A wholly reasonable approach to birth control

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlNg said:
According to what I read it appears that there are many Catholics who think that the teaching on artificial birth control needs to be changed as it has been changed in other religions.
Click to expand...
I think you are not quite understanding the issue. This teaching, first of all, is founded on a principle of natural law that was once so breathtakingly obvious there was hardly need to mention it. Second, the “big chance” to reexamine this doctrine came and went in the 1960’s - and many, many bishops were pushing for a “change” as you put it. Only a few who were invited by St. Paul VI to write to him personally (during the Synod) gave the right answer - including the future John Paul II, and Fulton Sheen.
1ke said:
I think you missed my point.
Click to expand...
No, just adding a thought. Feel free to take it or leave it. Maybe it’s a helpful or important distinction, maybe not.
 
Mrchatsworth said:
To do so with intent and on purpose is the same intent and purpose as ABC.
Click to expand...
This is close - but needs qualification. If a person presumes upon the absolute infertility of the act, such that this complete presumption is a strictly necessary condition for the sexual act, then it certainly seems it is going to be formally contraceptive, even if materially not contraceptive.

I’m ready for some objections on this one…
 
Twenty-two years married. Have used NFP at times to avoid for serious reasons. Three children. Have been abstaining for a little over two years due to the danger of pregnancy and a medical condition. That will change shortly as I have appeared to reach menopause recently and as soon as the dr. confirms, we are good to go.
 
JohnStrachan said:
I just curious. How many here use or have used NFP and what is your experience with it?
Click to expand...
We did. We found that it demanded a lot of dying to self (not such a bad spiritual discipline, actually), but on the positive side, it united us in an extraordinary way, causing us both to shoulder the “burden” of her fertility. I was so aware of where she was at in her cycle. We were both very aware of the times when we were risking pregnancy, and at some of those times, we were open to having another child. We also used it to avoid pregnancy, as we had three under the age of four at one time, and she was overwhelmed and exhausted, and saying no to myself was an act of love towards her.

I have no numbers on this, but I’m willing to bet that the adultery rate of couples who use NFP is very close to zero. That’s not the main reason to do it, but it is one of many very positive side effects.
 
Last edited:
17 years here. It’s a cross to bear. We have 4 kids with us on earth and 4 waiting for us (all planned). Hopefully I won’t have more than 10 years left of it. We are avoiding indefinitely at this point due to several reasons.
 
Been married for 42 years. Three children. Had to stop at three because the last pregnancy was very difficult for my wife.

My wife and I were a teaching couple for The Couple to Couple League for about 17-18 years ( I forget how many exactly).

Pax
 
Is NFP the same thing ad ‘The Rhythm Method’? I apologize that I am not well versed on these things.
 
Last edited:
vsedriver said:
if it was morally sinful yesterday it is still morally sinful today and will continue to be morally sinful in the future.
Click to expand...
Teachings on what is morally acceptable have changed over time.
1ke said:
Morality is objective and unchanging.
Click to expand...
The morality of burning someone alive at the stake has changed. Now it is wrong to do so, No?
vsedriver said:
Catholicism isn’t a democracy. You don’t get to change moral dogma by vote.
Click to expand...
Didn’t people regard burning at the stake alive as immoral and was not the teaching on capital punishment changed?
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Capital punishment is fundamental to life and previously it was taught that it was acceptable.
Click to expand...
Oh boy. Prepare for an Alice in Wonderland experience. I will just say, no, there’s no change in principle on capital punishment, just some exhorting to forego its use.
 
I am saying that it remains Catholic doctrine that capital punishment is acceptable in theory. I am not commenting on any specifics. If you want to discuss this further, maybe start a new thread. Point is, the RCC doesn’t really change these kinds of things.
 
kapp19 said:
Second, the “big chance” to reexamine this doctrine came and went in the 1960’s - and many, many bishops were pushing for a “change” as you put it.
Click to expand...
If the teaching on artificial contraception is that it is intrinsically wrong and that it is against the natural law and cannot ever be changed, how come many, many bishops were pushing for a change? And even today, is it true that there are clergy who are soft on this issue?
 
Unfortunately not all clergy are very well educated or zealous or xyz. What we have with Humanae Vitae is an “Athanasius contra mundi” moment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top