Birth control dissenter

[Jennifer_J]

You’re right… it’s not easy. But it IS possible!

I’m BF’ing my third… and waiting for my fertility to return. I was able to detect my returning fertility after my first two children! It takes patience, effort, education (I read LOTS on NFP)… but it’s certainly possible!
I’ve been able to nurse my kids as long as we wanted… yes, my fertility returned while I was still BF’ing, but NFP wasn’t impossible!

As Em said, not always easy, but possible. I’m breastfeeding my 6th child. The return of fertility (well, cycles, I don’t think I’m overly fertile yet, or I’d already be pregnant ) was a bit harder to p(name removed by moderator)oint this time, but the changes were there. Additionally, I have LONG cycles. We have to either abstain longer or discern our need to “avoid” each cycle. Abstaining hasn’t killed us yet There are many versions of NFP—I think researching and finding the one that works best for you is important, if you truly have a serious reason to avoid.

AND if the reason is truly serious, I don’t understand why total abstinence isn’t an option? Out of love of each other, the spouses should be able to get through something like this. Easy? No way, but again not impossible and potentially a way to make your relationship better and to improve your spiritual life. Our culture doesn’t understand this concept, though. All sex, all the time, no matter what! This cutlture thinks we are “owed” sex when we want it, how we want it, at all costs. Is the sexual relationship important in a married life? Well, certainly, but it’s not the end all and be all. There are plenty of times during married life when you HAVE to abstain–postpartem, illness, injury, etc. I think too often we focus on the part we can’t have and ignore the graces available to us when we sacrifice for the greater good.

 

[jacie]

I also felt at one time that I could not agree with or understand church teaching on contraception. But after much prayer, it ocurred to me that I was suffering from a total lack of humility. I mean, who the heck was I, to second guess God, the pope, the centuries of saintly intellectual thought and reasoning, etc. The catechism says that artificial contraception is “INTRINSICALLY EVIL”… Wow, that’s pretty harsh!

So, anyway, I decided one day that I would just have to accept this teaching on faith, even if I did not understand it. And I prayed, God, I would love to know your thinking better on this, but, hey, what do I deserve? I’m willing to let you be the boss. And keep in mind, that part of this is coming to a realization that we have to have a central teaching authority that is infallible, or why bother? Read your bible, it was obvious that Jesus spent three years not just working miracles but setting up a Church structure to govern us. He didn’t just ascend into heaven and leave us hanging to figure it all out on our own. Reading Poem of the Man God was so awsomely helpful in illustrating this for me.

So, to continue, almost the very next day I come across a tape from Steve Wood talking about the church’s teaching on artificial contraception and bingo, it was like a lightning bolt out of the sky, I understood! Not completely, there is still a lot of mystery I am not capable of understanding, but it locked in hard in my conscience. You can’t have something for nothing. God’s way is sacrifice, and NFP is a sacrifice. You can’t have all the pleasure without either the responsibility of a child. If you don’t want the responsibility of a child, then you abstain at times and offer that up for the salvation of sinners.

So, I felt this understanding was a gift from God, a blessing so to speak for my willingness to accept His authority. That was my call to totally place myself under the teaching authority of the Church, and I haven’t regretted it one bit. Give it a shot - I pray that He will also so bless you.

Fr. John Corapi was speaking on EWTN Radio yesterday, and I wish I could quote him word for word, but it went something like this: Marriage is holy, sex is holy. Anything holy must also be fruitful. It was a wonderful talk, maybe you can find it on the EWTN webiste archives.

 

[basilisk]

AND if the reason is truly serious, I don’t understand why total abstinence isn’t an option?

Our culture doesn’t understand this concept, though. All sex, all the time, no matter what!

I can’t even tell you how offensive I find the second part of this quote. To compare sacramental married lovemaking to the crass, oversexed culture in which we live is truly indicative of the negative attitude toward sex that many people accuse Catholics of having. Maybe you don’t even realize you are expressing that. But that kind of statement is why Catholics get slammed on sex.

Why isn’t total abstinence an option? Because we love each other, because we have high sex drives, because sex is sometimes the glue that can hold a marriage together when everything else is going wrong. Because even St. Paul said it’s better to marry than to burn… if you’re not burning, that means you’re satisfying desire by having sex. So now we’re supposed to marry AND burn? Because total abstinence would cause our marriage to be damaged. People who say sex isn’t necessary to healthy marriage do not live in my marriage. And while I’m at it, I resent the multiple times that people have said that if that’s true, then my marriage must have major problems and be lacking commmunication. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want our kids to see a marriage that is happy, joyful, playful, and mutually fulfilling and beneficial. It is impossible to communicate that when you are perpetually frustrated and have to guard your affectionate displays toward your spouse, lest things go too far and temptation kicks in. Because bonding is important. In today’s world, I think the unitive aspect of marital sexuality may be the most important weapon we have against divorce. Couples should be encouraged to seek caring and solace in one another, and yes, joyful and passionate expression of their physical attraction for one another is an important way of doing that. The bonding of sex, which is unique, helps foster and nourish unity so that it is strong when the couple really needs to call upon that resource.

In these discussions, the unitive aspect gets downplayed, even disregarded, so egregiously… that is another thing that bothers me. It seems so dishonest to say that the unitive and procreative are equal, but then to disregard the importance of one so fully and tragically as to say, well, why don’t you just abstain altogether?

P.S. Before anyone asks, if my husband became disabled, then of course, I would bear that cross as his wife. But that’s what it would be… a necessary hardship, not chosen, but borne out of love. And as he is in the Army Nat’l Guard… who knows? One day I might face that…

 

[HouseArrest]

I can’t even tell you how offensive I find the second part of this quote. To compare sacramental married lovemaking to the crass, oversexed culture in which we live is truly indicative of the negative attitude toward sex that many people accuse Catholics of having. Maybe you don’t even realize you are expressing that. But that kind of statement is why Catholics get slammed on sex.

Why isn’t total abstinence an option? Because we love each other, because we have high sex drives, because sex is sometimes the glue that can hold a marriage together when everything else is going wrong. Because even St. Paul said it’s better to marry than to burn… if you’re not burning, that means you’re satisfying desire by having sex. So now we’re supposed to marry AND burn? Because total abstinence would cause our marriage to be damaged. People who say sex isn’t necessary to healthy marriage do not live in my marriage. And while I’m at it, I resent the multiple times that people have said that if that’s true, then my marriage must have major problems and be lacking commmunication. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want our kids to see a marriage that is happy, joyful, playful, and mutually fulfilling and beneficial. It is impossible to communicate that when you are perpetually frustrated and have to guard your affectionate displays toward your spouse, lest things go too far and temptation kicks in. Because bonding is important. In today’s world, I think the unitive aspect of marital sexuality may be the most important weapon we have against divorce. Couples should be encouraged to seek caring and solace in one another, and yes, joyful and passionate expression of their physical attraction for one another is an important way of doing that. The bonding of sex, which is unique, helps foster and nourish unity so that it is strong when the couple really needs to call upon that resource.

In these discussions, the unitive aspect gets downplayed, even disregarded, so egregiously… that is another thing that bothers me. It seems so dishonest to say that the unitive and procreative are equal, but then to disregard the importance of one so fully and tragically as to say, well, why don’t you just abstain altogether?

P.S. Before anyone asks, if my husband became disabled, then of course, I would bear that cross as his wife. But that’s what it would be… a necessary hardship, not chosen, but borne out of love. And as he is in the Army Nat’l Guard… who knows? One day I might face that…

I think the unitive aspect is not discussed so much in these threads because it’s mostly agreed upon. You are not being frustrated by “unitive”, you are being frustrated by “procreative”, and that is why everyone’s discussing it.

jacie’s post is an answer to your P.S. NFP, to you, is a necessary hardship, not chosen, but borne out of love, for God. Because he is the 3rd person in your marriage. Don’t exclude Him. He’ll help you with the rest.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I can’t even tell you how offensive I find the second part of this quote. To compare sacramental married lovemaking to the crass, oversexed culture in which we live is truly indicative of the negative attitude toward sex that many people accuse Catholics of having. Maybe you don’t even realize you are expressing that. But that kind of statement is why Catholics get slammed on sex.

Why isn’t total abstinence an option? Because we love each other, because we have high sex drives, because sex is sometimes the glue that can hold a marriage together when everything else is going wrong. Because even St. Paul said it’s better to marry than to burn… if you’re not burning, that means you’re satisfying desire by having sex. So now we’re supposed to marry AND burn? Because total abstinence would cause our marriage to be damaged. People who say sex isn’t necessary to healthy marriage do not live in my marriage. And while I’m at it, I resent the multiple times that people have said that if that’s true, then my marriage must have major problems and be lacking commmunication. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want our kids to see a marriage that is happy, joyful, playful, and mutually fulfilling and beneficial. It is impossible to communicate that when you are perpetually frustrated and have to guard your affectionate displays toward your spouse, lest things go too far and temptation kicks in. Because bonding is important. In today’s world, I think the unitive aspect of marital sexuality may be the most important weapon we have against divorce. Couples should be encouraged to seek caring and solace in one another, and yes, joyful and passionate expression of their physical attraction for one another is an important way of doing that. The bonding of sex, which is unique, helps foster and nourish unity so that it is strong when the ouple really needs to call upon that resource.

In these discussions, the unitive aspect gets downplayed, even disregarded, so egregiously… that is another thing that bothers me. It seems so dishonest to say that the unitive and procreative are equal, but then to disregard the importance of one so fully and tragically as to say, well, why don’t you just abstain altogether?

And I think you might be looking for a reason to be upset with me …The fact is we are affected by the world around us whether we like it or not—even married couples. The culture of death is pervasive. We see those around us contracept and have sex whenever they want to: our friends, or families, on tv, in movies, in the media. We know our Church calls us to something else, to use NFP or abstinence when we need to not get pregnant, which is harder. But these other couples, they look happy, they get to have sex whenever, what’s the harm? Right? I mean that’s what your OP was about–you don’t understand the WHY behind the ban on contraception, you don’t want to follow–infact you said you want to dissent from the teaching. I said many other things in my posts, and for some reason you focused on that line–about the culture? I just don’t get it. I wasn’t compairing sacramental sex to the culture, I was saying we are influence by culture… however, when you introduce contraception to the marital act, it stops being sacramental…comparible to trying to make a woman a priest or making lemonade and cookies into the Eucharist. I’m sorry that I offended you, not my intent. I was making a larger point about culture and faith…

Additionally, abstinence used to be the ONLY option. We are blessed to have NFP take some of that burden off. However, I’ll say it again—all forms of contraception and “birth control” fail. If the reason is serious enough, then only abstinence is the answer. Would it be hard? Of Course! Finding other ways to express love would be difficult, but if the need were great, why is reaching for contraception the norm and NOT abstinence? Because of that culture thing again…Why, in our difficulty wouldn’t we reach out to Jesus and ask him to help us? We obtain the graces we seek…

 

[Rico_S]

Can you articulate why the Church teaches what she does about contraception?

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for here, but the church teaches that contraception is wrong b/c it renders the act “unprocreative” in the eyes of the church…and each marital embrace must be unitve and procreative. That is it in a nutshell.

–Rico

 

[Em_in_FL]

I am not exactly sure what you are looking for here, but the church teaches that contraception is wrong b/c it renders the act “unprocreative” in the eyes of the church…and each marital embrace must be unitve and procreative. That is it in a nutshell.

–Rico

Contraception ALSO blocks the “unity” of the act.

 

[basilisk]

Contraception ALSO blocks the “unity” of the act.

You know, people keep saying this. That has NEVER been true for me. I see people feeling used because DH had a vasectomy… ask my husband if he feels used because my tubes are tied. And I wouldn’t feel used if my DH had gotten a vasectomy… I would have felt honored and loved that he went through all that pain and fear (we are talking about guys and their “parts” here!) just to spare me having to do it.

We love each other. We accept each other. We express the unity of our lives and destinies in many ways, including sex. Our decision to end our fertility was joint… no one was left out or forced. In the end, it was easier for me to disobey the Church than it was for him. I had the surgery and took the burden onto myself, in order to spare him the pain of having to do it. Yes, he participated, but he didn’t have to take an affirmative act in defiance of the Church he loves. It saddens both of us that we came to this, but we are financially struggling as it is, and my body cannot take anymore pregnancies. I may have to have surgical repair from my last one as it is. I need to be able to function to take care of my family. If my insides are falling out of me, how can I be an effective mother, wife, citizen, etc? We have good reasons. And honestly, in absence of anything that could end an already conceived life, I think it is madness and immaturity not to use the fruits of our human intellect. NFP is one of those fruits, and if it is right for you, then use it. Barrier methods are also one of those fruits, and I say, without hormones or spermicides to damage the sperm and cause birth defects, use them. Sterilization is just the ultimate barrier method. And people do get pregnant… God can do anything he pleases, including growing my tubes back together. And if He does that, I will accept and love that baby like any of my others. But recognizing my limits, and doing what is necessary to take care of my family and do right by the children I already have… I will not apologize for that.

Many will say, it doesn’t matter how you feel, objectively unity does not exist and you are using each other. And I can see that point. I get it. But then we get into philisophical territory. If no one feels used by a certain act, then is anyone getting used? If my husband and I feel our unity, who are you to tell us it does not exist? And then others will say that that could apply to unmarried couples, that they could use the same excuse. Well, I suppose they could, but the fact remains that I am talking about sacramental marital sexuality.

I have not been able to get to the point about my understanding of why the Church teaches this. I will, eventually, when I have time to look at the sources that have helped me along the way in my thinking. Digging through even the shortest section of the Catechism takes some major time…

Here is part of my philosophy: I agree that the unitive and procreative aspects are of equal importance. However, I also believe that each can be emphasized differently in different seasons of a marriage. In the early days of a marriage, probably the unitive aspect is the most emphasized. It is exciting, you are discovering each other and the pleasure to be had from and with each other. That necessarily dominates the experience because, ideally, it is new. However, even for those who might not have reached the ideal of being a virgin on their wedding night, they find that married sex is completely different from unmarried sex. Then, for some quickly and for others not so quickly, the calling to parenthood begins to dominate their sexual experience. The thought of a baby delights, and longing for one sets in. The couple’s focus shifts, and while still pleasurable and bonding, it becomes a means to an end as well. Over the years, whether their reasons are good or bad, the couple starts to think they shouldn’t have any more children. Then they become certain. I submit that, at that point, the unitive aspect, which was always there, reasserts its dominance. And that is not wrong. However, part of the “procreative” aspect gets forgotten in these discussions. What about the children that already exist? Giving life is not just about conceiving and giving birth. We have to do the best we can for the children we have brought into the world. And this is where even contraceptive sex is procreative. By supporting and nurturing the unity of the couple, marital sexuality can help preserve the stable, nurturing, intact family environment that children need to thrive. It serves the best interests of children that are already born, even if no more can be. This honestly, is how I think that respect and reverence for both aspects can be achieved without completely banning contraceptives.

 

[diosa25]

…

Many will say, it doesn’t matter how you feel, objectively unity does not exist and you are using each other. And I can see that point. I get it. But then we get into philisophical territory. ** If no one feels used by a certain act, then is anyone getting used?** Yes. Even if you are ok with someone lying to you, it does not change the fact that they are lying and lying is still wrong. Condoning sin does not release the person of their sin. If my husband and I feel our unity, who are you to tell us it does not exist? **Feeling and being are not the same things. You can feel united but not actually be united in the true sense. I will have difficulty explaining this one though, so maybe someone can help me out here. **And then others will say that that could apply to unmarried couples, that they could use the same excuse. Well, I suppose they could, but the fact remains that I am talking about sacramental marital sexuality.
…

 

[Jennifer_J]

however, when you introduce contraception to the marital act, it stops being sacramental…

I want to clarify this a bit…if sterilization is chosen by the couple, I would imagine to reinstate the sacramental nature of future acts, contrition and confession would need to be done. Then it would be treated as a “natural” infertility, I would imagine. What if a couple’s is not sorry? I have no idea…

 

[SMHW]

Many will say, it doesn’t matter how you feel, objectively unity does not exist and you are using each other. And I can see that point. I get it. But then we get into philisophical territory. If no one feels used by a certain act, then is anyone getting used? If my husband and I feel our unity, who are you to tell us it does not exist? And then others will say that that could apply to unmarried couples, that they could use the same excuse. Well, I suppose they could, but the fact remains that I am talking about sacramental marital sexuality.

I think this paragraph gets down to the heart of the matter.

There is often a disconnect between the subjective reality that we can experience as human beings and what the Church teaches is the objective reality going on beyond our ability to sense.

For all kinds of reasons it is hard for some people to accept and/or live with the Church’s teaching on sexuality. This is particularly true when the couple is not on the same page. (And I suspect that’s the case in a pretty large percentage of marriages involving Catholics.) In some cases that disconnect means if one party to the marriage follows the guidelines of the Church the marriage will end.

It’s easy to tell people that they should do what the Church says is right rather than what they feel is right. The experienced consequences to what comes of a given action (or lack of action) don’t always help us know the “right” answer. Often there are negative consequences that come from following the Church’s teaching.

I have to stand by the Church’s teaching because I believe it to be true. But I have nothing but sympathy for those who find following the teachings of the Church to be burden (at least in this life here on earth.)

 

[basilisk]

Can I just say, at this point, that I think this has been the most compassionate, polite, and calm thread about dissent on the birth control teaching that I have ever seen on this board? Thank you all so much. Honest discussion like this is what everyone needs, regardless of topic. Everyone has acted so ADULT… thank you! I don’t know if anyone’s mind is getting changed here, but I really think this thread could be very useful for others. The lack of venom, with the exception of Ceil-1 on the first page, is palpable, and very appreciated.

And now… off to massively fun things like folding laundry and closet organizing… for all those 5 kids of mine.

 

[mountainman99]

This has been a very civil thread, and it’s definitely solidified my belief in NFP. The OP said the following, which I thought about more:

You know, people keep saying this. That has NEVER been true for me. I see people feeling used because DH had a vasectomy… ask my husband if he feels used because my tubes are tied. And I wouldn’t feel used if my DH had gotten a vasectomy… I would have felt honored and loved that he went through all that pain and fear (we are talking about guys and their “parts” here!) just to spare me having to do it.

The above comment was made in response to this:

Contraception ALSO blocks the “unity” of the act.

For some it may hurt the unity between the man and woman, and for others like the OP, it may not. I think it’s important for us not to forget about God. I’m no expert, but just as the procreative aspect involves man, woman, and God, so does the unitive. So although you and your husband may feel united by the act, it may not be uniting you with God, which is pretty important. I’m not judging, I’m just saying don’t forget all the parties being united.

I felt like sharing, since it seems valid, but I’m only engaged, so what do I know?

 

[basilisk]

So although you and your husband may feel united by the act, it may not be uniting you with God, which is pretty important. I’m not judging, I’m just saying don’t forget all the parties being united.

Wow… deep thinker. And good point.

I’m gonna chew on that one for a while. I am the OP, BTW.

:ehh:

 

[mountainman99]

I know, I just didn’t know how to spell basilisk while i was posting I had too much on the clipboard already too!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This has been a very civil thread, and it’s definitely solidified my belief in NFP. The OP said the following, which I thought about more:

The above comment was made in response to this:

For some it may hurt the unity between the man and woman, and for others like the OP, it may not. I think it’s important for us not to forget about God. I’m no expert, but just as the procreative aspect involves man, woman, and God, so does the unitive. So although you and your husband may feel united by the act, it may not be uniting you with God, which is pretty important. I’m not judging, I’m just saying don’t forget all the parties being united.

I felt like sharing, since it seems valid, but I’m only engaged, so what do I know?

OH MY GOODNESS…such a profound thought. And so true. Thank you for reminding me.

 

[Em_in_FL]

For some it may hurt the unity between the man and woman, and for others like the OP, it may not. I think it’s important for us not to forget about God. I’m no expert, but just as the procreative aspect involves man, woman, and God, so does the unitive. So although you and your husband may feel united by the act, it may not be uniting you with God, which is pretty important. I’m not judging, I’m just saying don’t forget all the parties being united.

I felt like sharing, since it seems valid, but I’m only engaged, so what do I know?

Very nice perspective… I like that!

 

[diosa25]

For some it may hurt the unity between the man and woman, and for others like the OP, it may not. I think it’s important for us not to forget about God. I’m no expert, but just as the procreative aspect involves man, woman, and God, so does the unitive. So although you and your husband may feel united by the act, it may not be uniting you with God, which is pretty important. I’m not judging, I’m just saying don’t forget all the parties being united.

Yes, this is perfect. I did not know how to go about explaining how it was not unitive if there was a barrier. This is exactly the point and perfectly put. Well done! This thread has really helped me in this area too. I was already a believer and practicer but I am one who cannot always explain it even though I understand it to be true as I read about it. Thanks for all on this thread as well. I’ll have to remember all these points next time someone asks me.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

For some it may hurt the unity between the man and woman, and for others like the OP, it may not.** I think it’s important for us not to forget about God.** I’m no expert, but just as the procreative aspect involves man, woman, and God, so does the unitive. So although you and your husband may feel united by the act, it may not be uniting you with God, which is pretty important. I’m not judging, I’m just saying don’t forget all the parties being united.

I felt like sharing, since it seems valid, but I’m only engaged, so what do I know?

**Obviously you know a lot. Sometimes it is easier to “see” a situation when you’re not in it. I hope you can hold on to that perspective once you are in your upcoming marriage…it will serve you both well:thumbsup:

It is strictly because hubby and I have always tried to remember that we need to be “united” with God that we have been able to continue through our NFP struggles. When we have occasionally “fallen”, sure we felt united to eachother, but certainly not to God.

And boy have we struggled. More abstinence than I care to tally up. But I’m talking A LOT. As well as some really “unfair” situations where the only time we could physically be “together” were not “safe” days. But we are committed to trying to follow God even when it is hard or we don’t understand (or don’t want to). I pray we can always keep our faith strong. It doesn’t come easy.
**

 

[jwashu]

Well, before everyone starts jumping on you, let me say that we are in agreement.

I hope you’re wearing your flame-proof suit.

After years of study (and reading all the stuff) I have to say I’m in agreement. In fact I have felt the need to post almost this exact same note. I had not because I have been trying to discern whether the push to post something like this was from me or from the Holy Spirit. (Yes I said the Holy Spirit, the Church has changed little “d” teachings in the past and I believe will change this one as well). The whole basis of this teaching as coming from the story of Onan is a misinterpretation IMHO and more the result of the aesthetic movement in the early Church which, if you look at the NT Canon, was downplayed by the Catholic Church since deciding on our Canon. (if it wasn’t why not include the Acts of Peter? we carry the story of his crucifiction in tradition but forgot the rest… why?!?)

Your point about the number of marriages on the rocks because of this is a very strong point. I know most Catholic’s just completely ignore this teaching, a few seems to be able to handle it fantastically but those in the middle are struggling and the resulting struggle isn’t a closer relationship with God or their community of Faith or even their family! It’s usually the disruption of all three…

About a year ago I took an oath that I accept the teachings of the Church and I do, but I don’t have to agree and I believe that perhaps I should pray and work to point out that this teaching may, in fact, be in error.

I would also disagree that God is not present in the renewing of the Marriage Covenant if contraception is used. To make that that leap you must be willing to say that almost every married couple in every of Christian faith have no understanding of Christian marriage and of the NT. I’m sorry but that assumption is incorrect. Many people using contraception are very devout with loving and blessed marriages to the point that you can see God working in their lives.

Joe