Contraception

[MamaZ]

Umm why is it that a man that wears a condom is doing it for selfish reasons and the one who abstains is doing it for health reasons. What if Dick wore a condom during the fertile times to protect His wife for Gods sake?

 

[Rhamiel]

Umm why is it that a man that wears a condom is doing it for selfish reasons and the one who abstains is doing it for health reasons. What if Dick wore a condom during the fertile times to protect His wife for Gods sake?

to not have sex is a natural way to avoid pregnancy
to wear a condom is unnatural, it is like the sin of sodomy, a sin agianst God and nature

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

to not have sex is a natural way to avoid pregnancy

Natural...

Could you list for me just 5 species of mammals that count days and purposely reschedule sex to times of infertility? Thanks! IF you can do so, I'll yeild the "natural" point - although that's entirely unrelated to being good (tornados are natural, too).


When I was Catholic, it was STRESSED (more than ANYTHING else) to all teens and youth that "abstinence" = NO sex. Ever. Of any nature, kind, type. One "abstained" when one did not have sex, typically - a virgin (this included oral sex and sometimes masturbation). It's not been THAT many years since I left Catholicism but SO much seems to have changed since I left; it seems "abstinence" NOW means, "to refrain from sex 2 or 3 days per month or 2 or 3 hours per day," so that one is abstaining if they have sex 60 times a month - but not during certain hours or days; one is a virgin if they have sex 60 times a month (what does THAT mean for the Virgin Mary?). I can't keep up with all the changes in Catholicism.... But, I'm MORE in agreement with the Catholic Church I left than all these new ideas.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Umm why is it that a man that wears a condom is doing it for selfish reasons and the one who abstains is doing it for health reasons. What if Dick wore a condom during the fertile times to protect His wife for Gods sake?

Good questions!


Yeah, if Bob has good intentions when using a suction machine to kill an unborn baby - then it's moral (although killing is evil). But if Jim has bad intentions when using a suction machine to kill an unborn baby - that's bad. Abortion is not the point (it's both good AND bad, it seems). Odd, this "means justifies the end" morality. I guess those terrorists flying plains into the World Trade Towers were saints - after all, they MEANT well....





.

 

[D'Ann]

Hi CJ,

Yeah, I have a new key board... I can type 'J' now.

That being said, it's redundant for Catholics to keep saying the same thing and you saying the same thing that you think Catholics are saying.

The bottom line is that Catholic dogma which has been proven with resource links.. Catholic dogma is against any kind of birth control. They don't want Catholics to even practice NFP even... but out of mercy and compassion, they have given permission to a few couples due to their severe health issues to practice NFP... NOT to avoid pregnancy or to practice birth control, but as a medicine... to keep the woman healthy or to prevent her death.

A few Catholics may practice NFP for the wrong reasons and that is something that they are doing against Church dogma.

What kind of Christian religion would any religion be if they didn't have a stipulation based on the well-being of a few people in their faith?

You seem to think that it has to be ALL black or ALL white... and in real life, very little is ever black and white.

I will not be posting in this thread anymore. It would be redundant of me to do so. You believe what you want, and being a Catholic and knowing my own faith... and her dogmas.. I'll always believe what the truth is about the Catholic Church and her strength and courage to not allow any kind of birth control. They do not encourage their members to use NFP nor any kind of birth control. The few that have permission to use NFP... do so due to their severe health issues. They are required by Church dogma to be open to pro-creation and giving life always.

It's sad that anyone can misconstrue this sound and right dogma on pro-creation.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Have a nice day.

God bless,

Debbie

 

[Kristos]

to not have sex is a natural way to avoid pregnancy
to wear a condom is unnatural, it is like the sin of sodomy, a sin agianst God and nature

It's difficult to determine what is natural since we only know what is unnatural (in this fallen world). Perhaps sex as we know it is unnatural.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hi CJ,
Catholic dogma is against any kind of birth control.

Thank you for re-entering the discussion, you give unique perspective....


Debbie, it's called "FAMILY PLANNING" by the RCC itself. WHAT, exactly, is being planned? It's not producing or not producing husbands or wives or marriages, it's entirely about producing or not producing children via conception and births. Is that correct? By definition, then, the ONLY possiblity is that it's Birth Control. Isn't that correct? IF so, why not say it is what it is?


IF nothing is being planned, if nothing is being controlled, then there's nothing to pay any attention to, nothing to discuss, no threads on it are possible. No classes are needed, no methods need to be taught, no counting, no calendars, no regard. The RCC itself calls it "FAMILY (children, conception, birth) PLANNING." Isn't this so?

I would suspect if the intent is not to control in any regard concerning conception, then couples would be told to "do what comes naturally" and let GOD do whatever God does in this regard (and one of my Catholic teachers told me that largely WAS the teaching before the sexual revolution; and if one (for whatever sound reason) intented no children, then they should have no sex, "No kids? No sex!" - but that was 50+ years ago). The goal is PLANNING births (not allowing something uncontrolled to happen), is it not?

They don't want Catholics to even practice NFP even...

My sister was REQUIRED to take a class in it. Odd way to discourage it, don't you think?

It was taught right there at the Parish Center. It was all presented as the "alternative to 'the pill,' condoms, etc." While I understand it DID include a brief note that this actually COULD be used for couples having problems conceiving, the entire focus was on why the "pill" is bad and why Catholic Family Planning is a better way to avoid pregnancy (or at least CONTROL births).

NOT to avoid pregnancy

1. I invite you to read all the posts in this thread - by Catholics and Orthodox. Read them; read them all.

2. Why then is the whole point to have sex during infertile times and not in fertile times? OF COURSE, the RCC knows that this has only one possible purpose and result. Surely, it does!

They are required by Church dogma to be open to pro-creation and giving life always.

... as one normally is that uses a condom; using that during the month of June, 2011 does NOT mandate that ergo they are against pregnancy.

Again, CERTAINLY the RCC knows that purposely using methods taught by the RCC to AVOID sex during fertile times has one result. That is, by definition, contraceptive. I find it impossible, logically, to conclude otherwise. Could you explain?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[patricius79]

Your "apologetic" is like the abortionist saying, "but the INTENTION was good." Dead baby nonetheless....
And in your case, the INTENTION was actually identical!
.
.

no. both the intention and the means (act) must not be intrinsically wrong.

it is not intrinsically wrong to try to avoid pregnancy for a serious reason like serious financial problems

it is not intrinsically wrong to abstain from sex during the fertile period

 

[Rhamiel]

Natural...

Could you list for me just 5 species of mammals that count days and purposely reschedule sex to times of infertility? Thanks! IF you can do so, I'll yeild the "natural" point - although that's entirely unrelated to being good (tornados are natural, too).


When I was Catholic, it was STRESSED (more than ANYTHING else) to all teens and youth that "abstinence" = NO sex. Ever. Of any nature, kind, type. One "abstained" when one did not have sex, typically - a virgin (this included oral sex and sometimes masturbation). It's not been THAT many years since I left Catholicism but SO much seems to have changed since I left; it seems "abstinence" NOW means, "to refrain from sex 2 or 3 days per month or 2 or 3 hours per day," so that one is abstaining if they have sex 60 times a month - but not during certain hours or days; one is a virgin if they have sex 60 times a month (what does THAT mean for the Virgin Mary?). I can't keep up with all the changes in Catholicism.... But, I'm MORE in agreement with the Catholic Church I left than all these new ideas.




.

the fact that we can use our minds to better understand when women are fertile and when they are not does not make it less natural
I was using the term as in line with natural law, not something that animals do

yes, abstinence does mean no sex
but married couples can have sex
that does not mean they have to go at it like rabbits every waking moment of the day

you were confirmed in the Catholic Church?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

yes, abstinence does mean no sex

Thus, Catholic Family Planning/Birth Control is unrelated to abstinence. As has been STRESSED here by Catholics, in Catholic Family Planning/Birth Control, couples may have LOTS of sex, more than otherwise, more than the LDS couple next door with 28 kids - it's just that it will teach the couple how to do this contraceptively - to plan, to control, to counter conception.

that does not mean they have to go at it like rabbits every waking moment of the day

Well, NATURAL sex probably would be, lol....

But the RCC (since the sexual revolution anyway) that couples may control births, prevent pregnancy, and counter conception by doing, practicing, implementing a method it teaches at the parish (sometimes required); to counter conception (which is obviously makes it contraceptive). It's not NO sex, it's sex done CONTRACEPTIVELY. The means and the end and the intent is contraceptive.



I'm not saying it's good or bad, only that it is what it is.



.

 

[Thekla]

Reading is, per the reasoning used here, not a natural act.
Therefore suspect ...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thus, Catholic Family Planning/Birth Control is unrelated to abstinence. As has been STRESSED here by Catholics, in Catholic Family Planning/Birth Control, couples may have LOTS of sex, more than otherwise, more than the LDS couple next door with 28 kids - it's just that it will teach the couple how to do this contraceptively - to plan, to control, to counter conception.


But the RCC (since the sexual revolution anyway) that couples may control births, prevent pregnancy, and counter conception by doing, practicing, implementing a method it teaches at the parish (sometimes required); to counter conception (which is obviously makes it contraceptive). It's not NO sex, it's sex done CONTRACEPTIVELY. The means and the end and the intent is contraceptive.



I'm not saying it's good or bad, only that it is what it is.


.

Reading is, per the reasoning used here, not a natural act. Therefore suspect ...

It would be reading, however. Good or bad.








.

 

[patricius79]

Reading is, per the reasoning used here, not a natural act.
.

why? cf. Rom 2:26,27

just a couple of notes:

it is not intrinsically wrong for a married person to try to avoid pregnancy

or to wish to avoid excessive health problems or financial problems or similar

or to abstain from sex during the fertile period

or to intend to love spouse and glorify God through self-control

or to have sex during the infertile period which God gave

the Christian Church does teach that it is instrinsically wrong to have sex with a condom or to use the Pill in order to have sex without giving oneself fully

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

it is not intrinsically wrong for a married person to try to avoid pregnancy

To quote a few earlier posts by other posters, "You Catholics need to huddle on this - and make up your mind!")


Um, having sex CONTRACEPTIVELY is contraceptive sex.


SOME DAY, you may think about that....

or to abstain from sex during the fertile period

Again, THERE IS NO ABSTINENCE in this post-sexual revolution RCC methodology; as you earlier stress: couples may have LOTSA sex, abundant sex, more than otherwise, more than the LDS couple next door with 28 kids. It's not "No kids? No sex!" It's entirely about having sex CONTRACEPTIVELY, and the RCC will teach you how to do it. It may even require you learn such contraception (as it did my sister).

to have sex during the infertile period

The RCC likely knows that if all sex is directed to such periods, that "renders procreation impossible." It declares that to be "evil." You seem to be saying it's also "moral" (things seem to be both "evil" and "moral" in modern Catholicism).




.

 

[Thekla]

It would be reading, however. Good or bad.
.

Wouldn't it be advisable therefore to give up reading ? Or abstract language for that matter ? Or is abstract language natural to the human ?

 

[Rhamiel]

Reading is, per the reasoning used here, not a natural act.
Therefore suspect ...

i did not mean that reading was agianst the natural order of things...
or was this not addressed to me?

 

[sunlover1]

it is not intrinsically wrong to abstain from sex during the fertile period

I don't think so either but Paul does...
Like I said earlier:

It says not to defraud EXCEPT for prayer and fasting:

KJV with Strong's
Defraud ye not one the other except __ it be with consent for a time that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer
and come together __ again that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency

​

What's kind of silly is that you're saying that you DO defraud each
other during fertile days (which Scripture forbids) and then you
say condoms are evil (Which Scripture is totally silent about)

Leaves me scratching my head ...

 

[Thekla]

i did not mean that reading was agianst the natural order of things...
or was this not addressed to me?

To no-one in particular, as I'll bow out (not really involved in this debate). It just seemed odd to equate what is "natural" to humans with what is "natural" to animals. Humans are not animals (though we do unfortunately have a tendency to act that way ). We are a separate creation.

 

[patricius79]

To quote a few earlier posts by other posters, "You Catholics need to huddle on this - and make up your mind!")


Um, having sex CONTRACEPTIVELY is contraceptive sex.


SOME DAY, you may think about that....


.

again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a married person trying to avoid pregnancy

the issue is whether the acts involved with this intention are intrinsically wrong

the Christian Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically wrong, but that planning, abstaining during the fertile period, and having sex during the infertile period are NOT intrinsically wrong

of course one's intention with any act or omission must be good

contraceptives are associated with vastly higher rates of divorce, and with adultery, fornication, HIV, etc

NFP is associated with strong marriages and an extremely low divorce rate

 

[MamaZ]

to not have sex is a natural way to avoid pregnancy
to wear a condom is unnatural, it is like the sin of sodomy, a sin agianst God and nature

Well with the married how is not having sex natural? For with a married couple it is a natural thing to have total intimacy isn't it?