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.
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
Okay. Thank you.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.
I acknowledge this.I never said that's good or bad - only that it is what it is.
Alright. I understand what you are saying.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.
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.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....
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.
I think your translation of what us Catholics are conveying is based on your own terminology and you mean no harm.I never said that's good or bad - only that it is what it is.
It's not a contradiction or word games. There are very distinct reasons for whatever the Church dogma says.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.
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.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....
.
The Church approves the use of periodic continence for birth control, but not the use of contraceptives.
No, continence and contraception are not one in the same.
I fully acknowledge that periodic continence (a.k.a. NFP) is distinct from abstinence.
It might be worth noting that refraining from having sex during a certain period of time does not propose to render procreation impossible
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.'"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.
Again, I refuse to equivocate 'birth control' to 'contraception.' As far as I am concerned, contraception is a means of birth control.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.
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.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.
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.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.
By 'continence', I mean 'refraining from sex so as to lessen the chances of conception.'
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.Again, I refuse to equivocate 'birth control' to 'contraception.'
I agree.As far as I am concerned, contraception is a means of birth control.
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?In truth, I have referred to family planning as 'periodic continence'
I don't recall mentioning a condom....he is using the condom as a means of preventing conception
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."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.
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.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?
Josiah said:"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."
I'm not so sure we agree on that -- but I'll not get into that just now.[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]
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.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).
Josiah said:
[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"
1. As I understand it, it's generally difficult to conceive without sex."Refraining from sex" does not propose to prevent conception
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.in anticipation of the conjugal act (because it does not anticipate the conjugal act whatsoever),
This is what I mean by confusing modern Catholicism with Shakerism; you seem to have entirely missed the point.Does refraining from sex prevent conception? Yes.
That is the singular, particular goal. As all (but one) Catholic and Orthodox poster in this thread has specifically and clearly stated.Does it propose to prevent conception?
Josiah, why are you cutting my post apart?
Yes. Such might be a means to an end. In this case, to "render procreation impossible" as your Catechism states.You do realize that 'refraining from something' can be done at particular times and not 100% of the time?
I'm just pointing out how dishonest it comes off to reply to the one portion of my post like that.To respond carefully to each point.
The point you mentioned I DID reply to.
The Catechism and I do not deny that periodic continence is a method of birth regulation.Yes. Such might be a means to an end. In this case, to "render procreation impossible" as your Catechism states.
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.)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.
The Catechism and I do not deny that periodic continence is a method of birth regulation.
I know...I won't deny that the intention of NFP is to avoid children and make sure that none will result
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....."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
You know how babies are made..."Render procreation impossible" is referring to obstructing the natural development of the generative process.
I know (thus my puzzle why you are disagreeing with the obvious)Thus, it is family PLANNING, it is birth CONTROL..
"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."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......
Josiah said: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
Where did I mention morality?would you agree that the means one uses to reach a goal is a matter or morality?
1. The Christian Church has condemned NOTHING in this regard.the Christian Church condemns the contraceptive mentality even if NFP is used
YOU are the one who stated that it's design, purpose and use is to control birth....
.
Josiah said: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.
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?