Birth control and non-Catholics

[Jennifer_J]

<

I don’t buy it. Deciding purposely NOT to conceive and planning your sex around that is making a direct decision to avoid pregnancy. It is going to much effort to tamper with the procreative aspect (controlling Births!). Both involve physical acts to prevent pregnancy. It is your reasons for avoiding that can be sinful or not sinful, not the act of(and method of) avoiding itself. The main difference I see between condoms and NFP is that NFP simply takes more work.

More effort is not necessarily more righteous.

Abortificants are wrong because they kill people. Yes the people are very tiny. They are still people even if you call them “balls of cells”. Abortificants aren’t wrong because they were taken for the purpose of avoiding concieving, they are wrong because they kill even if the killing is “only” a secondary function.

I totally don’t buy all this man made barrier stuff. when you examine it closely NFP looks a whole lot like saying “Whoo Hoo I found a loop hole!” Since when does sin have loopholes? My feet are made for walking, they have a natural ability to toughen so walking barefoot will not damage them. Wearing shoes weakens their natural God given properties. The shoe barrier prevents you from properly feeling the ground where you are walking. BAN SHOES. They interfere with what God made feet for! If its against Gods laws to use our body parts in ways they weren’t directly designed for then shoes are definitely out. Or kids who learn to walk on their hands! BAD. or how about this… I love the texture of my daughters soft stuffed animal. I feel pleasure from petting it. Were my hands only made for working? Is it wrong to feel of something just for the sake of pleasure? Of course you think Im silly. Sex is somehow subject to rules that are made up because, well, its sex. but sexual organs are our body parts. arguments about what our bodies were made for and what they are not can easily get ludicris. Because of that I dont buy any arguments that marital sex MUST include precreative elements every time it happens. There is no reason it cannot be done just for pleasure. All of our body parts have multiple purposes.

Motive is what matters here much less than physical things. WHY is the couple avoiding pregnancy? ARE they being responsible?

ABC comes into the picture only under the “Ends do not justify the means” category. I have very good reason to not want a child atm. That doesn’t justify killing a child. If I’m avoiding pregnancy for wrong reasons then NO METHOD IS ACCEPTABLE.

I fail to see anyway that condoms change your motive more than NFP changes motive. Condoms failure rate is pretty high. In fact, if you are trying to prevent pregnancy I would bet NFP would be MORE EFFECTIVE than a condom. So saying NFP is “more open to life” is silly. its actually LESS open to life.

I hate the whole Open to Life, because it’s not accurate. It should be “ordered to procreation”. NFP is ordered to procreation–the act is unaltered. Procreation doesn’t mean fertile. Those who are naturally infertile engage in the marital embrace licitly because the act is ordered to procreation, though not fertile. NFP allows couples to use the infertile periods that naturally occur, but the act isn’t altered. NFP should only be used for just/grave reasons and is the alternative to total abstinence. A condom alters the act by creating a barrier to life–you are actively against conception. NFP is info, you can use to achieve or avoid pregnancy, but again it doesn’t alter the act itself.

 

[Syele]

I hate the whole Open to Life, because it’s not accurate. It should be “ordered to procreation”. NFP is ordered to procreation–the act is unaltered. Procreation doesn’t mean fertile. Those who are naturally infertile engage in the marital embrace licitly because the act is ordered to procreation, though not fertile. NFP allows couples to use the infertile periods that naturally occur, but the act isn’t altered. NFP should only be used for just/grave reasons and is the alternative to total abstinence. A condom alters the act by creating a barrier to life–you are actively against conception. NFP is info, you can use to achieve or avoid pregnancy, but again it doesn’t alter the act itself.

but NFP is definitely a barrier to life… you are purposely avoiding life by using it to avoid. the motive and reason is the same.Since using it is more effective than a condom then the barrier is actually stronger against life.

 

[jmcrae]

but NFP is definitely a barrier to life… you are purposely avoiding life by using it to avoid. the motive and reason is the same.Since using it is more effective than a condom then the barrier is actually stronger against life.

But the act itself isn’t hindered, when it takes place.

And keep in mind, NFP is only supposed to be a temporary thing, during a period of emergency. A marriage would not survive if the couple were to be on it all the time. The majority of the time, we are supposed to let God’s will be done, and not worry about it too much.

 

[Jennifer_J]

but NFP is definitely a barrier to life… you are purposely avoiding life by using it to avoid. the motive and reason is the same.Since using it is more effective than a condom then the barrier is actually stronger against life.

But not having sex is not a sin and having relations during the womans infertile time is not a sin. The Church doesn’t say when to have relations only that the act be correctly ordered to procreation! NFP is info that you can either act on or not act on. It doesn’t alter the actual act of intercourse. It should only be used to avoid for serious/grave/just reasons w/ much prayer and discernment. Effectiveness rates have nothing to do with the licitness of methods of regulating births–its licitness is due to the unaltered act.

 

[bobzills]

<
I don’t buy it. Deciding purposely NOT to conceive and planning your sex around that is making a direct decision to avoid pregnancy. It is going to much effort to tamper with the procreative aspect (controlling Births!). Both involve physical acts to prevent pregnancy. It is your reasons for avoiding that can be sinful or not sinful, not the act of(and method of) avoiding itself. The main difference I see between condoms and NFP is that NFP simply takes more work. .

That seems to me to be a reasonable argument. I mean, if the intention in both cases is to defeat the primary purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children, then wouldn’t they both be gravely wrong? According to the statistics given out by the Couple to couple league, condoms fail 7% of the time, whereas NFP, when used correctly, fails only 1% of the time. Condoms are thereby seen to be seven times more open to life than NFP, and since the use of condoms has been condemned by the Church, it would seem only logical that NFP should be condemned also – at least on the basis of the relative failure rate statistics given by the Couple to Couple League.
In using NFP to avoid conception, you are using artificial charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, arithmetical calculations and your knowledge of the female reproductive cycle to frustrate the primary and natural purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children. The intention of NFP, when used to avoid having children, and the intention of those using ABC is exactly the same, to prevent conception, while at the same time to enable the couple to enjoy the marital bed. When your goal is to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time to avoid conception, you are placing the unitive primary and the procreative in abeyance. The Traditional teaching of the Church before Vatican II was that the procreative is primary and the unitive is secondary

 

[Syele]

But the act itself isn’t hindered, when it takes place.

That is what I was saying with the shoes thing. I don’t see anywhere in scriptures that says exactly how sex is to be carried out. It does say not to do some things… like not doing it outside of marriage. But its actually fairly open. The idea that it has to be carried out only under very specific circumstances I think is really pushing it. The act itself has no need to be regulated. The motives behind the act, yes, Who you do it with, yes. The HOW not so much.

And keep in mind, NFP is only supposed to be a temporary thing, during a period of emergency. A marriage would not survive if the couple were to be on it all the time. The majority of the time, we are supposed to let God’s will be done, and not worry about it too much.

I agree with this part.

 

[Syele]

That seems to me to be a reasonable argument. I mean, if the intention in both cases is to defeat the primary purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children, then wouldn’t they both be gravely wrong? According to the statistics given out by the Couple to couple league, condoms fail 7% of the time, whereas NFP, when used correctly, fails only 1% of the time. Condoms are thereby seen to be seven times more open to life than NFP, and since the use of condoms has been condemned by the Church, it would seem only logical that NFP should be condemned also – at least on the basis of the relative failure rate statistics given by the Couple to Couple League.
In using NFP to avoid conception, you are using artificial charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, arithmetical calculations and your knowledge of the female reproductive cycle to frustrate the primary and natural purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children. The intention of NFP, when used to avoid having children, and the intention of those using ABC is exactly the same, to prevent conception, while at the same time to enable the couple to enjoy the marital bed. When your goal is to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time to avoid conception, you are placing the unitive primary and the procreative in abeyance. The Traditional teaching of the Church before Vatican II was that the procreative is primary and the unitive is secondary

Thank you you explain my thoughts on it much better than I do.

 

[Syele]

But not having sex is not a sin and having relations during the womans infertile time is not a sin. The Church doesn’t say when to have relations only that the act be correctly ordered to procreation! NFP is info that you can either act on or not act on. It doesn’t alter the actual act of intercourse. It should only be used to avoid for serious/grave/just reasons w/ much prayer and discernment. Effectiveness rates have nothing to do with the licitness of methods of regulating births–its licitness is due to the unaltered act.

not having sex at all isn’t a question here. neither is innocently having relations during a womans infertile time. its artificially planning around that infertile time for a specific purpose. I have no beef with their parts about when NFP is allowed to be used, I simply see it as just as artificial as using a barrier. there are many kinds of barriers besides the physical… It just seems too much like a cop out, exploiting loopholes things. If one is wrong both should be.

 

[Jennifer_J]

That seems to me to be a reasonable argument. I mean, if the intention in both cases is to defeat the primary purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children, then wouldn’t they both be gravely wrong? According to the statistics given out by the Couple to couple league, condoms fail 7% of the time, whereas NFP, when used correctly, fails only 1% of the time. Condoms are thereby seen to be seven times more open to life than NFP, and since the use of condoms has been condemned by the Church, it would seem only logical that NFP should be condemned also – at least on the basis of the relative failure rate statistics given by the Couple to Couple League.
In using NFP to avoid conception, you are using artificial charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, arithmetical calculations and your knowledge of the female reproductive cycle to frustrate the primary and natural purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children. The intention of NFP, when used to avoid having children, and the intention of those using ABC is exactly the same, to prevent conception, while at the same time to enable the couple to enjoy the marital bed. When your goal is to enjoy the marital embrace and at the same time to avoid conception, you are placing the unitive primary and the procreative in abeyance. The Traditional teaching of the Church before Vatican II was that the procreative is primary and the unitive is secondary

Again, the licitness of a birth control method has NOTHING to do with failure rate. NFP does nothing to alter the act–it’s objectively procreative and unitive=unaltered. The intention of spacing babies is not morally wrong. You can totally abstain to space babies for serious reasons. The Church, in her wisdom, has said that the use of the natural infertile period is licit and periodic abstinence can be used for serious reasons.

The current code of canon law says that the unitive and procreative aspects are equal and not primary/secondary. Perhaps the Church has come to a fuller and more balanced understanding of marriage since the 1917 canon. The current catechism relates the same idea.

Here is the corresponding passage from the 1983 Canon Law, which is the one binding on Catholics TODAY.

<<Can. 1055 ß1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. >>

Here are a few catechism quotes
<<1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring;…>>

<<The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "(Humanae Vitae, paragraph 11) This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153>>

.

 

[bobzills]

The current code of canon law says that the unitive and procreative aspects are equal and not primary/secondary. .

So there has been an essential change in the teachings of the Catholic Church. At one point in time it was taught that the procreative was prinary and the unitive is secondary.
At this point in time it is taught differently that the procreative is not primary and the unitive is not secondary but that they are coequal?
Now if the Catholic Church has changed her teaching on this essential point, then what is there to prevent the Catholic Church from changing her teaching later on concerning abortion or same sex marriages or women priests?
Has the precedent has been set for essential changes in Catholic teaching?

 

[elts1956]

Ahh thanks for answering the HPT question. As for the other thing…well I know it;s human or at the very least a cluster of cells with human dna. I guess maybe more on a emotional level I just can;t equate what amounts to a ball of cells to a baby.

And just think, we ALL began our lives in the same way.

 

[Calliso]

And just think, we ALL began our lives in the same way.

Oh I know that it doesnl;t move me at all either. If had been destoryed then I likely just wouldn;t exist. And if you donlt exist you can;t care much about not existing and being alive can you?

 

[Jennifer_J]

So there has been an essential change in the teachings of the Catholic Church. At one point in time it was taught that the procreative was prinary and the unitive is secondary.
At this point in time it is taught differently that the procreative is not primary and the unitive is not secondary but that they are coequal?
Now if the Catholic Church has changed her teaching on this essential point, then what is there to prevent the Catholic Church from changing her teaching later on concerning abortion or same sex marriages or women priests?
Has the precedent has been set for essential changes in Catholic teaching?

Canon law can change about things that are discipline and not doctrine/dogma. There’s no real surprise about that. As we explore the meaning of marriage and the sacramental nature of it we become more aware of what it means. AGAIN, procreative and unitive are not dogmatically defined and can be changed.

 

[Thinks4Himself]

That’s NOT what NFP teaches (mostly because NFP is fertility awareness and has nothing to do with teaching morality, per se). Once again, the Church teaches that NFP is licit because each act of intercourse is whole and complete. There is no barrier, either chemical or physical put in the way by man. The Church isn’t against birth control, it’s against tampering with the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital embrace that should be inseparable.

I disagree with their opinion. The FACT is the couple is seeking to have sex w/o wanting children (which I am okay with) the Church can spin it any way they want but nobody practices nfp to be open to kids. Theres the chance, but they DONT want babies if they are practicing it. Same with condoms imo…theres the possibility they could break or come off and to me its the same thing. SEMANTICS - just like annulment and divorce imo.

 

[Nans]

I donlt think indepedent movement indicates one has a soul, not to mention I donlt think a single human cell actually has indepedent movement. But about the judgement thing how could a single cell human be judged? They have made no choices do not even have the ablity to make choices. Not to mention what about the number of countless cells miscarried? I read somewhere once that a person using the birth control pill is likely actually causing less human zygotes to die then a person not using anything at all because in the person using nothing more zygotes are created therefore more of them are miscarried. And really how would God judge single celled organisms that have had no chance to make a choice no way to have commited any sin? To me that sounds like a unfair and cruel God.

This perspective is completely non biblical and seems strangely out of place here, unless you are looking for answers.

 

[AnotherChance]

15 plus years ago when I was still a Protestant, I inherently knew birth control was wrong. Actually at that time I was coming from the secular macrobiotic/natural food viewpoint. The macrobiotic food philosophy teaches that birth control is wrong.

However, similar to my current experience with Catholicism, it was obvious to me that the majority of my fellow macrobiotic enthusiasts were not following this part of the philosophy!

I am still waiting on annulment in order to join the Church fully. What makes it difficult for me is that I know that as I watch most of the Church except for me go up for Communion, that many of the women are on birth control. Also a bunch of them are on their 2nd marriage with no annulment and have openly told me so.

I know–just worry about my own relationship with God. I still feel awkward and left out of the Eucharist–Im only human, you know!

 

[awantz]

I’d be interested to know how many non-Catholics do not believe in using artificial birth control?

This non-Catholic doesn’t believe in most forms of birth control. We do occasionally use condoms. We tried NFP, but it didn’t seem to work for us. Nursing is a great form of birth control.

 

[jmcrae]

So there has been an essential change in the teachings of the Catholic Church. At one point in time it was taught that the procreative was prinary and the unitive is secondary.

Individual teachers may have given that impression, at various times, but that has never been the official stance of the Church.

The Church has always, from the time of St. Paul, recognized that the unitive aspect of marriage is an image of Christ’s relationship with His Church.

 

[bobzills]

Canon law can change about things that are discipline and not doctrine/dogma. There’s no real surprise about that. As we explore the meaning of marriage and the sacramental nature of it we become more aware of what it means. AGAIN, procreative and unitive are not dogmatically defined and can be changed.

Is same sex marriage dogmatically defined?

 

[bobzills]

NFP raises the question of the morality of inducing early embryonic death.
Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause fewer embryonic deaths than the rhythm method, according to an article by Luc Bovens, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, (vol 32, p 355).

“If you’re concerned about embryonic death,” Bovens says, “you’ve got to be consistent here and give up the rhythm method.”
newscientist.com/article/dn9219.html
According to the article, the rhythm method of contraception increases the risk of early embryonic death.
nytimes.com/2006/06/13/he…gewanted=print
jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355
Can the use of NFP be morally justifiable, if it is responsible for a much higher number of embryonic deaths than some other non-approved contraceptive techniques
"Further, when using condoms, there are no embryos conceived. An unintended by product of NFP, is the fact that people are conceived and then die early in the womb. So, in using NFP, you are complicit in the conception of children and their early death as these children are having a difficult time to attach to the womb of the mother, because you have deliberately chosen to enjoy the marital embrace at a time when these children will die in the womb.
If God allows us to space our children for acceptable reasons he would want us to cooperate with our natural tendency to have relations when the woman is fertile and to use barrier methods, so that any potentially conceived embryo wouldn’t find itself in a hostile environment, thus causing its death. NFP, in the name of being a truly natural method of birth control, has the couple disobey their natural inclination to have relations during the woman’s fertile cycle and have relations at a time when any possible conception would have a higher risk of ending in embryonic death. That is disturbing and definitely not “pro-life.”