Church law vs reality

[theAuthor]

My reasoning stands. My wife and I are in the mood. We look at the calender “before the act”, then decide as an act of will, to prevent conception, to abstain. That is doing someting “before the act to prevent conception”, we are deciding to abstain. Isn’t that a duh?

I have to giggle, when someone called me squeamish. I work in the medical field. It depends on how you look at things. Urine is “yucky”, right? Well, that urine was just filtered out of your blood that came from nearly every part of your body. I can handle vomit, bile, blood, faeces, urine, just about everything, although nasal mucous gets me a bit Unless I am misunderstanding, in the early cycle a woman has to insert a finger? My wife would never normally do that, doesn’t use tampons, etc.

re: Natural Law. Wouldn’t that involve acting in the way God made us? He made us to find each other attractive and have sex. A family is a natural consequence of that. Two generations ago (before the pill) people had families of 13. QED.

 

[theAuthor]

Oh, and just for the record, we are currently using NFP.

 

[1ke]

My reasoning stands. My wife and I are in the mood. We look at the calender “before the act”, then decide as an act of will, to prevent conception, to abstain. That is doing someting “before the act to prevent conception”, we are deciding to abstain. Isn’t that a duh?

No. If there is no act, you have done nothing “before” the act.

If I were to insert a diaphram, and then DH were to announce he’s too tired and didn’t want to have sex, would I have committed contraception because I inserted the diaphram ‘before’ the act? NO. There has to BE an act, and an overt action to interfere with the natural outcome of the act, in order for contraception to occur.

Not having sex is NOT a sex act. And, the decision not to have sex is not contraception.

Unless I am misunderstanding, in the early cycle a woman has to insert a finger?

No, cervical position is not a required sign. It’s an optional sign in STM. I use Creighton, and that is not used at all

re: Natural Law. Wouldn’t that involve acting in the way God made us? He made us to find each other attractive and have sex. A family is a natural consequence of that.

Yes, that’s part of it. However, he also made us with intellect and will. We do not copulate on instinct, as animals do.

Two generations ago (before the pill) people had families of 13. QED.

Yes, many did have large families. BUT, not because they didn’t know how to stop having babies any more than Catholics who today have large families do so because they can’t figure out how not to.

How insulting.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

Okay, I think I get what you’re saying now.

Instead of looking at NFP as a moral alternative to complete abstinence, you view it more as “Catholic contraception”? Is that correct?

Are you looking for justification for using contraception (kind of like an “exception to the rule” thing)? If you are, I don’t think anyone can give that to you and still be giving you the Truth. If you’re not, then I guess I’m still slightly confused as to what it is you’re looking for.

 

[kage_ar]

Another part of your early post struck me - that you are isolated and have no support system. For those of us who live away from family, we have to cobble one together from spare parts lying about

Neighbors, parishioners, co-workers - there are others out there. Join a group at the Parish. Volunteer, go to a study group or prayer group - Knights of Columbus for you maybe, you and your wife volunteer for youth ministry or to bring donuts after Mass? Start to make an extended family.

Many prayers for you!!

 

[theAuthor]

I meant no offense to anybody, 1ke. It is simply a fact that people in my grand-parents generation had large families as the norm. Infertility is not uncommon, and I am sure more hysterectomies are performed today than in that generation, too. Did my grandparents mean to have 13 kids living in tents (Pop was a fittler), using the ironing chord to keep discipline? Not just a threat- welts! I dunno. I do know it made Mum unhappy and leave to marry an alocoholic man just to get out of home. Once again, the whole family lived close by too, in that time. People lived in the same house, could have a lifetime career, etc.

If I were to insert a diaphram, and then DH were to announce he’s too tired and didn’t want to have sex, would I have committed contraception because I inserted the diaphram ‘before’ the act?

Sorry, but yep. You’d have had to buy a diaphragm. Not to be hard on you :hug1: , but I’ve never even seen one!

Yes, I see NFP as church-endorsed contraception. It is another method of using modern methods (science) to interfere with the natural process which will lead to conception. I think it cruel that a woman cannot have sex when she’s most in the mood. That is how God made us!

 

[theAuthor]

kage, I like your thinking. Ideally, the church community would be tight-nit enough to allow mutual baysitting and the like. Our Parish isn’t. Sadly, I’ve been missing Mass lately because I have been torn between breaking up the family and “tag-teaming” and the stares my toddler gets. We are slowly looking into joining a Charismatic Community that are friends outside of Mass.

There is also a trust issue. My wife is very picky with who she’ll let babysit. Only the grandparents and one set of friends of mine who are particularly responsible. I would be a bit freer, but she’s a strong-willed woman!

 

[1ke]

Sorry, but yep. You’d have had to buy a diaphragm. Not to be hard on you :hug1: , but I’ve never even seen one!

Buying a diaphram or buying condoms is not an act of contraception-- using them in an act of intercourse is contraception.

Yes, I see NFP as church-endorsed contraception.

It is family planning, birth regulation, birth control. It is NOT contraception.

Well, I see no point in continuing if you believe that **not having sex **is contraception.

 

[gam3rchic]

Abstinence is not the same as contraception b/c contraception is just that: “contra”=against, “ception”=conception. Contraception is an artificial means of preventing conception, either it be condom, the pill, etc. Abstinence is not artificial…heck, would you say that all virgins waiting for marriage are contraceptiving??? Contraception is a way to avoid pregnancy after sex is done…not avoiding sex altogether, there is a difference.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Yes, I see NFP as church-endorsed contraception. It is another method of using modern methods (science) to interfere with the natural process which will lead to conception. I think it cruel that a woman cannot have sex when she’s most in the mood. That is how God made us!

I think its cool that the Church has helped couples see a way in which they can have sex even when they have serious reasons to not have children, rather than having to abstain completely. I understand your issue with the difference between Church law and reality, but the solution is not to throw out the Truth to make it conform to what everyone wants to do. I know what you mean by feeling the lack of support by the community around you. When I had my 2nd child people (from Church) were asking if I was “done”. Its not always easy being the odd man out (though I must say there are a few large families in my Parish). Not everyone that has few or no kids are contracepting. They may be infertile or practicing NFP for very valid reasons. Not everyone that is contracepting would be if they knew/ understood the Church’s teachings on the matter. I’ve heard of many NFP newbies saying how they wished someone would have explained things to them before. We can’t allow the pressure of what is socially acceptable to get us and change our morals. We will end up pretty miserable with the way many things are nowadays. I just wanted to add that although you may not be aware of it, the fact that you and your wife are using NFP now instead of contracepting is setting a great example for others, and hopefully if more Catholics start learning and practicing what our Church teaches we can change the tide.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes, I see NFP as church-endorsed contraception. It is another method of using modern methods (science) to interfere with the natural process which will lead to conception. I think it cruel that a woman cannot have sex when she’s most in the mood. That is how God made us!

The Church does not require that married couples abstain when the woman is in the mood. The Church does not require married couples to use NFP at all. Personally, I don’t like NFP and I understand your dislike of it.

If you with your spouse prayerfully discern to avoid pregnancy, you may use fertility awareness and abstain during her fertile times. Yes, women often have the higher sex drives during those times. The way God designed us helps avoid mis-use of NFP. NFP can be misused if the couple doesn’t have a significant reason for avoiding pregnancy.

Since you brought up the subject of women’s sexual desire, you may be interested to learn that studies show birth control pills can permanently reduce a woman’s sex drive. I think that’s far crueller to women than NFP. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05052603.html
**

Birth Control Pill May Permanently Reduce Sex Drive Study Finds

BOSTON, May 26, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - It seems that the 40 year-long affair of doctors with the Pill is starting to sour. Doctors are starting to examine the long term effects of meddling with the delicate and complex biochemical systems that accompany the human reproductive system. …Now, a new medical study is showing that the hormonal birth control pill is likely to cause permanent decrease in sex-drive if used long enough. …
**

 

[gardenswithkids]

… It is simply a fact that people in my grand-parents generation had large families as the norm. … Did my grandparents mean to have 13 kids living in tents (Pop was a fittler), using the ironing chord to keep discipline? Not just a threat- welts! I dunno. I do know it made Mum unhappy and leave to marry an alocoholic man just to get out of home. Once again, the whole family lived close by too, in that time. People lived in the same house, could have a lifetime career, etc.

Yes, large families were more common back then. The sin of contraception is more common now. Yet the older generations were not free from sin–as demonstrated by your references here to alcoholism and what sounds like child-abuse.

Once again, keeping this real: We are sinners. We live in a fallen world and we need a Redeemer. That’s what the Church teaches. Birth control pills, vasectomies, diaphrams, and condoms can not save us. Jesus can. Trust Him. Rely on His mercy and grace to give you the strength you need to help overcome sin. Yes, that is yet another one of the Church teachings that some people ignore.

 

[theAuthor]

Thanks Gardenwithkids, that was a nice post. I feel listened to, and that is important.

Unfortunately, we do know the contraceptive pill can reduce sex drive as well as a whole host of problems. My wife has endometriosis and had to go on it to reduce period pain in the first years of our marriage. Lately we’ve been having kids, so it hasn’t been an issue -good breast feeder. We both remember the lack of libido, personality change, etc. I was pretty disappointed in the whole marriage deal actually, because of it.

1ke, when I have brought condoms before, my intent has obviously been to sin. You may differ from me, but I’d say putting a diaphragm in is equivalent to putting a condom on, isn’t it? People not planning on having sex don’t put in IUCD’s, either.

What of the tribesmen who put their testicals into hot/cold water for a number of hours before coupling to prevent conception? That is a completely natural method too.

My point is that if we lived in the 1600’s, I am quite sure medicine would not have been able to correlate fertile times with LNMP dates! So NFP is still using modern scientific knowledge to prevent conception, just like other ways. In this case by preventing going with the flow of nature by staying abstinent.

Someone beautifully chimed in a quote from JPII earlier that talked about the unitive part of intercourse. So, if a couple definitely cannot have more children, they should remain abstinent and miss out on the rest of the Blessing God wishes to bestow on His creation? The bonding that happens between the couple? The abstinence part was directed at a different poster. It is in direct conflict with what St Paul had to say…

 

[Linnyo]

Aren’t those with all seven sacraments the ones who have departed?

Let’s see, the Church teaches that people–even baptised Catholics with all seven Sacraments–have a tendency to sin. As we look around at ourselves and our fellow Catholics we discover that people do have a tendency to sin, just as the Church says.

The Church doesn’t solve the problem of sin by declaring sins not to be sins.

Let’s think about those “former times”. Women commonly died in child birth. Without vaccinations, many children died from common childhood illnesses. Many grown ups died from common ailments such as the flu before anti-biotics. Most people worked hard in fields or at other back-breaking jobs just to put food on the table in their little huts. With the almost constant threat of starvation and disease, it’s a wonder our ancestors had any children at all.

If difficulties in life justify the use of contraception, our ancestors certainly had justification. But most didn’t use contraception–because it was a sin then–and contraception still is a sin now.

 

[PaulinVA]

Aren’t those with all seven sacraments the ones who have departed?

Only permanent Deacons or widowers who were then ordained.

The anointing of the sick can occur when you are not deathly sick, right?

 

[leonie]

Only permanent Deacons or widowers who were then ordained.

The anointing of the sick can occur when you are not deathly sick, right?

Actually, Annointing of the sick is only allowed when you are deathly ill. You must also be of the age of reason. Although, I believe you can have a mental illness and receive annointing of the sick.

The Byzantine Rite has a beautiful healing/annointing service that can be received at any time, though.

I only know all this because I recently had to research it for a committee at church.

From the Catechism:

II. Who Receives and Who Administers This Sacrament?

In case of grave illness . . .

1514
The Anointing of the Sick "is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived."130

1515
If a sick person who received this anointing recovers his health, he can in the case of another grave illness receive this sacrament again. If during the same illness the person’s condition becomes more serious, the sacrament may be repeated. It is fitting to receive the Anointing of the Sick just prior to a serious operation. The same holds for the elderly whose frailty becomes more pronounced

 

[leonie]

I found in my own case that I didn’t not understand the reasoning behind this doctrine prohibiting artificial conception until I gave my consent. Then, God opened my mind to the logic.

I think God wants our obedience to the Holy Church and our confidence in Him. He does not want us to be obedient to our own logic when it is in opposition to the Authority he has established on the Earth for us.

I sincerely suggest you give your consent whether you understand fully or not. Then, pray for understanding. While I haven’t had health issues to deal with, my dh and I have really struggled over this issue. It has been a real cross for us since we are not in agreement.

And, I agree that you should speak to an orthodox priest who also has a reputation for compassion.

 

[Philothea53]

In our particular case, we are not materialistic, just emotionally incapable of coping with a large family due to social isolation and lack of support. I suffer from depression very badly, leaving my wife to do basically all of the chores (I barely cope with work, and think about suicide daily). So we are barely coping as is. As we look around church, it should be full of kids, but it’s not.

So it seems there’s what the church teaches and what people actually do. We’d ask that people “keep it real” in this thread.

I honestly wish the Church would grant us a special dispensation to use non-abortive contraception due to our circumstances. But it’s a “one size fits all policy”, even of you don’t have the support of grandparents and friends, suffer depression, struggle just to get by in life.

I think (I am replying to my wife’s post here) what my wife meant when she said “outdated” is that in former times people lived close to their parents and could call for help, while we had to move to the city for work. If we both get sick, there is *no-one *to help.

The Church allows for non-abortive contraception - it’s called Natural Family Planning and is as effective or more so than any other out there. It does require some training and a commitment to make it work, but it is a great option. Have you even considered it?

 

[theAuthor]

The reason I started this thread is that there is often a difference between an ideal and reality. Never is this more apparent than in any Christian’s walk. Because of my depression, I need to adapt to what is, not what should be. Adapting to what “should be” does my head in, because we live in a world often far removed from the Christian ideal. It is even hard to do someone a good turn, because people are cautious and question your motives. Today we drove past a child walking alone in the rain. My wife commented that it’s sad that you cannot pick up the child and drop them home (ideal), but also that you’d hope they’re being taught stranger danger (reality).

I’d just like to say that in an “ideal world” that I’d love to have more kids. I love babies. I love to see my wife pregnant,although she gets morning sickness badly. Pregnancy, childbirth (when it goes well), and kids are great and to be celebrated. Well, I celebrate them anyway.

I also appreciate the Church’s moral guidance in my life to help me to know right from wrong. Some things I don’t agree with or understand 100%, but if I am going along with what God’s people in the RCC are doing, then that is OK. I am happy to settle for progress rather than perfection. eg It is a mortal sin to miss Sunday Mass. Yet only 10% of Catholics attend Mass of a Sunday. Ideally, we’d be there every week. In the real world, our toddler can only make it up to the Homily, the people around us stare and get annoyed and I end up outside from the Offatory onwards. <-This is my face during the most sublime part of the Mass, so often we join the 90% and don’t go.

Yes, I understand that God’s law is immutable. But he died for us while we were still sinners. Even contemplating and personifying God and His/ Their ideal, wonderful state is far removed from reality. So I’m happy to just go along with the tide of what Catholics really do, rather than get caught up in ideals that make my depression worse (ie feeling as though I have failed to live up to being as Holy as God would like aka “Catholic guilt”).

 

[theAuthor]

The Church allows for non-abortive contraception - it’s called Natural Family Planning and is as effective or more so than any other out there. It does require some training and a commitment to make it work, but it is a great option. Have you even considered it?

Yes, I know it’s a long thread, but I did say it is what we currently use. It also means that the wonderful Unitive act is not happening very often, since the fertile time is when my wife is in the mood, and we have kids. So opportunities are rare anyway. Actually my wife is still breast feeding, so I guess we’ve relied on that too.