contraception

[jamais]

my understanding is that both the early Church, the medieval Church, and even the reformation and all the Protestant groups taught that contraception is seriously wrong until recent decades

there is no question of judgment of persons here

can contraception be defended ethically?

I don't think so, as it--like all other sexual sins--seeks to divorce sex from responsibility

[Slopeshoulder]

[quote="jamaisone of the questions is what is true responsibility? [/quote]
Dunno. What say you?

is it responsible to have sex if one does not desire the intrinsic meaning of sex, which includes natural fertility and self-donation?

While many of us apparently value what you call the intrinsic meaning of sex, why would not love and-or sensual pleasure be just as intrinsic a meaning? Why are fertility and self donation, as you call them, more instrinsic than the joy of embrace and orgasm? And if the cost of one little orgasm is a lifetime of self-donation (child), doesn't that seem disproportinate if unwanted? Is ALL sex to be procreative? Would women not have shorter and more miserable lives if this were true? Why not use technology to even out the cost and use sex for multiple ends as and when desired?

in regard to producing someone disabled ... we are all disabled in various ways, and God delights in creating all of us

I invite you to run that thoery by the person with spina bifida. It strikes me as a well intended but detached, elitist, armchair, self serving fantasy.

is it not a disability to want the pleasure of sex, but to be unwilling to respect oneself and one's spouse enough to give oneself fully to the other in God?

see above.
Doing what you say seems very nice and noble, but why define sex and responsibility in those terms for the rest of us? It seems narrow, elitist, arrogant and disrespectful of diversity IMO. For example, if my wife gets preggers, she'll die. We love each other, she's hot, we're at it as schedules allow, thanks to permanent contraception. I also know artists and intellectuals with limited health or limited resources. Their divine gift, and their birthed contribution, is their work, not children. But they are not celibate, they have sex, lots I hope, thanks to contraception. Irresponsible? Bah!

[jamais]

While many of us apparently value what you call the intrinsic meaning of sex, why would not love and-or sensual pleasure be just as intrinsic a meaning?

how can love be separated from openness to life?

love means the desire to be with the beloved. but contraception correlates with divorce.

is that not a serious matter with numerous serious negative consequences?

Why are fertility and self donation, as you call them, more instrinsic than the joy of embrace ...?

what is the meaning of this joy if not love and love of life?

And if the cost of one little orgasm is a lifetime of self-donation (child), doesn't that seem disproportinate if unwanted?

then why engage in the act if it such a small good, of if one does not have true love of the spouse and life?

whatever our disagreements, we agree that having a child is a great matter.

[Slopeshoulder]

While many of us apparently value what you call the intrinsic meaning of sex, why would not love and-or sensual pleasure be just as intrinsic a meaning?

how can love be separated from openness to life?

Why does loving one's partner have to do with making a baby every time you express that love through schtupping?
What does open to life mean, willing to be pregnant every nine months?

love means the desire to be with the beloved.

Among other things.

but contraception correlates with divorce.

On what planet?
Source? proof?
And correlation is not causation anyway.

is that not a serious matter with numerous serious negative consequences?

Divorce was the second best thing that ever happned to me.

Why are fertility and self donation, as you call them, more instrinsic than the joy of embrace ...?

what is the meaning of this joy if not love and love of life?

The feeling I get in my penis is its own meaning, and self-validating as long as it doesn't undermine other values we affirm.
Any other meaning is meaning that we choose to invest in sex, for example love, intimacy, communication, and in some cases, creating life.
Why and how do you start adding the word life to the word love? Sex, love and life are separate concepts. You'll have to do a lot more work to convince the 99% of humanity that is not made up of religious extremists that thinks you're wrong that they are synonymous or linked a priori. I suggest that if they are linked, it is because we choose to link them, not because you or your magic book (wrongly read) say we have to.

And if the cost of one little orgasm is a lifetime of self-donation (child), doesn't that seem disproportinate if unwanted?

then why engage in the act if it such a small good, of if one does not have true love of the spouse and life?

Who said spouse?
What small good? The orgasm and everything that accompanies it is on most people's short list of biggest and bestest things in life. I personally engage in the act due to the confluence of erection, female hotness, proximity, and consent. That's all the reason I need. Yes, love adds something (a lot actually). But new life ain't a part of it except as an option.

whatever our disagreements, we agree that having a child is a great matter.

If so, what's the relevance?
Having a child would ruin my life and undermine my divine purpose. That's why I have used technology to avoid it while simultaneously feasting on the female form (and sometimes the persons it carries) for 35 years with only one short break.

Is there any substance of my post you'd like to address? All I see so far are platitudes and assumptions at the edges.

[Braveheart]

We love each other, she's hot, we're at it as schedules allow, thanks to permanent contraception. I also know artists and intellectuals with limited health or limited resources. Their divine gift, and their birthed contribution, is their work, not children. But they are not celibate, they have sex, lots I hope, thanks to contraception. Irresponsible? Bah![/quote]

Therein lies the problem. Contraception allows folks to live like total animals, and that is irresponsible. By allowing oneself to have sex without limit and without having children, is abusing one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind. A true Christian would realize that Jesus hates contraception, for throughout the bible, not being able to have a child is considered the greatest disgrace. In Luke 1:25, after Elizabeth conceives, she says: "Thus the Lord has dealt with me, in the days when He looked on me, to take away my reproach among people." God also tells Adam and Eve in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply." So not being able to have children in ancient times made one a disgrace. Surely a Christian, especially one who claims to be catholic, would not dare refute the bible itself?! By allowing oneself to have sex without limit and without having children, is abusing one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind.

[jamais]

Why does loving one's partner have to do with making a baby every time you express that love...

who said anything of the sort?

What does open to life mean...?

being willing to accept the natural consequences of choosing to express one's love genitally--note the meaning of the term "genitally"-- during the fertile period

btw, what defines a sexual sin? do you believe there are any?

[Slopeshoulder]

deleted, double post error

[jamais]

The feeling I get in my penis is its own meaning, and self-validating as long as it doesn't undermine other values we affirm.
.
.

should we affirm the values of purity, chastity, respect, and fertility?

I think that if we divorce sex from a necessary connection to natural fertility, we end up with a culture of selfishness and eroticism rather than respect, with all the horrible consquences socially, psychologically etc

why do you think there is such a correlation between divorce and contraceptives, and NFP and non-divorce?

also contraceptives--both the Mini and the Combination Pill--are abortifacient. abortion is linked with great health risks from alcoholism to smoking, PTSD, etc

thanks be to God for His Infinite Mercy through Jesus Christ, since we ALL so need it

[Slopeshoulder]

We love each other, she's hot, we're at it as schedules allow, thanks to permanent contraception. I also know artists and intellectuals with limited health or limited resources. Their divine gift, and their birthed contribution, is their work, not children. But they are not celibate, they have sex, lots I hope, thanks to contraception. Irresponsible? Bah!

Therein lies the problem. Contraception allows folks to live like total animals,

So you deny that these childless people birth meaningful things that participate in co-creation and glory god equally?
What is a total animal?
How are they living like total animals?
Are we not animals?
Or are you not just afraid of sex in most of its manifestations?

and that is irresponsible.

Living in accordance and harmony with our nature is responsible. And using our gifts is resonsible and holy.
How do you propose that it is irresponsible?

By allowing oneself to have sex without limit

Nonsense, people who use contraception usually observe MANY moral limits. They are unrelated phenomena.
What on earth are you talking about?

and without having children,

Wait a minute, now you're saying everyone is supposed to have children or be celibate? That's a whole nother can of worms.

is abusing

How so?

one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind.

I thought reason, will, creativity etc were also gifts. Along with the clitoris, the glans, various skills, body parts, and orifices.

A true Christian

Check the rules regarding referring to true christians. You actually mean to say a biblicist right wing extremist who agrees with you. Your opponents are also true christians, me for instance.

would realize

how? why? apparently we don't.

that Jesus hates contraception,

Jesus never mentioned it. Jesus never heard of it. Jesus never heard of china or loads of other things. And unless he was diddling mary magdeline, which I hope he was, and was a 3o year old virgin, he didn't know what he was talking about regarding sex.

And personally, I pay attention to the Godhead comprising the Trinity. Christocentrism is an idolatry.

for throughout the bible, not being able to have a child is considered the greatest disgrace.

Wow, those ancients were idiots. It's a disgrace to be disabled, or to act upon another charism? What terrible mean spirited fools they must have been.

I guess jesus, mary mag, and many of the apostles were a disgrace too, for not having kids. Either that or they abandoned them.

And why are you being biblio-centric and fundy and preaching, as if your reading of the bible matters as more than private opinion? Don't you realize some of us may not be fundamentalist, may read the bible informed by higher criticism, may have a seminary degree, and be informed by comparative mythology and graduate studies in psychology and sexual ethics? and some of us may be catholic and look to reason, tradition, conscience, nature, secular learning, science, philosophy, etc? I'm personally all those things. So what do your isolated proof texts matter to me?

In Luke 1:25, after Elizabeth conceives, she says: "Thus the Lord has dealt with me, in the days when He looked on me, to take away my reproach among people."

Well, it's a myth, it didn't happen. But if it did, "the people" were idiots. And Elizabeth was a self-hating fool. Thank God we've evolved. Do you wish to bring back that ancient bigotry?

God also tells Adam and Eve in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply."

Well, it's a myth. It didn't really happen. But even if it did, they did so, and he meant the race, not all of us.

So not being able to have children in ancient times made one a disgrace.

Yes, in this way, the ancient hebrews were idiots and bigots. Or they were VERY focused on creating a nation (wait, they WERE!), so kids were very much on their mind.
But what do they mean to me? Again, thank God we've evolved.

Surely a Christian, especially one who claims to be catholic, would not dare refute the bible itself?!

I'd dare to refute anything I please. I'll refute the bible and the church. I'm a man, not a boy or a sheep.
And I don't refute the "bible itself?!", I merely refute your reading of it. And I heap so much contempt upon that primitive and uninformed reading that I don't even bother to muster a contrary exegesis. Others have done that for me, check it out.

By allowing oneself to have sex without limit and without having children, is abusing one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind.

Critiqued above.
Repeating it won't make it better.
But FWIW I say celibacy, useless rules, holding on to anachronistic mindsets, and setting aside reason, technology and many awesome sexual acts is an abuse of several of God's greatest gifts to humankind. I'm convinced god loves it when I mount the mrs. just for the fun of it. But he's sad he made her with a heart condition that precludes having children and breaks her heart to boot.
And if someone thinks that's a disgrace, then in my book, they're a disgrace and their god is a monster.

OK, enough time wasted with you little boy. I'm going to go have some contracepted sex for the fun of it, or maybe for love. Can never be sure.

[Slopeshoulder]

Why does loving one's partner have to do with making a baby every time you express that love...

who said anything of the sort?

Isn't it implied by your POV? At last during the "fertile period"?

What does open to life mean...?

being willing to accept the natural consequences of choosing to express one's love genitally--note the meaning of the term "genitally"-- during the fertile period

But technology (contraception) makes this a moot point when it works. Otherwise, yes, i agree.

btw, what defines a sexual sin? do you believe there are any?

of course:
lack of informed, free, and sober consent
lying, false flattery, false promises
disrespecting boundaries
breakign promises
being with kids, animals, relatives, people acting out or in an emotionally impaired state
selfishness in bed
not taking responsibility if contraceptives fail
not disclosing deseases
lack of discretion
disrespect
abuse of power
unwanted advances
and fakign orgasm

for starters.

[Slopeshoulder]

The feeling I get in my penis is its own meaning, and self-validating as long as it doesn't undermine other values we affirm.
.
.

should we affirm the values of purity, chastity, respect, and fertility?

As values? Absolutely.

-purity: what does this mean? of heart and intent? or some sort of anti-sex agenda? I'm not an ancient hebrew, so ritual purity is lost on me. But honesty etc is all good.

- chastity: again, not sure what it means today. I take it to mean responsibility, boundaires, limits, choice, discretion, discernment. Otherwise it's some sort of anti-sex agenda.

- Respect: always. I've respected every women I've slept with, even the one nighters.

- fertility: fertility is not a virtue. It may be a value to some. I affirm it insofar as I think that we should triple funding for planned parenthood to provide fertility services, as well as invest in science to make babies healthy, provide childcare, safe foods, safe environments, safe pregnancies etc.

I think that if we divorce sex from a necessary connection to natural fertility, we end up with a culture of selfishness and eroticism rather than respect, with all the horrible consquences socially, psychologically etc

I respect that you present this as opinion, and I respectfully disgaree. I have lived in places where the sex to child ratio was inverted, with lots of eroticism in the air, and they functioned wonderfully. These kind of places often excel on measures of social and psuchological well-being (reported happiness, crime rate, divroce rate, economic robustness, artistic robustness, intellectual robustness, education level, prevelemnce of leaders, diversity, quality and range of sex, etc)

why do you think there is such a correlation between divorce and contraceptives, and NFP and non-divorce?

Well, I doubt there is and I question the source. Liberal states have lower divorce and dmoestic violence than conservative sttes. But if it were true I'd say that christian conservatives are against both divorce and contraception. The latter doesn't drive the former. It's just consistency, not cause.

also contraceptives--both the Mini and the Combination Pill--are abortifacient. abortion is linked with great health risks from alcoholism to smoking, PTSD, etc

I don't know what you're talking about, and I suspect that makes two of us. So I don't wish to engage it. Smells like kooky fringe stuff to me.

thanks be to God for His Infinite Mercy through Jesus Christ, since we ALL so need it

Could you spare us the preaching?