Are most Christians Ok with contraception these days? I find it hard to believe that suddenly after 1900 years we discover that it is totally OK to use it. On the other hand, nowadays we know of for example conditions that can put the mother at risk (but abstaining completely from sex in a marriage seems…weird).

The Church Fathers however seem very clear on the issue:

Clement of Alexandria

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid. 2:10:95:3).


"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (Divine Institutes 6:23:18 [A.D. 307]).

John Chrysostom

"ln truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

"Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws?" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).


"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her, is joined to the man to gratify his passion" (The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 [A.D. 388]).

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your [religious] law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [I Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps." (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny" (ibid. 22:30).

Attached: 96f.png (396x400, 36.52K)

Other urls found in this thread:

I doubt St. Peter used contraception with his wife.

They are. When it comes to sex above all things people lose their minds and moral sense and want to make all sorts of exceptions.

I knew that, historically, the only approved method of contraception in the Catholic Church is the calendar method. Even that is a matter of contention, however. Basically, just don't hinder the workings of nature as God has designed it.

Attached: piux.png (460x276, 240.36K)

Since protestantism is very individualistic and has no strict hierarchy nor a written law ("inb4 the bible is my law", I meant a general consensus on what's written in the bible as law and not someone's personal interpretation) it was bound to happen someday.
As another user already stated, the calendar method is the only approved method because it does not obstruct, nor destroy and not even wastes the seed.
One has to remind however, that the calendar method is meant to space children and not deny them.
Your marriage still needs to get you children unless you are infertile.

What's the church stance on infertile couples? Do they have the freedom to do wtv they like?

Well…they kind of have.
All the rules as with fertile couples still apply to them, they just can't get pregnant.
So still no anal, no gay, no threesomes, sperm still needs to end up in the vagina etc.

OK thanks that's just what I meant. I knew they still had to do it with their lawful wife.
Any church resources on this?

That was what I was worried about.
A friend of mine a very devout Catholic said that foreplay and all that stuff could be allowed only if like you said the end job was made inside her.
I've never asked him further since of course decency doesn't allow me.
So if accidentally a man can't hold and has an "early ejaculation" lest call it that, if he after starts another round and does it inside her is it "lawful" so to speak?

I'd say that the only thing left to do then is satisfying your wife and then call it quits.
Of course if you want to shag 5 times a day then go for it.
I'd also like to note that if you start to shag and you notice that you won't be ejaculating anytime soon and after half an hour or something you're still nowhere you can also call it quits.
The morality is pretty straight forward to be honest.
If you can ejaculate and don't, you gravely sin.
If you suddenly cannot ejaculate because you're shagging your wife for a 5th time in 2 hours or so then well stop after 5 next time.

OK thanks for clearing this up. Its a difficult thing to talk about irl without feeling embarrassed on the Internet is easier.
Well thank you user. God bless you.

No problems mate, just know that whatever I said is still open for debate because well STILL NO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS ON IT COME ON VATICAN.

Yeah I know. Since the church has said nothing all of this is based on a sound basis, so at least we are acting in good faith. I would like that the church said something about this. I've tried to look into some CDF documents but it's all the generic stuff, no condoms, mutual love kids etc nothing that directly addresses this problems.

Wtf am I reading?

What if your wife cannot have more children without putting her health at risk, and cases like that? Apparently the Catholic teaching is 'no exceptions, you must be celibate'. But St. Paul saying that couples shouldn't deny sex to each other (1 Cor. 7:5), it seems the Catholic Church uses this verse for NFP only.

People used to sleep in separate beds. Let that sink in.

>He thinks everywhere was like (((Victorian))) England

Is that why the first couples shown in bed in the 1950s show was seen as outrageous?

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure that's just an early television meme that existed due to decency laws or something.

Although I go back and forth on whether *we* should use contraceptives, legality is a very open and shut matter for me.
Look at the abortion rate. See how it drops off sharply after '92? That's when other forms of contraception started to become readily available. The unfortunate reality is that apart from us devout, people refuse both abstinence and consequence. They will have sex and either prevent conception or cause it to cease. When faced with these possibilities, I choose the one that could imperil the actor but not the innocent.

Where did that law cane from

Are many people who are called or call-self Christians "OK" with it? Sure. Is it actually OK? Well, John Chrysostom says it's bad, I think that it's a pretty good indication one particular way. Of course, ask someone who John Chrysostom is on the street…it's bad enough that Luke will probably get a "Jedi" response.

Couples in different beds has never been normal in the West prior to Victorian secularization.

If you go to any National Trust manor houses, Victorian or not, you'll notice that all the bedrooms in the house (except the majority of the servants quarters) have double beds: Married couples normally slept together, as one would expect.
As well as the church's teaching on the matter, chastity was pursued because in the past STDs (e.g. Syphilis) had been a major social issue, so it was practical to be chaste. Obviously however, there isn't much point avoiding sex with you spouse if your both in good health.

Catholicism teaches against Utilitarianism. The abortion decline merely suggests non-catholics are the one's using Contreception.

That's what I was trying to say, beloved. If through allowing contraceptives we prevent the more heinous sins of the secular world, then I don't have trouble with not having belief enshrined in law (although as an American I'm predisposed to that position.) Apologies, I have trouble with clarity sometimes.

I'd like to hear a Catholic response to coitus reservatus.

Common sense applies. Let's imagine if you had relations with your wife she'd bleed to death. Obviously you could never have sex with her.

What is it?