• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Contraception

Status
Not open for further replies.

cobweb

Cranky octogenarian at heart
Jan 12, 2006
3,964
413
Georgia, USA
✟28,438.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Argue against condoms for theological reasons. I can respect that. In fact, I may agree with you (for the most part).

To argue that they are abortive you either have to change the definition of "abortion" to include sperm and ova (which is pretty dumb) or you have to prove that they cause the death of the zygote.

Gametes are not people. If they were then abstinence would be tantamount to murder and monasticism would be sinful. I doubt your Church teaches that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dorothea
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,649
3,637
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟273,511.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think most of this is not so black and white and legalistic as it seems to be appearing here. We are talking about human beings, married couples and each have their own conditions, medical or otherwise, which have to be taken into consideration with regards to contraception, and that is done between the couple and their priest, along with their doctors. Sure, there are the obvious things that we would agree on that are not right such as the abortion pill and such other things, and for the average person, one shouldn't use things that kill off the natural process of creating a baby, imo. But this is something that is delicate and personal and should be discussed, as I said before, with their spiritual father.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Isn't it sloppy hermeneutics to make a doctrine of one passage?
.

the Bible doesn't say that, but I suppose it is. who is doing that?

btw, here is the Christian Church's definition of contraceptives. the reader can see how it would include condoms e.g. but not periodic abstinence:

every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟102,311.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
the Bible doesn't say that, but I suppose it is. who is doing that?

btw, here is the Christian Church's definition of contraceptives. the reader can see how it would include condoms e.g. but not periodic abstinence:

every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil
Not the "Christian Church's definition.
This is the definition from your sect.
And I think it's presumptuous and goes beyond what's written.
But you need to do what your conscience bids you... Which is
why I couldn't use NFP. I felt it was God's body to do with a He
pleased...We have to be very careful who we let whisper into our
hearts and lives..

1 You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things. 2 And we know that God, in his justice, will punish anyone who does such things. 3 Since you judge others for doing these things, why do you think you can avoid God’s judgment when you do the same things? 4 Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that his kindness is intended to turn you from your sin? 5 But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 He will judge everyone according to what they have done. 7 He will give eternal life to those who keep on doing good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers. 8 But he will pour out his anger and wrath on those who live for themselves, who refuse to obey the truth and instead live lives of wickedness. 9 There will be trouble and calamity for everyone who keeps on doing what is evil—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile.[a] 10 But there will be glory and honor and peace from God for all who do good—for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.
12 When the Gentiles sin, they will be destroyed, even though they never had God’s written law. And the Jews, who do have God’s law, will be judged by that law when they fail to obey it. 13 For merely listening to the law doesn’t make us right with God. It is obeying the law that makes us right in his sight. 14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. 16 And this is the message I proclaim—that the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone’s secret life.
The Jews and the Law

17 You who call yourselves Jews are relying on God’s law, and you boast about your special relationship with him. 18 You know what he wants; you know what is right because you have been taught his law. 19 You are convinced that you are a guide for the blind and a light for people who are lost in darkness. 20 You think you can instruct the ignorant and teach children the ways of God. For you are certain that God’s law gives you complete knowledge and truth. 21 Well then, if you teach others, why don’t you teach yourself? You tell others not to steal, but do you steal? 22 You say it is wrong to commit adultery, but do you commit adultery? You condemn idolatry, but do you use items stolen from pagan temples?[b] 23 You are so proud of knowing the law, but you dishonor God by breaking it. 24 No wonder the Scriptures say, “The Gentiles blaspheme the name of God because of you.”[c]
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not surprised you believe that to be so.

you would like to give a historical source of the N.T. Canon besides Catholic Tradition?

Problem is.. "your church" without the "members" is zilch
and the "members" aint buying it..

Catholics are sinners, yes. even orthodox, devout Catholics fall often, like little children.

but they are becoming mature because they accept the Church's teaching

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

the "reformers" condemned contraception and so did the Protestant denominations until recent decades
 
Upvote 0

Vendetta

Convert to the RCC
Nov 4, 2008
1,154
104
Michigan
✟24,331.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If one is inclined to require documentation that Protestant denominations condemned contraception before 1930, then I will require that person to provide me with evidence that they condemned gay marriage before the 20th century.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
btw, here is the Christian Church's definition of contraceptives.

every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil

1. Could you give the reference to this? I'm curious how The Christian Church gives definitions...


2. Ah. Then, according to The Christian Church, the RCC's promotion of having sex in intentional ways that render procreation impossible (well - nothing is impossible with God) is evil.



periodic abstinence

This is a new concept for me; the RC denomination keeps changing things so quickly and so much, it's just hard for me to keep up! When I was a teen being taught in the RCC, "abstinence" = no sex (in any form, including oral sex). This idea that one is practicing abstinence if they don't have sex for an hour a day - but do the other 23 hours, or have sex 25 days a month but not 5 - this is a whole new definition from Catholicism from what I was taught (not so long ago). Is one now a virgin if they just don't have sex 5 days a month - but do the other 25? Does this concept apply there, too?




.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not the "Christian Church's definition.
This is the definition from your sect.
And I think it's presumptuous and goes beyond what's written.
]

I'm coming from a very different perspective based on my study of Church history and the N.T. and the Protestant oral traditions

both Catholics and Protestants are insisting on sentences not in Scripture, as you are doing here.

I believe the Christian CHurch's definition and constant teaching, and I don't believe that the Church is composed of sects

I dont' judge anyone who contracepts but only the act itself, just as you are juding me to be wrong to teach what I am teaching
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I believe the Christian CHurch's definition

You didn't give the reference; when/where did The Christian Church grant this specific definition?

Curious that you gave it, since it so clearly condemns the RCC's post '60's position, but thanks for sharing it. I not only find it curious that you would post this but also that The Christian Church even had an official definition (or means of granting such) so I too am awaiting the reference.


Thanks!


Blessings!


- Josiah


.
 
Upvote 0

Kristos

Servant
Aug 30, 2006
7,379
1,068
Minnesota
✟52,552.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
There are so many things to consider here that blanket statements just don't work very well. People engage in intimacy for all the wrong. Lust, selfishness, vanity, security, power, control, manipulation etc etc. It's probably the most misused aspect of our being (and our anatomy:)). Does the presence of a contraceptive alter this evil in anyway? Does the lack of any contraceptive lessen it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You didn't give the reference; when/where did The Christian Church grant this specific definition?
.

every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil


this definition of contraception is from the Vicar of Jesus's Humanae Vitae in 1968 as I recall. quoted in CCC 2370
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Josiah said:
1. Could you give the reference to this? I'm curious how The Christian Church gives definitions...


2. Ah. Then, according to The Christian Church, the RCC's promotion of having sex in intentional ways that render procreation impossible (well - nothing is impossible with God) is evil.




"periodic abstinence" This is a new concept for me; the RC denomination keeps changing things so quickly and so much, it's just hard for me to keep up! When I was a teen being taught in the RCC, "abstinence" = no sex (in any form, including oral sex). This idea that one is practicing abstinence if they don't have sex for an hour a day - but do the other 23 hours, or have sex 25 days a month but not 5 - this is a whole new definition from Catholicism from what I was taught (not so long ago). Is one now a virgin if they just don't have sex 5 days a month - but do the other 25? Does this concept apply there, too?


every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil


this definition of contraception is from the Vicar of Jesus's Humanae Vitae


:confused: I don't understand, then how it is a statement from The Christian Church?

You you suggesting that INSTEAD, it's some RCC "Pope" condemning the new RCC view here?





.
 
Upvote 0

JacktheCatholic

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.
Mar 9, 2007
24,545
2,797
57
Michigan, USA
Visit site
✟51,888.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In the hopes of finding intellectual honesty from all my brethren I wish to submit the formal Catholic (RCC) teaching on contraception. I had posted this previously (post #95 and 98 others too) and yet it seems to be ignored either intentionally or ignorantly.

From Humanae Vitae a formal document from the Vatican on the teaching of the Catholic Church stating what has always been taught, is taught and will continue to be taught as a Doctrine of the Church:

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

And further from Humanae Vitae:
Consequences of Artificial Methods

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

And from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which borrows from Humanae Viatae):
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

In other words it is a grave sin to use contraceptives methods as a Catholic in the RCC.

Source: Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

and

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment



I have bolded the easy parts to read so no real effort is needed to understand that the RCC condemns all forms of contraceptives as intrinsically evil. Again, in a little different language, that any act that seeks "to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: D'Ann
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Again, in a little different language, that any act that seeks "to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil".

Thank you...

So, it's YOUR position that this is a statement from the RCC, not The Christian Church?

If a couple PRACTICES birth control by PURPOSEFULLY, deliberately, scheduling sex (DOING that) so as to render procreation unlikely, is that ergo "intrinsically evil? NOTE: There is no abstinence, there is no sexless marriage - there is AS MUCH SEX as otherwise, just as often, just as good, just as loving, just as much - but DONE contraceptively, DONE specifically, purposely, willfully so as to "render procreation unlikely" (I won't use the word "impossible" since such doesn't exist where God exists, Catholics need to remember the Virgin Mary, lol), is that intrinsically evil - according to this 1968 statement of your denomination?





.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
There are so many things to consider here that blanket statements just don't work very well. People engage in intimacy for all the wrong. Lust, selfishness, vanity, security, power, control, manipulation etc etc. It's probably the most misused aspect of our being (and our anatomy:)). Does the presence of a contraceptive alter this evil in anyway? Does the lack of any contraceptive lessen it?

If said contraception is an evil, then it would only add to the above described immorality, no?
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand, then how it is a statement from The Christian Church? .

because the Vicar of Christ is teaching what the historic Trinitarian Church has always believed

btw, Dt 23:1 says that no man with crushed testicles or having his male member cut off shall enter the assembly of God.


I think that is a clear condemnation of contraception
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟102,311.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If said contraception is an evil, then it would only add to the above described immorality, no?
Would singing hymns take FROM the above described evil?
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Josiah said:

So, it's YOUR position that this is a statement from the RCC, not The Christian Church?

If a couple PRACTICES birth control by PURPOSEFULLY, deliberately, scheduling sex (DOING that) so as to render procreation unlikely, is that ergo "intrinsically evil? NOTE: There is no abstinence, there is no sexless marriage - there is AS MUCH SEX as otherwise, just as often, just as good, just as loving, just as much - but DONE contraceptively, DONE specifically, purposely, willfully so as to "render procreation unlikely" (I won't use the word "impossible" since such doesn't exist where God exists, Catholics need to remember the Virgin Mary, lol), is that intrinsically evil - according to this 1968 statement of your denomination?


.



because the Vicar of Christ is teaching what the historic Trinitarian Church has always believed

btw, Dt 23:1 says that no man with crushed testicles or having his male member cut off shall enter the assembly of God.


I think that is a clear condemnation of contraception

Do you see Deut. 23:1 and the statement of your denomination's "Pope" as clear condemnations of contraception?

I don't think the Deut. passage is, it seems at least possible that the view of your denomination's "Pope" is.




.
 
Upvote 0

Kristos

Servant
Aug 30, 2006
7,379
1,068
Minnesota
✟52,552.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
If said contraception is an evil, then it would only add to the above described immorality, no?

I don't think it's necessarily additive. If I'm committing adultery or rape, then that is really what needs to be addressed, not whether or not a wore a condom. If you go to the doctor with cancer, do you also show him your hang nail? I do not deny that there are situation where IS a problem, but even in these cases the real illness lies else where, not in the contraception itself. Why would a young health couple chose to use contraception? Selfishness? Fear? Why would a middle aged couple choose to use contraception? Fatigue? Lost intimacy?
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you see Deut. 23:1 and the statement of your denomination's
.

I don't really see the Christian Church as a "denomination". there is isn't any denominationalism in Scripture. there is simply the historic Trinitarian Church, which condemns contraception and offers Christ's Infinite Mercy to all
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.