Contraception

patricius79 · Jun 3, 2011

sunlover1 said:
God's Word says NO denying your spouse for fertility reasons.

I'm not sure what you mean by this oral tradition/interpretation

Is your position that a person can never say "no" to their spouse in light of 1 Cor 7?

also, the issue of what to do if the spouses are not in agreement about contraception or NFP.

this could get complicated!

Perhaps we can agree that periodic abstinence is permitted based on 1 Cor 7, in order to be free for prayer

I think that abstaining by mutual agreement because one believes God wants them to avoid pregnancy for a serious reason is a "prayer"

CaliforniaJosiah · Jun 3, 2011

patricius79 said:
I think that abstaining by mutual agreement because one believes God wants them to avoid pregnancy for a serious reason is a "prayer"

Well, sex done contraceptively is contraceptive sex.

.

MamaZ · Jun 3, 2011

patricius79 said:
I don't think so.

abstaining from sex to avoid pregnancy is essentially different from having sex without giving onself fully to the other in order to avoid pregnancy

husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loves the Church

There are so many forms of contraception. NFP is one of them. Abstaining from sex so you do not conceive is not giving yourself fully to your husband either. So I guess it is like a dog chasing its tail. Yes men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and women are to be submissive to their husbands as unto the Lord.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jun 3, 2011

MamaZ said:
There are so many forms of contraception. NFP is one of them. Abstaining from sex so you do not conceive is not giving yourself fully to your husband either.

Yup.

.

patricius79 · Jun 3, 2011

MamaZ said:
There are so many forms of contraception. NFP is one of them. Abstaining from sex so you do not conceive is not giving yourself fully to your husband either.

would you say that a man whose wife cannot have sex with him any longer cannot give himself fully to his wife?

I think that a man can give himself fully to his wife through self-control practiced out of true love.

1 2 3 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman," 2 but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. 4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. 6 This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command. 7 Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another. 8

I find this interesting. clearly Paul is not saying that the Holy Spirit is not capable of giving someone enough self-control to avoid adultery or other sexual sin

MamaZ · Jun 3, 2011

patricius79 said:
would you say that a man whose wife cannot have sex with him any longer cannot give himself fully to his wife?

I think that a man can give himself fully to his wife through self-control practiced out of true love.

1 2 3 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman," 2 but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. 4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. 6 This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command. 7 Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another. 8

I find this interesting. clearly Paul is not saying that the Holy Spirit is not capable of giving someone enough self-control to avoid adultery or other sexual sin

Sex in the marriage is not sexual sin and not adultry. Paul was not married. The thing with what you are saying is that the woman can have sex and so can the man,but., choose not to not because it is harmful to the wife but so that they do not conceive. Contraception. So one cannot say contraception is evil when indeed they practice it.

patricius79 · Jun 3, 2011

MamaZ said:
Sex in the marriage is not sexual sin and not adultry. Paul was not married.

of course

The thing with what you are saying is that the woman can have sex and so can the man,but., choose not to not because it is harmful to the wife but so that they do not conceive. Contraception. So one cannot say contraception is evil when indeed they practice it.

you are thinking that using the Pill, e.g., and practicing periodic abstinence are morally equivalent?

if so, I don't agree.

I think that NFP is really good for marriages--whether used to avoid for serious reasons or to achieve pregnanacy-- and that contraception is not. the Pill also is abortifacient

but I respect your good intentions and your person

AdamKane · Jun 3, 2011

I think bringing children into the world that you had no interest in existing is what is wrong.

sunlover1 · Jun 3, 2011

patricius79 said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this oral tradition/interpretation

It's scripture.

Is your position that a person can never say "no" to their spouse in light of 1 Cor 7?

It's my position that we get God's best when we do thing's God's way.

also, the issue of what to do if the spouses are not in agreement about contraception or NFP.

that was already addressed in that same passage..

this could get complicated!

No offense but you make it much more complicated than it is..

Perhaps we can agree that periodic abstinence is permitted based on 1 Cor 7, in order to be free for prayer

Totally agree.

I think that abstaining by mutual agreement because one believes God wants them to avoid pregnancy for a serious reason is a "prayer"

I think this is twisting the Scriptures to mean something that they dont.

MamaZ · Jun 4, 2011

patricius79 said:
of course

you are thinking that using the Pill, e.g., and practicing periodic abstinence are morally equivalent?

if so, I don't agree.

I think that NFP is really good for marriages--whether used to avoid for serious reasons or to achieve pregnanacy-- and that contraception is not. the Pill also is abortifacient

but I respect your good intentions and your person

What do you believe about surgery for either man or woman?

patricius79 · Jun 4, 2011

AdamKane said:
I think bringing children into the world that you had no interest in existing is what is wrong.

I think the idea of having no interest in allowing God to create through the sexual act, even if He wants to, is the problem

CaliforniaJosiah · Jun 4, 2011

patricius79 said:
I think the idea of having no interest in allowing God to create through the sexual act, even if He wants to, is the problem

... as in redirecting sex to infertile times? Rendering procreation impossible? What Catholic Birth Control is all about?

.

patricius79 · Jun 4, 2011

MamaZ said:
What do you believe about surgery for either man or woman?

I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier MamaZ

i'm not sure what you mean by surgery and am assuming you mean tubal ligation and things like that. sterilization

the Church teaches that is very wrong.

but I hope I'm never giving anyone the impression of judgment here. we are all so weak and confused on this earth and I personally have nothing but hope in Christ Mercy because of stuff I've done and my own frailty

thanks be to God for His Infinite Compassion and Tenderness and Respect for us in Christ Jesus

cowboysfan1970 · Jun 4, 2011

I still wonder how the sin of Onan is explained away when you take Deuteronomy 25:5-10 into account. People that say Onan was killed because he failed to continue his brother's bloodline often ignore what these passages say. The penalty was public humiliation and not death. I don't think you can read that and take away that Onan's sin was simple disobedience.

There was a time when I didn't understand the difference between artificial contraception and NFP but now I do. The Vatican does not say that birth control or avoiding pregnancy is a sin. It says that using artificial means to do so is. Basically using artificial birth control is saying to God that you think the way he created you by giving you the power to procreate is flawed. That person is more or less telling God that they don't want to be the way He made them and are going to use something man made to counter it. It's somewhat prideful and arrogent. It's saying that we know better. A woman's body is designed by God to be fertile at some times and not at others. God designed it this way for a reason. There's nothing wrong with taking that and using it to our advantage. NFP can be misused as a form of contraception if the couple is deliberately trying to use it to permanently avoid becoming pregnant.

What I don't understand is why some Evangelical Protestants find NFP so objectionable? I wonder if it's because it's something that Catholics use and do and they have a knee jerk reation that anything Catholic has to be from the devil himself?

Also, how can a couple abstaining during the woman's fertile times be in violation of 1 Cor. 7 when both are agreeing to abstain? If both are willing to abstain then there's no denial there.

One other thing, how do modern day Evangelicals explain the change of heart towards artificial birth control that seems to be occuring in Protestant circles, especially in the SBC? It seems like there is a tidal shift going on in attitudes towards artificial birth control. One thing that I do know is that artificial birth control has become so accepted in some Protestant circles that anyone who even dares to question it is usually denounced or at least strongly corrected immediately.

patricius79 · Jun 5, 2011

cowboysfan1970 said:
I still wonder how the sin of Onan is explained away when you take Deuteronomy 25:5-10 into account. People that say Onan was killed because he failed to continue his brother's bloodline often ignore what these passages say. The penalty was public humiliation and not death. I don't think you can read that and take away that Onan's sin was simple disobedience.

There was a time when I didn't understand the difference between artificial contraception and NFP but now I do. The Vatican does not say that birth control or avoiding pregnancy is a sin. It says that using artificial means to do so is. Basically using artificial birth control is saying to God that you think the way he created you by giving you the power to procreate is flawed. That person is more or less telling God that they don't want to be the way He made them and are going to use something man made to counter it. It's somewhat prideful and arrogent. It's saying that we know better. A woman's body is designed by God to be fertile at some times and not at others. God designed it this way for a reason. There's nothing wrong with taking that and using it to our advantage. NFP can be misused as a form of contraception if the couple is deliberately trying to use it to permanently avoid becoming pregnant.

What I don't understand is why some Evangelical Protestants find NFP so objectionable? I wonder if it's because it's something that Catholics use and do and they have a knee jerk reation that anything Catholic has to be from the devil himself?

Also, how can a couple abstaining during the woman's fertile times be in violation of 1 Cor. 7 when both are agreeing to abstain? If both are willing to abstain then there's no denial there.

One other thing, how do modern day Evangelicals explain the change of heart towards artificial birth control that seems to be occuring in Protestant circles, especially in the SBC? It seems like there is a tidal shift going on in attitudes towards artificial birth control. One thing that I do know is that artificial birth control has become so accepted in some Protestant circles that anyone who even dares to question it is usually denounced or at least strongly corrected immediately.

I think those are good points

MamaZ · Jun 5, 2011

patricius79 said:
I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier MamaZ

i'm not sure what you mean by surgery and am assuming you mean tubal ligation and things like that. sterilization

the Church teaches that is very wrong.

but I hope I'm never giving anyone the impression of judgment here. we are all so weak and confused on this earth and I personally have nothing but hope in Christ Mercy because of stuff I've done and my own frailty

thanks be to God for His Infinite Compassion and Tenderness and Respect for us in Christ Jesus

Do they teach why it is very wrong?

patricius79 · Jun 5, 2011

MamaZ said:
Do they teach why it is very wrong?

thank you for your question.

yes. the Cathechism explains it as does Humane Vitae.

Here is a summary from the wisest and holiest person of the 20th century, a person who dealt with horrible problems and saw the difference between NFP and contraception:

Mother Teresa :

In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gifts of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.

sunlover1 · Jun 5, 2011

CaliforniaJosiah said:
... as in redirecting sex to infertile times? Rendering procreation impossible?

some funny stuff fo sho.
One is bad the other isn't.
Where's the logic?
I'm guessing that we all have blind spots ..
Going through that with my 16 yo right now.
Says he want's God's will if he should date..
and this AFTER mom said he's not allowed
to date
(Nevermind honoring your parents? lol)

blind spots, otherwise known as denial,
otherwise known as REBELLION!

JacktheCatholic · Jun 5, 2011

Does anyone know what it is about contraception that the RCC finds it evil? This lends to cases where the use of a contraceptive is not seen as evil and why.

patricius79 · Jun 5, 2011

JacktheCatholic said:
Does anyone know what it is about contraception that the RCC finds it evil? This lends to cases where the use of a contraceptive is not seen as evil and why.

as I understand it--in regard to the Pill, that is--it is not that one is taking hormones. there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. although I don't know what situation would allow the use of the Pill by a married woman, given that it is abortifacient

the issue is using the Pill to have sex without the full gift of self which the act requires by nature:

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 6
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

Contraception

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

MamaZ

Guest

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

MamaZ

Guest

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Beloved, Let us love one another

MamaZ

Guest

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Forum Regular

Called to Jesus Through Mary

MamaZ

Guest

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Beloved, Let us love one another

Praise be to Jesus Christ. Now and forever.

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency