Contraception

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Going to the dentist means there is no chance of becoming pregnant (at least my dentist). Is that contraception too?

If it's presented, taught, promoted as the best way to avoid pregnancy - then yes, it's the contreptive method, the means is contraceptive.

And yes, if it's done with the sole intent, design, objective, goal and purpose of having sex but not having kids that makes the end contraceptive.


You (as a couple of other Catholics) seem to be suggesting two contradictory things: In Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control there is no sex, it's chastity, it's virginity, it's sexless marriages (it seems because of some love for God, some greater piety, I don't know), AND saying, NO! It's an abundance of sex, "more sex than otherwise" it has been stressed - married couple may have sex - whether or not they want kids! BUT (and here's the deal) ... you can have that abundance of sex contraceptively, using, employing, implemented, practicing a method (MEANS) that the RC denomination will teach you (right at the parish center) - it may even MANDATE that you learn this MEANS of how to have sex contraceptively - and the goal, purpose, design, intent (END) is this: to not conceive. The means is contraceptive, the end is contraceptive. It's NOT no sex, it's contraceptive sex.


Now, I was told that before the sexual revolution of the 1960's, there was a common but unofficial Catholic teaching of "No kids? NO sex!" Such couples were to be sexless (to abstain) - they were to have a sexless marriage. My Catholic teacher told me, that view (never officially embraced - just often heard) was abandoned in the 1960's, replaced with this Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control Method (presented to my sister and brother-in-law as "an alternative to the 'pill,' condoms, etc."). How to have sex but not have kids. The MEANS is contraceptive. The END is contraceptive. Typically the result is contraceptive.


Pope Paul VI wrote this: "The Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth." The RCC will teach you a METHOD (means) to accomplish the contraception (END). No "sexless" marriage. Sex done contraceptively - TO CONTROL BIRTHS (ie, not have them), contraceptive.


Yes, I know your denomination says it's "evil" to do anything to "render procreation impossible" and yes, obviously, doing, practicing, implementing what the your denomination teaches couples to do does just that - but that's not my point (or concern), I'm simply pointing out that it is what it is.






.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Yes, I know your denomination says it's "evil" to do anything to "render procreation impossible"

...within the context of artificially altering or disrupting the natural processes of intercourse/procreation...

Pope Paul VI wrote this: "The Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth."

You couldn't even put the end of the sentence? Really? "thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained."

"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."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In NFP, when there is sex, there are no preventative measures taken.

It's what NFP is all about, as you (and all but one Catholic here) keep insisting - over and over - is exactly the case.




.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The "natural process of intercourse" is not something the RCC teaches in it's Birth Control Methods classes ...

You speak from personal experience with a church you claimed to have attended and if they taught as you say then it is not in accord with Catholic teachings. Plain and simple as that. You were not taught Catholic doctrine which is plain in what you have posted because it contradicts official doctrines that have been provided and are from the Vatican (Pope and Magisterium).

You have lost this argument and have to argue based on claimed teachings from your claimed Catholic experiences and those are claims that are in opposition to Official Catholic teachings (CCC and Pope & Magisterium).

This argument is one where you have no support (except alleged experiences) and we have provided official RCC documents that show your claims to not only be absurd but conclusively false.

So, there is no argument any longer since you have not proved anything except that you may have been very poorly catechized.

This is now a dead horse...

 

[cubinity]

...within the context of artificially altering or disrupting the natural processes of intercourse/procreation...

You couldn't even put the end of the sentence? Really? "[/size][/color][/font]thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained."

I don't get it.

If I intentionally [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] outside of my wife (pulling out like Onan, or using a blockading device like a condom) in order to avoid pregnancy, or I [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] inside my wife at strategic times in order to avoid pregnancy, then it identifies the sin as [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] outside of my wife, not avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons.

So, the real question is, when I [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] outside my wife as a desirable part of our intimate experience, because it is a part of our pure and enjoyable time together, does that constitute sin in accordance with this decree?

If not, then I'm entirely lost on the point of the decree.

 

[patricius79]

To me, this is more about Onan's self-centered pursuits than about anything sexual.

Hi Cubinity,

bless you

the explicit description of Onan's contraception seems a crucial part of the text

 

[sunlover1]

Hi Cubinity,

bless you

the explicit description of Onan's contraception seems a crucial part of the text

Or maybe it was just a way to say He didnt finish the job.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3 [8] Preserve your brother's line: literally "raise up seed for your brother."
The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or
"brother-in-law" marriage; see notes on Deut 25:5; Ruth 2:20. In the
present story, it is primarily Onan's violation of this law,rather
than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God's displeasure (Genesis 38:9-10).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If it's presented, taught, promoted as the best way to avoid pregnancy - then yes, it's the contreptive method, the means is contraceptive.

And yes, if it's done with the sole intent, design, objective, goal and purpose of having sex but not having kids that makes the end contraceptive.


You (as a couple of other Catholics) seem to be suggesting two contradictory things: In Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control there is no sex, it's chastity, it's virginity, it's sexless marriages (it seems because of some love for God, some greater piety, I don't know), AND saying, NO! It's an abundance of sex, "more sex than otherwise" it has been stressed - married couple may have sex - whether or not they want kids! BUT (and here's the deal) ... you can have that abundance of sex contraceptively, using, employing, implemented, practicing a method (MEANS) that the RC denomination will teach you (right at the parish center) - it may even MANDATE that you learn this MEANS of how to have sex contraceptively - and the goal, purpose, design, intent (END) is this: to not conceive. The means is contraceptive, the end is contraceptive. It's NOT no sex, it's contraceptive sex.


Now, I was told that before the sexual revolution of the 1960's, there was a common but unofficial Catholic teaching of "No kids? NO sex!" Such couples were to be sexless (to abstain) - they were to have a sexless marriage. My Catholic teacher told me, that view (never officially embraced - just often heard) was abandoned in the 1960's, replaced with this Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control Method (presented to my sister and brother-in-law as "an alternative to the 'pill,' condoms, etc."). How to have sex but not have kids. The MEANS is contraceptive. The END is contraceptive. Typically the result is contraceptive.


Pope Paul VI wrote this: "The Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth." The RCC will teach you a METHOD (means) to accomplish the contraception (END). No "sexless" marriage. Sex done contraceptively - TO CONTROL BIRTHS (ie, not have them), contraceptive.


Yes, I know your denomination says it's "evil" to do anything to "render procreation impossible" and yes, obviously, doing, practicing, implementing what the your denomination teaches couples to do does just that - but that's not my point (or concern), I'm simply pointing out that it is what it is.



.

You have lost this argument

Interesting, because I've quoted YOU - you make the argument. I agreed with you.


What we disagree about is whether contraceptive sex is contraceptive sex. I say yes, you say no. And whether it's "double talk" to say that contraceptive sex is evil while contraceptive sex is pious, moral and something the denomination should teach (even mandate) it's members how to do.






.

 

[patricius79]

Or maybe it was just a way to say He didnt finish the job.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
3 [8] Preserve your brother's line: literally "raise up seed for your brother."
The ancient Israelites regarded as very important their law of levirate, or
"brother-in-law" marriage; see notes on Deut 25:5; Ruth 2:20. In the
present story, it is primarily Onan's violation of this law,rather
than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God's displeasure (Genesis 38:9-10).

I don't agree with that footnote in the NAB. it doesn't make sense to me because even under the Law the punishment for not fulfilling that duty was not death, but only humilation in public

 

[patricius79]

Natural FAMILY PLANNING.. its a way to PLAN how many kids
you'll have and when... it's mans way of controlling.. same
as using a condom...

are we assuming that using a condom is morally equivalent to NFP, or that two means used for the same end must be morally equivalent?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

are we assuming that using a condom is morally equivalent to NFP?

I think we are assuming that contraceptive sex is contraceptive sex.




.

 

[patricius79]

I think we are assuming that contraceptive sex is contraceptive sex.
.

I don't agree that having sex during the infertile period is contracepted sex

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't agree that having sex during the infertile period is contracepted sex

If it's done in hopes of conceiving, it would not be. If the MEANS is contraception, the END is contraceptive - it's contraceptive. Pure and simple. If Catholic Family PLANNING and Birth CONTROL is done, performed, implemented, exercised with the goal, purpose, design, intend of not conceiving, that IS contraceptive sex. Pure and simple. Obviously. Undeniably.

That your denomination labels contraceptive sex as both evil and pious, both condemning it and being the worlds' biggest religious promoter and teacher of the self same is why some feel this is all "double talk," why SO many Catholics agree with my brother in law, a cradle Catholic who took the NPF class (as mandated by his parish) who said: "when the Church makes up its mind - let me know." Or like two posters in this thread stated, "You guys need to huddle - and come to one view."






.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If it's done in hopes of conceiving, it would not be.

Contraception is not sex in hopes of not conceiving.

Contraception is preventing conception and NFP does not take action to prevent conception.

Hoping and preventing are two different things.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Contraception is preventing conception

I disagree, but how is redirecting sexual activity (NOT eliminating but redirecting) - using, implementing, employing the METHOD (means) for this as taught and promoted by the RCC denomination with the goal, intend, design and purpose of NOT conceiving - how is not action to prevent conception?

NFP does not take action to prevent conception

Then one can't practice it, can they? Why teach classes in how to do something if one is not to do something? IF it's not intended to prevent conception, why is it directed AWAY from times of fertility to times of infertility? Friend, the RCC (by your thinking) is AT THE VERY LEAST wasting it's time and money being the world's biggest religious teacher and promoter of Family Planning and Birth Control if there is nothing anyone is to do.

Friend, there is a MEANS here. There is an END here. Both are contraceptive. Your denomination says that if the MEANS and END are contraceptive, that's evil. It also is the world's largest religious promoter and teacher of a MEANS with an END that are both contraceptive. You can try to "spin" that so as to try relate it as something different, that contraceptive sex is not contraceptive sex - but it is what it is. I'm not saying that's good or bad, pious or evil (frankly, I'm not sure) but it is what it is.

Hoping and preventing are two different things.

Yes. A couple having sex every night might HOPE not to conceive, that's one thing.
A couple practicing, implementing, performing, doing, employing a contraceptive METHOD with the intent, design, goal, purpose of "rendering procreation impossible" (as your Catechism calls it) is a whole different enchilada. I fully agree. Now tell your fellow Catholics that, tell your denomination that.





.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You disagree that hope and prevent are two different things?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes. A couple having sex every night might HOPE not to conceive, that's one thing. A couple practicing, implementing, performing, doing, employing a contraceptive METHOD with the intent, design, goal, purpose and end of "rendering procreation impossible" (as your Catechism calls it) is a whole different enchilada. I fully agree. Now tell your fellow Catholics that, tell your denomination that.


.

You disagree that hope and prevent are two different things?

You must have not read what I posted.





.

 

[mandyangel]

I disagree, but how is redirecting sexual activity (NOT eliminating but redirecting) - using, implementing, employing the METHOD (means) for this as taught and promoted by the RCC denomination with the goal, intend, design and purpose of NOT conceiving - how is not action to prevent conception?.

But it is CONTROLLING life and Christians should believe that only God should be in control of life.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You must have not read what I posted.





.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that contraception is preventing conception at times that conception could normally take place. With NFP there is no prevetative action because the sexual act is open to conception. With cantraception the sexual act is always closed to conception.

Hope is not really an action that can prevent conception. I hope we agree here.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that contraception is preventing conception ...

I think you are.

It is MY view that contraceptive sex is contraceptive sex.
It is YOUR view that it's not. But is.

YOUR denomination says that ANY action - before, during or after - that has the END and purpose of "rendering contraceptive unlikely" is contraception and is evil. I think it was you that stressed that and gave that official Catholic quote.




.





.