Condoms should u use them or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesusismyhomie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tim Hayes:

Feria is sticking to the Teaching of the Church and can’t be wrong.

It is therefore you who are wrong since you are still defending artificial contraception by saying that ABC and NFP are one and the same, when in fact, they aren’t.

Since this is a settled issue, I suggest that you spend some time on you knees and ask God how you’ve gotten it wrong and why you’ve chosen to debate Him.
Tim Hayes:
Felra
it is you who are wrong.

The intercourse is only taking place becasue the couple know pregnancy cannot occur. It acutally means their union is conditional upon this.

If the woman was fertile then there wold be no sex using NFP .

The whole idea of NFP when introduced was that it be only used under the grave circumstances.

Now, NFP, when introduced was only supposed to be used under grave circumstance. I’ll let you think about that and realise that their would be next to no catholics practicing NFP purely under the grave circumstances theory, except their own subjective grave reasoning.

Lets use Onan as an examle.

God condemned him becasue he was supposed to get the sister in law preganant and instead of doing that he wasted his “seed” by withdrawing, so that conception could not occur. Onans INTENTION was to avoid pregnancy. Lets say NFP was known back then, then Onan would have chosen to only copulate during non fertile times(to avoid pregnancy) and therefor his sperm would not have fallen on the “ground” although we could say it did fall on barren ground because their would have been no chance of pregnancy

Onans supposed crime was wasting his seed, ensuring no preganancy took place. A couple practicing NFP are wasting the seed ensuring no pregnancy can take place.

Would Onan have been judged severely by God if he had practiced NFP and no pregnancy resulted, please answer the question.

In Christ
Click to expand...
Under the Old Covenant, children, esp sons, were obligated to take care of their elders when they could no longer provide for themselves. This went double for WIDOWS, which Onan’s Sister-in law was.

Since Onan’s brother died before giving his wife that Social Security (in the form of a SON), it was Onan’s obligation according to the Law of Moses to provide for her by giving her a SON.

What Onan was condemned for was the failure to live up to his obligation under the Law of Moses and to provide for his Sister in Law in her WIDOWHOOD.

The fact that he used a method of birth-control (Onanism) just made it even more despicable!

Tim, Please read the LINKED material in my previous post:

HUMANAE VITAE
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

THE TRUTH OF THE ENCYCLICAL "HUMANAE VITAE"
Cardinal Karol Wojtyla
ewtn.com/library/Theology/WOJTLAHV.HTM

GENERAL AUDIENCES: JOHN PAUL II’S THEOLOGY OF THE BODY
Pope John Paul II
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

The last one has 121 LINKED Audiences of pope John Paul II

Please try not to respond until you’ve read the entire “assignment”, because this is the Teaching of the Church on the issue as well as they “why” behind 2,000 years of the Church’s Teaching.

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
40.png
StPeterRules:
Thanks for your thoughts. Please understand I don’t support contraception, was just curious about how NFP was truly any different as a means to an end.

🙂
Click to expand...
StPeterRules:

Add this to the reading list above:

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Evangelium vitae
1995.03.25
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

Blesssings and Peace, Michael
 
I would have to vote no, and this is coming from a younging who is learning NFP with my fiance (of course, we can’t pratice it until we are married, and I know it is to be used for grave reasons only). I would have to agree if you knew your partner had contracted AIDS, abstinance and perhaps having relations with my wife in unity I would still be with her even if it meant literally sharing the same cross. And the above is true, only abstinance is 100% effective on the individuals part.

But I do have a question. If a person contracted AIDS from blood contact, (i.e. transfusion or work in the medical field and get poked by a needle. I have personally met such a couple and they choose to abstain from that point on.), I would still say abstinance would be best even though the contraction happened through no fault of their own. Thanks and God Bless.
 
Tim Hayes:
Felra
it is you who are wrong.

The intercourse is only taking place becasue the couple know pregnancy cannot occur. It acutally means their union is conditional upon this.

If the woman was fertile then there wold be no sex using NFP .

The whole idea of NFP when introduced was that it be only used under the grave circumstances.

Now, NFP, when introduced was only supposed to be used under grave circumstance. I’ll let you think about that and realise that their would be next to no catholics practicing NFP purely under the grave circumstances theory, except their own subjective grave reasoning.

Would Onan have been judged severely by God if he had practiced NFP and no pregnancy resulted, please answer the question.

In Christ
Click to expand...
A few questions for you?

How do you explain that it was only after 1930 that protestant churches broke with mainline Church teaching that all forms of contraception were illicit and gravely wrong? What do you suppose our generations of parents did to regulate childbirth?

Before answering your above question, this question first needs to be answered by you: What was Onan’s “grave reason” for deferring pregnancy?

You present as superficial and foregone conclusion in your arguments regarding the Church’s prohibitions against contraception.You fail to cite any authoritative sources to substantiate and back your position. Your understanding of Catholic moral theology is painfully lacking. It really comes down to a matter of faith and obediance. To advance and accept your line of argumentation one must ascribe to relativism, rejection of the supremacy of papal authority in matters of faith and morality, and subjective interetation of scripture, i.e., either you are a non-Catholic, a seriously misinformed Catholic, or you are a “menu-Catholic”–take your pick.

Addendum: I also have noticed that those living in habitual sin in an area of clear Church teaching are often the most vocifeous in their “reasoning” why that particular teaching is wrong (the hand caught in the cookie jar phenomenon).

Bye the way, thanks Traditional Ang for those great resource citations–it would do us all a service to become more acquainted with them.
 
We live in a society that values quanity over quality. I’m geussing somone that is in favor of condoms, never had sex without one. Because your missing a lot. So if a man doesn’t want to wear a condom, the burden shifts to the woman who has to someone hormonally manipulate her body, to satisfy her husband and suffer the inability to enjoy sexual relations. The PIll kills almost all sex drive.

In NFP it is mutual suffering, i.e both abstaining during fertile periods of time. All grave reasoning is subjective because it is between the couple and God. Nothing wrong with being subjective regarding this decision.
 
40.png
Jesusismyhomie:
Accept the disease what do u mean by that? That is so stupid. I can love someone without wanting their disease. “In sickness and in health” means that I accept them with the disease it does not mean I have to take the chance of catching it. Especially if it is fatal like aids. I am sure God would not want that for anyone nor would he ecpect a couple not to have sex If it means not spreading the disease. How would God say condoms and other types of birth control are bad if they were not around when he was alive.
Click to expand...
What part of “It’s a sin” do you not understand?! It is very simple, contraceptives try to remove God from the equation of the baby-making process. Just because you don’t think that it’s a problem dosen’t mean that it isn’t. Now, If you don’t believe that the Catholic Church has any right to say what is right and what isn’t right , I think you may need to re-evaulate what church you want to be a part of. Just remember, The Catholic Church teaches only the Truth, don’t listen to what these other protestants tell you.
 
It is not a mortal sin so it is not a definite sin.
What do I mean? Well the issue is political, involves JP II (before he was the pope) but also teaching that is not infallible or a divine truth may be erroneous

Remember that a POPE said the Church does not have all the answers.

So it may not be a sin
 
40.png
seekerdark:
It is not a mortal sin so it is not a definite sin.
What do I mean? Well the issue is political, involves JP II (before he was the pope) but also teaching that is not infallible or a divine truth may be erroneous

Remember that a POPE said the Church does not have all the answers.

So it may not be a sin
Click to expand...
No, it is based on the constant infallible teaching of the Magesterium and most notable of late Humae Vitae, which was by Pope Paul VI. It’s moral, not political. The Church has always taught contraception is a sin. All Christians did until the 1930s.
 
No it is not infallible. Just becaus is was proposed in a encyclical does not mean that it is a part of the [core teaching] and contraception is NOT - that is merely a way of the Church to affirm a non-infallible statement. So we must regard it with our respectful will and take it seriously. But not above review
Perhaps you are misinformed by the false impression that an individual cannot dissent to any teaching of the Church… no matter what, regardless of infallibility

There are rules to dissent however, it is not a free for all pick what you want.

Canadian Bishops on contraception:

Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith (which is refering the fact that is not infallible), nor rejecting the teaching authority of the church, these Catholics should not bew considered, or condsider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithfull."
 
40.png
seekerdark:
No it is not infallible. Just becaus is was proposed in a encyclical does not mean that it is a part of the [core teaching] and contraception is NOT - that is merely a way of the Church to affirm a non-infallible statement. So we must regard it with our respectful will and take it seriously. But not above review
Perhaps you are misinformed by the false impression that an individual cannot dissent to any teaching of the Church… no matter what, regardless of infallibility

There are rules to dissent however, it is not a free for all pick what you want.

Canadian Bishops on contraception:

Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith (which is refering the fact that is not infallible), nor rejecting the teaching authority of the church, these Catholics should not bew considered, or condsider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithfull."
Click to expand...
An encyclical is not infallible but the ordinary magesterium is. You need to brush up on how the Magesterium works.
 
You need to talk to your local Bishop about infallibility. Many priests are even misinformed about it. Statements by the Magisterium are not necessarily infallible.

For a statement to be infallible

It has to pertian to faith and morality
The pope has to declare it from the thrown
and it must be in unimamous consent of the Bishops <-----

The RCC postion is that is not infallible but if you ask certain people (like Benedict) statements that are not infallible cannot be questioned because you cannot dissent the Church - and he is wrong. Also look at why he might believe so in his upbringing. You can dissent teachings and the German Bishops and American Bishops have all written how.

Also contraception is not a unanimous stance of the Bishops.
 
There is the actual written ways the Magisterium works and the ways that Magisterium claims that it works. Just because you are the Pope does not mean you get to make all the rules concerning your power.
 
40.png
seekerdark:
You need to talk to your local Bishop about infallibility. Many priests are even misinformed about it. Statements by the Magisterium are not necessarily infallible.

For a statement to be infallible

It has to pertian to faith and morality
The pope has to declare it from the thrown
and it must be in unimamous consent of the Bishops <-----

Also contraception is not a unanimous stance of the Bishops.
Click to expand...
This is some fancy wordsmithing, seekerdark! You almost had us convinced. However, I will refute your argument with actual Church references, instead of my (or your) local Bishop or priest, since you have already pointed out that they are not always correct…

From the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility
in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian
faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by
definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
Code: 
 §2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the 
 bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium 
 as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal 
 Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when 
 dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among 
 themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically 
 together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a 
 particular proposition is to be held definitively.
In your argument you have taken these two distinct criteria and made them one.

In other words, if the Holy Father is speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and/or morals, he need not have the unanimous consent of all the Bishops.

I do not know if such a statement (pertaining to the intrinsic evil of contraception) has ever been made ex cathedra, but I know that your earlier statement was misleading and false. If I am wrong, I welcome you to prove it with some facts please.
 
I have to go on the record and say that I ACCIDENTALLY clicked the “yes” option for the poll (wouldn’t have to do this, but the poll is public). My answer is no, but I zoned out while voting. A.D.D., I guess.
 
40.png
msproule:
This is some fancy wordsmithing, seekerdark! You almost had us convinced. However, I will refute your argument with actual Church references, instead of my (or your) local Bishop or priest, since you have already pointed out that they are not always correct…

From the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility
in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian
faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by
definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the
bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium
as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal
Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when
dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among
themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically
together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a
particular proposition is to be held definitively.

In your argument you have taken these two distinct criteria and made them one.

In other words, if the Holy Father is speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and/or morals, he need not have the unanimous consent of all the Bishops.

I do not know if such a statement (pertaining to the intrinsic evil of contraception) has ever been made ex cathedra, but I know that your earlier statement was misleading and false. If I am wrong, I welcome you to prove it with some facts please.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, the name says it all.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Why would a married person not want pregnancy? Babies are bundles of joy, not something bad. There should only be a real serious reason for spacing out births. You can’t just do it for selfish reasons.
Click to expand...
Many married people wish to plan how many children they have, including myself. My wife and I plan on having two, three at the most. After that I am getting my sperm factory shut down. Of course we are not Catholic, but I know many Catholics who feel the same way.
 
40.png
Mac6yver:
Many married people wish to plan how many children they have, including myself. My wife and I plan on having two, three at the most. After that I am getting my sperm factory shut down. Of course we are not Catholic, but I know many Catholics who feel the same way.
Click to expand...
I think the wording here points to the problem with this mentality:

Many married people - - Do any of us want to be a part of a religion whose doctrine is determined by popularity poll? Yet, so many in this society think religion should be decided that way. I can’t find any place in the New Testament where Jesus asks the people what they want him to preach or where he takes a vote.

Many married people wish / My wife and I plan - - Isn’t part of Christian theology for the Christian, like so many who dropped their lives to follow Christ, to put aside what you personally wish or plan to do and do what God asks you to do?

Sperm factory - - with such an artificial and cruel view of the reproductive system God gave us, no wonder it seems to be something to just “shut down”. Those on the side of life don’t view the miracle of reproduction as being on the same level as assembling an automobile.

So often the argument is that our finances or lives don’t allow for more than two or three children “at the most”. Where do we get the idea that God only wants children to go to the afluent?
 
When you get married, in the Church, you are giving your life to your spouse and once again to God. He should help decide on children… not you! try NFP if you don’t want to have too many kids, but also if He gives them, don’t worry. He knows what’s best! And the sperm factory??? that is crude and unacceptable way of refreing to have the process of reproduction… and is unnatural… Why get rid of something God gave you because you are selfish and don’t want anymore kids?
 
People who do not follow the teachings of the Church do not understand that ALL of the Church teachings are Biblically based. So to say you do not believe in particular teaching means you do not choose to follow Gods scripture and or GODS LAW. The issue I have most heard debated and we have heard alot in the media recently is the Church teaching on contraception. I have heard all the arguments…what about STD’s etc…If one is in a valid Catholic marriage one does not have to worry of such things. If one is engaging in pre-marital relations and or is promiscuous the issue is not really whether or not you should use contraception…you obviously have other issues. And just because you are in a Catholic Marriage does not mean you have to have twelve kids…I have been married for twelve years and have three kids and one on the way…planned I might add. It’s all about responsibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top