Contraception

[Heavens]

It'd be unhealthy to the extreme to get pregnant every year. I don't see anything in the bible against birth control. I see nothing wrong with planning on when to have kids to when you can best take care of them and when it's better for the person to have children and be responsible - both for the parents AND the children.

Yes, of course. Amen.

 

[princess_ballet]

So prior to 1930, Protestant churches were wrong by teaching contraception was immoral and now they're right for teaching contraception is perfectly acceptable? I thought God didn't change....

 

[patricius79]

It'd be unhealthy to the extreme to get pregnant every year. I don't see anything in the bible against birth control. I see nothing wrong with planning on when to have kids to when you can best take care of them and when it's better for the person to have children and be responsible - both for the parents AND the children.

totally understandable. that's why trying to limit one's family size for serious reasons is right

the issue is which means are permissable. the idea that means don't matter is indefensible

and in the case of Onan, the argument that Onan was killed not for what he did but for what he failed to do... definitely goes beyond Sola Scriptura

it'st just as plausible to hold the "Reformed" and historical Trinitarian view that contraception is instrinscally wrong, and that Onan was condemned for it

but it's not about condemnation, but mercy

 

[Dorothea]

All I've gotta say is life isn't about sex, no matter how much this culture and society push it in magazines, movies, and the like.

 

[Heavens]

and in the case of Onan, the argument that Onan was killed not for what he did but for what he failed to do... definitely goes beyond Sola Scriptura

Onan definetly was destroyed by God for what He failed to do.

Any Sola Scripturist would know that.

(Gen 38:8) And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

But He failed to do so.

You'll notice He was destroyed because of that. Why would anyone attempt to suggest otherwise?

 

[Heavens]

So prior to 1930, Protestant churches were wrong by teaching contraception was immoral and now they're right for teaching contraception is perfectly acceptable? I thought God didn't change....

True Saints don't care what church organizations teach, or taught, whether protestant or RC or EO or whatever.
Only what the Holy Spirit of Christ teaches us.
And HE certainly says nothing of this ridiculous topic.

 

[sunlover1]

Only an irresponsible person would not use birth control.
Do people actually argue against this?

I always was pretty irresponsible
BUT.. i gotta say that it worked out well in my case.

not necessarily, I think.

e.g., a person practicing NFP (having sex durng the infertile period)--or contraception, for that matter--may wish that a child will result, and for true bonding

Cant follow your thinking here, I'm sorry.

but intentions don't determine the morality of an act itself

Maybe not but God looks at the heart.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mohandasga160866.html

​

and two means can be used to reach the same end while one means is moral and the other is immoral

And why is one Immoral but the other is fine if they both lead to the same goal?

otherwise Christians believe in Machiavellianism, basically

They do but they dont
(Sorry but i so miss a good Machiavelli pun)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So prior to 1930, Protestant churches were wrong by teaching contraception was immoral and now they're right for teaching contraception is perfectly acceptable? I thought God didn't change....

I don't follow you....

I know of no denomination (Protestant or otherwise) that stated that contraception was wrong prior to 1930 (certainly no Protestant one), and I know of none today (the RCC being the foremost proponent of contraception and teacher of contraceptive birth control methodology)





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Engaging in intercourse ≠ Not engaging in intercourse.

True enough....

But it is not the RCC position that married couples are not to engage in intercourse.

Yes, since 1960's anyway, it has embraced a theology of contraception - having sex (as often as any couple) - but in a way so as to lessen the changes of conception. My parish even had classes in such contraceptive birth control methods (it even required it for couples going to be married in the Church). It was not a class to teach, "Don't have sex!" (You wouldn't need much of a class for that, lol) it was a birth control class in order to empower and promote contraception. REQUIRED. Taught right at the parish center.





.

 

[patricius79]

I always was pretty irresponsible
BUT.. i gotta say that it worked out well in my case.


Cant follow your thinking here, I'm sorry.

Maybe not but God looks at the heart.

)

I mean, for example, that a person practicing NFP through having sex only during the infertile period might desperately desire another child but beleive that God wants them to wait.

likewise with contraception. and God knows that.

so God does look to the heart, yes, and it is very dangerous to the heart to deny objective differences in the means used to attain an end

I do believe that contraception and NFP can both be abused--even any good thing can be abused--but that contraception is intrinsically wrong

I've become even more convinced of this because of the Machiavellian impliciations of the Protestant arguments I've repeatedly heard, the tendency to compare fertility to disease also, etc

 

[sunlover1]

So prior to 1930, Protestant churches were wrong by teaching contraception was immoral and now they're right for teaching contraception is perfectly acceptable? I thought God didn't change....

Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.
As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

 

[sunlover1]

I mean, for example, that a person practicing NFP through having sex only during the infertile period might desperately desire another child but beleive that God wants them to wait.

likewise with contraception. and God knows that.

So whats your beef?

so God does look to the heart, yes, and it is very dangerous to the heart to deny objective differences in the means used to attain an end

So again i have to ask, what is so evil about using a condom?

 

[Vendetta]

I dunno, i sense a lot of bitterness in your words . in other words you're wrong even if you're right . (James 3:12-18)

Possibly, although it was probably more a combination of pride and matter-of-factness. You still dodged.

 

[princess_ballet]

True Saints don't care what church organizations teach, or taught, whether protestant or RC or EO or whatever.
Only what the Holy Spirit of Christ teaches us.
And HE certainly says nothing of this ridiculous topic.

Oh right. Sorry, I'm too humble to think that I know better than 2000+ years of church history. I'm glad you are though.

I don't follow you....

I know of no denomination (Protestant or otherwise) that stated that contraception was wrong prior to 1930 (certainly no Protestant one), and I know of none today (the RCC being the foremost proponent of contraception and teacher of contraceptive birth control methodology)

.

Uh, right. I think you need to learn a little more history.

Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.
As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

Honestly, not sure how in the world that answered what I asked, but sure.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So again i have to ask, what is so evil about using a condom?

It goes against God's design for men.

Humanae Vitae covers this well.

Union and Procreation

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Faithfulness to God's Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

 

[sunlover1]

It goes against God's design for men.

Humanae Vitae covers this well.

If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life ...

So avoiding ovulation, actually abstaining from sex during ovulation which
btw God forbids... is NOT impairing the capacity to transmit life? Sure fire
thing, no egg, no babe.
Are you trying to insult my intelligence?
I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed Jack but c'mon!
But at the end of the day, yeah, we dont agree lol. NEW!
(I think we GTers are more Spiritfilled than the rest of the world
btw.. I mean think about it, who can talk about religion or politics
and be nice!? kwim? ) so yeah, it's gotta be that we're more holy

 

[sunlover1]

Honestly, not sure how in the world that answered what I asked, but sure.

You asked if God changes.
I said not at all.. but men do...only i said it in Scripture form. sorry.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life ...

So avoiding ovulation, actually abstaining from sex during ovulation which
btw God forbids... is NOT impairing the capacity to transmit life? Sure fire
thing, no egg, no babe.
Are you trying to insult my intelligence?
I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed Jack but c'mon!
But at the end of the day, yeah, we dont agree lol. NEW!
(I think we GTers are more Spiritfilled than the rest of the world
btw.. I mean think about it, who can talk about religion or politics
and be nice!? kwim? ) so yeah, it's gotta be that we're more holy

I am not trying to insult anyone. The theology here is not grade school type theology or the common arm chair theology we deal with so commonly. It is also one that many have misundrstood or not understood fully so I am not expecting everyone to all of a sudden have a light go and understand.

But here is a bit on what I think you are referring to, Natural Family Planning (from Humanae Vitae):

Recourse to Infertile Periods

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

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, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. 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. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

New Questions

3. This new state of things gives rise to new questions. Granted the conditions of life today and taking into account the relevance of married love to the harmony and mutual fidelity of husband and wife, would it not be right to review the moral norms in force till now, especially when it is felt that these can be observed only with the gravest difficulty, sometimes only by heroic effort?

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

20. The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself. And yet there is no doubt that to many it will appear not merely difficult but even impossible to observe. Now it is true that like all good things which are outstanding for their nobility and for the benefits which they confer on men, so this law demands from individual men and women, from families and from human society, a resolute purpose and great endurance. Indeed it cannot be observed unless God comes to their help with the grace by which the goodwill of men is sustained and strengthened. But to those who consider this matter diligently it will indeed be evident that this endurance enhances man's dignity and confers benefits on human society.

 

[patricius79]

So again i have to ask, what is so evil about using a condom?

what exactly is so evil about oral sex before marriage or marital rape? neither are explicitly condemned in Scripture, the N.T. canon of which has no historical source but the Catholic Tradition. (the Bible doesn't say that oral sex is "fornication" or "lust". what is wrong with a little experimentation?)

the historic Trinitarian Church--the Biblical Church-- teaches that any action which proposes to render procreation impossilble is intrinsically contrary to love.

using a condom proposes to render procreation impossible

that's why using condoms/contraception is associated with divorce, HIV, adultery, etc, while NFP is associate with happier married life, much less divorce, much less STDs, etc

 

[JacktheCatholic]

what exactly is so evil about oral sex before marriage or marital rape? neither are explicitly condemned in Scripture, the N.T. canon of which has no historical source but the Catholic Tradition. (the Bible doesn't say that oral sex is "fornication" or "lust". what is wrong with a little experimentation?)

the historic Trinitarian Church--the Biblical Church-- teaches that any action which proposes to render procreation impossilble is intrinsically contrary to love.

using a condom proposes to render procreation impossible

that's why using condoms/contraception is associated with divorce, HIV, adultery, etc, while NFP is associate with happier married life, much less divorce, much less STDs, etc

Fruits...