Contraception

[bbbbbbb]

Morals are an objective reality, not an issue of 'well this seems wrong and this seems right to me.' The bible does not say the Holy Spirit will 'lead you in the right direction for yourself', as if to say you will feel a vague burning in the bosom or have a hunch that something is right or wrong. That is called 'conscience', and it is our duty as humans to form our conscience by using logic and rational thinking to understand what is right and wrong.

The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth through the Church to this day, just like in the first century when He inspired the Apostles to write Scripture.

And it's not about fear as much as it is about expressing our gratitude to God by forming our conscience to aid us in doing his will.

I am a firm believer in objective, absolute truth. When it comes to the issue at hand there appears to be two standards in play by the Catholic church - one which condemns particular means of inhibiting and preventing conception and one which condones other means of inhibiting ahd preventing conception. I fail to understand the objective rationale which is used to condem one and commend the other, given the fact that both have the same end in view.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am a firm believer in objective, absolute truth. When it comes to the issue at hand there appears to be two standards in play by the Catholic church - one which condemns particular means of inhibiting and preventing conception and one which condones other means of inhibiting ahd preventing conception. I fail to understand the objective rationale which is used to condem one and commend the other, given the fact that both have the same end in view.

SOMEHOW, in modern, post-sexual revolution Catholicism, contraceptive sex is evil AND pious, it is to be condemned AND passionately promoted and taught. Things done to have sex but render procreation unlikely is satanic and evil and the root of all immorality today AND is taught in classes taught at their own parish center. When the MEANS and END is contraceptive - that's 'evil' but when the MEANS and END is contraceptive - that's so wonderful that couples must be taught such by the church itself.

Go figure.




.

 

[bbbbbbb]

SOMEHOW, in modern, post-sexual revolution Catholicism, contraceptive sex is evil AND pious, it is to be condemned AND passionately promoted and taught. Things done to have sex but render procreation unlikely is satanic and evil and the root of all immorality today AND is taught in classes taught at their own parish center. When the MEANS and END is contraceptive - that's 'evil' but when the MEANS and END is contraceptive - that's so wonderful that couples must be taught such by the church itself.

Go figure.

Yeah.

 

[sunlover1]

I am a firm believer in objective, absolute truth. When it comes to the issue at hand there appears to be two standards in play by the Catholic church - one which condemns particular means of inhibiting and preventing conception and one which condones other means of inhibiting ahd preventing conception. I fail to understand the objective rationale which is used to condem one and commend the other, given the fact that both have the same end in view.

I too fail to understand. (why is one evil and one is holy)

But I blindly believed as I had been taught as a child, and so was always
very much against contraception...
What's odd is that I had a larger family than any one of my RCC relatives.
So the whole thing gets more and more illogical the closer I look at it.

IMO

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So the whole thing gets more and more illogical the closer I look at it.

Me, too





.

 

[Rhamiel]

Me, too





.

why does this bother you so much
you allready said that you do not have a POV on contraception
you are not Catholic
why is this such a thing with you?

 

[cubinity]

why does this bother you so much
you allready said that you do not have a POV on contraception
you are not Catholic
why is this such a thing with you?

I can't answer for him, but I call tell you why it bothers me.

I really love the truth. When someone uses power to dictate truth, I feel as though they are snatching truth from the weaker to make themselves even stronger.

So, in my frustration of such injustice, and my passion for truth, I press in to either secure some truth or find more of it and correct some of my own misconceptions along the way.

As people are discovering because of this dialogue, things have been believed on trust, bu those things are not as trustworthy as they seemed before we began discussing them.

 

[ivebeenshown]

SOMEHOW, in modern, post-sexual revolution Catholicism, contraceptive sex is evil AND pious, it is to be condemned AND passionately promoted and taught.

...an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.

Having sex during an infertile period does not impair the capacity of the sexual act to transmit life, because it is GOD who designed woman to have that cycle.

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. 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. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968

'Contraceptive' is 'obstructing the natural development of the genitive process', not simply 'avoiding conception.' IF you use contraceptive to mean 'avoiding conception', then yes, there appears to be a contradiction. But if you read the connotations of the Catechism and Paul's letter, 'contraceptive' is more specific than just 'avoiding pregnancy.'

It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction."

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

...an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.

... such as practicing, employing, implementing and doing the new Catholic Birth Control Method. The MEANS of such is to "frustrate procreation" and the END of which is to "frustrate procreation" all without in any sense limiting sexual activity: more sex, just contraceptive sex.

Having sex during an infertile period does not impair the capacity of the sexual act to transmit life

I think the RCC knows (I honestly do) that redirecting sex away from fertile periods to infertile ones WITH THE SOLE design, intent, goal and purpose of frustrating procreation is frustrating procreation. Yes, it does impair it. And that's the whole enchilada of Catholic Birth Control Methodology.

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.

And as has been stressed by Catholics, when the END is contraceptive and the MEANS are contraceptive - that's contraceptive sex and is "evil." Yes, you too are defending it as good, moral and acceptable. The RCC teaches couples how to do it.




.

 

[cubinity]

yep

 

[ivebeenshown]

I think the RCC knows (I honestly do) that redirecting sex away from fertile periods to infertile ones WITH THE SOLE design, intent, goal and purpose of frustrating procreation is frustrating procreation. Yes, it does impair it. And that's the whole enchilada of Catholic Birth Control Methodology.

Yeah, I know you want to be right, but that's not going to happen by altering words and putting words into the mouth of others. I didn't say 'frustrating procreation', and what I cited did not say 'frustrating procreation.' It said 'frustrates His design'.

God designed the woman with the infertile period, did he not? How does having sex with a woman during that infertile period frustrate his design?

And as has been stressed by Catholics, when the END is contraceptive and the MEANS are contraceptive - that's contraceptive sex and is "evil." Yes, you too are defending it as good, moral and acceptable. The RCC teaches couples how to do it

The Catechism refers to 'contraception' as ONE KIND of birth control, among many. Now, let's see, what are the chances that you will ignore this?

 

[sempervirens]

You won't understand the catholic church's teaching (not suprising since most Catholics don't seem to understand it either) until you distinguish birth control (ie birth regulation - in a family planning sense) from contraception. And to do that you need to understand that birth control/NFP may or may not be practiced with a contraceptive mindset.

What's a contraceptive mindset? just need to ask as a couple practicing NFP what would their reaction be if (although the chances are lessened) they find themselves pregnant.

If they say dang this pregnancy is a mistake that is a contraceptive mindset.

If they say well duh, we're having sex and that is a natural consequence of having sex and we embrace that consequence (having entered into the act fully aware of the awesome consequences that may result, open to possibility of life) that is a cooperative mindset.

Actions have meaning. And the catholic church has a sacramental view that is hard at times to understand, but the nuptial act is high in the list of sacredness. Yes, real sex is sacred. our society has it's own taste of the apple thinking we can divorce the nuptial act from its Genesis/generative meaning. In our fallen state we have trouble seeing the difference in action between sex with or without a condom, or with or without a mental openness to the potential of being a cocreator in God's plan for the cosmos. But there is. If the question is really well prove it well thats a bit like asking prove love exists.

 

[cubinity]

I can't get too graphic here. Simply put, NFP is the only means of birth control I know of that doesn't alter God's design. He designed man's seed to go to one place and one place only, and you know the place I am talking about. He didn't design pills and shots to alter woman's fertility, or pills and devices to abort a conception that already happened. He didn't design ovarian tubes to be blockaded or man's jewels to be removed or 'disconnected'.

He did design woman with a cycle.

God designed the woman with the infertile period, did he not? How does having sex with a woman during that infertile period frustrate his design?

The Catechism refers to 'contraception' as ONE KIND of birth control, among many. Now, let's see, what are the chances that you will ignore this?

With the acceptance of placing seed in the "one place only" that "God designed" when "having sex with a woman during that infertile period" precisely with the intention of exploiting "God's design" in order to perform "a means of birth control," and the rejection of coitus interruptus done with the exact same intention, essentially nothing has been said of the objective morality of avoiding conception, but have simply defined the destination of seed (not the intentions of the planter) as either moral or immoral, and categorized those deemed immoral as "contraception."

In other words, you approve of the intention of avoiding conception, but are only assessing the morality of the means, not the end, and limiting the scope of "contraception'' to only apply to those means condemned as immoral.

Would you say that is correct of your position, or incorrect? Why?

 

[cubinity]

Hey all couple years since I posted this thread got me back. Made it through about 50 pages and arguments keep going in circles - mainly because there is no agreement on terms.

You won't understand the catholic church's teaching (not suprising since most Catholics don't seem to understand it either) until you distinguish birth control (ie birth regulation - in a family planning sense) from contraception. And to do that you need to understand that birth control/NFP may or may not be practiced with a contraceptive mindset.

What's a contraceptive mindset? just need to ask be what would their reaction be if although the chances are lessened they find themselves pregnant.

If they say dang this pregnancy is a mistake that is a contraceptive mindset.

If they say well duh, we're having sex and that is a natural consequence of having sex and we embrace that consequence (having entered into the act fully aware of the awesome consequences that may result, open to possibility of being a cocreator in God's cosmic plan) that is a cooperative mindset.

Actions have meaning. our society has it's own taste of the apple thinking we can divorce the nuptial act from its Genesis/generative meaning.

Welcome back!

The part about this that I don't agree with is that I don't want to produce children that are a consequence, but a desired creation.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In other words, you approve of the intention of avoiding conception, but are only assessing the morality of the means, not the end, and limiting the scope of "contraception'' to only apply to those means condemned as immoral.

Thanks. Well said.


Yes, there is a consistent affirmation that when there IS sex ("more than otherwise" it's been stressed repeatedly) then there is sex. And when the END, goal, purpose, design, objective, intent is contraceptive then it's contraceptive. And when a MEANS is employed, implemented, performed, done so as to permit this abundance of sex that is contraceptive, that makes the MEANS contraceptive. I see no other possible conclusion other than this makes all this contraceptive - in purpose and in performance, in MEANS and in END.


Yes, we have seen a plethora of posts both supporting and condemning this - both in very bold terms, both with authoritative quotes from Catholic sources to support both the condemnation ("evil") of this AND the affirmation of it ("pious") - as well as the RC denomination's passionate embrace of birth control and this method of contraceptive sex.


Some have added that all this contraceptive sex - with the MEANS and END of being contraceptive - is bad unless the tool used to achieve it is the RCC's current approved one. It changes nothing, it still is contraceptive sex, it still has the MEANS and END of being contraceptive (well, typically - not always). It's still about having sex but contraceptively. If that is what is condemned (and it is), then it is what is condemned (regardless of the technique). Yes - I agree, a condom "frustrates" procreation and typically (not always) used to "render procreation unlikely" (to quote the RCC) but then NFP "frustrates" procreation and typically (not always) is used to "render procreation unlikely" (to quote the RCC). The means and end are indentical, then thing condemned applies in both cases, as to both means and end. I agree that condoms are not used typically in nature (I know of no chimps for example that consistently use condoms) but then redirecting sex to infertile times so as to avoid conception is not found in nature either. The ENTIRE IDEA here is to DO something to keep egg and sperm from that meeting, lol.


Odd, this "the means justifies the end" sub point. Rather like saying, "abortion is evil - but if you use one technique to do it, say cut the baby in pieces - that technique is good, but abortion is evil." It just ADDS to the seeming "double talk" and confusion over this, this whole "contraceptive sex is evil - don't do it! Contraceptive sex is pious - we'll show you how to do it!" situation that seems to exist in modern Catholicism.







.

 

[sunlover1]

I can't answer for him, but I call tell you why it bothers me.

I really love the truth. When someone uses power to dictate truth, I feel as though they are snatching truth from the weaker to make themselves even stronger.

So, in my frustration of such injustice, and my passion for truth, I press in to either secure some truth or find more of it and correct some of my own misconceptions along the way.

As people are discovering because of this dialogue, things have been believed on trust, bu those things are not as trustworthy as they seemed before we began discussing them.

This is the same reason I've posted.
Love of and quest for .. truth.
Question everything lol.

 

[patricius79]

Originally Posted by cubinity

I can't answer for him, but I call tell you why it bothers me.

I really love the truth. When someone uses power to dictate truth, I feel as though they are snatching truth from the weaker to make themselves even stronger.

So, in my frustration of such injustice, and my passion for truth, I press in to either secure some truth or find more of it and correct some of my own misconceptions along the way.

As people are discovering because of this dialogue, things have been believed on trust, bu those things are not as trustworthy as they seemed before we began discussing them.
​

I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from with this. I would agree that the doctrines of Christianity from the Trinity to the N.T. Canon to the Incarnation to the Economony of Salvation to the Hypostatic Union etc etc all involve intellectual difficulties

I think the Protestant traditions involve much greater intellectual difficulty

here are some of the questions I have about the current Protestant oral traditions on contraception as opposed to the reformed oral traditions.

clearly contraception is a serious matter. the reformers condemned it. but the reformation was a moral and ecclesiological nightmare in terms of immorality and division. how can we trust the private judgment oral tradition/ principle that resulted from the reformation and which is the premise of the arguements being made for contraception?

often I've seen pro-contraceptive debators not only say that means are not a moral issue but that lust in marriage is fine.

but Paul writes:

19 14 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, 21 occasions of envy, 15 drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ (Jesus) have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires.

also, all of the arguments I've ever seen in favor of contrraception not only conflict with the early Church's teaching as in Augustine e.g. but violate the principle of Sola Scriptura in that they involve sentences not shown to be deduced from Scripture

can anyone show otherwise?

moreover the oral traditions of the current protestant groups conflict so thoroughly with the early Church's fundamental position as to contraception and the other points of dispute

moreover there is no historical source of teh N.T. Canon besides the Tradition of the Catholic Church and Succession of such. yet this Church teaches dogmatically likewise that contraception is seriously immoral. thus the Protestant oral traditions seem to require a denial of history and a fundamental contradiction in believing that Christianity is a historical reality and the implicition that history doesn't matter

lastly, the claims of the Catholic Church seem validated by the sociological evidence given the connecct of contraception with divorce e.g. and the connection of NFP with non-divorce and marital happiness, do they not?

Peace to all who love the Truth.

 

[cubinity]

clearly contraception is a serious matter. the reformers condemned it. but the reformation was a moral and ecclesiological nightmare in terms of immorality and division. how can we trust the private judgment oral tradition/ principle that resulted from the reformation and which is the premise of the arguements being made for contraception?

When Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher pulled back their governments' control of market, they created three or four nightmarish years for both economies. However, at the end of that, the free market began to take over, and the goodness of their goal was realized. So, it would not be wise for us to judge the legitimacy of the free market based on the history of those first years.

I say that to make a comparison in order to show what I think about as I read the quoted argument above.

Private judgments and principles were not the result of the reformation of the Christian church. It is the result of something God built into us, and it is what led to civilization, culture, and the church itself. If your argument is that thinking for yourself is a negative aspect of the human condition, then I don't know what to tell you.

The arguments being made for contraception, as far as I've seen, are rational arguments stemming from the individual thoughts of each poster. As it turns out, so are those against contraception. Because, when it really comes down to it, each of us is free to believe and argue whatever we want to.

also, all of the arguments I've ever seen in favor of contrraception not only conflict with the early Church's teaching as in Augustine e.g. but violate the principle of Sola Scriptura in that they involve sentences not shown to be deduced from Scripture

can anyone show otherwise?

My first thought: Even the biggest condemner of contraception on this thread said that he was not Sola Scriptura, so I don't know why that's significant at all.

Furthermore, no one participating in this thread lives in the early church period, so I'm not really sure why it would be important to any of them to try to shape their beliefs off of that.

moreover the oral traditions of the current protestant groups conflict so thoroughly with the early Church's fundamental position as to contraception and the other points of dispute

And?

lastly, the claims of the Catholic Church seem validated by the sociological evidence given the connecct of contraception with divorce e.g. and the connection of NFP with non-divorce and marital happiness, do they not?

What evidence would that be?

 

[Thekla]

When Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher pulled back their governments' control of market, they created three or four nightmarish years for both economies. However, at the end of that, the free market began to take over, and the goodness of their goal was realized. So, it would not be wise for us to judge the legitimacy of the free market based on the history of those first years.

Well, they did thus introduce deregulation and governance by Corporation ...
just look at the banking mess and starvation by commodity price escalation to evaluate the outcome of that idea.

"Free" market in control of the few (take a look at stock ownership percentages and position). Not a "free market" at all.

(And "opening" other countries to that "free market" resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands - a huge portion of them Christian - and the impoverishment of millions.)

 

[cubinity]

Well, they did thus introduce deregulation and governance by Corporation ...
just look at the banking mess and starvation by commodity price escalation to evaluate the outcome of that idea.

"Free" market in control of the few (take a look at stock ownership percentages and position). Not a "free market" at all.

(And "opening" other countries to that "free market" resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands - a huge portion of them Christian - and the impoverishment of millions.)

What's any of that got to do with the topic being discussed?
On that note, I don't assume all this stuff you are bringing up is isolated to those first few years, so even you recognize the significance of all the history between the beginning and now playing an important role in the things we do and believe today. So, your issue with our arguments not reflecting the early church are still refuted by this comparison. Thus, you are not helping your own position with this off-topic rant.