Contraception

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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 Catechism 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.



.

two married men intend to enjoy sexual pleasure

If your point is that having sexual pleasure is "evil" "immoral" then sexual pleasure is evil and immoral. However such may or may not be accomplished, correct?

And if sought is done, then it's done, right? - sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure, is it not?

Read what I posted and you quoted...

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

Okay.


Some questions for you.....


So, a couple does not want to conceive, their intent is to not conceive. They want to practice Family PLANNING, which means CONTROLLING births. Family Planning. Birth Control. Their sole purpose, intent, goal, objective, design is to reduce the chances of conception, at least at this time. Is that intent good or bad?


And the couple uses, practices, does, performs the techniques, methods, means that the RC denomination taught them in the Family Planning class they were required to take - purposely doing things so as to avoid conception (contraceptive practices, contraception), purposely implementing the techniques their denomination taught them for this family family. Is that good or bad?


The end of what they purposely, intentionally, performed, did, practiced, implemented is that conception did not happen, they succeeded in their family planning and efforts to control births - what they learned in the class taught by their Catholic parish had the desired effect: no conception (contraception). Catholic Family Planning worked. Catholic Birth Control worked. The techniques their parish taught them worked. Is that good or bad?


OR is sole, singular, exclusive, particular acceptable GOAL to try to have more than 69 children per Catholic woman - to beat the record and have the most children possible (family planning = having the most children possible, the quickest possible) - so that any other goal, objective, intent is "evil" and thus Catholic Family Planning ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY has that purpose, intent, goal, objective and use? It exists ONLY, exclusively for that purpose and this is clearly and consistently said and taught by your denomination, yes or no?



Thanks.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Catholic dogma is against birth control.

Catholic Family Planning is about planning a family.
It's about planning births.
By taking control of such.
Birth control.



Or are you saying that the ONLY intent and purpose of Catholic Family PLANNING (and ergo birth control) is solely and particularly to have the MOST children biologically possible: and this is clearly and consistently taught and stated by the RCC? The ONLY, SOLE, intent, goal, design is to DO what will encourage women to have the most children biologically possible (it seems that can be up to 69 children per woman! That's the official, documented record anyway). It's not about planning a family but rather the ONLY, sole, particular goal and intent is to beat that record of 69 births per woman? It's not about planning? IF so, why is it called Family Planning?



I don't want to get sidetracked into biology (totally not my point), but "natural" sex among homo sapiens seems to be to have sex whenever hearts desire (and personalities welcome). Stats I've seen show that the average couple has sex about 12 times per month (this sometimes varies by age and couple). This has resulted in almost 7 billion people (in spite of condoms, "pills," abortion, etc., etc.). It seems to be working fairly well. If couples boast that - say to 24 times per month - the "odds" of conception would increase - although likely not double (and that's exclusively what we're talking about here - increasing or decreasing odds - planning, controlling). IF the sole intent of Catholic Family PLANNING is to increase the odds, why not save all the time and effort of the class, the program, all the effort, and just tell couples to have sex daily? SO much less complicated (and THAT would be natural family planning). SO much easier and a natural approach, with no moral issues at all.

And Debbie, WHY all the bold, consistent talk about AVOIDING fertile times? Read the Catholic posts here. Read the Catholic quotes here. NOTHING about AVOIDING infertile times (perhaps not "wasting" seed - although this has little impact on sperm production) - it's consistently, CONSISTENTLY, about AVOIDING fertile times. Of course, Catholic clergy KNOWS that decreases the odds of conception - not increases it. Can you explain?

that the Catholic Church allows NFP or any kind of contraceptive to ONLY prevent pro-creation is a misstatement due to your misunderstanding.

[Emphasis mine and not original to the poster]


I've never read any post here making that point. Surely not me.
But note your word "only."

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

... and also you!




Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[patricius79]

If your point is that having sexual pleasure is "evil" "immoral" then sexual pleasure is evil and immoral. However such may or may not be accomplished, correct? .

no. intending sexual pleasure is not wrong

but the means chosen to achieve it can be wrong.

likewise the Biblical Church teaches that one can intend to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, but that contraception is an immoral means

intending sexual pleasure for its own sake is wrong. intending it for the sake of true love of God and neighbor and self is right

likewise, intending to avoid pregnancy for its own sake is wrong. intending it for the sake of true love etc is right

and one must choose the right means.

avoiding marriage through running away to a convent is not intrinsically wrong

avoiding marriage through killing oneself is intrinsically wrong

 

[patricius79]

Okay.

Some questions for you.....


So, a couple does not want to conceive, their intent is to not conceive. They want to practice Family PLANNING, which means CONTROLLING births. Family Planning. Birth Control. Their sole purpose, intent, goal, objective, design is to reduce the chances of conception, at least at this time. Is that intent good or bad? .

bad. they must have a serious reason for doing so

if they have such a serious reason: such as serious health issue, then that is acceptable. they must then choose a moral means of avoiding pregnancy

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some questions for you.....


So, a couple does not want to conceive, their intent is to not conceive. They want to practice Family PLANNING, which means CONTROLLING births. Family Planning. Birth Control. Their sole purpose, intent, goal, objective, design is to reduce the chances of conception, at least at this time. Is that intent good or bad ?


And the couple uses, practices, does, performs the techniques, methods, means that the RC denomination taught them in the Family Planning class they were required to take - purposely doing things so as to avoid conception (contraceptive practices, contraception), purposely implementing the techniques their denomination taught them for this family family. Is that good or bad ?


The end of what they purposely, intentionally, performed, did, practiced, implemented is that conception did not happen, they succeeded in their family planning and efforts to control births - what they learned in the class taught by their Catholic parish had the desired effect: no conception (contraception). Catholic Family Planning worked. Catholic Birth Control worked. The techniques their parish taught them worked. Is that good or bad ?


OR is sole, singular, exclusive, particular acceptable GOAL to try to have more than 69 children per Catholic woman - to beat the record and have the most children possible (family planning = having the most children possible, the quickest possible) - so that any other goal, objective, intent is "evil" and thus Catholic Family Planning ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY has that purpose, intent, goal, objective and use? It exists ONLY, exclusively for that purpose and this is clearly and consistently said and taught by your denomination, yes or no ?



.

the Church teaches that one can intend to avoid pregnancy

Okay, so the answers are "yes?" Probably why it's called "Family PLANNING," "birth CONTROL." And yup, it makes a couple's sex practices, "contraceptive."







.

 

[patricius79]

Okay, so the answers are "yes?" Probably why it's called "Family PLANNING," "birth CONTROL." And yup, it makes a couple's sex practices, "contraceptive."
.

again, the Biblical Church teaches it is unacceptable for a couple to use NFP avoid pregnancy except for a serious reason

she also teaches that there is an essential difference between abstaining from sex during the fertile period and contraception (e.g. using the Pill to avoid pregnancy)

bill and john both intend to have sex with their wives

bill does it out of love, the other out of selfish lust.

bill woos and makes love to his wife. john rapes his wife

their intention was different and the means was morally different, though both wished to have sex with their wives

 

[bbbbbbb]

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

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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 Catechism 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.




Catholic Family Planning is about planning a family.
It's about planning births.
By taking control of such.
Birth control.



Or are you saying that the ONLY intent and purpose of Catholic Family PLANNING (and ergo birth control) is solely and particularly to have the MOST children biologically possible: and this is clearly and consistently taught and stated by the RCC? The ONLY, SOLE, intent, goal, design is to DO what will encourage women to have the most children biologically possible (it seems that can be up to 69 children per woman! That's the official, documented record anyway). It's not about planning a family but rather the ONLY, sole, particular goal and intent is to beat that record of 69 births per woman? It's not about planning? IF so, why is it called Family Planning?


And, WHY all the bold, consistent talk about AVOIDING fertile times? Read the Catholic posts here. Read the Catholic quotes here. NOTHING about AVOIDING infertile times (perhaps not "wasting" seed - although this has little impact on sperm production) - it's consistently, CONSISTENTLY, about AVOIDING fertile times. Of course, Catholic clergy KNOWS that decreases the odds of conception (a contraceptive practice) - not increases it. Can you explain?






Some questions for you.....


So, a couple does not want to conceive, their intent is to not conceive. They want to practice Family PLANNING, which means CONTROLLING births. Family Planning. Birth Control. Their sole purpose, intent, goal, objective, design is to reduce the chances of conception, at least at this time. Is that intent good or bad ?


And the couple uses, practices, does, performs the techniques, methods, means that the RC denomination taught them in the Family Planning class they were required to take - purposely doing things so as to avoid conception (contraceptive practices, contraception), purposely implementing the techniques their denomination taught them for this family family. Is that good or bad ?


The end of what they purposely, intentionally, performed, did, practiced, implemented is that conception did not happen, they succeeded in their family planning and efforts to control births - what they learned in the class taught by their Catholic parish had the desired effect: no conception (contraception). Catholic Family Planning worked. Catholic Birth Control worked. The techniques their parish taught them worked. Is that good or bad ?


OR is sole, singular, exclusive, particular acceptable GOAL to try to have more than 69 children per Catholic woman - to beat the record and have the most children possible (family planning = having the most children possible, the quickest possible) - so that any other goal, objective, intent is "evil" and thus Catholic Family Planning ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY has that purpose, intent, goal, objective and use? It exists ONLY, exclusively for that purpose and this is clearly and consistently said and taught by your denomination, yes or no ?

again, it ieaches that there is an essential difference between abstaining from sex during the fertile period and contraception

READ the above.... Note the points and the question marks.



IMO, at the very best, this is pure double-talk and doesn't address ANYTHING I've posted to you or asked of you. Abstaining from sex during fertile periods IS contraceptive- by design, purpose, intent, and implementation.


Note your continuing emphasis on avoiding FERTILE times - why? Because the RCC thinks THAT is the best way to get every woman beyond the 69 birth record? No, to AVOID conception, to PLAN families, to CONTROL BIRTHS. When sex IS practices but CONTRACEPTIVELY, that's contraceptive sex, that's contraceptive practice.


When someone DOES, IMPLEMENTS, PRACTICES what the RCC taught them in the birth control classes there in the parish center, they are practicing having sex that avoids fertile periods - it is contraceptive sex.


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. It is family PLANNING and thus is Birth Control, it is about "avoiding fertile times" (as YOU put it) and thus is all about contraception. I join nearly every Catholic known to me: When the RCC makes up its mind on contraceptive sex - I'll give it some regard. Right now, it seems to be a lot of "double talk" at best, self justification at worse.




BTW, it would be VERY helpful if you would refer to your denomination as "The Catholic Church" (or RC or RCC); when you refer to other denominations (such as The Biblical Church) or to the whole of Christianity ("the Christian Church") you are simply trying to defuse the reality: all this is exclusive to ONE denomination, and it's exclusively YOURS - don't try to give the impression that ALL denominations teach NFP in their parishes or that ALL denominations teach that contraceptive sex is evil but good (and it will teach you how to do it, practice it, implement it). Such is just not the case - and I think you know that. This is uniquely an RCC situation, don't bring the other 49,999 denominations into it or the whole corpus of Christians - it only blurs and misrepresents the issue.




Thank you for the discussion.


Blessings!


-Josiah




.

 

[sunlover1]

no. intending sexual pleasure is not wrong

but the means chosen to achieve it can be wrong.

likewise the Biblical Church teaches that one can intend to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, but that contraception is an immoral means

intending sexual pleasure for its own sake is wrong. intending it for the sake of true love of God and neighbor and self is right

likewise, intending to avoid pregnancy for its own sake is wrong. intending it for the sake of true love etc is right

and one must choose the right means.

The entire thread reminds me of the woman caught in adultry!

 

[D'Ann]

The entire thread reminds me of the woman caught in adultry!

How so? Please elaborate.

 

[D'Ann]

Catholic Family Planning is about planning a family.
It's about planning births.
By taking control of such.
Birth control.



Or are you saying that the ONLY intent and purpose of Catholic Family PLANNING (and ergo birth control) is solely and particularly to have the MOST children biologically possible: and this is clearly and consistently taught and stated by the RCC? The ONLY, SOLE, intent, goal, design is to DO what will encourage women to have the most children biologically possible (it seems that can be up to 69 children per woman! That's the official, documented record anyway). It's not about planning a family but rather the ONLY, sole, particular goal and intent is to beat that record of 69 births per woman? It's not about planning? IF so, why is it called Family Planning?



I don't want to get sidetracked into biology (totally not my point), but "natural" sex among homo sapiens seems to be to have sex whenever hearts desire (and personalities welcome). Stats I've seen show that the average couple has sex about 12 times per month (this sometimes varies by age and couple). This has resulted in almost 7 billion people (in spite of condoms, "pills," abortion, etc., etc.). It seems to be working fairly well. If couples boast that - say to 24 times per month - the "odds" of conception would increase - although likely not double (and that's exclusively what we're talking about here - increasing or decreasing odds - planning, controlling). IF the sole intent of Catholic Family PLANNING is to increase the odds, why not save all the time and effort of the class, the program, all the effort, and just tell couples to have sex daily? SO much less complicated (and THAT would be natural family planning). SO much easier and a natural approach, with no moral issues at all.

And Debbie, WHY all the bold, consistent talk about AVOIDING fertile times? Read the Catholic posts here. Read the Catholic quotes here. NOTHING about AVOIDING infertile times (perhaps not "wasting" seed - although this has little impact on sperm production) - it's consistently, CONSISTENTLY, about AVOIDING fertile times. Of course, Catholic clergy KNOWS that decreases the odds of conception - not increases it. Can you explain?







[Emphasis mine and not original to the poster]


I've never read any post here making that point. Surely not me.
But note your word "only."







... and also you!




Pax


- Josiah





.

I've been working 3rd shift and my mind is tired. When I get some sleep, I'll respond to your post.

God's peace

Debbie

 

[sunlover1]

How so? Please elaborate.

Probably has a lot to do with continually seeing a poster refer to her
sect as THE "christian Church" rather than "my sect"
Gives me that ' WE HOLY FOLK think you UNHOLY FOLK be
doing it evil.. "
That same attitude that caused those "holy" folk to catch that evil lady
doing what they seemed to know about and where

Now if the members of "The Christian Church" actually practiced this
what is being preached, it MIGHT sound a bit less ridiculous,.. but not
a lot. I myself took it as gospel and even though I had left Catholicism,
I still didnt use bc and in fact believed NFP to be anti letting God have His
way with me..
So I, from "THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH" gave birth to 8.
DANG i must be super holy, no?

Hope that helps .

Sunlover, the redheaded stepchild

 

[patricius79]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

thank you for your gracious response

 

[patricius79]

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?
.

the difference between using a knife and salt is not a moral difference

but there is a moral difference between aborting a child through blowing up a building with people in it and aborting a child through normal means


Larry and Allen both wish to avoid pregnancy

Larry wishes to avoid pregnancy because he is concerned seriously about his wife's health. so he abstains during fertile periods.

Allen wishes to avoid pregnancy because he wants to deprive his wife of happiness and keep playing a lot of golf. so he uses a condom


the intention is morally different and the means is morally different, as the Biblical Church teaches

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The entire thread reminds me of the woman caught in adultry!

Is this what you are thinking of?

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. It is family PLANNING and thus is Birth Control, it is about "avoiding fertile times" (as YOU put it) and thus is all about contraception. I join nearly every Catholic known to me: When the RCC makes up its mind on contraceptive sex - I'll give it some regard. Right now, it seems to be a lot of "double talk" at best, self justification at worse.

.

 

[Rhamiel]

if not having sex is "birth control"
then i am guilty of birth control now
and now
and right now
and now
and now...

to put not having sex in the same catagory as sodomey is a silly thing

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

if not having sex is "birth control"
then i am guilty of birth control now

The METHOD is to HAVE sex (as much as you like, as often as you like - more than otherwise, more than the Baptist couple next door with 23 kids!) BUT in contraceptive ways - done so as to AVOID pregnancy, AVOID conception; done to PLAN a family by controlling births. It's a METHOD, something PRACTICED, done, implemented. Classes are given in HOW to DO sex in this manner - contraceptively.



Now, I agree with you in this: my Catholic teachers taught me that before the sexual revolution of the 1960's, a common teaching in the RCC was that those who wanted to avoid conception should not have sex: they should have a sexless marriage. This (I was told) was NOT an official position of the RCC - and some disagreed with it, saying that avoiding sex is - per se - immoral for married couples (barring some extreme issue) but it was commonly heard: "No kids? NO sex!" But that all changed some 50 years ago, now it's about lotsa sex - done contraceptively, so as to counter conception. The RCC will teach you how to DO it.





.

 

[Rhamiel]

NFP can be done with a contraceptive mindset
and that is a bad thing

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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 Catechism 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.




Catholic Family Planning is about planning a family.
It's about planning births.
By taking control of such.
Birth control.



Or are you saying that the ONLY intent and purpose of Catholic Family PLANNING (and ergo birth control) is solely and particularly to have the MOST children biologically possible: and this is clearly and consistently taught and stated by the RCC? The ONLY, SOLE, intent, goal, design is to DO what will encourage women to have the most children biologically possible (it seems that can be up to 69 children per woman! That's the official, documented record anyway). It's not about planning a family but rather the ONLY, sole, particular goal and intent is to beat that record of 69 births per woman? It's not about planning? IF so, why is it called Family Planning?


And, WHY all the bold, consistent talk about AVOIDING fertile times? Read the Catholic posts here. Read the Catholic quotes here. NOTHING about AVOIDING infertile times (perhaps not "wasting" seed - although this has little impact on sperm production) - it's consistently, CONSISTENTLY, about AVOIDING fertile times. Of course, Catholic clergy KNOWS that decreases the odds of conception (a contraceptive practice) - not increases it. Can you explain?






Some questions for you.....


So, a couple does not want to conceive, their intent is to not conceive. They want to practice Family PLANNING, which means CONTROLLING births. Family Planning. Birth Control. Their sole purpose, intent, goal, objective, design is to reduce the chances of conception, at least at this time. Is that intent good or bad ?


And the couple uses, practices, does, performs the techniques, methods, means that the RC denomination taught them in the Family Planning class they were required to take - purposely doing things so as to avoid conception (contraceptive practices, contraception), purposely implementing the techniques their denomination taught them for this family family. Is that good or bad ?


The end of what they purposely, intentionally, performed, did, practiced, implemented is that conception did not happen, they succeeded in their family planning and efforts to control births - what they learned in the class taught by their Catholic parish had the desired effect: no conception (contraception). Catholic Family Planning worked. Catholic Birth Control worked. The techniques their parish taught them worked. Is that good or bad ?


OR is sole, singular, exclusive, particular acceptable GOAL to try to have more than 69 children per Catholic woman - to beat the record and have the most children possible (family planning = having the most children possible, the quickest possible) - so that any other goal, objective, intent is "evil" and thus Catholic Family Planning ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY has that purpose, intent, goal, objective and use? It exists ONLY, exclusively for that purpose and this is clearly and consistently said and taught by your denomination, yes or no ?



.

the intention is morally different and the means is morally different, as the Biblical Church teaches

So, abortion is evil but moral if the intention is good and the means taught by the RCC? Abortion is not abortion if the INTENT is nice and the MEANS of accomplishing it are taught in classes at Catholic parishes?

I think you are entirely missing the point: abortion is abortion. Is it evil or blessed? Doing it for good intentions doesn't mean it's not abortion; doing it with a knife rather than a suction machine doesn't mean it's not abortion and the result is not the same. You seem to have an odd twist on the old "end justifies the means" "morality." To quote Bill, "A rose by any other name is still a rose," even if you plant it with a spoon and not a shovel.



Read the above....


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

NFP can be done with a contraceptive mindset
and that is a bad thing

Ah, if it's used to AVOID fertile periods - that's evil? The ONLY permitted use is to see if every woman can reach the 69 children record? This method can only be done, used, implemented to have as many children as is biologically possible?




.