Father catholics are against contraception

[spotty]

are you so decieved orionhunter? would you gave a drug addict the drug he craves even if he cant see that its bad. even if he thinks its a punishment. or let your kids do whatever they want even if what theyre doing is wrong b/c they dont understand

 

[Siena]

****** **I found the reference that I was looking for. Thank you for bearing with me. It is from the Pontifical Council for the Family. The document is titled "Vademecum for Confessors concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life" and was issued Feb. 12, 1997.

You can read the entire document here:

cin.org/vatcong/vademec.html
This is the pertinent section-

"13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of co-operation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish co-operation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.[46] This co-operation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

1. when the action of the co-operating spouse is not already illicit in itself;[47]
2. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
3. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).

1. Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of co-operation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect.[48] "

 

[spotty]

no oral sex like pope paul vi said is an act which would render procreation impossible if achieved. but even if its not achieved but only takes place before intercourse, it is still wrong b/c it is an act they would

 

[wabrams]

spotty:

no oral sex like pope paul vi said is an act which would render procreation impossible if achieved. but even if its not achieved but only takes place before intercourse, it is still wrong b/c it is an act they would

Link?

 

[Orionthehunter]

spotty:

are you so decieved orionhunter? would you gave a drug addict the drug he craves even if he cant see that its bad. even if he thinks its a punishment. or let your kids do whatever they want even if what theyre doing is wrong b/c they dont understand

If I am decieved, I’m being decieved by the pre-eminent Marriage expert (a Priest) in my diocese who is renowned across the country. He is extremely orthodox and if you ever heard his Catholic Morality talk, he is very tough on immorality. However, he agrees w/ me and those trying to talk to you on this thread. Frankly, I’ll follow him. God Bless you as you take this to prayer.

 

[Siena]

spotty:

your analogy would im sure also imply to someone who knows they will be shot if they say they believe in God. so is that person guilty of suicide. but then maybe that person has a child at home who needs him so instead he rationalizes that it would be better to deny God. but these people who would choose death or suffering are saints. to be a saint means that you did Gods will. he have to trust in God and accept Him always. we have to trust when we cant see how accepting Him will be beneficial.

Spotty- In this example, you are correct in saying this is the actions of saints. They are saints b/c they exibited heroic virtue. Heroic virtue is not required to get to heaven, it is just one good indicator that a person is there. In the early days of the church, martyrs didn’t need to “prove” they were in heaven by performing a miracle- THIS heroic virtue, to the point of death was enough. I do not think this example proves anything for your case. Perhaps it would be considered heroic virtue to allow divorce over this, but, again, heroic virtue is NOT required.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Siena:

Spotty- In this example, you are correct in saying this is the actions of saints. They are saints b/c they exibited heroic virtue. Heroic virtue is not required to get to heaven, it is just one good indicator that a person is there. In the early days of the church, martyrs didn’t need to “prove” they were in heaven by performing a miracle- THIS heroic virtue, to the point of death was enough. I do not think this example proves anything for your case. Perhaps it would be considered heroic virtue to allow divorce over this, but, again, heroic virtue is NOT required.

And my understanding of Church Teaching on Marriage, the Church wouldn’t call this a virtue, not to mention not heroic.

 

[TarAshly]

Spotty again i have to tell you that if you are not married, you can not understand the goingson between a man and his wife. it is up to them to decide whats right or wrong for them, as long as they follow Church teachings. If oral sex is wrong for you dont do it. if youre not married, DEFINATELY dont do it. but understand that it is NOT against Church teachings. it is a personal decision that can be unitive in the marital act.

spotty:

no oral sex like pope paul vi said is an act which would render procreation impossible if achieved. but even if its not achieved but only takes place before intercourse, it is still wrong b/c it is an act they would

 

[CuriousInIL]

spotty:

but so for proof from the catechism, if may logic isnt making sense.
why oral and anal sex even while ending in intercourse is wrong: 2370
“Every action which whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes whether as an ends or a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil.” (pope paul vi)

Let’s slow down a minute.
First, how in the world does oral or anal foreplay followed by intercourse rendering procreation impossible? It isn’t. So this is not proof of your point.

spotty:

now for why contraception is always wrong. like a said before there is no union
sins against chastity (2351)
lust is a disordered desire or an ordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. sexual pleasure is morally disordered in sought for itself or isolated from its procreative or unitive proposes.

And, it would be nice if when we “quote” the CCC we get the quote right. The CCC in 2351 states:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its **procreative and **unitive purposes.

The huge difference in meaning between “or” and “and” in 2351 has been debated before, and I won’t repeat it here. I write here just to say that misquoting the CCC to try to prove a point is wrong and dangerous.

 

[Siena]

spotty:

there is no sexual union going on if contraception is involved. none. what does the faithful spouse think they are doing. ive explained but you havent refuted it. please do with reasons.you just keep saying youre wrong, youre wrong. youre too young, who makes you right? (actually you did give the Jesus v. judas example and that was cool. and thats what i want). and another theing priests can be an error. the church isnt,but as far as ive learned this is the teaching. how can it not be? explain please. ive explained why it cant and doesnt fit.

Spotty- What if my husband had a vasectomy, and then repented, went to confession, the whole 9 yards.

The fact exists that any sexual union from then on WOULD STILL BE TECHNICALLY CONTRACEPTIVE. Does that mean we would then need to abstain from all relations till death do us part, In order to keep from sinning anew?

 

[Siena]

spotty:

no oral sex like pope paul vi said is an act which would render procreation impossible if achieved. but even if its not achieved but only takes place before intercourse, it is still wrong b/c it is an act they would

Spotty-

Step back a moment-

What about manual (hand) stimilation prior to intercourse? That could accidentally end up the same way.

What about cases where the husband can’t hold himself back, while just kissing? (I know there is a technical name for this- I only know the slang) These things do happen on accident!!!

What about a wet dream?

There are MANYcases where the husbabnd could accidentally lose control over himself. How it happens is not the point- It the INTENTION that IS important.

 

[spotty]

i wish i could stay but i gg but ill end with this what could have a greater proportionate value than the life of a child. so for instance if a man knew is wife would have an abortion if he had sex with her, and he continued to have sex with her, im sorry but he cooperated in that.
the consequence of sin is death

they had a similar document about ones conscience in light of the canidate that they would vote for and talked about proportionate values, and i remember what was being preached theyre is no greater proportionate value than that of infant children who are aborted.

however, if there is some Grave reason than alright. but it seems to me most of the people on here NOT ALL seem to be defending it period

 

[spotty]

uh yeah masterbation is wrong. and an accident is an accident

 

[Siena]

Ana:

That was Sienna, I’ll let her respond.

Spotty and Ana- This one will take a while to type out. I need to get to dinner, and get everyone ready for bed, etc. I will respond to this, but much later tonight.

 

[Ana]

spotty:

are you so decieved orionhunter? would you gave a drug addict the drug he craves even if he cant see that its bad. even if he thinks its a punishment. or let your kids do whatever they want even if what theyre doing is wrong b/c they dont understand

YThe way I would handle the situation would depend on the uniqueness, knowledge, and intent of the child. I would not have a one for all rule of discipline. One person might not respond the same to one acton that the other would. Spankings have NO EFFECT on my daughter, wheras they would completely devastate my son (and be harmful because of that), but a threat of a spanking does act as a deterrant to my other daughter…

This is why, I MUST pray for God’s help, precisely because my children and myself are so unique. In the same token, the way that the non contracepting spouse would “lovingly correct” the contracepting spouse would be with prayerful discernment before God. One contracepting spouse may react positively to a withholding of sex, whereas it may STRENTHEN the resolve of another contracepting spouse and ADD TO THE PROBLEM.

The goal of the noncontracepting spouse is to help the other get to heaven. How that is done, should be prayerfully discerned before God.

Have you found the documentation that proves the non contraceptive spouse is sinning if they continue to engage in relations with the contracepting spouse?

 

[Siena]

spotty:

i wish i could stay but i gg but ill end with this what could have a greater proportionate value than the life of a child. **so for instance if a man knew is wife would have an abortion if he had sex with her, and he continued to have sex with her, im sorry but he cooperated in that. **
the consequence of sin is death

they had a similar document about ones conscience in light of the canidate that they would vote for and talked about proportionate values, and i remember what was being preached theyre is no greater proportionate value than that of infant children who are aborted.

however, if there is some Grave reason than alright. but it seems to me most of the people on here NOT ALL seem to be defending it period

This is addressed in the last paragraph of the text I posted for you in #121.

 

[Ana]

Siena:

Spotty-

What about cases where the husband can’t hold himself back, while just kissing? (I know there is a technical name for this- I only know the slang)

.

Premature ejaculation.

 

[Ana]

Orionthehunter:

And my understanding of Church Teaching on Marriage, the Church wouldn’t call this a virtue, not to mention not heroic.

And unbiblical. Divorce is only allowed in the case of adultery (not remarriage), NOT the use of contraception.

 

[Myangel]

fix:

Here is the examination of conscience by one good priest:

6. You shall not commit adultery.

• Adultery
• Fornication (intercourse prior to marriage)
• Masturbation or other impure acts with self
• Homosexual acts
• Using a contraceptive
• Dressing or acting in a manner intended to cause arousal in another (spouses excepted)
• Kissing or touching another passionately for the purpose of arousal (spouses excepted)
• Allowing another to kiss or touch you in a sexual manner (spouses excepted)
• Intentionally causing a sexual climax outside of intercourse
• Onanism, i.e. intentional withdrawal and non-vaginal ejaculation
• Flagrant immodesty in dress
• Bestiality (sexual acts with animals)
  -** Oral Sex (oral stimulation permitted as foreplay in marriage - ejaculation must be vaginal)
  • Anal sex or other degrading sex practices**
• Prostitution
• Rape
• In-vitro fertilization or artificial insemination
• Surrogate motherhood
• “Selective reduction” of babies in the womb
• Types of fertility testing that involve immoral acts
• Involvement in or support of human cloning
• Willful divorce or desertion
• Incest
• Polygamy or polyandry (many wives/husbands)
• Cohabitation prior to marriage
• Destroying the innocence of another by seducing or introducing them to immorality
• Lust in the heart (“if I could I would”)
• “Swinging” or wife swapping
• Transvestitism or cross dressing
  catholicparents.org/oxcart/examination.html

I have no specific documents to prove a position in either direction.

Thank you I was actually looking for my “Examination of Conscience” to post. I thought I read somewhere that anal sex was “a degrading act” and sinful, however oral, as long as it did not lead to ejaculation on the man’s behalf was OK for foreplay.

 

[Consecrated]

spotty:

no oral sex like pope paul vi said is an act which would render procreation impossible if achieved. but even if its not achieved but only takes place before intercourse, it is still wrong b/c it is an act they would

Let me give you an example to illustrate how that is faulty reasoning, and an improper reading of the quote from Humanae Vitae.

Take drinking (alcohol). The act of drinking is not sinful. If carried through to drunkenness, however, the sin is in the immoderation.

It is the same with oral stimulation during the marital act. If carried through to climax outside of the proper place, the sin is in the spilling of the seed. If partaken of with no intention of carrying it through to climax, there is no sin.

I believe, in the quote from Pp Paul VI you used for your point, that the pope was talking about artificial contraceptives. To use a condom, for instance, is always wrong b/c it’s intended use is ALWAYS to prevent the semen from reaching the proper place… the seed is spilled. Even if the condom accidentally breaks and the seed ends up in the right place after all, the couple has still sinned b/c by their use of the condom, their INTENTION to keep the seed from its proper place is made loud and clear. Try going back and rereading the quote from this point of view.