The Case Against Contraception

[rben20]

this is why i have a problem with the whol argument. “the Churches teaching” this is one interpritation of “THE BIBLES TEACHING”. I dont fallow everything the first teaches because you mean the catholic church and i am not catholic but i do my best to follow everything in the second.

and you say contraception avoids kids which it does, but the thing i dont understand is then catholics say NFP is ok. how can you say no to one and not to the other? they both avoid kids.

Alfred. I understand you would have difficulty in accepting the teaching because you are a Lutheran. There is only one Church and only one interpreter. One faith, one baptism, one body as St. Paul says. I of course hold that the Catholic Church is that Church and it can be proven through a simple history lesson though I would encourage you to look at it for yourself. Catholics accept the bible and accept the tradition of the apostles (aka, the Church today). According to the bible, the pillar and ground of the truth is…the bible right? Actually the bible says the Church. Figuring out what Church that is is crucial and really determines everything.

Regarding your second point about the difference between NFP and contraception please see post #200. I could not have said it better.

 

[alfred14]

The Church defends the purpose of the sexual act. Every act of sex while using NFP fits to what the Church and Bible teaches. People get their pants in a bundle because they feel that by purposefully avoiding having sex during fertile times we are contradicting ourselves. The whole point though is that if you are not prepared to accept the other person and their fertility during the sexual act at that point and time why are you having sex? Is it not better to not have sex during that time instead of covering a part of the other person up so that sex can happen? NFP is accepting the reality of the human situation. Contraception is a refusal to see the humanity of the other person.

this is so wrong. using controception doesnt mean you cant have kids. you still can. In classes on NFP the teachers even state that using NFP is more effective then contraception. So what is the difference between a husband and a wife who dont want to have kids yet using contraception vs using NFP. NOTHING. there end goal is the same. there mentality is the same. contraception is also accepting the reality of the human situation, when used correctly. i agree that in reality it should be abstinence unless you want kids. NFP is simply following some rules while beating around others. its all a word game and yall fight over what words are more important and how to interperate them. its stupid that this is such a huge argument. where in the bible does it say NFP is ok. no where. it also doesnt say controception is ok.

The Humans in charge of the church says NFP is ok and contraception isnt bc that is what they think is right. but as stated, they are HUMANS. which are imperfect. they made a mistake by saying NFP is ok but then saying contraception isnt.

 

[PJM]

=ahs;8268618]Natural? I disagree. Regardless, we already know that Onan committed that sin and was killed for it.

I think it could be argued, however, that Coitus interruptus is not natural, but is unnatural because it acts contrary to nature…contrary to the natural order of the reproductive act.

Continence or abstinence, on the other hand, would fit into a “natural” means of avoiding conception, because not having sex has a natural consequence of not procreating.

I wish to SUPPORT your post, reply and understanding. God gives himanity two choices and ONLY two.

Either God is completely in charge
or
We assume COMPLETE charge… there is no split responsibilities.

“Be fruitful and Multiply” is not a nice greeting; it’s Gods way of telling us that He is in charge.

John.1 Verses 12 to 14: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. “

Gen.38: 6-10 “And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah [the Father of both sons] said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

SEXUAL UNION IN MARRIAGE 1st. Cor. 7: 1-5

AGAPE BIBLE STUDY: www.agapebiblestudy.com

Question: How many Old Testament women can you recall who were barren but later, by the will of God, gave birth to men who had an important impact on salvation history? Name the women and their sons

Answer:
Sarah was barren prior to the birth of Isaac (Gen 11:30; 21:1-3).
Rebekah was barren prior to the birth of Jacob/Israel (Gen 25:21-26).
Rachel was barren prior to the birth of Joseph (Gen 29:31; 30:22-23).
Manoah’s wife was barren prior to the birth of the Judge Samson (Judg 13:1-7, 24).
Hannah was barren prior to the birth of the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam 1:1-5, 19-21).

In each case the bareness of the mother was reversed by God’s intervention. It is by God’s divine will that sons were born from these women’sons who played an important role in God’s plan of salvation:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[alfred14]

I would disagree. If a person is using a condom during the times which a couple using NFP would be having sex the person is even less likely to conceive. If a person is using a condom during the fertile time, they are a lot less fertile then you would be if they were having sex then while using NFP. I guess you could say they at least showed up to the show, but why are they showing up to the show if they don’t want a kid at that time? They showed up and weren’t ready to accept everything that goes with it.

you are assuming they arent ready to accept a kid. many people are ready to accept but would like to delay. they are ready for kids but arent in a rush. they will still be over joyed with the knowledge that they created a new life. infact they will be just as excited as someone using NFP, assuming there both christians.

 

[Warrior1979]

In each case the bareness of the mother was reversed by God’s intervention. It is by God’s divine will that sons were born from these women’sons who played an important role in God’s plan of salvation:

If God can make barren woman have children, I seriously doubt a piece of rubber is going to stop His will.

 

[Warrior1979]

Sure, CAF would be lame without him.

Oh Great! Now I feel like I have an obligation to stick around!

 

[alfred14]

That said, we, as Catholics, cannot post things like you did that are directly contrary to Church teaching that portray those contrary ideas in an acceptable light. (CCC 2284-2287).

why do Catholics just believe what they are told to believe, by humans?

 

[Corki]

this is so wrong. using controception doesnt mean you cant have kids. you still can. In classes on NFP the teachers even state that using NFP is more effective then contraception. So what is the difference between a husband and a wife who dont want to have kids yet using contraception vs using NFP. NOTHING.

The difference is that one couple is willing to commit a mortal sin in order to get what they want and the other is not.

 

[rben20]

I’m glad someone finally brought this up. It is my opinion that NFP exists in the first place because of “loopholes.”

If you read about and research the Church’s position on various matters, you’ll see that they do it in a very methodical and legalistic manner. The Church’s position is extremely carefully worded. It also must be, especially on matters of faith and morals, because they claim authority and/or infallibility on such matters.

I’ll give some examples of careful wording. There is plenty of Biblical support, especially from Christ and His Disciples, on marriage. Matters pertaining to marriage are discussed in great detail. You’ll note that the Church’s position is that sacramental marriage can’t be dissolved…by man. It never states that God can’t dissolve a marriage…that, my friends, quite frankly, is very good legalistic type research and writing.

Same with mortal sin. Most people believe that death in a state of mortal sin equals eternal damnation. However, the section on suicide clearly leaves final judgement in the hands of God. The section on martyrdom also leaves that possibility open, though the wording and reasoning are more vague.

OTOH, this is far less true of matters pertaining to sex in marriage. Yes, it is blatantly obvious to all in the Bible, Tradition, and common sense what the true purpose is about, i.e., raising children. But when it comes to the issue of handling family jewels, the support is extremely weak and very open to various interpretations. The word redefining/twisting/spinning is truly stunning, and likely the reason why even those that support it eventually have to throw down the Magesterium/Infallibility gauntlet because reason does not suffice. Loopholes is the way NFP has become to exist…easy to do because the support is vague…that is as clear as the day is long.

Warrior. The Church does not come up with this stuff over night in a big secret room carefully dotting their I’s and crossing T’s. The Church falls back on tradition quite a lot. It’s pretty simple. No new teaching is really being made here. It has long been taught that contraception is sinful. As I recently pointed out, ALL Christians believed and taught this until most recently in the early 1900s with the Anglicans allowing the use of contraceptives between married couples on some occasions. It has now as you may know broken down.

I noticed too your examples that you gave on Church teaching were both with God as the exception. Well He kinda is…We can’t put God in a box and neither will the Church. Can you really blame us silly Catholics for that? Not much to look over here unless you think we should comment on what God can and cannot do?

What you say as people throwing the “Magesterium/Infallibility gauntlet” (you’ve used it quite a lot) should not surprise you. We are Catholics, we are taught obedience to the Church for we believe it is the Church that Christ established saying it has all authority. “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” The Church has spoken on this issue and if we struggle with it then we must humble ourselves to at least listen and try to understand not criticize and belittle as though we know ourselves what we are talking about much more than the Church does. I wouldn’t say I do but clearly some believe so…

NFP is not a loop hole unless you would suggest a woman’s own cycle should not be monitored for fertility (which is quite ridiculous). Women have fertile and infertile periods. NFP is just working with that cycle. It is the natural way of not becoming pregnant if the couple does not have the means to support such a child. Notice it is to be used only for that reason. It is not the same thing as artificial contraceptives even though many will try to make it seem like it is. One is natural, the other isn’t. One has led to the objectification of women, the other has no such tie. See post #200 on the difference. There is a clear difference and I hope you and others see it too.

 

[Warrior1979]

By the way, did you see that I posted a youtube link to that video that explains the link between contraception use and abortion (and explains the contraception mentality)?

56 minutes?

I don’t have 56 consecutive minutes in the day to do anything (other than sleep…sometimes).

But I did watch the first couple of minutes. Kinda reminded me of this:

youtube.com/watch?v=hEjsTB5huj4

 

[Corki]

why do Catholics just believe what they are told to believe, by humans?

I wouldn’t say that there are NO Catholics that do what you say. But the general idea is that Catholics believe what we have been taught by Christ and by the Church he founded which continues to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I would much rather believe the humans chosen by God to lead His Church than the humans over at Planned Parenthood and its ilk that have brainwashed an entire generation into believing contraception is somehow a good thing.

 

[ahs]

I wish to SUPPORT your post, reply and understanding. God gives himanity two choices and ONLY two.

Either God is completely in charge
or
We assume COMPLETE charge… there is no split responsibilities.

“Be fruitful and Multiply” is not a nice greeting; it’s Gods way of telling us that He is in charge.

John.1 Verses 12 to 14: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. “

Gen.38: 6-10 “And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah [the Father of both sons] said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

SEXUAL UNION IN MARRIAGE 1st. Cor. 7: 1-5

AGAPE BIBLE STUDY: www.agapebiblestudy.com

Question: How many Old Testament women can you recall who were barren but later, by the will of God, gave birth to men who had an important impact on salvation history? Name the women and their sons

Answer:
Sarah was barren prior to the birth of Isaac (Gen 11:30; 21:1-3).
Rebekah was barren prior to the birth of Jacob/Israel (Gen 25:21-26).
Rachel was barren prior to the birth of Joseph (Gen 29:31; 30:22-23).
Manoah’s wife was barren prior to the birth of the Judge Samson (Judg 13:1-7, 24).
Hannah was barren prior to the birth of the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam 1:1-5, 19-21).

In each case the bareness of the mother was reversed by God’s intervention. It is by God’s divine will that sons were born from these women’sons who played an important role in God’s plan of salvation:

God Bless,
Pat

Good post!

 

[alfred14]

I of course hold that the Catholic Church is that Church and it can be proven through a simple history lesson though I would encourage you to look at it for yourself. .

i did look up how the catholic church was created and it was for personal gain. and its many different belifes molded into one.

Catholic = Universal. The Catholic church was supposed to be the European “universal” church Constantine wanted to unite Europe so he melded the many belief systems of Europe together to create his universal, or Catholic church. Roman of course refers to the fact that the center of the church was established in Rome.

Read more: wiki.answers.com/Q/How_and_when_did_the_Roman_Catholic_Church_get_its_name#ixzz1VzOFFtIT

 

[alfred14]

I wouldn’t say that there are NO Catholics that do what you say. But the general idea is that Catholics believe what we have been taught by Christ and by the Church he founded which continues to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I would much rather believe the humans chosen by God to lead His Church than the humans over at Planned Parenthood and its ilk that have brainwashed an entire generation into believing contraception is somehow a good thing.

yoru taking it to far. what i mean is its like they dont look into it themselves. you ask why they believe something and its bc they were told to. instead of being able to say i believe in xy and z because in the bible on such and such a verese it says to.

 

[rben20]

i did look up how the catholic church was created and it was for personal gain. and its many different belifes molded into one.

Catholic = Universal. The Catholic church was supposed to be the European “universal” church Constantine wanted to unite Europe so he melded the many belief systems of Europe together to create his universal, or Catholic church. Roman of course refers to the fact that the center of the church was established in Rome.

Read more: wiki.answers.com/Q/How_and_when_did_the_Roman_Catholic_Church_get_its_name#ixzz1VzOFFtIT

Alfred…wikianswers. Come on! Be honest with yourself! I hope you don’t base everything you know on that wiki.

 

[Poor_Soul]

True…it’s not ambiguous…we don’t have to rely on opinions based on opinions such as in the case of NFP and related issues.

The case that NFP is not contraception is not opinion but a fact. I noticed you didn’t remark on what the Priests for Life had to say about the issue. Lastly if you believe NFP is a form of contraception then you believe all sex that is done when the wife is not ovulating is contraception which is just ridiculous.

I don’t want to get into that particular issue in this thread. But briefly, the wording is

“By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance”

That clearly does not imply perfect contrition.

What do you think repentance consists of?

I don’t call incoherent arguments common sense. It’s not a problem for some folks, though, because they start with a foregone conclusion and reasoning be damned.

Cute but incorrect! It’s really a call to obedience which is a perfectly logical step to take when all other logical approaches fail. It can be seen between parents and their children. Child wants to drink Simple Green because it looks like Mountain Dew. The parents protest this and tell the child its nothing like Mountain Dew but rather a dangerous chemical which can kill them if ingested. The child says but Mountain Dew has chemicals and I can drink that. The parents explain that not all chemicals are the same and this is why they do not allow the child to drink the Simple Green because they love them. The child ignores the parent’s sound reasoning and throws a tantrum telling them how they were adopted and that their real parents are rich people who will come for them and will allow them to drink anything they want. The parents roll their eyes and tell the child to obey under penalty of punishment. Child gets upset and stomps off. Parents both agree to have the child tested to see if their little one is playing with a full deck.

 

[Corki]

yoru taking it to far. what i mean is its like they dont look into it themselves. you ask why they believe something and its bc they were told to. instead of being able to say i believe in xy and z because in the bible on such and such a verese it says to.

Like I said, there may be some Catholics that say things like that but that is not true of Catholics as a group. Not all Catholic teaching is tied to a specific Scripture verse. Neither is all protestant teaching. But all that Catholics believe is based on scripture and apostolic Tradition. Some Catholics are just better than others at being able to express where different teachings come from.

Example: look at the posts in this thread. I haven’t seen any post that says this is what I believe because so-and-so told me. Instead, you see Scripture references, CCC references, early Church fathers, etc. No one handed us this research as a package. Catholics were able to ask questions and find the answers in our 2000+ year old treasury of faith.

We do look into these issues ourselves and try to undertand why the Church teachese what she does and how that teaching applies to modern life.

 

[Calliso]

Ok, how about this:

Going through great lengths to figure out exactly when I will not be around, and purposely scheduling parties ONLY when you KNOW I’ll be gone.

… This way, even if I HAD the key and could get in if I wanted to, I wouldn’t, because I wouldn’t be around to begin with.

…And you knew that and purposely planned it that way.

Yeah this is a pretty good analogy for NFP!

 

[Calliso]

The intent of NFP is not to have sex without getting pregnant. The intent, if using NFP to avoid, is to abstain from sex on those days when getting pregnant is most likely. It really doesn’t matter what you do on the other days - sex/no sex.

The Church’s position on sex within marriage is that every act must be both unitive and ordered to procreation. It doesn’t say you should only be having sex for the reason of procreation although children are a fruit of marriage.

While intent is important, most sin is based on actions. No couple has sex every day. It is not prohibited to abstain from sex on any given day.

Ummm really? I thought that was exactly the reason most people use NFP not talking about those who use it to conceive But no the intent of NFP is definately to have sex without getting pregnant.

Also you would be surprised on how many couples actually do have sex every day.

 

[Calliso]

this is so wrong. using controception doesnt mean you cant have kids. you still can. In classes on NFP the teachers even state that using NFP is more effective then contraception. So what is the difference between a husband and a wife who dont want to have kids yet using contraception vs using NFP. NOTHING. there end goal is the same. there mentality is the same. contraception is also accepting the reality of the human situation, when used correctly. i agree that in reality it should be abstinence unless you want kids. NFP is simply following some rules while beating around others. its all a word game and yall fight over what words are more important and how to interperate them. its stupid that this is such a huge argument. where in the bible does it say NFP is ok. no where. it also doesnt say controception is ok.

The Humans in charge of the church says NFP is ok and contraception isnt bc that is what they think is right. but as stated, they are HUMANS. which are imperfect. they made a mistake by saying NFP is ok but then saying contraception isnt.

Yep yep yep!