Contraception hypothetical

  • Thread starter Thread starter tjm190
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wonderful. I’ve grown up in the Church and don’t believe in it’s infallibility.
If you do not believe in the Church, in Her authority granted by Christ, as I said before - that is the root of the problem.

Go back, go to RCIA, read your way into the Church - until you can accept Her authority on one point you will not accept it on any.

Pray for a conversion of heart, talk to your Priest.
 
“caved to secular society”
That’s what happened. Secular society was clamouring for the Church to change. Secular society was all about “free love” and “independent thought”. Society was in flux and the Church and her teachings should have been a bulwark, instead some Bishops decided to ignore the See of Peter and endorse something the Church had NEVER endorsed before. Thankfully, the Church is not a democracy. We have a head, who leads us in all things regarding faith and morals.
 
If you do not believe in the Church, in Her authority granted by Christ, as I said before - that is the root of the problem.

Go back, go to RCIA, read your way into the Church - until you can accept Her authority on one point you will not accept it on any.

Pray for a conversion of heart, talk to your Priest.
Simply not true- I accept almost all Church teaching. But I simply do not believe any group made up of humans can be said to be above criticism/challenge.
 
Simply not true- I accept almost all Church teaching. But I simply do not believe any group made up of humans can be said to be above criticism/challenge.
And just because we have doubts or lack understanding, it doesn’t make us bad people to not understand a teaching, nor to challenge it, intellectually. We are, as good Catholics, called to follow until we understand. And it is our duty to understand. I know that sounds like “sheep” but you know, I was very stubborn in my disbelief for many decades. I’ve found that my effort to argue can’t hold a candle to the years of study and dedication of religious of the church. The answer is out there. Finding it sometimes is quite a bit of effort. Sometimes it’s a matter of finding the right explanation that melds with our experience.

Hang in there tjm. If you want the Truth, you will find it.

I’m sorry. Maybe I’m not the greatest at internet ethics. But my employer wants me to work for him, and my family needs me most evenings. So I can’t possibly get to every post or read all of the responses. I commend you on your effort.

Maybe multiquote and summation would allow you more time for your studies and achieve the same result.

Peace.
 
And just because we have doubts or lack understanding, it doesn’t make us bad people to not understand a teaching, nor to challenge it, intellectually. We are, as good Catholics, called to follow until we understand. And it is our duty to understand. I know that sounds like “sheep” but you know, I was very stubborn in my disbelief for many decades. I’ve found that my effort to argue can’t hold a candle to the years of study and dedication of religious of the church. The answer is out there. Finding it sometimes is quite a bit of effort. Sometimes it’s a matter of finding the right explanation that melds with our experience.

Hang in there tjm. If you want the Truth, you will find it.

I’m sorry. Maybe I’m not the greatest at internet ethics. But my employer wants me to work for him, and my family needs me most evenings. So I can’t possibly get to every post or read all of the responses. I commend you on your effort.

Maybe multiquote and summation would allow you more time for your studies and achieve the same result.

Peace.
Again, remember that several people who have dedicated their lives to the Church also arrive at the conclusion that this particular issue is in need of questioning.

And no problem, I’m not exactly complaining about a lack of posts.
 
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Perhaps we have twisted around the argument too much and made it more about validity then about whether or not its true or false. I understand that to be a sound argument it needs both.

I still stand by what I have said. But, I will not stray much further from the ideas in the link above… I believe it has been given to you recently… It’s a short read.

So I will leave you with that and a response to your last few comments:
Bond has different meanings for different “realms”- emotionally, it could be called “love” or in lesser cases, “affection”
Physically, a bond is more like handcuffs or rope.
I disagree with your statement then that all unity results in a ‘bond’ as you define it.
Again, I fail to see how “near complete” giving is sinful- what is lost over all with a slight alteration of the physical aspect, and why can no evidence of it be found?
If one has the option of loving to a certain degree but decides to choose an action that applies to the same situation and is less loving for the sake of convenience or something of the like, I believe that to be sinful… I would certainly not say that it is a grave sin, but nonetheless sinful. However, I suppose we should get away from this topic because it is not the reason condom use is a grave sin.

I don’t know what is lost… I would have to speak from experience that I do not have. I could make some guesses but what’s the point? I don’t think they would hold any weight in this particular argument.

To compile evidence on the topic you need to interview people because as far as I know spiritual realities cannot be quantified. If you ask people questions there is no way to tell who is being truthful. And even if 100% of people are being truthful some will base their answers off their current beliefs anyway. There are too many reasons to suspect every answer will be biased. I suppose if you have had sex with and without contraceptives you have to answer that for yourself… what is the difference? Does it change things much? But your answer of course is not free from bias and is not universally binding.

Of course, we also don’t always feel or notice the effects of sin, especially when we don’t see something we are doing as sinful.

In addition, I think our argument here is approaching a point in which I have expressed my side clearly enough and I think I understand yours as well. Mine is that, as Christians we are called to emulate Christ and love proper to each situation we find ourselves in. What is proper to the sexual act is to love completely. To love completely during the sexual act is to give of oneself fully (spiritually and physically). Condoms do not allow a complete giving of self, in addition, by their nature they are meant to render the procreative nature of the sexual act impossible. To use such a device is sinful. While intention is very important spiritually, it does not negate the grave sin of introducing something that is meant to render the procreative act impossible.

If there are no blaring inaccuracies you want to point out I will rest my argument there and perhaps we can agree to disagree. However, I want you to be able to have a chance to reply so I would ask that we put it to rest, if not here, within the next few posts.

You seem to be a very intelligent person, but I assure you there are people who are equally intelligent and certainly some who are more intelligent and inquisitive who honestly believe these teachings. Church teaching is not a matter of opinion, especially on this issue. I understand you are not the only one… but, there is clear evidence that the Church has always found this immoral and sinful (Read the link). Continue to question if you must, but if you are going to live as a Catholic then yield to the wisdom of the Church. If you are engaging in contraceptive sex I would personally suggest that you continue going to mass but stop receiving the Eucharist.
However, I lack the requisite wisdom to really suggest such things, but I would say you definitely need to go talk to your priest about it… under the seal of confession if you want… and ask him what you should do.

Pax
Dave
 
Again, remember that several people who have dedicated their lives to the Church also arrive at the conclusion that this particular issue is in need of questioning.

And no problem, I’m not exactly complaining about a lack of posts.
You know, I’ve been wondering what your “Onan post” is. Do you think appropriate to share it now?
 
It’s been a few days since anyone posted on this thread and I hesitate to ressurrect it since it’s already quite long, but…Lifesite News recently ran an article about some new research from a psychology researcher about condom use that might interest the original poster and others.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09080401.html

"Safe Sex" with Condoms Bad for Mental Health, Psych Researcher Finds

"Emotional immaturity" and depression more prevalent among condom-users


By Hilary White
PAISLEY, Scotland, August 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Research from Scotland finding that heterosexual sex without using condoms is more likely to make people happy than “safe sex” with condoms, has stirred controversy among “sexual health” campaigners. The lead researcher wrote of the survey respondents, “The more often they have sex without condoms, the better their mental health.”
In the study, titled, “Condom Use for Penile-Vaginal Intercourse is Associated with Immature Psychological Defense Mechanisms,” Professor Stuart Brody of the University of the West of Scotland in Paisley gave questionnaires to 111 Portuguese men and 99 women asking questions about their sex lives and their state of mind over a period of one month. The findings are to be published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour.
The study’s abstract gives the purpose as the examination of a hypothesis put forward by Sigmund Freud, “that use of immature psychological defense mechanisms correlates directly with frequency of condom use during PVI, but inversely with frequency of PVI [penile-vaginal intercourse] without condoms.”
The survey found that “frequency of PVI with condoms correlated directly with use of immature defenses,” according to a standard test of psychological reactions. It also found that “immature defenses” were associated with masturbation in both sexes. In general, the study concluded that condom use during PVI is associated with “psychological immaturity and predisposition to poorer mental health,” including depression and suicidal tendencies.
Brody wrote, “The more often they have sex without condoms, the better their mental health.” His findings suggest that condom use negates the mental health benefits of what he called “evolutionarily relevant sex.” He theorized that there is a direct biochemical response in natural heterosexual relations that is blocked by condoms.
Brody wrote in the study, “Possible explanations for the interference of condoms with the health benefits of PVI include blocking of antidepressant and immunological agents in semen and genital secretions, reduced sexual satisfaction and intimacy, and psychopathology-prone persons who are more psychologically immature and/or heterosocially anxious being more likely to use condoms for PVI.”
In an interview with the UK’s Independent newspaper, Brody responded to criticisms from sex-campaigners at the Family Planning Association that his findings, if they were acted upon, would result in increases in sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies.
“I have an interest in the best possible science,” he said. “I don’t want to let anything get in the way, whether its political correctness, or religion. I have deliberately not used the term ‘heterosexual sex’,” he said.
“Evolution is not politically correct, so of the very broad range of potential sexual behaviour, there is actually only one that is consistently associated with better physical and mental health and that is the one sexual behaviour that would be favoured by evolution. That is not accidental.”…
 
Do you know that the woman in a sexual relationship with a man develops a antigenic bonding with the man’s semen, that makes the woman “attached” to that man?
Sorry to go on tangent here, but its the first time I heard about this… where can I find more information about this?

Private messages me if you wish.
 
Hey Jennifer, do you know who wrote this? The author? Publisher?

The terms, wording and exagerations in the article detract for the points and logic in it. Too bad it wasn’t more professionally written.

This makes me surprised that it has an Imprimater and Nihil Obstat - something that is not needed since Vatican II.

Cheers!

Mark
 
Hey Jennifer, do you know who wrote this? The author? Publisher?

The terms, wording and exagerations in the article detract for the points and logic in it. Too bad it wasn’t more professionally written.

This makes me surprised that it has an Imprimater and Nihil Obstat - something that is not needed since Vatican II.

Cheers!

Mark
I assume the people at Catholic Answers, you know, the site you are currently enjoying, wrote it. You could contact Jimmy Akins and ask him, I guess…It was fairly recently that they (Catholic Answers) added the Imprimater and Nihil Obstat, which give a Catholic reading it the knowledge that a Bishop has looked over it and found nothing against the faith. It was not done away with after Vatican II, whatever or whoever gave you that idea was wrong!
 
If a couple uses a condom with the understanding that a child will be conceived if and only if God wills it, how is this couple denying God’s will?
I’ve got a better question. The being fruitful and multiplying was for a stated purpose. Seems that we’ve filled the earth, and so maybe we don’t need to be quite so fruitful and multiplying. Anyone ever think of that? The other way of the putting the matter is simply that the RCC’s dogma here focuses on process and not on purpose and so misses the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise is its purpose and not its process [which is simply the means to the purpose end]. Lastly, for the OP, just my human advice, and I certainly make no claim to infallibility, but given the current size of the earth above water and the human population, if you’ve a plan to replace yourselves, I wouldn’t worry so much about the matter, as we’ve filled the earth, accomplished mission, and so simply keep it that way. Oh, and by the way, there’s two ways to go wrong here. The Torah describes the one wrong way, the refusal to fill the earth. The other wrong way is to keep on with the fruitful and multiplying such that we go beyond filling the earth and so a certain element or segment of the population is now going to gruesomely die owing to there simply not being sufficient carrying capacity. The process people never seem to consider that matter as their focus is on process and not purpose.
 
Hey Jennifer, do you know who wrote this? The author? Publisher?

The terms, wording and exagerations in the article detract for the points and logic in it. Too bad it wasn’t more professionally written.

This makes me surprised that it has an Imprimater and Nihil Obstat - something that is not needed since Vatican II.

Cheers!

Mark
Got anything to say about the actual CONTENT of the article, or are a few potshots at the writer all you can manage?
 
Do you know that the woman in a sexual relationship with a man develops a antigenic bonding with the man’s semen, that makes the woman “attached” to that man? Do you know that both partners become tied closer together in marriage bond by the help of the oxytocin released during pretty much all sexual-related activity?..
Hey, J2c99 and kage_ar,

I was curious about this statement and read up about it. Perhaps you didn’t explain it clearly in your OP.

Oxytocin has nothing to do with contact with semen… it sounded so in your post, perhaps making some think this is another great argument against barrier contraception.

Sorry to nitpick, but this struck me and digging deeper I I just thought I had to clarify it.
 
… The other way of the putting the matter is simply that the RCC’s dogma here focuses on process and not on purpose and so misses the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise is its purpose and not its process [which is simply the means to the purpose end]…The process people never seem to consider that matter as their focus is on process and not purpose.
The Catholic church clearly identifies that sex serves a two-fold purpose: pro-creative and unitive between spouses. Seems to me that those who advocate for contraception are the ones who focus on the process and not the purpose. Our sex-obsessed culture often portrays that purpose of sex is simply to have sex. (Process only; product and purpose unwanted.)
 
Got anything to say about the actual CONTENT of the article, or are a few potshots at the writer all you can manage?
Thanks for judging me! I didn’t realize that constructive criticism was not allowed. I was trying to do the article a favour by perhaps inspiring someone to take a editors pen to it… I will learn to not stick my head up in these forums, lest I get shot (or burnt at the stake) for wondering about something…👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top