Contraception question...again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thoughtfulone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thoughtfulone said:
I am aware that you see a difference between ABC and NFP morally speaking. I do not.
Click to expand...
Hey

I cannot believe you are still batting this issue around, however the other day some one reprinted an article which reminded me of this thread, so let me ask. If this thread is rephrased as : ***“Statistical 98% of Catholic woman and roughly an equal number of men violate the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception, isn’t that enough to indicate there is a issue with the teaching which needs reviewed?” *** Would the thread make more sense that way?
 
Texas_Roofer said:
Hey

I cannot believe you are still batting this issue around, however the other day some one reprinted an article which reminded me of this thread, so let me ask. If this thread is rephrased as : ***“Statistical 98% of Catholic woman and roughly an equal number of men violate the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception, isn’t that enough to indicate there is a issue with the teaching which needs reviewed?” ***Would the thread make more sense that way?
Click to expand...
If look carefully at the question that goes with the 98%, you will see that it questions if the women ever, used contraception. They did not ask if they are currently using. Seems like an, agenda driven, use of a misleading headline.
 
davidv said:
If look carefully at the question that goes with the 98%, you will see that it questions if the women ever, used contraception. They did not ask if they are currently using. Seems like an, agenda driven, use of a misleading headline.
Click to expand...
Give me a break.

Of course a couple trying to have their obligatory 2.2 children at times won’t need contraception. Likewise, a 75 year old woman doesn’t need contraception.

I just can’t understand why folks who want to contracept feel the need for the Church’s blessing to do so.
 
mark_a said:
Give me a break.

Of course a couple trying to have their obligatory 2.2 children at times won’t need contraception. Likewise, a 75 year old woman doesn’t need contraception.

I just can’t understand why folks who want to contracept feel the need for the Church’s blessing to do so.
Click to expand...
Do you think my post was supporting contraception? Not in any way.

I saw the headline as a distortion of the truth that was meant as an attack against the Church by attempting show the ineffectiveness of it teachings.
 
davidv said:
Do you think my post was supporting contraception? Not in any way.

I saw the headline as a distortion of the truth that was meant as an attack against the Church by attempting show the ineffectiveness of it teachings.
Click to expand...
My bad.😊
 
Haha, you don’t give up, do you ThoughtfulOne 🙂

I admire your strength in this.it. Personally it has exhausted me and I had to pull myself away before it caused some major problems for me in my faith.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I still agree with you 100% (more so now than ever before), and I hope all is well!
 
For Debra 123
The devil never gives up either.

Christ’s Church is expressly His foundation to teach truth.

So, from what do you dissent in the renowned Fr Stephen Torraco’s defence of truth in post #176?
Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church.
 
Debora123 said:
Haha, you don’t give up, do you ThoughtfulOne 🙂

I admire your strength in this.it. Personally it has exhausted me and I had to pull myself away before it caused some major problems for me in my faith.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I still agree with you 100% (more so now than ever before), and I hope all is well!
Click to expand...
Thanks Debora 🙂 It’s a really tough issue for me and I like you, may have to pull away from it for awhile and mull it over in my own mind and prayer life as opposed to here online,because I am struggling with it also.

Thanks for the support and I hope all is well with you too! Good to see you around again 🙂
 
Abu said:
For Debra 123
The devil never gives up either.

Christ’s Church is expressly His foundation to teach truth.

So, from what do you dissent in the renowned Fr Stephen Torraco’s defence of truth in post #176?
Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Um, am I supposed to be the devil in this scenario?
 
Thoughtfulone,

I’m not sure how far along you are, but I was thinking (hoping) maybe you had disappeared to have that baby! 😉 Take care and God bless. 🙂
 
Thoughtfulone
am I supposed to be the devil in this scenario?
Click to expand...
Hardly. Merely a truism – that the devil is known for his tenacity which does not make him right or appreciative of truth.

Fr Stephen Torraco also was known for his perseverance and clarity which he displays so well in showing the difference between NBR and contraception as infallibly taught by Christ through His Church.
 
Good_Daughter said:
Thoughtfulone,

I’m not sure how far along you are, but I was thinking (hoping) maybe you had disappeared to have that baby! 😉 Take care and God bless. 🙂
Click to expand...
Haha, sorry, not quite! Only 20 weeks along, but I went on a family vacation with my hubby and son before all the baby craziness takes over! I hope you had a lovely Easter and thanks for thinking of me 🙂
 
I have never quite understood why NFP is so widely accepted as an acceptable form of birth control. This seems to be a fairly recent decision by the Church. This is definietly as teaching that we saw in the early church. The Church Fathers have spoken out against having sexual intercourse in such a manner that procreation is avoided. If you are purosefully avoiding conception, how is that open to life? Especially when people gives the statistics for NFP and tout the success (or rather failure rate) rate of avoiding conception. I have seen Catholic sources say that NFP is 99.6% effective, higher effective rate than condoms! Yet we are supposed to believe that NFP is open to life with such high rates of preventing life?

“But I wonder why he the heretic Jovinianus set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother his seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?” Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19, (AD 393)

“To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 (AD 191)

“They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption” Epiphanius, Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 (AD 375)

“This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion” Austine, The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 (AD 388).
 
After reading many threads that go on for several or dozens of pages, I will attempt to summarize - without using official sources b/c so many people have done so.

I think this goes under the heading of “many are called, but few are chosen.” These teachings are difficult and the Church, when presented of evidence of the potential difficulties - exhaustion, ill health, too many children, morbidity and mortality, anxiety - they see these difficulties but they see it as doing what’s right is more important. Those problems I listed are not experienced by everyone, and many couples may not have any of them at all.

However some people will have some of those problems. The people who oppose the Catholic view of birth control have often seen these problems and could be struggling with the fact that the Catholic church wants obedience in all situations. The people who support these ideals focus on eternal life and say that in this life people should obey and work towards their salvation.

Obviously there will always be far more people in the first category, who are turned off by real-life experience or problems with avoiding ABC/using NFP, everything from inconvenience to potential mortality. There will be few people in the second category by comparison, but they will see themselves as living out the Faith. I think so many people struggle with this b/c this is a situation where Catholics need to choose between living out ideals, with possible negative consequences, and being utilitarian for lack of a better word - evaluating events based on consequences, and dropping the Catholic view of life as one of at least trying to live up to ideals.

The Catholic position is that although we are all sinners, the ideals are correct and can’t change. Knowingly using ABC goes against that and I think a lot of people find something beautiful and worthwhile by trying to follow ideals, no matter how much they or others come up short. For example the Beatitudes express ideals for human behavior; people fail to live up to them every day but that does not mean they lose their value.

(next post for the practicalities as I see them)
 
One reason I think threads go on for pages is that people don’t want to be too graphic. I’m going to try to summarize without being graphic myself. The Catholic view of intercourse seems to be that -

1 - the man needs to ‘finish’ inside his wife with no barrier.

2 - both the man and the woman need to be ‘virginal’ or ‘untouched’ in a sense. By this I don’t mean sexually inexperienced; I mean unchanged by anything. As in unspoiled. Sterilization of either the man or the woman for non-medical reasons seems to be viewed as a type of violation, unlike other voluntary surgeries. So it can’t be done b/c people should not choose to violate themselves. In contrast infertile people can marry b/c they are stuck with infertility due to whatever reason, which could be totally random, but they didn’t choose surgical intervention that altered normal sexuality.
  1. The couple needs to be open to life in terms of wanting children and being willing to have them, assuming they can and with respect for their judgment about that.
  2. The Church recognizes that some people have serious health concerns and recommends abstinence in marriage in the rare cases - which do exist - when pregnancy or sex (like HIV transmission) can be lethal. if you go into marriage knowing you have a problem like this you may not qualify due to not being able to have intercourse, but many people get unpleasant surprises later on. Such as the wife develops a life-threatening condition after many pregnancies - this happened to my mother. Or they married not knowing one had a serious STD and found out the hard way through blood testing later on, but before the other spouse had been infected
  3. The Church also knows that marriages are less than perfect and that situations like abuse can occur in which coercion or rape in marriage is possible - this is not related to what is called ‘the marriage debt’ but involves forcing a spouse to have sex in bad conditions, such as when ill. Those situations are what separation and perhaps annulment may be for. That the Church sees this shows they don’t want people trapped in endless suffering if abuse is involved. If people did not have the option to separate, the teachings on sex could be interpreted as truly harmful b/c even if a man physically and sexually abused his wife there would not be a way out.
  4. In situations where there is conflict over sex, pregnancy and fertility the marriage often has other problems as well that the couple needs to work on - but certainly not always. Many people like the OP have seen bad situations in their families and are afraid. Some people really need control over their fertility that is more certain than what NFP allows.
  5. I think if the Pill were not considered abortifacient this whole debate might have really changed by now; that alters a woman’s cycle but it does not present a physical barrier. However the debate over when life begins enters in here, making it viewed as not possible.
that’s how I see it and I could be wrong but the issues of both the man and the woman being ‘untouched’ by any kind of intervention, whether surgical (sterilization) or chemical (like the Pill), or barrier - I think that is part of the Catholic ideal and it explains why infertile couples can marry. This is linked with being open to life and having children. Other people don’t see it that way b/c they say sex and procreation can still be linked if you use ABC, especially a condom which does not change fertility or even suppress it - it just avoids the possibility one time. A choice to use condoms once does not necessarily mean they are chosen to use on a regular basis, or even more than once - that’s how most people do it but it does not have to be that way.

this is my way of laying it out so it makes more sense to me. it comes down to - obey the ideals and face the difficulties or act based on my sense of outcomes and consequences and disregard the ideals - which may lead to questioning other ideals. that is something many people tend to point out.

eta:

obeying when you don’t understand is another ideal. people fail all the time but ideals don’t change. I’m really starting to think of this as some people see ideals as very important and dropping them b/c people fail is like rewriting some of the Gospel teachings on money b/c people tend to fail at that too. IRL I have found some priests will defend these ideals to an extreme but many won’t - some priests will make exceptions when they see certain situations. That has also been pointed out on CAF which I think is why posters tend to recommend seeing conservative priests. but not everyone agrees about all this.
 
Great post! Very easy to read and understand and very concise too.
silentstar said:
The couple needs to be open to life in terms of wanting children and being willing to have them, assuming they can and with respect for their judgment about that.
Click to expand...
Are Catholic couples allowed to give up a child for adoption if they don’t have any particularly good reason?
 
samiam1611 said:
Great post! Very easy to read and understand and very concise too.

Are Catholic couples allowed to give up a child for adoption if they don’t have any particularly good reason?
Click to expand...
Why would they attempt to do so without a good reason?
 
davidv said:
Why would they attempt to do so without a good reason?
Click to expand...
Well the reason(s) might be important to them, just not in line with Catholicism…If the pregnancy was a “mistake” i.e. they really do not want anymore kids. Can they just give the baby up for adoption? Technically they’re open to life, bc they did not abort the fetus. But would it be considered sinful anyway bc they’re unwilling to raise it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top