What the difference from withdrawing and birth control

[blackst]

If you spill your seed outside of your wife verse using a condom, what’s the difference?
How can a couple use the Family planning method, which is choosing not to have a child but have intercourse and oral sex, both are a choice, what about not fertilizing every roe, is that not being open to life?

 

[kage_ar]

No difference, both are serious sins.

 

[Godfollower]

In Natural Family Planning, you either abstain from sex or plan for sex during the wife’s fertile period, depending on what the intended outcome is (either waiting to have a child or hoping to have a child). But it presupposes obedience to the Church’s teaching on sex, which prohibits both of the actions you asked about (using condoms and spilling your seed outside your wife). Oral sex is only permissible as foreplay leading up to intercourse, so that’s not an “out” around the Church’s teaching, either.

 

[gloria97000]

NFP is a means to achieve pregnancy or to space or avoid pregnancy with serious reason (definition of serious ultimately left up to the couple). It is not intended to be used for birth control.

 

[blackst]

In Natural Family Planning, you either abstain from sex or plan for sex during the wife’s fertile period, depending on what the intended outcome is (either waiting to have a child or hoping to have a child). But it presupposes obedience to the Church’s teaching on sex, which prohibits both of the actions you asked about (using condoms and spilling your seed outside your wife). Oral sex is only permissible as foreplay leading up to intercourse, so that’s not an “out” around the Church’s teaching, either.

Thank you for you time, where do you find documents that teach about sex inside the bedroom besides humane vitale?

Is this opinion or fact, did the pope speak ex cathedra?

Gods Grace to you.

 

[Godfollower]

Thank you for you time, where do you find documents that teach about sex inside the bedroom besides humane vitale?

Is this opinion or fact, did the pope speak ex cathedra?

Gods Grace to you.

I would start with the Catechism. The vocation to chastity is paragraphs 2337-2359, and the love of husband and wife is paragraphs 2360-2379. The Catechism contains footnotes that can lead you to the relevant source documents.

The next good source is probably Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, which discusses the love of husband and wife.

The Church’s teaching on the impropriety of birth control goes back to the Apostles (and to the Jewish leaders before them; I believe the ban is even found in Genesis). Choosing to abstain during fertile periods has always been permissible, however.

I hope this helps.

 

[Red_Beard]

Casti Connubii is another encyclical on Christian Marriage that you can find the text for on the web.
Holy Sex! by Dr. Greg Popcak is excellent.
The Good News about Sex and Marriage, by Christopher West is good, too.

Humanae Vitae is infallible. It is infallible because the Pope is upholding the Church’s constant teaching forbidding contraception and the appropriate use of sexuality. It clearly defines a grave moral evil and binds the entire Church. Very few infallible teachings of the Church are made ex cathedra.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[blackst]

Casti Connubii is another encyclical on Christian Marriage that you can find the text for on the web.
Holy Sex! by Dr. Greg Popcak is excellent.
The Good News about Sex and Marriage, by Christopher West is good, too.

Humanae Vitae is infallible. It is infallible because the Pope is upholding the Church’s constant teaching forbidding contraception and the appropriate use of sexuality. It clearly defines a grave moral evil and binds the entire Church. Very few infallible teachings of the Church are made ex cathedra.

God bless,

Red Beard

encyclical’s are not infallible unless that are declared ex cathedra correct.

 

[manualman]

Infallibility is expressed in three different ways:

1. the ordinary magisterium, in other words the consistent teaching of the church over the centuries.
2. Extra-ordinary magisterium found in the councils and specially in the Sacred Scriptures.
3. Ex cathedra pronouncements by the Holy Father.

#3 is extremely rare to almost non-existant!

Contraception has been infallibly defined as immoral by centuries of consistent teaching. It qualifies as infallible under #1 above. There is no need to make an ex cathedra statement via #3 above. Since doing so would imply that #3 holds more authority than #1 and popes do NOT want to send that message, they haven’t.

 

[blackst]

Infallibility is expressed in three different ways:

1. the ordinary magisterium, in other words the consistent teaching of the church over the centuries.
2. Extra-ordinary magisterium found in the councils and specially in the Sacred Scriptures.
3. Ex cathedra pronouncements by the Holy Father.

#3 is extremely rare to almost non-existant!

Contraception has been infallibly defined as immoral by centuries of consistent teaching. It qualifies as infallible under #1 above. There is no need to make an ex cathedra statement via #3 above. Since doing so would imply that #3 holds more authority than #1 and popes do NOT want to send that message, they haven’t.

An encylical is not the teachings of the magistrium, is it, every encylical written by every pope since the begining of the church has been the teaching of the magistium, right, the popes had written about limbo, no longer taught, and woman wore head coverings no longer taught, and the popes used to have children out of wed lock no longer practised, etc…

 

[manualman]

An encylical is not the teachings of the magistrium, is it, every encylical written by every pope since the begining of the church has been the teaching of the magistium, right, the popes had written about limbo, no longer taught, and woman wore head coverings no longer taught, and the popes used to have children out of wed lock no longer practised, etc…

That’s a lot of random buckshot there. Let me try to collect them all.

1. Encyclicals are not automatically infallible. But when they reiterate a teaching consistently confirmed by the ordinary magisterium, they enjoy THAT infallibility. Do you see the difference? When a pope writes on a new subject, he can be wrong if he hasn’t stated that the teaching is ex cathedra.
2. Limbo IS still ONE of the viable theological theories put forth to guess at how God handles babies who died before being baptised. It is not the currently favored one. Infallible teaching is the Christ commanded his disciples to go forth and baptise those of all nations and that said baptism is necessary for salvation (including by desire). Revelation simply doesn’t speak as to those who die before the age of reason. Logical speculation can occur, but has never been given infallible status.
3. Nowhere in church history was it claimed that uncovered female heads were an inherent evil. The evil was in flouting local customs in such a way that the message of the gospel would be obscured by irrelevant details. Once the custom died out, so could the restriction. It is the same with dropping the prohibition on eating meat on all Fridays: meat was never inherently evil just because it was a Friday. That’s a discipline, not a doctrine. Learn the difference.
4. No pope, not even the most corrupt has ever taught ex cathedra that it is OK to have kids out of wedlock. Infallibility protects the official teaching, not the behaviors. Even Saint Peter is proof of that.

No doubt you can loose lots more buckshot. But its all the same misdirection and confusion.

 

[Red_Beard]

Blackst here is an article for your edification on Papal Infallibility

Getting back to your original question, there is nothing different between contraception and “pulling out.” Both are corruptions of our sexuality and the sexual act.

Keep asking questions, they will lead you to the Truth.

God bless,

Red Beard

 

[blackst]

That’s a lot of random buckshot there. Let me try to collect them all.

1. Encyclicals are not automatically infallible. But when they reiterate a teaching consistently confirmed by the ordinary magisterium, they enjoy THAT infallibility. Do you see the difference? When a pope writes on a new subject, he can be wrong if he hasn’t stated that the teaching is ex cathedra.
2. Limbo IS still ONE of the viable theological theories put forth to guess at how God handles babies who died before being baptised. It is not the currently favored one. Infallible teaching is the Christ commanded his disciples to go forth and baptise those of all nations and that said baptism is necessary for salvation (including by desire). Revelation simply doesn’t speak as to those who die before the age of reason. Logical speculation can occur, but has never been given infallible status.
3. Nowhere in church history was it claimed that uncovered female heads were an inherent evil. The evil was in flouting local customs in such a way that the message of the gospel would be obscured by irrelevant details. Once the custom died out, so could the restriction. It is the same with dropping the prohibition on eating meat on all Fridays: meat was never inherently evil just because it was a Friday. That’s a discipline, not a doctrine. Learn the difference.
4. No pope, not even the most corrupt has ever taught ex cathedra that it is OK to have kids out of wedlock. Infallibility protects the official teaching, not the behaviors. Even Saint Peter is proof of that.

No doubt you can loose lots more buckshot. But its all the same misdirection and confusion.

Yes, Thank you for your logic, and time. You still didn’t address how we know an encylical is of the magistrium or if it’s just been published for the first time.

As far as doctrine and discipline how do we learn, there is an immense amount of writings, why don’t they the Pope condense all the encylicals into a reference like the cathechism?

How does one know the magistrium, the college of bishops, have approved of the encylical’s, the Popes wrote about and when they conducted war all through the middle ages and the inquistion, so what is truth about her teachings, about withdrawl, I read some of the Theology of the Body, but it did not state anything succient about the bedroom af a husband and a wife.The vatican has shut down her libraries.

My buckshot is meant to cover some of the area’s of confusion and secrecy of the Church.

Is there unity in teaching’s and woman’s headwear, and tradition, I’ve searched for a book that tells of the Church’s tradition’s, why these traditions and not the traditons of the Bible, circumcision, head covering, drunkedness, woman not speaking, who chooses these traditions?

 

[thistle]

Yes, Thank you for your logic, and time. You still didn’t address how we know an encylical is of the magistrium or if it’s just been published for the first time.

As far as doctrine and discipline how do we learn, there is an immense amount of writings, why don’t they the Pope condense all the encylicals into a reference like the cathechism?

How does one know the magistrium, the college of bishops, have approved of the encylical’s, the Popes wrote about and when they conducted war all through the middle ages and the inquistion, so what is truth about her teachings, about withdrawl, I read some of the Theology of the Body, but it did not state anything succient about the bedroom af a husband and a wife.The vatican has shut down her libraries.

My buckshot is meant to cover some of the area’s of confusion and secrecy of the Church.

Is there unity in teaching’s and woman’s headwear, and tradition, I’ve searched for a book that tells of the Church’s tradition’s, why these traditions and not the traditons of the Bible, circumcision, head covering, drunkedness, woman not speaking, who chooses these traditions?

You are way off topic. If you want to discuss traditions, infallibility etc then please start a new thread. This one (which you opened) is about withdrawal and birth control. Please stick to the topic.

 

[blackst]

You are way off topic. If you want to discuss traditions, infallibility etc then please start a new thread. This one (which you opened) is about withdrawal and birth control. Please stick to the topic.

Everyone states what the church teaches without reference, so how do we stay on topic about where in the Theology of the body does the church teach on sexual acts in the bedroom?

Just because you say something doesnt mean the church said it’s true and is the church teaching infalliblity about every document.

How can someone have a conversation about truth if they don’t referece some authority?

 

[manualman]

The simplest way to tell is to read up on the issue. It really isn’t hard to see whether a teaching is based on inherent moral principles or a disciplinary command.

Encyclicals generally make a lot of references. If you want to invest the time and effort, you can look up the basis for the arguments they make and learn whether the idea being presented is new and novel or consistent with Sacred Tradition. But I betcha Cadillacs to donuts that a layman ain’t gonna find a legitimate flaw in an encyclical. They’re too well vetted before publishing. Popes don’t exactly write 'em over breakfast…