Contraception

[D'Ann]

sorry! you are right. we are not allowed to use NFP for the sole purpose of not concieving. correct.

that would be the contraceptive mentality. however, we can use NFP in order to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons like health of the spouse, etc (i.e. out of love for God and spouse and neighbor)

thanks for the correction. let me know if I am making any other mistakes in my phrasing

You are doing great. We agree.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The one I've consistently made throughout this thread....

Family PLANNING, Birth CONTROL, intentional, purposeful, deliberate, practice of sex so as to be contraceptive IS contraception.

Okay. Thank you.

I never said that's good or bad - only that it is what it is.

I acknowledge this.

Yes, there does seem to be some contradiction (or at the very least - word games) when Catholicism (and according to your quoted sources, the RCC in official statements) argues for contraceptive sex and then declares contraceptive sex to be evil.

Alright. I understand what you are saying.

The comments in this thread that you guys should huddle and make up your mind, the comments that NFP IS contraception, the comments that when the RCC makes up it's mind - let us know, those all refer to the puzzling spin, the double talk. I don't have a CLUE why it's done. Why not say what it OBVIOUSLY is - and then why you think it's sometimes okay and sometimes not, rather than trying to say "contraception is not contraception when it's done the Catholic way." I strongly suggest you READ this thread. Just READ it. Not to rebuke or to make your spin - just READ it. Even limit such to the RC and EO posts. It's so very obvious. It's so strange. It's so unnecessary. It's SO confusing - obviously especially to Catholics who have to TRY to make sense of this double speak....

I apologize for any confusion. I admit that much of it has been over the word 'contraceptive/contraception' and its meaning, which is why I am going to try to mimic the wording of the Catechism as closely as possible.

In context of the Catechism, contraception is '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.'

Examples of contraception would then include vesectomy (it proposes to render procreation impossible in anticipation of the conjugal act), coitus interruptus (it proposes to render procreation impossible in the accomplishment of the conjugal act), and the 'plan B' pill (it proposes to render procreation impossible in the development of the natural consequences of the conjugal act.)

With that in mind, how do you feel that natural family planning (or rather, some particular action of natural family planning) meets (or does not meet) that definition?

 

[D'Ann]

The one I've consistently made throughout this thread....

Family PLANNING, Birth CONTROL, intentional, purposeful, deliberate, practice of sex so as to be contraceptive IS contraception.

Perhaps, that is where the problem is...

Family Planning according to Catholic dogma should NEVER be used for the SOLE ONLY purpose of preventing Pro-Creation.

Contraceptives should NEVER be used for the SOLE ONLY purpose to prevent Pro-Creation.

The only time that a couple should use NFP or non-abortive contraceptives is when there is a serious health issue and with special permission from the Church.

Unitive sex between a husband and wife is part of the marriage and a husband and wife should express their love through the unitive way of being together and in a situation when for severe health issues, couples with special permission from the Church may be allowed to use NFP and/or non-abortive type contraceptives, not to avoid pro-creation, but for medical purposes while still sharing unitive union as one together.

The purpose of the NFP and/or medication is not to prevent pro-creation, but it is used as a medicine for the well-being of one of the spouses.

For example: The wife may have cancer and going through treatment, in a situation like that, it would be unwise to get pregnant, therefore, with special permission from the Church, they may use medicine to protect the mother's life. The medicine's intention is not to prevent pro-creation, but to protect the mother's life.

Maybe that doesn't make sense to you, but that is Catholic dogma teaching and it is taught with compassion and mercy.

I never said that's good or bad - only that it is what it is.

I think your translation of what us Catholics are conveying is based on your own terminology and you mean no harm.

It's difficult trying to explain Catholic dogma and use the same kind of terminology.

Yes, there does seem to be some contradiction (or at the very least - word games) when Catholicism (and according to your quoted sources, the RCC in official statements) argues for contraceptive sex and then declares contraceptive sex to be evil.

It's not a contradiction or word games. There are very distinct reasons for whatever the Church dogma says.

The Church is firm in her dogma teaching that contraceptive use for the sole purpose to avoid pro-creation is evil and a mortal sin. The act itself and when we use contraceptives (and/or NFP) for the sole purpose as to avoid pro-creation, we are committing a mortal sin. The Church is very clear on this.

The Church is also merciful and compassionate and acknowledges for a few married couples, there are grave and severe health issues in which a couple needs to use NFP and/or non-abortive contraceptives... for the sole purpose as to save the life of the woman. The sole purpose can NEVER be to prevent pro-creation.

There is a difference.

The comments in this thread that you guys should huddle and make up your mind, the comments that NFP IS contraception, the comments that when the RCC makes up it's mind - let us know, those all refer to the puzzling spin, the double talk. I don't have a CLUE why it's done. Why not say what it OBVIOUSLY is - and then why you think it's sometimes okay and sometimes not, rather than trying to say "contraception is not contraception when it's done the Catholic way." I strongly suggest you READ this thread. Just READ it. Not to rebuke or to make your spin - just READ it. Even limit such to the RC and EO posts. It's so very obvious. It's so strange. It's so unnecessary. It's SO confusing - obviously especially to Catholics who have to TRY to make sense of this double speak....
.

Again, all of us Catholics are in agreement with each other, we are using a terminology that we understand, but obviously, non-Catholics use a different terminology... that is the way it is in GT and it's okay. I'm sorry if this is confusing to some, but it does make sense to us Catholics and I wish that it made sense to you and others who are non-Catholic, but all I can do is explain using words that are easy to understand.

But yes, for some, it can be confusing.

The bottom line is the Catholic Church dogma is against any thing that prevents pro-creation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Church approves the use of periodic continence for birth control, but not the use of contraceptives.

"Continence?" Do you mean having sex so as to lessen the changes of conception?

Do you know what the word is for doing things to counter, lessen, discourage, stop conception? It's contraception.


But again, the RCC is not the Shakers. Your argument MIGHT have some, tiny point IF the RCC was teaching abstinence - a sexless marriage (for reasons ENTIRELY UNRELATED in any fashion whatsoever to conception). But it doesn't (not anymore anyway): it teaches that couples MAY have sex. Lots of sex. At least as much sex as those NOT practicing/doing family planning. What's the difference? Those desiring to be contraceptive do sex contraceptively. If you have sex during times of infertility and avoid times of fertility - purposely, intentionally, proactively, willfully, by design, for ONE reason: NOT TO BE CONTRACEPTIVE, then isn't that being contraceptive, doing it contraceptively? Why are you not admitting what is OBVIOUS? Undeniable?

No, continence and contraception are not one in the same.

Not necessarily, but if the sole reason, purpose, design, intent for DOING sex the way one does is soley CONTRACEPTIVE - that makes it contraceptive sex. Logically, reasonably - I fail to see how you can possibly say otherwise.

I fully acknowledge that periodic continence (a.k.a. NFP) is distinct from abstinence.

Therefore, your constant insistence that family PLANNING is abstinence is incorrect. Abstinence = not sex, not contraceptive sex. According to MY Catholic teachers, one is not practicing abstinence, one is not virgin, when they have sex as often as possible - but in ways not likely to result in conception. Mary being a perpetual virgin doesn't mean She had sex 30, 40, 50 times a month - but always to avoid conception.

It might be worth noting that refraining from having sex during a certain period of time does not propose to render procreation impossible

Of course not; conception is NEVER impossible. But when it's purposely, intentionally, by design, done so as to counter conception, to lessen the chances of that, it is - by definition - contraceptively done.

BTW, it IS still possible (even for those without divine miracles) to get pregnant on "the pill" or using a condom - those don't make conception impossible either - and NO ONE claims they do, having sex in that way LESSENS the changes of such. The Catholic form of contraceptive sex also lessens (but does not eliminate) the chances of sex.





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

"Continence?" Do you mean having sex so as to lessen the changes of conception?

Do you know what the word is for doing things to counter, lessen, discourage, stop conception? It's contraception.

By 'continence', I mean 'refraining from sex so as to lessen the chances of conception.' I refuse to equivocate 'refraining from sex' to 'contraception' -- otherwise, I would be equivocating posting on this forum and driving a car to 'contraception.'

Not necessarily, but if the sole reason, purpose, design, intent for DOING sex the way one does is soley CONTRACEPTIVE - that makes it contraceptive sex. Logically, reasonably - I fail to see how you can possibly say otherwise.

Again, I refuse to equivocate 'birth control' to 'contraception.' As far as I am concerned, contraception is a means of birth control.

Therefore, your constant insistence that family PLANNING is abstinence is incorrect. Abstinence = not sex, not contraceptive sex. According to MY Catholic teachers, one is not practicing abstinence, one is not virgin, when they have sex as often as possible - but in ways not likely to result in conception. Mary being a perpetual virgin doesn't mean She had sex 30, 40, 50 times a month - but always to avoid conception.

Josiah, I apologize that you are still in confusion as to my prior use of the word 'abstain'. I thought I made myself clear when I was using the verb 'abstain' to mean 'refrain' and that I did not intend to refer to the teaching of 'abstinence' that promotes not having sex until marriage or similar. If you have not noticed, I began using the word 'refrain' instead of 'abstain' and when I mentioned 'abstinence' I mention it alongside 'continence' in hopes of the reader being able to discern that I refer to 'abstinence' and 'continence' as two distinct concepts.

In truth, I have referred to family planning as 'periodic continence' on numerous occasions within this thread, but have not once referred to it as 'abstinence'.

Of course not; conception is NEVER impossible. But when it's purposely, intentionally, by design, done so as to counter conception, to lessen the chances of that, it is - by definition - contraceptively done.

BTW, it IS still possible (even for those without divine miracles) to get pregnant on "the pill" or using a condom - those don't make conception impossible either - and NO ONE claims they do, having sex in that way LESSENS the changes of such. The Catholic form of contraceptive sex also lessens (but does not eliminate) the chances of sex.

When the word 'impossible' is used in this case, it is not meant in the absolute. Much how Jesus said 'nothing shall be impossible unto you' yet it is clearly impossible for us to supersede God in power. Clearly when one wears a condom, he knows it is possible that it might break, but the core meaning here is that he is using the condom as a means of preventing conception both during and at the very climax of intercourse.

 

[D'Ann]

Hi Josiah,

My other key board doesn't work too well. I hit the 'j' key and it doesn't type it. LOL

I was wondering what is your definition of the word contraceptive?
What is your definition of NFP?

Maybe that is where the confusion is...

God's peace

Debbie

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

By 'continence', I mean 'refraining from sex so as to lessen the chances of conception.'

"Contra" = against, to stop, to lessen, to resist.
"Ception" = short here for conception.
"Contraception" = to do something against conception, to lessen the changes of.

To resist, to act against, to lessen the changes of conception IS contraception. To purposely, intentionally, by design of action do something so as to resist, work again, lessen conception IS contraceptive.

Again, I refuse to equivocate 'birth control' to 'contraception.'

That's possible... Ask 100 people if "birth CONTROL" and "family PLANNING" is a totally,completely, PASSIVE endeavor doing NOTHING otherwise than having sex when hearts mutually desire - all with the sole, singular, intentional design of having as many children as is biologically possible. If they say "yup" - then I'd concede the point. As 100 Catholics, if you want to limit the sample to that. But I honestly think you realize you don't need to.

As far as I am concerned, contraception is a means of birth control.

I agree.

Contraception, birth control, family planning - they are all interrelated - UNLESS, again, the SOLE purpose of such is to have as many children as is biologically possible - more than one would likely have having sex daily, if THAT is the singular objective, purpose, intent and design - then yes, it would be birth control and family planning but not contraceptive. Read the Catholic and Orthodox posts in this thread. Read the constant references to "not conceiving"

In truth, I have referred to family planning as 'periodic continence'

What is the purpose and intent of such "periodic continence" (ie rescheduling sex so that conception is unlikely, so that you are working against conception)? Is all this planning and action with the singular, sole, purposeful desire and intent to have as many children as is biologically possible, as quickly as possible - more than would result from having sex at least once daily? OR would the reason for such more likely be to plan and work and practice AGAINST that, to control the conceptions, to be (at least at times) contra conception?

Of course, the "natural" approach would be to disregard family planning, birth control and all contraceptive efforts - and just have sex, lots of sex. In many cases, without doing ANYTHING taught in the RCC Family Planning classes, one could have 12-18 children. But yes, if a couple's SOLE desire, intent, goal, purpose and design for acting differntly was to have more children than that - it would be family planning and birth control but not contraception, not contraceptive in purpose, intent and use.


Interesting sidepoint: The world record for having the most number of children officially recorded is 69 by the first of two wives of Feodor Vassilyev (1707-1782), a peasant from Shuya. Since he was not Catholic or educated, and since this was well before Catholic Family Planning, I'm guessing he did this the natural way (but the article didn't say). Are you trying to tell me the SOLE reason why NFP is practiced (when it is) is to try to beat that record?

he is using the condom as a means of preventing conception

I don't recall mentioning a condom....


Yes, if one has sex using a condom, that action would likely be contraceptive in purpose - likely done to work against conception. I tend to agree. When one goes to great effort to reschedule sex to infertile times and away from a few particularly fertile days, that planning, that effort, the goal to control the sex, the effort to control births (by controlling conception, obviously) is likely done to work against conception, is it not? Yes - both are contraceptive in nature, purpose, design, intent and action. They are not identical means but they are identically contraceptive (the condom is probably just more effective in such - perhaps).

Which is it? Is contraceptive sex "evil" as a Catholic Pope said or is it good and sound and to be practiced, done, planned, performed as taught in classes at the parish center?





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

"Contra" = against, to stop, to lessen, to resist.
"Ception" = sort here for conception.

To resist, to act against, to lessen the changes of conception IS contraception. To purposely, intentionally, by design of action do something so as to resist, work again, lessen conception is contraceptive.

Well, Josiah, I would like know why you think the Catholic is contradicting itself by approving NFP while disapproving of contraception. In order for the Church to contradict itself in such a manner, NFP must meet the criteria of 'contraception' as the Church defines it, not as you define it.

After all, it could be very possible that it contradicts your definition of 'contraception' but not its own definition. Here is that criteria again: "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."

How does periodic continence meet this criteria?

Which is it? Is contraceptive sex "evil" as a Catholic Pope said or is it good and sound and to be practiced, done, planned, performed as taught in classes at the parish center?

In order to properly answer this question, I will need to know which Pope you are referring to, as well as which passage you are citing.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"Contra" = against, to stop, to lessen, to resist.
"Ception" = short here for conception.
"Contraception" = to do something against conception, to lessen the changes of.

To resist, to act against, to lessen the changes of conception IS contraception. To purposely, intentionally, by design of action do something so as to resist, work again, lessen conception IS contraceptive.

​

That's possible... Ask 100 people if "birth CONTROL" and "family PLANNING" is a totally,completely, PASSIVE endeavor doing NOTHING otherwise than having sex when hearts mutually desire - all with the sole, singular, intentional design of having as many children as is biologically possible. If they say "yup" - then I'd concede the point. As 100 Catholics, if you want to limit the sample to that. But I honestly think you realize you don't need to.

​

I agree.

Contraception, birth control, family planning - they are all interrelated - UNLESS, again, the SOLE purpose of such is to have as many children as is biologically possible - more than one would likely have having sex daily, if THAT is the singular objective, purpose, intent and design - then yes, it would be birth control and family planning but not contraceptive. Read the Catholic and Orthodox posts in this thread. Read the constant references to "not conceiving"




What is the purpose and intent of such "periodic continence" (ie rescheduling sex so that conception is unlikely, so that you are working against conception)? Is all this planning and action with the singular, sole, purposeful desire and intent to have as many children as is biologically possible, as quickly as possible - more than would result from having sex at least once daily? OR would the reason for such more likely be to plan and work and practice AGAINST that, to control the conceptions, to be (at least at times) contra conception?

Of course, the "natural" approach would be to disregard family planning, birth control and all contraceptive efforts - and just have sex, lots of sex. In many cases, without doing ANYTHING taught in the RCC Family Planning classes, one could have 12-18 children. But yes, if a couple's SOLE desire, intent, goal, purpose and design for acting differntly was to have more children than that - it would be family planning and birth control but not contraception, not contraceptive in purpose, intent and use.


Interesting sidepoint: The world record for having the most number of children officially recorded is 69 by the first of two wives of Feodor Vassilyev (1707-1782), a peasant from Shuya. Since he was not Catholic or educated, and since this was well before Catholic Family Planning, I'm guessing he did this the natural way (but the article didn't say). Are you trying to tell me the SOLE reason why NFP is practiced (when it is) is to try to beat that record?

​

I don't recall mentioning a condom....


Yes, if one has sex using a condom, that action would likely be contraceptive in purpose - likely done to work against conception. I tend to agree. When one goes to great effort to reschedule sex to infertile times and away from a few particularly fertile days, that planning, that effort, the goal to control the sex, the effort to control births (by controlling conception, obviously) is likely done to work against conception, is it not? Yes - both are contraceptive in nature, purpose, design, intent and action. They are not identical means but they are identically contraceptive (the condom is probably just more effective in such - perhaps).

Which is it? Is contraceptive sex "evil" as a Catholic Pope said or is it good and sound and to be practiced, done, planned, performed as taught in classes at the parish center?





.

Well, Josiah, Here is that criteria again: "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."

[Note: We've both mutually agreed that the word "impossible" here is entirely inappropriate and theologically wrong - so I'll leave that aside, we both disagree with THAT. Our Lady proves it's NEVER impossible, lol]


And the purpose, intent, goal of NFP is to take control of sex, to DO in in controlled ways vis-a-vis conception. Unless you are insisting that the sole, singular, exclusive, reason for Catholic Family Planning is for every women to birth more than 69 children - THAT is the singular and exclusive goal, intent and use (contrary to what all but one Catholic and Orthodox in this thread has stated), then the "end" of this practice is to render procreation unlikely. I want to keep this "G" rated, but what's happening here is typically, AS YOU KEEP POINTING OUT, couples don't have sex when the wife is especially fertile: such is a means to an end: to render conception unlikely. If that's the RC's definition of "contraception" - so be it. As you point out, the couple PURPOSELY takes this action - with a singular, intentional, "end" in mind (to use the RCC's language here). It is in contrast to the couple simply having sex nightly or as "hearts move" or however Mr. & Mrs. Vassilyev did to get the 69 births: its taking action, it's taking control, it's family planning, it's contraceptive.





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

[Note: We've both mutually agreed that the word "impossible" here is entirely inappropriate and theologically wrong - so I'll leave that aside, we both disagree with THAT. Our Lady proves it's NEVER impossible, lol]

I'm not so sure we agree on that -- but I'll not get into that just now.

what's happening here is typically, AS YOU KEEP POINTING OUT, couples don't have sex when the wife is especially fertile: such is a means to an end: to render conception unlikely. If that's the RC's definition of "contraception" - so be it. As you point out, the couple PURPOSELY takes this action - with a singular, intentional, "end" in mind (to use the RCC's language here).

So, from what I understand, you are saying that the particular action of "refraining from sex during fertile periods" meets the criteria defined in the Catechism? I don't see how that is the case.

"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"

"Refraining from sex" does not propose to prevent conception:
1.) in anticipation of the conjugal act (because it does not anticipate the conjugal act whatsoever),
2.) in accomplishment of the conjugal act (because no conjugal act is taking place, let alone any climax to be interrupted or intercepted), or
3.) in the development of the natural consequences of the conjugal act (because no conjugal act occurred, meaning there are no natural consequences to thwart.)

Does refraining from sex prevent conception? Yes. Does it propose to prevent conception in any of the manners defined as immoral by the Catholic Church? No.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

[Note: We've both mutually agreed that the word "impossible" here is entirely inappropriate and theologically wrong - so I'll leave that aside, we both disagree with THAT. Our Lady proves it's NEVER impossible, lol]


And the purpose, intent, goal of NFP is to take control of sex, to DO in in controlled ways vis-a-vis conception. Unless you are insisting that the sole, singular, exclusive, reason for Catholic Family Planning is for every women to birth more than 69 children - THAT is the singular and exclusive goal, intent and use (contrary to what all but one Catholic and Orthodox in this thread has stated), then the "end" of this practice is to render procreation unlikely. I want to keep this "G" rated, but what's happening here is typically, AS YOU KEEP POINTING OUT, couples don't have sex when the wife is especially fertile: such is a means to an end: to render conception unlikely. If that's the RC's definition of "contraception" - so be it. As you point out, the couple PURPOSELY takes this action - with a singular, intentional, "end" in mind (to use the RCC's language here). It is in contrast to the couple simply having sex nightly or as "hearts move" or however Mr. & Mrs. Vassilyev did to get the 69 births: its taking action, it's taking control, it's family planning, it's contraceptive.

"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"

According to you...

Sex is NOT abandoned but purposely, intentionally, by design "rescheduled", "redirected" away from a few days of fertility to days of (comparative) infertility with the sole purpose, the exclusive end of rendering procreation more difficult.


Again, unless you are insisting that the SOLE, singular, exclusive use and purpose of modern Catholic Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL is to get all women to have 69 children, then I suspect you are admitting is that this is a means (to use the Catechism's word) to a very specific end (to use your Catechism's word) - and that is to render procreation impossible (to word it as your Catechism does), but as we've agreed - that wording is both theologically and biologically flawed: contraceptive practices reduce the changes of contraception (most, temporarily).

Yup.

"Refraining from sex" does not propose to prevent conception

1. As I understand it, it's generally difficult to conceive without sex.

2. The Catholic technique here is NOT to have no sex. It no longer teaches that couples should be sexless. No. Couples PRACTICING, DOING, APPLYING Catholic Family Planning may have lots of sex, as much sex as otherwise, as much sex as the Baptist couple next door. There's nothing "sexless" about it; it's all about HAVING that sex, with the "end" of "rendering procreation impossible".

in anticipation of the conjugal act (because it does not anticipate the conjugal act whatsoever),

It's the whole deal! You've gotta KNOW - is she fertile or infertile tonight? Catholic Family Planning is all about anticipating whether to have or not have sex. The whole point is to look at the calendar, anticipate... In advance. And schedule around that. Planning is the crux of Catholic Family Planning. Control is the heart of Catholic Birth Control.

Friend, it's called Catholic Family PLANNING because planning (anticipation) is involved. Planning what? Well, children, conception, sex, the "conjugal act." We both know that.

Does refraining from sex prevent conception? Yes.

This is what I mean by confusing modern Catholicism with Shakerism; you seem to have entirely missed the point.

In Shakerism, sexual relations are regarded as "not appropriate" for Shakers (they don't claim its evil - just not appropriate in their covenant) - thus, they don't have sex. Sex is not appropriate so sex isn't done. This is related to the Catholic concept of virginity and abstinence for those not married. But (as I was taught), Catholicism does not (generally) teach that sex is evil or immoral or inappropriate within marriage: there is no "abstinence" in marriage, at least mandated. Catholic Family PLANNING is about HAVING sex, DOING sex, PRACTICING birth control, IMPLEMENTING the Catholic methods - that means - with a clear, singular, focused, particular, sole end: to not conceive. That, by definition, makes the means, the end, the purpose, the morality - contraceptive. It is what it is.
sex,


Friend, IF you were saying, "Couples that shouldn't have children should be sexless" - I think you'd have a point. It would be about not having sex if you don't want to have kids. And my Catholic teacher told me that prior to the sexual revolution of the 1960's, that was a common Catholic counsel (although, she stressed, NOT official - just heard). But it's no longer about being sexless, it's about having sex with the means and the end of "making procreation impossible" (well, temporaily reducing the odds - with God, nothing is impossible and biologically, no contraceptive means works 100% of the time; as long as their sex - conception CAN happen, however unlikely). Friend, it's called Catholic FAMILY PLANNING because it's planning

Does it propose to prevent conception?

That is the singular, particular goal. As all (but one) Catholic and Orthodox poster in this thread has specifically and clearly stated.




Thank you!


May all Easter blessings be yours....


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Josiah, why are you cutting my post apart? Certain portions of it are meant to be read as wholes, not as pieces.

For instance, you just quoted " "Refraining from sex" does not propose to prevent conception " and responded to that as if it were a statement in and of itself, where later in my post I readily admitted that it DOES propose to prevent conception.

If you're not going to address it while taking context into its proper consideration, what is the point?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Josiah, why are you cutting my post apart?

To respond carefully to each point.
The point you mentioned I DID reply to.
Read the post. IF you want to reply to what is stated, do.

You do realize that 'refraining from something' can be done at particular times and not 100% of the time?

Yes. Such might be a means to an end. In this case, to "render procreation impossible" as your Catechism states.


According to you, sex is NOT abandoned but purposely, intentionally, by design "rescheduled", "redirected" away from a few days of fertility to days of (comparative) infertility with the sole purpose, the exclusive end of rendering procreation more difficult. Again, unless you are insisting that the SOLE, singular, exclusive use and purpose of modern Catholic Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL is to get all women to have 69 children, then I suspect you are admitting is that this is a means (to use the Catechism's word) to a very specific end (to use your Catechism's word) - and that is to render procreation impossible (to word it as your Catechism does), but as we've agreed - that wording is both theologically and biologically flawed: contraceptive practices reduce the changes of contraception (most, temporarily).

Catholic Family PLANNING is about HAVING sex, DOING sex, PRACTICING birth control, IMPLEMENTING the Catholic methods - that means - with a clear, singular, focused, particular, intentional, sole end: to not conceive. That, by definition, makes the means, the end, the purpose, the morality - contraceptive. It is what it is.


Friend, consistently YOU have spoken of a means to AVOID times of fertility so as to render procreation impossible. Means. End. To be contraceptive. It is just as you say. It is what it is.






.

 

[ivebeenshown]

To respond carefully to each point.
The point you mentioned I DID reply to.

I'm just pointing out how dishonest it comes off to reply to the one portion of my post like that.

Yes. Such might be a means to an end. In this case, to "render procreation impossible" as your Catechism states.

The Catechism and I do not deny that periodic continence is a method of birth regulation.

According to you, sex is NOT abandoned but purposely, intentionally, by design "rescheduled", "redirected" away from a few days of fertility to days of (comparative) infertility with the sole purpose, the exclusive end of rendering procreation more difficult. Again, unless you are insisting that the SOLE, singular, exclusive use and purpose of modern Catholic Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL is to get all women to have 69 children, then I suspect you are admitting is that this is a means (to use the Catechism's word) to a very specific end (to use your Catechism's word) - and that is to render procreation impossible (to word it as your Catechism does), but as we've agreed - that wording is both theologically and biologically flawed: contraceptive practices reduce the changes of contraception (most, temporarily).

Friend, consistently YOU have spoken of a means to AVOID times of fertility so as to render procreation impossible. Means. End. To be contraceptive. It is just as you say. It is what it is.

I won't deny that the intention of NFP is to avoid children and make sure that none will result (until it is desired to have a child.)

Well, the last thing I will mention is that the Catechism paragraph 2370 is referring to Humanae Vitae, which contains this:

"Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love."

"Render procreation impossible" is referring to obstructing the natural development of the generative process. I guess if you can't understand it then I have nothing more to say. Have a blessed Memorial Day weekend!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catechism and I do not deny that periodic continence is a method of birth regulation.

I know (thus my puzzle why you are disagreeing with the obvious)


Thus, it is family PLANNING, it is birth CONTROL
It is a MEANS.
It has an END.
That end is to render procreation impossible.
It's contraceptive in nature, purpose, design, intent and use.
It is what it is.

You keep quoting your Catechism that condemns that as evil - okay. Point taken. Understood.
I've never commented because I'm not longer Catholic and such is moot to me, but I've just found it....well, odd... that you'd keep pointing out (through various official documents) that the RCC condemns such as evil. But okay; that's not my point at all (which I've stressed repeatedly), it just is what it is.

I won't deny that the intention of NFP is to avoid children and make sure that none will result

I know...

It is PLANNING, it is CONTROL, it is the implementation of a METHOD.
It has a goal, and end, a purpose, an intent.
To render procreation impossible.
It's called countraception.

It is what it is.

"Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception

Does DOING, IMPLEMENTING, FULFILLING Catholic Family Planning prevent conception? Is it a means to that end? Is that the goal, the purpose, the intent? Then.....

"Render procreation impossible" is referring to obstructing the natural development of the generative process.

You know how babies are made...






.

 

[patricius79]

I know (thus my puzzle why you are disagreeing with the obvious)Thus, it is family PLANNING, it is birth CONTROL..

if it is birth control, why would that mean it is morally equivalent to taking abortifacient contraceptives, e.g.?

would you agree that the means one uses to reach a goal is a matter or morality?

remember, the Christian Church condemns the contraceptive mentality even if NFP is used

 

[ivebeenshown]

Does DOING, IMPLEMENTING, FULFILLING Catholic Family Planning prevent conception? Is it a means to that end? Is that the goal, the purpose, the intent? Then......

"In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thus, it is family PLANNING, it is birth CONTROL
It is a MEANS.
It has an END.
That end is to render procreation impossible.
It's contraceptive in nature, purpose, design, intent and use.
It is what it is.

You keep quoting your Catechism that condemns that as evil - okay. Point taken. Understood.
I've never commented because I'm not longer Catholic and such is moot to me, but I've just found it....well, odd... that you'd keep pointing out (through various official documents) that the RCC condemns such as evil. But okay; that's not my point at all (which I've stressed repeatedly), it just is what it is.


.

if it is birth control, why would that mean it is morally equivalent to taking abortifacient contraceptives

YOU are the one who stated that it's design, purpose and use is to control birth...

Where did mention "moral" or "abortifacient? Lost me, brother.... READ what I posted.

would you agree that the means one uses to reach a goal is a matter or morality?

Where did I mention morality?

Yes, it probably makes a difference if I kill someone with a gun or with poison, but in both cases, it is killing - intentionally, purposefully, by design; I did it with forethought, with intent, implementing a method, to a specific end. It's killing.

Now, READ what I posted.

the Christian Church condemns the contraceptive mentality even if NFP is used

1. The Christian Church has condemned NOTHING in this regard.

2. The RCC is the only denomination known to me that actively promotes, defends and teaches contraceptive methods.... a means, to an end, and that end IS the "rendering procreation impossible" (well, unlikely). It is what it is.






.

 

[patricius79]

YOU are the one who stated that it's design, purpose and use is to control birth....

.

no.

I think that contraceptives and NFP are essentially different, as the Christian Church teaches, although both can be used with wrong intention or right intention

clearly it's very different to have sex while being on the Pill which is abortifacient and to abstain from sex because one cannot take care of another child

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Does the Catholic Church say it's okay to use NFP to NOT conceive (at least at this time), to briefly cease having sex so as to not conceive now?

yes, of course.

Family PLANNING is to plan, control births.
Birth CONTROL is to plan, control births.

"Yes, of course!" Catholic Family PLANNING can be used contraceptively - with the goal of NOT conceiving, Catholic birth planning/control can include means to the end of not conceiving - it can have the goal/purpose/design/intent of contraception. In fact, virtually 100% of the time - that's exactly what it is.





.