Contraception

[JacktheCatholic]

I actually don't think it is a red herring; if the issue includes whether Scripture prohibits restraint from sex for any purpose other than prayer, then indeed being away from one another when it includes a willed restraint re: sexual desire, it is an abrogation of "what is written".

Jesus was a perfect example of restraint. Virgin until the end. Perfect chastity and against every temptation.

*until the end does not mean he had sex at the end though I am sure the same line of thinking for Mary having sex could be used here in regards to Jesus.

 

[Thekla]

Jesus was a perfect example of restraint. Virgin until the end. Perfect chastity and against every temptation.

*until the end does not mean he had sex at the end though I am sure the same line of thinking for Mary having sex could be used here in regards to Jesus.

Indeed He was; and this issue (self restraint) came up in this thread yesterday. It is part of the "ladder" described in 2 Peter.

It seems to me that NFP encourages the development of restraint and is thus also conducive to spiritual development as well as nourishing to the marriage relationship.

The question was, whether mutual restraint from acting on sexual desire in marriage was permissable for any reason other than prayer (Paul).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well.... to married couples (it does to we singles, as you might know)

Which is important to remember in this discussion. Since the sexual revolution of the 1960's, there is no Catholic teaching (official or informal) of "No Kids? No Sex!" Nope. In the Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control, sex is welcomed. As much as desired. "More than usual" as Catholic posters here have noted (one trice). It's not about abstinence (that's the former Catholic position - unofficially), it's about HAVING sex but contraceptively - with the means and end of not conceiving, with the intent of HAVING sex ("more than otherwise") but "rendering procreation unlikely." Sex done contraceptively. Contraceptive sex. Contraception. It is what it is. I'm not saying it's good or bad, moral or immoral, pious or impious (I'm actually entirely uncertain), I'm just saying it is what it is. (And that I UNDERSTAND why many regard it as "double talk", I'm not saying it is, I'm saying I sure understand why nearly EVERY Catholic known to me considers it so).

You seem desirous of noting the OFFICIAL position. Sure. So, what does it say? A couple (let's assume for valid reasons) wants no children - for at least the next 5 years. Is the official position now in Catholic Family Planning that ergo for at least 5 years they are to have no sex ("No kids? NO sex!")? Abstinence? OR is the official position that they may have sex (perhaps as much as desired, perhaps a great abundance of sex) but it will teach them how to do it contraceptively, so as to render procreation impossible? Contraception? Does NFP teach NO SEX EVER or CONTRACEPTIVE sex?





.

The doctrines of the RCC are clearly presented by the Pope and Magisterium. Just as Martin Luther is a Catholic monk he is not the teaching of the Church. At least this is true for the RCC. Knowing that Martin Luther is followed by Lutherans I can understand why a Lutheran would think one parishoner can declare doctrine but for a Roman Catholic that is absurd because the Pope and Magisterium our the light on Earth and so preserve the teachings by the power of the Paraclete. So, if we are to discuss the RCC and their doctrines we need to be intellectually honest by using the official teachings.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Indeed He was; and this issue (self restraint) came up in this thread yesterday. It is part of the "ladder" described in 2 Peter.

It seems to me that NFP encourages the development of restraint and is thus also conducive to spiritual development as well as nourishing to the marriage relationship.

The question was, whether mutual restraint from acting on sexual desire in marriage was permissable for any reason other than prayer (Paul).

NFP is about chastity and conjugal love. It is not solely about chastity. It seems this is over looked as well.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Jesus was a perfect example of restraint. Virgin until the end.

I know things have changed a LOT in the RCC since I stopped participating there, but as far as I know, the Church does NOT teach that Jesus was married OR that He was a "periodic virgin" who had sex much but in ways so that He would not have children. I just never heard that during my days in your denomination. I think His example moot to this discussion of Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL for married people who want to have sex.





.

 

[Thekla]

NFP is about chastity and conjugal love. It is not solely about chastity. It seems this is over looked as well.

But exactly, if I get your point.

As self restraint is necessary for a healthy marriage as well as for being a good parent, then when mutual self restraint is exercised it would seem to me to be a relationship "builder".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well.... to married couples (it does to we singles, as you might know)

Which is important to remember in this discussion. Since the sexual revolution of the 1960's, there is no Catholic teaching (official or informal) of "No Kids? No Sex!" Nope. In the Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control, sex is welcomed. As much as desired. "More than usual" as Catholic posters here have noted (one trice). It's not about abstinence (that's the former Catholic position - unofficially), it's about HAVING sex but contraceptively - with the means and end of not conceiving, with the intent of HAVING sex ("more than otherwise") but "rendering procreation unlikely." Sex done contraceptively. Contraceptive sex. Contraception. It is what it is. I'm not saying it's good or bad, moral or immoral, pious or impious (I'm actually entirely uncertain), I'm just saying it is what it is. (And that I UNDERSTAND why many regard it as "double talk", I'm not saying it is, I'm saying I sure understand why nearly EVERY Catholic known to me considers it so).

You seem desirous of noting the OFFICIAL position. Sure. So, what does it say? A couple (let's assume for valid reasons) wants no children - for at least the next 5 years. Is the official position now in Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control that ergo for at least 5 years they are to have no sex ("No kids? NO sex!")? Abstinence? OR is the official position that they may have sex (perhaps as much as desired, perhaps a great abundance of sex, perhaps more than otherwise) but it will teach them how to do it contraceptively, so as to render procreation impossible? Contraception? Does NFP teach NO SEX EVER or CONTRACEPTIVE sex?

The doctrines of the RCC are clearly presented by the Pope and Magisterium.

Okay. Then would you answer the question accordingly?





.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

CaliforniaJosiah, you asked:

Does NFP teach NO SEX EVER or CONTRACEPTIVE sex?

NFP is about chastity and conjugal love. It is the expression of love between husband and wife and their family. It is an expression of marriage while following God's design. Chastity to grow in faith and love. Conjugal love (sex) to grow in faith and love. At no time is contraception allowed when practicing conjugal love (sex). It is completely non contraceptive and follows God's design for us, fully.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I know things have changed a LOT in the RCC since I stopped participating there, but as far as I know, the Church does NOT teach that Jesus was married OR that He was a "periodic virgin" who had sex much but in ways so that He would not have children. I just never heard that during my days in your denomination. I think His example moot to this discussion of Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL for married people who want to have sex.





.

Jesus is a virgin and so is Mary.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But exactly, if I get your point.

As self restraint is necessary for a healthy marriage as well as for being a good parent, then when mutual self restraint is exercised it would seem to me to be a relationship "builder".

The documents written of NFP are extensive and refer to marriage as being like Jesus and the Church in relationship. The theology is quite deep and I am sure theologians have a greater understanding than I.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Jesus is a virgin and so is Mary.

I see. So couples are not to have any sex EVER? Or are you saying that Jesus and Mary were "periodic virgins" in order to render procreation impossible?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

CaliforniaJosiah, if a couple are watching fertile cycles and practicing chastity during fertile cycles and then after the fertile cycle express their love of each other and family and God through the conjugal act (sex) then it is not contraceptive because no measures have been taken to prevent conception (which is what contraception is). They are still open to life and open to conception and many that try this form of discipline will become pregnant.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

At no time is contraception allowed when practicing conjugal love (sex). It is completely non contraceptive and follows God's design for us, fully.

I see. So, these official documents of the RCC (which you insist must be quoted - I'm sure they're coming) states that Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control is that married couples fulfill, implement and perform such when they have sex whenever their mutual hearts so desire? Okay. Why do they need to teach classes in that? Why is that called "Family PLANNING?" I've been incorrectly informed (by many) that couples should not regard when she is likely to be fertile or infertile because it has nothing to do with sex done other than when two hearts so share? Whenever they love each other as Christ does the church? NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with planning anything, controling anything, nothing to do with any method, with months or days or fertility or anything like that?

So, please document: Is it about NO SEX ever? Or is it about SEX WHENEVER (Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control not being a method or intentional or planning or controlling)? Or is it about SEX DONE CONTRACEPTIVELY?





.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I see. So couples are not to have any sex EVER? Or are you saying that Jesus and Mary were "periodic virgins" in order to render procreation impossible?

This sounds patronizing so I will assume it is a valid question and not meant to be mean spirited and so I will answer.

First, there is not such thing as "periodic virgins". I would have assumed you to know that. I guess I should not assume how much some one knows.

Second, Jesus was not married and was a virgin always.

Third, Mary is ever Virgin and even Martin Luther knew this, as a Catholic Monk it would have been one of the many things Martin Luther learned (from the RCC) before starting his church.

Fourth, NFP does not render procreation impossible nor does it seek to render procreation impossible. That sounds more akin to contraception which is entirely different.

Fifth, the RCC does not have a doctrine on how often a married couple perfoms the conjugal act (sex) and I have heard of valid marriages where both were celibate. No problem there as far as I know.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I see. So, these official documents of the RCC (which you insist must be quoted - I'm sure they're coming) states that Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control is that married couples fulfill, implement and perform such when they have sex whenever their mutual hearts so desire? Okay. Why do they need to teach classes in that? Why is that called "Family PLANNING?" I've been incorrectly informed (by many) that couples should not regard when she is likely to be fertile or infertile because it has nothing to do with sex done other than when two hearts so share? Whenever they love each other as Christ does the church? NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with planning anything, controling anything, nothing to do with any method, with months or days or fertility or anything like that?

So, please document: Is it about NO SEX ever? Or is it about SEX WHENEVER (Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control not being a method or intentional or planning or controlling)? Or is it about SEX DONE CONTRACEPTIVELY?





.

The RCC view on "birth control":

In the face of birth control campaigns which subject couples to economic or social pressure, robbing them of their dignity and freedom, the Catholic community cannot fail to respond by upholding the truth regarding the intrinsic nature and meaning of conjugal love and by spreading knowledge of methods of regulating fertility which correspond to that truth.

source: To the Bishops of Indonesia on their ad Limina visit

If you truly desire to know why the RCC teaches against contraception then reading an Apostolic letter or two would help greatly. Then one can speak from knowledge and not hearsay and ignorance. That is why I read the Book of Concord because so many claimed to be of that theology and they fail miserably. It is so with the RCC too. Even I am not a great example of Catholic living.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CaliforniaJosiah, if a couple are watching fertile cycles and practicing chastity during fertile cycles and then

... then obviously it's not simply about having the same love for each other as Christ does the Church, and sharing that love with each other fully, is it?

... then it has to do with a METHOD, a practice, DOING something, implementing something. A MEANS....

... then it's done with an END in mind, a goal, an intent. Is it "to share Christ's love for the Church?" What would THAT have to with looking for infertile times of a womb?

... then it's HAVING sex - but with the MEANS and the END of not procreating.

after the fertile cycle express their love of each other and family and God through the conjugal act (sex) then it is not contraceptive

.... this is logically, well.... If something is done in order to not conceive, that doing is contraceptive. OBVIOUSLY.

You are admitting it's NOT done "to reveal Christ's love for the Church" or so that the couple are perpetual virgins like Mary. The MEANS is done with this END in mind: to be contraceptive. Sex done contraceptively. That makes it contraceptive sex. Contraception. Obviously. It's not abstinence because there's sex going on, you said NOTHING about no sex, you've expressly said there IS sex in this. It's not about being a virgin (unless that now means one who has sex - and I just can't believe that's now the case in Catholicism). And clearly it's not about about revealing Christ's love for the church because that has nothing to do with when the wife might be infertile.

no measures have been taken to prevent conception

Um.... I know all about the Virgin Mary and the RCC's great and genuine love there, but when I was participating in your church (and MUCH seems to have changed since then), we were lead to believe that Mary had no sex NOT that she had LOTS of it but periodically so as to avoid conception. SURELY the RCC knows that if one has sex but not during certain fertile days, sex is then unlikely to result in conception? SURELY it knows that not having sex tends to prevent conception? Are you telling me it doesn't know that (because I just don't believe that)? WHY is sex rescheduled so as to NOT happen when it would be more likely to result in conception? Is not DOING, IMPLEMENTING, PERFORMING, PRACTICING things "measuring taken?" Is not having an abundance of sex but in ways that will render conception unlikely done with one goal, purpose and intent? To prevent conception? If there are no measures, then there is no class to teach, no days to count, no "fertility" to consider, no method to discuss, it's impossible to "practice NFP" - and no "Family PLANNING."

They are still open to life and open to conception

Well, the Virgin Mary conceived in her womb. In THAT sense, yes. Yes, while I don't have sex (at all), I AM "open to life." I guess God COULD cause some female whom I've never met to conceive my child without us ever having sex. I AM "open" to life - and God COULD do that. I won't argue that point, Jack. But PURPOSELY redirecting sex around when she is likely to conceive is an act with the intend of NOT conceiving. It's contraceptive. The method, the act, the MEANS and the END are all contraceptive. There is ONE intent here to how the sex is done: TO NOT CONCIEVE. Now, I realize - NOTHING will prevent a pregnancy God intends, but we're not taking about what GOD does or GOD intends, we're taking about what this COUPLE does and what this COUPLE intends.

methods of regulating fertility

METHOD, means....
END, regulating conception.

There you are. It is what it is. It's not "No Kids? No Sex!" It's sex (even more than otherwise) done contraceptively, done so as to "render procreation impossible" (what your Catechism calls "evil"?), a METHOD with an END of being contraceptive.




.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

... then obviously it's not simply about having the same love for each other as Christ does the Church, and sharing that love with each other fully, is it?

It most certainly is about being in a marriage like Jesus is married to the Church and showing love to one another as God would have us. It is all about being as God created us. Granted we all fail to be as perfect as Jesus. This is answered in greater detail and done so far better than I could in the link(s) I have provided to the Vatican.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

... this is logically, well.... If something is done in order to not conceive, that doing is contraceptive. OBVIOUSLY.

It is obvious to me that NFP is not contraceptive.

Contraceptive means to prevent conception. It is something done in order to have sex and to have something to prevent the sperm from fertilizing the eggs, so as not to have children. Contraception is thus something that is evil and goes against God's design and causes harm to a marriage between man and wife.

 

[patricius79]

Contraception is being able to have sex without having children, to introduce something to the equation so two can satisfy carnal urges without concern for procreation because they have done something to prevent conception and still have sex. It is my opinion that the term "contraception" must be bastardized from it's root meaning to make something like abstinence equate to prevention taken to avoid conception (by removing sex altogether). It seems the logic with this word means that sex will take place and something is done to prevent conception for sex to take place. Even something like what Onan did.

I think that is well said

and periodic abstinence supports growth in self-control

 

[bbbbbbb]

Contraception is being able to have sex without having children, to introduce something to the equation so two can satisfy carnal urges without concern for procreation because they have done something to prevent conception and still have sex. It is my opinion that the term "contraception" must be bastardized from it's root meaning to make something like abstinence equate to prevention taken to avoid conception (by removing sex altogether). It seems the logic with this word means that sex will take place and something is done to prevent conception for sex to take place. Even something like what Onan did.

What a peculiar post, Jack! In it you succincly made CaliforniaJosiah's point. You said, "Contraception is being able to have sex without having children" Is not NFP a distinct means by which Catholic couples (as well as any other couples who practice it) are enabled to have sex without having children? If not, why is it call "Planning".