Should Pro-abortion People Use Contraception?

[Basilisa Marie]

Educate a poor non-Catholic here. I thought Catholically speaking, sexual intercourse was for procreation. What about other sexual acts? Just because you can't have sexual intercourse for recreation doesn't mean all sex for fun is forbidden, is it?

 

Papist's answer is excellent, and I'd like to add:

 

Some other sexual actions are acceptable, as long as they're in the context of marriage AND in the context of sex (i.e., as foreplay).  Anything that separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex isn't allowed.

[Kia ora]

Sex belongs inside marriage for the procreative and unitive dimensions of marriage.The procreative and unitive, you can't separate the two. It has been said that when a married couple engages in sex they are renewing their wedding vows of the total giving of self. If one person is contracepting, then he/she is not giving totally of his/her self.

 

 

Thanks. I didn't know of this aspect of Catholic understanding of sex. You know all I hear and know about the Catholic position (largely from the media, but also on forums where I've dabbled) is about natural law and why procreation is the natural end for sex, which makes it sound to me dreadfully boring and utilitarian. I hear less about why sex is supposed to be good for you.

 

AND in the context of sex (i.e., as foreplay).

 

Huh. So no sexual acts, unless it's leading up to full blown sex?

 

Well I can see how that would be hard for people who want to enjoy sex without having kids. I was going to say that it could work if you use those other sex acts (sorry, I want to be a bit more explicit but I donno if I'm allowed to here) as a way to blow off steam, so you could reserve sexual intercourse for when you really do want to have children. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Thanks. I didn't know of this aspect of Catholic understanding of sex. You know all I hear and know about the Catholic position (largely from the media, but also on forums where I've dabbled) is about natural law and why procreation is the natural end for sex, which makes it sound to me dreadfully boring and utilitarian. I hear less about why sex is supposed to be good for you.

 

 

Huh. So no sexual acts, unless it's leading up to full blown sex?

 

Well I can see how that would be hard for people who want to enjoy sex without having kids. I was going to say that it could work if you use those other sex acts (sorry, I want to be a bit more explicit but I donno if I'm allowed to here) as a way to blow off steam, so you could reserve sexual intercourse for when you really do want to have children. 

 

Well, the thing is, if we actually pay attention to a woman's fertility, couples are totally able to enjoy sex even when there are serious reasons to not get pregnant at that moment (or know when to have sex to have the best chances of getting pregnant).  Natural Family Planning is actually pretty scientific.  It's a bit more involved than popping a pill, and sure, you can't have sex whenever you want, but sex is supposed to be really meaningful for Catholics.  Generally people nowadays take such a casual attitude toward sex.  We take it seriously, which is why you probably hear so many people talking about it so seriously.  But don't worry...Catholics definitely still view it as an incredibly joyful activity. :) 

[Mark of the Cross]

No, Papist is right. If the Church* has erred in faith or morals, then Jesus Himself lied when He said that the gates of hell will not prevail. If the Church is not infallible, then we have no Truth.

 

*And please make sure to distinguish between The Church, and the stupid people inside the Church, because I do not want to get sidetracked on that tangent.

 

I was led to understand that the Church does not claim (Papal) infallibility except under certain important considerations such as the divinity of Jesus Christ for example. Of course it has to be true. What about Anomalies complaint that the Church taught that eating meat on Friday would get you a ticket to hell? How many good Catholics have suffered because of fallacious teachings? A number of my friends claim they did until V2 put things right. You say don't take notice of the stupid people in the Church. Then what/who is the Church? Our building is in a terrible state of repair, it's people are sinners full of defects and the whole show seems to be falling apart at the moment and needs fixing physically and spiritually. A certain people I have been conversing with while taking a break from PM tell me that prophets are infallible. Well now that creates a problem. God gave free choice and so Adam fell and caused a fallen creation. If God prevented some men from being sinners then he made choiceless robots of them. There is an exception. Mary was sinless by virtue and is why God chose her. Jesus was sinless because he was God. Jesus founded a Church composed of ordinary men. St Peter betrayed Jesus. Judah Iscariot was well need I say more. These are teachings that there are false prophets and all is not well. St Thomas doubted. Apostles on the road were blinded to Jesus presence because of their disbelief.  Are these the lessons of a faultless Church in a fallen world? God is awsome he can bring perfection from error. eg. If there are no wrongs how can we make it right? Why V2. the Orthodox say the old tradition should be unaltered. The Romans say some were wrong and it needed fixing especially the contradictions. Who's right and how do I know who's right except by using reason and asking God.

On the original argument there is a logistics problem. You said that a sin is a sin no matter what. The Church says that sex other than for procreation within marriage is a sin except under certain circumstances. Is the Church giving permission to sin under certain circumstances?

 

There are two very important monotheistic principles

God the beginning and end of all things can be known with certitude through the light of human reason from created things.

The desire for God is written in the human heart,(mind) because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
Faith is not blind, we have personal experience of God because it is written in our mind and we can use collected information for our reason. On these things we found our faith and never stop searching for greater meaning and understanding. If we accept blind faith in something being infallible then we are prone to being misled and in danger of becoming mindless robots.

As to Papist statement that I risk hell. He think he is confusing the act of trying to justify a sin as not being a sin to excuse ones personal weakness. I am not attempting that. I readily admit my sins.

[Mark of the Cross]

I am your truth.  

 

Yes we can be drawn to something, we can also be driven to it when we observe the alternative.

[Mark of the Cross]

 

Huh. So no sexual acts, unless it's leading up to full blown sex?

 

Well I can see how that would be hard for people who want to enjoy sex without having kids. I was going to say that it could work if you use those other sex acts (sorry, I want to be a bit more explicit but I donno if I'm allowed to here) as a way to blow off steam, so you could reserve sexual intercourse for when you really do want to have children. 

 

St Paul opined that Judaism was the impossible religion. Seems we are trying to compete. Probably explains the move to other denominations in the third world countries.

[Nihil Obstat]

[...]

More or less, but what we are talking about again is then the difference between the infallibility of the Church, and the fallibility under normal circumstances of the members of the Church.

The Church cannot err, ever, period. But the Church is not the same as the college of cardinals or the pope or the USCCB.

[Jesus_lol]

If someone asked you "i am definitely going to have sex now, should i use a condom now, or get an abortion later should I become pregnant?" what would your answer be?

 

 

 

For you who say "what about the third option of 'dont have sex'?", since I figure there may be significant overlap with a previous conversation here on PM, think of it this way.

 

Your third option is basically advocating a third party with little chance of winning. You are telling them to vote for Ron Paul or Vermin Supreme, when they ask you "which is the better choice, Obama or Romney?"

 

Sure, go ahead and support the third party. But we all know that given its extremely low chance of winning, you also have a preference as to which of the two main options is better.

 

So dUSt, your answer is to vote for Romney/Condoms.

 

 

:|

[Mark of the Cross]

More or less, but what we are talking about again is then the difference between the infallibility of the Church, and the fallibility under normal circumstances of the members of the Church.

The Church cannot err, ever, period. But the Church is not the same as the college of cardinals or the pope or the USCCB.

 

Phishy eh! What do you think got me judged as phishy :hehe2:  ?? There are people here who are atheist and post anti comments who are not phishy. The orthodox people (not Phishy) disregard V2 which I wholeheartedly agree with.  To research faith by asking questions and making suppositions is apparently Phishy, how charitable! A 'not Catholic', discussion, warning, suspension, or even ban would be more Christian than a personal insult. Brings to mind. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: [12] Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.  I wonder if the admin here really understand the principle of learning by supposition and counter argument?

 

I'm still having difficulty understanding your distinction between Church and those people who make up the Church. If you mean by The Church as in being the doctrine of Jesus Christ then I wholeheartedly agree that is undoubtedly infallible. I'm discussing the issue of interpretation of scripture. A priest in his homily said that in Jewish times turning the other cheek was an insult to the one who slapped you. Sounds a bit phishy to me, but Is that priest phishy?

[Nihil Obstat]

Phishy eh! What do you think got me judged as phishy :hehe2:  ?? There are people here who are atheist and post anti comments who are not phishy. The orthodox people (not Phishy) disregard V2 which I wholeheartedly agree with.  To research faith by asking questions and making suppositions is apparently Phishy, how charitable! A 'not Catholic', discussion, warning, suspension, or even ban would be more Christian than a personal insult. Brings to mind. Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: [12] Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.  I wonder if the admin here really understand the principle of learning by supposition and counter argument?

 

I'm still having difficulty understanding your distinction between Church and those people who make up the Church. If you mean by The Church as in being the doctrine of Jesus Christ then I wholeheartedly agree that is undoubtedly infallible. I'm discussing the issue of interpretation of scripture. A priest in his homily said that in Jewish times turning the other cheek was an insult to the one who slapped you. Sounds a bit phishy to me, but Is that priest phishy?

 

Aw, I do not think you deserve a Phishy tag. :sad2: I disagree with you all the time on theology stuff, but phishy? I think that is too much, personally.

 

In terms of The Church versus the people in the Church, the key to understanding that IMO is to remember that the Church proper is far more than the sum of Catholics who are alive right now. It makes more sense to think of the Church as a person. Specifically, we often identify Mary with the Church. In that sense, the Church is our mother, and all of us who are Catholic, both on earth and otherwise, are Her children. 

So we, the people in the Church Militant, here on earth, can be mistaken and can err. But we are not the Church. We are a part of it, but we are not the totality. The Church as a whole cannot err because She is protected from error by God Himself.

[Mark of the Cross]

Aw, I do not think you deserve a Phishy tag. :sad2: I disagree with you all the time on theology stuff, but phishy? I think that is too much, personally.

 

Not to worry I felt the sting of the whip on Jesus back, but the Lord is quick to console. There was a funeral yesterday for a dear little girl who died under tragic circumstances. Today I went to clean and was asked to secure toys and drawings left in the Church. I placed her angel drawings next to the picture of Mary MacKillop and sat her toys in the chapel. While I was doing it the parents came to collect and the real softy I am, shed a tear. I don't think they thought I was Phishy! And I said a prayer for the people who have judged me so harshly.   

 

 

In terms of The Church versus the people in the Church, the key to understanding that IMO is to remember that the Church proper is far more than the sum of Catholics who are alive right now. It makes more sense to think of the Church as a person. Specifically, we often identify Mary with the Church. In that sense, the Church is our mother, and all of us who are Catholic, both on earth and otherwise, are Her children. 

So we, the people in the Church Militant, here on earth, can be mistaken and can err. But we are not the Church. We are a part of it, but we are not the totality. The Church as a whole cannot err because She is protected from error by God Himself.

 

Yes as stated I agree about the Church that's why I'm so concerned about the future of lack of priests and falling attendances. Things wax and wane but will I see a return of people and especially children in my time?  My complaint has been with those people here on earth that you say can be mistaken and err and are the cause of this regression. If the Church falls off here other religions that are growing will take over and that would be a shame since they are easy to find logical faults. I don't think you and I disagree that much we just have different concepts of viewing and I think we misunderstand each other. I've always found you to be very patient, non judgmental and quite helpful. Much of what you have written I have taken on board. Peace.