Posted on 01/05/2014 2:25:11 PM PST by Gamecock
Do you think it’s a sin to have intercourse with your spouse during the infertile periods?
“The Church opposes contraception because contraception is a form of sodomy”
When did Jesus say that?
That's right. Those Catholics are swimming in their spiritual pride.
“These Catholics.” Would you like to name one who is swimming in spiritual pride?
We’re speaking of the New Testament word “porneia” -— you can double-check this in any Greek lexicon. “Porneia” is used in the NT to indicate any sort of sexual violation or intercourse other than the natural generative act; including, but not limited to, Sodomy (homosexual conduct) and Onanism (contraceptive conduct). Both of these are identified in the Bible as “abomination” and “evil in the sight of the Lord.”
I don't but based on the responses of many Catholics and WHY they are opposed to contraception, for sex with out the risk of conception, they clearly DO think it's wrong to enjoy sex without the *risk* of conception.
After all, contraception is the root of all evil in our country as it encourages sodomy, sex without procreative potential, thus making any couple who engages in NFP contributing to the moral decline in this country.
Catholic thinking as expressed on FR.
Thanks for the information. It confirms my opnion that Catholocism is simply silly. Any religion that says that having sex with my spouse purely for the pleasure of it is one I’ll reject out of hand.
No God I want anything to do with would send a man to Hell for having a vasectomy.
Well, me, too!
But that "anti-pleasure" position is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Quite the opposite, if you will kindly read my remarks at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3108669/posts?page=236#236
you can see that I specifically said -- in line with Catholic morality --- "It is not at all wrong to enjoy sex without the risk of conception."
That is why NFP is not, in itself, objectionable. Neither its intention nor its act is morally wrong.
Physical maiming is, of course, a different matter.
I think there must be a degree of misunderstanding here. Could you ask these people to explain whether they think it is wrong to have sexual intercourse during the infertile periods? I rather think they would say "No, it's not wrong", which means they would acknowledge that it's OK to have sex for the couple's mutual satisfaction, without being exposed to the possibility of conception. It's just natural, normal, unadulterated intercourse.
Contraception, on the other hand, is not natural, normal, unadulterated intercourse. It raises ethical problems which are not raised by NFP, because it involves impeding or impairing normal sexual function.
Trust me, Madame. I am not maimed in any way, shape, or form. Everything works, and works very, very well. If that silly God you worship says that’s an act worthy of eternal damnation then He’s not worthy of it.
There are plenty of things Jesus never said. He and his audiences all took the entirety of the Jewish faith for granted, and the gospel writers would not have bothered to record teachings that they and their entire audiences would have taken for granted.
It is no objection at all to a proposition that Jesus never said it.
This had the potential of being an interesting conversation, but I choose not to dialogue with people who call our good Lord a “silly God.” It’s hurtful.
Telling me that I’m committing a sin worthy of eternal damnation because I choose to make love to my wife for the sheer physical pleasure of it is what’s silly. And it’s damned hurtful all on its own.
There’s a beam in your eye, Madame. I suggest you attend to it.
I never said that. I do not believe it. And it is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Where do you get that from?
It seems to me they are trying to follow Jesus. Why do you criticize them for it ? Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
I can understand if their standard seems high or too difficult for you. Do you imagine that the disciples accompanying Jesus throughout the land of Israel were preoccupied with sex for their own pleasure ? Is that the mood you read from the four Gospels ? And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
Do I, personally, think so? Is that really relevant? After all, what matters is not my personal predilections but what the law of the Church provides.
Notwithstanding that I am, as I have been most charitably told, an idiot, as I read things, if a married couple intentionally has sex during the infertile periods (and, by implication, not during the other periods) in order to avoid having children, then yes, that is a venial sin because they are acting with so-called “contraceptive intent.”
Whoever told you this is in error. This is the normal, morally inoffensive practice of NFP. It is not a sin either to have intercourse with one's spouse during an infertile period, nor to abstain from intercourse in a fertile period. Neither of these actions is morally objectionable. Neither one singly, nor both together, would constitute contraception.
I ma not sure exactly what is meant by a "contraceptive intent". Possibly it means a refusal of children by married couples who are inveterately luxury-loving and self-serving. If it's a question of (A) $2853 per night for a suite at a luxury resort, a month out of every year, --- or (B) baby --- and the couple goes for "A" every time, there could well be sin involved. But if they ensured their childlessness by NFP, it would not be a sin of contraception.
Maybe avarice and gluttony (these are 2 of the 7 deadly sins) --- but not contraception.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.