Birth Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter kdragonfly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Em_in_FL said:
So, to answer your question more directly - it’s established by God that both aspects are inherent to the marriage act because the use of (Sacramental) marriage is fully retained.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

So the answer is basically “b/c God said so”?
 
heart4home said:
Why is NFP not going to work? I think if you go back there have been some really excellent explanations given here, but yet the same question just keeps getting asked over and over.

I don’t know many Catholics that choose to live a celibate marriage unless one spouse is unable to partake in the marital act, sickness etc.

NFP is not being celibate and it works when used correctly. The original poster has been given some information on other types of NFP that she can use. There is more than one method and with today’s technology of monitors etc. .
Click to expand...
Regardless of technology NFP does not work for everyone! Having 2 autoimmune diseases automatically rules out temperature readings for me, and now I’m also finding out one of my diseases makes for an “abnormal CM” situation so I can’t rely on that either. What if I had no money or lived somewhere where I couldn’t pee on an OPK stick for 2 weeks out of every month? Or what if I had pcos on top of all of my other problems, ruling out opk’s too? NFP does not work for every woman in the world.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
Regardless of technology NFP does not work for everyone! Having 2 autoimmune diseases automatically rules out temperature readings for me, and now I’m also finding out one of my diseases makes for an “abnormal CM” situation so I can’t rely on that either. What if I had no money or lived somewhere where I couldn’t pee on an OPK stick for 2 weeks out of every month? Or what if I had pcos on top of all of my other problems, ruling out opk’s too? NFP does not work for every woman in the world.
Click to expand...
NFP is a blessing - an alternative to abstinence. These are the moral choices - total or periodic abstinence. Sometimes we have very difficult crosses to bear.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
Regardless of technology NFP does not work for everyone! Having 2 autoimmune diseases automatically rules out temperature readings for me, and now I’m also finding out one of my diseases makes for an “abnormal CM” situation so I can’t rely on that either. What if I had no money or lived somewhere where I couldn’t pee on an OPK stick for 2 weeks out of every month? Or what if I had pcos on top of all of my other problems, ruling out opk’s too? NFP does not work for every woman in the world.
Click to expand...
Neither does ABC.
 
I understand that NFP is supposed to be an alternative to abstinence.

But NFP is still being used to prevent a pregnancy…so really what is the difference? Okay, I get that it’s “natural” and doesn’t alter the way the body normally functions, and I get that it comes with the disclaimer that one has to be open to life. I understand all of those things. I however, do not see the difference between calling it a method of birth control any different from the way I’d call a condom a method of birth control. In both cases, you are preventing pregnancy, and therefore not really being open to life. Kbachler keeps bringing up good points about this.

After all, doesn’t it seem counter intuitive that a method is supposed to allow being more “open to life,” yet you’ve got to do all of this work to determine when you’ll be fertile, and thus avoid sexual activity during that fertile time?
 
@noclever: this would take us way off topic, but your post demonstrates a lack of understanding about how the CC sees and understands itself. While I would submit that, as catharina noted, Scripture does prohibit contraception, how would we even know what books constitute Holy Scripture without the CC? By whose authority was it decided what books constitute the canon? As you can see, this will take us far off the topic. Short answer is that the Church understands itself to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and is protected from teaching error. So it does not promulgate laws made by men, it reveals the Truth about us and our Creator
 
spunjalebi said:
Okay fine, I’ll use a different word this time:rolleyes: I’ve seen a lot of arguments on CAF about how married couples should be able to be celibate, to avoid using ABC, and if NFP won’t be effective. Tell me, what doesn’t seem ironic about a celibate married couple?? I mean seriously-- we’re not all Mary and Joseph!
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. The first thing I thought after learning about NFP was, is is too late to enter the seminary? I think if more young couples knew what lay in store for them there wouldn’t be the current shortage in vocations.
 
spunjalebi said:
I understand that NFP is supposed to be an alternative to abstinence.

But NFP is still being used to prevent a pregnancy…so really what is the difference? Okay, I get that it’s “natural” and doesn’t alter the way the body normally functions, and I get that it comes with the disclaimer that one has to be open to life. I understand all of those things. I however, do not see the difference between calling it a method of birth control any different from the way I’d call a condom a method of birth control. In both cases, you are preventing pregnancy, and therefore not really being open to life. Kbachler keeps bringing up good points about this.

After all, doesn’t it seem counter intuitive that a method is supposed to allow being more “open to life,” yet you’ve got to do all of this work to determine when you’ll be fertile, and thus avoid sexual activity during that fertile time?
Click to expand...
You’re missing the point entirely.
It has nothing to do with being “natural”, or even “open to life” (because we know God can even create life in a Virgin!)…

The point is that the Sacrament of Marriage was instituted by the Church (which was given to us by Christ Himself!)…
More from my post earlier…
Em_in_FL said:
A lot of what the Catechism teaches on this subject is based on Encyclicals - one being Humanea Vitae…

Here is a quote:

So, to answer your question more directly - it’s established by God that both aspects are inherent to the marriage act because the use of (Sacramental) marriage is fully retained.

I think that’s part of the issue… Marriage is a Sacrament we receive through the CHURCH. It’s not something man created. We can’t redefine the Sacramental nature of the union.
Click to expand...
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
Regardless of technology NFP does not work for everyone! Having 2 autoimmune diseases automatically rules out temperature readings for me, and now I’m also finding out one of my diseases makes for an “abnormal CM” situation so I can’t rely on that either. What if I had no money or lived somewhere where I couldn’t pee on an OPK stick for 2 weeks out of every month? Or what if I had pcos on top of all of my other problems, ruling out opk’s too? NFP does not work for every woman in the world.
Click to expand...
Actually, I had a condition that made abnormal CM. It was because of charting and being very observant that I learned the detailed differences, and my doctor was able to help fix it.

I also have PCOS, and it is all the more important to be charting and observing so that the docs can fix it. (which they have).

Creighton model NFP is designed for the health issues and irregularites…
 
Em_in_FL said:
If you found that it was necessary to have your marriage Sacramentally instituted, then He has every right to “say so”…
Click to expand...
But I hate to even put it this way… God and His Church aren’t “bossy”… they don’t just stand up and say “My way or the highway!”…
It’s because His creation is GOOD. Those unitive and procreative aspects are GOOD. There’s nothing we should want more than to follow His design for creation!
 
agapewolf said:
Actually, I had a condition that made abnormal CM. It was because of charting and being very observant that I learned the detailed differences, and my doctor was able to help fix it.

I also have PCOS, and it is all the more important to be charting and observing so that the docs can fix it. (which they have).

Creighton model NFP is designed for the health issues and irregularites…
Click to expand...
Exactly my point…
Here are some good references for those who may be struggling with their cycles…
creightonmodel.com/
naprotechnology.com/
 
KostyaJMJ said:
Yes, I know. The first thing I thought after learning about NFP was, is is too late to enter the seminary? I think if more young couples knew what lay in store for them there wouldn’t be the current shortage in vocations.
Click to expand...
Well, it may not apply to you for various reasons, but there is always the unique idea for young couples of actually just being open to life.

Yes, sex is nice, but guess what… so are children.

Maybe if people would take God at His word when He mentions numerous times in scripture and through His Church that children and family are a blessing, they wouldn’t see it as such a sacrifice.

God made sex pleasurable, so that we would want to be open to life, not so that we would use our minds to come up with a plan to find away around the result of the pleasure.

It’s like Christmas cookies. You know, they taste really good, but if we eat them all year long we better be open to the work of exercising a heck of a lot or be ready with the consequences of gaining a lot of weight.

If we want to enjoy the pleasure of sex, we better be open to children, learn some self control or be ready to face the consequences for our actions.
 
spunjalebi said:
I understand that NFP is supposed to be an alternative to abstinence.

But NFP is still being used to prevent a pregnancy…so really what is the difference?

The difference is that in the case of using ABC, you’re having sex during fertile time, or you are altering your body (in the case of the pill) to not even “have” a fertile time. If you’re using NFP, you are not having sex during fertile time, and you’re not altering your body.

Okay, I get that it’s “natural” and doesn’t alter the way the body normally functions, and I get that it comes with the disclaimer that one has to be open to life. I understand all of those things. I however, do not see the difference between calling it a method of birth control any different from the way I’d call a condom a method of birth control. In both cases, you are preventing pregnancy, and therefore not really being open to life. Kbachler keeps bringing up good points about this.

They can both be called birth control, they cannot both be contraception.

After all, doesn’t it seem counter intuitive that a method is supposed to allow being more “open to life,” yet you’ve got to do all of this work to determine when you’ll be fertile, and thus avoid sexual activity during that fertile time?
Click to expand...
 
KostyaJMJ said:
Yes, I know. The first thing I thought after learning about NFP was, is is too late to enter the seminary? I think if more young couples knew what lay in store for them there wouldn’t be the current shortage in vocations.
Click to expand...
It’s definitely too late for me-- I’m already married:rolleyes:

How is NFP still morally superior to all other forms of contraception? I still fail to see this because with NFP, you are avoiding sex when a woman is fertile-- did God design marriage and sex to be this way?
 
@spunjalebi: as has been mentioned, the CC doesn’t base its teaching on “openness to life”, which is a shorthand for the underlying concepts. Birth regulation for just and serious reasons is (or may be) part of responsible parenthood. Don’t get hung up on the nomenclature. Again, efficacy is not why NFP is moral, while the other methods that are being discussed are not.

Regarding the nuts and bolts practice of NFP, have you ever practiced it? We have, and I would not characterize it as “all of this work”. It took literally minutes when we were actively postponing pregnancy. I’m not sure my bride was even awake for most of the temp taking ( I would take it out and get it in her mouth, and the kind of thermometer we had both beeped if it wasn’t situated properly and stored the temp reading so you could record it later). She has described it with the following example. If you grew up in a culture where one did not brush one’s teeth twice a day, during the period of time where you were learning to brush your teeth regularly, it might feel like a big imposition, but once it became a habit, you wouldn’t even notice it.

finally, it helps to remember that the marital act can, and is in fact designed to, have eternal consequences, i.e., a brand new soul. It is an awesome and sacred responsibility, as I have posted earlier, and to think that the Creator of the Universe entrusts the decision to co-create that new eternal soul with the couple is both freeing and empowering, IMO.
 
spunjalebi said:
It’s definitely too late for me-- I’m already married:rolleyes:

How is NFP still morally superior to all other forms of contraception? I still fail to see this because with NFP, you are avoiding sex when a woman is fertile-- did God design marriage and sex to be this way?
Click to expand...
Yes - He designed the fertility cycle of women. Women aren’t created to be fertile 100% of the time.
 
spunjalebi said:
It’s definitely too late for me-- I’m already married:rolleyes:

How is NFP still morally superior to all other forms of contraception? I still fail to see this because with NFP, you are avoiding sex when a woman is fertile-- did God design marriage and sex to be this way?
Click to expand...
With NFP, you are working with your body as God designed it.
With ABC, you are forcing your body to operate in the way that you wish.
With NFP you are modifying your behavior to match your body.
With ABC you are modifying your body to allow you to behave as you wish.
 
It seems the root of the whole debate is whether or not abc is intrinsically evil. If you think it is then NFP is the only option but if you don’t think so then it isn’t. I know the church is saying it is but i can’t see past it being permissible to treat a symptom with it and have the church being ok with the double effect of using a contraceptive abortificant. For myself, wouldn’t see taking an abortificant as being ok unless I were celibate…with non abortificants, I see it as being a possible vehicle of sin,( making fornication have less consequence and commonplace etc; the sexual revolution in other words) and not a sin alone in itself. I keep praying about it and so far I can’t see it differently yet. I honestly cannot tell if I am being stubborn about agreeing with Gods will since the concept is different than what Ive known, or if it’s just really the way I feel. Either way I keep praying on it…and also peeing on those sticks, ugh.
 
What about all the women and people who’ve posted on CAF about how they used NFP and still got pregnant without intending to? What about women whose cycles are irregular and they are probably fertile most of the time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top