Is contraception a sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosie11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
You will be very successful ministering to those who already agree with you, then.
Click to expand...
The first consideration is not to successfully sway opinion, but to speak the truth in good will. Truth has it’s own power. If you want to solve an issue, you have a conversation, not try to impose your own standards on others. That solves nothing.
 
When we move away from religious fervor and grandstanding, truth becomes a matter of convincing arguments.

Since you use words with definitions that can only be accepted by someone already Catholic, this isn’t something you can engage the rational world with and expect any real success.

They think their differing opinion is The Truth.
 
Religious fervor?
We are telling you what we believe, you are telling us what you believe, and at the same time you are telling us how we should define the words we are using.

At the very least, can you admit you do not understand, or you disagree with, Catholic sexual morality, without telling us how to define contraception as the Church sees it.
Can you do that?
And then we can talk about rationality.
 
Oh I think for anybody that’s followed me for very long on these forums they understand fully that I think the Catholic position on sex is less than rational.

In fact I’ve received a moderator attention before on the issue.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Oh I think for anybody that’s followed me for very long on these forums they understand fully that I think the Catholic position on sex is less than rational.

In fact I’ve received a moderator attention before on the issue.
Click to expand...
But let’s also be clear that you do seem to understand it fully. Lots on here try to suggest a lack of undersanding when someone disagrees. That isn’t usually correct.
 
No, it’s because he compared Onan’s sin to something leaking while they use the bathroom.
 
Last edited:
Oh yea. The normal reply when you don’t agree is…

You don’t understand!
 
You made me think of a Catholic married couple I know. They are very devout and so on with one child they are barely able to financially bring up (and I contribute, they are family). So I spoke to the lady and she is very positive the contraception issue will change soon. This is an extremely devout mother who also “tried to understand”. But she just carries on.

So when I mentioned the amount of YouTube videos I saw where priests would tooth and nail defend this position and that a change is not so simple for just one reason as to why were they wasting their time, she was somewhat disappointed.

Basically we are beyond the rationality. It doesn’t even matter anymore. Now it is about who is right and who is wrong. And we all know who “can never be wrong”!
 
Last edited:
Kinda.

Just saying you are in the same position as those enforcing this teaching.

Knowing about it is one thing. Knowing its consequences and even starting to fathom what that entails would be quite another.
 
The word devout is misused so much that I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
That’s also not a new one. Right after not understanding one also gets the reply of missing or not understanding the context.

Face palm is on you buddy. You are only following the choir of well established replies on here.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Just for the sake of full disclosure; even if we don’t use them, the body cycles the “swimmers” out periodically through our urine. It seems all men are doomed to Onan’s sin.
Click to expand...
If you thought this showed an understanding of the Catholic view well there’s not much I can say.
 
The difference between NFP on the one hand and CI and ABC on the other is not difficult to understand. CI and ABC require intentional perversions of the conjugal act that prevent it from being completed in a manner consistent with the nature of the act. NFP allows the act to be completed in a manner consistent with the nature of the act. What’s being perpetuated here is a misunderstanding of the act simply “being open to life.”
 
Even OrthodoxWiki and other sources make a distinction between birth control as a broader term (which includes NFP and abstinence in addition to CI and medications) and contraception (which does not include NFP or abstinence).
 
Wesrock said:
The difference between NFP on the one hand and CI and ABC on the other is not difficult to understand. CI and ABC require intentional perversions of the conjugal act that prevent it from being completed in a manner consistent with the nature of the act. NFP allows the act to be completed in a manner consistent with the nature of the act. What’s being perpetuated here is a misunderstanding of the act simply “being open to life.”
Click to expand...
Just to expand my point, CI and ABC involve unchastity in marriage. NFP remains consistent with chastity.
 
Vonsalza said:
There isn’t a whole lot to say anyway. Catholic views on sex are based on nothing more than fiat. There’s no over-arching logic to it. It’s true because some 60, 70 year old man that’s never supposedly had sex or a family his own simply says so. And that’s fine, I guess. But I won’t be party to it.
Click to expand...
That’s understandable, but also a non sequitur.
Vonsalza said:
Or (interestingly proposed almost exclusively by Catholics) failing to “conclude” inside his sister-in-law’s “girl-parts”?
Click to expand...
This makes more sense than
Vonsalza said:
Casting his “seed” upon the ground?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
There isn’t a whole lot to say anyway. Catholic views on sex are based on nothing more than fiat. There’s no over-arching logic to it. It’s true because some 60, 70 year old man that’s never supposedly had sex or a family his own simply says so. And that’s fine, I guess. But I won’t be party to it.
Click to expand...
Really, Vonsalza? You’re resorting to this? I’m disappointed in you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top