What is This !?!?Birth Control in the Catholic Church

frank sinatra
Junior Member
December 12, 2002, 06:18 PM
What is This !?!?
What is this talk about "those smug anti-ABCers"if that ain^t the pot calling the kettle black ,isn^t this the same editor who thinks a couple should have no children if they decide to,don^t think the man upstairs ain^t keeping score with that attitude.I think your whole rant against NFP should be blackballed,I^m talking eight ball in the side pocket. And what^s up with this James who feels Paul VI should be censored,James next time you see old Glory you sing that anthem ,our founding fathers went to the matt for you baby,they defended free speech. Well Am I right ? James,editor,Mom,susan,jessica,lady Goviva, you bet I am. I^m sure you brown nosers agree. And what about this talk NFP people aren^t open to life,that^s funny all the biological laws are respected while you flush your used condoms down the john.Did you know condoms can^t be broken down at the filtration plant? That^s why frankie feels queezy when he throws some cubes in his scotch,you can still see those little plastics.I^m surprise Humanae Vitae didn^t mention this. Well Am I right? or is the editor gona play musical chairs again. What about you steve & Eddie am I right ? (response : Yes Frank) Well of course I am cause you got 2 choices either you open up for me at the Meadowlands in Jersey or Headline at the tick tock in ! If you ABCers have difficulty with temporary abstinence than pick up a magazine & do your business in the bathroom I^m sure the priest will understand,even the catechism takes a tolerant issue on self-abuse.Regards Frank II^l do it my way Sinatra
Editor
Member
December 12, 2002, 08:00 PM
And what about this talk NFP people aren^t open to life,that^s funny all the biological laws are respected while you flush your used condoms down the john.

What's respecting the biological laws got to do with being open to new life? Non-procreative sex is non-procreative sex is non-procreative sex.
momof3
Member
December 13, 2002, 04:36 PM
You are way off base Frank
"If you ABCers have difficulty with temporary abstinence........"

And this you believe is the crux of the issue?
That we have difficulty with temporary abstinence?

Well, Franky baby you are not even on the right planet with this one.

momof3

momof3
James
Member
December 14, 2002, 12:47 PM
ABSTINENCE
"Frank",
ABC users have no issue whatsoever with periodic abstinence. Having said that the apostle Paul does urge the married "Do not deprive one another." This means that abstaining for a seven day period every month is reasonable. However, in case you have not paid attention, our issue lies in the fact that for many to use NFP reliably and correctly, the length of abstinence can be as long as four weeks for those wives with irregular cycles or ambiguous fertility symptoms. If you have ever used NFP, you know that these types of cycles and symptoms are more normative than they are rare. So, our problem does not lie in reasonable periodic abstinence, our concern for this teaching lies in perminent or unreasonable lengths (30+ days) of abstinence. For as the apostle Paul tells us, this leads to sexual immorality. Married life is made for the conjugal act, and the conjugal act is made for married life. A marriage that is devoid of the conjugal act is not considered a valid marriage in Canon Law. This should tell us something about the importance of the act to marriage and give us pause to reflect on the contradiction in teachings (contraceptive ban for even serious reasons vs. sex a requirement for marriage). Regards-
awfltdoc
Member
December 15, 2002, 08:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by James:
"Frank",
ABC users have no issue whatsoever with periodic abstinence. Having said that the apostle Paul does urge the married "Do not deprive one another." This means that abstaining for a seven day period every month is reasonable. However, in case you have not paid attention, our issue lies in the fact that for many to use NFP reliably and correctly, the length of abstinence can be as long as four weeks for those wives with irregular cycles or ambiguous fertility symptoms. If you have ever used NFP, you know that these types of cycles and symptoms are more normative than they are rare. So, our problem does not lie in reasonable periodic abstinence, our concern for this teaching lies in perminent or unreasonable lengths (30+ days) of abstinence. For as the apostle Paul tells us, this leads to sexual immorality. Married life is made for the conjugal act, and the conjugal act is made for married life. A marriage that is devoid of the conjugal act is not considered a valid marriage in Canon Law. This should tell us something about the importance of the act to marriage and give us pause to reflect on the contradiction in teachings (contraceptive ban for even serious reasons vs. sex a requirement for marriage). Regards-


I am quite enthrawled to find such theological enlightement on this board. roll eyes

"A marriage that is devoid of the cojugal act is not considered a valid marriage in Canon Law."

Please quote the Canon Law in context here so we can all be enlightened about this sex requirement.

Anthony Waldroup, MD
Editor
Member
December 15, 2002, 09:07 AM
James is right, Dr. Waldroup! Paul did discourage prolonged abstinence, and Canon Law does consider intercourse to be a criterion for determining the validity of a marriage. This follows the Church's view that one of the primary purposes of marriage is to bring new life into the world.

Perhaps he will look it up for you in the Code of Canon Law. Perhaps you can look it up yourself.
awfltdoc
Member
December 15, 2002, 02:44 PM
Perhaps I already know the answer, but I didn't bring it up. Therefore, I place the burden of proof in James hands.

Anthony Waldroup, MD
James
Member
December 17, 2002, 06:11 PM
Dear "Doctor",
I will leave you to prove that marriage is not required to be consumated in the Catholic Church. Many marriages are annulled because they are devoid of the conjugal act. Do some of your own research. wink Some of us have other things to do....Oh, and the scipture from Paul you are looking for is: ICorinthians Chapter 7, verse 5. "Do not deprive eachother, except for a SHORT TIME by mutual consent,to be free for prayer, but then return to one another so that Satan may not tempt you."
Hugh
(hugh.oregan_NO_SPAM@pobox.com)
Member
December 17, 2002, 06:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by awfltdoc:
Perhaps I already know the answer, but I didn't bring it up. Therefore, I place the burden of proof in James hands.

Anthony Waldroup, MD


Of course you didn't know the answer or you wouldn't have put forth the challenge to James. However, I would like to cut this insincere game short by suggesting that you look at the following canons.

#1084 - Perpetual impotence being an impediment to marriage.

#1141 & 1142 - Concerns the ability or inability of the Roman Pontiff to dissolve a marriage between validly baptized individuals.

There are other canons which could be quoted but this should get you started.

Hugh
James
Member
December 18, 2002, 09:28 PM
Thanks
Hugh,
A big thanks to you for your Canon Law info. I know I have some of that around here somewhere, but am crunched for time with the holidays and all. Thanks for saving some of my precious time.
James-
awfltdoc
Member
December 20, 2002, 07:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by James:
Dear "Doctor",
I will leave you to prove that marriage is not required to be consumated in the Catholic Church. Many marriages are annulled because they are devoid of the conjugal act. Do some of your own research. wink Some of us have other things to do....Oh, and the scipture from Paul you are looking for is: ICorinthians Chapter 7, verse 5. "Do not deprive eachother, except for a SHORT TIME by mutual consent,to be free for prayer, but then return to one another so that Satan may not tempt you."


Ah so true, I agree with you on this 100%. Yes, the Church considers consumation of the marriage with the sexual act. So what did Paul mean by a short time? No more than 30 days?

But let me quote the verse in context:

"Advice to Married. 1 Now for the matters* you wrote about. A man is better off having no relations with a woman. 2 But to avoin immorality, every man should have his own wife and every woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his conjugal obligations toward his wife, the wife hers toward the huband. 4 A wife does not belong to herself but to her husband; equally a husband does not belong to to himself but to his wife. 5 Do not deprive the one another, unless perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer. Then return to one another, that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. 6 I say this by way of concession, not as a command. 7 Given my preference, I should like you to be as I am. Still, each one has his own gift from God, one this and another that.

* Paul's teaching concerning marriage and the celibate state is placed in the framework of the second coming of Christ. The apostle commends sexual ascetism in marriage provided it is agreed to by both party's limits of control." I Corinthians 7 ver. 1-6.

You see, you need to read more than one verse at a time my friend. Where are those Canon quotes eh?

Anthony Waldroup, MD
kevin
Member
December 20, 2002, 07:58 AM
Sorry "Doc" I don^t see Paul the apostle commending sexual ascetism in those statements
awfltdoc
Member
December 20, 2002, 06:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kevin:
Sorry "Doc" I don^t see Paul the apostle commending sexual ascetism in those statements


Oh maybe I shouldn't have quoted the New American Bible (notice the quotes end after the footnote).

It is amazing the denial around here. confused

Anthony Waldroup, MD
James
Member
December 20, 2002, 09:21 PM
Doc,
When reading the entire book of ICorinthians, Paul encourages that people not marry at all, but if they do permanent abstinence is not an option. Please refer us all to the exact quote by Paul where he states that permanent marital abstinence is moral!!! So who is really only reading one verse? You have not proven otherwise by the way, that sex is not essential to a valid marriage. Inform us all of the Canons that Hugh refered us to. (You won't by the way, because it does not serve your purposes.) Why is it that people like yourself cannot put the burdon of proof on themselves? Please, by all means prove that I am wrong. You can't. I think that says enough.....
So, who exactly is in denial here? The dear "Doctor" it appears!!