K
KCT
Guest
People may make the wrong choice, but the church does not have to condone another evil on top of it. The church will always call us to be the best we can be. —KCT
- Status
O
Other_Eric
Guest
I often use condoms. As balloons, Christmas decorations, as rolls for quarters . . .
S
StPeterRules
Guest
What I do not get (and I agree with the Church’s stance mind you) is the notion of “if you don’t want to have children in marriage, use NFP, or practice abstinence”. People who oppose the use of birth control often sue this logic.
But the problem is, the Church has said the purpose of marriage is to foster new life into the world. ANYTHING done to avoid pregnancy in marriage IS birth control, correct?
So why is abstaining from having children or NFP any better? It is still preventing that which marriage was intended for…
Again, I don’t support birth control, but this seems a non-solution to the issue of having children.
But the problem is, the Church has said the purpose of marriage is to foster new life into the world. ANYTHING done to avoid pregnancy in marriage IS birth control, correct?
So why is abstaining from having children or NFP any better? It is still preventing that which marriage was intended for…
Again, I don’t support birth control, but this seems a non-solution to the issue of having children.
F
felra
Guest
The Church teaches that if you have serious reason to avoid another pregnancy, than you may use NFP to limit further pregnancy; or if there is grave reason to avoid further pregnancy, then indeed, abstinence may be the only loving option. In no way does the Church allow for introducing artificial means to prevent pregnancy. Each and every act of marital embrace must be open to procreation and not artificially contra-ception.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
There are four principal reasons that contraception is evil:
It is an unnatural act and insult to God’s design - Even though God designed the universe and everything within it, by using artificial birth control, we are saying, “Yeah, but God, I think I can do this one better than you.” We then shut down parts of our body or actually alter the make-up of it to suit our needs. Do we need proof that this is wrong? My wife and I were on Depo-Provera before coming back to the Church’s teachings; here’s the list of side effects: pregnancy delays, osteoperosus (spelling?), breast lumps, excessive bleeding, depression, fetal abnormalities. Does this look like something God approves of (and designed the body to accept). The list of side effects for any birth control out there, including sterilization and vascectomies have equally daunting side effects. Even the seemingly harmless condom, in a recent study, was shown in almost every brand studied to contain an ingrediant called N-Nitrosamine, which is cancer-causing when combined with bodily fluids.
Second reason: It is rejection of life. Unlike NFP, in which a couple abstains if they cannot have a child at that moment, in artificial birth control, we take pills, shots, or “quarentine” our body parts, as if pregnancy were a disease. No wonder so many young women find themselves at the abortion clinic. We have them convinced it’s not a baby in their uterus, but a tumor.
Thirdly, artificial birth control is a rejection of unity. We are called to model ourselves after the Trinity by becoming “one” with our partner, spiritually, physically, emotionally. This requires a complete gift of self. This can’t happen if we hold something back. “I’ll give you all of myself, but not that part.” What state would we be in if Christ had held something of himself back: “You can have all of me, but not my mortality - that cross doesn’t fit into my career plans right now.” No wonder the divorse rate is just under 45%, but for couples on NFP, it is between 1 and 3%. They have embraced unity. Others have embraced physical pleasure.
Lastly, artificial birth control destroys temerance. Jason Evert makes the great analogy of a young girl trying to lose weight. She eats all she wants and then kneels in front of a toilet. With the contraceptive mentality, we do the same - sex whenever and where ever. Just like the anorexic, who soon finds herself dangerously thin and unable to stop, our sexual self-control is destroyed. What is adultury and pornographic addiction but loss of self-control If we want our marriages free from these, we must kick contraception out the door.
I typed fast, so pardon the errors.
God bless.
It is an unnatural act and insult to God’s design - Even though God designed the universe and everything within it, by using artificial birth control, we are saying, “Yeah, but God, I think I can do this one better than you.” We then shut down parts of our body or actually alter the make-up of it to suit our needs. Do we need proof that this is wrong? My wife and I were on Depo-Provera before coming back to the Church’s teachings; here’s the list of side effects: pregnancy delays, osteoperosus (spelling?), breast lumps, excessive bleeding, depression, fetal abnormalities. Does this look like something God approves of (and designed the body to accept). The list of side effects for any birth control out there, including sterilization and vascectomies have equally daunting side effects. Even the seemingly harmless condom, in a recent study, was shown in almost every brand studied to contain an ingrediant called N-Nitrosamine, which is cancer-causing when combined with bodily fluids.
Second reason: It is rejection of life. Unlike NFP, in which a couple abstains if they cannot have a child at that moment, in artificial birth control, we take pills, shots, or “quarentine” our body parts, as if pregnancy were a disease. No wonder so many young women find themselves at the abortion clinic. We have them convinced it’s not a baby in their uterus, but a tumor.
Thirdly, artificial birth control is a rejection of unity. We are called to model ourselves after the Trinity by becoming “one” with our partner, spiritually, physically, emotionally. This requires a complete gift of self. This can’t happen if we hold something back. “I’ll give you all of myself, but not that part.” What state would we be in if Christ had held something of himself back: “You can have all of me, but not my mortality - that cross doesn’t fit into my career plans right now.” No wonder the divorse rate is just under 45%, but for couples on NFP, it is between 1 and 3%. They have embraced unity. Others have embraced physical pleasure.
Lastly, artificial birth control destroys temerance. Jason Evert makes the great analogy of a young girl trying to lose weight. She eats all she wants and then kneels in front of a toilet. With the contraceptive mentality, we do the same - sex whenever and where ever. Just like the anorexic, who soon finds herself dangerously thin and unable to stop, our sexual self-control is destroyed. What is adultury and pornographic addiction but loss of self-control If we want our marriages free from these, we must kick contraception out the door.
I typed fast, so pardon the errors.
God bless.
S
StPeterRules
Guest
Thanks for the great info.
Each and every act of marital embrace must be open to procreation and not artificially contra-ception
It just seems that abstinence is not an act of being open to procreation.
I don’t disagree with the introduction of artificiality as a problem, but to say “avoiding having children is okay” while also saying “Each and every act of marital embrace must be open to procreation” are conflicting.
Either we should be trying to have children, or not. Making blanket statements such as “mortal sin is committed by doing anything before, during, or after intercourse to prevent conception” implies, nay, mandates that nothing be done to avoid children in marriage. This isn’t inference, this is implicit in the words.
Abstaining from intercourse occurs before, and prevents conception. Seems contradictory. The issue isn’t the use of artifical means, which I agree on, it is the promotion of abstinence as this runs contrary to the very reason marriage exists.
Anyone have any insight on this seeming dichotomy? (to me at least, not trying to sound presumptuous…)
Each and every act of marital embrace must be open to procreation and not artificially contra-ception
It just seems that abstinence is not an act of being open to procreation.
I don’t disagree with the introduction of artificiality as a problem, but to say “avoiding having children is okay” while also saying “Each and every act of marital embrace must be open to procreation” are conflicting.
Either we should be trying to have children, or not. Making blanket statements such as “mortal sin is committed by doing anything before, during, or after intercourse to prevent conception” implies, nay, mandates that nothing be done to avoid children in marriage. This isn’t inference, this is implicit in the words.
Abstaining from intercourse occurs before, and prevents conception. Seems contradictory. The issue isn’t the use of artifical means, which I agree on, it is the promotion of abstinence as this runs contrary to the very reason marriage exists.
Anyone have any insight on this seeming dichotomy? (to me at least, not trying to sound presumptuous…)
G
Genesis315
Guest
Abstinence is not an act of marital embrace (marital embrace=sex)
S
StPeterRules
Guest
That makes sense, but does not explain NFP, which seems to imply “I don’t want prgnancy to happen, I am doing my best to avoid it, but if it happens, okay”. That is still avoidance and an attempt to not have children, which seems like a half-hearted attempt to shirk the marital obligation, does it not?
Also, likeI said - *Either we should be trying to have children, or not. Making blanket statements such as “mortal sin is committed by doing anything before, during, or after intercourse to prevent conception” implies, nay, mandates that nothing be done to avoid children in marriage. This isn’t inference, this is implicit in the words. *
and
The issue isn’t the use of artifical means, which I agree on, it is the promotion of abstinence as this runs contrary to the very reason marriage exists.
Also, likeI said - *Either we should be trying to have children, or not. Making blanket statements such as “mortal sin is committed by doing anything before, during, or after intercourse to prevent conception” implies, nay, mandates that nothing be done to avoid children in marriage. This isn’t inference, this is implicit in the words. *
and
The issue isn’t the use of artifical means, which I agree on, it is the promotion of abstinence as this runs contrary to the very reason marriage exists.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Think of it this way. According to your reasoning, we could never have sex except during fertile periods. This is just not true. We are permitted to have sex whenever we want during the cycle and we can abstain whenever we want.
Start from the baseline that you have sex everyday. Then, there’s nothing wrong with abstaining to avoid pregnancy. You’re not having sex on certain day to avoid, you’re abstaining on other days to avoid it.
Start from the baseline that you have sex everyday. Then, there’s nothing wrong with abstaining to avoid pregnancy. You’re not having sex on certain day to avoid, you’re abstaining on other days to avoid it.
S
StPeterRules
Guest
Thanks.
I guess this part* :*
*We are permitted to have sex whenever we want during the cycle and we can abstain whenever we want.
*
still to me seems to run contrary to the Catholic goal of marriage, which is to bring as much life into the world as possible. NFP is a way to moderate the rate of this effort, and thus, not spur on the rate of births per family.
Going on the basis that our primary goal in marriage is indeed to create as much life as possible, would not then the mandate be we have to attempt to have children at all times, and nothing should prevent the increase in those numbers? Theoretically a person in their early twenties could expect a good 20 to 30 children at the rate of one per year if they tried to achieve the Church’s intended goal.
I like NFP, and plan on it myself when I marry, but it just seems counterintuitive to the notion of more children, more children!
I guess this part* :*
*We are permitted to have sex whenever we want during the cycle and we can abstain whenever we want.
*
still to me seems to run contrary to the Catholic goal of marriage, which is to bring as much life into the world as possible. NFP is a way to moderate the rate of this effort, and thus, not spur on the rate of births per family.
Going on the basis that our primary goal in marriage is indeed to create as much life as possible, would not then the mandate be we have to attempt to have children at all times, and nothing should prevent the increase in those numbers? Theoretically a person in their early twenties could expect a good 20 to 30 children at the rate of one per year if they tried to achieve the Church’s intended goal.
I like NFP, and plan on it myself when I marry, but it just seems counterintuitive to the notion of more children, more children!
G
Genesis315
Guest
The Catholic goal of marriage is not bring as much life into the world as possible. It’s to bring as much life into the world as God intends. That being said, we do not just throw money around and say God will provide. We have as many children as we can handle. If for serious reasons we cannot handle more or we need to space births, then NFP is fine. Remember, God created the fertility cycle for a reason. Now, if one were to use NFP to only have a small number simply because they would prefer more money and luxuries, then that would be a sin.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Contraception is also damaging to the unitive aspect of marriage. When we engage in the marital embrace, it is total self-giving, nothing is held back. When we use contraception, we hold our fertiltity back. However, during the infertile cycle, we still give everything we have at the time.
S
StPeterRules
Guest
Thanks for your thoughts. Please understand I don’t support contraception, was just curious about how NFP was truly any different as a means to an end.
B
bluezone7
Guest
NO! WE SHOULD NOT USE CONDOMS BECAUSE WE SHOULD NOT BE HAVING SEX OUTSIDE THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE. IF YOU ARE HAVING SEX OUTSIDE THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE WHY ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE MORAL ISSUE OF CONDOMS MORE THAN THE FACT YOU ARE FORNICATING? YOU ALREADY SINNING! THE RATIONALE THE QUESTION RAISES DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE TO PRACTICING CHRISTIANS! ALTHOUGH IT IS A GOOD QUESTION! IF YOU ARE MARRIED WHY ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT CONDOMS? Of course if you are fornicating, which you shouldn’t be doing … why be stupid? If you get the picture. Since being stupid leads to STDs and Abortions. In the end … why do you need to use Condoms in the first place? Of course if you were not a practicing Christian why would the condom issue be of any concern to you at all?
T
Tim_Hayes
Guest
Genesis315
quote
When we use contraception, we hold our fertiltity back. However, during the infertile cycle, we still give everything we have at the time.
The above is untrue. The reason you give on the above occasion is because you know it can’t be actually used, there is no possibility of preganancy. If they thought they could get pregnant, they would not give, hence their giving is condtional and it is conditional upon it not being used.
quote
When we use contraception, we hold our fertiltity back. However, during the infertile cycle, we still give everything we have at the time.
The above is untrue. The reason you give on the above occasion is because you know it can’t be actually used, there is no possibility of preganancy. If they thought they could get pregnant, they would not give, hence their giving is condtional and it is conditional upon it not being used.
F
felra
Guest
Tim Hayes:
Those who contracept, give only a part of themselves–physically, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually (God made us whole persons, and our sexuality is integral to our identity as persons).
“Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds on communication with others.” (CCC 2332).
You are arbitrarily and incorrectly attributing a couple’s respectful and responsible cooperation with God’s design of natural cycles of fertility with conditional and unconditional giving. If you are Catholic and want to know more about the conjugal fidelity and fecundity of marriage, you can start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2364 - 2372.
Sorry Tim Hayes, but Genesis315 is entirely correct. The NFP practicing couple is giving all they have each act of marital embrace. Please show me where this is not true.
Those who contracept, give only a part of themselves–physically, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually (God made us whole persons, and our sexuality is integral to our identity as persons).
“Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds on communication with others.” (CCC 2332).
You are arbitrarily and incorrectly attributing a couple’s respectful and responsible cooperation with God’s design of natural cycles of fertility with conditional and unconditional giving. If you are Catholic and want to know more about the conjugal fidelity and fecundity of marriage, you can start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2364 - 2372.
R
renee1258
Guest
I’m not a man or anything like that, but they don’t seem too comfy. It sort of defeats the expressive unitive part of intercourse when communicating the act of love. Also if you take a peek at the true failure rate, it is about 10%. And id a condom is going to fail, it is going to fail when a woman ovulates, so probably the failure rate is higher.
If God wanted us to procreate everytime we had sex, he would of made both man and woman fetile 100% of the time. The life of an egg is about 12-24 hours, and sperm can last up to 5 days in fertile quality cervical mucus. So maybe 7 days a woman is really fertile out a healthy cycle ranging from 24-35 days.
If God wanted us to procreate everytime we had sex, he would of made both man and woman fetile 100% of the time. The life of an egg is about 12-24 hours, and sperm can last up to 5 days in fertile quality cervical mucus. So maybe 7 days a woman is really fertile out a healthy cycle ranging from 24-35 days.
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
The condoms are less than 95% effective in preventing the transmission of STD’s when used properly as directed. That means, unless God intends for you NOT to get the disease, you’re still going to get it at some time during any prolonged SEXUAL relationship
Anyone who has an STD such as AIDS has a moral and ethical responsibility to tell his or her partner BEFORE either one starts talking about getting married.
If after hearing about the HIV status of one’s future husband or wife, you still decide to marry that person, please realize that you’re in for what ever he or she is in for, whether you use condoms or not. Since that is the case, isn’t it better to act in such a way as to know that you are CLEAN before God? Isn’t it better to conform yourself to God’s LAW so that you can present yourself as an obedient servant to God on Judgement Day?
Because, life isn’t so much about health as it is about OUR SALVATION!
And, contrary to what the MSM would have you believe, condoms don’t save lives - ABSTINENCE DOES!
NO ONE said that it would be EASY, Esp Our Lord Jesus who said, “Pick up your cross and follow me!”
Blessings and Peace, Michael
T
Tim_Hayes
Guest
Felra
it is you who are wrong.
The intercourse is only taking place becasue the couple know pregnancy cannot occur. It acutally means their union is conditional upon this.
If the woman was fertile then there wold be no sex using NFP .
The whole idea of NFP when introduced was that it be only used under the grave circumstances.
Now, NFP, when introduced was only supposed to be used under grave circumstance. I’ll let you think about that and realise that their would be next to no catholics practicing NFP purely under the grave circumstances theory, except their own subjective grave reasoning.
Lets use Onan as an examle.
God condemned him becasue he was supposed to get the sister in law preganant and instead of doing that he wasted his “seed” by withdrawing, so that conception could not occur. Onans INTENTION was to avoid pregnancy. Lets say NFP was known back then, then Onan would have chosen to only copulate during non fertile times(to avoid pregnancy) and therefor his sperm would not have fallen on the “ground” although we could say it did fall on barren ground because their would have been no chance of pregnancy
Onans supposed crime was wasting his seed, ensuring no preganancy took place. A couple practicing NFP are wasting the seed ensuring no pregnancy can take place.
Would Onan have been judged severely by God if he had practiced NFP and no pregnancy resulted, please answer the question.
In Christ
it is you who are wrong.
The intercourse is only taking place becasue the couple know pregnancy cannot occur. It acutally means their union is conditional upon this.
If the woman was fertile then there wold be no sex using NFP .
The whole idea of NFP when introduced was that it be only used under the grave circumstances.
Now, NFP, when introduced was only supposed to be used under grave circumstance. I’ll let you think about that and realise that their would be next to no catholics practicing NFP purely under the grave circumstances theory, except their own subjective grave reasoning.
Lets use Onan as an examle.
God condemned him becasue he was supposed to get the sister in law preganant and instead of doing that he wasted his “seed” by withdrawing, so that conception could not occur. Onans INTENTION was to avoid pregnancy. Lets say NFP was known back then, then Onan would have chosen to only copulate during non fertile times(to avoid pregnancy) and therefor his sperm would not have fallen on the “ground” although we could say it did fall on barren ground because their would have been no chance of pregnancy
Onans supposed crime was wasting his seed, ensuring no preganancy took place. A couple practicing NFP are wasting the seed ensuring no pregnancy can take place.
Would Onan have been judged severely by God if he had practiced NFP and no pregnancy resulted, please answer the question.
In Christ
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
felra,
Well Said!
I don’t think people realize how much Artificial Contraception serves to take and cast asunder what God has joined.
He can then graduate to Pope Paul VI’s document
HUMANAE VITAE
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
and
THE TRUTH OF THE ENCYCLICAL "HUMANAE VITAE"
Cardinal Karol Wojtyla
ewtn.com/library/Theology/WOJTLAHV.HTM
And finally to reading these links
GENERAL AUDIENCES: JOHN PAUL II’S THEOLOGY OF THE BODY
Pope John Paul II
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
That’s the Magisterium of the church on this topic.
Blessings and Peace, Michael
- Status