Contraception

[bbbbbbb]

What about unceasing prayer ?

There is a deeply-embedded mindset with Catholics and Orthodox that holiness is inversely related to sexual activity. In a truly spiritual marriage, then, neither spouse ever engages in copulation, but is eternally engaged in prayer. By any standard definition of marriage, that is not a marriage, much less a family. They happen to be two individual roommates of opposite genders. The idealized couple in Catholic and Orthodox thought are Joseph and Mary.

To say the least, this is a very perverse and odd view of marriage.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There is a deeply-embedded mindset with Catholics and Orthodox that holiness is inversely related to sexual activity. In a truly spiritual marriage, then, neither spouse ever engages in copulation, but is eternally engaged in prayer. By any standard definition of marriage, that is not a marriage, much less a family. They happen to be two individual roommates of opposite genders. The idealized couple in Catholic and Orthodox thought are Joseph and Mary.

To say the least, this is a very perverse and odd view of marriage.

It tends to REALLY come out when discussing the RCC and EO dogma of "the Perpetual Virginity of Mary!" (Another issue for another day, thread and forum....)

But this idea that Catholic Family Planning, Catholic Birth Control has NOTHING to do with family planning or birth control or children or conception or fertility or sex - but rather with prayer: that's a new one to me!




.

 

[Thekla]

There is a deeply-embedded mindset with Catholics and Orthodox that holiness is inversely related to sexual activity. In a truly spiritual marriage, then, neither spouse ever engages in copulation, but is eternally engaged in prayer. By any standard definition of marriage, that is not a marriage, much less a family. They happen to be two individual roommates of opposite genders. The idealized couple in Catholic and Orthodox thought are Joseph and Mary.

To say the least, this is a very perverse and odd view of marriage.

I understand your position, but I am actually trying to explore the issue beyond the presented confines -- or actually by diving into the matter.

As for the "standard definition", it would render those married couples who cannot have sex for medical reasons "not actually married". I think the standard definition is, though accepted, an overemphasis on some aspects of the marital relationship (ie imbalanced).

My great aunt once said that she could not understand the new fangled idea of courtship and marriage. "In my day", she said, "we didn't have 'romance', instead we said let's raise a family together". Ie sex was not a central definition, but marriage was a life of shared effort, through which relationship developed, deepened and thrived. (She and my great uncle, like all of that generation in my family, lived out their married lives without divorce; they all had what seemed to me to have perfected that relationship to a "dance" beyond deep friendship, where each partner sensed, knew and stepped in to the center to create a seamless whole. Such beauty !)

Finally, I mentioned unceasing prayer as it has been said here that restraining from sexual activity for any reason other than prayer is beyond what is written; sinful.

 

[sunlover1]

You forgot the part about mutual consent and added a condom.

The mutual consent is FOR the fasting and prayer time.

I dont add condoms OR NFP..
I have 9 kids total.

U 2?

 

[Thekla]

There is a deeply-embedded mindset with Catholics and Orthodox that holiness is inversely related to sexual activity. In a truly spiritual marriage, then, neither spouse ever engages in copulation, but is eternally engaged in prayer. By any standard definition of marriage, that is not a marriage, much less a family. They happen to be two individual roommates of opposite genders. The idealized couple in Catholic and Orthodox thought are Joseph and Mary.

To say the least, this is a very perverse and odd view of marriage.

Just to add that the husband of one of my friends with a dire medical condition was told by a doctor that he should divorce his wife - for that reason. So much for the standard definition. (He was irate, btw. Because, imo, he is actually married; ie does not accept the standard definition.)

 

[Thekla]

The mutual consent is FOR the fasting and prayer time.

So again, those of my married friends where one spouse cannot engage in sexual activity because of a medical conditions (MS, Crohn's, MS and Chiari), so the other puts off their desire (for years, actually) are sinning, and going beyond what is written ?

 

[patricius79]

So in that instance, eating would be sinful.
Likewise, putting off sex for an infant to breastfeed would be sinful.

that does seem to the effect of the Protestant argument being given based on their interpretation of 1 Cor 7, which permits periodic abstinence and says that the spouses should fulfill their duty to one another, which would include the full gift of fertility

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The mutual consent is FOR the fasting and prayer time.

It's not for Family Planning and Birth Control.

Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control is.

It's to render procreation impossible. What the RCC calls "evil."






.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It tends to REALLY come out when discussing the RCC and EO dogma of "the Perpetual Virginity of Mary!" (Another issue for another day, thread and forum....)

But this idea that Catholic Family Planning, Catholic Birth Control has NOTHING to do with family planning or birth control or children or conception or fertility or sex - but rather with prayer: that's a new one to me!

It was a new one to me, as well.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I understand your position, but I am actually trying to explore the issue beyond the presented confines -- or actually by diving into the matter.

As for the "standard definition", it would render those married couples who cannot have sex for medical reasons "not actually married". I think the standard definition is, though accepted, an overemphasis on some aspects of the marital relationship (ie imbalanced).

My great aunt once said that she could not understand the new fangled idea of courtship and marriage. "In my day", she said, "we didn't have 'romance', instead we said let's raise a family together". Ie sex was not a central definition, but marriage was a life of shared effort, through which relationship developed, deepened and thrived. (She and my great uncle, like all of that generation in my family, lived out their married lives without divorce; they all had what seemed to me to have perfected that relationship to a "dance" beyond deep friendship, where each partner sensed, knew and stepped in to the center to create a seamless whole. Such beauty !)

Finally, I mentioned unceasing prayer as it has been said here that restraining from sexual activity for any reason other than prayer is beyond what is written; sinful.

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and standard, which is why I called it the standard definition of marriage. Fortunately, those exceptions are rare. What IMO is strange is the Christian marriage in which the partners practice abstinence from sexual relations not for a short period of prayer and fasting, but for other reasons, such as thwarting conception, or for the duration of the marriage, without extenuating circumstances.

I have a friend who, on his wedding night, was informed by his wife that she would never engage in such activity with him. Although he could have sought an annulment, he did not and he has endured a frigid marriage for over thiry years now.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule and standard, which is why I called it the standard definition of marriage. Fortunately, those exceptions are rare. What IMO is strange is the Christian marriage in which the partners practice abstinence from sexual relations not for a short period of prayer and fasting, but for other reasons, such as thwarting conception, or for the duration of the marriage, without extenuating circumstances.

I have a friend who, on his wedding night, was informed by his wife that she would never engage in such activity with him. Although he could have sought an annulment, he did not and he has endured a frigid marriage for over thiry years now.

My husband and myself have had to practice abstinence for long periods of time because of having children

Recovery from the physical exhaustion of childbearing, exhaustion from parenting, night time feeds, etc. etc. etc. There have been other issues as well - crisis, illness, job related separations, etc.

Your friends situation does not sound like a "religious issue", but a neuroticism writ large. (It is your friend who seems like a Saint !)

I do think that marriage runs deeper than the "standard definition", and I do think that periods of abstinence for reasons other than ... personality disarrangement ... does not in some sense make the marriage less of a marriage. Each couple will find their own way - what is important is that the way is mutual, reflects the wholeness of the marriage. It is a particular kind of relationship.

Per my great aunts discussion (and my grandmother's advice to only marry someone who is observably good with children, even if one has no intention of having children), I married a close friend whose preciousness I could see, and wanted to preserve.

To answer Thurber's question, "Is Sex Necessary ?" there are some things that are moreso needed, these are the foundation of a good marriage, and sex is an expression of that. If a marriage cannot survive periods of abstinence, is it a marriage ? In my opinion, it is not.

 

[sunlover1]

that does seem to the effect of the Protestant argument being given based on their interpretation of 1 Cor 7, which permits periodic abstinence and says that the spouses should fulfill their duty to one another, which would include the full gift of fertility

View?
I posted the passage several times.
And tbh, it was ignored most of the thread as was
my suggestion that NFP was not allowing God to
have his way with us either.

My view of that passage is simple.
Dont deny unless both agree for purposes of fasting.
Nothing more nothing less and I am not getting
caught up in this "what if" game.
I didn't write it, I didn't author marriage.

IMO, it's just a red herring to take the focus off the fact
that folks are trying to make others feel evil for using
condoms yet they too are having sex in a contraceptive
way contra (against) ceptive (conception).

Just my opinion naturally.

Where do I stand on the issue?
It's between a couple and their God.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IMO, it's just a red herring to take the focus off the fact
that folks are trying to make others feel evil for using
condoms yet they too are having sex in a contraceptive
way contra (against) ceptive (conception).

Maybe....


But this new Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control, all these classes in how to have sex contraceptively so as to "render procreation impossible" is obvious in design, purpose, intent, goal, objective and performance: to have sex contraceptively and to "render procreation impossible." It is what it is.


Yes, sunlover1, it is laughably odd when it's so passionately condemned as "evil" AND defended as supremely "pious" and "moral". As two posters said early in this thread, "I think you guys need to huddle and make up your minds." As my cradle Catholic brother-in-law said, "When the Church makes it it's mind - let me know."


Just my opinion naturally.




.

 

[patricius79]

View?
I posted the passage several times.
And tbh, it was ignored most of the thread as was
my suggestion that NFP was not allowing God to
have his way with us either.

so you believe both contraception and NFP are sinful?

the Church does agree that NFP can be used with a bad attitude, just as with any behavior or planning or good thing

 

[sunlover1]

so you believe both contraception and NFP are sinful?

the Church does agree that NFP can be used with a bad attitude, just as with any behavior or planning or good thing

That depends on what your definition of "sin" is Patricius.
Because using NFP and/or any forms of contraception, is our attempt
to control the children born to us.

IS it sin?
IS it missing the mark of the high calling of God?

Good question patricius.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Let's say abortion is done with a good attitude. Is abortion thus pious and moral - or is murder murder?

It has been quoted here - from some official Catholic document (the poster didn't indicate which) that what is done - before, during or after - that has the intent and function of rendering procreation impossible is "evil." That was the word the RCC used for this intent: evil. Could it be the intent of Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control to plan and learn methods and use them, even beforehand, so that sex can continue but in a way that "renders procreation impossible" (at least that time)?





.

 

[patricius79]

That depends on what your definition of "sin" is Patricius.
Because using NFP and/or any forms of contraception, is our attempt
to control the children born to us.
.

I agree that the intent of both can be to avoid pregnancy for some good or bad reason

but I don't think that means that periodic abstinence is morally equivalent to contraception, although it can be used with a bad intention

however it doesn't seem to promote bad intentions like contraception seems to

e.g. look at the NFP divorce rate--around 1%--and the contraceptive divorce rate. around 50% it sounds like

and they seem to have considerably more sex, as well as self-control, paradoxically

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

however it doesn't seem to promote bad intentions like contraception seems to

Contraceptive sex doesn't promote bad intentions like contraceptive sex does? The intention of contraceptive sex is to have sex contraceptively.

look at the NFP divorce rate--around 1%--and the contraceptive divorce rate. around 50% it sounds like

1. In high school (or before) you were taught that "correlation does not imply causation." Have you forgotten that?

2. I'd like to see some hard evidence - NOT from a Catholic biased source - that has a large, cross cultural sample of people (various religious, cultural, economic, ethnic persons) with two samples: one always practicing NPF contraceptive sex methods and other always practicing some other contraceptive sex method - and compare their life-long divorce rates. God that study? That, OF COURSE, would have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with a causative relationship - nothing. But at least it would show a correlation (moot as that is). Got it? Or not?

and they seem to have considerably more sex

You need to tell your fellow Catholics that. They honestly don't seem to know that.





.

 

[sunlover1]

I agree that the intent of both can be to avoid pregnancy for some good or bad reason

I guess i used to think that folks who didn't want kids were "bad" too,
but really, who am I to say? But for the grace of God goes me.

but I don't think that means that periodic abstinence is morally equivalent to contraception, although it can be used with a bad intention

I guess I don't see either of the ways of preventing pregnancy as evil,
just carnal..

however it doesn't seem to promote bad intentions like contraception seems to

e.g. look at the NFP divorce rate--around 1%--and the contraceptive divorce rate. around 50% it sounds like

But as I stated earlier, we can't know if NFP or condoms is the 'cause' of
the divorce rater.
TBH, I highly doubt that the methods used to plan your family is the
cause of divorce or long lasting love.

and they seem to have considerably more sex, as well as self-control, paradoxically

Good to know that you're not equating self control with less sex.
Because the marriage bed being undefiled and knowing that
God loves intimacy, I don't think that desire for your spouse is
ever an evil thing.


IMO

 

[tadoflamb]

I do think that marriage runs deeper than the "standard definition", and I do think that periods of abstinence for reasons other than ... personality disarrangement ... does not in some sense make the marriage less of a marriage. Each couple will find their own way - what is important is that the way is mutual, reflects the wholeness of the marriage. It is a particular kind of relationship.

In my own marriage, at least as Catholics (I'm a convert) we used NFP to enhance the possibility of getting pregnant. We did use NFP prior to my conversion and early on in our relationship to avoid conception, however, I have to think, if I had understood the Church's teachings on marriage and birth control at the time, perhaps we wouldn't be in the position we find ourselves in now. That is, we're very middle-aged, very Catholic and very childless. But that's our cross to bear.

Now, as I approach the age of 50, sex because much less important than it used to, and as I reflect on my experience with NFP and how I had to practice some restraint, I find that I learned to appreciate my wife for so much more than the marital privilege. In my advanced age, I've found this has paid great dividends, because I'm married to my best friend and the closeness and respect we share for one another has some root in our spending extended periods in abstinence, just as the scriptures tell us to do.