Birth Control

[wabrams]

OhioBob:

By the way, congrats on your soon-to-be engagement. Next May is 20 years for me. Wouldn’t change a thing.

Thank you and congragualtions on over 19 years of marriage. About your other question, I don’t plan on converting. I’m happy with my denomination, which is Methodist, but I would consider converting to Episcapalean (spelling?). I’m just trying to learn more about how she was raised through the church, etc. She doesn’t believe in NFP and that wasn’t by my doing, but still suits me just mine. We are getting married in a Catholic church and have the same basic religious beliefs, though there are many things we disagree on. Some of these include issues of the church hierarchy and unmarried priests and nuns, just to name a couple.

 

[TreeHugger]

wabrams:

I respect what you are saying and your beliefs on the matter, but to me it’s the same thing. But, I can agree to disagree with you and hopefully vice versa. BTW, thanks for the postings on the CCC. My girlfriend and I are getting engaged over Thanksgiving and she’s Catholic, so I’m trying to learn as much as possible.

Wabrams,
Try looking at Artificial means of contraception and NFP like this: bulemia and dieting. Both are methods of losing or keeping weight off. But, the bulemic tries to indulge in the calories without the consequences of eating. On the other hand, the dieter abstains from the calories, a healthier alternative.
Sure, you can argue that neither of these methods is 100% effective (ABC and NFP), and that either could potentially result in pregnancy. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that a couple that uses the artificial means is like the bulemic, and separates sex from its’ procreative act (or food from calories). On the other hand, the couple using NFP acknowledges the procreative nature of intercourse, and makes a decision to abstain when it is felt necessary (or refrains from eating the cake).
Try reading up on NFP some more…I’ll think you’ll discover there is a difference btwn it and artificial means of contraception.

 

[OhioBob]

wabrams:

Thank you and congragualtions on over 19 years of marriage. About your other question, I don’t plan on converting. I’m happy with my denomination, which is Methodist, but I would consider converting to Episcapalean (spelling?). I’m just trying to learn more about how she was raised through the church, etc. She doesn’t believe in NFP and that wasn’t by my doing, but still suits me just mine. We are getting married in a Catholic church and have the same basic religious beliefs, though there are many things we disagree on. Some of these include issues of the church hierarchy and unmarried priests and nuns, just to name a couple.

Keep learning. Who knows?

Good luck to you and yours. If you need any advice from an old married guy, just ask. :tiphat:

 

[wabrams]

OhioBob:

Keep learning. Who knows?

Good luck to you and yours.

Thank you very much and God bless!

 

[rocksta]

i got ths paper on The “10 commandments” during my confirmation class and it reads that artificial contraceptions are a sin to use. okay…stds! condoms protect you from them…yea i can’t mix sex ed with confirmation class…okay They tell you that its normal to feel those feelings, but in catechism class its a sin to think and be aroused.

 

[OhioBob]

rocksta:

i got ths paper on The “10 commandments” during my confirmation class and it reads that artificial contraceptions are a sin to use. okay…stds! condoms protect you from them…yea i can’t mix sex ed with confirmation class…okay They tell you that its normal to feel those feelings, but in catechism class its a sin to think and be aroused.

Yup. Life ain’t easy.

It’s hard at your age, but please trust your catechism. It’s truth.

 

[OhioBob]

rocksta:

i got ths paper on The “10 commandments” during my confirmation class and it reads that artificial contraceptions are a sin to use. okay…stds! condoms protect you from them…yea i can’t mix sex ed with confirmation class…okay They tell you that its normal to feel those feelings, but in catechism class its a sin to think and be aroused.

Yup. Living according to God’s truths ain’t easy.

I know it’s hard at your age, but trust your catechism. It’s truth.

 

[crazyage3]

What happens if for some reason the male doesnt “finish inside”? Like You were disrupted,youre allergic to semen or some other reason. Cause you are open to life everytime you have sex no matter when or how it finishes.

 

[crazyage3]

Or what if your wife or husband has an std or hiv…isnt is a sin to deliberatly get someone sick? What do you do then ,abstain? But then you cant share in the gift. what do you do?

 

[puzzleannie]

just curious, why would you ask a question, knowing full well you will get a truthful answer, when you know what the answer will be, you do not agree with the answer, you have no intention of accepting the answer? Why also would you discuss intimate details of your marriage in a public forum? and why would you use a misleading title to your thread so once again we are sucked into reading this stuff? and no, the feature that blurbs the first few lines of a post does not work all the time, so I can’t always be sure of avoiding offending posts.

 

[chloe]

I have a few things to address to Ohio Bob. I believe Scout has the best interrpretation of what is ok/not ok as given by the church. I have had some of the very same questions in my own marriage that people here address. I own a catechist and have asked a priest this question myself. I was told that any sexual act between a married couple is ok as long as it is open to sex. I have to say the fact that the job has to finish inside contradicts to the teachings in the catechist. What do you suppose this means, referring to the Catechist on masturbation, #2352

“the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, is essentially contrary to its purpose.”
So, how do you interrpret that, Ohio Bob? I asked a priest about this and the priest told me that masturbation used with your married partner, if both partners are ok with it and used in conjunction with intercourse etc. WAS ACCEPTABLE. Now, that clearly to me would be an argument that the job is not always an “inside job”. Ofcourse, we did not get into details, but, that is what the priest said.
Referring to what the catechist says again, it seems to be clear that sex should always be open to procreation, bottom line. I do not take any of these passages to rule out the “type of sex”. As someone said, not any preventive method is 100%. And, some of these theologians have gone too far in trying to tear apart what the bible is really saying. We cannot deny our natural human desires when it is used in a healthy, loving way.

 

[Marcellinus]

rv921:

My wife of 5 years and I do not practice artificial means of birth control but use the “rhythm method”. Are we commiting a mortal sin if we ocasionally have sex which does not include intercourse but does cause us to reach orgasm?

Let me first say that this is a subject about which I know next to nothing. So I think I’ll let Jason Evert, who is a speaker on Chastity and is paid to know this stuff, answer you:

But what about oral sex within marriage? Provided the spouses use it as foreplay leading to intercourse, it is allowed. But it is never to be used as an alternative to intercourse. Sex between a husband and wife is supposed to involve a total gift of self that is open to life. Oral sex can’t do either.

 

[OhioBob]

chloe:

I have a few things to address to Ohio Bob.

Ok. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I’ll give you my opinion. :tiphat:

chloe:

I believe Scout has the best interrpretation of what is ok/not ok as given by the church.

I don’t really disagree with Scout as far as the unitive and procreative roles of marriage go. My opinion from the CCC is that while there are two roles of sex in marriage, you cannot separate them and say “Honey, why don’t we do some unitive stuff tonight but we will create barriers to the procreative”. Maybe tomorrow we’ll do some procreating". To me that means that each sexual act must be open to both possibilities without conscious obstacles being placed to specifically prevent the procreative gift.

chloe:

I have had some of the very same questions in my own marriage that people here address.

Believe me, for a lot of years I did too. It’s not an easy place to come too without some serious discernment. And I’m not a natural discerner.

chloe:

I own a catechism and have asked a priest this question myself. I was told that any sexual act between a married couple is ok as long as it is open to sex.

He’s the priest. I don’t question his position. I don’t completely agree with the premise that ANY sexual act is ok, and I’m not sure what you mean that “any sexual act… is open to sex”. I assume you mean open to life.

chloe:

I have to say the fact that the job has to finish inside contradicts to the teachings in the catechism.

I disagree. To me, CCC #2366 seems clear on that point. This seems directed mainly to the man’s function in sex from a technical plumbing point of view.

chloe:

What do you suppose this means, referring to the Catechist on masturbation, #2352 “the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, is essentially contrary to its purpose.” So, how do you interrpret that, Ohio Bob?

I think it means what it says. That paragraph does not address acts within marriage, it addresses masturbation outside of marriage as a selfish act devoid of either unitive or procreative benefit.

chloe:

I asked a priest about this and the priest told me that masturbation used with your married partner, if both partners are ok with it and used in conjunction with intercourse etc. WAS ACCEPTABLE. Now, that clearly to me would be an argument that the job is not always an “inside job”. Ofcourse, we did not get into details, but, that is what the priest said.

I think I covered this above. From a man’s point of view, a procreative role would seem to dictate what the geography is.

chloe:

Referring to what the catechism says again, it seems to be clear that sex should always be open to procreation, bottom line. I do not take any of these passages to rule out the “type of sex”. As someone said, not any preventive method is 100%. And, some of these theologians have gone too far in trying to tear apart what the bible is really saying. We cannot deny our natural human desires when it is used in a healthy, loving way.

What is it that you think the bible is really saying? Do you really see no difference between artificial contraception that takes an active, obstructive role to preventing conception and NFP which relates to merely abstaining from sexual activity?

I don’t think the CCC rules out any particular “type of sex” between husband and wife either. Your question seems to be whether I think oral sex in marriage is wrong. The post above quoting Jason Evert reflects my views on the subject.

I too would recommend Christopher West and his writings on JPIIs theology of the body.

Now I need a cold shower…

 

[TreeHugger]

My fellow posting friends who don’t see the diff btwn artificial contraception and NFP-
I insist on this analogy: we’re talking bulemia vs. dieting.
Are they the same? I don’t think so.
Make an informed decision, and read up on NFP. I say read because this way you can ensure you are not getting a cafeteria Catholic’s view. And make sure who you read is a trusted source faithful to the Magisterium, like the names mentioned in this thread. After all, if you’re going to make an effort to learn the faith, you should make sure you are learning THE faith.
Then, after doing your homework, tell me you don’t see a difference between artificial b.c. (the word ‘artificial’ raises an eyebrow in itself, doesn’t it?) and NFP.

 

[chloe]

Ohio Bob. This is a hot topic huh?
Yes, I meant that sexual positions that are of loving nature to both partners and open to “life.” are ok with the church. And, regarding how it ends up, I don’t know how you can really say with all honesty that it is “possible” to try and end up everytime inside. Give me a break. And, when the men don’t, they are sinning every time? I don’t think so. You are contradicting yourself if you believe sex is for both unitive and procreative purposes. Perhaps, this is why the church doesn’t get into the details of making “rules up”, because alot of us would be going to hell for having a loving experience with our spouse.

No, I am not for artificial means because of many reasons. Partly due to the fact that I am very good at understanding my body very well w/o it. And, as far as that goes, the side effects and risks with taking an oral contraceptive to me in itself makes it undesirable.

 

[OhioBob]

chloe:

…I don’t know how you can really say with all honesty that it is “possible” to try and end up everytime inside. Give me a break.

Well, I can really say that, and I did, but I can’t speak for anyone’s situation but my own.

chloe:

…You are contradicting yourself if you believe sex is for both unitive and procreative purposes.

I don’t believe that I am contradicting myself, and I am certainly not contradicting the teachings of the Church.

I guess I really don’t see where the confusion comes from on this topic, but maybe I am just not getting it. Well, I am getting it, but you know what I mean.

 

[martino]

Chloe, you seem to have contradicted yourself. You agreed that every sex act between husband and wife must be open to life, but then said that doesn’t mean that every act must end up as “an inside job.”

The idea of the husband finishing inside his wife is precisely what makes the act open to life.

 

[crazyage3]

puzzleannie:

just curious, why would you ask a question, knowing full well you will get a truthful answer, when you know what the answer will be, you do not agree with the answer, you have no intention of accepting the answer? Why also would you discuss intimate details of your marriage in a public forum? and why would you use a misleading title to your thread so once again we are sucked into reading this stuff? and no, the feature that blurbs the first few lines of a post does not work all the time, so I can’t always be sure of avoiding offending posts.

Some people, including myself, arent fully aware of what is and isnt accepted. Thank God we have fellow Christians to help us with what is right and wrong. Like I had no idea the having your tubes tied was a sin until I really dove into the Catechism. It is nice to have these forums to guide us!

 

[chloe]

I challenge that i/s statement. I would agree that to be the preffered method…not that it is a must or you are violating your religion. It is logical that other acts may cause it to not end that way which contradicts reasoning that it be a must. Being open to life means that you accept a child if and when it happens. As a friend once told me, we need to be cautious about interrpreting Gods law and what he wanted for us. You have to consider what interrpretation is based on the fact that our religion has celibate men interrpreting the Bible. Jesus did not require his followers to be single and unmarried.

 

[crazyage3]

For Chole , ohio bob and anyone else who could answer;
What happens if for some reason the male doesnt “finish inside”? Like You were disrupted,youre allergic to semen or some other reason. Cause you are open to life everytime you have sex no matter when or how it finishes. Or what if your partner has an std or hiv. Should you abstain from sex your whole married life or do you pass the disease on? (which both i thought those were sins)…Please answer!!
adrienne