Contraception

sunlover1 · May 25, 2011

patricius79 said:
you are making the "pro-choice" argument?

Why do I feel you're trying to "trap" me?

the Catholic Church doesn't believe that periodic abstinence is morally equivalent to having sex while trying to block the natural consequences of that sex[

I was talking about BC pills and condoms.. and i was talking about what
they practice, not what they preach.
Seems to be a gap between the two.

patricius79 · May 25, 2011

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Well, I don't know that the Christian Church says anything about this, but your denomination now says sex CAN be done. Often! Go for it! BUT, it can be done contraceptively

.

no, the Christian Church does not teach that

you are assuming that periodic abstinence is in itself morally equivalent to having sex without giving one's fertility to the other

patricius79 · May 25, 2011

sunlover1 said:
Why do I feel you're trying to "trap" me?

I was talking about BC pills and condoms.. and i was talking about what
they practice, not what they preach.
Seems to be a gap between the two.

you made the "pro choice" argument. I realize you presumbably didn't mean to

as to not practicing what the Church teaches... even those that accept the Church's teaching on this fail, yes

and most Catholics reject the Church's teaching

those that accept it have very strong marriages in general and about 1% divorce rate

CaliforniaJosiah · May 25, 2011

patricius79 said:
no, the Christian Church does not teach that

I don't know the the Christian Church teaches ANYTHING about having sex contraceptively, but your denomination now says sex CAN be done. Often! Go for it! AND, it can be done contraceptively - in ways so as to decrease or increase the odds of conception, with "family planning" in mind. It will teach you how to DO this.

You seem to be under the misconception that the RCC now teaches that couples must practice abstinence, to be sexless; you seem to have Shakerism confused with modern post 1960's Catholicism. No, its position is not about couples being sexless, it's about married couples HAVING sex - contraceptively if so desired (it may mandate you take a class on how to do this, even if you are embracing the older Catholic position of "just have sex - and forget about any responsibilities." No matter what, you may be required to take the RCC's class (perhaps taught right there at the parish) in how to DO sex contraceptively and PRACTIVE birth control.

you are assuming that periodic abstinence is in itself morally equivalent to having sex without giving one's fertility to the other

Are you reading what I post? Often your replies have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted and seem to assume things I never remotely stated.

So, abstinence in Catholicism now refers to part time? I'm practicing abstinence if I don't have sex 4 days a month or from 3:00 AD to 9:00 AM every day - that's "sexual abstinence" in Catholicism now? I can have sex 30 times a month - and yet be practicing abstinence? Oh how Catholicism has changed! Oh, how my Catholic teachers MUST be upset by the ways Catholicism is going!

.

JacktheCatholic · May 25, 2011

patricius79 said:
actually the Christian Church says it must not be done with a contraceptive mentality or with contraceptives

Stating the truth with CaliforniaJosiah about what the RCC teaches is fruitless. He ignores facts and repeats lies as to what the RCC teaches and that should be evidence enough. Kick the dust from your shoes IMHO. Shalom

patricius79 · May 25, 2011

CaliforniaJosiah said:
I don't know the the Christian Church teaches ANYTHING about having sex contraceptively, but your denomination now says sex CAN be done. Often! Go for it! AND, it can be done contraceptively -
.

I don't think the Christian Church is a "denomination".

and I don't think the Church teaches that sex can ever be done contraceptively

perhaps you are still assuming that the Church teaches it is okay to have sex without giving one's natural state of fertility (or infertility) to the other?

sunlover1 · May 25, 2011

patricius79 said:
you made the "pro choice" argument. I realize you presumbably didn't mean to

I meant to say just what I did say, nothing at all to do with abortion. NO one has a right to kill a baby.
I do have a right to decide how many children I want, just as you RCCs do ..

and most Catholics reject the Church's teaching

And since most RCC's dont even practice what you're peddling why peddle it here?
Saying that it's fine to abstain for ovulation (when Scripture says otherwise) but
that it's not cool to use condoms (Which Scripture is silent about),
is, imo, a very bad thing to teach here.

imo

patricius79 · May 25, 2011

sunlover1 said:
I meant to say just what I did say, nothing at all to do with abortion. NO one has a right to kill a baby.
I do have a right to decide how many children I want, just as you RCCs do ..

right: by using the means which are not intrinsically wrong (with a right intention: the glory of God). we just disagree on what those are.

And since most RCC's dont even practice what you're peddling why peddle it here?

because it is true. although we are not "peddling" but teach what the Trinitarian Church has always taught, and what the "reformers" and historic Protestantism has taught

Saying that it's fine to abstain for ovulation (when Scripture says otherwise) but
that it's not cool to use condoms (Which Scripture is silent about),
is, imo, a very bad thing to teach here.

I understand where you are coming from.

I'm not sure where the Scriptures are believed to say it is wrong to abstain during ovulation

sunlover1 · May 25, 2011

patricius79 said:
right: by using the means which are not intrinsically wrong (with a right intention: the glory of God). we just disagree on what those are.

But "why"?
Why is it our business which "means' each other chooses?
Why are we trying to tell people that they are doing something
wrong when Scripture is completely silent about it?

because it is true. although we are not "peddling" but teach what the Trinitarian Church has always taught, and what the "reformers" and historic Protestantism has taught

Well maybe "the trinitarian church" and the "reformers" and historic protestantism
was "WRoNG".. Were they wrong about anything else? See?
Don't get me wrong, if you think it's sin to use a condom dont use one
but I truly can't see (and no one has been able to give a reason) WHY
it's evil to use a condom.
Dang, there're so many people hurting in your church and living in guilt
because they use the condom, and yet there's no "why"..

I understand where you are coming from.

Bless you for being reasonable.

I'm not sure where the Scriptures are believed to say it is wrong to abstain during ovulation

Scripture makes it pretty clear that our spouses "own" our bodies for their
pleasure..1 Corinthians 7
Husbands and wives should satisfy each other's [sexual] needs.
(I would go to the Greek to make sure just what it says)

But it makes clear that abstaining isn't for ovulation but ONLY for a time
of prayer and fasting and only if both are in full agreement.
Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy
for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer.
Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won't be able to tempt you
because of your lack of self-control.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 25, 2011

patricius79 said:
Josiah said:

I don't know the the Christian Church teaches ANYTHING about having sex contraceptively, but your denomination now says sex CAN be done. Often! Go for it! AND, it can be done contraceptively - in ways so as to decrease or increase the odds of conception, with "family planning" in mind. It will teach you how to DO this.

You seem to be under the misconception that the RCC now teaches that couples must practice abstinence, to be sexless; you seem to have Shakerism confused with modern post 1960's Catholicism. No, its position is not about couples being sexless, it's about married couples HAVING sex - contraceptively if so desired (it may mandate you take a class on how to do this, even if you are embracing the older Catholic position of "just have sex - and forget about any responsibilities." No matter what, you may be required to take the RCC's class (perhaps taught right there at the parish) in how to DO sex contraceptively and PRACTIVE birth control.

So, abstinence in Catholicism now refers to part time? I'm practicing abstinence if I don't have sex 4 days a month or from 3:00 AD to 9:00 AM every day - that's "sexual abstinence" in Catholicism now? I can have sex 30 times a month - and yet be practicing abstinence? Oh how Catholicism has changed! Oh, how my Catholic teachers MUST be upset by the ways Catholicism is going!

Click to expand...

I don't think the Christian Church is a "denomination".

Me, neither. So, would you please quote an official statement of The Christian Church documenting that, in its official view, it is against having sex contraceptively? There might be some Catholics shocked to learn that! But I wasn't talking about what The Christian Church says on this (I honestly don't know), I was commenting on what the post sexual revolution RC denomination says about this.

I don't think the Church teaches that sex can ever be done contraceptively

I doubt it, but this thread is mostly about the RC denomination - and it's "post '60's sexual revolution" position that sex can be done contraceptively and it's promotion of birth control methodology (which, of course, is all about doing sex in ways that will increase or decrease the chances of conception).

.

MrPolo · May 25, 2011

simonthezealot said:
You think man taking a pill or putting on a condom would keep a child from being born that God intended to be born?
God's a little bigger than that you know, Jack.

So it's ok to sin, right? Because if God didn't want you to sin, He would make sure you didn't.

MKJ · May 25, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
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.

I am not sure how you think a condom is an abortive contraption? I have never heard this argued.

JacktheCatholic said:
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:

I think one has to be careful with Augustine though, since he is arguing that any pleasure we get out of sex is a venial sin, which is not the Catholic position, at least these days.

Vendetta said:
But your last source stated "There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb."

THis is a slightly difficult topic. Theoretically, scientists know that the Pill tends to prevent the lining of the uterus from developing, which would make it difficult for implantation to happen. They also know that it prevents ovulation, and that it makes the cervical mucous inhospitible to sperm.

But no one knows in actual fact how often it happens that the ovum is prevented from implanting. I am not sure that it has even been studied to try to find out how often this may happen. It could be that the other two effects are so reliable that it never happens, though I think there may be reason to think this is not the case.

I'm not sure if it would be possible to create an experiment to study this, or if it is just that no one really is interested.

So while it is, as far as I know, accurate to say there is no evidence, that is because no one has actually looked. Theoretically it may happen. I believe in some times of BCPs it is more likely to happen than in others, theoretically.

patricius79 · May 25, 2011

sunlover1 said:
But "why"?
Why is it our business which "means' each other chooses?
Why are we trying to tell people that they are doing something
wrong when Scripture is completely silent about it?

we don't believe that Scripture is silent about it. the Protestant oral tradition that Onan was not killed for contraception is clear eisegesis and, which is fine if one believes in eisegesis based on Tradition. but there is not such case, and the position totally begs the question, given the explicit graphic description

morever there is no historic source of the N.T. Canon besides the Catholic Tradition. so in that sense Protestants still testify against contraception implicitly, with others who do so explicitly

as to which "means'" the other chooses... nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. we are proclaiming what the Church has always taught about this, with the "reformers" and historic Protestantism

Well maybe "the trinitarian church" and the "reformers" and historic protestantism
was "WRoNG"..

or maybe the current Protestant positions is wrong. from what I understand, contraception correlates with a lot of bad stuff, from adultery to divorce to HIV, etc

simonthezealot · May 25, 2011

MrPolo said:
So it's ok to sin, right? Because if God didn't want you to sin, He would make sure you didn't.

prove that is a sin, bro.

sunlover1 · May 25, 2011

patricius79 said:
we don't believe that Scripture is silent about it. the Protestant oral tradition that Onan was not killed for contraception is clear eisegesis and, which is fine if one believes in eisegesis based on Tradition. but there is not such case, and the position totally begs the question, given the explicit graphic description

Isn't it sloppy hermeneutics to make a doctrine of one passage?

morever there is no historic source of the N.T. Canon besides the Catholic Tradition. so in that sense Protestants still testify against contraception implicitly, with others who do so explicitly

I'm not surprised you believe that to be so.

as to which "means'" the other chooses... nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. we are proclaiming what the Church has always taught about this, with the "reformers" and historic Protestantism

Problem is.. "your church" without the "members" is zilch
and the "members" aint buying it.. so you SAY your church
teaches it but your "Church" isn't following what "your church" says.
Now aint that silly?

or maybe the current Protestant positions is wrong. from what I understand, contraception correlates with a lot of bad stuff, from adultery to divorce to HIV, etc

I thought you said above that the protestant position was the same as
the RCC's...

JacktheCatholic · May 25, 2011

simonthezealot said:
You think man taking a pill or putting on a condom would keep a child from being born that God intended to be born?
God's a little bigger than that you know, Jack.

I believe in Free Will.

JacktheCatholic · May 25, 2011

bbbbbbb said:
Then I suppse the celibacy is interfering with God's design for men . . .

You seem to think God has a different design than what I am aware of.

MrPolo · May 26, 2011

simonthezealot said:
prove that is a sin, bro.

Right, that's the argument. Not whether or not God can prevent us from doing something.

It's funny that when I argue for praying to saints, I get all these demands for an example of someone in Scripture praying to someone in heaven (which I've done but regardless...). Yet here in the contraception thread, not one of them demands of themselves an example of contraception in Scripture. Abstinence is honored in numerous places. The sin of Onan is dismissed as "greed" or something. Yet we see none of the same voices demanding of themselves an example of contracepting...

Anyway, I gave my account of the bride and bridegroom earlier and how Christ gave all of Himself for His bride. No one touched it. It probably wouldn't fly here anyway because many GT lurkers don't read Scripture typologically or theologically.

MrPolo · May 26, 2011

For those of you pro-contraceptors out there, I'm curious, what other functions of your body that work normally do you intentionally dysfunction?
Not medicine---that's to fix something not working right.
Maybe one of you is bulimic? That would be an example. Not sure if self-induced vomiting (bulimia nervosa) is a virtue though....

Is self-induced vomiting a good practice? Like if you only do it once a week to make sure you stay "healthy"

What about beating on small animals? Some of you said contracepting is good because it's "healthy". So is relieving stress by beating animals a virtue?

CaliforniaJosiah · May 26, 2011

MrPolo said:
For those of you pro-contraceptors out there

The foremost one is the RC denomination.

It's YOUR denomination that suggests abstinence is not necessary (no more sexless marriages) but that sex CAN be shared PURPOSELY and DELIBERATELY to counter conception. It is the only denomination known to me to officially endorse birth control and even to teach such techniques - often right there at the parish, at times even REQUIRING couples to learn now to ACT contraceptively. IMO, the RCC (and Catholics) are the least qualified to rebuke contraceptive sex.

.

Contraception

Beloved, Let us love one another

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Beloved, Let us love one another

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Beloved, Let us love one another

Well-Known Member

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Contributor

Called to Jesus Through Mary

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Beloved, Let us love one another

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency