Contraception is just like bulemia!

[Palamite]

luvmykids,

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

I suppose you could try and say the same thing about anything. The key distinction being, a demonstrable good is being violated in the case of abortion - that cannot be demonstrated in the case of any use of ABC.

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.

Of course there’s still a chance. Total abstinance is the only “free and clear”. The same would hold true of NFP.

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.

That’s a cop-out. The problem is you cannot actually demonstrate where one is moral (NFP) while the other is not (ABC). That is a failure on your part (and those arguing on your side) not in my ability to understand.

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

Depending who and when you asked, so would have NFP. Your belief that this is a subject that always had a uniform, homogenous answer and interpretation is mistaken.

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.

This is all fine in so far as it goes - but it does not demonstrate why the use of “ABC” would be immoral. Again, being “natural” or “unnatural” does not make something of itself good or bad - the fact that you live in a house and wear clothing should be evidence enough of this.

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

I think you need to re-read some of your past postings; the whole argument that say, the use of condoms would “reduce intimacy”, and that this supposedly stood as some sort of moral argument against ABC.

 

[Palamite]

post script…

Perhaps there is something proceedurally I’m unaware of about this forum, but why was this thread moved to “water cooler”. This seems to very much be a “moral theological” subject, which is where this thread was originally.

I’m a little confused.

 

[luvmykids]

cynic:

its the cornerstone of the argument made against contaception.

Really? I think maybe the words are twisted just slightly. Read this article, maybe it will explain it better.
catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=15304

“The statistical connection between contraception and abortion (never mind divorce, violence against women and children, decreased fertility, etc). After contraception was legalized, the rates of abortion increased dramatically, they did not decrease. The contraceptive mentality has led many in society to believe that one may engage in sex without consequences, which has in turn increased the rate of promiscuity and infidelity. I don’t believe this is really arguable. Furthermore, and I’m sure you know this already, but it is a fact that ALL forms of contraception have both a theoretical failure rate, and even higher “real-world” failure rate. I believe it is logical to deduce that these two realities combined to result in the increased use of abortion.”
catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/pastoral/tucker-letter.htm

 

[Palamite]

luvmykids,

“The statistical connection between contraception and abortion (never mind divorce, violence against women and children, decreased fertility, etc). After contraception was legalized, the rates of abortion increased dramatically, they did not decrease. The contraceptive mentality has led many in society to believe that one may engage in sex without consequences, which has in turn increased the rate of promiscuity and infidelity. I don’t believe this is really arguable. Furthermore, and I’m sure you know this already, but it is a fact that ALL forms of contraception have both a theoretical failure rate, and even higher “real-world” failure rate. I believe it is logical to deduce that these two realities combined to result in the increased use of abortion.”

I think this is more of a problem with the permissiveness of our culture for extra-marital sex, than the use of contraception itself (let alone contraception used with the context of marriage.) Pre-marital sex has demonstrated itself to be extremely ruinous for marriage, both in the cases of people who “shack up” before they’re married and those who’ve had “previous relationships” (fornication) with other people before getting married.

Where I think there is a touch of truth though in this criticism you post, is in the whole “anti-child” mentality that a lot of married couples have. However, I’m hard pressed to see how that mindset doesn’t infect at least some of those who characterize themselves as “NFP users” as well. We come again to the issue of intentions, rather than simply methods. I do think there is a real problem these days with people being rather stingy towards the prospects of having decent sized families and looking at children as being people who are going to be “taking something” from them. Instead of being seen as blessings, children are viewed as parasites. This is very sad.

However, that is a problem which unfortunatly cannot be said to only affect those who would use ABC to space/delay children.

 

[luvmykids]

Palamite:

luvmykids,

I suppose you could try and say the same thing about anything. The key distinction being, a demonstrable good is being violated in the case of abortion - that cannot be demonstrated in the case of any use of ABC…

Yes it can, read up on all forms of contraception besides the condom.

Palamite:

Of course there’s still a chance. Total abstinance is the only “free and clear”. The same would hold true of NFP…

Yes, but the difference with the NFP’ers is that they are still being open to life when they are having sex outside the fertile period.

Palamite:

That’s a cop-out. The problem is you cannot actually demonstrate where one is moral (NFP) while the other is not (ABC). That is a failure on your part (and those arguing on your side) not in my ability to understand…

You are interfering with the sex act when using abc. An act, that if you believe in God, is a meant to be a sacred act. Two become one flesh. How is this romanticism when this is the word of God? Are you calling the word of God romanticism?

Palamite:

This is all fine in so far as it goes - but it does not demonstrate why the use of “ABC” would be immoral. Again, being “natural” or “unnatural” does not make something of itself good or bad - the fact that you live in a house and wear clothing should be evidence enough of this…

So what you are saying is that a teaching that has held true throughout the history of the Church as being wrong, is not evidence enough that it is immoral. Look at the statistics of what has occured with this society since contraception has become common usage.

Palamite:

I think you need to re-read some of your past postings; the whole argument that say, the use of condoms would “reduce intimacy”, and that this supposedly stood as some sort of moral argument against ABC.

Again, you’ve twisted my words and taken them out of context. I was talking about my personal experience with condoms. Not all abc. It is a fact that you are putting a barrier between 2 people when you use condoms. Even before I began to understand why contraception was wrong, I felt this way about condoms. What do you think is more intimate, having sex with a piece of latex between you, or without when there is skin to skin contact? If it really isn’t any different then why is it more enjoyable to men without it on? How am I wrong on this?

 

[luvmykids]

Palamite:

luvmykids,
I think this is more of a problem with the permissiveness of our culture for extra-marital sex, than the use of contraception itself (let alone contraception used with the context of marriage.) Pre-marital sex has demonstrated itself to be extremely ruinous for marriage, both in the cases of people who “shack up” before they’re married and those who’ve had “previous relationships” (fornication) with other people before getting married.

How do you think this has become so much more accepted and easy for people? Contraception. I certainly would have thought twice about having sex before marriage if there was no contraception or “protection” as some may call it. You feel somehow falsely “protected”. If you think otherwise, you must be in denial.

 

[Nohome]

PLAL:

Catholics who pick and choose the elements of the church which they feel they want are called “Cafeteria Catholics”.

They are called this by whom? I can’t find the term in the CCC, Canon Law or any other reference of the RCC.

PLAL:

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.

You might have just solved the Priest shortage! According to the most recent data available, no more than 3.5% of Catholics are using NFP. Just think about the surplus of priests when you get rid of all those “non-practicing Catholics”!

Nohome

PS According to the most recent National Survey of Family Growth (2002 data), NFP has a 25% failure rate in the United States. With numbers like that, the number of “good Catholics” is bound to grow!

 

[luvmykids]

Nohome:

PS According to the most recent National Survey of Family Growth (2002 data), NFP has a 25% failure rate in the United States. With numbers like that, the number of “good Catholics” is bound to grow!

That figure does not account for the fact that there was no differentiation as to what method of abstinence was used during the fertile period. If they were having sex with a condom during the fertile time, or withdrawing, etc… If it’s used correctly, the rate of pregnancy isn’t that high.

 

[Balance]

Nohome:

They are called this by whom? I can’t find the term in the CCC, Canon Law or any other reference of the RCC.

You might have just solved the Priest shortage! According to the most recent data available, no more than 3.5% of Catholics are using NFP. Just think about the surplus of priests when you get rid of all those “non-practicing Catholics”!

Nohome

PS According to the most recent National Survey of Family Growth (2002 data), NFP has a 25% failure rate in the United States. With numbers like that, the number of “good Catholics” is bound to grow!

USED CORRECTLY, NFP is 99% effective. A figure of just 75% includes people who don’t use it correctly - read the signs wrong etc - and couples who use “the rhythm method” which is no good for women with irregular cycles.

So a 99% effective method for spacing pregnancies and planning your family without introducing any artificial hormones or devices into a woman’s body or using methods desribed as “protection” or “barrier”- sounds good to me.

 

[cynic]

luvmykids:

How do you think this has become so much more accepted and easy for people? Contraception. I certainly would have thought twice about having sex before marriage if there was no contraception or “protection” as some may call it. You feel somehow falsely “protected”. If you think otherwise, you must be in denial.

what has that to do with married couples?

 

[Nohome]

luvmykids:

That figure does not account for the fact that there was no differentiation as to what method of abstinence was used during the fertile period. If they were having sex with a condom during the fertile time, or withdrawing, etc… If it’s used correctly, the rate of pregnancy isn’t that high.

Actually, it does. It breaks it down into NFP, rythem, withdrawl and periodic abstience.

 

[Nohome]

USED CORRECTLY, NFP is 99% effective. A figure of just 75% includes people who don’t use it correctly - read the signs wrong etc - and couples who use “the rhythm method” which is no good for women with irregular cycles.

So a 99% effective method for spacing pregnancies and planning your family without introducing any artificial hormones or devices into a woman’s body or using methods desribed as “protection” or “barrier”- sounds good to me.

The CDC puts the same caveot on the use of condoms to prevent aids (used correctly) and the RCC quickly condems such statements because “used correctly” over time eventually means failure.

As I mentioned, the report separates out methods such as rhythm. Of course, this is with 3.5% using the method. Imagine the failure rate if even 10% used NFP!

Nohome

 

[Georgette]

Hi!

Contraception is a sexual vomitorium!

I got that from a priest’s Blog recently, unfortunately I can’t find which one!! grrrr, I hate when that happens. Since I don’t have it to quote from, I will paraphrase what he said, which, IMHO was terrific:

The ancient Romans deemed eating not as a means to an end, i.e. to sustain their life and strength, but they deemed it as a pleasure and an end unto itself. This attitude led to extravagant feasts of food and wine where the sensation and pleasure of eating was everything-- and when they could gorge no more, they would visit the vomitorium, empty out and come back to the table to gorge yet again!

Most of us think this is pretty gross. (I sure do.) Yet, this is exactly what those who practice contraception are doing! They are focusing on the pleasure as the end itself, while denying the actual end the pleasure is only intended as being a means to, namely the creation of children and the strengthening of the bond of husband and wife. And just as gorging and vomiting reduces the dignity of the person doing it, so too does contraception reduce the dignity of the people involved, as they become willful partners in the mockery of the intended purpose and beauty of the marital act.

For my own 2 cents, I would make the additional comment that abortion is an even darker illustration of the vomitorium, and it even further lowers the dignity of woman by allowing men to use her body as they wish, as a mere object, and if she gets pregnant, she is sent off to the abortuary to essentially “empty out” the life growing there so that she can be used yet again.
Because of this very fact, I cannot understand why any “feminist” would support abortion–it is beyond me!

In Christ,
Georgette
URL: chronicleofameanderingtraveller.blogspot.com

 

[luvmykids]

Nohome:

Actually, it does. It breaks it down into NFP, rythem, withdrawl and periodic abstience.

OK. show me your source for this.

 

[Palamite]

luvmykids,

Yes, but the difference with the NFP’ers is that they are still being open to life when they are having sex outside the fertile period.

Read what you wrote - “open to life when they are having sex outside the fertile period”. Umm, no they’re not. If you’re not fertile, you’re not fertile - no baby.

IOW. “NFP” is “open to life” when it doesn’t work - kind of life how condoms are “open to life” when they break or “birth control pills” are open to life when not taken correctly.

You are interfering with the sex act when using abc.

But how is this “interfering” objectively immoral? That’s what hasn’t been shown in any convincing way. And while it’s a different type of meddling, I fail to see how calculating just when you’re going to have sexual relations (so as to avoid fertility) is not a type of meddling - since there is nothing accidental or spontaneous about this NFP business. It’s all calculated to avoid babies.

An act, that if you believe in God, is a meant to be a sacred act.

Well, “sacred” may be going a little far - sex isn’t the 8th sacrament after all.

Two become one flesh.

Which is not stopped just because the spouses are not fertile - whether by design, timing, or nature.

How is this romanticism when this is the word of God? Are you calling the word of God romanticism?

Precisely because this isn’t the word of God - it’s your word, and your Pope’s word. It’s not even the “word” of the Fathers.

So what you are saying is that a teaching that has held true throughout the history of the Church as being wrong, is not evidence enough that it is immoral.

It’s already been demonstrated sufficiently (the lack of so much as an attempt to employ the Fathers to argue for the RC position by anyone in these threads is very telling) that the RC position is not the teaching held “throughout the history of the Church”, so I’m not impugning antiquity or the consensus of the Fathers by rejecting this relatively late formulation.

Look at the statistics of what has occured with this society since contraception has become common usage.

Statistics which when examined, have little relevence to this question as I’m sure I’ll have the opportunity to demonstrate.

I was talking about my personal experience with condoms.

Ah, so now we have it - this was all your personal, subjective opinion all along. Thank-you, as that is precisely how I characterized this. And thank-you for putting your words in context. Though in the future, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t project your own personal, subjective experiences upon everyone in God’s creation as a moral norm.

What do you think is more intimate, having sex with a piece of latex between you, or without when there is skin to skin contact?

What do you think is more intimate, position x or postion y? Sorry if that’s purient, but it’s that’s the direction your reasoning is leading and the only parallel example I can think of which shows the fallacy of your argument.

If it really isn’t any different then why is it more enjoyable to men without it on?

For the same reason that men who are not circumcized generally find marital relations more “enjoyable” (greater sensitivity). Are you proposing the excommunication of all medically circumcized men from the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Palamite]

luvmykids,

re. contraceptive and growing “loose morals”

How do you think this has become so much more accepted and easy for people? Contraception. I certainly would have thought twice about having sex before marriage if there was no contraception or “protection” as some may call it. You feel somehow falsely “protected”. If you think otherwise, you must be in denial.

I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of things (as many a young people are well aware) that you can “do” while getting your thrills, which don’t involve even the remote possibility of conception.

However, I have to wonder just what real bearing your argument here has upon the use of contraceptives by married people. In a way, this is like saying all books should be banned, because some of them have naughty things in them or bad ideas. Or perhaps an even better example would be the Internet. While it is true that folks like you and I are having these interesting, thought provoking discussions on the Internet and are now better able to do all sorts of wholesome worthwhile things much more easily by having the Internet (talking to people from different nations, having access to oodles and oodles of articles and essays, etc.), isn’t it also true that the Internet has also resulted in an explosion of pornography? That there are plenty of people who are disposed to use the Internet to arrange all sorts of unseemly and criminal things?

Well, it’s all the same Internet - it’s the very same networks and freedoms it affords, which allow both this message forum, and sicko pedophile garbage or the ability for terrorists to rapidly communicate. How does how those people use such a tool have any bearing on how you or I are using it?

 

[Palamite]

Georgette,

Contraception is a sexual vomitorium!

As I posted previously, if this is an accurate analogy than so is this one - NFP is like waiting until one has chronic diarrhea in order to gorge yourself (since anything you eat will not be properly assimilated into the body - most of it will pass right through you.)

Personally, I’m inclined to think both analogies are silly and miss the point…but if you’re going to indulge in such things…

They are focusing on the pleasure as the end itself, while denying the actual end the pleasure is only intended as being a means to, namely the creation of children and the strengthening of the bond of husband and wife.

The only way NFP is capable of fulfiling this supposed essential end of sexual relations (procreation of children), is if the couple using it messes up. And by that reasoning, condoms and birth control pills are also “open to life”, since they can be misused or otherwise fail.

And just as gorging and vomiting reduces the dignity of the person doing it, so too does contraception reduce the dignity of the people involved, as they become willful partners in the mockery of the intended purpose and beauty of the marital act.

If ABC (artificial birth control) is a “mockery” for putting a bulletproof vest over the target, NFP is a mockery for going out of the way to shoot at the target in the worst possible light, in the worst possible weather at the worst possible distance.

Same intended end, different methods. Both stand and fall together on that basis, everything else being accidental.

 

[Georgette]

Palamite,

Yes, absolutely. The Church agrees that NFP can also be misused.

~Georgette

 

[Nohome]

luvmykids:

OK. show me your source for this.

cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm

I think it is in the link called “use of contraception”, but I just scanned it and could not find the table that would be most useful for this discussion. It is 46 pages long and I can’t take time in the day to find this, perhaps tonight.

Be sure to look at how low the numbers (of users) are for both rythmn and NFP. Even if they are combined for failure rates, NFP is obviously not getting nowhere near 99% in practice. The 99% is always qualified with “perfect use” and let’s face it, nobody is perfect.

The number I repeatedly see is 87% for “typical use”, which I believe is far more realistic than “perfect use”. Actually, considering how few use NFP, I suppose the effectiveness is really a moot point. If “it doesn’t work” doesn’t scare people away, “nobody uses it” certainly will.

Nohome

 

[luvmykids]

Palamite:

luvmykids,

Read what you wrote - “open to life when they are having sex outside the fertile period”. Umm, no they’re not. If you’re not fertile, you’re not fertile - no baby.

IOW. “NFP” is “open to life” when it doesn’t work - kind of life how condoms are “open to life” when they break or “birth control pills” are open to life when not taken correctly.?

When you are using NFP you are not doing anything to interfere with your God given state at that point in time. With ABC, you are. Tired of arguing this point. You are cooperating with the way God made your body to be.

Palamite:

But how is this “interfering” objectively immoral? That’s what hasn’t been shown in any convincing way. And while it’s a different type of meddling, I fail to see how calculating just when you’re going to have sexual relations (so as to avoid fertility) is not a type of meddling - since there is nothing accidental or spontaneous about this NFP business. It’s all calculated to avoid babies.?

It’s calculated, but the Church also teaches that this is something that needs careful consideration and not to be used selfishly.

Palamite:

Well, “sacred” may be going a little far - sex isn’t the 8th sacrament after all.?

It’s not going a little to far, and yes it is part of the sacrament called marriage. Marriage is not marriage unless it is consummated. Marriage is an outward sign of Christ and the Church

Palamite:

Precisely because this isn’t the word of God - it’s your word, and your Pope’s word. It’s not even the “word” of the Fathers.

It’s already been demonstrated sufficiently (the lack of so much as an attempt to employ the Fathers to argue for the RC position by anyone in these threads is very telling) that the RC position is not the teaching held “throughout the history of the Church”, so I’m not impugning antiquity or the consensus of the Fathers by rejecting this relatively late formulation.?

When was contraception ever accepted by the Church?

Palamite:

Ah, so now we have it - this was all your personal, subjective opinion all along. Thank-you, as that is precisely how I characterized this. And thank-you for putting your words in context. Though in the future, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t project your own personal, subjective experiences upon everyone in God’s creation as a moral norm.?

I didn’t project it as a moral norm,and from now on, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t twist my words and accuse me of things that are not true. Since when is it against the rules to use personal experiences as examples in this forum? Thank you.

Palamite:

What do you think is more intimate, position x or postion y? Sorry if that’s purient, but it’s that’s the direction your reasoning is leading and the only parallel example I can think of which shows the fallacy of your argument.
For the same reason that men who are not circumcized generally find marital relations more “enjoyable” (greater sensitivity). Are you proposing the excommunication of all medically circumcized men from the Roman Catholic Church?

Still don’t want to answer my question do you?