Contraception is just like bulemia!

[BlindSheep]

MikeinSD:

Why shouldn’t you tell yr friends, neighbors, and especially yr married children that to use contraceptives is a moral sin?

I didn’t say I shouldn’t. I said I should tell them.

And if you are in their homes, what’s wrong with a quick search of medicine cabinets and bedroom drawers to grab the contraceptives? Wouldn’t you destroy child porn if you found it? Both are mortal sins and it’s not yr place to decide which is more evil.

Number one, stealing is also a sin. Number two, if they still have the desire to use birth control, but can’t find it because I took it, they are still commiting a mortal sin because their intention has not changed, the opportunity is simply not there. To intend to commit a mortal sin, is a mortal sin. Number three, all they need to do is run to the drug store for more, so what does it accomplish? Your relative sounds misguided at least and possible disturbed. Courage is a good thing, but only when it is used to achieve something worthwhile through a morally acceptable means. Foolish, counterproductive and immoral acts don’t become good simply because they require courage (I’m sure being a suicide bomber requires courage, after all). I am willing to face ridicule and rejection for my faith; when I became Catholic my husband was outraged, two friends dropped me, and my father didn’t speak to me for over al year.
And no, I wouldn’t grab the child porn, I would report it to the police.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

And wash your hands like Pilate? (Sorry, I just could not resist, I do not think this seriously). But here is a more serious remark: you may think that you do them a favor, but it looks quite different from the “outside”. It looks like a deadly threat to make them conform with your view of morality.

Well, that is simply irrational. I’m not holding a gun to anybody’s head, nor do I personally have the power to send them to hell. Is it the same thing to tell a person “Look out! If you don’t stop, you’ll fall off that cliff!” as it is to say “You better stop, or I’ll push you off that cliff!”?
Furthermore, even if I am completely delusional and warning you about a cliff that isn’t there, how does this amount to threatening you? If you don’t believe in hell anyway, why do you care whether or not I think you’ll go there? It doesn’t make any sense. I don’t get all bent out of shape because Evangelicals think I’ll go to hell for drinking, or because Muslims think I’ll go to hell for owning statues and paintings. I don’t go to Evangelical and Muslim websites and argue with them about it, or try to shut them up. It seems to me like you need to learn to respect diversity!

Of course it is beneficial: it allows people who do not want to procreate at a certain period of their life to enjoy the pleasures of sex freely.

Just like smoking is beneficial because it it offers people a relaxing break and a chance to socialize, and prevents nicotene withdrawal.

But that is how I view the Bible and the Church: a bunch of power-hungry people who want to control everyone. I do not accuse all of them of consciously doing it, but that is what they do. Maybe they want only the best for everyone: but in that case they assume a role they are not entitled to: telling everyone what is the best for them.

Now that’s an interesting view! As for me, I believe in freedom of speech - anyone can say what they believe is best for anyone. Some, of course, have more credibility than others. I would, for instance, believe a veterinarian about matters of pet health more than I would an engineer. Likewise, I consider the teachings of the successors of the apostles to carry more weight than others’ in matters of faith and morals.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

And don’t kid yourself: the possible harmful effects of contraception are miniscule and very very rare.

Clearly you have never been on the pill! Trust me, the side effects are not fun, and they are quite common. They are so bad, in fact, that I stopped taking it years before I even considered becoming Catholic - yes, when I was an atheist - because of them.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

Now that’s an interesting view! As for me, I believe in freedom of speech - anyone can say what they believe is best for anyone. Some, of course, have more credibility than others. I would, for instance, believe a veterinarian about matters of pet health more than I would an engineer. Likewise, I consider the teachings of the successors of the apostles to carry more weight than others’ in matters of faith and morals.

You have my 100% agreement here. The trouble is that the Catholic Church does NOT stop at merely telling its opinion, it actively lobbies against laws which it disagrees with - and thus tries to impose its morality on others. The difference is very singificant. You are certainly free to put your trust in whomever you want to. I hope you grant me the same freedom.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

Clearly you have never been on the pill! Trust me, the side effects are not fun, and they are quite common. They are so bad, in fact, that I stopped taking it years before I even considered becoming Catholic - yes, when I was an atheist - because of them.

Being a male I obviously have not been in that position. But I know many females who have been, and none of them suffered any ill effects. Let’s just allow everyone to judge for themselves. Statistics show that literally hundreds of millions of females use the pill and only a small percentage ever experienced ill effects - and then they stopped taking it. No one forces to take them to continue.

 

[luvmykids]

Hitetlen:

Statistics show that literally hundreds of millions of females use the pill and only a small percentage ever experienced ill effects - and then they stopped taking it. No one forces to take them to continue.

Where exactly do your get your information on this? And since you are a man, how many females do you know that would confide that kind of information to you? I am female, and number one from experience, number 2 from all of the females I have spoken to in my lifetime about the pill, and number 3 I work in health care as a nurse, MOST women have some side effect. And MOST women don’t even have a sex drive anymore, or have a diminished one, and MOST women have a more difficult time having sex, because they are lacking in lubrication from the hormones in the pill. That seems kind of selfish on the man’s part, and certainly takes a lot of the enjoyment out of sex.

 

[PLAL]

Here is my view on contraception…

Catholic teaching states abortion is a grave sin since it is the destruction of human life. You are right there are many Catholics who are wrongly practicing contraception. Catholics who pick and choose the elements of the church which they feel they want are called “Cafeteria Catholics”. These are not “Practicing Catholics”. Catholic teaching states Contraception is wrong but Natural Family Planning (NFP) is OK since God is still in control of the decision making process.

I look at human sexuality as having 2 variables. There is “gratification” & “openess to new life”. With contraception you want the “gratification” without being “open to new life”. I think if God wanted us to have one of these variables without the other, God would have created another action. God’s Natural Law has both “gratification” & “openess to new life” as ONE ACTION. Who are we to tell the Creator this was a mistake?

Those who feel contraception is morally OK must defend other sexual acts which takes the “gratification” but leaves the “openess to new life” behind like homosexuality (man & man), pedifilia (man & boy), masterbation (man with himself) & beastiality (man & animal) all of which are condemned in the Bible. This is just the way I look at it.

Face it, Contraception is like a Bulimic! With *Contraception *people want the “gratification” but are not “open to life” which is contrary to God’s Natural Plan.

A Bulimic is similar since they want the “gratification” from food but then stick their finger down their throat because they do not want the “weight” which comes with it!!

NFP vs. Contraception ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441428

Contraception Why Not by Dr. Janet Smith
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

A Culture of Inverted Sexuality
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0049.html

Contraception and Breast Cancer
polycarp.org/overviewbreastcanceroralcontraceptives.htm

Abortion/Breast Cancer Relationship - Karen Malec 1-20-06
www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006

The Couple to Couple League
ccli.org/nfp/contraception/index.php

Sin of Onan (Genesis 38-8-10)
usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis38.htm

Christoher West - Theology of the Body
christopherwest.com/hearnow.asp

 

[PLAL]

cynic:

So let me understand this, a couple who have sex using contraception are merely using each other for pleasure, a totally loveless act. But a couple using nfp are doing it for the ‘unitive’ aspect. Even though they both seek to have intercourse without it resulting in children. Contracepting couples are only capable of self gratification, but nfp couples have unity. Riiight, sounds like very selective reasoning.

Natural Family Planning is the knowledge of a couple’s fertility. It is a knowledge base about a couple’s ability to conceive a child.

The application of this knowledge in a particular marriage is called responsible parenthood. The couple either decides to try to achieve a pregnancy or to avoid by timing their use of the privileges of marriage according to the knowledge of their mutual fertility. (The man, if healthy, is fertile all the time. The woman, if healthy, is fertile about three or four days a month.)

Responsible parenthood differs from contraception in two ways: 1. There is no alteration of the bodies of either the husband or wife and this is a huge difference. 2. When the couple uses the privileges of marriage, they are not holding back at all or refusing to give everything they are, physically and spiritually. If they are infertile at the time, this is the result of the way God created them. They are giving themselves totally to one another AS THEY ARE AT THAT MOMENT. No one could require more. Further, God never asked couples to use the privileges of marriage at any particular time. That decision is completely theirs. So, in the marital act during an infertile period, husband and wife who are applying the knowledge of their fertility (NFP) responsibly (responsible parenthood) are giving everything they are at that moment to one another.

The intention is also different. The NFP couple realizes that in every marital union there is a chance (perhaps remote) of conceiving a child and they accept this possibility. The contracepting couple (even if only with condoms) has a positive intention against contraception.

An example might help: I want some money from a bank. It makes a huge difference whether I go to the bank and draw the money out from a checking account or whether I approach a teller with a gun and “withdraw” $100. Either way, I get the $100, but one act is radically different from the other.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441428

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

You have my 100% agreement here. The trouble is that the Catholic Church does NOT stop at merely telling its opinion, it actively lobbies against laws which it disagrees with - and thus tries to impose its morality on others. The difference is very singificant. You are certainly free to put your trust in whomever you want to. I hope you grant me the same freedom.

So I’m free to put my trust in whomever I want, but not free to vote for whatever/whomever I want? Show me the law that does not impose morality. I’m sure there are people who feel laws against pedophilia and rape are “imposing someone else’s morality” on them, but the rest of society agrees these things are wrong, and therefore passes laws against them. That said, it seems to me that abortion and chemical forms of contraception (which can function as abortifacients) fall into a different category than barrier contraception in that the former harm a third party (the unborn child) while the latter only harm the couple, and that harm is psychological and spiritual rather than physical. For this reason, I would support laws against abortion and abortifacient contraception, but not necessarily against barrier methods (though I personally would not use them and would advise anyone willing to listen not to use them either). However, Catholics should also be free to refrain from promoting or selling them.

 

[BlindSheep]

luvmykids:

Where exactly do your get your information on this? And since you are a man, how many females do you know that would confide that kind of information to you? I am female, and number one from experience, number 2 from all of the females I have spoken to in my lifetime about the pill, and number 3 I work in health care as a nurse, MOST women have some side effect. And MOST women don’t even have a sex drive anymore, or have a diminished one, and MOST women have a more difficult time having sex, because they are lacking in lubrication from the hormones in the pill. That seems kind of selfish on the man’s part, and certainly takes a lot of the enjoyment out of sex.

Yes, it’s ironic isn’t it - you take the pill so you can have more sex, and the pill makes you lose interest in sex! Add that to the weight gain, raised blood pressure and increased risk of breast cancer…
It seems to me that women who are willing to take this poison rather than wait a couple of days for sex are making the same sort of irrational decisions as a person addicted to drugs or alcohol would - in other words, maybe sex addiction is more prevalent than we think.

 

[cynic]

Its more than a couple opf days, in some cases it’s 20 days out of the month. And then they can only do it at a time when they are least likely to want to, so nfp has a similiar effect.

I just can’t get my head around the whole marriage is primarily for children thing. Aside from the sexual morality stuff, the idea that couple might want ot spend some time togethor, just enjoy each others company for a while before having child after child after child…that’s just so repugnant to the catholic church. Marriage for companionship is repugnant to Catholics, it’s indulgent, and everything indulgent is baaaad. Talk about taking the fun out of life.

 

[luvmykids]

cynic:

Its more than a couple opf days, in some cases it’s 20 days out of the month. And then they can only do it at a time when they are least likely to want to, so nfp has a similiar effect.

I just can’t get my head around the whole marriage is primarily for children thing. Aside from the sexual morality stuff, the idea that couple might want ot spend some time togethor, just enjoy each others company for a while before having child after child after child…that’s just so repugnant to the catholic church. Marriage for companionship is repugnant to Catholics, it’s indulgent, and everything indulgent is baaaad. Talk about taking the fun out of life.

That is just your perception of it. My marriage did nothing but get better after I started living out the Catholic faith.

Most people don’t have child after child after child…I know about 5 or 6 Catholic couples using NFP right now, 3 of them have 2 children and have been married about 10-20 years, 1 of them has 1 child and has been married 9 years, and 1 has 3 children and has been married about 9 or 10 years.

And I never hear them complain about their sex life.

 

[cynic]

yeah but unless there’s no money left or some medical reason then they are not following Catholic teaching then, are they.

 

[Palamite]

Aquarius,

If someone has substantially incorrect knowledge of biology, then the object of their moral judgement doesn’t exist. Their moral judgement doesn’t matter.

It is for precisely this reason that I don’t believe certain Patristic proof-texts employed by Roman Catholic apologists are of any applicable value - they hang upon an understanding of what the “male seed” is and it’s relationship to conception which is simply incorrect. Moral judgements can only be made upon available information.

This shouldn’t be a scandal to anyone - for the same thing has happened in other areas, even within western (Roman Catholic) religious history. For example, there was a period in the west when Aristotle’s writings had regained immence popularity. A view taken from this by many western Christians (including Thomas Aquinas) was that newly conceived children were somehow “not human” - that they kind of evolved up a hierarchy of lifeforms, from an inanimate phase, through a vegetative one, through an animal stage, and then a human one. Thus while they still understood it to be a sin to cause harm to a new fetus, it wasn’t quite the same sin as murder if it was in early pregnancy. Now, while a lot of so called “pro choice Catholics” have taken tidbits like this and ran with it as a justification for allowing abortion, for them to do such is erroneous - it involves not reading such things in context and in light of what we now know about biology.

And what is it that we know? It is that from the moment of conception, a fetus is not only living, but it is undeniably human - it has a unique human DNA sequence which will not change for the course of it’s natural life.

One could say the same thing about something like cigarette smoking. While at one time no one had a clue about it’s detrimental health effects, this is now no longer the case. This is why I know many informed moralists would conclude that it is at least a “venial” sin, since it does hardm to the body. This is yet another case of better information having an effect on moral issues.

 

[Palamite]

What has struck me the most about reading this and other threads on this topic, is that the Roman Catholic position is not the “perennial teaching of the Christendom” that many RC apologists try and portray it as. In fact, reading these threads I’ve scarcely seen any appeals to Christian antiquity, the Church Fathers, etc.

While this may be due to ignorance on these sources on the part of those arguing here for the RC stance, I’m not inclined to believe that is the whole explanation. I think a large part of it is because the Church Fathers (where they do “sort of” address this issue) do no favours for the current RC position. Either they’re speaking out against abortion and abortifacient drugs (which doesn’t apply to contraception), or they’re espousing views based upon out-of-date science (regarding the nature of the male “seed”). Or they espouse views about what I call the “ascetical ideal” within marriage which typically reflect just as poorly on so called “NFP” as they do so called “artificial” methods of family planning.

Instead, what we are left with are quasi-rational appeals which have more of the characteristics of romantic sentimentalism, than a reasoning derived from “natural law”. At the heart of much of this “logic” are reservations about “marital intimacy” - that somehow you cannot be “as intimate” if you’re using ABC. This is very weak. Besides being incredibly presumptuous (as if those saying such things can get into the hearts and minds of other people and what they do and do not experience), such concerns are totally alien to the Church’s “perennial teaching” on this type of issue. Simply put, this is something the Roman Catholic Church has spun out of thin air in the 20th century, and has nothing to do with what the ancient Fathers taught. There is nothing about this teaching which is “obvious” or which need weigh upon the conscience of anyone, save those who (for whatever reason) accept that the Pope is “one head of the Body of Christ” with our Lord Jesus Christ (ala. Unum Sanctum).

 

[luvmykids]

cynic:

yeah but unless there’s no money left or some medical reason then they are not following Catholic teaching then, are they.

I wouldn’t judge them if I were you. The only way we would know for sure if they weren’t following Catholic teaching is if they were contracepting. You don’t know what each individual’s reasonings are. I know for sure that one of them would LOVE another child and they are suffering with secondary infertility right now. It is a big cross for them.

 

[luvmykids]

Palamite:

What has struck me the most about reading this and other threads on this topic, is that the Roman Catholic position is not the “perennial teaching of the Christendom” that many RC apologists try and portray it as. In fact, reading these threads I’ve scarcely seen any appeals to Christian antiquity, the Church Fathers, etc.

While this may be due to ignorance on these sources on the part of those arguing here for the RC stance, I’m not inclined to believe that is the whole explanation. I think a large part of it is because the Church Fathers (where they do “sort of” address this issue) do no favours for the current RC position. Either they’re speaking out against abortion and abortifacient drugs (which doesn’t apply to contraception), or they’re espousing views based upon out-of-date science (regarding the nature of the male “seed”). Or they espouse views about what I call the “ascetical ideal” within marriage which typically reflect just as poorly on so called “NFP” as they do so called “artificial” methods of family planning.

Instead, what we are left with are quasi-rational appeals which have more of the characteristics of romantic sentimentalism, than a reasoning derived from “natural law”. At the heart of much of this “logic” are reservations about “marital intimacy” - that somehow you cannot be “as intimate” if you’re using ABC. This is very weak. Besides being incredibly presumptuous (as if those saying such things can get into the hearts and minds of other people and what they do and do not experience), such concerns are totally alien to the Church’s “perennial teaching” on this type of issue. Simply put, this is something the Roman Catholic Church has spun out of thin air in the 20th century, and has nothing to do with what the ancient Fathers taught. There is nothing about this teaching which is “obvious” or which need weigh upon the conscience of anyone, save those who (for whatever reason) accept that the Pope is “one head of the Body of Christ” with our Lord Jesus Christ (ala. Unum Sanctum).

I wouldn’t call it romanticism anymore than you can call recieving the body of Christ in the Eucharist romanticism. Maybe you should do more reading on the Catholic teaching of what marriage is. I think also that the Church father’s did not have the same issues with ABC’s as we do in this day and age and didn’t suffer the effects of what it has done to society and in turn the family unit.

Also, there are plenty of secular reasons why natural family planning is far superior than ABC’s unless of course you are someone who cannot control your sexual urges. That is the main argument I have heard so far against NFP. People just have no self mastery and want to be able to do it whenever the urge or the “need” occurs. They are also ignorant to exactly what NFP entails and have a false preconceived notion about it.
A lot of people are also ignorant to the effects of ABC.

 

[Palamite]

luvmykids,

I wouldn’t call it romanticism anymore than you can call recieving the body of Christ in the Eucharist romanticism.

I don’t see any parallel here. The medicine of immortality (Holy Communion) is received (fundamentally) to enlighten the “nous” (unified centre of the soul/spiritual vision) and divinize the whole man (further assimilating him into the Theandric Christ, whose member the genuine Christian in fact is).

I think also that the Church father’s did not have the same issues with ABC’s as we do in this day and age and didn’t suffer the effects of what it has done to society and in turn the family unit.

In short, their argument is of no assitance to the Roman Catholic position on this topic - if anything, it sometimes weighs against it.

Also, there are plenty of secular reasons why natural family planning is far superior than ABC’s unless of course you are someone who cannot control your sexual urges.

And there are plenty of reasons why the RC position on family planning is pastorally irresponsible and far too heavy handed to take into account every single situation a couple may encounter.

As for “controling your sexual urges”, this is a critique which can be thrown in your face - if you don’t want children, and being “open to life” is so important, then perhaps you should be living with your spouse as “brother and sister.”

That is the main argument I have heard so far against NFP.

That’s not what I’ve read in this thread at all. The main argument has in fact been that the distinctions the RCC draws between NFP and ABC are immaterial, and hence are not a basis for burdening people’s consciences.

People just have no self mastery and want to be able to do it whenever the urge or the “need” occurs.

Again, that same critique and others like them can be thrown in the face of NFP’ers - they lack the self mastery to live without sex when they feel they cannot properly care for another child, or worse yet, are faithless in so far as they don’t believe God would provide for them should they conceive another child. They are also “lustful” in so far as they want to be able to have sexual intimacy without the consequence of children, so they do their best to avoid this. How fair does that sound to you?

A lot of people are also ignorant to the effects of ABC.

Yes, such as those who say that it destroys intimacy or the ability of married couples to express true affection.

 

[luvmykids]

Palamite:

And there are plenty of reasons why the RC position on family planning is pastorally irresponsible and far too heavy handed to take into account every single situation a couple may encounter…

You could say the same thing about the teaching against abortion.

Palamite:

As for “controling your sexual urges”, this is a critique which can be thrown in your face - if you don’t want children, and being “open to life” is so important, then perhaps you should be living with your spouse as “brother and sister.”…

Perhaps, but the problem is that people assume that just because you are using abc that you are in the clear when in fact there is still a chance of a pregnancy. So perhaps the same goes for people who use abc. You really are just not getting the whole premise behind the use of nfp and the reasons why it is morally acceptable. It is just not clicking. So this is something I can’t argue with you. Maybe someone else would be able to explain it better, but I think it has been tried and those against it just don’t see. Maybe if you put it into practice you might see the benefits of it and gain more insight about it.

Palamite:

That’s not what I’ve read in this thread at all. The main argument has in fact been that the distinctions the RCC draws between NFP and ABC are immaterial, and hence are not a basis for burdening people’s consciences…

ABC has always been wrong in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and that will never change.

Palamite:

Again, that same critique and others like them can be thrown in the face of NFP’ers - they lack the self mastery to live without sex when they feel they cannot properly care for another child, or worse yet, are faithless in so far as they don’t believe God would provide for them should they conceive another child. They are also “lustful” in so far as they want to be able to have sexual intimacy without the consequence of children, so they do their best to avoid this. How fair does that sound to you?.

I do not see the comparison here. Self mastery is being able to control the urges. Not giving into them every time they occur, and only when it is an appropriate time. According to your reasoning, NFP’ers would ONLY be able to have sex during fertile times, because you are saying it is wrong to do otherwise. God made a woman infertile at certain times of her cycle for a reason. Again, NFP’ers can be wrong also in their use of NFP. This is something that needs careful consideration, prayer, and discernment, but in the mean time, they are doing nothing to interfere with the sex act, and nothing that would harm their bodies.

Palamite:

Yes, such as those who say that it destroys intimacy or the ability of married couples to express true affection.

I don’t see anyone here that has said that.

 

[cynic]

luvmykids:

I don’t see anyone here that has said that.

its the cornerstone of the argument made against contraception.