Contraception - is the pendulum starting to swing back for non-catholics?

[jilly4ski]

Although some more orthodox Christians may revert back to the thought that contraception is wrong, it seems that the vast majority of Christians will never get there.

I can understand why protestants view NFP as catholic birth control… it is because many Catholics do use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. NFP takes great discipline and unselfish love… but the rewards are worth the struggle.

I don’t know if this poster is still on this thread, but I wanted to point out that the last paragraph is very contradictory. How can a couple use NFP with a contraceptive mentality, but it still require great discipline and unselfishness. Are those things not the opposite of the “contraceptive mentality?”

 

[TCEL]

If someone truly thinks NFP and contraception are the same, then Catholics shouldn’t have a problem obeying Church teaching on this, and Protestants shouldn’t have a problem returning to what the reformers taught about it. Why the hesitation in adopting NFP?

 

[Kliska]

The consistent position would be to either say it is never permissible to have sex when one intends to avoid or reduce the chance of conception, which was the position of the Early Church Fathers, or it is permissible to have sex with the intention of avoiding conception in certain circumstances, and the method of avoiding conception is inconsequential as long as it is not abortifacent.

Yup.

 

[TCEL]

Ok. The bluntness of what I’m about to say isn’t meant to be offensive, but it came to me one day when I was reflecting about this. Dieting and bulimia aren’t the same thing.

 

[jilly4ski]

Yup.

No, methods (ie means, ,the ends don’t justify the means) are important. Like the poster before me said. Wanting to lose weight is great, but how one accomplishes that is important. Exercise and limiting food intake would be the “moral” way to lose weight, the immoral way to lose weight is to throw up the food after you have had the pleasure of eating it. Purposely throwing up food disorders the act of eating, similarly to how contraception disorders the marital act.

And I reject the previous poster’s assertion (or it is being misinterpreted) about the early church fathers. Otherwise pregnant women, post menopausal women, or infertile couples could never engage in the marital act. There is no sin in engaging in the marital act when you know you are infertile, just like there is no imperative to engage in the marital act when you know you are fertile. What is sinful, is disordering the marital act to alter the procreative nature of the marital act.

 

[Kliska]

No, methods (ie means, ,the ends don’t justify the means) are important. Like the poster before me said. Wanting to lose weight is great, but how one accomplishes that is important. Exercise and limiting food intake would be the “moral” way to lose weight, the immoral way to lose weight is to throw up the food after you have had the pleasure of eating it. Purposely throwing up food disorders the act of eating, similarly to how contraception disorders the marital act.

Of course I and others are not going to agree to that perspective. Looking at NFP logically as it is presented in the mainstream, the rhetorical analogy with bulimia vs. “diet” doesn’t hold (besides the fact that bulimia isn’t about losing weight). NFP is a way to not have children, it is touted as such, and pushed as such. From the “outside” of the RCC, this is indeed seen as a contradictory teaching, even setting aside the fact that a majority of Catholics also use other methods of not having children.

NFP is touted as a more effective means of birth control by the RCC, hence if that is true, there is more of a chance of getting pregnant using condoms than using NFP, so which is more procreative?

 

[jilly4ski]

Of course I and others are not going to agree to that perspective. Looking at NFP logically as it is presented in the mainstream, the rhetorical analogy with bulimia vs. “diet” doesn’t hold (besides the fact that bulimia isn’t about losing weight). NFP is a way to not have children, it is touted as such, and pushed as such. From the “outside” of the RCC, this is indeed seen as a contradictory teaching, even setting aside the fact that a majority of Catholics also use other methods of not having children.

NFP is touted as a more effective means of birth control by the RCC, hence if that is true, there is more of a chance of getting pregnant using condoms than using NFP, so which is more procreative?

So are you saying means don’t matter? Pretty sure the saying “the ends don’t justify the means” is used in secular ethics and morality.

Yes, from the outside, people greatly misunderstand the Church’s opposition to contraception. That doesn’t mean that it is illogical, or that the opposition is logical.

And I didn’t use the term bulimia(since bulimia is more that an action, but also a disease), but some people who suffer from bulimia are trying to lose weight, have poor body image, or etc. I was merely talking about the act of throwing up your food after you eat it, because you got the pleasure of eating it, but don’t have to deal with the consequences of eating that food is very similar to contraception.

And you are not using the word procreative correctly.

 

[TCEL]

Well, I thought the term bulimia, while not as accurate, might be less acidic than vomitorium. People outside the issue, if they view NFP and contraception the same, should have no problem using it. It doesn’t involve hormones or mutilation. Not to mention how empowering it is to the woman to have a better understanding of her body. I really hate to use such strong terms, but this was a small part of my own coming to understanding, the natural part, so to speak. If it was helpful for me, it might be for others. The greater part was understanding the sacramental economy.

EDIT: I want to clarify that, personally, I won’t speak to the culpability of people who contracept, since that is definitely above my pay grade, especially when contraception is considered about as necessary as food and water. But I will never stop speaking, if the topic comes up, as to the Church’s position. It was a conversion. . Not what I personally would have picked, but there you go.

 

[ffg]

There is no such thing as ‘contraceptive mentality’.

Not having sex, is especially not a sin if a married couple are on the same page to not engage in the act.

That would mean communication and understanding was occurring, presumably through discussion, one the most healthy of mental activities.

When a married couple are on the same page, many times that is through or due to the graces from partaking in the sacrament marriage.

There is enough sin in this world to avoid, that we shouldn’t look to be creating them.

NFP and a sin of ‘contraceptive mentality’ (if there was one) would be contradictory for the Church to teach both (which it does not do).