Birth control dissenter

[manualman]

I agree, its not that I think “Oh this is hard so I shouldn’t do it”

Its that it doesn’t make sense to me, isn’t logical, isn’t reasonable. It feels like a contradiction to allow NFP, but not barrier methods.

Faith should be reasonable, and I don’t find this teaching reasonable.

However, I usually refrain from posting on any NFP threads, because I know I would just get flamed.

Honest question: How much investigating on the topic have you done? Read Humanae Vitae? Read any Christopher West? Dr. Janet Smith? Peter Kreeft? JPII’s Love and Responsibility?

I submit that those raised in a culture of Arianism found Arias quite reasonable and the correct catholic teaching ‘incomprehensible.’ Culture matters and has more impact on your thinking that you or I like to admit.

Food for thought.

 

[mark_a]

Whilst I believe in the ideal of what this catholic document teaches, so many of us fall far short of it.

Falling short and realizing it is quite a bit different than total denial of the Church’s teachings about contraception.

 

[mommamia]

Honest question: How much investigating on the topic have you done? Read Humanae Vitae? Read any Christopher West? Dr. Janet Smith? Peter Kreeft? JPII’s Love and Responsibility?

I submit that those raised in a culture of Arianism found Arias quite reasonable and the correct catholic teaching ‘incomprehensible.’ Culture matters and has more impact on your thinking that you or I like to admit.

Food for thought.

I’ve read a bit. I have never used either ABC or NFP, I just am not very fertile, so it has never been an issue in our marriage. Now that I cannot have any more children at all due to complications with the last one, it will never be an issue in my marriage.

I base my thoughts mostly on my knowledge of developmental biology.

I feel the church is bending by allowing NFP. If you are going to allow that, you might as well allow barrier methods.

 

[estesbob]

I agree, its not that I think “Oh this is hard so I shouldn’t do it”

Its that it doesn’t make sense to me, isn’t logical, isn’t reasonable. It feels like a contradiction to allow NFP, but not barrier methods.

Faith should be reasonable, and I don’t find this teaching reasonable.

However, I usually refrain from posting on any NFP threads, because I know I would just get flamed.

And I refrain from being dogmatic with those are facing this problem because it no longer affects me. I know what the church teaches and I know that what it teaches is right whether I understand it or not. But as a fiftysomething man whose kids are grown and starting families of their own it is a lot easier for me to deal with this than somebody in their 30s.

 

[mark_a]

The statement I quoted from the Lambeth Conference of 1930 is reasonable, gives freedom to the couple to make their own decision, calls them to do so in light of Christian principles, and acknowledges that the fact that some couples may not be able to live up to the standard of the Catholic Church, and that it’s not necessarily a moral failing that that is true. That competing moral aims exist.

The wording of the Lambeth Conference seems to allow for exceptions to the rule and without hindsight, seems harmless.

Now, 97% of women of childbearing age are an exception to the rule.

How did this happen?

Contraception went from a shameful private matter to the cultural norm.

Homosexuality has done the same, and there are even so-called “married” homosexual bishops.

It took a pope to put a stop to the groundswell of support contraception was gaining even among the bishops of the Catholic Church.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I feel my failure. I regret it. I am saddened that I could not welcome more children into this world.

At the same time, when I see a thread where someone is telling us of the wreckage of their marriage from NFP, and one of the first responses is, “Have you taken an NFP class with your spouse?” I just want to rip my hair out with how uncompassionate and ineffective that is! There just has to be a better way than basically telling people they must sacrifice their marriages, and perhaps their children’s stable home, in the name of the mechanical integrity of the sexual act. How is that moral? Because spouses do get left over this, or marriages turn bitter, cold, and toxic… and how is that doing right by the kids? There must be a middle ground… I don’t pretend to know exactly where it is.

When I see some of those threads, I sometimes feel like I’m writing to myself in the past. Several years ago my husband or I could have written a thread about difficulties following Church teachings against contraception.

You read the threads from the people going through difficulties, but you don’t know how it turns out years later–you just see couples in the midst of their despair and trouble. From someone who could have written one of those threads on the difficulty of NFP and struggles to accept Church teachings, let me tell you it all worked out fine for my husband and me. We now follow the teachings of the Church, but we no longer use NFP to avoid. God has not “burdened” us with more children than we can handle. God is faithful. We can trust Him.

 

[1ke]

Here is a protestant analysis of why Lambeth did what it did, and why it was wrong to do so:

profam.org/docs/acc/thc.acc.060922.emptied.quiver.htm

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

 

[manualman]

I’ve read a bit. I have never used either ABC or NFP, I just am not very fertile, so it has never been an issue in our marriage. Now that I cannot have any more children at all due to complications with the last one, it will never be an issue in my marriage.

I base my thoughts mostly on my knowledge of developmental biology.

I feel the church is bending by allowing NFP. If you are going to allow that, you might as well allow barrier methods.

Thanks for responding. I’ll share my experience as a 38 year old married guy. We’ve used NFP during times we discerned a serious reason to postpone pregnancy since we were married. With a barrier method, you can ‘get what you want, when you want it.’ With NFP, you have to abstain during the fertile times if you believe there is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy.

You may think there is little difference, but let me assure you that there is a BIG difference! Those times of abstinance when you REALLY don’t want to abstain are the cutting torch that reveals the difference between genuine legitimate reasons to avoid and selfish ones. In a similar manner, it is the same difference as between dieting to lose weight and puking up the whole bag of cookies you just ate.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I agree with Manualman, there is a huge difference between saying I don’t understand the teaching and I DISSENT from the teaching. Whether you understand it or not, you are required to assent to this teaching (along with all the other ones). Are you required to practice NFP? No, no one is. If a couple has a serious need to avoid children, they can abstain totally. Or they can use NFP very carefully. I’m sorry to say that if the reason is serious enough, then NO FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL is safe enough (short of complete removal of the reproductive organs) except total abstinence. Every form of contraception has a failure rate. Contraception gives a false sense of security AND it harms marriages in the long run.

Look, God created the martial embrace. It’s 2 purposes are bound up together: unity and procreation, and can’t be separated without altering the act itself and the sacramental meaning of the act (think about the Eucharist–if you mess with the words of consecration or try to use koolaid and cookies, you don’t get Jesus present in the sacrament, it’s just no possible). With the knowledge that procreation doesn’t mean FERTILE, then we know that each act must be completed as God created it, w/no barriers or alterations of the act itself. NFP is allowed because the act isn’t altered, there are no barriers put there except by God. We aren’t commanded to only have sex when we are fertile, we are allowed to have sex anytime after we are married and we are allowed to NOT have sex anytime the couple so desires. All forms of barrier methods contain, well, a barrier–an artificial separation of the purposes of the marital embrace.

We also aren’t promised that this marital relationship will be easy. Marriage is about pouring ourselves out in service to each other–and that can be hard. This includes our fertility. If a couple blames NFP for the breakdown of their marriage, they are being dishonest with themselves and with others. There were issues in the marriage and the sacrifice of NFP helped show them clearly what those issues are. They can choose to work through those issues or not, but NFP didn’t cause them.

I don’t expect you or anyone to be swayed by my explaination, but I think this thread needs it. The Lambeth Conference has no bearing on me–the Protestant Church doesn’t lead me anymore (I’m a convert to the Catholic Church) and they are full of many errors, this decision of theirs being one of them. I’m Catholic and I follow the teaching of the Church to the best of my abilities–the fullness of truth is a beautiful thing.

With Gods blessings

 

[Em_in_FL]

basilisk - I’m sorry you are struggling… clearly this is a struggle for you, if not you wouldn’t have written your post. I’m not going to bash you in any way…

I’m not quoting this to “throw the rules in your face” or anything like that… I just want to discuss the topic theologically. Our country does a poor job of properly catechizing… especially on this topic, because it’s not one that people WANT to discuss.

Here’s the link from the Catechism…

2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

    **When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.**156

2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

I think the most important part is where I bolded…
Contraception (in this case, we’re only discussing those you consider okay - barrier, sterilzation, spermicide, etc)… isn’t JUST about regulating procreation! You’re ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in your statement about RESPONSIBILITY in parenthood.

But the concept of “wasting the seed” is NOT the point AT ALL! (If it were then an infertile couple would be wasting a lot of seed!). It has to do with the basic mutual self-giving that is the essence of MARRIAGE! It has to do with TRUE LOVE for your spouse! A SACRAMENT! This is a very difficult concept to truly understand… especially if you and your spouse are on the same page for contraception. But regardless, the act of blocking one aspect of this mutual self-giving expression of love takes a toll on the marriage itself.

If NFP didn’t work for you, I’m sorry. But that doesn’t change the sacramental self-giving that takes place in the marital act.

You’ll be in my prayers… you’re not alone in your struggles as you well know. Continue to pray WITH your husband. Ask God to guide you and be with you in all aspects of your life. I’m not perfect in my faith by any means… all we can do is pray to do our best.

 

[Lil_Cat]

I’ve read a bit. I have never used either ABC or NFP, I just am not very fertile, so it has never been an issue in our marriage. Now that I cannot have any more children at all due to complications with the last one, it will never be an issue in my marriage.

I base my thoughts mostly on my knowledge of developmental biology.

I feel the church is bending by allowing NFP. If you are going to allow that, you might as well allow barrier methods.

I agree with you and this is one of the problems I have reconciling the logic. I have seen many, many posters on here claim that NFP has something like a 99% success rate in avoiding. Barrier methods, when used correctly, are somewhere between 93-97% effective.

So logically, wouldn’t you be more open to life when you use barrier methods?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I feel the church is bending by allowing NFP. If you are going to allow that, you might as well allow barrier methods.

You may think there is little difference, but let me assure you that there is a BIG difference! Those times of abstinance when you REALLY don’t want to abstain are the cutting torch that reveals the difference between genuine legitimate reasons to avoid and selfish ones. In a similar manner, it is the same difference as between dieting to lose weight and puking up the whole bag of cookies you just ate.

Abstaining when necessary is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than contracepting and “getting what you want when you want it”…

The reasons for using NFP must be prayerfully discerned… here’s the quote from the Catechism:

2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

    Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

I agree with you and this is one of the problems I have reconciling the logic. I have seen many, many posters on here claim that NFP has something like a 99% success rate in avoiding. Barrier methods, when used correctly, are somewhere between 93-97% effective.

So logically, wouldn’t you be more open to life when you use barrier methods?

Percentages have nothing to do with moral criteria. If NFP were being used in a contraceptive mindset then it’s not licit anyway. NFP MUST be a prayerful decision.

 

[Corki]

I agree with you and this is one of the problems I have reconciling the logic. I have seen many, many posters on here claim that NFP has something like a 99% success rate in avoiding. Barrier methods, when used correctly, are somewhere between 93-97% effective.

So logically, wouldn’t you be more open to life when you use barrier methods?

I am probably going to botch this explanation but this is the one that made it “click” for me. I think it came from Janet Smith’s talk.

It’s not about what is more effective. It’s not a numbers game, it is about chosing to act.

When you use a contraceptive, especially a barrier method, you chose to act against life in the moment.

When you abstain, you are not acting.

True, something can be sinful by ommission. But married couples are not expected to have sex every night or to have sex on every fertile day. Sometimes you have sex, sometimes you don’t. So chosing not to have sex on any given day is not a sin of ommission.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I agree with you and this is one of the problems I have reconciling the logic. I have seen many, many posters on here claim that NFP has something like a 99% success rate in avoiding. Barrier methods, when used correctly, are somewhere between 93-97% effective.

So logically, wouldn’t you be more open to life when you use barrier methods?

No, because you are using something to prevent pregnancy. If you are using a condom, the intention is that you want the sex, but do not want to become pregnant.

With NFP sacrifice is involved, you need to sacrifice your needs and sublimate them when trying to avoid. If you can’t make the sacrifice, and end up being intimate, a baby is a very good possibility.

 

[Lil_Cat]

I am probably going to botch this explanation but this is the one that made it “click” for me. I think it came from Janet Smith’s talk.

It’s not about what is more effective. It’s not a numbers game, it is about chosing to act.

When you use a contraceptive, especially a barrier method, you chose to act against life in the moment.

When you abstain, you are not acting.

True, something can be sinful by ommission. But married couples are not expected to have sex every night or to have sex on every fertile day. Sometimes you have sex, sometimes you don’t. So chosing not to have sex on any given day is not a sin of ommission.

See, this makes logical sense. I think this was a turning point in my thinking.

Thank you

 

[Steeltemplar]

I think that one of the biggest misunderstandings about NFP is that people think it is a form of birth control, that it is meant to prevent pregnancy. That is why people compare it, erroneously, with barrier methods and the pill.

NFP is not "Catholic Birth Control"

NFP is a method for spacing births in circumstances which make this necessary. It has never been meant to be a means of preventing child-bearing altogether. That it has become, in the minds of many, “Catholic birth control” is really an indication of how our culture has indoctrinated us.

 

[mnmom]

My husband and I tried NFP and I was fully committed to it. My husband was not. It caused a lot of stress in our marriage. I still beleive in using NFP my husband does not and even went on to have a vasectomy. My husband thought this would be the end to our disagreements and arguments. It was not. Our real issue in the marriage is communication and commitment to family life. The vasectomy did not help with that. Our life is still pretty much same old same old arguments and same amount of intimate relations. So did things change for the better no. For me things are worse as I feel cheapened some how now when we make love like I am being used. Just one wifes opinion.

 

[Steeltemplar]

My husband and I tried NFP and I was fully committed to it. My husband was not. It caused a lot of stress in our marriage. I still beleive in using NFP my husband does not and even went on to have a vasectomy. My husband thought this would be the end to our disagreements and arguments. It was not. Our real issue in the marriage is communication and commitment to family life. The vasectomy did not help with that. Our life is still pretty much same old same old arguments and same amount of intimate relations. So did things change for the better no. For me things are worse as I feel cheapened some how now when we make love like I am being used. Just one wifes opinion.

I think that you have good insight on the subject. The ability to bear children is a gift of God and a thing of sacred beauty. That gift is then offered by the wife to her husband and to their marriage. To have that precious gift in any way rejected is something for which one could rightfully feel saddened.

I have never married, but I am getting close to it with the woman whom I am fairly certain will be the one for me. I would never consider contraception. Ever. The very idea seems, to me, to be a dishonor to her.

 

[manualman]

I have never married, but I am getting close to it with the woman whom I am fairly certain will be the one for me. I would never consider contraception. Ever. The very idea seems, to me, to be a dishonor to her.

Right NOW is possibly the most crucial time for you both if you expect to need NFP to space or avoid kids for a time. NOW is the time for her to get off acne medicine that is really the pill and allow her body to stabilize. Now is the time to learn her cycle and get comfortable with her ability to read her body’s symptoms (when there is no pressure of being wrong). Take the class as soon as you are engaged so that she is comfortable with it before the pressure is on. For us, it made the process to trivial that we don’t even bother with charts and things. For many women, once you learn the signs it really isn’t that hard to discern the fertile time. But the more things monkeying with her hormones, the harder it is to figure things out.

 

[diosa25]

babes and diosa… I struggle with that as well. Should the Church relax an ideal because practically no one can live up to it? (Studies show a 90% contraception rate among Catholics.)

I respect WHY the teaching is there. I find the reasoning behind it less than convincing. It seems circular and tortured in some places.

My main problem is not with the fact that the Church teaches it per se, but that we get told that no matter what, we are going to HELL if we use a condom or get our tubes tied.
**No one can judge what makes anyone go to Hell. If someone says this regarding NFP, they are wrong. No one knows what is in any other person’s heart. The Church does not teach that anyone is guaranteed to go to Hell for any singular thing. **
The way some people talk about it, there is no such thing as mitigated culpability or constraint of will by outside forces… seemingly this is the only sin where that is true. And not just laypeople… representatives of the Church too seem to be sorely lacking in understanding, compassion, and acknowledging the near impossibility of what they are asking. “They” being who? This is not a teaching that an individual of the church is asking anyone to do. It is something that is taught by the church, in other words, Jesus Christ. Just as it is not a group of Priests that ask us not to kill others, but Jesus/God who taught us that it is bad to kill and the church just teaches that point. It seems that you are really looking for someone to sympathize with your struggles, which many people do. Maybe you just have not found that support or help and that is sad. But the Church cannot teach anything other than the truth. And if you believe the Catholic church is what it is, handed to us directly by God and representing all that is TRUE, it seems that is all anyone would need. Regardless of whether something is hard or we don’t understand it, it doesn’t change the fact that it IS SO. I guess I’m having difficulty understanding what you are looking for. If you understand that the Chruch teaches truth, than your struggle is just accepting this truth and living it. I will pray for you. But if you don’t even believe this teaching to be true, than the problem might not necessarily be in this one teaching, it may be that you have not accepted that the Church teaches truth. If you don’t accept this one teaching, what else might you not accept later? P

But then, part of why I like the Catholic Church is that they don’t shrink from calling sin, sin. They don’t mince words where it’s really important. And if the Church has reason to believe that by being silent, they would allow souls to go to Hell, then I can see that they are obligated to speak.

Exaclty

I feel my failure. I regret it. I am saddened that I could not welcome more children into this world.

At the same time, when I see a thread where someone is telling us of the wreckage of their marriage from NFP, and one of the first responses is, “Have you taken an NFP class with your spouse?” I just want to rip my hair out with how uncompassionate and ineffective that is!
**So now it seems that you’re struggle lies, again, in the support and comfort from people to recognize your struggle, not in the teaching of the church, is that correct? Maybe you get defensive with this question because you are just frustrated, which is very reasonable. It IS frustrating and that is ok. People are not trying to be incompassionate, when they ask this. It is the first question anyone would ask about anything they are trying to solve. It’s kind of like when people have computer questions and they call tech support and the first thing they ask is “Can you check to make sure it is plugged in”…I mean how many people hear that and think “ok, I’m not an idiot”, but from the tech support side, how many people check the plug and that was the problem? You have to understand how people are trying to help you understand. They have to start from square one to make sure that all the basics have been covered. Some people like to skim stuff and not dive deep into it before they declare it too hard and give up. **
There just has to be a better way than basically telling people they must sacrifice their marriages, and perhaps their children’s stable home, in the name of the mechanical integrity of the sexual act.
It is not a teaching that makes people sacrifice an entire marriage. People decide to do that. This is not different than asking people to stay faithful to their spouses. How many threads have we seen where people are having difficulty with a cheating spouse? We cannot blame the teaching that spouses should only be intimate with each other because so many people struggle with that. It just IS. Many people will have struggles with all kinds of issues. Birth control is just one of them. It seems that maybe this one particular subject just hits close to home with you and you are analyzing it a bit more than other teachings.
How is that moral? Because spouses do get left over this and that would be up to the person doing the leaving. Everyone has free will. That same person can leave for many other reasons too., or marriages turn bitter, cold, and toxic… and how is that doing right by the kids? There must be a middle ground… I don’t pretend to know exactly where it is.