P
Pup7
Guest
A pill is MORALLY NEUTRAL.
Intent is NOT.
All of that? Talks about INTENT.
Not the OBJECT.
Intent is NOT.
All of that? Talks about INTENT.
Not the OBJECT.
- Status
G
gcshapero
Guest
…
“If anyone, to satisfy his lust or in meditated hatred, does something to a man or woman or gives them something to drink so that he cannot generate or she conceive, or the offspring be born—let him be held a homicide”
-The Decretals of Gregory IX
“…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 end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil…
Code:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality"-The CCC paragraphs 2370 and 2399
These are just the few I grabbed. There a tons of others, but I haven’t found a single statement from the Church that says it is permissible or even neutral. It doesn’t appear that the Church has ever regarded contraception to be neutral. It seems to be a case-closed issue with the Church, and with good reason.
P
Pup7
Guest
An object is NEUTRAL. That’s indisputable.
It’s action and belief that change that. The object itself is neutral.
It’s action and belief that change that. The object itself is neutral.
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
With all due respect, I’m trying to wrap my head around some of the comments in here. When someone says that the Church is against contraception or that contraception easily brings about objectification of the spouses, I’ll see responses like “the contraceptives themselves are morally neutral,” or “Yeah, but when people say ‘I want your body just for the baby,’ that’s bad too.” I can’t quite figure out what the arguments are that are then being presented.
We’re not talking about the neutrality of an inanimate object – we’re talking about contraception. That’s what I tried to be clear when bringing up contraception, not contraceptives. That’s also why contraception can include methods like how Onan used in the Bible.
P
Pup7
Guest
I was talking about the neutrality of an object. Pulling comments from a conversation doesn’t do much, because 99 times out of hundred they’re out of context at that point.
G
gcshapero
Guest
You’d agree that there is no scenario then where contraception is acceptable.
P
Pup7
Guest
Nope. I don’t.
Because I also believe that NFP is a form of contraception (it is, in reality) so how can’ I agree to that statement?
Because I also believe that NFP is a form of contraception (it is, in reality) so how can’ I agree to that statement?
I am also tired of this discution and your attitude.
No to have sex in an infertile period do not frustrate conception because conception is likely impossible… (but not exclude). It is just a natural fact.
But I know you are not in line with this Church topic, so no need to argue…
No to have sex in an infertile period do not frustrate conception because conception is likely impossible… (but not exclude). It is just a natural fact.
But I know you are not in line with this Church topic, so no need to argue…
G
gcshapero
Guest
That’s something I’ve been exploring more. I got an introduction to NFP, but on the surface, people misinterpret it as the rhythm method, which it isn’t. The Church welcomes NFP and gives explanation for why it isn’t in paragraph 2370 of the CCC, but NFP can easily be abused and used as contraception, so it’s not always supposed to be practiced if practiced at all. But ultimately, it is not unnatural either in good use from it’s explanation.
I’m one to personally stay away from NFP so as to not misinterpret or mispractice until I have complete understanding of it from every angle so as to not go against divine law.
Going back to contraception, why do you find issue with the Church’s position on this?
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
P
Pup7
Guest
Contraception isn’t just artificial means. That’s not the definition of the word. And as it is taught medically to women who, for whatever reason, cannot use “artificial” means…well, it’s contraception. It makes conception pretty difficult.
That’s not argumentative, but by definition, contraception isn’t just “artificial means”.
P
Pup7
Guest
Medically, it is contraception.
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
I don’t understand why you defended the statement of “I didn’t say contraception is neutral, just that contraceptives are as items,” and then went on to say that you don’t accept Church teaching on this. That was a waste of time – the subject is contraception, not contraceptives in themselves.
P
Pup7
Guest
You know, this conversation in this thread has taken a LOT of twists and turns…and a lot of different conversations have happened in the course. Picking out one statement isn’t exactly fruitful, especially if you scroll through and see I’m not the only person who said that very thing.
We’re at post 443 at this point, and it’s been going on for days. So there have been a lot of things discussed.
Someone’s comment is not a “waste of time” to the poster.
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
I never said you were, but you and I are certainly having this conversation. There isn’t enough time in the day to discuss every single point – I’m trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint the most important and relevant ones.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Your participation in the discussion is voluntary, I assume.
If so, there are other threads…
Contraception is anything intended to frustrate conception. Period.
This includes timing your sexual activity to avoid having sex when having children is likely.
NFP just happens to be contraception the Catholic Church approves of. Don’t like the fact it’s still a contraceptive technique? Tough.
Quite right. I sit with roughly 85%+ of Catholics on the issue as well as virtually all other western Christians. So of the 2.2 billion Christians on the planet, I’d guess I share camp with roughly 1.8-2 billion of them.
P
Pup7
Guest
The only reason I’m having this conversation is you pulled a comment of mine. This has been discussed well up thread. I’m not bothered that you restarted it, but It wasn’t started by me.
I promise that isn’t meant as cross as it sounds. The web isn’t being helpful.
I promise that isn’t meant as cross as it sounds. The web isn’t being helpful.
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
Fair enough. Did I create a monster with this thread?
P
Pup7
Guest
No - it’s just another discussion on something that’s been discussed. You’re late to the party, and that’s actually okay.
- Status