Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think that contraception is immoral because it involves not giving one's whole body to the other in the sexual act. so it is a kind of lie, similar in a way to fornication. the meaning of the sexual act is the full gift of one's body and fertility
I think that contraception is immoral because it involves not giving one's whole body to the other in the sexual act. so it is a kind of lie, similar in a way to fornication. the meaning of the sexual act is the full gift of one's body and fertility
So, people who are infertile, they shouldn't be allowed to copulate? After all, by not risking unwanted pregnancy, they can't possibly be able to give their bodies to each other.I think that contraception is immoral because it involves not giving one's whole body to the other in the sexual act. so it is a kind of lie, similar in a way to fornication. the meaning of the sexual act is the full gift of one's body and fertility
So...basically, on this issue since you can't think for yourself you're just jumping on the bandwagon and hoping that other, greater people before you have sussed it out and hoping that it's not a horrific argument from tradition and authority.
1) There can be more than one bandwagon.well I would think that the bandwagon would be the pro-contraceptive position among Christians which is so strong now
it is more difficult to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Reformers and John Wesley on this
If an infertile couple engaged in the marital act, as long as the act is open to life, it is okay. It is possible to be open to life even if the possibility of conception is perceived to be none -- it is about desire and intent.So, people who are infertile, they shouldn't be allowed to copulate? After all, by not risking unwanted pregnancy, they can't possibly be able to give their bodies to each other.
It's not that kids have to be had, it's that the act must be intrinsically ordered to procreation -- that is, the act's potential to result in life must not be altered by man so far as the intent of said alteration involves the desire to not have any children. Condoms, interruption, plan B, spermicide, vasectomies, and similar purposefully diminish the ability of any given sexual act to result in new life. Some medications may do the same, though the recipient of the medication may or may not be using it with the goal of contraception.It's absurd to assert that someone has to have kids to prove their love for someone.
If an infertile couple engaged in the marital act, as long as the act is open to life, it is okay. It is possible to be open to life even if the possibility of conception is perceived to be none -- it is about desire and intent.
It's not that kids have to be had, it's that the act must be intrinsically ordered to procreation -- that is, the act's potential to result in life must not be altered by man so far as the intent of said alteration involves the desire to not have any children. Condoms, interruption, plan B, spermicide, vasectomies, and similar purposefully diminish the ability of any given sexual act to result in new life. Some medications may do the same, though the recipient of the medication may or may not be using it with the goal of contraception.
Why can the desire and intent not be to engage in an intimate act with one's partner? How can one be open to life, if one only engages in unprotected sex because you know you can't get pregnant?If an infertile couple engaged in the marital act, as long as the act is open to life, it is okay. It is possible to be open to life even if the possibility of conception is perceived to be none -- it is about desire and intent.
They also prevent serious medical complications, from the transmission of STDs to known fatal pregnancies. Would these things still be immoral? If we hand out condoms to Africa for the purpose of diminishing HIV/AIDS, is that still bad?It's not that kids have to be had, it's that the act must be intrinsically ordered to procreation -- that is, the act's potential to result in life must not be altered by man so far as the intent of said alteration involves the desire to not have any children. Condoms, interruption, plan B, spermicide, vasectomies, and similar purposefully diminish the ability of any given sexual act to result in new life.
Would abstinence between a married couple not also qualify as a purposeful act to lower the odds of having children? If a fertile man knowingly married an infertile woman, isn't he knowingly diminishing his odds of having kids? What's more important: maximising your offspring with no thought to the risks, or engaging in a lifelong commitment to the person you love?Some medications may do the same, though the recipient of the medication may or may not be using it with the goal of contraception.
If an infertile couple engaged in the marital act, as long as the act is open to life, it is okay. It is possible to be open to life even if the possibility of conception is perceived to be none -- it is about desire and intent.
It's not that kids have to be had, it's that the act must be intrinsically ordered to procreation -- that is, the act's potential to result in life must not be altered by man so far as the intent of said alteration involves the desire to not have any children. Condoms, interruption, plan B, spermicide, vasectomies, and similar purposefully diminish the ability of any given sexual act to result in new life. Some medications may do the same, though the recipient of the medication may or may not be using it with the goal of contraception.
So you're saying people should only have sex if they want to make a baby. If they don't want a baby they shouldn't be having sex.
Why isn't that the case now?My Catholic teachers taught us that that WAS the former RCC position (never official) but all that changed in the midst of the sexual revolution of the 1960's when the denomination dogmatically took up an official position that, essentially, couples may have sex as often as they like (perhaps MORE often than otherwise) but have it contraceptively - in a way that will make contraception unlikely - a dogmatic embrace of contraceptive sex. They even started holding classes (perhaps right there in the parish center) to teach couples how to have contraceptive sex.
Why isn't that the case now?
So in other words, you have to believe what it tells you to believe and not ask any questions? That's quite a disturbing system. What if they told you to murder all the Jews? Would you accept that teaching with docilic embrace?To be blunt, from the Catholic perspective, it's entirely and completely irrelevant. The Catholic Church asks for "quiet docility" to itself as unto God. The Catholic is "freed" from the "typically Protestant issue of 'is it true'" and instead embraces "whatever" the Catholic Church teaches "with docility" since Jesus said "whoever hears you hears me [the RCC says "me" here means itself)" - The Handbook of the Catholic Faith page 151. Docilic embrace of what is currently taught by itself is the point, not why.
So in other words, you have to believe what it tells you to believe and not ask any questions? That's quite a disturbing system. What if they told you to murder all the Jews? Would you accept that teaching with docilic embrace?
uhmmm...no, not really. But it's interesting to see what you think of people who hold a different opinion then you do. Immoral, liars and fornicators.
I did not say that cannot be the intent. In fact, the Catholic goal is to preserve the procreative and the unitive aspect.Why can the desire and intent not be to engage in an intimate act with one's partner?
The couple who engages in the act during a naturally infertile period must be conscious of their own intent for doing so -- are they doing so to avoid having children for selfish purposes, being fully able to provide for a new child yet not wanting to? Or are they sincerely wanting to have a child yet taking into account their current circumstances which would not allow the child to have his/her basic necessities?How can one be open to life, if one only engages in unprotected sex because you know you can't get pregnant?
If you're using condoms to prevent the spread of STDs, especially if you have the STD, you shouldn't be having that sex in the first place.They also prevent serious medical complications, from the transmission of STDs to known fatal pregnancies. Would these things still be immoral? If we hand out condoms to Africa for the purpose of diminishing HIV/AIDS, is that still bad?
Abstinence, whether permanent or temporary, does not count as a 'purposeful act' because it is the absence of the sexual act.Would abstinence between a married couple not also qualify as a purposeful act to lower the odds of having children?
Obviously.If a fertile man knowingly married an infertile woman, isn't he knowingly diminishing his odds of having kids?
Why the dichotomy? It is important to maximize offspring WITH thought to the risks while engaging in a lifelong commitment, which is the goal of NFP.What's more important: maximising your offspring with no thought to the risks, or engaging in a lifelong commitment to the person you love?
I did not say that cannot be the intent. In fact, the Catholic goal is to preserve the procreative and the unitive aspect.
The couple who engages in the act during a naturally infertile period must be conscious of their own intent for doing so -- are they doing so to avoid having children for selfish purposes, being fully able to provide for a new child yet not wanting to? Or are they sincerely wanting to have a child yet taking into account their current circumstances which would not allow the child to have his/her basic necessities?
In either case, they are avoiding pregnancy -- regulating birth -- but in one case, the couple shuns the possibility of life while in the other, the couple embraces potential new life with an honest concern for the well-being of offspring.
If you're using condoms to prevent the spread of STDs, especially if you have the STD, you shouldn't be having that sex in the first place.
Abstinence, whether permanent or temporary, does not count as a 'purposeful act' because it is the absence of the sexual act.
Obviously.
Why the dichotomy? It is important to maximize offspring WITH thought to the risks while engaging in a lifelong commitment, which is the goal of NFP.
Why isn't that the case now?
So in other words, you have to believe what it tells you to believe and not ask any questions? That's quite a disturbing system.
What if they told you to murder all the Jews? Would you accept that teaching with docilic embrace?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?