Birth Control

[Good_Daughter]

NFP ALSO puts a barrier between husband and wife - but the barrier is in TIME (by controlling the timing of the act) rather than in SPACE (like a condom).

NFP is just information. Abstinence is what puts a barrier between husband and wife, but that’s okay because the use of a barrier in time doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching.

The argument that one is any more artificial than the other is a misnomer.

I think the “natural” in NFP is a reference to natural periods of fertility and infertility (used to conceive or avoid conceiving) rather than a claim that the method itself is something natural.

My preference is to follow what Christ said about NFP, or any other type of family planning.

Matthew 19:5, “…a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”.

Periodic abstinence, even with its “time barrier” allows for the one flesh union Christ spoke of while contraception doesn’t. To me that seems like the essential difference between the two.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hi all, I have a question regarding birth control. I have asked it before but I got conflicting responses and a few people got really angry, so it would be nice if people would respond charitably.

I want to be a good Catholic, and I understand contraception is not allowed. The one I use is the implanon implant in my arm, it was painful to put it and will be even more painful to remove, so its a decision I have to be really sure about.

I was originally on the pill because I was sexually active. I was prescribed a certain type of contraceptive pill which also treats acne. My acne cleared up. However, I had really bad stomach cramps related to IBS whenever I had my period. It was really painful and I hated it. My IBS symptoms got worse during the menstrual period and I read online that it was common for other women too. I was that desperate I switched to the implant, even though I was happy that the pill cleared up my acne and I knew the implant would make my acne worse. It did make my spots come back, but my IBS symptoms reduced as it stopped my menstral cycle altogether and I’ve been relatively pain-free since. However, I’ve recently had some problems with the implant. I have started to get irregular periods that last a few days at a time, about 2-3 weeks apart from each other, which are quite painful themselves. I went to the doctor and she said it was “just hormonal”. I’ve also gained weight, so with those things considered I am thinking about stopping the implant anyway.

But, would it have been okay for me to keep the implant if I chose to? Yes I originally started on contraception to prevent pregnancy, but I chose the implant in a desperate attempt to control my symptoms.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Hi all, I have a question regarding birth control. I have asked it before but I got conflicting responses and a few people got really angry, so it would be nice if people would respond charitably.

I want to be a good Catholic, and I understand contraception is not allowed. The one I use is the implanon implant in my arm, it was painful to put it and will be even more painful to remove, so its a decision I have to be really sure about.

I was originally on the pill because I was sexually active. I was prescribed a certain type of contraceptive pill which also treats acne. My acne cleared up. However, I had really bad stomach cramps related to IBS whenever I had my period. It was really painful and I hated it. My IBS symptoms got worse during the menstrual period and I read online that it was common for other women too. I was that desperate I switched to the implant, even though I was happy that the pill cleared up my acne and I knew the implant would make my acne worse. It did make my spots come back, but my IBS symptoms reduced as it stopped my menstral cycle altogether and I’ve been relatively pain-free since. However, I’ve recently had some problems with the implant. I have started to get irregular periods that last a few days at a time, about 2-3 weeks apart from each other, which are quite painful themselves. I went to the doctor and she said it was “just hormonal”. I’ve also gained weight, so with those things considered I am thinking about stopping the implant anyway.

But, would it have been okay for me to keep the implant if I chose to? Yes I originally started on contraception to prevent pregnancy, but I chose the implant in a desperate attempt to control my symptoms.

Are there other treatments you can use to treat your acne and IBS?
If so, I would highly recommend looking at alternatives.

If you are still sexually active, you should know that the implant works in multiple ways - one being that it alters the endometrium of the uterus. This makes the implant an abortifacient.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Can you clarify what you mean by total abstinence? My understanding is that when you take all of the Church’s teaching on marriage & sexuality as a whole, you’d have to conclude that under normal circumstances it’s not OK for a husband and wife to abstain from sex. Obviously some couples will have good reasons to abstain temporarily or even permanently – perhaps related to health, or any number of reasons I can’t imagine at this point in my life (married five years and under 30).

And I suppose some couples may choose to live in continence for spiritual reasons, as an extraordinary penance, although I’d think something like this should only be done with the explicit approval of a holy pastor.

But as a rule, it seems to me that married people should be having sex with each other, relatively often. It’s kind of part of the definition of marriage.

Ignore me if you didn’t mean anything like what I was thinking you might have meant.

Total abstinence–that is not having relations, is morally licit if the couple has grave/serious/just reasons–not just because you feel like it. It would require both parties to be on board, obviously and spiritual support would be wise. As Catholic we have 3 choice in family planning: total abstinence, periodic abstinence, or accepting children as they come. I’m not sure what else you could have thought I meant

 

[kbachler]

NFP is just information. Abstinence is what puts a barrier between husband and wife, but that’s okay because the use of a barrier in time doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching.

I think the “natural” in NFP is a reference to natural periods of fertility and infertility (used to conceive or avoid conceiving) rather than a claim that the method itself is something natural.

Matthew 19:5, “…a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”.

Periodic abstinence, even with its “time barrier” allows for the one flesh union Christ spoke of while contraception doesn’t. To me that seems like the essential difference between the two.

And yet contraception existed in the time of Christ, and he made no attempt at this moment to speak against it.

 

[StTommyMore]

And yet contraception existed in the time of Christ, and he made no attempt at this moment to speak against it.

How do you know he didn’t. We know from the Early Fathers that sexual relations were not to be separated from the prospect of creating life. We also know that not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in the Gospels. You cannot say with absolute certainty that it was never addressed by Jesus. I can with certainty say that the prohibition against contraception has existed since the very earliest days of the Church, so it is reasonable to assume that Jesus taught this to the Apostles, but the Gospel writers were not led by the Holy Spirit to record such discourses.

 

[kbachler]

There are 5-7 septic (chemical) abortions for every surgical abortion. My reference is from the book Fatherless— which sites where he gets it from, I don’t have it handy. This statistic was also stated at the TOB congress.

Thanks for the information - I don’t have the book and would wonder about the context of the word septic used in that way (not a normal use.) Septic is typically related to something dying or rotting, such that it causes a poison in the body.

Allowing for the odd use of the word (so that I’m not sure exactly what we are discussing here) if it meant a “chemical abortion” then does it mean such chemical abortion caused by medication (inadvertently and unrelated to birth control), does it mean chemical abortion where the object of the medication was post-coital birth control, does it mean chemical abortion where the goal was pre-coital birth control?

If the case were the latter, I would have a VERY DIFFICULT time accepting the statistic without well documented proof, it just doesn’t seem to make sense.

(Please don’t think I’m arguing for acceptance of The Pill - I’m just arguing that if the intent of the argument is that the Pill and the Pill alone causes that level of abortion - then I don’t buy it without substantial documentation because the argument doesn’t make sense.)

 

[kbachler]

How do you know he didn’t. We know from the Early Fathers that sexual relations were not to be separated from the prospect of creating life. We also know that not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in the Gospels. You cannot say with absolute certainty that it was never addressed by Jesus. I can with certainty say that the prohibition against contraception has existed since the very earliest days of the Church, so it is reasonable to assume that Jesus taught this to the Apostles, but the Gospel writers were not led by the Holy Spirit to record such discourses.

I can say that it is odd that if he uttered something that would be of routine daily importance to people, that it was not documented by any Gospel writer, or repeated by any Apostle. I find the likelihood of that low.

I can also say that the prohibition against contraception did not exist snce the earliest days of the Church. It came later. There were statements against contraception, there was not an official prohibition.

Also, unlike the Catholic tradition, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not discern a moral difference between artificial or natural birth control methods. They note that many Church Fathers, as well as the Pauline texts in the New Testament, do not strictly limit sexual intercourse to procreation; the Orthodox position is that sexual intercourse also constitutes an expression of love within the marriage contract. No official statement has been made on prohibitions for artificial contraceptives, while abortion, infanticide and permanent sterilization have been condemned. The Orthodox Church allows a married couple to make their own decisions on contraceptive use.

I can also say that the Jews, from which we came, did not prohibit contraception (except for very Orthodox), so the difference (moving towared cleary prohibited contraception) would have required a clear statement on the part of Christ or an Apostle, yet there is no such clear statement in the Bible.

I can also point out that the long-standing belief was that a man’s seed contained a “life force” and that the man was losing a little by “spilling seed” so that this is where the belief comes from that seed should not be spilled.

There has long been a concern that contraception removed responsibility and so would lead to wanton sin.

Are the statements above proof? Of course not. But they do create reasonableness or likelihood.

 

[kbachler]

@kbachler

1. Onan

I thought you might mean the Leviticus chapter (15) you mentioned. I do not see how one can definitively say that chapter applies to contraception. It appears to apply to any emission of semen, whether in lawful intercourse or not. I am suggesting that contraceptive emissions would be a particular subset not dealt with in the chapter. I also suggest that the thought of it applying to coitus interruptus is nowhere to be found in that chapter.

To me, one cannot ignore the existence of the public humiliation remedy for a brother who shirks the law. That is the punishment, not the loss of life. It would also seem to be more in line with the ritual washings level of consequence, if you will, rather than death.

How else could he have “cheated” the law? Killing any babies? Not actually having intercourse & so refusing to raise an heir? Now that would be an interesting position vis-a-vis periodic continence, no? But the fact is, it is not that he refused to raise an heir, it is how he did it. It seems to me that option a, killiing any babies conceived, would be obviously wrong to everyone (at least for the Hebrews, not so much for their contemporaries). Option b, shamming the marrigage but not engaging in intercourse, would be so foreign to the culture as to be extremely remote, would be more work for no benefit to the surviving brother, and in any event would still provide some support for the widow, although, not, as noted, provide for a means of support in her later years. Therefore, I think the manner of the cheating of the covenant is part and parcel of the cheating or rejectiing of the covenant such that the two are really inseparable as the story is recounted.

“Here ends the detour into biblical reasons contra contraception. We now return to your regularly scheduled thread ”

1. As other posters have pointed out, I think, you have not addressed how the act of postponing intercourse causes, by the action of waiting and not through another mechanism, the subesquent act to be sterile. I submit that it does not. Hence there is no intentional alteration of the marital act.

Changing the timing and perhaps frequency of sex is not the same as changing the act. The act of intercourse remains the same. In the case of ABC, the couple is deliberately and by their own action rendering the act sterile. The NFP couple does not separate the unitive from the procreative parts of the act. They work with the body’s cycles, not against it. As this is how God created us, with both parts inseparably intertwined, it is licit to use periodic continence.

I don’t see where Leviticus 15 eliminates what Onan did from its description. The rules on cleanliness were quite specific. If there were a specific subset, one would reasonably expect to see the subset. The suggestion you make would require us to believe that there were an unrecorded subset that they knew about that we don’t, in a religion obsessed with recording “the Law.” I find that highly unlikely.

I didn’t ignore the public humiliation remedy. I accepted it.

My statement is that Onan WENT BEYOND THAT. He disobeyed the law multiple times in a particularly bad way - He SAID YES, and then DID NO. (And he was in the line to David.) And he lied multiple times, having had the forewarning of what happened to his brother. He lied to the tribe. He couldn’t lie to God. So God punished him BEYOND ritual washing and beyond humiliation for the crime that went beyond spilling seed and beyond giving his seed to his brother’s wife. He punished him for lying to Judah and God.

 

[StTommyMore]

I can say that it is odd that if he uttered something that would be of routine daily importance to people, that it was not documented by any Gospel writer, or repeated by any Apostle. I find the likelihood of that low.

I can also say that the prohibition against contraception did not exist snce the earliest days of the Church. It came later. There were statements against contraception, there was not an official prohibition.

Also, unlike the Catholic tradition, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not discern a moral difference between artificial or natural birth control methods. They note that many Church Fathers, as well as the Pauline texts in the New Testament, do not strictly limit sexual intercourse to procreation; the Orthodox position is that sexual intercourse also constitutes an expression of love within the marriage contract. No official statement has been made on prohibitions for artificial contraceptives, while abortion, infanticide and permanent sterilization have been condemned. The Orthodox Church allows a married couple to make their own decisions on contraceptive use.

I can also say that the Jews, from which we came, did not prohibit contraception (except for very Orthodox), so the difference (moving towared cleary prohibited contraception) would have required a clear statement on the part of Christ or an Apostle, yet there is no such clear statement in the Bible.

I can also point out that the long-standing belief was that a man’s seed contained a “life force” and that the man was losing a little by “spilling seed” so that this is where the belief comes from that seed should not be spilled.

There has long been a concern that contraception removed responsibility and so would lead to wanton sin.

Are the statements above proof? Of course not. But they do create reasonableness or likelihood.

Why would it be imperative that all moral teachings were committed to writing in the first century? The vast majority of the population could not read, and even fewer could afford books. Oral tradition, my friend.

 

[kbachler]

@kbachler

1. As other posters have pointed out, I think, you have not addressed how the act of postponing intercourse causes, by the action of waiting and not through another mechanism, the subesquent act to be sterile. I submit that it does not. Hence there is no intentional alteration of the marital act.

Changing the timing and perhaps frequency of sex is not the same as changing the act. The act of intercourse remains the same. In the case of ABC, the couple is deliberately and by their own action rendering the act sterile. The NFP couple does not separate the unitive from the procreative parts of the act. They work with the body’s cycles, not against it. As this is how God created us, with both parts inseparably intertwined, it is licit to use periodic continence.

If NFP lets you know when a woman is infertile, and a couple chooses to have sex only when the woman is infertile, then how is the Act not sterile? There is OBVIOUSLY an intentional alteration of the marital act, since all sex takes place only when the woman is infertile. How is that unitive the rest of the month? How is it procreatve at any time during the month?

If the goal of NFP weren’t to render the act sterile, then NFP wouldn’t even exist, since people could just have sex any time of the month.

God ALSO created us with a mind, and with hands. Thus, we can think of a barrier with our minds and make it with our hands.

By your logic above, we should ONLY walk, because that is the way God created us. We should not create a bridle and saddle because that is unnatural.

Frankly, I find the argument you give to be insulting to God. He created us with a wonderful mind to use. He gave us dominion over the Earth to use it. To say that God’s creation of our sex organs and our use thereof is somehow more “natural” than his creation of our mind and our use thereof, I find insulting to God.

 

[kbachler]

Why would it be imperative that all moral teachings were committed to writing in the first century? The vast majority of the population could not read, and even fewer could afford books. Oral tradition, my friend.

It isn’t imperative. I’m pointing out that if there were in fact a change, one that could impact the daily life of people, then the likelihood that NO ONE would write it down seems low. People wrote down that Christ said to even look upon a woman with lust is to have committed adultry in your heart. If he had alo uttered “and to spill your seed on the ground rather than completing in the woman” is it likely that NO ONE would have written it down?

The Gospels started as oral tradition, and yet someone wrote it down.

 

[kbachler]

The Church teaches that if there is a grave/serious/just reason to not have a child a married couple can use total abstinence or periodic abstinence to that purpose. Total abstinence would be no sex until the couple could accept a child.

I would too like an answer to Jennifer’s question.

And I would like to post one of my own.
If NFP and ABC are the same, then why don’t people just use NFP?

Well, first because the Church says they aren’t the same. But, assuming the Church said they were, the reason would be because the ease of use and related reliability and relative spotaneity of ABC make it a superior choice to NFP.

 

[StTommyMore]

Well, first because the Church says they aren’t the same. But, assuming the Church said they were, the reason would be because the ease of use and related reliability and relative spotaneity of ABC make it a superior choice to NFP.

NFP is just as reliable, without the potential deadly side effects. In addition, NFP can be used to achieve pregnancy as well. Furthermore, NFP requires discipline and self-denial. I guess that is the real issue here. I do tire of your straw man arguments simply because of your abhorrence of self-denial.

 

[kbachler]

You didn’t answer the question. You asserted that changing the timing of sex was rendering the act infertile. I then asked if every time the timing of sex was changed was the couple creating a barrier, and rendering the act infertile. If I am doing anything other than having sex, I am family planning, correct? So by your definition of the time barrier, the flu is the same as a condom.

So you see the difference? I assert that every time a couple uses a condom or the Pill they are creating a barrier. Do you agree that every time I postpone sex I am creating a barrier?

" I then asked if every time the timing of sex was changed was the couple creating a barrier, and rendering the act infertile."

Huh?

The point of NFP is to define times in which a woman is and is not fertile. If one shifts the timing and frequency of the act from fertile times to not fertile times, then the Act has changed.

So, if your question is: “If I give up sex during a fertile period and replace it with sex during an infertile period, am I creating a barrier and rendering the Act infertile.” I answer yes. If you change the frequency and timing of the Act in ways not related to the purpose of NFP, then the answer would be no, but since its unrelated to NFP, it would also be irrelevant.

"If I am doing anything other than having sex, I am family planning, correct? "

I have no idea what you are talking about. That contention has never been made.

“So by your definition of the time barrier, the flu is the same as a condom.”

I’ve never made any argument remotely like that.

“Do you agree that every time I postpone sex I am creating a barrier?” Yes. But most of those times are irrelevant to the discussion, which is in respect to NFP and ABC. You’re asking a question that is true, but not relevant.

Now ask the question “Do you agree that every time I postpone sex within the knowledge that NFP tells me and my partner that we are currently fertile as a couple and we wish to wait to an infertile period.” then your I woul say “Yes, and it IS relevant.”

Would you argue that putting on a condom to protect a scratch on someones manhood, from pool water is creating a barrier? It is. Is it relevant to a discussion of contraception? Not at all.

 

[kbachler]

NFP is just as reliable, without the potential deadly side effects. Furthermore, NFP requires discipline and self-denial. I guess that is the real issue here.

If NFP is just as reliable, then how is it more procreative? All forms of contraception require discipline.

Self-denial is another topic.

 

[StTommyMore]

If NFP is just as reliable, then how is it more procreative? All forms of contraception require discipline.

Self-denial is another topic.

It is more procreative because it can be, and has been, used to help couples who have had problems conceiving to archive pregnancy by timing thier relations to times when the woman is most fertile. Let’s see your toxic pill do that.

 

[kbachler]

It is more procreative because it can be, and has been, used to help couples who have had problems conceiving to archive pregnancy by timing thier relations to times when the woman is most fertile. Let’s see your toxic pill do that.

In other words, during a woman’s infertile period, it’s not more procreative. Let’s see you stick to an honest, informed, and rationale conversation in the spirit of our Lord,rather than taking an opportunity to just stick it to your fellow Christians.

And there are such things as fertility drugs which allowing that they permit for the conjugal union are permitted.

Oh, and, removing the use of a contraceptive device, does in fact increae fertility. So just as NFP has periods of increased and decreased fertility, a contraceptive has the same (used = decreased, not used = increased.)

 

[StTommyMore]

In other words, during a woman’s infertile period, it’s not more procreative. Let’s see you stick to an honest, informed, and rationale conversation in the spirit of our Lord,rather than taking an opportunity to just stick it to your fellow Christians.

And there are such things as fertility drugs which allowing that they permit for the conjugal union are permitted.

Oh, and, removing the use of a contraceptive device, does in fact increae fertility. So just as NFP has periods of increased and decreased fertility, a contraceptive has the same (used = decreased, not used = increased.)

Unless of course you are rendered permanently infertile.

 

[kbachler]

Unless of course you are rendered permanently infertile.

Which would also negate the need for NFP, right? I’m not sure why you seem to just throw out random comments, rather than try for an actual discussion. I’m also unclear why you seem to have avoided reading this thread, since several of your comments were previously addressed.