• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Contraception

Status
Not open for further replies.

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
.

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!




.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
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



.
 
Upvote 0

ivebeenshown

Expert invisible poster and thread killer
Apr 27, 2010
7,073
623
✟32,740.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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'.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cobweb

Cranky octogenarian at heart
Jan 12, 2006
3,964
413
Georgia, USA
✟28,438.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
.



Josiah said:
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.






Josiah said:


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!).




Josiah said:
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...







.
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
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.
 
Upvote 0

cobweb

Cranky octogenarian at heart
Jan 12, 2006
3,964
413
Georgia, USA
✟28,438.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

cobweb

Cranky octogenarian at heart
Jan 12, 2006
3,964
413
Georgia, USA
✟28,438.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

chris4243

Advocate of Truth
Mar 6, 2011
2,230
57
✟2,738.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
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.
 
Upvote 0

MrPolo

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
Jul 29, 2007
5,871
767
Visit site
✟24,706.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

cobweb

Cranky octogenarian at heart
Jan 12, 2006
3,964
413
Georgia, USA
✟28,438.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0

tadoflamb

no identificado
Feb 20, 2007
16,415
7,531
Diocese of Tucson
✟74,331.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
.

True, NFP can be used method of contranception


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


One more Catholic voice substantiating my point....


D'Ann?




.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟28,891.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,496
1,568
✟229,195.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
MrPolo said:
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)?







.
 
Upvote 0

tadoflamb

no identificado
Feb 20, 2007
16,415
7,531
Diocese of Tucson
✟74,331.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
.




... 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrPolo
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.