Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Birth Control...
-
24-09-2008 10:22am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Honest mistake, don't worry about it!To be honest, as I mentioned earlier, I am guilty of a grievious error in recounting the story of Onan. Probably from listening to too much pro-contraception propaganda on the matter, so apologies again about that.
To reiterate what I said earlier, the punishment for breaking the Levirate law is detailed and in Deut 25 and is minor compared with killing. Why therefore did God kill Onan if by His own decree (via Moses) the law breaker was to be spat upon and called unshod?However, there is no doubt in my mind, that one cannot base a decree either way on this scripture. There are so many things that Onan is guilty of in this passage. Disobeying his father, dishonouring his brother. Practically keeping Thamar as a sex slave. The point of the lvrite tradition was to bear an heir for his deceased brother. He was abusing the position by having intercourse, but missing the point of why he had to marry her in the first place. His heart was selfish. In isolation, one could include the spilling of his seed as a possible reason.
That would depend on whether the infertility was natural or procured. If the intertility is natural, the couple should continue to not use contraception in the hope that God could give them the gift of a child. If the wife or husband has had a sterilization procedure, he or she should try to have it reversed.We know that certain people, male and female, are infertile. So is it wrong for them (married of course)to have intercourse knowing that they are merely carrying out an act of sexual gratification?
No, there's no need because the couple can still have sex during the wife's infertile period.Is it wrong for a married couple to take a responsible approach to family planning? If I have 3 children, and times are hard, and I know that a 4th child would be of huge consaquence to the family. Should I then forsake the marriage bed?0 -
Asiaprod,,,
just wondering (as you are the mod - ) did you remove my post (which was slightly off topic i know)
im only wondering if i actually am that tired that i imagined i posted... or am i losing my mind completely? Either of which is quite possible thanks - 0 -
all the stars wrote: »Asiaprod,,,
just wondering (as you are the mod - ) did you remove my post (which was slightly off topic i know)
im only wondering if i actually am that tired that i imagined i posted... or am i losing my mind completely? Either of which is quite possible thanks -
I soft deleted it, I take no offense to it, but I want to keep this thread very clean and on topic. Go and sleep:)0 -
Honest mistake, don't worry about it!
It just irritates me that i regurgitated something someone else said to me. Just a bit annoyed at myself. Anyhoo...To reiterate what I said earlier, the punishment for breaking the Levirate law is detailed and in Deut 25 and is minor compared with killing. Why therefore did God kill Onan if by His own decree (via Moses) the law breaker was to be spat upon and called unshod?
The thing is, that there was more to it than that. He didn't break the tradition by refusing to marry his brothers wife, but actually took her as his wife. So he caused a deception. He made it look like he was obeying his father, and honouring his brother. Yet he was purposely not impregnating her because he did not want to give his brother an heir. As I said, I really don't think you can base the 'no contraception' decree on this scripture alone. As mentioned earlier, it didn't even get a mention in the law. It says in the Onan passage that he did a detestable thing. Yet there was no law mentioning that one shouldn't do it. Was there a principle in place even?That would depend on whether the infertility was natural or procured. If the intertility is natural, the couple should continue to not use contraception in the hope that God could give them the gift of a child. If the wife or husband has had a sterilization procedure, he or she should try to have it reversed.
Again, what is the principle that you are following which leads to this conclusion?No, there's no need because the couple can still have sex during the wife's infertile period.
Ok, so that means that its ok to have sex for pleasure alone right?0 -
I've seen quite a bit of thatIt just irritates me that i regurgitated something someone else said to me.
I need to look into this a bit more but the Church teaches that sexual intercourse and openness to life must go hand-in-hand. i.e. you should never have one without the other meaning that contraception and artificial insemination are sinful. Onan for his own selfish reasons had the pleasure of sex with his wife but was not open to new life.The thing is, that there was more to it than that. He didn't break the tradition by refusing to marry his brothers wife, but actually took her as his wife. So he caused a deception. He made it look like he was obeying his father, and honouring his brother. Yet he was purposely not impregnating her because he did not want to give his brother an heir.
I agree that Scripture alone in this case isn't sufficent. The Church bases its teachings on Scripture, Tradition and the authority of the Magisterium. To me, it's clear as day, that scripture alone is seldom enough.As I said, I really don't think you can base the 'no contraception' decree on this scripture alone. As mentioned earlier, it didn't even get a mention in the law. It says in the Onan passage that he did a detestable thing. Yet there was no law mentioning that one shouldn't do it.
The principle that intercourse and openness to life shouldn't be separated.Again, what is the principle that you are following which leads to this conclusion?
There's nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure unless there is a deliberate attempt to avoid conception.Ok, so that means that its ok to have sex for pleasure alone right?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I accept that you hold to the doctrine that the RCC has authority on these maters, but do you know what they base this decree on?
Thats what I'm asking about though. Where does the above decree have its roots? I.E. Do you know how the catholic church arrived at this conclusion?
Hello, sorry I took so long to come back to you!
Here's a few quotes from Humanae Vitae:-
Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.
.......
Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." (8)
11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.
13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14)
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.Does that not contradict what you said earlier about waiting until your wifes infertile period? As that is a deliberate act of avoiding conception.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.
(12) See Pius XI. encyc. letter Casti connubi: AAS 22 (1930), 560; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Is it OK to wilfully calculate an infertile period for the space of time that a bit of rubber is in the way?
One or two minutes on average I think.
Seriously though I think it is far preferable alternative to children being born to parents who never wanted them in the first place.
Of course abstinence is statistically the most secure method or avoiding pregancy or stds, but in the real world people have sex and that is not going going to change any time soon.
What is the benefit of this policy for the people of the third world? It seems they generally take heed to the churches teaching on contraception, but not the abstinence bit.
Sure contraception is not the only answer to the HIV problem and education is certainly more important longer term, but the condom is a vital if imperfect weapon nonethless in the fight to reduce HIV rates.
One method is very slow, expensive and takes a long time to make a real impression, the other does not. And discouraging the use of contraception causes a great deal of unnescessary suffering in the meantime IMHO.
Is it really so hard to say, "We think you should abstain from sex, but if you must then take some precautions".0 -
-
-
Hello, sorry I took so long to come back to you!
Here's a few quotes from Humanae Vitae:-
Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.
.......
Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." (8)
11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.
13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14)
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.
(12) See Pius XI. encyc. letter Casti connubi: AAS 22 (1930), 560; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843.
TBH Noel, I find alot of the above reasonable:eek: I agree that with the introduction of contraception, came an easy way for the 'young' to misbehave. It removed many consequences etc and ironically in doing so, It has allowed the shift to turn from Sex being a moral issue, to sex being about consequence. Responsible sex has now turned into, 'I used a condom'. It has made it easier for people to not exhibit self control. If I had to choose between a world with no contraception, and a world with contraception, I'd choose without. However, we now live in a world with contraception, and I don't see any issue with a couple within a marriage using it. I think its a matter for ones own concience. We now live in a world where it is very difficult to have more than a couple of kids. If either myself or my wife stopped working, we'd really struggle, and I really don't believe in handing children over to childminders. With one or two, I can organise things with my mum and sister etc. Any more, and I'm not going to be giving my children what I believe is the right upbringing. Therefore, due to circumstance, I would take contraceptive measures.
I also see inconsistancy with the infertile period arguement. Its still willful prevention.
Maybe the RCC forsaw the possible negative results of contraception, and I think they were correct. As I said previously, overall I'd prefer a world of no contraception. They lost though, contraception is here to stay. I think its now time to look for the positives. In the current world, I don't see contraception as sinful in a marriage. I do think wisdom is still needed though.
to summarise. I see wisdom in the stance that contraception will have a negative impact, and if we had no contraception, I'd probably argue the negatives outweigh the positives. However, I don't see it as sinful for a married couple to use it in a society where it is readily available already.
My 2 cent.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement