S/O umae vitae

[Ipsey]

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:

 

Poor boys and their sinful wet dreams.

[I.Dup.]

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 think of this mainly in the dating world. I know that guys just expect a woman to take care of her issue (with birth control/abortion) and he's free to sow his oats as much as he wants.

[Barb_]

Birth control always works?

 

All of my kids were concieved using birth control.

 

:rofl: Three out of 8 of our conceptions were planned.

[PeacefulChaos]

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.

... I have to admit, I have no idea if you are just telling a story here, or if you are trying to say something by telling it, or what. :D

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!!"

Well, I didn't say I thought that necessarily. I think for most, it's a lot more of a 'we're going to do this, and we're at peace with this, and we feel at peace with God about this.' and sometimes things turn out differently. It really isn't any different than, oh, say, NFP? :lol: At least in that regard.

Poor boys and their sinful wet dreams.

:lol: For real. :lol:

[Barb_]

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?

 

As I mentioned above, the stance on limbo really rocked my world. When I was a child, we were told that if an infant died before he could be baptized he wouldn't go to purgatory, but to Infant Limbo which is unlike purgatory and quite like heaven, except that he would be doomed to never look upon the face of God. We were also taught that any confirmed Catholic could baptize an infant if the child were in extreme danger and hadn't yet been baptized, and that it was important to do so if the situation ever arose. I think my dad baptized my daughter before her "official" baptism, but he never attempted that again. :tongue_smilie: I think he was kind of ticked about Limbo too.

 

This is what led to my beginning to question the church, not the other way around. But your quote "If the church could be wrong on this, what else could the church be mistaken in?"...or something to that effect....reminded me of my though process.

 

ETA: Here is an article from back in '07 regarding the dropping of Limbo: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/16159/pope-to-end-doctrine-of-limbo

[Barb_]

*I think the spelling is "humanae vitae"

 

:p Premature submisson.

[Barb_]

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

 

Specifically much of the official doctrine of the Catholic church. It is decided by men with good hearts, but who are largely removed from the rest of society. I don't believe their decisions are informed by God in the sense that God places ideas fully formed into their heads. Their own experiences and powers of reason guide their decision-making. They are people, and I don't believe they are infallible.

 

I don't know enough about protestant theology to make any judgement.

[Barb_]

: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?

 

No, I hear you. If I were ever to return to church, it would be the Catholic Church. I don't know why. I don't feel at home anywhere else. It's really a loss to me that I no longer believe or take comfort in believing. Maybe it's just such an ingrained part of my childhood and I'm more of a cultural Catholic than anything. Those are things I will need to figure out before I consider circling back.

[Barb_]

Poor boys and their sinful wet dreams.

 

Yeah, I wondered where masturbation fit in with all of this. Are we still teaching boys that it's sinful? I've been away from the church for about 15 years now, so I'm out of the loop.

[amey311]

... I have to admit, I have no idea if you are just telling a story here, or if you are trying to say something by telling it, or what. :D

 

Maybe a little of both? It's what I thought of when someone posted about Onan. Her point (I think) was that, well, "every sperm is sacred" :tongue_smilie: according to the Bible, because God killed Onan for spilling his seed. If you're going to use that as your basis to not waste sperm, then you also need to be careful about heckling bald people, because, apparently, you could be attacked by bears.

 

NOW, I don't seriously think that the Previous Poster thinks that God will KILL YOU (like Onan) for wasting sperm, and it's quite possible she was also joking in her posting. So maybe I was adding a little bit of levity? I was definitely going for humor when I made the "causation or correlation" comment.

[justamouse]

Milovany, though I respect that you added that point of interest--EO endorses BC, right?

 

And to the point of not having a Pope, well, there are lots of churches that don't. ;)

 

Specifically much of the official doctrine of the Catholic church. It is decided by men with good hearts, but who are largely removed from the rest of society. I don't believe their decisions are informed by God in the sense that God places ideas fully formed into their heads. Their own experiences and powers of reason guide their decision-making. They are people, and I don't believe they are infallible.

 

I don't know enough about protestant theology to make any judgement.

 

Well, they are people and they are fallible. The Pope goes to confession (oh to be a fly on the wall...) But as a whole, when he speaks from the seat of Peter, he will not speak heresy. That's the quick and dirty, but that's the jist. As a person, I'm sure the Pope would be the first to admit that he makes mistakes and is in need of absolution, as are the cardinals and bishops.

 

As for those black robes not understanding, I think, perhaps, you're selling some of them short. They are brothers, have mothers, fathers, nephews and nieces. Their brothers and sisters get divorced, their parents die. One of our priests was in tears as he sopke about his sister getting divorced after 30 years, and why.

 

Here's a great article on the truth of some of the men in seminary.

 

I think most people would be surprised to know how many men in the seminary are in love. And, I don’t mean with Jesus; I mean with a woman.

 

 

Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. Seminarians are men, too. Men with emotions, passions, and desires—they fall in love. Being a seminarian and training for the priesthood, or even being an ordained priest, doesn’t change these natural human conditions.

 

 

Every man who becomes a priest must at some point make a conscious decision to choose celibacy. Rather, he must choose to respond to the call of celibacy. The “call†comes in different ways. Some men feel a call to celibacy first and a call to priesthood after. For other men, the call to celibacy follows the call to priesthood. That is to say, a young man becomes convinced that God is calling him to holy orders, recognizes that a necessary component of this call is celibacy, and then must wrestle with how he will respond to the call.

 

 

This wrestling match occurs at different points in the discernment process. I know men who have called off engagements in order to enter the seminary. I know men who have left seminary to pursue a woman. And, I know men who struggle with celibacy as priests. This wrestling match will happen at some point. Some lose the match, either discerning out of the seminary or leaving the priesthood altogether. But, there are many who have chosen and continue to choose—often heroically and faithfully, against all odds—to follow God’s call for them into the ministry and into celibacy.

 

 

I don’t mean that they simply acquiesce to celibacy, but they embrace it with their whole heart. I am not simply referring to men who think to themselves, “Golly, marriage would be good. Women are beautiful. Sex sounds nice. But, oh well.†I’m speaking of men who have stared into the eyes of a woman with the passionate desire to sweep her off of her feet, profess his love and fidelity to her at the altar, make sweet, sweet love to her, and have a huge Catholic family; men who have looked straight in the eyes of an individual, particular, woman with whom he is in love—and who is in love with him—and said, “I choose Jesus. I choose priesthood. I choose celibacy.â€

I'm sure nuns go through the same.

 

But if they can choose it for a lifetime, I can choose it for a few days.

Edited June 6, 2012 by justamouse

[Soror]

Others do know that until the 1930 Lambeth Conference all Christians, Catholic and otherwise were in agreement about contraception. At that point the Anglicans accepted some use of birth control and by 1958 contraception use was pretty widespread among Anglicans followed in kind by pretty much every other Protestant denomination.

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

 

This article also explains about Onanism as well.

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

 

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

[milovany]

Milovany, though I respect that you added that point of interest--EO endorses BC, right?

 

And to the point of not having a Pope, well, there are lots of churches that don't. ;).

 

Oh, hi, Mouse! I just saw this. Orthodoxy is not black/white on the issue. No, I would not say that our church "endorses" birth control at all. My husband and I were advised, when we converted, much like members of the Catholic church seem to be: It would be best to be open to life and not use birth control. But this is not a dogmatic issue, from what I understand, in the Church; I sound somewhat non-definitive and I do apologize, but it's not really something for public discussion in that way; as I said, it's not black/white, but rather relational. Each couple can talk with their priest privately about the issue, and if he and the bishop want to grant economia to a couple for their personal reasons, for using birth control, that is an option. Now, that's not to say that a lot of Orthodox couples probably don't use birth control; I'm sure many do. As with other issues in life, this is between them and the priest and God. It's not mine to know, or judge.

 

I realize a lot of churches don't have a pope! :001_smile: I'm glad that you do, and your church does, as that is important in your faith. My point more was addressing the comment that if you don't have a pope, you'll have a variety of beliefs because of a variety of interpretations of living out the faith; I was stating that this is not the case with Orthodoxy. For 2000+ years we've not had a central authority, and yet we remain united as one church all these years later. That's all. I was just trying to point out it's not just Catholic or Protestant; there is another option (and I'm sure some would say even more).

[amey311]

I'm not a Catholic and I don't play one on on the internet, but I have to say the difference between what is Doctrine and what is Discipline (and/or Ecclesiastical Law??) is confusing. I thought the celibacy of priests was Doctrine, but it's not.

 

I was looking up the whole Infant Limbo thing, and the wikipedia article (i know, i know...) was both clear and mildly confusing.

[Bluegoat]

Oh, hi, Mouse! I just saw this. Orthodoxy is not black/white on the issue. No, I would not say that our church "endorses" birth control at all. My husband and I were advised, when we converted, much like members of the Catholic church seem to be: It would be best to be open to life and not use birth control. But this is not a dogmatic issue, from what I understand, in the Church; I sound somewhat non-definitive and I do apologize, but it's not really something for public discussion in that way; as I said, it's not black/white, but rather relational. Each couple can talk with their priest privately about the issue, and if he and the bishop want to grant economia to a couple for their personal reasons, for using birth control, that is an option. Now, that's not to say that a lot of Orthodox couples probably don't use birth control; I'm sure many do. As with other issues in life, this is between them and the priest and God. It's not mine to know, or judge.

 

 

Actually, I think mention of economia is useful in the context of talking about NFP.

 

What gets lost in a lot of Catholic discussions of NFP is that while it is allowed, in some cases, it really isn't the ideal. For most of the history of the Church NFP would not have been considered any more acceptable than other types of birth control. People who needed to avoid children were expected to be continent.

 

NFP is allowed, even though it isn't the most perfect expression of the Christian life, as a concession to human weakness and the particular challenges of marriage (like balancing the capacities of two different people, our duties to our spouse, health or other issues).

 

This is the same reason that the Orthodox Church allows use of artificial birth control in some cases.

 

There are reasons the OC and CC draw the line in slightly different places, but in both cases it is a matter of what may be allowed as opposed to what is ideal. And while it may seem at first blush that the Catholic position is more strict, I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. Catholic couples are generally left to themselves to decide if they have a good enough reason to justify NFP, whereas Orthodox couples are supposed to include their priest in a decision to use NFP or ABC, and what he says has real authority.

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I wondered where masturbation fit in with all of this. Are we still teaching boys that it's sinful? I've been away from the church for about 15 years now, so I'm out of the loop.

 

Yes. Pretty much any real sexual activity that isn't intended to be completed in sex is sinful.

[nova147]

There are reasons the OC and CC draw the line in slightly different places, but in both cases it is a matter of what may be allowed as opposed to what is ideal. And while it may seem at first blush that the Catholic position is more strict, I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. Catholic couples are generally left to themselves to decide if they have a good enough reason to justify NFP, whereas Orthodox couples are supposed to include their priest in a decision to use NFP or ABC, and what he says has real authority.

 

I did not know, prior to this thread, how the Orthodox Church handled birth control. It might me nice to have a priest help us determine if we have "serious" reasons to avoid a pregnancy.

 

Yes. Pretty much any real sexual activity that isn't intended to be completed in sex is sinful.

 

I just wanted to point out that INTENT is key. Masturbation is a sin; wet dreams are not. Sin is a deliberate act - you have to know it's wrong and do it anyway.

[nova147]

I'm not a Catholic and I don't play one on on the internet, but I have to say the difference between what is Doctrine and what is Discipline (and/or Ecclesiastical Law??) is confusing. I thought the celibacy of priests was Doctrine, but it's not.

 

I was looking up the whole Infant Limbo thing, and the wikipedia article (i know, i know...) was both clear and mildly confusing.

 

I AM a Catholic and it's confusing! Wikipedia is good sometimes. Check out their page on Roman Catholic dogma, it has some good stuff on this topic. I tried to reduce it for you, but my brain doesn't work too well after dark.

[Mama2Many4]

Poor boys and their sinful wet dreams.

 

That was kind of rude. :confused:

 

You can't help what happens when you're asleep, but you can when you're awake. I figured people would know what I meant.:glare:

Edited June 6, 2012 by 3Blessings4Me
Spelling fix

[Aelwydd]

\

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. . .

 

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.

 

I don't have an opposing view to offer, merely my own agreement. I was raised a conservative evangelical Christian, and later "converted" to Anglicanism, when I met and married my dh, who was himself, Anglican. The parish and diocese we were part of was quite conservative, and largely taught and was in agreement with RCC doctrine on this issue.

 

What caused me to move past that chapter and to embrace the open spirituality I do now was my own experience with pregnancy and birth, as well as one other defining moment: a little boy a good friend of mine knew, died of cancer.

[Ipsey]

I did not know, prior to this thread, how the Orthodox Church handled birth control. It might me nice to have a priest help us determine if we have "serious" reasons to avoid a pregnancy.

 

 

 

I just wanted to point out that INTENT is key. Masturbation is a sin; wet dreams are not. Sin is a deliberate act - you have to know it's wrong and do it anyway.

 

So, no deliberate sex that culminates outside of a woman's v*gina is "legal" in Catholicism? If so, this explains a lot to me.

[Ipsey]

That was kind of rude. :confused:

 

You can't help what happens when you're asleep, but you can when you're awake. I figured people would know what I meant.:glare:

 

I don't mean for it to be rude. Nothing rude about it. I got the impression that emissions that didn't end up inside of a woman's v*gina were sinful.

 

I certainly know people who think so. Yes, even wet dreams to them are an indication that their bodies are sinful, so. . . I'm glad you don't feel that way. I'm sad for the boys whose families do, and how they have to feel shame for what their bodies do naturally, or for trying to ease it on their own so they don't wake at nights uncomfortably.

 

If this is rude, feel free to block me.

[nova147]

So, no deliberate sex that culminates outside of a woman's v*gina is "legal" in Catholicism? If so, this explains a lot to me.

 

Yes. But now I'm curious as to what it explains!

[ssavings]

So, no deliberate sex that culminates outside of a woman's v*gina is "legal" in Catholicism? If so, this explains a lot to me.

 

Kind of... The "ends" of s*x, in the eyes of the church, are the unity of the spouses and procreation... So, to deliberately act against either "end" of sex is advised against. (note that this is, in fact, different than abstaining from sex during a woman's fertile periods, which does not involved acting against the natural ends of the s*x act, but rather involves the mutual decision to abstain).

[Soror]

 

There are reasons the OC and CC draw the line in slightly different places, but in both cases it is a matter of what may be allowed as opposed to what is ideal. And while it may seem at first blush that the Catholic position is more strict, I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. Catholic couples are generally left to themselves to decide if they have a good enough reason to justify NFP, whereas Orthodox couples are supposed to include their priest in a decision to use NFP or ABC, and what he says has real authority.

 

I don't think ABC and NFP can be equated, which it seems you are somewhat doing. Using NFP will never be abortifacient. Using NFP doesn't render the act infertile. NFP is itself using periods of continence.

 

Our priests need much better training before we can even begin to recommend their counsel on such matters. I've heard many people say their priest told them something that was explicitly against church doctrine. Then there are those on the other side that seem to have no compassion or empathy for financial situations, a women's health etc.

 

Dh and I did go to a priest before we officially converted because we were at odds as to whether or not we had good reason to avoid. My son was conceived the day of that meeting :). I tried to seek counsel of that priest after he was born as I was suffering from PPD and the other typical stress from a newborn baby who never sleeps and screams all the time. He was no help and just made me feel worse because I was struggling so much. My current priest's motto if you have any thing causing stress, pain etc is that you are suffering for Jesus and that is good. Well, that is well and good but that would be nice if he had the slightest bit of empathy which he doesn't.

[nova147]

OK, I've slept, gone to Mass, had breakfast, taught some school, and played with the baby. And now I've found time to break out my books on the subject of contraception!

 

If anyone is interested in good books on the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception, I highly recommend "Good News About Sex and Marriage" by Christopher West and "Life-Giving Love" by Kimberly Hahn.

 

Indeed, birth control doesn't always work, but to advocate NFP to be a reliable form of birth control isn't really truthful either.

 

NFP is a reliable form of birth control. Different studies have found it to be 97-99% effective. That is comparable with all barrier methods and, at the upper end, with hormonal methods as well. This is a perfect use rate. Typical use rates are lower, relatively, for NFP than for other methods. I think there are a number of logical reasons for this. NFP requires a bit more time and thought than other methods. It requires the couple to communicate well. And it requires self-control. Miss one of these elements and user failure is a strong possibility. User failure with Depo, on the other hand, only happens if you fail to go get your shot.

 

I'm still hung up here. So isn't s*x during your infertile time of the month, if you're using NFP, just for fun? Why isn't that a sin?

 

Another poster said it was acting versus not acting... but aren't you acting when you are choosing to have s*x when you know you can't get pregnant? Whether it's using a condom or NFP?

 

Sorry to be difficult. I guess that's why I'm not really a practicing Catholic anymore. I just can't understand.

 

You aren't being difficult. It is a tough thing to understand because it is so counter-cultural.

 

The difference between using a condom and using NFP is the difference between YOU sterilizing the act and GOD sterilizing the act. Both acts are sterile (or presumably so), but in the first, you have chosen to make it so. In the second, you have waited for God to make it so. A couple of simple examples: abortion and suicide are choosing to end life, miscarriage and natural death are waiting for God to end life. God has design the s*x to be fertile, but not always -- sometimes during a woman's cycle she is not fertile, as well as many other times in her life (pregnancy, menopause). Having s*x is a fulfillment of the marriage covenant, wether the woman is fertile or infertile. Choosing to sterilize the act oneself is going against God's design.

 

An analogy: 3 people are walking by a church. The first, a religious person, enters and prays. The second, a nonreligious person, continues walking. The third, an antireligous person, enters and desecrates the altar. Only the third action is immoral. It is not wrong to just walk past a church (even if one is religious!). It IS wrong to go in a destroy or ruin things. Married couples are called to be procreative. It's acceptable for them to be non-procreative in some circumstances. It's NOT acceptable for them to be anti-procreative.

 

(These two paragraphs are paraphrases of information in Christopher West's book. This information is in chapter 6 of the book.)

[milovany]

The difference between using a condom and using NFP is the difference between YOU sterilizing the act and GOD sterilizing the act. Both acts are sterile (or presumably so), but in the first, you have chosen to make it so. In the second, you have waited for God to make it so.

 

But you've let God know your preference (no new life), and have worked to make that preference the most likely outcome, no? This is partly what advocates of not using even NFP as b/c would say. If you really want God in control, you won't check your mucous or take your temp. or abstain or anything.

[nova147]

But you've let God know your preference (no new life), and have worked to make that preference the most likely outcome, no? This is partly what advocates of not using even NFP as b/c would say. If you really want God in control, you won't check your mucous or take your temp. or abstain or anything.

 

Yes. I agree completely. A pp mentioned that the ideal is NOT using any birth control, even NFP. NFP is a licit option for couples who have SERIOUS reasons to avoid a pregnancy.

 

We try to involve God in our decision through prayer. (We aren't the best about doing this as often as we should.) So, yes, He knows our preference. But He would know our preference even if we weren't using NFP.

 

This is where the argument about using the brains God gave us comes in. He created the female body to be fertile at some times and infertile at others. We have, over time, learned ways to tell when we are fertile.

 

Ah . . . speech therapist is here.

[Aelwydd]

As a friend of mine (who has several kids) has said many times, choosing not to use any form of birth control isn't putting God in control. It's putting biology in the driver's seat.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think ABC and NFP can be equated, which it seems you are somewhat doing. Using NFP will never be abortifacient. Using NFP doesn't render the act infertile. NFP is itself using periods of continence.

 

Our priests need much better training before we can even begin to recommend their counsel on such matters. I've heard many people say their priest told them something that was explicitly against church doctrine. Then there are those on the other side that seem to have no compassion or empathy for financial situations, a women's health etc.

 

Dh and I did go to a priest before we officially converted because we were at odds as to whether or not we had good reason to avoid. My son was conceived the day of that meeting :). I tried to seek counsel of that priest after he was born as I was suffering from PPD and the other typical stress from a newborn baby who never sleeps and screams all the time. He was no help and just made me feel worse because I was struggling so much. My current priest's motto if you have any thing causing stress, pain etc is that you are suffering for Jesus and that is good. Well, that is well and good but that would be nice if he had the slightest bit of empathy which he doesn't.

 

I am saying that the position the OC has tended to take is that yes, they are largely the same thing as far as how they interact with our intent and work in our marriage. (THis is not universal mind you, there are certianly factions and individuals who are more conservative and would not only say ABC is not allowed, but that NFP isn't either.)

 

Neither is the ideal. Both should only be allowed because the couple is going to find it spiritually damaging to the marriage to be continent. That is what offering economy means - relaxing a standard for those who are not yet able to meet it without spiritual harm - with the view to becoming spiritually stronger and meeting the standard eventually.

 

NFP can have advantages in that it requires some level of continence and psychologically tends to reenfoce the connection between sex and procreation. Given that Orthodox Christians are generally supposed to be abstaining half the year during fast periods anyway though, requiring some abstinence may not be quite so important, though maintaining a conscious connection between sex and fertility may be a good thing when possible.

 

And on the other hand, NFP is simply unsuitable for quite a number of couples. It is by no means uncommon for some people to need to have to abstain for significant amounts of time, and for others it doesn't work well. (And as for the great stats pushed by groups like the couple to couple league - if you read those studies you'll notice that women with irregular cycles are not included in the test groups.) If the couple can abstain with a little effort, then they really should be attempting consistent abstinence until they are able to be really open to pregnancy, not practicing NFP.

 

So why is it that those who can practice NFP get relief from absolute continence, and those that can't have to stick it out, no matter how it causes the marriage to suffer? (Why not just tell everyone to stick it out)?

 

Not all forms of ABC can potentially cause abortions, so that seems to be irrelevant to me. It puts limits on what might be acceptable, that is all.

 

I can't speak to issues with Catholic priest's education. I can't see that consulting one's priest is going to be any worse than a couple deciding on their own - it would at the least give a person who is not so immersed in the situation to give their perspective.

[milovany]

Given that Orthodox Christians are generally supposed to be abstaining half the year during fast periods ....

 

Yeah, do NOT ask my husband to abstain anymore than he already does! :D I'm kinda joking, but it does become an issue in this sense (he already has to abstain so much that's it's hard to say "no thanks" for the 5 days around ovulation, too, if I'd rather not get pregnant).

[Barb_]

 

NFP is a reliable form of birth control. Different studies have found it to be 97-99% effective.

 

This is inaccurate. I'm willing to bet that if the those studies exist, 97-99% is achievable barring human error. Irregular cycles, double ovulation, and simple temptation wreaks havoc with NFP. There is no way NFP is that effective in the real world.

 

When I was in 9th grade, we had sex ed, Catholic-style in our theology class. We were shown "studies" that proved rapists didn't ejaculate. The paper asserted that abortion in the case of rape was a fallacy because babies just didn't result from rape. It was scientifically impossible. I believed that until I was halfway through college. :glare: I wonder if maybe I would still be Catholic if it weren't for Catholic school.

 

ETA: I found it. It's one study from 2007. While the book you quoted is partially accurate, the passage omits one important fact:

 

Some studies have suggested that women's libido is higher during their fertile period, and this could be one of the reasons why NFP methods traditionally have had a reputation for being less effective than other methods of family planning. However, Prof Frank-Herrmann said: "There are studies that suggest that this is only the case for a small proportion of women, and that, in fact, women also identify other parts of their cycle with increased sexual desire. Most women who use FAB do not find this a problem. It's possible that the increased libido may be one of the reasons that some of the couples in our study used a barrier, such as a condom, in the fertile phase.

 

This wasn't a study of NFP alone. This is a study of NFP coupled with condoms, at times, when needed. The 97-99% isn't accurate when a couple is depending on it for their only avoidance of conception.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Barb F. PA in AZ

[nova147]

Barb -

 

I admit I haven't look into the NFP studies. It's unfortunate if false information is being given in hopes of making people feel comfortable. It only upsets people for whom NFP "fails". I actually am fairly annoyed, the more I think about it, that the cited study had people using condoms. :glare:

 

I suppose I "need" to believe it is effective. I trust God with my fertility, but I have a very human need to feel in control.

 

However, irregular cycles and double ovulations shouldn't create problems for modern NFP users. Calendar rhythm would fail in those situation but sympto-thermal methods are designed to help identify those situations. Simple temptation, on the other hand, is definitely a problem! :D

 

I'm sorry you have been given bad information over the years (rapists don't ejaculate? REALLY?). I hope you don't mind if I pray for to find the answers God has for your questions.

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

 

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

 

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

 

I am not Catholic and my understanding of the sin of Onan is different than this. It is more like what Dory said. Public humiliation was for men who were failing in their duty to provide children for their brother's line. [eta for clarification: who were not taking their widowed SILs as wives at all.]

 

Onan took his brother's wife, slept with her, but had no intention of providing her with an heir who would inherit her husband's lands and take care of her. He was struck dead because he was reaping the benefits of this arrangement *from her* while avoiding his obligations *to her*. He was using God's law for selfish personal pleasure. The spilling of his seed on the ground was only the means by which he did it. So, it doesn't really have anything to do with contraception from that view.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[Barb_]

Barb -

 

I admit I haven't look into the NFP studies. It's unfortunate if false information is being given in hopes of making people feel comfortable. It only upsets people for whom NFP "fails". I actually am fairly annoyed, the more I think about it, that the cited study had people using condoms. :glare:

 

I suppose I "need" to believe it is effective. I trust God with my fertility, but I have a very human need to feel in control.

 

However, irregular cycles and double ovulations shouldn't create problems for modern NFP users. Calendar rhythm would fail in those situation but sympto-thermal methods are designed to help identify those situations. Simple temptation, on the other hand, is definitely a problem! :D

 

I'm sorry you have been given bad information over the years (rapists don't ejaculate? REALLY?). I hope you don't mind if I pray for to find the answers God has for your questions.

 

And if you caught annoyance in my tone, it wasn't with you, it was exasperation with the bad information I've been fed by representatives of the faith over the years. Seriously, the author of the book you quoted has to know the people in the study were free to use condoms. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

 

I had two NFP failures. I mentioned them above, but I will add a little more detail (without tipping into TMI). The first time NFP failed for us was back in 1997. Rich was transferred out of state in September and we stayed back to get the house ready to sell. We didn't see him again until Christmas and I think my ovaries went into overdrive at the presence of male pheremones :tongue_smilie: My temps were still low and I was only on day 6 of my cycle (and actually at the tail end of a period) with no CM signs when we conceived. Well, it's possible we actually conceived later than that since sperm can live inside the body for more than 4 days, 3-5 days, or possibly as long as 7 days depending on where you look. I don't think anyone has a definitive answer.

 

I though that one was just a fluke (and I miscarried that baby at any rate), but I conceived again at the end of a period. I was on day 7 this time and I'm sure of the date because of circumstances leading to abstinence the rest of the month. That time resulted in my son. So either I'm an exceedingly hospitable environment, or dh has some super-sperm, or I'm a crazy-early ovulator. Our last one was conceived on a second honeymoon. I take full responsibility for that one :D All I know is, without condoms we would never reach 97-99% effectiveness.

[ssavings]

This is inaccurate. I'm willing to bet that if the those studies exist, 97-99% is achievable barring human error. Irregular cycles, double ovulation, and simple temptation wreaks havoc with NFP. There is no way NFP is that effective in the real world.

 

All percentages for the effectiveness of birth control methods are based on perfect usage, so to me it doesn't seem that NFP should be different. Studies on the effectiveness of NFP don't take into account temptation in the same way that studies on the effectiveness of the pill don't take into account missing a day - they are only studying perfect use.

 

That said, 99% still seems high to me.

 

Planned Parenthood claims an effectiveness of about 75% when a couple uses the Fertility Awareness Method incorrectly (they do not specify what they mean by incorrectly, though). In contrast, they claim cond*ms to be about 80% effective with normal use.

 

I also have seen no information (well, no reliable information) about the effectiveness of the various methods of NFP. Seems that most of the studies eithe lump together everything from the old calendar method to the newer stuff, or are based only on the sympto-thermal method. I wonder if a newer method that uses electronic fertility monitors is even more effective than older methods?

 

ETA: my MIL, who teaches the sympto-thermal method, conceived her last daughter (her 7th) on the end of her period, too. We actually use a different method of NFP, which has a fairly "no sex while there is any bleeding at all" rule to prevent the same situation!

Edited June 7, 2012 by ssavings

[Barb_]

Barb -

 

I'm sorry you have been given bad information over the years (rapists don't ejaculate? REALLY?). I hope you don't mind if I pray for to find the answers God has for your questions.

 

I'm mortified to admit I used to use this quote to support my anti-abortion stance when I transferred to public school Junior year. Ugh. It's a really good thing we have Google now.

 

And I would welcome your prayers or any good thoughts you send my way. Thank you for your graciousness.

[Barb_]

All percentages for the effectiveness of birth control methods are based on perfect usage, so to me it doesn't seem that NFP should be different. Studies on the effectiveness of NFP don't take into account temptation in the same way that studies on the effectiveness of the pill don't take into account missing a day - they are only studying perfect use.

 

I agree. I'm not terribly impressed with Planned Parenthood's statistics either. But NFP is so much more dependent on user error. Did you catch where the NFP study allowed condoms at will? NFP could conceivably be this accurate when coupled with condoms whenever the couple was in a grey area. That's why 99% seems high.

 

Here is the study if you'd like to read about it: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

[ssavings]

I've read the study. I agree, not impressive. I guess I fail to see why one would use NFP if a barrier method was being used as well. Plus, I can't imagine the study is very effective that way...

 

Lke I mentioned, we use an entirely different method of NFP, though... Not sure the effectiveness percentage on it, though.

 

In the end, everyone must make the decision they feel is best...

[Barb_]

I've read the study. I agree, not impressive. I guess I fail to see why one would use NFP if a barrier method was being used as well. Plus, I can't imagine the study is very effective that way...

 

 

I think people just find barrier methods icky. So NFP would be a first line of defense with condoms as a pinch hitter. The idea being, it's better to use them once or twice a month than have to depend on them. The designers of the study didn't have Catholics in mind :lol:

[ssavings]

I imagine they are icky. And it's clearly the cheaper option to only use them a few times per month.

 

This is the only study I could find of the method I use. It's a small sample size, but they did exclude anyone using cond*ms. It can't claim the 99% effectiveness of the sympto-thermal method, but the study is interesting to me (disclaimer: I'm not science minded and DH isn't home to read the study, so there might be issues in methodology that I don't see). http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=nursing_fac

[Barb_]

I imagine they are icky. And it's clearly the cheaper option to only use them a few times per month.

 

This is the only study I could find of the method I use. It's a small sample size, but they did exclude anyone using cond*ms. It can't claim the 99% effectiveness of the sympto-thermal method, but the study is interesting to me (disclaimer: I'm not science minded and DH isn't home to read the study, so there might be issues in methodology that I don't see). http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=nursing_fac

 

Thanks for passing it on. I'm saving it to read tomorrow because I'm at the end of my usefulness tonight.