Contraception

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Abstaining from sex when she is in her fertile period is not in itself immoral.

1. By definition, that's contraceptive. According to the former head of your denomination, contraception is, specifically, "evil." When/how is evil not immoral?


2. I'm still stunned by this new, uniquely Catholic definition of "abstinence." So now, one is practicing abstinence (and I guess is a virgin) if they are only occasionally, briefly, periodically not having sex - but perhaps having LOTS of sex otherwise - that's now "practicing abstinence" in Catholicism, that's being a virgin. OH, how things have changed in the RCC in the brief time since I've been away, BOY how they have changed! My Catholic teachers and youth workers must be speechless!

Abstaining from sex for reproduction when you do not have the means to support a(nother) child at the moment is not in itself immoral.

If any of these are immoral, feel free to show me how.

2370 ... birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158

Well, let's see: We have a former RCC "pope" who says contraception is "evil." We have one esteemed Catholic poster here who says that birth control is NOT wrong IF - and only if - it is used to have as many children as is biologically possible but "wrong" otherwise. And we have several Catholics here - all speaking boldly and authoritatively (with official substantiation) that birth control is just rosey whether used to encourage OR discourage conception (pro-ceptive or countra-ceptive). Okay.

NFP does not disrupt any natural process of the sexual act.

Um, it stops the very ACT - you can't get more disruptive than that, LOL! Come on! Let's be real here, huh?

If this is natural, please list for me several species that practice this - that count the days of the female's cycle and schedule/plan intercourse either to encourage (pro-ceptice) or discourage (contra - ceptive) conception. If you can reveal this is the norm in nature, what is typical in nature - I'll buy that it's natural - but that has nothing to do with it being moral (hate, selfishness, violence - those are all typical in nature, too).

To say that NFP is NOT in conformity with the objective criteria of morality, you must be professing that both abstaining from sex during fertile periods is immoral and having sex during infertile periods is immoral

Thank you for that Catholic position. You also are substantiating my point perfectly.

Thanks you to all those giving the exact opposite as the Catholic position.

And to those giving yet other views as the Catholic position.

That's kinda my point, too.






God's richest blessings to you all!




.

 

[patricius79]

Case closed.....


I need say no more


.

you seem to either be assuming that intention defines the nature of an act, which sounds like Machiavellianism

or that there is a moral equality between not having sex and having sex with a condom

the Christian Church does not agree with either of these

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

you seem to either be assuming that intention defines the nature of an act, which sounds like Machiavellianism or that there is a moral equality between not having sex and having sex with a condom the Christian Church does not agree with either of these

I have no idea whatsoever how your "reply" has ANYTHING to do with what I posted....




YOU stated that the Catholic position is that NFP may be used to discourage conception. YOU said that.

I simply said: THAT'S MY POINT. Case closed. I need say nothing more. You just said it. Others have agreed with you: That IS your denomination's current position. Okay. My point is made - by you.

Obviously, to DO something so as to DISCOURAGE or prevent conception is.... by definition.... contraceptive.

You have made my point - boldly, clearly. Thank you. Nothing more needs to be said.


Thanks! Blessings!



[ Always, well... nice.... when Catholics make the point for you, in their own words, right there in black and white - and insist that it's the official, authoritative position of the RCC denomination. It not only saves a LOT of effort but keeps the conversation civil and keeps people from getting so frustrated that they hit the "Report" button]



Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[ivebeenshown]

1. By definition, that's contraceptive. According to the former head of your denomination, contraception is, specifically, "evil." When/how is evil not immoral?

According to the Catechism, "2368 ... For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children... they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality: 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."

If not having sex at a particular time is somehow immoral, then I would be sinning right now because I'm not 'doing it'.

2. I'm still stunned by this new, uniquely Catholic definition of "abstinence." So now, one is practicing abstinence (and I guess is a virgin) if they are only occasionally, briefly, periodically not having sex - but perhaps having LOTS of sex otherwise - that's now "practicing abstinence" in Catholicism, that's being a virgin. OH, how things have changed in the RCC in the brief time since I've been away, BOY how they have changed! My Catholic teachers and youth workers must be speechless!

I'm using the word 'abstain' in the general verbal sense here, not in the 'wait til you're married' sense. I am abstaining from eating a donut right now at my work so I can have sweets later in the day. But fine, Josaiah, I will bend to your supreme will and start using 'refrain' instead of 'abstain.'

Well, let's see: We have a former RCC "pope" who says contraception is "evil." We have one esteemed Catholic poster here who says that birth control is NOT wrong IF - and only if - it is used to have as many children as is biologically possible but "wrong" otherwise. And we have several Catholics here - all speaking boldly and authoritatively (with official substantiation) that birth control is just rosey whether used to encourage OR discourage conception (pro-ceptive or countra-ceptive). Okay.

Anyways:
2368 ... For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children... they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
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.

Um, it stops the very ACT - you can't get more disruptive than that, LOL! Come on! Let's be real here, huh?

You can't disrupt a process that isn't even occurring. You want to talk about some supposed redefinition of 'abstinence' and then turn around and call 'refraining from sex' a 'contraceptive'? That would make walking, running, jumping, working, swimming, cooking, etc. all 'contraceptive'.

 

[cobweb]

you seem to either be assuming that intention defines the nature of an act, which sounds like Machiavellianism

or that there is a moral equality between not having sex and having sex with a condom

the Christian Church does not agree with either of these

NO. The latins may not agree with that. I disagree that they are the "Christian Church."

The Roman Catholic Catechism means diddly squat to me.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

1. By definition, that's contraceptive. According to the former head of your denomination, contraception is, specifically, "evil." When/how is evil not immoral?

According to the Catechism, "2368 ... For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children... they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality: 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."

If not having sex at a particular time is somehow immoral, then I would be sinning right now because I'm not 'doing it'.

Thank you! You too keep making my point - boldly and excellently!

But you didn't answer my question....

I hope D'Ann will re-enter the discussion because some here are convincing me she may be wrong (and that surprises me - she's VERY knowledgable of Catholicism). It seems you're right: Catholicism does encourage contraceptive sex - while also declaring it as, specifically "evil." Odd. But not really my point (or concern - I left the RCC).

Again, thanks for confirming my point.

2. I'm still stunned by this new, uniquely Catholic definition of "abstinence." So now, one is practicing abstinence (and I guess is a virgin) if they are only occasionally, briefly, periodically not having sex - but perhaps having LOTS of sex otherwise - that's now "practicing abstinence" in Catholicism, that's being a virgin. OH, how things have changed in the RCC in the brief time since I've been away, BOY how they have changed! My Catholic teachers and youth workers must be speechless!


Well, let's see: We have a former RCC "pope" who says contraception is "evil." We have one esteemed Catholic poster here who says that birth control is NOT wrong IF - and only if - it is used to have as many children as is biologically possible but "wrong" otherwise. And we have several Catholics here - all speaking boldly and authoritatively (with official substantiation) that birth control is just rosey whether used to encourage OR discourage conception (pro-ceptive or countra-ceptive). Okay.

Anyways:
2368 ... For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children... they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
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.

Yup, I think you may have a point. All the Catholics here (except D'Ann- and that's significant to me) agree: The new position of the RC denomination is that sex may be practiced contraceptively. That makes it contraceptive.

Yeah, odd when you add that 1968 quote from the former head of your denomination, calling all contraceptive sex as "evil." You are substantiating that it nonetheless is not "immoral" (meaning that in Catholicism, evil is moral? Surely not!).

Um, it stops the very ACT - you can't get more disruptive than that, LOL! Come on! Let's be real here, huh?

You can't disrupt a process that isn't even occurring. You want to talk about some supposed redefinition of 'abstinence' and then turn around and call 'refraining from sex' a 'contraceptive'?

You seem to be confusing Catholicism with Shakerism, the old meaning of virginity and abstinence what what I'm learning is the brand now meaning. As I understand it, the RC denomination is NOT saying that married couples who don't want kids are to be sexless - a sexless couple. (In fact, D'Ann says the RCC teaches all are to have as many kids as biologically possible - for most, that's probably a dozen or so?). No, it teaches that couples may HAVE sex, probably SHOULD have sex. Lotsa sex. Abundant sex. Sure. Every month. LOTS. BUT - this can be DONE, practiced, in ways purposefully contraceptive, that will discourage conception. That's what everyone here (except D'Ann) has been saying - with impressive official statements to back them up on that. The current position of your denomination is NOT that of the Shakers - and nothing you (or anyone else) has presented suggests that it is. It MAY have once been, but it certainly is no longer. It's about HAVING SEX, a very active sex life, but contraceptively. It's not about practicing abstinence or being perpetual virgins (D'Ann, I think, would say it's the OPPOSITE of that; it's the ENCOURAGEMENT of sex, of not abstinging.)


Thanks again!

God's richest blessings to you, my full unseparated and equal brother in Christ...







.

 

[patricius79]

NO. The latins may not agree with that..

the Christian Church believes that intentions don't justify the means or define the nature of an act

 

[ivebeenshown]

You seem to be confusing Catholicism with Shakerism,

That's it, I'm done.

 

[MrPolo]

The Roman Catholic Catechism means diddly squat to me.

I would certainly not say that of Orthodox teaching...

In fact, Father Alexey Young of the Russian Orthodox Church of America teaches that only natural means of avoiding conception are permissible. And Protodeacon Basil Andruchow of the Orthodox Church of America says the Orthodox Church does not support the general use of contraception---the exception he gives as an example is if the very health of one of the partners would be in jeopardy. Why would it need to be an exception if Orthodox teaching thought contraception was perfectly fine anyway? There must be something unfitting about it.

But what would you say in response to patricius' point? How are abstinence and artificially frustrating the natural giving of the conjugal act on a moral par? Are robbers and laborers on a moral par because the end result for both attains money? So you see, it makes no sense to place abstinence and contraception on a moral par on the basis that both do not result in conception (at least most of the time for contraceptive acts). Otherwise, you have to defend the right of thieves to steal.

 

[chris4243]

Onan's sin was greed and pride. Greed, because he wanted his brother's inheritance for himself and his children (which would happen if his brother were to not have an heir), and pride because he did not want to publicly admit that this is what he was doing so tried to pretend to the world he was in fact trying to raise an heir for his brother.

 

[cobweb]

I would certainly not say that of Orthodox teaching...

In fact, Father Alexey Young of the Russian Orthodox Church of America teaches that only natural means of avoiding conception are permissible. And Protodeacon Basil Andruchow of the Orthodox Church of America says the Orthodox Church does not support the general use of contraception---the exception he gives as an example is if the very health of one of the partners would be in jeopardy. Why would it need to be an exception if Orthodox teaching thought contraception was perfectly fine anyway? There must be something unfitting about it.

But what would you say in response to patricius' point? How are abstinence and artificially frustrating the natural giving of the conjugal act on a moral par? Are robbers and laborers on a moral par because the end result for both attains money? So you see, it makes no sense to place abstinence and contraception on a moral par on the basis that both do not result in conception (at least most of the time for contraceptive acts). Otherwise, you have to defend the right of thieves to steal.

NFP is contraception. It is no more moral than condoms. The fact that both are used in grave circumstances does not make them a moral choice. Merely the lesser evil.

 

[cobweb]

the Christian Church believes that intentions don't justify the means or define the nature of an act

Then your Church is not honest. Intentions do define the nature of the act.

A soldier who kills in battle is not treated in the same manner as a serial killer. Someone who kills in self-defense is not treated with the same harshness as one who kills for greed. In the Christian Church all of these must still be confessed, but the remedy is not the same.


Motivation is a factor.

 

[chris4243]

How are abstinence and artificially frustrating the natural giving of the conjugal act on a moral par? Are robbers and laborers on a moral par because the end result for both attains money? So you see, it makes no sense to place abstinence and contraception on a moral par on the basis that both do not result in conception (at least most of the time for contraceptive acts). Otherwise, you have to defend the right of thieves to steal.

Indeed, if the end result is the same then they are equal. As you say, if stealing were to generate wealth just like working does, than they would be on a moral par. (however, if stealing were to deprive someone else of wealth whereas working doesn't, then the end result would be different). This is why some are not opposed to "stealing" of intellectual property.

 

[MrPolo]

NFP is ... no more moral than condoms.

Why we should accept that view remains absent from all the pro-contraceptive folks' answers. The only argument I see from pro-contraceptive folks here is that the ends justifies the means. Since both result in non-conception, they must be morally equal we are told. But that is a self-evidently flawed way of determining whether or not an act is immoral.

I still respect the views of Father Young and Protodeacon Andruchow who either agree with the immorality of contraception or give far greater pause as to it's acceptance than those here.

So on that I think the thread is exhausted.

 

[cobweb]

Why we should accept that view remains absent from all the pro-contraceptive folks' answers. The only argument I see from pro-contraceptive folks here is that the ends justifies the means. Since both result in non-conception, they must be morally equal we are told. But that is a self-evidently flawed way of determining whether or not an act is immoral.

I still respect the views of Father Young and Protodeacon Andruchow who either agree with the immorality of contraception or give far greater pause as to it's acceptance than those here.

So on that I think the thread is exhausted.

I am not pro-contraception. The moral choice is to be completely open to the will of God.

 

[tadoflamb]

NFP is contraception. It is no more moral than condoms. The fact that both are used in grave circumstances does not make them a moral choice. Merely the lesser evil.

True, NFP can be used method of contranception, but it can also be used to enhance the probablitity of conception. The same can not be said for condoms, not to mention the other purposes condoms are used for which can't be applied using NPF.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

True, NFP can be used method of contranception

... which obviously, by definitive, makes it contraceptive....


One more Catholic voice substantiating my point....


D'Ann?




.

 

[patricius79]

Then your Church is not honest. Intentions do define the nature of the act.

intentions in a sense are acts. but a good intention cannot justify something intrinsically wrong. e.g. stealing in order to help a friend

likewise a bad intention--not wanting children for selfish reasons, like wanting to play a lot of golf--cannot make something intrinsically wrong


so the Christian Church does agree that a bad intention related to using NFP is a sin, but that NFP is not intrinsically wrong

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Since both result in non-conception

Does that make the current RCC position contra-ceptive?

Does the RCC now state that NFP can be used (practiced, done) to lessen the chances of conception (at least temporarily)?







.

 

[tadoflamb]

.




... which obviously, by definitive, makes it contraceptive....


One more Catholic voice substantiating my point....






.

The Church's teaching on birth control applies to artificial birth control. (ABC)

Artificial birth control puts artificial barriers between the conjugal act. NFP does not, the conjugal act is still open to life.

Of course, I can recollect my history with ABC and it mainly involves having sex with women to whom I wasn't married and had no intentions of bearing or rearing children with.

I'm somewhat mystified at how some protestants have joined the atheists in their commitment to the condom, but then again, y'all get some strange bedfellows in your protest against the Catholic Church.