Catholics and NFP--really struggling

[Parrothead]

I think a lot of people have just given up on the "it's a sin" idea. And many priests these days will just tell you to "follow your conscience." And really, no one uses artificial birth control without a good reason. So, that is the world. I have a lot of cognitive dissonance with that, of course. Can that many Catholics (90+ percent, easily, these days) be wrong? Is the church going to change its mind on this issue, like they did with meatless Fridays, and suddenly declare artificial birth control okay? Is this just an arbitrary "rule" with little spiritual backing? I have had all these thoughts.

 

 

 

The Church has never "changed its mind" on penance being done on Fridays. What changed was that the faithful are allowed to pick the penance. It should be done every Friday as a reminder of Good Friday. I know several families who chose to keep Friday meatless as their penance.

 

The teachings on ABC are not arbitrary. Read Humanae Vitae

[unfrumpable.]

 

 

We have experience with HIV as well and it IS caused by moral failings (adultery, infidelity, promiscuity).

 

 

Wow, just wow.

[Haiku]

No, HIV is caused by a virus.

 

Tara

[SarahW]

VeritasMama -you're entitled to your beliefs, but the facts you state about the history of birth control condemnation in the church is wrong. You quote from sources, but those sources are wrong too.

 

I have spent time among the Coptic Orthodox church, hardly a bastion of any liberalism, and a monk of that church has also pointed out that NFP is birth control. Making a distinction between NFP and birth control is illogical, both prevent pregnancy. Making a distinction between unitive and procreative function based solely on the time of the month is also illogical. An act of coitus has the potential for both. That NFP is allowed shows that purely unitive coitus is valid, so why is it not valid if a barrier is used? Barrier methods are annoying, yes, but their presence do not make coitus any less unitive.

 

I respect NFP, but the stance of the RCC on barrier-contraception is untenable. I think the approach of the Coptic bishops is much more rational.

[LG Gone Wild]

No, HIV is caused by a virus.

 

Tara

 

 

The virus is passed via bodily fluids, most commonly through s*xual acts. That's how a majority of people (aside from AIDS orphans) I know contracted it. I am not sure what it is you think I am saying.

[goldberry]

Not a Catholic here, but just someone who has personally struggled with certain church doctrines...

 

The key to accepting a doctrine in peace seems to me to be whether or not you really, REALLY believe that it is what God expects from you. Not the church, not tradition, but God. Doing something because you will be "a good Catholic" or "a good (insert religion here)" will not last you in the long term, and will not give you any peace. It is appropriate to make some compromises in the interest of unity and peace. However, if a doctrine is causing deep conflict inside you, or causing disruption in your family - then you better just be darn sure you are doing it for the right reason.

 

I am not talking about rejecting a doctrine because it is too hard or goes against what we would like to be doing. But really doing a personal evaluation, prayer, study, discussion, as to whether or not you really believe that is what God expects from you. My only suggestion is that if you have not gone through that process, you need to take those steps. Hugs to you...

[Haiku]

I think you are conflating a medical issue with a moral judgment, and I'm not a fan of that. My child (who is an adult) will be judged by people like you who perpetuate the stigma that HIV is the result of shameful behavior, and that makes me angry. If people want to stop the spread of HIV, they have to stop vilifying people with HIV and stop casting some as innocent victims and some as not.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

And btw, this is the first time in my long years as a member here that I have ever stated that my child has HIV. And it's because I'm finally fed up with the judgments people make about something that is none of their business.

 

Tara

[Catwoman]

And btw, this is the first time in my long years as a member here that I have ever stated that my child has HIV. And it's because I'm finally fed up with the judgments people make about something that is none of their business.

 

Tara

 

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

 

I don't blame you a bit for being angry, Tara!!!

[LG Gone Wild]

I think you are conflating a medical issue with a moral judgment, and I'm not a fan of that. My child (who is an adult) will be judged by people like you who perpetuate the stigma that HIV is the result of shameful behavior, and that makes me angry. If people want to stop the spread of HIV, they have to stop vilifying people with HIV and stop casting some as innocent victims and some as not.

 

Tara

 

 

You can't pretend that HIV isn't passed at all by shameful behavior such as prostitution and infidelity. It is small minded of you to think you have some moral high ground because you have immediate family that has contracted HIV. As I indicated in my earlier post, this has run through our family as well and in more than one person and in their cases, it wasn't their fault either. So maybe YOU should drop the judging.

[wintermom]

Hugs to you, Moxie. As a Catholic mom of several children tightly spaced, I can understand the physical and spiritual struggles you and your husband are facing. I hope that you both can find a solution that strengthens your marriage, and your relationship with God. No advice, as this decision is so personal for you and your dh. I hope that you find peace and can shed the feelings of guilt.

[Haiku]

I don't have a moral high ground because my child has HIV. I just want the spread of HIV to stop, and that won't happen if we shame and vilify those who contract it.

 

Tara

[LucyStoner]

Honestly, I read this and wish I had been born Protestant.

 

My choices, should I choose to remain Catholic, are

-be happy with relations twice a month until menopause or I get lucky enough to have some dread disease requiring a hysterectomy or

-have 5 more children and hope my brain doesn't explode.

Awesome.

 

I can't presume to advise you. What I will say is that I don't think I would let online advice be a subsititute for thinking about it with your husband and seeking the counsel of a few trusted priests or deacons and perhaps a therapist. Our old church had a married deacon on staff who was excellent and working with couples on these types of issues and I know many felt better talking to a married person.

 

I am in total agreement with you on frequency- sex 2x a month would be a very very detrimental thing for my marriage. As for those who say others have sex far less so that's not that bad, well plain old fooey on you. Everyone has a different marriage and a different sex drive. If you can tolerate or survive without sex for a very long time in a marriage, that is your prerogative but it is hardly the healthy norm or in line with the church's teachings either. Many of us can't or won't tolerate a sexless or nearly sexless month. OP, take care and good luck figuring out with your spouse what the best route forwards is from here.

[JustEm]

I too am going to bow out of this discussion as half of it has completely gone off topic and other posters keep asking the same questions that have already been explained.

 

Moxie, I hope you and dh come to solution that brings peace to your heart. I pray that your decision brings you closer to your dh, the Church, and God. If you need any support or someone to just talk it out with please feel free to pm me.

[LucyStoner]

 

Question: are you not one of the people whom breastfeeding keeps you from conceiving? The reason many cultures around the world wean at older ages (5-6) is because of birth control, and there is nothing more natural than that. You might have to pump to keep your supply up (I know it's natural, but even I shudder at the idea of a 6 year old breast feeding), but for many women it works well.

 

 

In most cases breastfeeding is not enough to block the fertility unless the child is still 100% or close dependent on nursing. Once weaning begins- and adding solids is a form of weaning- most otherwise fertile women will resume their cycles and regain fertility. So at best, breast feeding is 6-12 months of not bulletproof birthcontrol as even breastfed tots are usually needing to eat quite a few solids by their 1st birthday.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

People in Africa are not dieing from Aids because the church condemns barrier methods. They are dying from AIDS because they are not practicing chastity. If they were to follow the Church's teachings on chastity, sexually transmitted diseases would not be an issue. I always find this argument to be very poor logic. For the poor souls who are faithful to their spouses and contract these awful diseases within their marriage, that is the fault of their unfaithful spouse and not the fault of the church. It is the culture of infidelity that must change to combat sexually transmitted diseases, not the church.

 

Abstinence never killed anyone. It is hard and requires sacrifice, but it is not deadly.

 

I believe that the types of nuns and priests you encountered while in seminary who disagreed with the Church's teaching are not uncommon, sadly, and that is why so many Catholics use artificial birth control. That doesn't change the doctrine, and it never will.

 

 

Wow. You said an awful lot about something you apparently know very little about.

[VeritasMama]

VeritasMama -you're entitled to your beliefs, but the facts you state about the history of birth control condemnation in the church is wrong. You quote from sources, but those sources are wrong too.

 

I have spent time among the Coptic Orthodox church, hardly a bastion of any liberalism, and a monk of that church has also pointed out that NFP is birth control. Making a distinction between NFP and birth control is illogical, both prevent pregnancy. Making a distinction between unitive and procreative function based solely on the time of the month is also illogical. An act of coitus has the potential for both. That NFP is allowed shows that purely unitive coitus is valid, so why is it not valid if a barrier is used? Barrier methods are annoying, yes, but their presence do not make coitus any less unitive.

 

I respect NFP, but the stance of the RCC on barrier-contraception is untenable. I think the approach of the Coptic bishops is much more rational.

 

You believe it is untenable, that does not make it so.

 

I agree that NFP is birth control, I need to remember to use the phrase artificial birth control, as that is what barrier methods and hormonal contraception is.

 

I disagree that my sources are wrong. If you would like to cite some sources to help educate me, I am always interested in learning about other faith traditions. But I believe the OP was looking for support for her journey in the Catholic faith, and that was what I was trying to provide, not engage in a debate.

 

Catholic doctrine states that coitus is made less unitive by the presence of a barrier. The story of Onan from the Old Testament is a clear example that this has been deemed unacceptable since before Christ. Onan did not use a barrier per se, but he used "couitis interuptus" which has the same effect, that is the seed is withheld from the woman. The Catholic church teaches that for coitus to be unitive in the fullest sense, you must share your entire person with your spouse, this includes your fertility, or in less poetic terms your, ahem, bodily fluids. Holding back in this regard diminishes the unifying nature of the act. It will not eliminate the unifying aspect for most couples, but the act will not be unifying in the fullest sense according to the Catholic worldview, and that is the ideal Catholics are called to strive for, as hard as it is.

 

Since the OP is Catholic and is struggling with the Catholic church's teaching, the views of the Coptic church are really irrelevant, and I do not agree that they are more or less rational than the Catholic pov.

[Violet Crown]

Standard disclaimer: I'm not Catholic. These questions are not borne out of a hatred of Catholicism either - I have no bone to pick with Catholicism itself, and these are genuine questions, though I do admit bias in that I think this doctrine is INCREDIBLY damaging. Personal history disclaimer: I have had to go on birth control to prevent pregnancy at a time when a pregnancy would have led to my death. I chose barrier methods over the pill as I did not want to take a risk that I would get pregnant and then have issues caused by the pill that would cause a miscarriage. All that being said....

I don't understand the difference between NFP and barrier methods in the Catholic churches view?

NFP is intended to prevent conception. Is it not therefore by definition, not "open to life"? By intentionally deciding not to have sex during those times, isn't just a natural form of contraception? Why is NFP somehow "open to life", when its entire purpose is, just like barrier methods, to PREVENT making a new baby? I also don't understand how we can say that "sex is unitive" when both people in the marriage want sex but deny it to not have children? IIRC the Bible's stance on this is not to deny yourselves except for spiritual good, just like fasting.

Can someone explain how/why the Catholic church came to the point that one is acceptable and the other is not? Both are intended to prevent conception, and both get in the way of a couple being "unitive". From an uneducated outsider's perspective, it seems that either both should be permissable, or neither should be.

You don't need to apologize. These are good questions.

 

"Contraception" in Catholic doctrine is a deliberate interference with the conjugal act so as to prevent pregnancy. Condoms so interfere; abstaining from intercourse does not, because there is no conjugal act to interfere with.

 

Catholics lately (including the hierarchy) like to talk about "being open to life," "not having a contraceptive mentality," and the endless rabbit trail of unitive-vs.-procreative ends. I'm sure it's wonderful to be open and unitive and such, but that has little to do with contraception. A Catholic is free to limit births into her family; she is not free to do so by contracepting. She may be as open to life, or not, as she pleases; but she may not contracept. She may deliberately avoid marital relations when there is a likelihood of conceiving; but she may not attempt to interfere with a sex act so as to render it infertile ... which is what "contraception" means.

 

The Church's source for the acceptability of abstinence as a method of birth control is: (a) Christians from the earliest times have shunned contraception; and (b ) condoms, the Pill, etc. are contraceptive (while NFP is not), by the meaning of "contraception."

 

Now I don't mind anyone, Catholic or non-, disagreeing with the doctrine. I'm not the judge of anyone's conscience. But it should at least be clear what Catholics are asked to assent to.

[VeritasMama]

Wow. You said an awful lot about something you apparently know very little about.

 

It was not my intention to state that anyone who contracts AIDS does so because of immoral choices. That is why I included the example of the spouse who contracts it through no fault of their own. I am aware of those who contract diseases through no fault of their own. It was not my intention to villify or judge those who suffer from AIDS or HIV.

 

It was my intention to state that the Catholic church is not causing anyone's death from AIDS, which is what the poster I was responding to explicitly said.

 

I apologize for any hurt feelings, but my post was not malicious.

 

I must bow out as well, the Church's doctrine has been explained, it is up to each individual to choose whether or not to accept it and/or follow it.

 

It has now gone off the rails, and I don't think that any more discussion on my part would be productive.

 

ETA: I forgot to mention that I will continue to pray for you, Moxie. This issue has been the hardest for me to deal with as a "revert" and as a mother, I hope you are able to find peace.

[Trish]

 

 

The Church has never "changed its mind" on penance being done on Fridays. What changed was that the faithful are allowed to pick the penance. It should be done every Friday as a reminder of Good Friday. I know several families who chose to keep Friday meatless as their penance.

 

The teachings on ABC are not arbitrary. Read Humanae Vitae

 

No the church has never changed its mind about "penance" on Fridays, but they failed to communicate that to most Catholics! (If you do an informal survey among Catholics you know, you'll find that out pretty quickly) In any case, it was a church discipline that many in the church abided by, and when they dropped (er, made it into the more flexible Pick-a-Penance) most people just got the message it was no longer important. And I have no idea how it was announced, that was before my time, but I managed to make it through Catholic grammar school AND Catholic highschool without ever discovering that penance is still required. That was something I learned on my own as an adult, and people still look at me like I'm nuts if it ever comes up in conversation. Which it occasionally does when people ask *why* we don't eat meat on Fridays.

 

I have read Humane Vitae and I know the teaching is not arbitrary. I'm just speaking to people's impression of the teaching, and most have not read Humane Vitae. Part of the problem (as I understand) is that some who were part of Vatican II signaled to the Catholic world that Pope Paul VI was studying the issue and that it might be changed. Then when the Pope promulgated Humane Vitae, it was the opposite of what had been hinted at, but too late, theologians, priests and others were busy undermining the teaching, and still do so today.

 

It's an extraordinarily difficult teaching to follow when it requires a level of personal sacrifice that the culture (including most Catholics) deems not only unnecessary, but even selfish (due to your large family using up so many planetary resources). And even family and friends can be non-supportive.

 

I agree with the teaching, though.

[SproutMamaK]

You believe it is untenable, that does not make it so.

 

Catholic doctrine states that coitus is made less unitive by the presence of a barrier. The story of Onan from the Old Testament is a clear example that this has been deemed unacceptable since before Christ. Onan did not use a barrier per se, but he used "couitis interuptus" which has the same effect, that is the seed is withheld from the woman. The Catholic church teaches that for coitus to be unitive in the fullest sense, you must share your entire person with your spouse, this includes your fertility, or in less poetic terms your, ahem, bodily fluids. Holding back in this regard diminishes the unifying nature of the act. It will not eliminate the unifying aspect for most couples, but the act will not be unifying in the fullest sense according to the Catholic worldview, and that is the ideal Catholics are called to strive for, as hard as it is.

 

Since the OP is Catholic and is struggling with the Catholic church's teaching, the views of the Coptic church are really irrelevant, and I do not agree that they are more or less rational than the Catholic pov.

 

I don't see that story in the Bible as a clear example of God deeming contraception unacceptable. I deem it as a clear example of contraception being unacceptable when it is was, under God's law, that man's DUTY to carry on his family line with this woman.

 

And I don't mean for this to sound snarky (oh wow, that sound a lot like "I don't mean for this to be rude, but".... WHAT HAVE i BECOME?! lol), but I'm reading a lot of phrases like "the Catholic church teaches", "Catholic worldview", etc, and not a lot of "the Bible says". I don't think you can so easily dismiss the views of other churches who have also spent time testing the scriptures as not being pertinent. I don't think Moxie is necessarily looking for support in the Catholic view of this - I think she's searching for TRUTH. And the standard of our truth is not supposed to be "the church states", but "God through the Bible states". When push comes to shove, if we're trying to help her find God's will in her life, we should be pointing her to the Bible and to God as the primary source of those answers, not the decisions of the Church. Men are fallible. God is not.

[elfgivas]

 

 

You can't pretend that HIV isn't passed at all by shameful behavior such as prostitution and infidelity.

 

we don't need to pretend anything.... we can look for information, and let it inform our decisions.

it is true that some infections are the result of prostitution and infedility. some are also a result of using dirty needles... but there are a whole bunch that aren't. in some countries, over half of the new infections are occurring within committed heterosexual relationships.

 

here's one link:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/11/12-102574/en/

 

the graph part way down the page reflects what i thought i remembered. (ie. i haven't lost my mind completely yet ;)

 

the darkest part of the graph for each country shows the new Hiv infections by source of infection. a significant percentage of those are in committed heterosexual relationships. the people becoming infected haven't been promiscuous... eg. in Lesotho, 60% of new infections are in committed heterosexual relationships. however, their partners have been less than faithful. had those acts of unfaithfulness occurred using a barrier method of contraception, many of those women would not now be infected. had the catholic church not been so absolute about the evils of barrier contraception, there would have been more barriers available, and the use not considered a sin.

 

here is a link to info from 2010, where the pope acknowledges a lot, sets the cat amongst the pigeons, the earth moves, and change occurs ;). it was actually quite a remarkable thing for him to say.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

hth,

ann

 

ps. moxie, i'm not at all sure that helps you out, other than that it shows that the pope does believe that contraception is not inherently evil.

[LucyStoner]

Rape is one of the primary ways that the HIV virus is spread in southern Africa. Birth is another main way, as so many mothers have the virus. And if anyone here thinks becoming a prostitute only happens by free choice, then I am guessing you have never been trafficked for sex while believing that you and/or your family will be killed or watched your children starve. Until you have, you can leave your obnoxious judgments at the door. Saying that HIV is caused by immorality is shortsighted at the very very best.

[Jennay]

Rape is one of the primary ways that the HIV virus is spread in southern Africa. Birth is another main way, as so many mothers have the virus. And if anyone here thinks becoming a prostitute only happens by free choice, then I am guessing you have never been trafficked for sex while believing that you and/or your family will be killed or watched your children starve. Until you have, you can leave your obnoxious judgments at the door. Saying that HIV is caused by immorality is shortsighted at the very very best.

While it's certainly not caused by the immorality of someone who was raped or forced into sex trafficking, it is caused by the immorality of the person who raped the innocent women or the person who forces women to have sex. It's not the woman's fault, but it's still the result of immorality/sin on behalf of one of the parties.

[Trish]

I don't see that story in the Bible as a clear example of God deeming contraception unacceptable. I deem it as a clear example of contraception being unacceptable when it is was, under God's law, that man's DUTY to carry on his family line with this woman.

 

And I don't mean for this to sound snarky (oh wow, that sound a lot like "I don't mean for this to be rude, but".... WHAT HAVE i BECOME?! lol), but I'm reading a lot of phrases like "the Catholic church teaches", "Catholic worldview", etc, and not a lot of "the Bible says". I don't think you can so easily dismiss the views of other churches who have also spent time testing the scriptures as not being pertinent. I don't think Moxie is necessarily looking for support in the Catholic view of this - I think she's searching for TRUTH. And the standard of our truth is not supposed to be "the church states", but "God through the Bible states". When push comes to shove, if we're trying to help her find God's will in her life, we should be pointing her to the Bible and to God as the primary source of those answers, not the decisions of the Church. Men are fallible. God is not.

 

Any idea on why the Protestant churches changed their teaching on artificial birth control?

[milovany]

When push comes to shove, if we're trying to help her find God's will in her life, we should be pointing her to the Bible and to God as the primary source of those answers, not the decisions of the Church. Men are fallible. God is not.

 

Many, many would disagree with this (the part implying that the Church is manmade and the Bible isn't). The Bible didn't come into existence until the Church was 300-400 years old, and it's the Church that gave it to us. If "men are infallible" is applied, it needs to be applied to this, too. The same church that gave us the men who wrote the texts of the Bible gave us the men who canonized certain of these texts. I would venture to say that the vast majority of Christians through history would not ascribe to the view that the church isn't foundational and that it's the Bible that's the foundation of the faith (and the Bible itself seems to refute it, see 1 Tim. 3:15).

 

Just some food for thought! I love that our faith is based on the historical church and not on someone's (or our own) understanding of the Bible.

[KungFuPanda]

You could join the ranks of not-so-good Catholics that use birth control. Come to the dark side! We have cookies AND TeA!

[LucyStoner]

While it's certainly not caused by the immorality of someone who was raped or forced into sex trafficking, it is caused by the immorality of the person who raped the innocent women or the person who forces women to have sex. It's not the woman's fault, but it's still the result of immorality/sin on behalf of one of the parties.

 

No one needs to remind me of the immorality of rapists. The examples I cited were largely not used by those spouting off on immorality. I think someone mentioned birth. I think I was the first to reference the rape epidemic in southern Africa and that prostitution is often a survival need. They instead referenced infidelity and lack of chastity, among other things. All things which serve to both blame and stigmatize those who have HIV. Immorality is far too generic a term in this context.

 

I don't care how someone got the virus. Anything that stems the spread, empowers people to have more choices economically and sexual power and gives them access to effective medicine and prophylactics is a d@mn good thing in my book. In my belief it is immoral (since that's the word we are using) to try and stand in the way of that help. I don't care what someone's religion is- if you spread an idea which helps to spread a disease, you are participating in a problem and not a solution.

 

ETA: did you know that rape is so common in parts of southern Africa that some girls and women wear a female condom on the chance that they may be raped? Can you even begin to grasp needing to live like that? I can't, and I am no stranger to sexual assault. The sense of safety I am afforded because of where I live is precious and I take it for granted. Threads like this serve to remind me that I shouldn't.

[SproutMamaK]

I think it's time for me to bow out of this one, too. ;) I just want Moxie to know that questioning is ABSOLUTELY okay. Don't feel as though you're sinning because you're asking tough questions, and don't feel as though you're obligated to come out with a particular opinion at the end of this battle. My personal view on this issue as different from what my church teaches - it was a difficult decision to come to and it took a lot of struggling in prayer, searching the Scriptues, debating with clergy (and at times my husband) for us to feel we finally came to the right decision. In the end we came to a different conclusion than a lot of others, but we were stronger in our faith, our relationship with God, and our relationship with each other for it.

[stripe]

Basically, the way I understand it, Catholics can only have relations in which a man ej@culates in a v1gina (hopefully one belonging to his wife!) and there are no chemicals or barriers used to prevent pregnancy.

Hopefully?! Wow.

[Violet Crown]

 

And I don't mean for this to sound snarky (oh wow, that sound a lot like "I don't mean for this to be rude, but".... WHAT HAVE i BECOME?! lol), but I'm reading a lot of phrases like "the Catholic church teaches", .

Well that seems a little unfair, when you asked what the Catholic Church's teaching and rationale for that teaching were.

 

But if you insist, Romans 1:26 seems exactly on point. Unless one prefers the ahistorical "Paul was talking about lesbianism" argument.

 

[milovany]

I think it's time for me to bow out of this one, too. ...

 

Forgive me if my reply came across in a way I didn't intend. I, too, hope Moxie can find answers and know it's okay to ask hard questions. I hope I did not offend.

[Moxie]

 

Hopefully?! Wow.

 

I was joking!!

[Murphy101]

Sigh.

 

What do you want here?

 

Everyone to say, "heck yeah to he'll with the RCC you profess to believe, get thee some ABC quick!"

 

A few to say, "yep, living the faith is HARD, but we don't do it bc it's easy. We do it bc we believe it's right or healthier or..." (((hugs)))

 

Or "oh god it suck to be catholic! Be something else! Something easier! Something that lets you have all the sex you want, when and how oh want it and to heck with that nutty open to life crap!"

 

Or what?

 

Is it easy to do NFP? Nope.

 

Does that mean it's right to use more chemical or barrier methods? Nope.

 

Do you believe the RCC is usually right? Do ou believe the vast majority of the RCC etching make sense and tend to be for our good spiritually and physically? If so, then why is it so hardto trust Her in this as you do so much else?

 

We all find some aspect of faith difficult. For some, many, it's birth control. For others it's something else. But that not the issue. How hard it is to do the right thing doesn't make it okay to not do the right thing, correct?

 

It's hard. We hate NFP so much we'd rather not have sex than use NFP. If its that OMG serious to us, we want ZERO risk. And no sex is the only method that hits that goal. We have used NFP to conceive and to avoid in the past tho and do believe it has a valid and useful good to marriage when the couple do it with agreement, love, and no resentment,

 

I don't know what to say to help you accept this hardship in your life. I wish it was easier for you. But it isn't and resenting it won't make it one bit easier.

 

(((hugs)))

 

[Coco_Clark]

Wow this thread went over the deep end. But I came late and want to tell you that I completely understand your situation. I was Catholic (my husband was Protestant) and it was this very issue that kept my husband from the church, and eventually led to me leaving it. It was such a hard, hard time for me. Years of deveststion. Remembering that pain, you are in my prayers.

 

I have very irregular cycles, sometimes ovulating up to three times in a month, sometimes not at all in a month, sometimes quite unexpectedly no matter how faithfully I "charted". This led to five pregnancies in four years, despite many classes on NFP, Mongol Method, ect, ect. Three of those pregnancies I lost, some because they were so quickly paced that my body couldn't handle it (getting pregnant 8 wks postpartum for example). I was devastated by my losses, overwhelmed by my young children 17 months apart in age, and tired in body. Like you I felt like I had few options:

 

1. Keep getting pregnant every year, most likely losing 1/2 of those pregnancies to miscarriage. We started young, 21. This could potentially go on for a very very long time.

2. Use BC even though I'm told its a mortal sin. (My husband was by this point insisting on a barrier method for my own mental health, and refused to join a church that told him this was wrong in our situation)

3. Abstain completely unless we were SURE I wasn't ovulating (2x a month would be a treat!)

 

I talked to so many spiritual advisors and friends. I heard so many of the above arguments.

 

In the end I became Orthodox, where my priest gave his blessing for me to pace my children in a way that was healthful to me, and to them. While the Orthodox traditionally believe in being "open to life" they also take each situation as its own. This made all the difference for me. I was able to space my second and third sons by 2.5 years. My littlest is 8 months and we are deciding when to open ourselves up for another. I pray you can find a similar peace.

[kitten18]

You could join the ranks of not-so-good Catholics that use birth control. Come to the dark side! We have cookies AND TeA!

Agree

[Kari C in SC]

I'm not Catholic, but I was raised catholic. My mom struggled with this early in her marriage. She had 3 babies under 3. When she had my sister, she shared a room with a catholic mom that had just had her 11th child. When the nurse brought the baby to her she yelled at her to take the baby away because she didn't want to hold her. She asked my mom, "When was the pope going to change this?" That had a huge impact on my mom. She decided she didn't want to continue having a baby a year and possibly become like this mom. She waited 6 years and then had her surprise ME and to this day says she wishes she could have spaced her first three out more. She says she enjoyed her time with me more because she was not overwhelmed with babies. I can't say what you should do, just thought I would share my mom's story.

[Aelwydd]

 

 

 

The virus is passed via bodily fluids, most commonly through s*xual acts. That's how a majority of people (aside from AIDS orphans) I know contracted it. I am not sure what it is you think I am saying.

 

Do you know why most of them are orphaned? It's largely due to the numbers of men (often truckers or other transient work) who sought sexual release while away from their wives, often with prostitutes. HIV spread very quickly from one truck stop/ mining town/ industrial factory to another, and these men took it home to their wives.

 

As a result, the largest incidence of new infections is not among the adultrous men and sex workers, but among married women, who are being exposed to it through sex with their husbands. My undergrad is in public health, and HIV in Africa and India is a ticking time bomb that is going to decimate millions and millions of lives.

 

Because of the patriarchy of the cultures involved, many of these wives have no choice but to engage in sex with their husbands. They are expected to produce children. And if their husbands are found how to have the virus, strangely enough the wives are the ones blamed, as if they were the source of infection. If this happens, then in India, especially, the woman is often thrown out of the house and family and scorned.

 

So, these women who are infected through no "moral failing" of their own, have children who become infected. And then both parents eventually expire, usually of a nasty form of TB or pneumonia, and the orphans who are infected are abandoned to overcrowded orphanages. If these children make it past 5 years of age, they are fortunate.

 

THIS is the situation that health workers and humane agencies have been facing, a swelling tsunami that is worsened because other groups, like the Roman Catholic Church, choose to use its political and social leverage to condemn, and even block, when it can, the dispersal of condoms to Africans. There are countries now where more than a third of all adults are infected.

 

What a condom means to a married African woman is the opportunity to remain uninfected if her husband has the virus. It gives her born children the chance to have at least one living parent. It gives larger society a chance to remain somewhat intact, instead of failing entirely under the total collapse of the adult population.

 

This is the reality of HIV/AIDS. All talk of "moral failings" ignores that the vast majority of infected people contracted it through no fault of their own. Regardless of how a husband cheated on his wife, I feel it is the deepest, darkest pit of evil that would point a finger at his wife and tell her her marital relations must be had without even the relative protection of a condom. It's like sleeping with a loaded gun to her head every single night.

 

 

Oh, and good luck teaching abstinence to their husbands. Again, in both Africa and India (which is where the next big hit is coming), men tend to look upon sex as a conjugal right, and women who choose to sleep on the couch, are women who tend to end up on the streets. Unprotected, and subject to assault from other men and even worse elements of society.

[I.Dup.]

Do you know why most of them are orphaned? It's largely due to the numbers of men (often truckers or other transient work) who sought sexual release while away from their wives, often with prostitutes. HIV spread very quickly from one truck stop/ mining town/ industrial factory to another, and these men took it home to their wives.

 

As a result, the largest incidence of new infections is not among the adultrous men and sex workers, but among married women, who are being exposed to it through sex with their husbands. My undergrad is in public health, and HIV in Africa and India is a ticking time bomb that is going to decimate millions and millions of lives.

 

Because of the patriarchy of the cultures involved, many of these wives have no choice but to engage in sex with their husbands. They are expected to produce children. And if their husbands are found how to have the virus, strangely enough the wives are the ones blamed, as if they were the source of infection. If this happens, then in India, especially, the woman is often thrown out of the house and family and scorned.

 

So, these women who are infected through no "moral failing" of their own, have children who become infected. And then both parents eventually expire, usually of a nasty form of TB or pneumonia, and the orphans who are infected are abandoned to overcrowded orphanages. If these children make it past 5 years of age, they are fortunate.

 

THIS is the situation that health workers and humane agencies have been facing, a swelling tsunami that is worsened because other groups, like the Roman Catholic Church, choose to use its political and social leverage to condemn, and even block, when it can, the dispersal of condoms to Africans. There are countries now where more than a third of all adults are infected.

 

What a condom means to a married African woman is the opportunity to remain uninfected if her husband has the virus. It gives her born children the chance to have at least one living parent. It gives larger society a chance to remain somewhat intact, instead of failing entirely under the total collapse of the adult population.

 

This is the reality of HIV/AIDS. All talk of "moral failings" ignores that the vast majority of infected people contracted it through no fault of their own. Regardless of how a husband cheated on his wife, I feel it is the deepest, darkest pit of evil that would point a finger at his wife and tell her her marital relations must be had without even the relative protection of a condom. It's like sleeping with a loaded gun to her head every single night.

 

 

Oh, and good luck teaching abstinence to their husbands. Again, in both Africa and India (which is where the next big hit is coming), men tend to look upon sex as a conjugal right, and women who choose to sleep on the couch, are women who tend to end up on the streets. Unprotected, and subject to assault from other men and even worse elements of society.

 

 

 

And you think these men would be fine wearing condoms? Right.

 

*Of course* not everyone who contracts HIV is morally inferior. But it's a joke to act as if there aren't major crimes being committed against women and children that are largely fueling the AIDS epidemic.

 

HIV is not the Church's fault. That was the original point.

[Aelwydd]

Someone needs to define "natural" to me in the context of this conversation.

 

I would like to know why NFP is considered "natural" birth control, when its entire premise rests upon the entirely conscious withholding of sex during fertile times. If sex is primarily a reproductive function (and it is, biologically speaking), then what is more unnatural than separating sexual intercourse from the time period where one is actually fertile? Do you see this occur anywhere else in nature? Do other species engage in the "natural" practice of only having sex when they are infertile?

 

A person who is having sex with a condom or on other artificial birth control methods, during the fertile period, is still a more natural response to the sex drive than frustration of the sex drive by abstaining during that period of time.

[albeto]

I don't think Moxie is necessarily looking for support in the Catholic view of this - I think she's searching for TRUTH. And the standard of our truth is not supposed to be "the church states", but "God through the Bible states". When push comes to shove, if we're trying to help her find God's will in her life, we should be pointing her to the Bible and to God as the primary source of those answers, not the decisions of the Church. Men are fallible. God is not.

 

 

For a faithful Catholic, the "truth" is understood to be preserved in the Church. That's why this is such a difficult position Moxie is in. On the one hand, her conscience tells her that having more children would be not only irresponsible, but detrimental to her family, her marriage, her own mental and emotional health. For a Catholic, it is absolutely not an okay thing to knowingly put someone in a position like that. On the other hand, for a faithful Catholic, deciding the Church is wrong is deciding God Himself is wrong because God's Truth is preserved in the Church. It's a promise Catholics believe (Matthew 16:18).

 

I was in a similar predicament, but not as bad because my husband was/is not Catholic and so would not consider NFP. I finally found a resource that explained that this was acceptable (meaning, not a grave sin), because the sanctity of marriage is more important than legalism/scrupulosity or ruining a marriage because of the tension. I don't know if the Church has considered this yet for artificial birth control in general, though. I suspect in time they will. As Pope Benedict publicly considered condoms to be acceptable in some situations, I suspect they will eventually accept artificial birth control as a means of preserving the sanctity of marriage, as opposed to understanding it only "frustrates" it, as the Catecism states. The Church has changed its position on things that were at one time considered divine truth (consider how councils of the past treated the "oppression" of Christians by Jews). I have nothing but the utmost sympathy for Moxie, who sounds like she desires genuinely to be faithful to her faith as well as to her family.

[Aelwydd]

 

 

 

And you think these men would be fine wearing condoms? Right.

 

*Of course* not everyone who contracts HIV is morally inferior. But it's a joke to act as if there aren't major crimes being committed against women and children that are largely fueling the AIDS epidemic.

 

HIV is not the Church's fault. That was the original point.

 

 

Actually, Uganda has drastically reduced their HIV transmission rate precisely through public education and through the promotion of barrier use. So yes, the men there, when faced with the choice of spreading the virus to their wives and children, or contracting it themselves, have been open to using condoms.

 

I have yet to see an entire country over there accept total abstinence as the alternative.

 

HIV is not the Church's fault, and I never said it was. What I hold the Church responsible for is using its considerable clout to make difficult for people to obtain a preventative device, which is saving lives. It is not pro-life to block efforts of organizations and individuals to save not just lives, but FAMILIES. These women and children are dying because of a virus that is being spread to them by infected men.

 

Were these men wrong to cheat? Absolutely. But there are very deeply rooted societal and cultural mores driving that behavior. If you ask me, the Church should focus on THAT aspect of it. Let them go into the dives where these men are engaging in sex with prostitutes. Let the Church give these prostitutes a dignified and true alternative to what they are doing (many of them are sex slaves and have no choice).

 

But to put the political focus downstream, after the virus is spread, and simply telling thse couples "Don't use condoms, that's not being pro-life," is the sickest kind of irony.

 

Figure out how to address the cultural woes upstream, and you will have solved a great deal of the problem before it even gets to to massive condom distribution programs. I don't think most health organizations have the key to solving social ills fueling the buying and selling of sex, but I do think the Catholic Church has much to offer in that area.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

 

And you think these men would be fine wearing condoms? Right.

 

*Of course* not everyone who contracts HIV is morally inferior. But it's a joke to act as if there aren't major crimes being committed against women and children that are largely fueling the AIDS epidemic.

 

HIV is not the Church's fault. That was the original point.

 

 

The "Church" actively stands in the way of efforts to give these women additional options and that has had an impact on the epidemic. Of course based on how it handled priests abusing young boys, I don't really expect much from the "Church".

[I.Dup.]

The "Church" actively stands in the way of efforts to give these women additional options and that has had an impact on the epidemic. Of course based on how it handled priests abusing young boys, I don't really expect much from the "Church".

 

 

How so? How is the RCC blocking the efforts Rebekah mentioned? Do you have links to specific incidents? I was not aware that the RCC was blocking all help and aid to these people.

[I.Dup.]

Someone needs to define "natural" to me in the context of this conversation.

 

I would like to know why NFP is considered "natural" birth control, when its entire premise rests upon the entirely conscious withholding of sex during fertile times. If sex is primarily a reproductive function (and it is, biologically speaking), then what is more unnatural than separating sexual intercourse from the time period where one is actually fertile? Do you see this occur anywhere else in nature? Do other species engage in the "natural" practice of only having sex when they are infertile?

 

A person who is having sex with a condom or on other artificial birth control methods, during the fertile period, is still a more natural response to the sex drive than frustration of the sex drive by abstaining during that period of time.

 

 

I agree with you, and that's the main reason I dislike "N"FP.

 

But, it's still superior to condoms in many ways, if a couple is truly desperate to avoid children. Condoms allow sex, but they block the unitive aspect of sex that Catholic couples are called to share. They can also break. They also don't feel very good.

[elfgivas]

Actually, Uganda has drastically reduced their HIV transmission rate precisely through public education and through the promotion of barrier use. So yes, the men there, when faced with the choice of spreading the virus to their wives and children, or contracting it themselves, have been open to using condoms.

 

I have yet to see an entire country over there accept total abstinence as the alternative.

 

HIV is not the Church's fault, and I never said it was. What I hold the Church responsible for is using its considerable clout to make difficult for people to obtain a preventative device, which is saving lives. It is not pro-life to block efforts of organizations and individuals to save not just lives, but FAMILIES. These women and children are dying because of a virus that is being spread to them by infected men.

 

Were these men wrong to cheat? Absolutely. But there are very deeply rooted societal and cultural mores driving that behavior. If you ask me, the Church should focus on THAT aspect of it. Let them go into the dives where these men are engaging in sex with prostitutes. Let the Church give these prostitutes a dignified and true alternative to what they are doing (many of them are sex slaves and have no choice).

 

But to put the political focus downstream, after the virus is spread, and simply telling thse couples "Don't use condoms, that's not being pro-life," is the sickest kind of irony.

 

Figure out how to address the cultural woes upstream, and you will have solved a great deal of the problem before it even gets to to massive condom distribution programs. I don't think most health organizations have the key to solving social ills fueling the buying and selling of sex, but I do think the Catholic Church has much to offer in that area.

 

 

amen.

[albeto]

 

How so? How is the RCC blocking the efforts Rebekah mentioned? Do you have links to specific incidents? I was not aware that the RCC was blocking all help and aid to these people.

 

 

Here is one summary.

 

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1135:the-catholic-church-versus-hivaids-in-africa-&catid=61:hiv-aids-discussion-papers&Itemid=268

[Deee]

I am no longer a Catholic. I haven't read all the previous posts, either, so I'm sorry if this doesn't add much. Your relationship with God is a private matter. The priest can mediate and advise, but in the end you will be judged only by God. Your role on earth is as a wife and mother, and as a person, who must be true to herself and God. To fulfil these three roles you need to ask yourself what is the best option for you and your family. Not the easiest, or the most "catholic" but the one that allows you to carry out your roles best. If more children would create great strain on those you already have, or not having sex much will put irrevocable strain on your marriage (and given that its obviously making you really miserable), then perhaps using a condom is the best, most faithful option for your family at this time. I can see nothing "godly" in an unwanted child, a miserable marriage, or the long term guilt of a faithful and conscientious woman.

 

I fail to see how sex where one or both parties are too worried about an unwanted pregnancy to be fully present in the act of lovemaking, can in any way be described as "unitive".

D

[Liz CA]

I feel like my choices are

-be frustrated and worried for the next 10-15 years or

-do something that I have been taught is a mortal sin all my life.

Neither is a good way to live.

 

I don't know much about Catholicism but I am a Christian - so forgive me if this is too simplistic or unacceptable.

 

Would it help to pray and see what other methods (other than NFP) are out there and what gives you some peace of mind as well as peace about your decision. If, for instance, you felt God was "okay" with a barrier method but your church is not, would you have peace about it without having to abandon other catholic principles? Is this generally an all or nothing issue?

 

In case this makes little sense to you, let me give an example. I do believe that God tells some people to do (or not do ) certain things, whereas others follow a different path. Both can be following God's plan for them since we (non-catholic Christians of my acquaintance) believe that God's plan is individual and not the same for every person. There are some things that doubtlessly apply to all, such as the 10 commandments and several other principles.

What is your dh's position on this? Have you been able to discuss your concerns with him?

[StephanieZ]

I can't say much bc I am not Catholic, but I know many serious, devout Catholics, and I don't know a single family of them with more than five kids. So, I really don't think that most Catholics follow the church teaching on this topic. Perhaps there is some other way of looking at this issue other than as black and white. I have certainly known priests who spoke with compassion and understanding on many topics, seeming to allow for much more flexibility than the dogma would suggest.

 

For parenting, I used to read lots of books, then choose the one that agreed with what felt right to me. Maybe you can do that . . . talk to many priests until you find one that makes sense to you. I have had conversations with priests who definitely seemed very down to earth to me. Maybe they were heretics . . .

 

There is only so much that one family can handle. There must be a high value placed on maintaining sanity and peace in the parents and their marriage. Isn't there some sort of maternal health exemption?