Birth control and non-Catholics

[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.

It is more than canon law. there have been papal pronouncements that the primary purpose of marriage is procreative. This is not just a matter of discipline:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii , Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii , Dec. 31, 1930:
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Do you claim that the Pope was wrong in this teaching on faith and morals?
Was the Pope right or was the Pope wrong in this teaching?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Is same sex marriage dogmatically defined?

It doesn’t have to be, it’s biblically defined: He made Adam and Eve, Man and Woman to be “fruitful and multiply”. It’s a truth that at this point doesn’t need to be defined dogmatically, but if the Pope so decided to, he could.

 

[Jennifer_J]

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.”

This is ridiculous and doesn’t deserve a response.

 

[bobzills]

This is ridiculous and doesn’t deserve a response.

Why is a discussion of the promotion of early embryonic death ridiculous? Isn’t it somewhat related to early abortion techniques, like the abortion pill, or the morning after pill? If a discussion of early embryonic death is ridiculous, then would you say that it is ridiculous to discuss the morality of the morning after pill?

 

[Jennifer_J]

It is more than canon law. there have been papal pronouncements that the primary purpose of marriage is procreative. This is not just a matter of discipline:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii , Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.” btw, this quote is actually a quote from the Code of Canon Law 1913 used within Casti Connubii

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii , Dec. 31, 1930:
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Do you claim that the Pope was wrong in this teaching on faith and morals?
Was the Pope right or was the Pope wrong in this teaching?

Of course the Pope wasn’t wrong, but then were the other Popes wrong that have said that NFP is licit. What about the Bishops teaching in union with the Pope?

NFP doesn’t deliberately frustrate the natural powers and purpose of the sexual act. The act is objectively procreative, even if it is naturally fertile–again, it’s why naturally infertile people can be married and enjoy the marital embrace with no sin.

Here’s this quote also from Casti Conubii
<<59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. >>

So the act must be ordered to procreation–however, the secondary ends may be considered. And for what it’s worth, I don’t think NFP is the default for marriage, the default is accepting children as they come, however, in today’s society, that is often very difficult if not impossible for many people (this coming from a mother of SIX! ). Neither are Catholic couples called to have all the children physically possible.

Here’s the whole document for those so interested:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

Here are a few other sites to explore about NFP and it’s licit use:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/
nfpandmore.org/castibirthday.shtml

And, btw, I’m thinking this train of the thread should become a different thread, because it’s wholly off topic…

 

[NeedImprovement]

…
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!

If we only knew just how consoling your yearning is to the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus AnotherChance, in full obedience - especially in view of what the others are doing, we might understand that (even presently) it’s actually the others who are being “left out”.

Thank-you for posting that; it’s holy and it’s beautiful. God bless you. I’m going to be praying that it won’t be too long before you are receiving Holy Communion.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Why is a discussion of the promotion of early embryonic death ridiculous? Isn’t it somewhat related to early abortion techniques, like the abortion pill, or the morning after pill? If a discussion of early embryonic death is ridiculous, then would you say that it is ridiculous to discuss the morality of the morning after pill?

A naturally occuring miscarriage, has nothing in common with chemically induced abortions. God is the author of life and death, not you or I. NFP doesn’t PROMOTE the death of embryos. Miscarriages happen for many reasons–genetic problems with the baby, hormonal problems with the mother, etc. These miscarriages are not intentional, while the use of chemicals or ripping apart the baby is intentional. I really don’t understand what your point is

 

[Nino]

sooo true,the anglican church is so PC its sickening and is of course dieing out.We saved these brits in two world wars and in thanks they sent us the bed bugs,beatles whatever…who ,with their charming Lord Fluantaroy haircuts managed to betray more kids then Nam…with their pro-drug culture tunes…and so england is going down the tubes…sad he grins like that jerk on that male enhanc…etc ad…I emailed the companly protestng the model wearing a santa claus outfit and with that stupid grin and smirking females wanting to sit in his lap…what a disgrace…ruining the image of santa that way…but gee.the tolerant ones control the media so we had better keep quiet…please disregard the above…anyway…Luther is one of the most evil of all humans for he broke the sealess garment…one can interpret the gospels as he sees fit…and so many serial killers have…hey Martin…tell us anothe joke,in between shoveling down there…

 

[bobzills]

Of course the Pope wasn’t wrong, …

So the Pope was right and you were wrong. And the primary purpose of marriage is procreative and the secondary purpose of marriage is unitive according to Papal teaching?

 

[AnotherChance]

If we only knew just how consoling your yearning is to the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus AnotherChance, in full obedience - especially in view of what the others are doing, we might understand that (even presently) it’s actually the others who are being “left out”.

Thank-you for posting that; it’s holy and it’s beautiful. God bless you. I’m going to be praying that it won’t be too long before you are receiving Holy Communion.

Thanks for your reply and kind words. Your perspective is a good one–that not understanding what it means to be in full Communion with Jesus is truly being “left out”.

 

[bobzills]

A naturally occuring miscarriage, has nothing in common with chemically induced abortions. God is the author of life and death, not you or I. NFP doesn’t PROMOTE the death of embryos. Miscarriages happen for many reasons–genetic problems with the baby, hormonal problems with the mother, etc. These miscarriages are not intentional, while the use of chemicals or ripping apart the baby is intentional. I really don’t understand what your point is

I don;t see how you can say that this type of miscarriage is “naturally occurring”. 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. And why would it not be wrong to use artificial means such as artificial charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, arithmetical calculations to induce a miscarriage or early embryonic death?
Is it right orr wrong to induce early embryonic death?

 

[Jennifer_J]

So the Pope was right and you were wrong. And the primary purpose of marriage is procreative and the secondary purpose of marriage is unitive according to Papal teaching?

The purposes are tied together and can’t be separated–primary or secondary, the BOTH should be present. NFP doesn’t separate them–the act of intercourse is both PROCREATIVE AND UNITIVE. Further clarifications from later Popes have said this, our understanding has grown. This is off topic…

 

[Jennifer_J]

I don;t see how you can say that this type of miscarriage is “naturally occurring”. 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. And why would it not be wrong to use artificial means such as artificial charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, arithmetical calculations to induce a miscarriage or early embryonic death?
Is it right orr wrong to induce early embryonic death?

NFP doesn’t induce miscarriage. Pregnancy resulting from NFP is the natural outcome of the marital embrace. NFP can be used both to acheive conception and to control births (because controling births is licit–either through total abstinence or through periodic abstinence). When using NFP I’m not frustrating anything. I’m using the naturally occuring, God created, infertile period of my cycle. That is in line with Church teaching. If you don’t like it, don’t use it and take it up with your Bishop and the Pope. I’m pretty much through with this conversation, as you have taken it off topic. If you wish to start a new topic be my guest…

 

[beckyx5]

when were you taking them?

Modern birth control pills use a much lower dose regimen than the old ones. Re the alleged complications, none equal the complications of pregnancy and childbirth.

Cervical cancer is caused by the human papillomavirus. Not related to BC at all.

Liver cancer is very rare in the west, and is caused by viral hepatitis or adenocarcinoma which isn’t related to BC at all.

Old er women who smoke on BC have a higher incidence of stroke and DVT. Advice: don’t smoke. Second, older women should use other methods.

No, BC doesn’t prevent STD’s.

The relationship to breast cancer is contentious and depends on age and duration of exposure. There is a definite protective effect of BCP and ovarian cancer, so much so that it will probably be used in women with a positive family history.

YOUR bad experience is not mirrored by the millions on the patch or modern birth control pills. I tolerated them well–but went with diaphragm and spermacidal cream, which worked fine.

Once again,

the vast majority of non-Catholics use ‘artificial’ birth control.

So do the vast majority of Catholics.

Wow, you used a diaphragm and spermacidal cream ! How did you insert that ? It seems like you would have to have a lot of preoccupation with you genitalia. Souds icky !

 

[emeraldcoast]

Wow, you used a diaphragm and spermacidal cream ! How did you insert that ? It seems like you would have to have a lot of preoccupation with you genitalia. Souds icky !

It was part of foreplay…

 

[NeedImprovement]

It was part of foreplay…

Ohh…Sorry!..I thought you said foray.

 

[beckyx5]

I don;t see how you can say that this type of miscarriage is “naturally occurring”. 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. And why would it not be wrong to use artificial means such as artificial charts, thermometric measurements, calendars, arithmetical calculations to induce a miscarriage or early embryonic death?
Is it right orr wrong to induce early embryonic death?

That is just crazy. That is like saying salty bananas (because bananas and salt just don’t go together). Artificial charts! How are they artificial? They are a womans own body signs. Naturally occuring body signs. How is that artificial? There is nothing artificial about it. Oh and yah, that is just what NFP is doing. Inducing a miscarriage. Once again crazy ! If you knew anything about NFP which clearly you did not do your homework, you would know that actually practicing NFP could reduce your chances of early embryonic death (which most cases would be caused by a low progesteone level) by knowing your crazy"artificial chart" and realizing that there is a medical problem, which ya wouldn;t know if you were not charting ! Easily corrected by progesterone supplements(information that you would want, need, and use whether you were using to avoid or achieve). So nothing artificial about it.

 

[bobzills]

The purposes are tied together and can’t be separated–primary or secondary, the BOTH should be present. NFP doesn’t separate them–the act of intercourse is both PROCREATIVE AND UNITIVE. Further clarifications from later Popes have said this, our understanding has grown. This is off topic…

I do not think it is off topic because NFP, as a form of birth control, frustrates the primary purpose of marriage, which is the procreation of children. As the Pope has declared, the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. I don;t see how anyone could argue that this is due to some disciplinary canon law. This is not the message of the Pope, but appears to be a private inrtepretation which is not backed up by Papal declarations on the topic.

 

[beckyx5]

It was part of foreplay…

LOL !

 

[bobzills]

NFP doesn’t induce miscarriage. Pregnancy resulting from NFP is the natural outcome of the marital embrace. NFP can be used both to acheive conception and to control births (because controling births is licit–either through total abstinence or through periodic abstinence). When using NFP I’m not frustrating anything. I’m using the naturally occuring, God created, infertile period of my cycle. That is in line with Church teaching. If you don’t like it, don’t use it and take it up with your Bishop and the Pope. I’m pretty much through with this conversation, as you have taken it off topic. If you wish to start a new topic be my guest…

I don;t see why it is off topic to discuss birth control. The topic as I understand it to be is Birth control and non-Catholics. What I am getting at is that NFP, when used to avoid conception, is just another method available to prevent children. Those who back the use of NFP to prevent children often say that NFP is open to life as distinct from the use of condoms which are not open to life. However, 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. Would not these statistics on failure of use imply that condoms are seven times more open to life than NFP?
And we have the word of the Pope concerning the secondary and primary ends of marriage:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii , Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”