Contraception

[JacktheCatholic]

WHY would you "battle " the desire for your spouse?
God is the author of that desire,
if not for it, the human race ends...

Lust is not from God but part of the Fallen Nature that we inherited from Adam and Eve. When we make use of the conjugal act it should involve God as well and this means that we obey him and be open to life with God as the author and not man proclaiming himself master of his body and his wife's body and life itself.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That is funny... I see the RCC teaching to use chastity

Teachings change in Catholicism WAY too fast for me to keep up with.When I was there (just a FEW years ago), "abstinence" = no sex, ever, of any nature or kind - typically including oral sex, masturbative, anal - of any nature, EVER. "Virgin" = one who has never had sex - ever, of any nature. "Chaste" meant = no sex ever, of any kind. Oh, how my Catholic youth leaders, the Catholic high school teachers MUST be so very confused! Now, "Abstinence" = to not have sex one hour per say, or perhaps 4 days a month - but perhaps 300 times a year! "Virgin" = one who doesn't have sex a few days a month but more than makes up for it the other days of the month. "Chaste" = one who has lots of great sex, just not 3-4 days a month. Frankly, Jack, I just can't keep up with all the redefinitions, all the changes. The old Catholicism made a LOT more sense to ME.

Catholic Family Planning, Catholic Birth Control has NOTHING to do with abstinence or virginity or chastity (old definitions - 4 years ago). It has to do with methods employed, implemented, done so as to have all the sex desired, lots of great sex, but contraceptively, contraceptive sex - sex done with one purpose, goal, intent and design: to not conceive, to be contraceptive.

the RCC supports or encourages contraception.

It is the only religious institution of any world religion that not only promotes it - but actually teaches methods of birth control in classes taught directly by them at their locations. My sister was REQUIRED to take the class.


I'm not saying that's good or bad (frankly, I don't know) - I'm only noting that it is what it is.





.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think you're really missing my point. The inability or refusal to practice self-control is part of the Fall; in order to engage in true and deepening relationship one must be able to practice self control, self-denial.

Acting on mutual desire and also practicing self denial are aspects of the marital relationship. It seems the argument is that using artificial birth control allows ones desires to reign (is anti-relational at its core), whereas natural contraception may be aimed at not having offspring but is still pro-relationship.

I get the distinct impression that the term "contraception" has been bastardized.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think you're really missing my point. The inability or refusal to practice self-control is part of the Fall; in order to engage in true and deepening relationship one must be able to practice self control, self-denial.

Yes, it IS unnatural to have sex unnaturally.


Catholic Birth Control, perhaps, includes "self control." So does putting on a condom, taking a pill, waiting until bedtime, taking a shower, locking the door....

But Catholic Birth Control is not about not having sex - as have several Catholics in this thread have stated, Catholics in this method may have LOTS of sex, great sex. No "abstinence." No "virginity." No "chastity." SEX! But unnnatural sex, sex done contraceptively. The means and ends of not conceiving, not births, not extending the family. The intent, goal, desire, design is contraceptive: having sex contraceptively. Yes - I agree, unnaturally but that's not the point, contraceptively - that's the point.


.

 

[patricius79]

Lust is not from God but part of the Fallen Nature that we inherited from Adam and Eve. When we make use of the conjugal act it should involve God as well and this means that we obey him and be open to life with God as the author and not man proclaiming himself master of his body and his wife's body and life itself.

seems like the Holy Spirit is speaking through you here

David MacDonald writes:


the 1968 document "Humane Vitae," everybody felt like a bomb hit society. The Catholic Church was reaffirming its stance on contraception. In Section 6, Pope Paul VI makes several predictions. He said we would see:

1. Lowering of morality,
2. Disregard for physical and emotional well being of women by men,
3. Government would use contraception for coercive purposes,
4. Women would begin to treat their bodies as if they are machines

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/contraception.htm#Sex

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Teachings change in Catholicism WAY too fast for me to keep up with.When I was there (just a FEW years ago), "abstinence" = no sex, ever, of any nature or kind - typically including oral sex, masturbative, anal - of any nature, EVER. "Virgin" = one who has never had sex - ever, of any nature. "Chaste" meant = no sex ever, of any kind. Oh, how my Catholic youth leaders, the Catholic high school teachers MUST be so very confused! Now, "Abstinence" = to not have sex one hour per say, or perhaps 4 days a month - but perhaps 300 times a year! "Virgin" = one who doesn't have sex a few days a month but more than makes up for it the other days of the month. "Chaste" = one who has lots of great sex, just not 3-4 days a month. Frankly, Jack, I just can't keep up with all the redefinitions, all the changes. The old Catholicism made a LOT more sense to ME.

Four years? This tells me that your teachers, if this is what they taught (maybe you did not understand?), were not teaching what the RCC has taught since... forever. The writings I read like the CCC and Apostolic Letters are older than four years and draw from previous Councils and scripture and ECFs. But this is not a surprise. As I stated, I know a director of education that intentionally taught falsely so it is probably not your fault.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I get the distinct impression that the term "contraception" has been bastardized.

Jack, I know that you think you know what your church teaches and practices. That is hardly the OP here. What is being discussed is whether or not the Catholic teaching of Natural Family Planning is intended to instruct couples in ways of countering natural conception so that children are not conceived.

I strongly recommend that you read through the thread to understand what has been said. At this point, you are not contributing to the discussion, but simply coming in with ideas that have already been discussed. Even you compatriot, Patricius, has admitted that the Catholic Church permits contraception (of a "natural" sort) for "serious" reasons.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Teachings change in Catholicism WAY too fast for me to keep up with.When I was there (just a FEW years ago), "abstinence" = no sex, ever, of any nature or kind - typically including oral sex, masturbative, anal - of any nature, EVER. "Virgin" = one who has never had sex - ever, of any nature. "Chaste" meant = no sex ever, of any kind.


.

Four years? This tells me that your teachers, if this is what they taught (maybe you did not understand?), were not teaching what the RCC has taught since... forever.

Could be.... Perhaps the historic position is that "abstinence" = have LOTS of sex! Perhaps the historic position of Catholicism is that "chastity" = have LOTS of sex! Perhaps the historic position of Catholicism is that "virgintiy" = one who has had LOTS and LOTS of sex! (here I always thought the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was that She had no sex - NOW I understand what I got wrong about that!!!!!"





.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yes, it IS unnatural to have sex unnaturally.


Catholic Birth Control, perhaps, includes "self control." So does putting on a condom, taking a pill, waiting until bedtime, taking a shower, locking the door....

But Catholic Birth Control is not about not having sex - as have several Catholics in this thread have stated, Catholics in this method may have LOTS of sex, great sex. No "abstinence." No "virginity." No "chastity." SEX! But unnnatural sex, sex done contraceptively. The means and ends of not conceiving, not births, not extending the family. The intent, goal, desire, design is contraceptive: having sex contraceptively. Yes - I agree, unnaturally but that's not the point, contraceptively - that's the point.


.

I will not judge those in this thread and so I will not add to your remarks regarding those in this thread.

I want only to state that it is not me or other Catholics at this forum that decide on doctrine and Christian discipline in the RCC, it is the Pope and Magisterium. I realize that Protestant Churches have a different political structure where they can decide on things but for a Catholic it is as the RCC states and not as we wish it to be or how we live our life.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

seems like the Holy Spirit is speaking through you here

David MacDonald writes:


the 1968 document "Humane Vitae," everybody felt like a bomb hit society. The Catholic Church was reaffirming its stance on contraception. In Section 6, Pope Paul VI makes several predictions. He said we would see:

1. Lowering of morality,
2. Disregard for physical and emotional well being of women by men,
3. Government would use contraception for coercive purposes,
4. Women would begin to treat their bodies as if they are machines

Contraception by David MacDonald

Excellent quote.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack, I know that you think you know what your church teaches and practices. That is hardly the OP here. What is being discussed is whether or not the Catholic teaching of Natural Family Planning is intended to instruct couples in ways of countering natural conception so that children are not conceived.

I strongly recommend that you read through the thread to understand what has been said. At this point, you are not contributing to the discussion, but simply coming in with ideas that have already been discussed. Even you compatriot, Patricius, has admitted that the Catholic Church permits contraception (of a "natural" sort) for "serious" reasons.

Have we been using the CCC and Apostolic Letters for the RCC? If so, then that can be used as he teaching of the CCC. But if I write my own words as to what I think it means then I can err or I may not use the correct language. Does that make sense?

 

[sunlover1]

Not all desire is good, post fall.

What if my spouse is feeling ill ?
What if my spouse is tired ?
What if it isn't my spouse who awoke my desire ?

And I did not say "desire for your spouse", but desire.

The threads not at all about these circumstances.
My adivice is to work that out with God.
He said doln't deny your spouse what they have
a right to and I am betting that includes the "headache"
Check out dear Leah bless her heart..

Lust is not from God but part of the Fallen Nature that we inherited from Adam and Eve. When we make use of the conjugal act it should involve God as well and this means that we obey him and be open to life with God as the author and not man proclaiming himself master of his body and his wife's body and life itself.

I didn't say lust but the bible's answer to lust is marriage:

But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry.
It's better to marry than to burn with lust.

..

 

[MamaZ]

Lust is not from God but part of the Fallen Nature that we inherited from Adam and Eve. When we make use of the conjugal act it should involve God as well and this means that we obey him and be open to life with God as the author and not man proclaiming himself master of his body and his wife's body and life itself.

I don't see sexual desire for your spouse as lust. Sex was given for the husband and wife for their pleasure with each other. We should be giving thanks for this wonderful gift between a married couple.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I didn't say lust but the bible's answer to lust is marriage:

But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry.
It's better to marry than to burn with lust.

..

Thanks. The bible calls it lust.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Have we been using the CCC and Apostolic Letters for the RCC? If so, then that can be used as he teaching of the CCC. But if I write my own words as to what I think it means then I can err or I may not use the correct language. Does that make sense?

Yes, it makes perfect sense (at least to myself). I much prefer both sources as being accurate in addressing Catholic doctrine.

In this case the thread has focused on an apparent (at least to non-Catholics) contradiction, which hinges upon the definition of contraception.

Although I still strongly advise you to read through the thread, I will make a brief summary for you. CaliforniaJosiah has been quite insistent that contraception is anything which averts the conception of a human being. This ranges from those things condemned by the Catholic Church to "Natural Family Planning." His assertion is that NFP is one of many means to avoid, or counter, the conception of a human being. Thus, he has maintained that the Catholic Church selectively condemns some means of contraception while promoting others considered to be natural.

CJ, please correct me if I have misrepresented your views. Thank you.

 

[sunlover1]

Thanks. The bible calls it lust.

God calls desire for your spouse lust?
I think we're having a huge communication
problem on this thread.. ??

 

[Thekla]

The threads not at all about these circumstances.
My adivice is to work that out with God.
He said doln't deny your spouse what they have
a right to and I am betting that includes the "headache"
Check out dear Leah bless her heart..

I think you've missed my point

(God can create children out of stones ...)

I am pointing out that objectively speaking there is a true relational - deep relational - value to the RC position. Whether or not one agrees with the stated RC position on the matter, there is indeed something of value here. And, to be honest, that value is not present in the use of artificial methods of contraception.

Peter states that through desire corruption came into the world, ie I am describing the Scriptural concept of desire (passions).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

(God can create children out of stones ...)

I suppose. And IF Catholic Birth Control was "have no sex - but get stones" I'd see your point. It's not. It's all about behaving in unnatural ways so as to have LOTS of great sex - but do so contraceptively, so as to be unlikely to conceive.

It has nothing to do with a sexless marriage, it has nothing to do with "lust", it has to do with having sex contraceptively. The RCC will teach you how to do it.






.

 

[Thekla]

I suppose. And IF Catholic Birth Control was "have no sex - but get stones" I'd see your point. It's not. It's all about behaving in unnatural ways so as to have LOTS of great sex - but do so contraceptively, so as to be unlikely to conceive.

It has nothing to do with a sexless marriage, it has nothing to do with "lust", it has to do with having sex contraceptively. The RCC will teach you how to do it.

Midwives teach it, too.

But again, I do think you've indeed missed my point; as I've repeatedly failed to successfully iterate my point, I guess I'll call it a wash. Sorry !

 

[sunlover1]

I think you've missed my point

(God can create children out of stones ...)

I am pointing out that objectively speaking there is a true relational - deep relational - value to the RC position. Whether or not one agrees with the stated RC position on the matter, there is indeed something of value here. And, to be honest, that value is not present in the use of artificial methods of contraception.

Peter states that through desire corruption came into the world, ie I am describing the Scriptural concept of desire (passions).

God can create children however He chooses and He chose this way
for more than one reason..
TBH, I disagree with their idea of "of value".
IMO it's nothing less than control, guilt and heavy yokes.
Which I myself was putting myself under for years...
having been raised as RCC.

God says have at it, replenish the earth, dont deny your
spouse (wonder why He had to add that, who'da thunk
anyone would say "no" to it?) God's ways and mans
ideas of God's ways are often at odds.
I'll leave the headaches and lack of desire, etc.. to the couples
to work out with God. I don't want to go beyond what
is written.

We see things very differently .. but since
we're not a couple, it shouldn't pose a problem.