Contraception

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, to "reschedule" and "to practice" IS doing something...

Now, if you were Shaker and were insisting on abstinence - you'd have a tiny point (well, maybe not). But that's no longer the RCC position (it never was, officially, I understand). The RCC is NOT saying to married couples, "DO NOTHING - abstain from sex, be a sexless couple." No. Not since the 1960's sexual revolution. It's saying "HAVE sex. DO something! At least as often as that Baptist couple in the apartment next door! BUT you may DO so contraceptively, using our preferred birth control method - let us teach you how (in fact, if you want to get married in the Church, we require that we teach you how to DO this)!"




I don't recall mentioning condoms....


But yes, when sex is rescheduled from certain times, when that action is taken, that action lessens the odds of conceiving - thus it is a contraceptive practice. If you teach them HOW to do birth control, HOW to best schedule things, that is active and that is contra-ceptive.

Yes - if the marriage became sexless (because sex is bad or immoral or whatever, not to avoid conception) that would be a different issue - but that's not the issue here (unless you are confusing Shakerism with modern Catholicism).

but not having sex is not doing something.

The new RCC position is NOT to do nothing (you seem to have the Catholicism confused with Shakerism).

Yes, my teachers said that it was the FORMER (unofficial) common Catholic position (before the sexual revolution) that couples that did not want or should not have kids should be sexless (do nothing) but that's no longer the RCC position (it never was officially): The one for the past 50 years or so is that couples may have sex just as much as the Baptist couple next door - more if they like! But they can DO it contraceptively - using sound birth control methods - the RCC will teach them how (it may require them to take the class). PRACTICING this birth control method is obviously doing something, rescheduling is doing something, having sex is doing something.

What you seem to be promoting is not Catholicism, it's Shakerism. They don't have sex- contraceptively or otherwise, they do nothing; they don't DO anything. But we're talking about Catholicism here (post sexual revolution), we're talking PRACTICING family planning, DOING birth control, HAVING sex - contraceptively.

are you saying it is wrong to close one's heart to the spouse and to new life through God

Um, I invite you to read what I've posted.

Again, you seem to have post sexual revolution Catholicism confused with Shakerism. No, I'm not a Shaker, and I've posted NOTHING about why one should be sexless or should share sex. If you think that withholding sex in marriage, having a sexless marriage, is opening your heart to your spouse and to new life - that's your viewpoint. I never said or implied ANYTHING of the sort (or anything related to it). I think you are confusing the new RCC morality with Shakerism.






.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Josaiah, nobody has mentioned the Shakers but you and you alone.

 

[patricius79]

The new RCC position is NOT to do nothing .

the constant Catholic belief is that contraception is immoral, as the Reformers and the Protestant denominatiosn taught historically

the Church has not ever taught that it is wrong to abstain from sex periodically, with a right intention

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josaiah, nobody has mentioned the Shakers but you and you alone.

And yet the new post-1960's RCC view is being characterized as if it is Shakerism. It's not.




.

 

[patricius79]

And yet the new post-1960's RCC view is being characterized as if it is Shakerism. It's not.

.

saying that one need not necessarily have sex at any given time is the same as Shakerism?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the constant Catholic belief is that contraception is immoral

... and yet no denomination on the earth now promotes it more than the RCC does. Even conducts classes in the parish hall on how to do it.

Go figure....






.

 

[ivebeenshown]

And yet the new post-1960's RCC view is being characterized as if it is Shakerism. It's not.

All Patricius said was 'not doing it is not doing something' and you took it and ran, and brought up the Shakers. I don't see how you jumped from 'not doing something is not doing something' to 'we should never do something.'

 

[ivebeenshown]

... and yet no denomination on the earth now promotes it more than the RCC does. Even conducts classes in the parish hall on how to do it.

Go figure....

NFP does not involve abortion. Pulling out? Abortion. Condom? Abortion. Pill? Abortion. Shot? Abortion. Abortion? Abortion. NFP does not stop any natural process from occurring, and it is not a sin to not have sex at any given time, and if you deny that it is not a sin to not have sex at any given time, you must be promoting having sex perpetually.

 

[sunlover1]

the constant Catholic belief is that contraception is immoral, as the Reformers and the Protestant denominatiosn taught historically

the Church has not ever taught that it is wrong to abstain from sex periodically, with a right intention

How are condoms immoral?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

How are condoms immoral?

To use Augustine's words again and keeping in mind that condoms are not evil it is when they are used to block our natural design that God created:

It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin. Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man the wife's adulterer.

 

[ivebeenshown]

How are condoms immoral?

They are a form of abortion, like pulling out.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

the same as Shakerism?

No, your point that couples should do NOTHING. That's Shakerism. The RCC since the sexual revolution does NOT teach that married couples are to do nothing - to have a sexless marriage. No, the RCC insists that couples may have LOTS of sex - they may DO much - as often as the Baptist couple next door, more if they like. God bless 'em! It's just they may do it contraceptively - actively practicing birth control. It will even teach them HOW to DO all this contraceptively, how to practice birth control, with classes held right there in the parish center. It may even require that you take the class on HOW to DO this....

I know of no denomination on the planet more supportive of contraceptive sex than is the RCC. I just can't imagine the Baptist church I sometimes visited holding classes on birth control methods in the parish center - much less requiring folks to take that class on HOW to DO sex contraceptively....., HOW to PRACTICE birth control.....








.

 

[patricius79]

.

No, your point that couples should do NOTHING. That's Shakerism.
.

no that is not my point. my point was that not having sex is not an act

you claim that periodic abstinence is the morally equivalent to having sex using a condom e.g.

why?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

no that is not my point. my point was that not having sex is not an act

you claim that periodic abstinence is the morally equivalent to having sex using a condom e.g.

why?

So... doing nothing is doing something? Sounds circular.

 

[simonthezealot]

They are a form of abortion, like pulling out.

No they aren't abortion is murder, sperm is NOT a baby.

 

[patricius79]

No they aren't abortion is murder, sperm is NOT a baby.

contraception in itself is not abortion, although it is gravely sinful, like abortion

and the Pill is abortifacient

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Abortion:

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

And

Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term "established pregnancy" as occurring after implantation. Other medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman's Medical Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as "[t]he state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as "the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon.

Source: HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion | RH Reality Check

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In addition (from same):

The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to include the 40% of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification "abortion."

 

[bbbbbbb]

contraception in itself is not abortion, although it is gravely sinful, like abortion

and the Pill is abortifacient

Abortion is the intentional murder of a child in the womb. I fail to understand how the use of a condom equates to the intential murder of a child in the womb. At the most is prevents the conception of a child, but then so does celibacy. If that is the case, then all Catholic priests are guilty of grave sin.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Abortion is the intentional murder of a child in the womb. I fail to understand how the use of a condom equates to the intential murder of a child in the womb. At the most is prevents the conception of a child, but then so does celibacy. If that is the case, then all Catholic priests are guilty of grave sin.

Did you read my posts after that? It describes the term abortion and how the AMA interprets it and how the medical community seeks to interpret it.