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.
Isn't it sloppy hermeneutics to make a doctrine of one passage?
.
Not the "Christian Church's definition.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
I'm not surprised you believe that to be so.
Problem is.. "your church" without the "members" is zilch
and the "members" aint buying it..
I thought you said above that the protestant position was the same as
the RCC's...
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
periodic abstinence
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 believe the Christian CHurch's definition
You didn't give the reference; when/where did The Christian Church grant this specific definition?
.
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
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 procreationwhether 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.
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 beingsand especially the young, who are so exposed to temptationneed 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.
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
Again, in a little different language, that any act that seeks "to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil".
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?
I don't understand, then how it is a statement from The Christian Church? .
Would singing hymns take FROM the above described evil?If said contraception is an evil, then it would only add to the above described immorality, no?
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
If said contraception is an evil, then it would only add to the above described immorality, no?
Do you see Deut. 23:1 and the statement of your denomination's
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?