How do you view birthcontrol?

[Caitlin.ann]

No! Condoms are excellent as part of a timing device for bombs. (Acid that eats through them). Because of the quality control condoms can be used to make a pretty accurate timer, unlike other things that can be used like balloons.

Oh! ROFL! Learn something new every day..thanks for sharing!

 

[R3quiem]

Some cynics might be of the opinion that the sole reason for the ban on birth control is to make sure there is an ever increasing number of catholics.

I'm sure if the Catholic Church thought of that they'd allow their priests and bishops to marry and have children.

It's a problematic natural selection for them- the most religious among them are not allowed to breed.

 

[Jade Margery]

The whole celibacy of the clergy thing may have more to do with keeping the nobility in check than of piety. In the early days popes were married and sometimes even had children, and I think it was the same for the rest of the clergy.

In the middle ages though, a noble family with more than one son faced the problem of inheritance. First son would get the titles and lands, but his brothers got very little in comparison, making fratricide a rather enticing prospect. The more people trying to claim an inheritance, the more trouble there will be and the smaller its divided pieces become. If a lord has two sons and they both have two sons, then in two generations the land is fragmented and small, or they're all at each others throats.

By encouraging second and third sons to act militarily and join the clergy, the problem was pretty much solved. Militants could forge their own fortunes, and clergymen had everything they needed from the church so long as they didn't produce children to provide for. Add to that the idea that sex for pleasure is sinful and Bang: celibate clergy.

Obviously I'm no historian, this is just my theory on it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm kind of puzzled as to why non-reproductive sex is viewed as wrong in the first place?

Is their something wrong with wanting to share enjoyment with your spouse without the intent of having children? I don't feel that any church should be telling people about family planning, that's up to the couple.

I also am 100% against churches sending missionaries to AIDS infested African countries to preach agains condom use...that's genocide!

 

[Joachim]

I thought guys hated condoms - I guess I was wrong, LOL.

We do.....however, the minute that a friend of ours gets a girl pregnant (and it always happens), then it suddenly makes a lot more sense to deal with "discomfort" as it is then it is to deal with "children"

Having said all of this, I don't know as if we should be talking about this on a site where children read simply because well, if they are going to learn this, they should learn it on the schoolyard and not an internet board.

 

[Joachim]

I'm kind of puzzled as to why non-reproductive sex is viewed as wrong in the first place?

Is their something wrong with wanting to share enjoyment with your spouse without the intent of having children? I don't feel that any church should be telling people about family planning, that's up to the couple.

I also am 100% against churches sending missionaries to AIDS infested African countries to preach agains condom use...that's genocide!

The contrarian way is looking at it is that it could be a form of population control, if you are evil enough to consider the spread of AIDs as a good way of limiting the human population.

 

[Joachim]

I'm of the mind that an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

Thus I'm a HUGE fan of birth control. I'd love to see it available at a low cost to everyone, with plenty of accurate educational info to go along with it. I'd also love to see more male methods invented so that us ladies don't need to bear most of the birth control burden.

I say this as a man.....it will take a very special kind of man who, if they could invent such thing, would voluntarily take a pill to limit virility because virility is one of those things upon which manhood is based upon.

That, any, as a material matter, I think it is much easier for a woman to take a pill than it is for a man to have to use a prophylactic device.

 

[Athene]

I say this as a man.....it will take a very special kind of man who, if they could invent such thing, would voluntarily take a pill to limit virility because virility is one of those things upon which manhood is based upon.

That, any, as a material matter, I think it is much easier for a woman to take a pill than it is for a man to have to use a prophylactic device.

You think so? Vasectomies are reasonably common and are permanent sterilisation as opposed to hormonal contraceptives which only temporarily sterilise.

 

[keith99]

I say this as a man.....it will take a very special kind of man who, if they could invent such thing, would voluntarily take a pill to limit virility because virility is one of those things upon which manhood is based upon.

That, any, as a material matter, I think it is much easier for a woman to take a pill than it is for a man to have to use a prophylactic device.

Virility and fertility are NOT the same thing.

 

[gwenmead]

I say this as a man.....it will take a very special kind of man who, if they could invent such thing, would voluntarily take a pill to limit virility because virility is one of those things upon which manhood is based upon.

That, any, as a material matter, I think it is much easier for a woman to take a pill than it is for a man to have to use a prophylactic device.

I understand that these attitudes are out there, and that they are a huge block to developing and using male forms of birth control. As long as men connect virility with the ability to knock a woman up, this block will remain. And I know that yes, it does look very easy from a man's POV to have a woman pop a pill. There's an image of convenience about it, especially when one doesn't consider the things pills do to a woman's body.

There are probably just some guys that never will go for the idea of male BC. Currently the only options available for men are condoms and vasectomy. I make it a personal policy not to consort intimately with men who refuse to either use a glove or get snipped. Other women are more tolerant than I, however.

I'm sure if the Catholic Church thought of that they'd allow their priests and bishops to marry and have children.

At one point, they did. It wasn't until the First and Second Lateran councils that such was banned, in the 1100's. A cynic might say that the church banned marriage because it didn't want to compete with a priest's spouse or sons to inherit his goods.

I'm kind of puzzled as to why non-reproductive sex is viewed as wrong in the first place?

Because it's fun and feels good.

Or so a cynic might say.

 

[Rebekka]

God can have his feelings hurt? That's why it's immoral?

Yes, believers take God's feelings into account, and the bible hints at God disliking certain things. Not all believers interpret certain bible verses the same way of course.

And you don't see the inconsistency with that position? It's sinful to use condoms because they prevent babies, but not having sex at all (which is even better at preventing babies) is not sinful.

If I didn't see the inconsistency I wouldn't have brought it up myself. It's not a teaching I agree with personally. But it's a well-known catholic teaching that sex has to be open to life. Non-sex doesn't have to be open to life.

Every month, an egg in a woman is killed. Should see try to have sex every month and try to ensure that as many of her eggs as possible are turned into children? Afterall, each egg that goes unfertilized, in your opinion, should be sinful because non-existence is horrible.
If a family has two children, are they sinful for not having ten children instead? That's 8 people that they have refused to give life to.

I never said it was my opinion. I've only heard it from one person at CF, and from the early church fathers she quoted (can't remember who she quoted, I think St John Chrysostomus or St Augustine). It's not official church teaching.

 

[Rebekka]

And I disagree that nonexistence is horrible. A nonexistent being has no sense of being nonexistence, and therefore can feel nothing.

If we are to worry about how horrible nonexistence is, we should be continually bothered by the infinite number of people who were never born, because no matter how many more humans we give birth to, there are still an infinite number of people who are still nonexistent.

It depends on my mood, but I wished I had never been born numerous times.

 

[R3quiem]

Yes, believers take God's feelings into account, and the bible hints at God disliking certain things. Not all believers interpret certain bible verses the same way of course.

An omnipotent God disliking certain things and an omnipotent God having his feelings hurt are two very different things. The way most mono-theists describe their god, I am under the impression that he is a big boy.

Basing ethics and morality for a massive group of people would hardly take into account if a singular being's feelings were hurt, especially if the emotional fortitude of that being should surpass that of any other being. How about the feelings of couples who want to enjoy their marriage and feel intimacy in life?

If I didn't see the inconsistency I wouldn't have brought it up myself. It's not a teaching I agree with personally. But it's a well-known catholic teaching that sex has to be open to life. Non-sex doesn't have to be open to life.

Seems an arbitrary distinction to me. According to most people, sex serves more functions than simply serving as a child manufacturing business. It's also an entertainment business, as well as a business involved with keeping people emotionally close.

It depends on my mood, but I wished I had never been born numerous times.

Sorry to hear that.

Unfortunately that mood is not all that uncommon in people.

 

[Rebekka]

An omnipotent God disliking certain things and an omnipotent God having his feelings hurt are two very different things. The way most mono-theists describe their god, I am under the impression that he is a big boy.

Basing ethics and morality for a massive group of people would hardly take into account if a singular being's feelings were hurt, especially if the emotional fortitude of that being should surpass that of any other being. How about the feelings of couples who want to enjoy their marriage and feel intimacy in life?

I'm not the person you should ask these questions, sorry. There are other catholics on this forum who are more convincing when they're explaining the church's stand on birth control. It's hard to preach what you don't practice.

 

[MaxP]

At one point, they did. It wasn't until the First and Second Lateran councils that such was banned, in the 1100's. A cynic might say that the church banned marriage because it didn't want to compete with a priest's spouse or sons to inherit his goods.

Married Catholic priests are common in the Eastern Rite. Priestly celibacy isn't an issue of Church doctrine.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Or maybe they just don't like black people. The Church does have a history of racism and bigotry.

*sigh*, It's much easier to throw up the racist or bigot card than actually having to think honestly and use your IQ, isn't it?? Then again you relativists think morals and ethics come out of thin air from your elementary presuppositions..

I suggest you find a better tactic. Its getting old.


P.S.- Africa is only 5% Catholic. So only 5% of the actual population actually adheres to those moral dogmas. I think you can do the math

At one point, they did. It wasn't until the First and Second Lateran councils that such was banned, in the 1100's. A cynic might say that the church banned marriage because it didn't want to compete with a priest's spouse or sons to inherit his goods.

Oh really?, I guess all those early church fathers long before the 1st millennium who abstained from sexual relations was just coincidence? eh? Or the apostles teaching that its better not to marry if you have a special calling to God and remain how you are.

Thus I'm a HUGE fan of birth control. I'd love to see it available at a low cost to everyone, with plenty of accurate educational info to go along with it. I'd also love to see more male methods invented so that us ladies don't need to bear most of the birth control burden.

And yet the birth rates were the same in the early 1900s compared to today. Except for the fact that divorce has risen 40%, illegitimacy rates 17 fold, the spread of AIDs and VD at unfounded levels, and the increase in abortion over 300%.

 

[Kharak]

In the middle ages though, a noble family with more than one son faced the problem of inheritance. First son would get the titles and lands, but his brothers got very little in comparison, making fratricide a rather enticing prospect. The more people trying to claim an inheritance, the more trouble there will be and the smaller its divided pieces become. If a lord has two sons and they both have two sons, then in two generations the land is fragmented and small, or they're all at each others throats.

Well these inheritance disputes were . . . tolerated.

Most people in history have died during infancy, and the Middle Ages were well known for this fact. Nobles were usually arranged to marry very young wives at best; provided certain political obligations were met. Needless to say, wives also died commonly in childbirth too. Once it was all said and done, multiple sons would split their relevent estate among eachother or on the wishes of the dead progenitor. England and Normandy, for example, were seperated from eachother by a division of heirs. England itself was conquered by the Normans, ironically, because of a succession dispute (and England would later go to war with France for a similar reason).

However, if the contractual gains from the marriage did not provide enough materials for the estate, you are quite right that nobles joined the clergy after the appointed heir was assured a position. Though not all disenfranchised nobles were clergy. Some served in Crusades when possible and many joined the Outremer colonies of the First and Second Crusade because there was a change for new land, and others still joined the Crusades against Lithuania to direct the excess nobility from Christian Europe.

Having lots of children is not something directed solely for nobility though, especially in regards to estate. Cultures have always had these, and the power of the landed classes determined their importance.

 

[KCKID]

<staff edit>

Yes, but don't beat around the bush ...what do you REALLY think about them ...?

 

[gwenmead]

Married Catholic priests are common in the Eastern Rite. Priestly celibacy isn't an issue of Church doctrine.

Good point.

I will humbly admit that I often forget the Eastern Rite. It's something of an unfortunate cultural blind spot. So thank you for pointing the above out.

 

[MaxP]

Good point.

I will humbly admit that I often forget the Eastern Rite. It's something of an unfortunate cultural blind spot. So thank you for pointing the above out.

No problem, I often forget about them too to be honest.