Go back
Protestants and Contraception

Protestants and Contraception

Spirituality

X
Cancerous Bus Crash

p^2.sin(phi)

Joined
06 Sep 04
Moves
25076
Clock
29 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, in fairness, the so-called 'Natural' planning method is exceptionally effective when the couple
is informed and uses it properly. It's not simply about counting days, but checking vaginal secretions
and, in some cases, measuring hormone levels (it's not the 'rhythm method'😉.

Addtionally, many of the systems used to determine yearly failure rate ...[text shortened]... volunteer information, the statistics read intentional pregnancies as failures.

Nemesio
The latter would be the same for all failure rates quoted for contraception methods.

The former isn't what most people would call "natural" is it?

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49650
Clock
29 Apr 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
I refuse to acknowledge so-called 'Catholic Roulette' as 'natural' anything, for it is even more unnatural
than artificial contraception, given that in avoiding conjugals during the woman's around and slightly
after ovulation, you deny her sexual gratification at the time when she naturally is the most aroused,
but, instead insist upon sexual activity in ed that it was
implicit that I was referring to artificial contraception.

Nemesio
Nemesio: "I refuse to acknowledge so-called 'Catholic Roulette' as 'natural' anything, .... "

Nemesio: "Well, in fairness, the so-called 'Natural' planning method is exceptionally effective when the couple
is informed and uses it properly."


🙂

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49650
Clock
29 Apr 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
I refuse to acknowledge so-called 'Catholic Roulette' as 'natural' anything, for it is even more unnatural
than artificial contraception, given that in avoiding conjugals during the woman's around and slightly
after ovulation, you deny her sexual gratification at the time when she naturally is the most aroused,
but, instead insist upon sexual activity in ed that it was
implicit that I was referring to artificial contraception.

Nemesio
Nemesio: "The 'doctrine' itself is rooted in self-abasement, fear of pleasure, and control."

Really ? How do you know ?

R
Standard memberRemoved

Joined
15 Sep 04
Moves
7051
Clock
29 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
He would if the couple also decides that not having a child at that particular time makes the most
sense.

Nemesio
There is such thing as abstinence....

But why is should the matter rest on him, anyway? Why is it he that insists on denying her her sexual gratification? Is it only the role of the man to enforce Catholic teaching in the household? Don't couples arrive at their own decision together on whether or not to have children or when to have sex?

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49650
Clock
29 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Conrau K
There is such thing as abstinence....

But why is should the matter rest on him, anyway? Why is it he that insists on denying her her sexual gratification? Is it only the role of the man to enforce Catholic teaching in the household? Don't couples arrive at their own decision together on whether or not to have children or when to have sex?
!

X
Cancerous Bus Crash

p^2.sin(phi)

Joined
06 Sep 04
Moves
25076
Clock
29 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio: "The 'doctrine' itself is rooted in self-abasement, fear of pleasure, and control."

Really ? How do you know ?
Try to read the paragraph directly before the out of context quote.

i

Felicific Forest

Joined
15 Dec 02
Moves
49650
Clock
30 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Try to read the paragraph directly before the out of context quote.
That doesn't explain anything and certainly doesn't allow the conclusion following it.

Nemesio
Ursulakantor

Pittsburgh, PA

Joined
05 Mar 02
Moves
34824
Clock
30 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
The latter would be the same for all failure rates quoted for contraception methods.

Evidently it's not the same because, unlike other forms of contraception, it's not really possible to
gauge whether or not it was or was not done (unlike not taking the pill or not wearing a condom,
for example). It rather screws up the %s, so I've heard.

The former isn't what most people would call "natural" is it?

It's a crock, to be sure.

Nemesio

Nemesio
Ursulakantor

Pittsburgh, PA

Joined
05 Mar 02
Moves
34824
Clock
30 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
🙂
One of the longest posts with purely original content in a long time, Ivanhoe. Congrats.

Nemesio
Ursulakantor

Pittsburgh, PA

Joined
05 Mar 02
Moves
34824
Clock
30 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Conrau K
There is such thing as abstinence....

But why is should the matter rest on him, anyway? Why is it he that insists on denying her her sexual gratification? Is it only the role of the man to enforce Catholic teaching in the household? Don't couples arrive at their own decision together on whether or not to have children or when to have sex?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The periods of time when the woman is most fertile also coincide
with the periods of time when she is the most intensely aroused. So, if a couple elects not to have
children and uses the so-called 'natural' method, then they must avoid sex every fertile period, which
means every time the woman is at her sexual peak.

And WTF to you have to add to this? You thought 'fornication' was a matter of interpretation and that
Roman Catholics could consider the doctrine of contraception 'optional.'

Nemesio

R
Standard memberRemoved

Joined
15 Sep 04
Moves
7051
Clock
30 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The periods of time when the woman is most fertile also coincide
with the periods of time when she is the most intensely aroused. So, if a couple elects not to have
children and uses the so-called 'natural' method, then they must avoid sex every fertile period, which
means every time the woman is at her ...[text shortened]... hat
Roman Catholics could consider the doctrine of contraception 'optional.'

Nemesio
It was just difficult to identify who the "you" is that you were referring to. When I read your post it sounded as if the Catholic teaching denies her from experiencing sexual pleasure. It's true that that might be a consequence of Catholic teaching, but it is up to the woman to deny her sexual pleasures.

And WTF to you have to add to this? You thought 'fornication' was a matter of interpretation and that
Roman Catholics could consider the doctrine of contraception 'optional.'


I don't recall saying this. I remember having expressed disagreement with a total condemnation on condoms. From my own experiences with people, I have encountered instances when the choice is between sex and abstinence lead the man to coerce the woman with threats of leaving her and so on. In such cases, if the woman insists on a condom to avoid alternative ramifications, condoms are not an evil. I did think that "Humanae Vitae" did not give an infallible teaching. But I think it was LH who clarified that it really was something already taught infallibly.

I don't think I ever said 'fornication' was a matter of interpretation. I don't know what it means.

l

London

Joined
02 Mar 04
Moves
36105
Clock
30 Apr 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, the article seems to mix three separate questions: (1) abortion; (2) contraception; and (3) priestly celibacy—I’m not saying that for the author’s point that is invalid, but they are also separable.

The main focus seems to be on (2), and I simply hold that contraception is not a sin (although I, like the author, was a “cradle Lutheran,” I, also lik ...[text shortened]... turgical functions. What the ratio of married to unmarried “parish” priests is, I do not know.
Thanks for the response. I'm not getting into the morality of contraception per se; I just found the historical reasons for Protestant pastors turning their backs to it interesting.

On the subjects of abortion, contraception and celibacy: While I agree that conceptually these can be separated, in practise they are often conjoined together. Pope Paul VI, writing in Humanae Vitae spoke of the rise of a "contraceptive mentality" that was closed to, and would eventually stand in opposition to, new life.

l

London

Joined
02 Mar 04
Moves
36105
Clock
30 Apr 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
On doctrine, then, Protestant leaders held firm well into the twentieth century. The weakness of the Protestant position actually lay elsewhere: in the informal institution of the Pastor’s Family. One possible cause of the change in Protestant teaching not often considered is the changed family life of the clergy themselves.

Originally posted by c, I'd be happy to participate.
Nemesio
Just responding to one point:

But, the Christian churches (in error, I feel) have historically promoted sex as a 'necessary evil.' St Paul's mistaken belief that the parousia was imminent led to his comments about the burning passions, and St Augustine's guilt-ridden writings are filled with it (in contrast with St John Chrystostom). The Protestant churches inherited this from the Roman Church, and the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are marked with repression in all forms (prohibition comes to mind), with a facade of sexual propriety with an undercurrent of sexual frustration.

I feel that the Protestant churches were the first to come around on the idea that sex (within marriage, of course) was healthy in and of itself, not a necessary evil and the Roman Church, too (and rightly, I believe) has followed.



Simple response: Thomas Aquinas. Specifically, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q.153, A.2:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm#2

Nemesio
Ursulakantor

Pittsburgh, PA

Joined
05 Mar 02
Moves
34824
Clock
30 Apr 07
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just responding to one point

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm#2
I don't dispute that there were individuals -- even prominent ones -- who spoke against the normative
position, LH (although I didn't know the St Thomas Aquinas citation, so thank you). However, if you
compare the Church's explicit teaching today with, say, 1700, you have to confess that St Thomas
Aquinas' view was hardly constitutes the norm. Further, there is no mention (that I saw at a glance)
of the holiness of the sexual union, how it reflects the deepest intimacy and expression of love in
a marriage which, itself, is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and Mother Church. Even
in St Thomas Aquinas' relatively 'liberal' theo-philosophy, there is still the lingering 'necessary evil'
which is part of his hermeneutic (which he contributed to altering).

Nemesio

Nemesio
Ursulakantor

Pittsburgh, PA

Joined
05 Mar 02
Moves
34824
Clock
30 Apr 07
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Conrau K
It's true that that might be a consequence of Catholic teaching, but it is up to the woman to deny her sexual pleasures.
So, the only form of contraception acceptable to Roman Catholics is one
in which the woman must forgo sexual intimacy during the period of
her greatest arousal and ability to experience pleasure?

Yeah, real 'natural.' That's exactly what God intended when he
put the libido there.

Nemesio

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.