Birth Control views?

[Bob_Crowley]

The point is irrelevant. The evil that we see with the of unborn babies lies not in their deaths, but in the way they met their deaths, which if by human action would constitute a very grave sin.

So if you knowingly use the Pill, resulting in 2% of zygote deaths, compared to knowingly using NFP, resulting in 6% of zygote deaths, you’re somehow more culpable?

Even though in both cases, you don’t beforehand the actual consequences of what will happen? Do you?

In contrast to abortion, where you know full well that you’re destroying an already formed life.

I’d also like to know where God said every act of intercourse has to be open to life? I know some of the Church fathers thought that, but then a lot of them had no problem with slavery either, since it was part and parcel of society. I want to know where God said it, since He designed the whole deal, including the ever present human sex drive.

Animals have a mating season in most cases. Short lived species like mice might be fertile almost all year round, driven by the necessity of species survival, but most of the larger animals only mate at certain times. We’re not like that, and the human sex drive is persistent all year round. We differ radically from just about every other species on that account. Even those animals that do mate for life (eg. eagles), still have a mating season. They don’t have sex whenever they feel like it.

To my way of thinking, this is not so that we can be open to the transmission of life alone, but is part of the binding process of marriage. We look after children till they’re in their late teens, unlike animals who forget their own offspring once they’ve been weaned.

Human sexuality is different. And it’s meant to be different.

As far as I’m concerned, it is no accident that just when human population pressures are becoming a real problem, technology develops so that we have an ethical method of dealing with it. And that includes the contraceptive pill.

And here’s an extract from an article on the advisory teams drawn up to advise Pope’s John XXIII and Paul VI.

huffingtonpost.com/jon-obrien/the-catholic-contraceptiv_b_564065.html

This was a huge issue for the Catholic church, and not long after the introduction of the pill, in 1963, Pope John XXIII convened a panel to study the matter. The papal commission on birth control was composed of bishops, priests and lay people, including married Catholic women. They considered Catholic theology, modern science and the lives that married Catholics lead. The commission voted overwhelmingly to recommend that the church rescind its ban on contraception. The pope, concerned that overturning the ban would call all of the hierarchy’s teachings into question, appointed a second commission, made up of 15 bishops, which also voted overwhelmingly to recommend that the church rescind its ban on contraception.

The results of these votes were leaked, and there was widespread rejoicing among Catholics. It was therefore a significant shock to Catholics – and indeed most of the world – when the encyclical Humanae Vitae was finally released by Pope Paul VI on July 29, 1968, proclaiming the teaching on contraception unchanged and unchangeable.

The pope had completely ignored the work and recommendations of his own commission, despite five meetings over three years and a vote by 30 of the 35 commission’s lay members, 15 of the 19 theologians and 9 of 12 bishops that the teaching be changed (three bishops abstained).

Personally I think if John XXIII hadn’t died so unexpectedly, he would have approved the use of the Pill as recommended by his own panel. If you’re going to ignore the deeply considered thoughts of 15 out of 19 theologians, and 9 out of 12 bishops, to say nothing of 30 out of 35 lay people, then you may as well not bother to listen to anybody.

The Church is flogging a dead horse. It hadn’t even gotten out of the stalls on this issue.

 

[His_angel]

We would never bully you into believing something, but just remember than with the pill, you flush out the embryo because it can’t grab onto anything and its basically killing one half of a human life, same with visectymines(or however you spell it) youre killing those poor sperm cells, another half of a human life, even though it may still be dna it is just as hurtful as an abortion in gods eyes.

The pope also just explains faith the best we can understand it, he is like a mouthpiece of god.

ILoveJesus1234, it seems you’re in need of a few biology lessons.

A human life begins at conception, when sperm and egg meet. Sometimes, if the Pill doesn’t stop conception, the conceived child / embryo might not implant and be miscarried with a woman’s period. If a woman is not pregnant (or her body is confused by the pill) a period happens- the blood, egg, and environment that was supposed to be for a conceived child is flushed out. (That said, some women still continue to have a little bleeding during their pregnancies, which they might mistake for their period).

Sperm alone or an egg alone are not human life. So nocturnal emissions (wet dreams), or a woman getting her period are not loss of life.

A woman can only conceive a child two or three days out of a month. Sperm can live for up to 5 days. Using a few methods a husband and wife can work out the week or so that they can conceive, and either use the knowledge to get pregnant, or not have sex if they are not ready for a child.

 

[PennyinCanada]

But you’re not going to solve that by banning the pill. As far as I’m concerned the Church is just wasting it’s time hoping that this policy will be accepted either by the majority of Catholics, or the world at large. They’ll just go on ignoring it.

I wasn’t advocating banning the pill but now that you mention it, teen girls may indeed decide not to risk having sex and getting pregnant if they didn’t have the pill and false security. For that matter, maybe even a few might get angry at a guy for putting such a risk on them for a few minutes of pleasure.

It is never a waste of time when the Church proclaims the teaching of Christ. She is doing her duty to the world. Some seed falls in the thorns, some on the hard path, but some fall on fertile soil and give back a hundred fold.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I wasn’t advocating banning the pill but now that you mention it, teen girls may indeed decide not to risk having sex and getting pregnant if they didn’t have the pill and false security. For that matter, maybe even a few might get angry at a guy for putting such a risk on them for a few minutes of pleasure.

It is never a waste of time when the Church proclaims the teaching of Christ. She is doing her duty to the world. Some seed falls in the thorns, some on the hard path, but some fall on fertile soil and give back a hundred fold.

I’m curious as to where Christ said that every act of human intercourse had to be open to the transmission of life. Show me chapter and verse, and I’ll believe you.

 

[Elizium23]

I’m curious as to where Christ said that every act of human intercourse had to be open to the transmission of life. Show me chapter and verse, and I’ll believe you.

Humanae Vitae, a Magisterial document of the Catholic Church. Section II, paragraph 11.

You claim to be Catholic. You thereby assert that you accept that Christ entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom to His Apostles and the Church, giving them the power to bind and loose. The Church has spoken definitively on Divine Law. It is not a policy, it is not flogging a dead horse, it is not a bunch of mean old men in dresses telling you what to do in the bedroom. It is Christ speaking through the ages in the Deposit of Faith for the good of His children.

If you obstinately refuse to listen and you willingly do otherwise then that makes you a heretic in the state of mortal sin.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Humanae Vitae, a Magisterial document of the Catholic Church. Section II, paragraph 11.

You claim to be Catholic. You thereby assert that you accept that Christ entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom to His Apostles and the Church, giving them the power to bind and loose. The Church has spoken definitively on Divine Law. It is not a policy, it is not flogging a dead horse, it is not a bunch of mean old men in dresses telling you what to do in the bedroom. It is Christ speaking through the ages in the Deposit of Faith for the good of His children.

If you obstinately refuse to listen and you willingly do otherwise then that makes you a heretic in the state of mortal sin.

Fine, except that I think Pope Paul VI made a mistake in rejecting the findings of his own commission set up by John XXIII and expanded by himself. He appointed 15 bishops to revise the result, and 12 out of the 15 supported the commission.

Nor does it fit the category of Papal Infallibility. And that’s another issue I’m not keen on, as an ex-Protestant. I recall Christ telling Peter he (and his successors as He was setting up an office) had the power to “bind and loose”. I don’t recall anywhere Christ telling Peter he (or his successors) would never make a mistake.

So as far as I’m concerned the Church is** wrong **on this matter. You might remember St. Paul having to correct the first “Pope” about the circumcision issue way back, and who was also the same man to deny Christ three times, and who was rebuked by Christ with “Get behind me Satan”, immediately after Christ told him he’d been entrusted with the keys of the Kingdom.

I’ll stick to my opinion. I don’t think Popes are infallible.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Fine, except that I think Pope Paul VI made a mistake in rejecting the findings of his own commission set up by John XXIII and expanded by himself. He appointed 15 bishops to revise the result, and 12 out of the 15 supported the commission.

Nor does it fit the category of Papal Infallibility. And that’s another issue I’m not keen on, as an ex-Protestant. I recall Christ telling Peter he (and his successors as He was setting up an office) had the power to “bind and loose”. I don’t recall anywhere Christ telling Peter he (or his successors) would never make a mistake.

So as far as I’m concerned the Church is** wrong **on this matter. You might remember St. Paul having to correct the first “Pope” about the circumcision issue way back, and who was also the same man to deny Christ three times, and who was rebuked by Christ with “Get behind me Satan”, immediately after Christ told him he’d been entrusted with the keys of the Kingdom.

I’ll stick to my opinion. I don’t think Popes are infallible.

Here’s an excerpt from an article on Papal Infallibility by Princeton University.

For obvious personal reasons, I’ve highlighted one particular section.

princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Papal_infallibility.html

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life OR THAT HE IS NECESSARILY FREE OF ERROR, EVEN WHEN SPEAKING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

 

[JesusFirst87]

So no funny business while she’s pregnant, either? It doesn’t produce more children, so is that a form of birth control?

 

[St_Francis]

Fine, except that I think Pope Paul VI made a mistake in rejecting the findings of his own commission set up by John XXIII and expanded by himself. He appointed 15 bishops to revise the result, and 12 out of the 15 supported the commission.

Nor does it fit the category of Papal Infallibility. And that’s another issue I’m not keen on, as an ex-Protestant. I recall Christ telling Peter he (and his successors as He was setting up an office) had the power to “bind and loose”. I don’t recall anywhere Christ telling Peter he (or his successors) would never make a mistake.

So as far as I’m concerned the Church is** wrong **on this matter. You might remember St. Paul having to correct the first “Pope” about the circumcision issue way back, and who was also the same man to deny Christ three times, and who was rebuked by Christ with “Get behind me Satan”, immediately after Christ told him he’d been entrusted with the keys of the Kingdom.

I’ll stick to my opinion. I don’t think Popes are infallible.

The reason HV is correct is that it is a restatement of the position held by the Church since its inception. The Early Church Fathers were against artificial contraception, as was the Church throughout its history.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The reason HV is correct is that it is a restatement of the position held by the Church since its inception. The Early Church Fathers were against artificial contraception, as was the Church throughout its history.

The early church fathers didn’t have a population issue of 7 billion people, and the church didn’t have any problem with capital punishment for most of its history. So what? The population in Christ’s time was about 300 million people.

And apparently the deeply considered position of 15 out of 19 theologians on the Papal Commission, who would have been well aware of church history, church tradition, canon law, apologetics etc. was simply not worth bothering with.

As far as I’m concerned Pope Paul VI made a big mistake.

Some figures - worldometers.info/world-population/

8 Billion (2024) - According to the most recent United Nations estimates, the human population of the world is expected to reach 8 billion people in the spring of 2024.

7 Billion (2011) - According to the United Nations, world population reached 7 Billion on October 31, 2011. The US Census Bureau made a lower estimate, for which the 7 billion mark was only reached on March 12, 2012.

6 Billion (1999) - According to the United Nations, the 6 billion figure was reached on October 12, 1999 (celebrated as the Day of 6 Billion). According to the U.S. Census Bureau instead, the six billion milestone was reached on July 22, 1999,

Apparently the population is now around 7.125 billion, which means that we’ve added about 40% of the total world population in Christ’s time over the last 2 to 3 years, depending on which statistical base you decide to use. That’s despite possibly 50 million abortions a year worldwide.

Now I agree that abortion is murder, and I think if there is any one fact that is driving what I see as an impending judgement, it is the abortion rate. In my opinion, God has provided an ethical means of birth control via the contraceptive pill, but by removing that “permission”, the church has also given the abortionists an excuse.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Now I agree that abortion is murder, and I think if there is any one fact that is driving what I see as an impending judgement, it is the abortion rate. In my opinion, God has provided an ethical means of birth control via the contraceptive pill, but by removing that “permission”, the church has also given the abortionists an excuse.

Why isn’t the loss of a fertilized egg by a woman taking the pill not considered an early abortion by you?

What happens if an old building was going to be taken down and no one walked through the building first to make sure there wasn’t a homeless guy sleeping in it? Or maybe kids playing in it. It would be criminal to blow up a building without making sure it was empty. Women taking the pill can ovulate on occasion because the pill is on the lowest dosage to get by, but the uterus will not allow implantation. I guess the unique DNA of a growing baby is not really evidence of a baby until it reaches a certain age. Boy, that’s awfully shakey ground to stand on, huh?

Bob, I think to be honest to yourself and others here, you can say you are protestant and remove the ‘ex’ part. You haven’t come over yet.

 

[St_Francis]

The early church fathers didn’t have a population issue of 7 billion people, and the church didn’t have any problem with capital punishment for most of its history. So what? The population in Christ’s time was about 300 million people.

And apparently the deeply considered position of 15 out of 19 theologians on the Papal Commission, who would have been well aware of church history, church tradition, canon law, apologetics etc. was simply not worth bothering with.

As far as I’m concerned Pope Paul VI made a big mistake.

Some figures - worldometers.info/world-population/

Apparently the population is now around 7.125 billion, which means that we’ve added about 40% of the total world population in Christ’s time over the last 2 to 3 years, depending on which statistical base you decide to use. That’s despite possibly 50 million abortions a year worldwide.

Now I agree that abortion is murder, and I think if there is any one fact that is driving what I see as an impending judgement, it is the abortion rate. In my opinion, God has provided an ethical means of birth control via the contraceptive pill, but by removing that “permission”, the church has also given the abortionists an excuse.

Truth is not determined by democracy, nor morality by circumstances. I will stick with the pope, whoever he may be.

As to the world population, things look tight now (actually, I have to laugh because I live in the country and it is not at all crowded here), but look at what demographers are predicting for 2050 on… population collapse. The reason we have many people now is mostly antibiotics and vaacinations, which have raised the life expectancy of so many so fast that we have a lot of people around who would have died without the recent improvements in medical care.

 

[coriolanus]

Why isn’t the loss of a fertilized egg by a woman taking the pill not considered an early abortion by you?

The Hobby Lobby decision was a good one because it distinguished between abortion and contraception. The owners of Hobby Lobby objected to four types of birth control which they regarded as being equivalent to abortion, in that a fertilized ovum was destroyed. There remain something like 18 methods of contraception which are not abortion.
The Church is still burdened intellectually by vestiges of Aristotle’s peculiar opinions about human biology, and morally by regarding celibacy as morally superior to marriage.

 

[Hockeygurl]

PennyinCanada;12351129:

Why isn’t the loss of a fertilized egg by a woman taking the pill not considered an early abortion by you?

The Hobby Lobby decision was a good one because it distinguished between abortion and contraception. The owners of Hobby Lobby objected to four types of birth control which they regarded as being equivalent to abortion, in that a fertilized ovum was destroyed. There remain something like 18 methods of contraception which are not abortion.
The Church is still burdened intellectually by vestiges of Aristotle’s peculiar opinions about human biology, and morally by regarding celibacy as morally superior to marriage.

FINALLY!!! Someone with some sense. Before some of you spout out half-truths and downright LIES, maybe you should do your research.

1. Newer research shows that combined oral contraceptives do NOT cause a hostile endometrium that an egg cannot attach to… research with plan b is showing the SAME implantation rates as someone who does not take the med. However, the above author is correct, Progestin only pills may have this effect.
2. A Vasectomy does NOT KILL SPERM. Where do you get this garbage from? Sperm are still produced, however, they cant get out the exit. The tube is cut, clamped and usually cauterized. All other functions of the testicle remain intact.

3 We Medical Professionals do not PUSH any kind of treatment over another. This is unethical. We take into account numerous things (age, smoking, other disease states) and counsel the patient on appropriate choices, I even offer NFP!!! I don’t get paid anything different no matter what the patient chooses to do.

Oh, and I counsel my patients with education on the PERFECT and TYPICAL use failure rates which can be quite surprising. Realistic expectations are very important in what method the patient chooses to use.

Signed,

NFP friendly Nurse Practitioner

 

[Vico]

Fine, except that I think Pope Paul VI made a mistake in rejecting the findings of his own commission set up by John XXIII and expanded by himself. He appointed 15 bishops to revise the result, and 12 out of the 15 supported the commission.

Nor does it fit the category of Papal Infallibility. And that’s another issue I’m not keen on, as an ex-Protestant. I recall Christ telling Peter he (and his successors as He was setting up an office) had the power to “bind and loose”. I don’t recall anywhere Christ telling Peter he (or his successors) would never make a mistake.

So as far as I’m concerned the Church is** wrong **on this matter. You might remember St. Paul having to correct the first “Pope” about the circumcision issue way back, and who was also the same man to deny Christ three times, and who was rebuked by Christ with “Get behind me Satan”, immediately after Christ told him he’d been entrusted with the keys of the Kingdom.

I’ll stick to my opinion. I don’t think Popes are infallible.

It is good to say something about what is intrinsically evil. All people should be informed of this that they may live in charity.
4. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33

1. A specific and more seroius moral evil is present in the use of means which have an abortive effect, impeding the implantation of the embryo which has just been fertilized or even causing its expulsion in an early stage of pregnancy.34

(33) The Encyclical Humanae Vitae declares as illicit “every action which, either 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”. And it adds:

“To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom, that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life” (Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, n. 14).
“When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as ‘arbiters’ of the divine plan and they ‘manipulate’ and degrade human sexuality—and with it themselves and their married partner—by altering its value of ‘total’ self-giving. 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” (John Paul II, Apost. Exhort. Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981, n. 32).
(34) “The human being must be respected and treated as a person from his conception. Therefore, from that very moment the rights of a person must be accorded to him, foremost among which is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Donum Vitae, Feb. 22, 1987, n. 1).

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…emecum_en.html​

 

[Rau]

And I am not going to be bullied into a policy…

Fair enough!

…I don’t agree with

I guess this is your key point. If any Church teaching does not find your concurrence, it cannot be God’s will!

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Why isn’t the loss of a fertilized egg by a woman taking the pill not considered an early abortion by you?

What happens if an old building was going to be taken down and no one walked through the building first to make sure there wasn’t a homeless guy sleeping in it? Or maybe kids playing in it. It would be criminal to blow up a building without making sure it was empty. Women taking the pill can ovulate on occasion because the pill is on the lowest dosage to get by, but the uterus will not allow implantation. I guess the unique DNA of a growing baby is not really evidence of a baby until it reaches a certain age. Boy, that’s awfully shakey ground to stand on, huh?

Bob, I think to be honest to yourself and others here, you can say you are protestant and remove the ‘ex’ part. You haven’t come over yet.

For the simple reason that the woman has no idea of the outcome of any act of intercourse, and doesn’t even know she’s carrying a fertilised egg.

I could argue that if a woman intends to use contraception by NFP (and that’s what her intention is), then the subsequent 3 times higher rate of zygote deaths is actually more culpable fhan using a contraceptive pill.

 

[Vico]

For the simple reason that the woman has no idea of the outcome of any act of intercourse, and doesn’t even know she’s carrying a fertilised egg.

I could argue that if a woman intends to use contraception by NFP (and that’s what her intention is), then the subsequent 3 times higher rate of zygote deaths is actually more culpable fhan using a contraceptive pill.

Note that there is a different intention because intention includes the method used.

If contraception is defined as a method to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse, then there are two different intentions:

• contraception via utilization of naturally infertile periods.
• contraception via utilization of other methods.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33

Right, so …

1. Why is contraception gravely opposed to marital chastity, if married couples are using it? That incidentally, was the recommendation of the original commission - married couples. If others choose to use it for immoral purposes, that’s their decision, like committing adultery, fornication, taking the Lord’s name in vain and all the rest.
2. Why is the act of human intercourse purely and solely for the transmission of life, when the sexual attraction is so strong it drives male and female together in the first place, and in the human sphere for a life long partnership, with children that make enormous demands on the finite resources this earth has to offer. There’s also a lot of pleasure involved. I assume that’s purely coincidental.
3. Is there any evidence that married couples that use contraception are less self-giving than those who don’'t? In other words, if one couple uses contraception, and has 3 children, and another couple doesn’t use contraception, and has 3 children, can you please show me evidence as to how the second couple is more self-sacrfiicing that the first one?
4. We’re in a partnership with God, and He’s given us quite a lot of latitude with regard to free decision making. He’s given us a brain, and He expects us to use it, and He’s also pretty much given us dominion over the earth, includng the development of our own societies. And that includes what we do in our own bedrooms.

As far as I’m concerned, the church is wrong on this issue.

Now I’ve made my case, and I don’t intend to keep arguing, or its just going to go the way of the atheist-theist debates, which invariably end up as “God exists!” “He does not!” “Does” “Doesn’t” “Does” “Doesn’t” , like a pair of kids arguing over who is entiltled to play with the push bike.

And in the end, both parties end up pretty much where they started. You haven’t said anything to change my mind, and obviously I haven’t said anything to change yours.

 

[Vico]

Right, so …

1. Why is contraception gravely opposed to marital chastity, if married couples are using it? That incidentally, was the recommendation of the original commission - married couples. If others choose to use it for immoral purposes, that’s their decision, like committing adultery, fornication, taking the Lord’s name in vain and all the rest.
2. Why is the act of human intercourse purely and solely for the transmission of life, when the sexual attraction is so strong it drives male and female together in the first place, and in the human sphere for a life long partnership, with children that make enormous demands on the finite resources this earth has to offer. There’s also a lot of pleasure involved. I assume that’s purely coincidental.
3. Is there any evidence that married couples that use contraception are less self-giving than those who don’'t? In other words, if one couple uses contraception, and has 3 children, and another couple doesn’t use contraception, and has 3 children, can you please show me evidence as to how the second couple is more self-sacrfiicing that the first one?
4. We’re in a partnership with God, and He’s given us quite a lot of latitude with regard to free decision making. He’s given us a brain, and He expects us to use it, and He’s also pretty much given us dominion over the earth, includng the development of our own societies. And that includes what we do in our own bedrooms.

As far as I’m concerned, the church is wrong on this issue.

Now I’ve made my case, and I don’t intend to keep arguing, or its just going to go the way of the atheist-theist debates, which invariably end up as “God exists!” “He does not!” “Does” “Doesn’t” “Does” “Doesn’t” , like a pair of kids arguing over who is entiltled to play with the push bike.

And in the end, both parties end up pretty much where they started. You haven’t said anything to change my mind, and obviously I haven’t said anything to change yours.

USCCB, 2006 wrote on Natural Family Planning: “The Church’s support for NFP is not based on its being “natural” as opposed to artificial. Rather, NFP respects the God-given power to love a new human life into being even when we are not actively seeking to exercise that power. However, because NFP does not change the human body in any way, or upset its balance with potentially harmful drugs or devices, people of other faiths or of no religious affiliation have also come to accept and use it from a desire to work in harmony with their bodies. They have also found that it leads couples to show greater attentiveness to and respect for each other.”

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/married-love-and-the-gift-of-life.cfm