Geez, That's it, just change the location -- no suggestions?
You usually have verses don't you?
Or it could go in political as I don't think the government should pay for this guys FAMILY.
But here it is, the guy is coming in tomorrow and I wanted to be able to talk back to him.
What made the catholics stop just going for it and using birth control.
Are there any verses?
Anything governmentally that one cannot just haphazardly bring kids into the world and expect the US government to help pay for it?
HE just gets to do this and we get to pay for it?
Dot,
This is a fundamentally doctrinal issue. That's why I said what I said.
The issue about birth control, responsibility for one's children (society, community, individual, etc.), and all of these issues are, imho, fundamentally theological issues. This is not the doctrinal forum. It is not the place here to discuss that type of issue.
It's not that I can't provide any information, it's just not the correct place to do so here.
Out of respect for those who don't care to read about the Bible, about fundamental principles of Catholic Social Doctrine, and so on, I just don't care to discuss it here.
If you ask me MY OPINION of what the fella said, I think he's a bum.
If you want me to go into theological reasoning, there's a time and place.
As far as verses go, I'm drawing a blank right now, but as long as the guy believes that 1) God doesn't want him to use birth control, and 2) that God is Robin Hood and makes the rich pay for the poor, and 3) that it's OK with God for this guy not to work......as long as this goes uninterrupted, why should he change?
Hey, that's it! 2 Thes. 3:10-15. According to those verses that guy's church is supposed to "have no company with him that he may be ashamed". Is it just possible that the guy is just a leech? He'll take whatever the church gives him and then turn around and take whatever the state gives him. He'll reap what he sows sooner or later, but if you want to confront him with scripture, try the no work/ no eat verse (2 Thes. 3:10) but he sounds like he could rationalize even that.
BTW, it may be of interest to you that the use of artificial birth control was proscribed by all Christian denominations prior to the Anglicans lifting the proscription back in 1930.
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Just a little historical context to the discussion.
This one is tough. I can't look at it objectively and I know it so I'll speak from my heart.
If mom at 15 had decided to abort me due to a horrible rape that caused me I'd of missed my whole life.
There should be common sense regardless concerning having a child because you can when you know you haven't the means.
As for the man and his brother they are sorry excuses for their Christian faith if they think it okay to remain unemployed and not keep their pants zipped (thanks Abi)(funny Mark).
As for our paying for it...well I'll pass on that. You can thank me later. ;)
its not uncommon in the latino community or heritage to not believe in birth control. some mexicans believe it its religously right to have lots and lots of children. just like i think roman cathilics? dont believe in birth control. doesnt make it right but that is thier beliefs.
my belief..... i believe i am thankful for kailin and that is all. no more kids at this point. :)
its not uncommon in the latino community or heritage to not believe in birth control. some mexicans believe it its religously right to have lots and lots of children. just like i think roman cathilics? dont believe in birth control. doesnt make it right but that is thier beliefs.
my belief..... i believe i am thankful for kailin and that is all. no more kids at this point. :)
As a SLIGHT correction, the Catholic Church doesn't believe in no birth control. What they teach on the subject is as follows:
The fecundity of marriage
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of life"
150
teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open 'per se' to the transmission of life."
151
"This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."
152
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.
153
"Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."
154
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.
155
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."
156
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.
157
These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
158
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
159
2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."
160
2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. the state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.
161
It is not authorized to intervene in this area with means contrary to the moral law.
150 FC 30.
151 HV 11.
152 HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii.
btw, I know that the word "fecund" is not in all that common useage. It simply means 'capable of producing offspring.'
Anyway, as you can see above, natural methods for regulating birth are fully approved and condoned. There are a number of methods that, when used properly, are reported to be 95-99% effective. Included are the Basal Body Temperature method and the Standard Days method. There are others that are in various stages of development. You can look at this site: epigee women's health for some more information. (No, this is not a Catholic site or even a Catholic-endorsed site).
The disadvantage to these methods is that they require self-control to be used by the partners. They also require the active participation of both to work. The advantage is that there are no side effects. Another advantage is that they can also be used if a pregnancy is desired.
One other thing...as I pointed out in an earlier post, ALL churches proscribed artificial methods of birth control until 1930....
***wow, that was weird; I was just hitting reply when this was booted to the dungeon***
So, Mark - - what caused the change of opinion in the '30s????
J.
I'm not Anglican so I really can't justify those beliefs one way or the other. I personally don't see any justification for the change, but, again, I can't speak for them.
There is an interesting paper published by an Charles Gore (Anglican Bishop of Worcester) in 1930 located here. It may shed some light on it for you.
I find this to be a very interesting topic as this debate has gone on throughout the ages, not just within Christianity, but with Judaism and many pagan religions as well.
Honestly, I think there are valid arguments to both sides. I very much believe in planned pregnancies, and I believe we should not bear more children than we can take care of.
However, the availability of birth control has changed sexuality in our culture tremendously, some for good, some for bad. I think it is great that we are culturally somewhat more open to communicating with each other on this subject. But I think something precious and wonderful has been lost with the advent of "free sex" and graphic movies.
J - I think you will find the change followed the women's lib movement of the 20's.
Only a fool would plant more seeds than he could tend to.
On the other hand, it is naive to think that a loving married couple can naturally control their sexual desires. Most folks just simply aren't that "spiritual".
It may sound good in theory, but in practice it is unrealistic. Kinda like expecting and demanding clergy to be unmarried and celibate. It denies natural human desires.
The RCC needs to get in touch with reality on this stuff.
First of all I have to say that the Church this man is involved with is mishandling this particular passage of scripture. The passage about God clothing the lilies of the field is in the context of not being anxious about things and has nothing to do with birth control or having children. You might like to explain this to him. You might as well say that I shouldn't be concerned if I .... in my pants because I couldn't be bothered to go to the John. Hey, just don't worry about it, dude!
Secondly, let's distill this down to the fundamentals. Love God first, and love your neighbour as yourself! Ask him if he really thinks he's loving his neighbours by expecting them to financially support his children? No, he has to support his own family and not be a burden to others. I would give my opinion here that the Bible doesn't need to lay down specific rules in this area because many times things are down to individual needs and circumstances. So if he wants children he should work and not be a burden to his neighbour. Extending the passage on "if a man doesn't work neither should he eat" as has already been mentioned by pond, it is a logical consequence that if the man doesn't eat, neither do his kids. that's not so good for his kids, Eh?
Recommended Posts
markomalley
Sounds like this one should go down to doctrinal, actually.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Geez, That's it, just change the location -- no suggestions?
You usually have verses don't you?
Or it could go in political as I don't think the government should pay for this guys FAMILY.
But here it is, the guy is coming in tomorrow and I wanted to be able to talk back to him.
What made the catholics stop just going for it and using birth control.
Are there any verses?
Anything governmentally that one cannot just haphazardly bring kids into the world and expect the US government to help pay for it?
HE just gets to do this and we get to pay for it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Dot,
This is a fundamentally doctrinal issue. That's why I said what I said.
The issue about birth control, responsibility for one's children (society, community, individual, etc.), and all of these issues are, imho, fundamentally theological issues. This is not the doctrinal forum. It is not the place here to discuss that type of issue.
It's not that I can't provide any information, it's just not the correct place to do so here.
Out of respect for those who don't care to read about the Bible, about fundamental principles of Catholic Social Doctrine, and so on, I just don't care to discuss it here.
If you ask me MY OPINION of what the fella said, I think he's a bum.
If you want me to go into theological reasoning, there's a time and place.
This ain't the place. The doctrinal basement is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
As far as verses go, I'm drawing a blank right now, but as long as the guy believes that 1) God doesn't want him to use birth control, and 2) that God is Robin Hood and makes the rich pay for the poor, and 3) that it's OK with God for this guy not to work......as long as this goes uninterrupted, why should he change?
Hey, that's it! 2 Thes. 3:10-15. According to those verses that guy's church is supposed to "have no company with him that he may be ashamed". Is it just possible that the guy is just a leech? He'll take whatever the church gives him and then turn around and take whatever the state gives him. He'll reap what he sows sooner or later, but if you want to confront him with scripture, try the no work/ no eat verse (2 Thes. 3:10) but he sounds like he could rationalize even that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
yeah, Dot, it's called abstenance (sp).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Not an option, Abi. People are no better than animals. They can't be expected to control themselves. You know that! (groan)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
..but if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house , he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel
I Timothy Somewhere
from memory
at least it works for the unemployment and irresponsible part of the equation
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
BTW, it may be of interest to you that the use of artificial birth control was proscribed by all Christian denominations prior to the Anglicans lifting the proscription back in 1930.
Resolution 15 of that Conference:
Just a little historical context to the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
1 timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own house ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE OF HIS OWN HOUSE , HE hath denied the faith, and isworse than an infidel.
1 thessalonians 4 :11
to work with your own hands as we commanded you
vs 12 tells him why he should work
that he may walk honestly toward them that are without ANDthat you may lack nothing.l
God clearly says he wants us to work and to provide for our family.
but if he is a lazy man well what can you do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
This one is tough. I can't look at it objectively and I know it so I'll speak from my heart.
If mom at 15 had decided to abort me due to a horrible rape that caused me I'd of missed my whole life.
There should be common sense regardless concerning having a child because you can when you know you haven't the means.
As for the man and his brother they are sorry excuses for their Christian faith if they think it okay to remain unemployed and not keep their pants zipped (thanks Abi)(funny Mark).
As for our paying for it...well I'll pass on that. You can thank me later. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jade
its not uncommon in the latino community or heritage to not believe in birth control. some mexicans believe it its religously right to have lots and lots of children. just like i think roman cathilics? dont believe in birth control. doesnt make it right but that is thier beliefs.
my belief..... i believe i am thankful for kailin and that is all. no more kids at this point. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
As a SLIGHT correction, the Catholic Church doesn't believe in no birth control. What they teach on the subject is as follows:
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church
btw, I know that the word "fecund" is not in all that common useage. It simply means 'capable of producing offspring.'
Anyway, as you can see above, natural methods for regulating birth are fully approved and condoned. There are a number of methods that, when used properly, are reported to be 95-99% effective. Included are the Basal Body Temperature method and the Standard Days method. There are others that are in various stages of development. You can look at this site: epigee women's health for some more information. (No, this is not a Catholic site or even a Catholic-endorsed site).
The disadvantage to these methods is that they require self-control to be used by the partners. They also require the active participation of both to work. The advantage is that there are no side effects. Another advantage is that they can also be used if a pregnancy is desired.
One other thing...as I pointed out in an earlier post, ALL churches proscribed artificial methods of birth control until 1930....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I knew it was going to have to be moved to doctrinal if we actually discussed the topic...
Give me a bit and I'll get into the theory now that it's here...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jardinero
***wow, that was weird; I was just hitting reply when this was booted to the dungeon***
So, Mark - - what caused the change of opinion in the '30s????
J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I'm not Anglican so I really can't justify those beliefs one way or the other. I personally don't see any justification for the change, but, again, I can't speak for them.
There is an interesting paper published by an Charles Gore (Anglican Bishop of Worcester) in 1930 located here. It may shed some light on it for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I find this to be a very interesting topic as this debate has gone on throughout the ages, not just within Christianity, but with Judaism and many pagan religions as well.
Honestly, I think there are valid arguments to both sides. I very much believe in planned pregnancies, and I believe we should not bear more children than we can take care of.
However, the availability of birth control has changed sexuality in our culture tremendously, some for good, some for bad. I think it is great that we are culturally somewhat more open to communicating with each other on this subject. But I think something precious and wonderful has been lost with the advent of "free sex" and graphic movies.
J - I think you will find the change followed the women's lib movement of the 20's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Dot Matrix
God loves you my dear friend
I belived Birth Control other than the woman crossing her legs and the man taking a cold shower is wrong
But I all so believe in stewardship of the seeds
others wise if a person has not the means to take care of a child the birth control the natural way should be used
For if a man has one acre of ground and he plants the seed for ten acres the plants will not have the room to grow up right nor the food to bear fruit
but this is just me
let me add even I do not all ways obey my beliefs
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Only a fool would plant more seeds than he could tend to.
On the other hand, it is naive to think that a loving married couple can naturally control their sexual desires. Most folks just simply aren't that "spiritual".
It may sound good in theory, but in practice it is unrealistic. Kinda like expecting and demanding clergy to be unmarried and celibate. It denies natural human desires.
The RCC needs to get in touch with reality on this stuff.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
(deleted due to rudeness)
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Pete
Dear Dot Matrix
First of all I have to say that the Church this man is involved with is mishandling this particular passage of scripture. The passage about God clothing the lilies of the field is in the context of not being anxious about things and has nothing to do with birth control or having children. You might like to explain this to him. You might as well say that I shouldn't be concerned if I .... in my pants because I couldn't be bothered to go to the John. Hey, just don't worry about it, dude!
Secondly, let's distill this down to the fundamentals. Love God first, and love your neighbour as yourself! Ask him if he really thinks he's loving his neighbours by expecting them to financially support his children? No, he has to support his own family and not be a burden to others. I would give my opinion here that the Bible doesn't need to lay down specific rules in this area because many times things are down to individual needs and circumstances. So if he wants children he should work and not be a burden to his neighbour. Extending the passage on "if a man doesn't work neither should he eat" as has already been mentioned by pond, it is a logical consequence that if the man doesn't eat, neither do his kids. that's not so good for his kids, Eh?
Peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Deleted
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Goey,
Very good.
Later.
on edit: you're right. It was quite rude.
No I don't apologize.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Didn't expect you to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Good. Have a nice day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.