally otherwise. That is why methods like NFP acknowledge the use of naturally occurring infertile periods as a licit means of spacing births.

Is that the official stance of the church? I mean, could I go find it in the catechism right now if I wanted to?

Because I've seen other people on here condemning NFP (I'm not sure if it was this thread or not)

 

[cmarie423]

Is that the official stance of the church? I mean, could I go find it in the catechism right now if I wanted to?

Because I've seen other people on here condemning NFP (I'm not sure if it was this thread or not)

From what I've heard it's a newly accepted thing so there's a lot of people who disagree with it but the Catholic church is one of the only places I've seen that actually teach nfp classes for married couples