S/O umae vitae

[Barb_]

I mentioned in the other Catholics and birth control poll/thread that I rejected the idea that old, unmarried men should be choosing my family size. That was flippant and I'm sorry if I offended. I'd like to open up a discussion about the church's stance regarding birth control.

 

I understand the idea of being open to life and believe it's a lovely sentiment, but I think it's a stretch to go from there to placing potential life above all else including a mother's health, a family's finite resources, and the number of children a couple believes they can emotionally support. I also think it's a stretch, correlation confused with causation, to blame a general lowering of moral standards on contraception. Finally, there was a quote on the last thread:

 

We converted last year and yes, we follow the Church's teachings. If they are wrong on this, they could be wrong on anything, kwim? It helps to understand the reasons why instead of just thinking it comes from old men- that would be VERY unappealing! LOL!

.

 

I think the above is exactly why I left the church. Theology is by its nature abstract and idealistic, and subject to change over time. Take Infant Limbo, for example. When my oldest was born, I sustained 4th degree tears, hemorrhage, and severe blood loss and anemia. I was still very ill when I took my daughter to church 2 weeks later for the Baptism prep meeting. I was surprised to see babies there who were 6-18 months old, because I was raised understand that you baptized babies ASAP lest they die in the state of Original Sin. Come to find out, the church had quietly done away with the teaching of Infant Limbo and had now believed God had would provide a path to salvation. Limbo wasn't strictly biblical and neither is Humae Vitae, however well intentioned. The Catholic church has a history of reversing dogma and since the Pope nor his priests bears the burden of the very real and concrete consequences of the abstract dogma, I just can't agree that an openness to life extends all the way to the supercession of everything, including the ultimate fate of the marriage and family.

 

But I'm willing to listen to opposing viewpoints.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Barb F. PA in AZ

[I.Dup.]

Can you explain more why you think my quote illustrates the reason you left the Church? I'm not fully understanding?

 

I'm also not aware of where the Church has quietly changed her doctrinal stance on things?

[I.Dup.]

*I think the spelling is "humanae vitae"

[tntgoodwin]

I mentioned in the other Catholics and birth control poll/thread that I rejected the idea that old, unmarried men should be choosing my family size. That was flippant and I'm sorry if I offended. I'd like to open up a discussion about the church's stance regarding birth control.

 

I understand the idea of being open to life and believe it's a lovely sentiment, but I think it's a stretch to go from there to placing potential life above all else including a mother's health, a family's finite resources, and the number of children a couple believes they can emotionally support. I also think it's a stretch, correlation confused with causation, to blame a general lowering of moral standards on contraception. Finally, there was a quote on the last thread:

 

 

 

I think the above is exactly why I left the church. Theology is by its nature abstract and idealistic, and subject to change over time. Take Infant Limbo, for example. When my oldest was born, I sustained 4th degree tears, hemorrhage, and severe blood loss and anemia. I was still very ill when I took my daughter to church 2 weeks later for the Baptism prep meeting. I was surprised to see babies there who were 6-18 months old, because I was raised understand that you baptized babies ASAP lest they die in the state of Original Sin. Come to find out, the church had quietly done away with the teaching of Infant Limbo and had now believed God had would provide a path to salvation. Limbo wasn't strictly biblical and neither is Humae Vitae, however well intentioned. The Catholic church has a history of reversing dogma and since the Pope nor his priests bears the burden of the very real and concrete consequences of the abstract dogma, I just can't agree that an openness to life extends all the way to the supercession of everything, including the ultimate fate of the marriage and family.

 

But I'm willing to listen to opposing viewpoints.

 

 

Do you mean Catholic theology specifically is by it's nature abstract and idealistic, and subject to change over time? Or all theology?

[justamouse]

:grouphug:

 

I haven't been a Catholic long enough to share how some teachings have changed. But I know for a fact that with 33 thousand Protestant denominations, there's definitely lots of change over there.

 

I'd rather be struggling to be One Church than deciding who was right in the Protestant denominations.

 

So, what I'm asking is that are you sure there's no change where you are?

Edited June 5, 2012 by justamouse

[oraetstudia]

There are very few things defined dogmatically by the Catholic church. Limbo was never one of them. Nor has it "been done away with." Limbo is one of those many areas that is an unknown and not required for belief. We can hope that those that die without actual sin and unbaptized will be saved, but there is no official teaching one way or another. Baptism is still the only normative way. Catholics are still supposed to baptize their children shortly after birth, and it is scandalous that so few do it.

[ssavings]

I just can't agree that an openness to life extends all the way to the supercession of everything, including the ultimate fate of the marriage and family.

 

 

I'd be interested in knowing what parts of Humanae Vitae gave you this impression. I believe there may be a bit of a misunderstanding of Church teaching.

It is not doctrine, dogma, or practice of the Church that openness to life is more important than other factors. The spacing of pregnancies for personal, financial, marital, or other factors is fully accepted by the Church, when accomplished in accordance with the Church teachings.

Edited June 5, 2012 by ssavings
Because my autocorrect thinks it is funny to always change "for" to "Thor"

[Unscripted]

Have you had an opportunity to talk to a priest about this? I know in my case (blood loss- to the point of transfusion and extreme pain- to the point of vomiting and fainting) were more than enough for my priest to agree that ABC would be okay for me according to HV.

I am a convert and I do not even pretend to be an apologetic on the matter... But I wholeheartedly believe that the BC debate is not enough for me to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath-water, so to speak. I would continually pray about it (I still do... I hate taking that pill!), seek guidance from God and a loving priest... And just do the best that you can. You are a work in progress- God knows that. I wouldn't walk away from the church entirely over any single issue... I have a fullness of faith within the Catholic church that I simply cannot deny.

And I may be completely outside dogma in my statements... But it is what I believe. (((hugs)))

[Mama2Many4]

There is a such thing called NFP. It controls your family size, health issues and such without you playing God yourself. The Catholic church no more wants unwanted children than you do.

[justamouse]

There is a such thing called NFP. It controls your family size, health issues and such without you playing God yourself. The Catholic church no more wants unwanted children than you do.

 

 

I Think this point needs to be talked about more. People have the impression you're supposed to be like rabbits. Not at all. The church knows what a financial and emotional hardship raising children can be and all of that need to be taken into account.

[LG Gone Wild]

I mentioned in the other Catholics and birth control poll/thread that I rejected the idea that old, unmarried men should be choosing my family size. That was flippant and I'm sorry if I offended. I'd like to open up a discussion about the church's stance regarding birth control.

 

I understand the idea of being open to life and believe it's a lovely sentiment, but I think it's a stretch to go from there to placing potential life above all else including a mother's health, a family's finite resources, and the number of children a couple believes they can emotionally support. I also think it's a stretch, correlation confused with causation, to blame a general lowering of moral standards on contraception. Finally, there was a quote on the last thread:

 

 

 

I think the above is exactly why I left the church. Theology is by its nature abstract and idealistic, and subject to change over time. Take Infant Limbo, for example. When my oldest was born, I sustained 4th degree tears, hemorrhage, and severe blood loss and anemia. I was still very ill when I took my daughter to church 2 weeks later for the Baptism prep meeting. I was surprised to see babies there who were 6-18 months old, because I was raised understand that you baptized babies ASAP lest they die in the state of Original Sin. Come to find out, the church had quietly done away with the teaching of Infant Limbo and had now believed God had would provide a path to salvation. Limbo wasn't strictly biblical and neither is Humae Vitae, however well intentioned. The Catholic church has a history of reversing dogma and since the Pope nor his priests bears the burden of the very real and concrete consequences of the abstract dogma, I just can't agree that an openness to life extends all the way to the supercession of everything, including the ultimate fate of the marriage and family.

 

But I'm willing to listen to opposing viewpoints.

 

 

You got the bad spelling from me. Humanae Vitae if you want to read it over.

 

Infant limbo is not doctrinal. There is no official position on the souls of infants that have died without baptism. We pray for God's mercy and divine justice. The official position is that we don't know.

 

The church does not require women to be baby factories and certainly don't require them to kill themselves in pregnancy and birth. Being fruitful isn't tied to quantity but quality, after all, the Holy Family consisted of one child only.

 

As for other moral implications, perhaps this part may seem relevant (or not):

 

"It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion."

[nova147]

I had a really nice post going and it disappeared! :glare:

 

Summary: The Church's teaching on birth control is a defined doctrine. Following it is a matter of obedience, not sentimentality. Either the Church has the authority of Christ, or she doesn't. Matthew 16:19 tells us Peter was given authority to bind and loose. These were rabbinical terms for forbidding and permitting actions. The Pharisees in Jesus' time claimed these powers. The Church claims them now, based on apostolic succession.

 

Not every Church teaching is a defined doctrine. Many, like limbo, are one of several acceptable theories on an issue. The Church's understanding of divine revelation has grown over the centuries. the Church fathers and other theologians have discussed and debated issues. In fact, we see the first instance of this in Acts 15. The matter at hand was whether Gentiles wishing to become Christians must first be circumcised. After Peter speaks, James tells us "Peter has declared it". The matter is closed, now we must determine how to live it. Such it is with the teaching on birth control - it has be declared and it is ours to learn to live it.

 

Obviously, this doesn't deal with the most of the issues people have with not using ABC. But I truly believe obedience is the heart of the matter. Perhaps I will have time later to discuss other aspects! Dinner time!

[Melinda in VT]

Can you explain more why you think my quote illustrates the reason you left the Church? I'm not fully understanding?

 

I'm not Barbara, but my reading of her response to your post is that she agrees that if the Church could be wrong about its stance on ABC, it could be wrong about anything. Since she is convinced the Church is wrong in its stance on ABC, that lead her to question its authority in other areas and she left the Church.

 

Now we'll have to wait for her to come back and say if I correctly understood her. :001_smile:

[Melinda in VT]

As for other moral implications, perhaps this part may seem relevant (or not):

 

"It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion."

 

Seriously? :confused:

 

So the only reason a man respects and cares for a woman is because she is fertile? What about women with fertility troubles? What about post-menopausal women? I guess they are just doomed to be no longer respected and loved by their husbands.

 

I find this explanation/justification very much more troubling and offensive than I do the actual doctrine.

[ssavings]

Seriously? :confused:

 

So the only reason a man respects and cares for a woman is because she is fertile? What about women with fertility troubles? What about post-menopausal women? I guess they are just doomed to be no longer respected and loved by their husbands.

 

I find this explanation/justification very much more troubling and offensive than I do the actual doctrine.

 

The Pope is talking about the risk of contraceptives reducing a woman to a means of sexual pleasure, not about loving a woman because of her fertility.

[Moxie]

Have you had an opportunity to talk to a priest about this? I know in my case (blood loss- to the point of transfusion and extreme pain- to the point of vomiting and fainting) were more than enough for my priest to agree that ABC would be okay for me according to HV.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

You need to make sure the priest you are seeking advice from is knowledgable and faithful to the teachings of the Church. I'm unaware of any instance in which ABC would be morally acceptable but I'm not a theologian so I could be wrong (but I don't think I am).

[LG Gone Wild]

Seriously? :confused:

 

So the only reason a man respects and cares for a woman is because she is fertile? What about women with fertility troubles? What about post-menopausal women? I guess they are just doomed to be no longer respected and loved by their husbands.

 

I find this explanation/justification very much more troubling and offensive than I do the actual doctrine.

 

 

I read that differently than you! I read it as that men get used to having it their own way that women becomes merely an instrument for his pleasure, certainly NOT that she is only valued for her fertility.

[8circles]

Seriously? :confused:

 

So the only reason a man respects and cares for a woman is because she is fertile? What about women with fertility troubles? What about post-menopausal women? I guess they are just doomed to be no longer respected and loved by their husbands.

 

I find this explanation/justification very much more troubling and offensive than I do the actual doctrine.

 

Yikes! That quote doesn't sound right to me either!

 

Maybe I'm just uneducated (although I went to Catholic schools from K-12), but I've never been able to understand why NFP is okay but other methods of birth control aren't. I just don't see the difference.

 

I'm with you. How abstaining = open to life is beyond me.

 

I read that differently than you! I read it as that men get used to having it their own way that women becomes merely an instrument for his pleasure, certainly NOT that she is only valued for her fertility.

 

So the reason men control themselves with women is fear of pregnancy?

[nova147]

Seriously? :confused:

 

So the only reason a man respects and cares for a woman is because she is fertile? What about women with fertility troubles? What about post-menopausal women? I guess they are just doomed to be no longer respected and loved by their husbands.

 

I find this explanation/justification very much more troubling and offensive than I do the actual doctrine.

 

No, that's not the intended meaning. The intended meaning is that the constant availability of sex reduces its value (why buy the cow, so to speak). The implication is that (some) men may come to expect sex all of the time, regardless of their wife's feelings about it, because it has no impact on them. This presumes that men would be deterred from constant sex by the possibility of more children. The argument is not intended to apply to all men, as it is only "fear".

 

Also, this is not the primary explanation for the teaching. It was posted because of another comment.

[nova147]

Maybe I'm just uneducated (although I went to Catholic schools from K-12), but I've never been able to understand why NFP is okay but other methods of birth control aren't. I just don't see the difference.

 

NFP can be used in manner that is the same as ABC. The problem there would be the mentality -- I'm in charge, I know better than God, I get to decide. But NFP, is designed to be used in concert with frequent prayer, with husband and wife decided WITH God if this is a time at which they should intentionally avoid a pregnancy by abstaining.

 

Another way to look at it: using other forms of birth control is an action. Take a pill, put on a condom, get a shot, etc. NFP is observation of fertility signs and inaction.

 

There are those who argue that NFP is not different and should not be approved by the Church.

[Violet Crown]

Maybe I'm just uneducated (although I went to Catholic schools from K-12), but I've never been able to understand why NFP is okay but other methods of birth control aren't. I just don't see the difference.

Because birth control is not immoral under Catholic teaching: contraception is. 'Contraception' means, under traditional understanding, engaging in a sexual act while deliberately rendering that sexual act infertile.

 

NFP doesn't involve contraception: that is, it doesn't render a sexual act infertile.

 

Does that help?

[nova147]

Yikes! That quote doesn't sound right to me either!

 

 

 

I'm with you. How abstaining = open to life is beyond me.

 

 

 

So the reason men control themselves with women is fear of pregnancy?

 

Attitude is an essential element of NFP. Open to life is an attitude. Without that attitude, NFP can easily be used as contraception. In fact, it is marketed as such in a book called "Taking Charge of Your Fertility".

 

I don't think the reason MOST men control themselves is fear of pregnancy. Most men, especially Christian men (I hope), control themselves out of love and respect for their wife. The argument is that it is possible that fear of pregnancy may be one reason some men control themselves. Thankfully, that is not the only, or even most important, argument against ABC!

[Violet Crown]

Attitude is an essential element of NFP. Open to life is an attitude. Without that attitude, NFP can easily be used as contraception. In fact, it is marketed as such in a book called "Taking Charge of Your Fertility".

 

I don't think the reason MOST men control themselves is fear of pregnancy. Most men, especially Christian men (I hope), control themselves out of love and respect for their wife. The argument is that it is possible that fear of pregnancy may be one reason some men control themselves. Thankfully, that is not the only, or even most important, argument against ABC!

nova147, I hesitate to differ, but the morality of fertility awareness methods for birth control and of contraception have nothing to do with "attitude" or "openness to life." Intent is, of course, always an element in the morality of an act; but nebulous attitudes have nothing to do with that.

 

Certainly a person could use fertility awareness methods of birth control, such as NFP, in a self-centered way. But that doesn't make it contraception. It isn't contraception because it doesn't involve deliberately making (or attempting to make) a sexual act infertile.

 

Similarly, a person could so loathe children that he chose never to marry or have sexual relations, simply so he would never run the risk of having children. That might be a very poor attitude, one which didn't evince "openness to life," but it would not be a sin.

[Melinda in VT]

The Pope is talking about the risk of contraceptives reducing a woman to a means of sexual pleasure, not about loving a woman because of her fertility.

 

But the argument is that a woman might be reduced to a means of sexual pleasure if there is no risk of pregnancy. Contraceptives are not the only thing that removes the risk of pregnancy.

[PeacefulChaos]

I don't believe in the whole 'no birth control' thing. I'm not catholic, either, though. :tongue_smilie:

I honestly don't know why they believe in it (they being anyone - not necessarily just catholics). I see no teachings in the Bible to back that viewpoint up.

Anyway, that's my own personal stance on the matter.

[LG Gone Wild]

But isn't having s*x when you know - or are pretty sure - you're infertile (outside of the window of fertility for the month) the same thing? I guess that's where I'm getting hung up.

 

 

No, if was the same thing then that would mean relations between infertile couples are sinful (and they are not). In this instance the act is not being rendered infertile; natural law is not being thwarted.

[pbb119]

I don't have a ton of time to post right this second, but wanted to address something quickly. NFP is different than ABC b/c it makes couples value and sacrifice for each other and for their love, not act simply out of purely "animal" instinct, but rather find a way to express their love and value and commitment to each other in a way other than the conjugal act if a pregnancy is not desired. Love and commitment = sacrifice of one's own desires. It is also a respect for each other's shared commitment to the Church's teachings, to each other's beliefs, and to God.

 

The Church, God, it is all about FAITH. We are expected to have it always, not just turn to it when bad times strike. God expects FAITH to carry us through when everything seems impossible and unbearable. As far as the Church is concerned, using ABC b/c you don't want another child or do not believe you can financially or emotionally handle another child is basically saying, God, I have zero faith in you and your ability to carry me through all I am faced with.

 

Anyway, I want to type more, but I am only "test driving" the new classroom setup with the toddler in here, and discovering quickly that improvements and modifications must be made!!! So, before all of my efforts and hard work are lost and destroyed, I must go now!

[ssavings]

But the argument is that a woman might be reduced to a means of sexual pleasure if there is no risk of pregnancy. Contraceptives are not the only thing that removes the risk of pregnancy.

 

I think we just see it differently. And that's okay. :)

 

I would read the sentence as saying that the use of contraceptives, specifically, can reduce women to a means of s*xual pleasure, not that s*x without the risk of pregnancy can reduce a woman to a means of sexual pleasure. The church distinguishes sex during an infertile period of a woman's life (whether that's a temporary or permanent period of life) from the deliberate decision to act against the fertility through contraception.

[*Michelle*]

But the argument is that a woman might be reduced to a means of sexual pleasure if there is no risk of pregnancy. Contraceptives are not the only thing that removes the risk of pregnancy.

 

They remove the risk of pregnancy from an otherwise fertile act.

[Violet Crown]

But isn't having s*x when you know - or are pretty sure - you're infertile (outside of the window of fertility for the month) the same thing? I guess that's where I'm getting hung up.

No. There's nothing in Catholic teaching that prohibits a person from acting, or refraining from acting, in a way that will predictably result in not conceiving a child, so long as the person is not deliberately rendering infertile the sexual act in which they are engaging. Otherwise, it would be sinful for a couple to simply not have sex, or to have sex while the woman is pregnant, or post-menopausal.

 

Contraception is a pretty narrow thing. It isn't about an attitude of openness to life, or not wanting to have another child, or refraining from sexual relations if another child is likely to be the result. It's just making a sexual act infertile.

[petepie2]

Albert Mohler published an article today on this very issue. He is, of course, not Catholic, but he is sympathetic to the reasoning behind the Catholic position, even though he doesn't agree with it.

[Mama2Many4]

I don't believe in the whole 'no birth control' thing. I'm not catholic, either, though. :tongue_smilie:

I honestly don't know why they believe in it (they being anyone - not necessarily just catholics). I see no teachings in the Bible to back that viewpoint up.

Anyway, that's my own personal stance on the matter.

 

In the bible, someone (can't remember who) was killed for "spilling their seed on the ground". Now, I think God made a pretty clear point that those spermies are intended for one thing and one thing only.

 

If you blast em', you'd better leave em'. :lol:

[amey311]

In the bible, someone (can't remember who) was killed for "spilling their seed on the ground". Now, I think God made a pretty clear point that those spermies are intended for one thing and one thing only.

 

If you blast em', you'd better leave em'. :lol:

 

Onan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

[catz]

Maybe I'm just uneducated (although I went to Catholic schools from K-12), but I've never been able to understand why NFP is okay but other methods of birth control aren't. I just don't see the difference.

 

:iagree: Using NFP just seems like another barrier method to me. You're still manipulating the process? I know other people believe differently and I have read all the replies, but this belief among others is what led to both my DH and I leaving the Catholic Church. My grandmother and mother both used BC due to health issues at different points despite remaining Catholic their entire lives. Both could have had serious problems and possibly died if they had more children.

[Unscripted]

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

You need to make sure the priest you are seeking advice from is knowledgable and faithful to the teachings of the Church. *I'm unaware of any instance in which ABC would be morally acceptable but I'm not a theologian so I could be wrong (but I don't think I am).

 

Thanks for the hug. :) And yes- I have spoke with several. I am nothing if not indecisive and thorough. Lol. My DH and I used NFP successfully for 3 years. Most of that was to avoid pregnancy and 2 months of it to help achieve pregnancy. It worked both ways. Haha!! There were times that it was hard and frustrating- but once we got the hang of it, we both really enjoyed it- and I really felt I *knew* my body well, and that it was such a blessing for our marriage. I mean I could do a commercial- we really appreciate this tool that the church advocates for us.

However my bleeding issues went haywire after DD #1. I am not going into the details of it (although I did with the priests), but it was gory. My Dr is also catholic, and knew my history and desires to get back to NFP. After all the tests- I could do either a hysterectomy, an ablation, a resection, or the pill. The first 3 have obvious major and permanent fertility consequences. None of which I liked at the ripe age of 24. I spoke with various priests- and got a whole spectrum of responses. One who completely didn't understand why I was so concerned about the pill and blew me off... all the way to the other end of the spectrum where a priest told me that "all women say that, but he just doesn't *buy it*". Yeah. Most fell in between... The common middle of the road answer was that HV provided for treatment of diseases even if the unintended consequence limits pregnancy. I still pressed on hoping it would just stop one day, and I wouldn't have to decide.*

When I landed in ICU after fairly easy surgery (on my jaw) due to losing over half of my blood (cue the transfusion)... Well, I went on the pill. I had the hope that maybe the next pregnancy would correct it. That didn't happen either... And here I am. My hormones and blood chemistry are completely whacked out... With no real explanation. No cut is simple- even a "skeptical mole" that was removed (the size of a pencil eraser) bled and bled and bled...

 

Anyway.

 

I don't know the OP's medical history, and frankly, I don't need to. I know how hard, painful, scary, and spiritually disturbing this issue can be. I still pray about it. I still hate that I have to take that pill... I hate the merry-go-round of formula changes and the havoc that ensues. I still feel guilty about it... Maybe that one priest was right and I should man up and gush my way through. I am not saying I am right, by no means. But I am saying that this is where I am. I am mostly at peace with it. Lol

But I do know this... My fertility aside, I don't know what I would do or where I would be with out the Catholic church. So, I won't throw the baby out with the bath water. I am so grateful for the priests that put their arm around me (and have teared up with me) as I have been making my way through. I am still working on it. That's the message I was trying to get across to the OP... Don't give up, pray hard, get help, get spiritual guidance from a priest, and just do your best with what you have. I do believe there is room for her within the Church, if that is what she desires.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Unscripted
Weird asterisks... Removed them.

[Mama2Many4]

Onan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

 

Thank You! Yes.:iagree:

[PeacefulChaos]

double post, sorry!

[PeacefulChaos]

In the bible, someone (can't remember who) was killed for "spilling their seed on the ground". Now, I think God made a pretty clear point that those spermies are intended for one thing and one thing only.

 

If you blast em', you'd better leave em'. :lol:

 

:lol:

Doesn't the Bible also say that a man and woman shouldn't abstain for more than 7 days so they won't be tempted? In which case, I don't quite understand the reasoning of abstaining if you don't want to have a baby...

Ummm so here's my question - by considering it immoral to consummate without the intention of conceiving (or rendering s*x infertile, however it was worded earlier up. :) ), does that therefore equal s*x for fun = immoral? Or frowned upon? I mean within a marriage, obviously. :)

And... not to be flippant, but... if someone was using birth control and God meant for them to have more kids, it isn't like the birth control could stop Him. :) Not trying to be argumentative. :)

[Violet Crown]

Nobody, I hope, claimed that the Catholic teaching is that it's wrong 'to consummate without the intention of conceiving.'

[Dory]

There is a such thing called NFP. It controls your family size, health issues and such without you playing God yourself. The Catholic church no more wants unwanted children than you do.

 

My little twin brothers were an accident while my parents used NFP. My friends little sister was a surprise while practicing NFP, and my middle child was the same story.

[justamouse]

E

:iagree: Using NFP just seems like another barrier method to me. You're still manipulating the process? I know other people believe differently and I have read all the replies, but this belief among others is what led to both my DH and I leaving the Catholic Church. My grandmother and mother both used BC due to health issues at different points despite remaining Catholic their entire lives. Both could have had serious problems and possibly died if they had more children.

 

They are completely different. One is acting and the other not acting.

 

Having sex while fertile is having sex...no? :001_huh:

 

Not having sex while fertile is inaction. You are therefore not contracepting an act...there's noting to contracept.

 

There's a story about Mother Theresa where she was asking for bread for a child and the baker spit in her face. She said thank you, now may I have bread for the child? That was turning the other cheek...she didn't retreat, she didn't act on the insult.

 

Abstaining while fertile is not not open to life...it's respecting the act that gives life. Abstaining while fertile like birth contrrol in that you're not trying to control the consequence of the act..you're inactive...there's no consequence to wrest control from.

[Dory]

In the bible, someone (can't remember who) was killed for "spilling their seed on the ground". Now, I think God made a pretty clear point that those spermies are intended for one thing and one thing only.

 

If you blast em', you'd better leave em'. :lol:

 

I don't think it was the spilling so much as the intention behind why he did that. He didn't want to conceive children for his brother. That was the sin, selfishness and pride, not seed spilling. If spilling were the sin than God would've killed every guy that had a wet dream.

[amey311]

:lol:

Doesn't the Bible also say that a man and woman shouldn't abstain for more than 7 days so they won't be tempted? In which case, I don't quite understand the reasoning of abstaining if you don't want to have a baby...

 

 

Perhaps. It also tells the story of some youths mocking a bald man who then cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then 2 bears showed up and mauled 42 of the youths. Now, that might be correlation rather than causation, but one must be cautious either way.

[*Michelle*]

Perhaps. It also tells the story of some youths mocking a bald man who then cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then 2 bears showed up and mauled 42 of the youths. Now, that might be correlation rather than causation, but one must be cautious either way.

 

:lol:

[nova147]

:lol:

Doesn't the Bible also say that a man and woman shouldn't abstain for more than 7 days so they won't be tempted? In which case, I don't quite understand the reasoning of abstaining if you don't want to have a baby...

Ummm so here's my question - by considering it immoral to consummate without the intention of conceiving (or rendering s*x infertile, however it was worded earlier up. :) ), does that therefore equal s*x for fun = immoral? Or frowned upon? I mean within a marriage, obviously. :)

And... not to be flippant, but... if someone was using birth control and God meant for them to have more kids, it isn't like the birth control could stop Him. :) Not trying to be argumentative. :)

 

Two issues here. First, s*x for fun is moral, as long as it's not JUST for fun. The Church teaches that there are two aspects (might not be the right word) of s*x - unitive and procreative. Fun falls under unitive. :D Seperating these aspects is what is immoral. So, contraception is wrong because it only involves the unitive aspect. In vitro fertilization is wrong because it only involves the procreative aspect.

 

Second issue, things prohibited in the Bible. This a big reason why I'm Catholic. There are a lot of things prohibited in the old testament but allowed in Christianity. (Ever read Leviticus? :D) How are we supposed to know which to follow and which don't apply? The Catholic Church claims the authority given to Peter (see my earlier post). It is based on this authority that she interprets Scriptures and apostolic writings to determine what the "laws" should be. Without one authority, people will come up with a variety of different answers, hence the large number of Protestant churches.

[justamouse]

My little twin brothers were an accident while my parents used NFP. My friends little sister was a surprise while practicing NFP, and my middle child was the same story.

 

Birth control always works?

 

All of my kids were concieved using birth control.

[Barb_]

You got the bad spelling from me. Humanae Vitae if you want to read it over.

 

I know, LOL! And to make it worse, when I went to correct it, I accidentally hit submit after I started erasing it. Just ignore, people :D

Infant limbo is not doctrinal. There is no official position on the souls of infants that have died without baptism. We pray for God's mercy and divine justice. The official position is that we don't know.

 

But as a child in catholic school, it was taught as if it were doctrine, often and with gusto. When limbo just disappeared, that was a really big deal. I think that was the beginning of the end of my faith in the infallibility of the church.

 

 

The church does not require women to be baby factories and certainly don't require them to kill themselves in pregnancy and birth. Being fruitful isn't tied to quantity but quality, after all, the Holy Family consisted of one child only.

 

No, big families aren't prescriptive, but they are more often than not the result. And to me, it does sound like women are advised to continue having children even when their health is at stake. I know that NFP is an option, but 3 of my kids and the one baby we lost were all conceived using NFP. Two were because we got frisky in the grey area and two were because I was so early in my cycle that I had no idea we were already pre-ovulatory. Seriously, I was at the end of my period both times when I conceived. The first time my husband moved to a new city ahead of us a couple of days after we conceived, so I'm sure of the date. The second time, I was having familiar symptoms and I took a 12 days after we conceived and got a positive (on day 19 or 20 of my cycle...I just remember it was crazy early). So I don't have a lot of faith in NFP.

 

As for other moral implications, perhaps this part may seem relevant (or not):

 

"It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion."

 

I don't know, maybe I'm not equipped with the religion receptors. I've read it and I've read explanations and discussions of it...but I just don't buy it. I can't wrap my mind around it logically, I don't feel it in my gut or my heart, and I just can't accept it.

[I.Dup.]

And... not to be flippant, but... if someone was using birth control and God meant for them to have more kids, it isn't like the birth control could stop Him. :) Not trying to be argumentative. :)

 

God gave us free will for a reason- He usually respects it. :) Of course there are situations where babies are conceived when birth control is used, but for the most part God will respect the decisions we make. I see the above as being kindof silly, like shaking a fist in His face "I'm going to do what I want, You go ahead and try to stop me!!"

 

Second issue, things prohibited in the Bible. This a big reason why I'm Catholic. There are a lot of things prohibited in the old testament but allowed in Christianity. (Ever read Leviticus? :D) How are we supposed to know which to follow and which don't apply? The Catholic Church claims the authority given to Peter (see my earlier post). It is based on this authority that she interprets Scriptures and apostolic writings to determine what the "laws" should be. Without one authority, people will come up with a variety of different answers, hence the large number of Protestant churches.

 

:iagree: Things get so confusing and frustrating when everyone is going on their own individual interpretation of things. That is one of the main things that drove us to the Catholic Church.

[Dory]

Birth control always works?

 

All of my kids were concieved using birth control.

 

Indeed, birth control doesn't always work, but to advocate NFP to be a reliable form of birth control isn't really truthful either. In the end I think it is more of, people will try to show maturity and wisdom in planning their families, and if God decides that they should have a child, He will make it happen, no matter what their plans were.

[milovany]

Without one authority, people will come up with a variety of different answers, hence the large number of Protestant churches.

 

This thread has been interesting to me because of a lot of similarities between our two faiths (we are Eastern Orthodox). This statement caught my eye because the Orthodox church, which shares the same antiquity as the Catholic church, has never had this "one authority" and yet also remains undivided all these years later. It hasn't split into a variety of different churches with different interpretations of theology (although you might find some economia through the hands of the bishops). I guess it's a natural tendency to want to correct when something related to you is addressed (or not addressed as the case may be); in that light, please forgive me if I ought not to have brought it up, I just thought it worthy of a mention.

Edited June 6, 2012 by milovaný