Contraception

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"In reality, 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."

So, it cannot be denied that Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control is contraceptive in intention, design, purpose and use. Spin it anyway you like, dance around the reality - it is what it is: contraception.

All along, I have really appreciated you giving all the official Catholic documentation (although I wish you had referenced it, so I could put it in my records for future use; I can't use unreferenced materials). You have made may point clearer than I could have - and getting it "right from the horse's mouth" (so to speak) just makes it so powerful.

I honestly (and I totally mean that), I honestly don't know WHY you are dancing around this, doing the "double speak," trying to make "up" mean down and "down" mean up. EXCEPT maybe you are bothered by a point I never brought up and frankly couldn't care less about - your denominations condemnation of contraception as "evil" (one Catholic here stated that it's "evil" but not "immoral" - honestly, THAT'S the sort of thing so amazing in discussing this issue!).

If you READ this thread (even just the Catholic/Orthodox posts) - it's absurdly obvious: the double speak. As my cradle Catholic brother-in-law said, "when the Church makes up its mind - let me know."

MY point has been sharply and singularly focused: Catholic Family Planning is what it is - contraceptive. In purpose, design, intent and use.

And yes - ergo, morality, I suppose. I realize, you want to suggest there are moral and immoral ways to do evil (what your former Pope called this) - but that's not my concern or point or issue of discussion. I'm not Catholic. What the pope says is entirely moot to me, whatever "problems" I may see in it is of absolutely zero significance, from my perspective (however much I may understand why almost 100% of Catholics known to me shake their heads over this one).






.

 

[patricius79]

Family PLANNING is to plan, control births.
Birth CONTROL is to plan, control births.

"Yes, of course!" Catholic Family PLANNING can be used contraceptively - with the goal of NOT conceiving, Catholic birth planning/control can include means to the end of not conceiving - it can have the goal/purpose/design/intent of contraception. In fact, virtually 100% of the time - that's exactly what it is.
.

the only legitimate use of NFP is for serious reasons--i.e. out of love. it is not intrinsically wrong--like contraception--because abstaining from sex at any given time is not intrinsically wrong

it is wrong to have sex without giving oneself sexually, with their fertility

that's why the Christian Church and even the "reformers" condemned contraception from the beginning

I know that the Holy Spirit wants me to respect the Vicar of Jesus Christ

St. Cyprian


"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

MY point has been sharply and singularly focused: Catholic Family Planning is what it is - contraceptive. In purpose, design, intent and use.

the only legitimate use of NFP is for serious reasons

... which you've said is also to not conceive a child.
... thus, according to you, a legitimate use is contraceptively.





.

 

[patricius79]

... which you've said is also to not conceive a child.
...

.

only for serious reasons. i
but would you agree that two means used for the same goal can be different as to morality?

e.g. working at a job to make money to live on vs. robbing a bank to make money to live on

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

only for serious reasons.

You've repeated stated that Catholic Family PLANNING can be done to render contraception impossible...

but

What? Are you saying that things done contraceptively, for the singular goal, purpose, reason, intent and design of reducing the odds of contraception is a contraceptive practice? You just want to add a "but...?"

would you agree that two means used for the same goal can be different as to morality?

Perhaps, but that doesn't change that they are two MEANS to the same END. And in this case, that's contraception. It's contraceptive. It is what it is.


Thus, it is family PLANNING, it is birth CONTROL
It is a MEANS.
It has an END.
That end is to render procreation impossible.
It's contraceptive in nature, purpose, design, intent and use.
It is what it is.

You keep quoting your Catechism that condemns that as evil - okay. Point taken. Understood. Not my problem, not my point.







.

 

[patricius79]

You've repeated stated that Catholic Family PLANNING can be done to render contraception impossible...

actually I've never once said that.

would you agree that two means used for the same goal can be different as to morality?
​

Perhaps,

then if if contraception and NFP are used for the same intention they can be very different as to morality

but that doesn't change that they are two MEANS to the same END.

actually the intention varies from person to person and often involves multiple intentions

but let's suppose that two persons are using NFP and contraception for the same intention: to avoid pregnancy only ;temporarilty for a grave reason: such as a psychological problem of their spouse

their intention is the same. the means is different.

likewise with two persons who choose to rob a bank or work as a plumber. one chooses a moral means to make a living. the other choooses an immoral.




​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

their intention is the same. the means is different.

Okay....

As has been stated repeatedly and consistently throughout this thread, MY point has been and still is singular: that Catholic Family PLANNING, Catholic Birth CONTROL is contraceptive in purpose, design, intent, goal and end. To render procreation impossible (the very thing your Cathecism states is "evil").

Whether one seeks to abort a child with a knife or salt - it's still all about killing a child. Is the "end" suddenly moral if it's done with a knife? Is it not killing because a knife is use? The "end" is KILLING - how it's done doesn't change that. And yes - your denomination condemns killing as evil, just as it condemns doing things to "render reproduction impossible" as evil.

Your denomination is the only one known to me that actively promotes contraceptive practices - under the heading of "Family PLANNING" (which means conception controlling in premediated, purposeful, planned, ways) and even teaches this means of contraception right there at the parish.





.

 

[patricius79]

Okay....

As has been stated repeatedly and consistently throughout this thread, MY point has been and still is singular: that Catholic Family PLANNING, Catholic Birth CONTROL is contraceptive in purpose, design, intent, goal and end. To render procreation impossible (the very thing your Cathecism states is "evil").

Whether one seeks to abort a child with a knife or salt - it's still all about killing a child. Is the "end" suddenly moral if it's done with a knife? Is it not killing because a knife is use? The "end" is KILLING - how it's done doesn't change that. And yes - your denomination condemns killing as evil, just as it condemns doing things to "render reproduction impossible" as evil.

Your denomination is the only one known to me that actively promotes contraceptive practices - under the heading of "Family PLANNING" (which means conception controlling in premediated, purposeful, planned, ways) and even teaches this means of contraception right there at the parish.


.

two married men intend to enjoy sexual pleasure

Larry does so through having sex with his wife

Ben does so through looking at porn for masturbating

both shared the same acceptable intention. the means was different

one was intrinsically acceptable. one was intrinsically wrong


both intention and the nature of the act itself must be good

 

[patricius79]

Okay....

As has been stated repeatedly and consistently throughout this thread, MY point has been and still is singular: that Catholic Family PLANNING, Catholic Birth CONTROL is contraceptive in purpose, design, intent, goal and end. .

two points: first, does it matter if one is trying to avoid pregnancy for selfish reasons as opposed to self-giving reasons?

secondly, are the means used to reach a goal a matter of morals?

two students intend to ace a test

one steals the test and cheats

the other studies hard, wanting not only to ace the test but ALSO to do it for God

both ace the test, as intended

is the means different as to morality? was their intention exactly the same?

 

[D'Ann]

So, it cannot be denied that Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control is contraceptive in intention, design, purpose and use. Spin it anyway you like, dance around the reality - it is what it is: contraception.

All along, I have really appreciated you giving all the official Catholic documentation (although I wish you had referenced it, so I could put it in my records for future use; I can't use unreferenced materials). You have made may point clearer than I could have - and getting it "right from the horse's mouth" (so to speak) just makes it so powerful.

I honestly (and I totally mean that), I honestly don't know WHY you are dancing around this, doing the "double speak," trying to make "up" mean down and "down" mean up. EXCEPT maybe you are bothered by a point I never brought up and frankly couldn't care less about - your denominations condemnation of contraception as "evil" (one Catholic here stated that it's "evil" but not "immoral" - honestly, THAT'S the sort of thing so amazing in discussing this issue!).

If you READ this thread (even just the Catholic/Orthodox posts) - it's absurdly obvious: the double speak. As my cradle Catholic brother-in-law said, "when the Church makes up its mind - let me know."

MY point has been sharply and singularly focused: Catholic Family Planning is what it is - contraceptive. In purpose, design, intent and use.

And yes - ergo, morality, I suppose. I realize, you want to suggest there are moral and immoral ways to do evil (what your former Pope called this) - but that's not my concern or point or issue of discussion. I'm not Catholic. What the pope says is entirely moot to me, whatever "problems" I may see in it is of absolutely zero significance, from my perspective (however much I may understand why almost 100% of Catholics known to me shake their heads over this one).






.

You can try to say that we are trying to spin around something... but no, we are not.

Catholic dogma is against birth control. We have pointed Catholic dogma truth on pro-creation with several posts and with resource links proving Catholic Church dogma.

Not everything is black and white. We have shared the clarification and saying that the Catholic Church allows NFP or any kind of contraceptive to ONLY prevent pro-creation is a misstatement due to your misunderstanding. I don't know how else to explain it or clarify it and what I'm trying to understand myself is why it's so important to you to unintentionally misconstrue our words?

God writes crooked with straight lines. Not everything is legalistic and either white or black. One has to have the ability to decipher the intertwining connections of this dogma. Obviousy, you are struggling with this abstraction. It's okay, there are things that we all struggle with and I pray the best for you and some day... I think you will have a deeper and more profound understanding of the Catholic faith, but right now, you don't and that is okay.

I don't understand parts of Lutheranism either... that too can have abstraction and isn't all black and white either.

God be with you and bless you in His love and grace.

God's peace,

Debbie

 

[cowboysfan1970]

Whenever contraception is mentioned Onan is always brought up and a debate begins as to just exactly what his sin was. Some say it was his refusal to follow the law that states that since his brother was killed it was his responsibility to carry on his brother's bloodline. But doing some research there seems to be a problem with that. Read Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

It says here that the penalty for refusing to fulfill his duty was public humiliation and not death. Why was Onan struck down then? This seems to be either overlooked or ignored a lot.

But there are two other questions that I have about contraception. The first one is if God can and will override any form of artificial birth control at His will, then what's the purpose of using it if He's going to will it that the woman become pregnant? Second, why are more Protestants turning against contraception in seminaries and sermons? Why is there a shift in attitude occuring?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Whenever contraception is mentioned Onan is always brought up and a debate begins as to just exactly what his sin was. Some say it was his refusal to follow the law that states that since his brother was killed it was his responsibility to carry on his brother's bloodline. But doing some research there seems to be a problem with that. Read Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

It says here that the penalty for refusing to fulfill his duty was public humiliation and not death. Why was Onan struck down then? This seems to be either overlooked or ignored a lot.

But there are two other questions that I have about contraception. The first one is if God can and will override any form of artificial birth control at His will, then what's the purpose of using it if He's going to will it that the woman become pregnant? Second, why are more Protestants turning against contraception in seminaries and sermons? Why is there a shift in attitude occuring?

In your quote the brother-in-law did not fulfill it by not having any sexual relations. In Onan he did and spilled his seed.

 

[cowboysfan1970]

The problem is that different translations say different things. I think the core of it is that if a brother refuses to fulfill his duty to his brother's wife he was to be humiliated and not struck down. That begs the question of why did God strike Onan down and not leave him to be humiliated instead?

There was a time when I kind of thought that contraception was OK but lately I've begun to have some doubts about it. The arguements in favor of it don't seem to be very convincing.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The problem is that different translations say different things. I think the core of it is that if a brother refuses to fulfill his duty to his brother's wife he was to be humiliated and not struck down. That begs the question of why did God strike Onan down and not leave him to be humiliated instead?

There was a time when I kind of thought that contraception was OK but lately I've begun to have some doubts about it. The arguements in favor of it don't seem to be very convincing.

Because Onan's greater crime was spilling the seed. When we study idolatry we find that what is happening is that man serves another deity or thing and takes away from the service we owe God. In a way Onan was choosing sexual pleasure and denying God the fertilization of his wife. He was serving his pleasures and not God.

 

[patricius79]

5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

It says here that the penalty for refusing to fulfill his duty was public humiliation and not death. Why was Onan struck down then? This seems to be either overlooked or ignored a lot.

I've been through this debate several times.

certainly one cannot claim Onan was NOT struck down--at least in part--for contraception. at least, one cannot claim this based on Sola Scriptura

thanks be to God for His Merciful New Covenant

 

[patricius79]

The problem is that different translations say different things. I think the core of it is that if a brother refuses to fulfill his duty to his brother's wife he was to be humiliated and not struck down. That begs the question of why did God strike Onan down and not leave him to be humiliated instead?

There was a time when I kind of thought that contraception was OK but lately I've begun to have some doubts about it. The arguements in favor of it don't seem to be very convincing.

I agree with your your line of thinking.

and contraception seems to correlate with a lot of bad things

 

[patricius79]

You can try to say that we are trying to spin around something... but no, we are not.

Catholic dogma is against birth control. We have pointed Catholic dogma truth on pro-creation with several posts and with resource links proving Catholic Church dogma.

Not everything is black and white. We have shared the clarification and saying that the Catholic Church allows NFP or any kind of contraceptive to ONLY prevent pro-creation is a misstatement

right


and I think it does not fit with common sense to say that abstaing from sex during the fertile period is morally equivalent to having sex while using the Pill

certainly it is an assumption

 

[bbbbbbb]

right


and I think it does not fit with common sense to say that abstaing from sex during the fertile period is morally equivalent to having sex while using the Pill

certainly it is an assumption

What is the use of a condom morally equivalent to?

 

[Dorothea]

I can't believe this thread is still going on. How much can one speak of contraceptive devices? Apparently a lot!

 

[patricius79]

What is the use of a condom morally equivalent to?

I would say it is less serious than using the Pill, since the Pill is abortifacient

it is intrinsically disordered in that it prevents the full self-giving which is the meaning of marital sex

the sin is mitigated by a right intention

as far as its equivalence to other sins, I'm not sure. I only know it is very serious