H
homewardbound
Guest
I learned contraception was wrong when I read Rome Sweet Home. The explanation Kimberly gives against it is just too powerful to be wrong.
- Status
C
childofmary1143
Guest
Let me get this straight, an RCIA class taught you how to put on a toilet paper roll? Gee I must have been sick that day at school when they taught the class that in religion studies
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
My wife and I have been a marriage prep lead couple for several years, and a few times we have been asked the question, “Why is NFP OK and other means of contraception are not, if the intent and the result are the same?” We have developed two answers to this question that we believe promote understanding of what is true.
First, the ‘action’ of NFP is abstinence. Abstinence is simply NOT engaging in sexual relations for a specific time. We’ve ALL have practiced it and we ALL continue to practice it (perhaps even after death
). Since not one of us continually engages in sexual activity from birth to death, we ALL abstain at one time or another. We couldn’t do otherwise.
And are we allowed to choose when we abstain? Of course we are. When married, that choosing must be done with the full consent of both spouses, but we are always free to choose WHEN we have sexual relations. God does not expect, and therefore the Church does not teach, that we must be having sex all the time. NFP (periodic abstinence) by its nature, cannot be inherently wrong. (Although it can be intended for wrong purposes, another topic).
Secondly, addressing the question as to the difference between ‘artificial contraception’ and NFP; if the intent and the ends are the same, why is one wrong and the other is not?
Result and intent are not sufficient to determine the morality of an action. The act itself must be of prime importance.
For example: Peter and Susan both intend to eat dinner this evening, and both end up eating dinner. Are they both good? The answer is in how (what action they used) did they achieve their end. If Peter stole his dinner from a starving man, and Susan earned her dinner through just work, then even though the intent (to eat dinner) and the ends (dinner was ate) were identical, the action determines morality.
It amuses me how contradictory the messages we receive from society are. On one hand, bulemia, the attempt to engage in the pleasures of eating without the natural affects of eating, is highly stigmatized. Bulemia is seen as a disease, even though a person appears to only be exercising their own ‘rights’ over their body. On the other hand, artificial birth control, and abortion in its extreme, is perceived as a right. The ends, the action, and the intent are the same, but ‘society’ accepts one, and abhors the other.
Dan
First, the ‘action’ of NFP is abstinence. Abstinence is simply NOT engaging in sexual relations for a specific time. We’ve ALL have practiced it and we ALL continue to practice it (perhaps even after death
). Since not one of us continually engages in sexual activity from birth to death, we ALL abstain at one time or another. We couldn’t do otherwise.And are we allowed to choose when we abstain? Of course we are. When married, that choosing must be done with the full consent of both spouses, but we are always free to choose WHEN we have sexual relations. God does not expect, and therefore the Church does not teach, that we must be having sex all the time. NFP (periodic abstinence) by its nature, cannot be inherently wrong. (Although it can be intended for wrong purposes, another topic).
Secondly, addressing the question as to the difference between ‘artificial contraception’ and NFP; if the intent and the ends are the same, why is one wrong and the other is not?
Result and intent are not sufficient to determine the morality of an action. The act itself must be of prime importance.
For example: Peter and Susan both intend to eat dinner this evening, and both end up eating dinner. Are they both good? The answer is in how (what action they used) did they achieve their end. If Peter stole his dinner from a starving man, and Susan earned her dinner through just work, then even though the intent (to eat dinner) and the ends (dinner was ate) were identical, the action determines morality.
It amuses me how contradictory the messages we receive from society are. On one hand, bulemia, the attempt to engage in the pleasures of eating without the natural affects of eating, is highly stigmatized. Bulemia is seen as a disease, even though a person appears to only be exercising their own ‘rights’ over their body. On the other hand, artificial birth control, and abortion in its extreme, is perceived as a right. The ends, the action, and the intent are the same, but ‘society’ accepts one, and abhors the other.
Dan
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
I suggest that it is not always true. The seriousness of the condition to be treated must be considered. If the ‘disease’ is not a serious condition, but simply uncomfortable or inconvenient, then using artificial hormones may not represent the greatest good when all things (e.g. reproductive damage, temporary or otherwise) are considered.
Dan
If there is a force in this world that intends to separate us from God and from good, then it must work to convince us that God and good are in fact evil, and that evil is in fact good. For all hearts inherently seek good.
J
johntkd
Guest
no that was a forced to attend pre marriage class that lasted 2 weekends, they actually spent more time on TP roll than NFP and contraception.Let me get this straight, an RCIA class taught you how to put on a toilet paper roll? Gee I must have been sick that day at school when they taught the class that in religion studies
J
johntkd
Guest
I see both means as being not open to life, using one means verses another does not make one better than another,
I understand the churches teachings can see where they are coming from but the end results are still the same to not be open to life, one person uses ABC to not be open to life the other avoids intimate contact to not be open to life to say one is better than the other is just trying to make one look better for a specific purpose,
I see both means as being unopened to life,NFP removes intimacy,more often than not, makes intimate contact seem almost robotic, ex: i have to check this, i have to check that, wait may not be a good time, what if i am mistake a reading etc etc etc…
ABC causes many after effects, potentially fatal later in life.
if everyone believed what they try to tell you within the church etc that God never gives you more than you can handle, and to have trust in him if it was true there would be no need for any of it now would there?
so no i am not a fan of ABC nor do I believe NFP is any better.
the church may allow NFP, But the end results are still the same you are taking away from the marital act same as with ABC.
and all are very subject to failure and not even remotely close to 100%…unless you listen to promoters of NFP or ABC then the method they use is almost a certainty…
V
VR70
Guest
My RCIA experience, although wonderful because it brought me to the church, was woefully lacking.
It wasn’t until years later, while doing my own learning and research, that I discovered many of the “regulations” regarding birth control, NFP, marriage, divorce, lenten observances, etc.
Trish
It wasn’t until years later, while doing my own learning and research, that I discovered many of the “regulations” regarding birth control, NFP, marriage, divorce, lenten observances, etc.
Trish
C
childofmary1143
Guest
Are you serious? That is so strange.
M
maryjk
Guest
Adult convert here - and before I came into the Church, I did not have Catholic friends or family. In my experience, it was common knowledge that the Catholic Church taught that contraception was a big NO NO. I sort of wonder how someone could NOT know this
When I was in RCIA, I was given a catchesim and I read it - that confirmed what I already knew.
It wasn’t something people talked about back then. And when someone did talk about it, it was like driving 60 in a 55. Against the law, but not really a big deal.
M
Margaret33
Guest
I hear what you’re saying… but if there’s one thing I have learned from reading the threads on NFP & contraception here at CAF, it’s that despite what we as Catholics are taught and know to be true of Catholic Church teachings, there still seem to be different ‘interpretations’ amongst many posters… Whether it be due to how we were raised (if cradle Catholics) or who did the teaching (for those in RCIA, etc).Well, since this is a Catholic board… and the Catholic Church do not consider NFP contraception… I would assume it’s excluded.
J
johntkd
Guest
Unfortunatly i am very very serious,and they charge a pretty good sum of cash to go learn that stuff that is totally irrelavent.
I could go into massive details but this really isnt the thread for it, They did cover a tiny bit about NFP which was the basis of my original response.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Johntkd,
I agree with some of what you say. NFP and ABC both can be used for bad intents. I do not suggest that NFP is always good. Three things determine what is moral: The act, the intent, and the circumstances. The ‘act’ of NFP (when used in an attempt to prevent pregnancy) in no way can be considered inherently immoral. Since the ‘act’ is simply not having relations, and by our very nature we must abstain periodically (sleeping, eating, bathing, working, rearing children are all times we SHOULD be abstaining) it is a safe bet to say that the ‘act’ of abstinence is not inherently immoral. However, I do suggest that the act of ABC is always immoral.
There is a difference in the “openness to life” between the two methods. Most ‘failures’ of NFP are the result of the husband and wife physically expressing their love for one another during a potentially fertile time. I’ve been there! That is being much more open to life than using NFP.
Through experience, I disagree that “NFP removes intimacy”. Actually I have two personal experiences with NFP. The first was to delay parenthood for a time, the second was to increase the chances of parenthood. During the first time, the affect on intimacy was positive. “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.” So does periodic abstinence! However, when we used NFP to increase the chances of conception, I did feel some impact. I then needed to “perform on demand”. Now, that certainly had an impact on real intimacy.
And finally, NFP is much better because it involves sacrifice. In this way it is very different from ABC. Sacrifice is the fuel to get us to heaven. ABC is "We want to do it whenever we want to without ‘consequences’. NFP is “We understand the ‘consequences’, and choose to accept or not to accept them, by our actions.”
An interesting correlation you may wish to explore is with the satisfation of another bodily desire, eating. NFP for the purpose of reducing the possibility of conception is like fasting to lose weight. ABC is like taking drugs to lose weight. One is inherently much less of a sacrifice than the other.
Dan
J
jc-servant
Guest
I’m assuming by “candidate” you meant those of us who are already Catholic but are adult converts through RCIA?
I had excellent instruction/discussion in RCIA with Dr. Janet Smith leading the classes before she left Dallas for Franciscan U. We were really blessed because our Adult RE/RCIA director was working on a master’s at UD at the time and knew her. She has excellent audiotapes on the subject if anyone needs better instruction.
I had excellent instruction/discussion in RCIA with Dr. Janet Smith leading the classes before she left Dallas for Franciscan U. We were really blessed because our Adult RE/RCIA director was working on a master’s at UD at the time and knew her. She has excellent audiotapes on the subject if anyone needs better instruction.
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
Any idiot knows the Catholic church is opposed to contraception.
If they don’t know anything else about Catholicism, they know this.
If they don’t know anything else about Catholicism, they know this.
J
johntkd
Guest
yep we also know we shouldnt label or judge people as idiots but some of us also do…
why the names?
care to know what I was taught about Catholics growing up?in a protestant upbringing was taught Catholics very judgemental, think they better than everyone else and only ones going to heaven, they want everyone to have a gazillion kids,they have hand out for money pay now to come to church say 3 hail marys deposit 50 bucks in basket and your forgiven, they sin all week drink get drunk etc then Saturday go to confession and then think all is forgiven,the priests pick up protitutes as they tell you be chast ( came from Grandpa from when he was a cab driver in Detroit) etc etc etc want to know how much is true? well every bit of it depending on whom you may be with and where you are,
AS WELL as every bit is also UNTRUE again depending on whom you are with and where you are.
John
M
maryjk
Guest
Gee, that was nice and not judgmental at all. :dts:
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
Okay. Maybe “idiot” was a bit harsh, but I still think it’s the most commonly known teaching of the Catholic church. It wasn’t meant to be judgemental. I just don’t understand how any Catholic cannot be aware of this teaching.
Why do non-Catholics (and Catholics) think Catholics have so many children?
Why do non-Catholics (and Catholics) think Catholics have so many children?
J
johntkd
Guest
because in general they actually do, Catholics have the surveyed largest families of any other religion, esspecially in the USA.
its not a bad thing. its just very well known is all as far as ABC goes there are as many Catholics using as non so thats not the issue, Maybe Catholics just like bigger Families.
I believe the National avg for kids is Catholics 4.3 per couple and non catholics 2.4 per couple so its really not that significant …
anyways thats why so many think the way they do…
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
You’re argument doesn’t make sense.
Still, it takes a pretty ignorant Catholic not to know that the Church forbids contraception. MY RCIA class spent an entire night discussing NPV. For the 49 years before I joined the Church, I knew contraception was forbidden for a good 35 of those years.
M
maryjk
Guest
:doh2: That explains some of it.
As a cradle Catholic, I was never told anything about NFP. There wasn’t an instructor in our parish. My Priest, while I was growing up, never had a homily about it.
When I got married, it was never mentioned. The only thing that I was told was from my family and they kindly informed me that the Rhythm method didn’t work. There was no mention of any other option.
And the families that I knew didn’t have lots of children. My parents had two, of my aunts and uncle, not one had more than three children. A couple of my aunts and uncles have been divorced and remarried. I didn’t hear the word annulment until I was an adult and I was talking to someone that had received one, so I don’t think my aunts and uncles went through the process.
- Status