Contraception question

[setter]

The Roman Church’s authority comes from its own arrogance! Its teachings are so lacking in any sort of love as to be considered Catholic.

Christ is head of the Catholic Church, and I am finding out more and more how little this church has to do with the Pope.

And, as this deals with a different concept, I will be posting its like in the “apologetics” page. I would like to confront people with my objections to how the Roman Church does things.

Your “tone” on this post sounds agitated and angry, in stark contrast to the thoughtful and rational “tone” and content of your previous thread posts. Why is this? Maybe time for a break from these forums and to seek the peace that comes from prayerfully desiring to know and do God’s will?

BTW – The “arrogance” where the Church has received the authority to “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” is Jesus Christ. One cannot claim human fallibility when one does not agree with or accept the infallible teaching of the Church. The Church and the Person and authority of Jesus Christ are one and the same.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ." Matthew 16: 19

“Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18: 18

"And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Acts 9: 4

 

[TobyLue]

The Roman Church’s authority comes from its own arrogance!

This is the thing that I find sad from many people that leave the Catholilc Church. They believe that the Church is arrogant in its claims. But actually it is us that are arrogant because by refusing to accepts its teaching we are telling that Church that we know better than she does. We know better than 2000 years of constant teaching. By telling the Church we will not listen to Her we are telling God we will not listen to Him. The Church makes it claims, not on its own, but by the authority given to Her by Jesus Christ who was given all authority by the Father.
Luke 10:16 “anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me.”
Job 9 "…how can man be right against god?.. who then can successfully defy him?
and
Job 38 “…Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations?..”
By rejecting the Church, we reject God and tell him that we know better than he does. That, my friend, is arrogance on our part the the Church.

Its teachings are so lacking in any sort of love as to be considered Catholic.

It is out of love that God gave us the commandmants. It is out of love for mankind that God gave His authority to the Church. It is out of love that that Church speaks. It is by our own vanity that we reject the teachings of the Church.

 

[BlazingBolt]

The Roman Church’s authority comes from its own arrogance! Its teachings are so lacking in any sort of love as to be considered Catholic.

Christ is head of the Catholic Church, and I am finding out more and more how little this church has to do with the Pope.

And, as this deals with a different concept, I will be posting its like in the “apologetics” page. I would like to confront people with my objections to how the Roman Church does things.

It come down to whether or not you believe in Christ form my point of view. Clearly he established a Church, clearly he built it on Peter (that does not make it Peter’s Church), and clearly he gave that Church authority, and clearly he guaranteed that it would endure (the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it). Their is not really any disputing which Church today is Historically the Church that was established by Christ and built on Peter. So it comes down to whether you believe in Christ and his promises.

Now Hell has been attacking the Church since the beginning. It has succeeded in splitting Christians away from the Church historically established by Christ and forming their own Churches. It has succeeded in convincing individual Christians that when they have a hard time accepting or understanding Christian teaching they can go ahead and change it to make it more convenient to them. Christ warned us the way was hard, it is very difficult to accept everything because of our nature. But when it gets difficult do we stop placing our trust in Christ and stop following him? Having been through difficult spiritual battles where my faith was attacked I can tell you that the enemy is very clever, being a Catholic is hard. It basically amounts to trusting completely in Christ, we have to be willing to die for him, anything less and the enemy will eventually find a way to make us abandon him. This is very difficult, we must place our entire lives in his hands. The teaching on ABC is very difficult to accept, especially in this day and age with the way our culture is now. It does amount to placing our lives in God’s hands. But try to look at it from another point of view, NFP is very effective, and when you practice it when you have relations in your marriage you are not only expressing your love for each other, you are placing your trust in God and expressing your love for him at the same time by being open to him, placing our lives in his hands. Can you imagine the spiritual fruits? Ponder them, think how you feel after you take that leap of trusting your life completely to Christ. The fruits are well documented in divorce rates of contracepting couples vs. NFP couples. Jesus tells us that God knows what we need and will provide it, by using ABC we are holding back and not trusting in God because we are shutting him out of our marital realations.

I sympathize with you, I know this is a difficult teaching. But your current tone worries me that the enemy has used this issue to not only seperate you from the Church but to become his ally in attacking her. Try to remeber the beauty and peace you felt before in the Church, please do not persecute her because of your inability to continue to accept her.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The Church’s teaching on this matter is perfectly clear, has not changed in 2,000 years, and is morally binding on the faithful.

To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine founder, a “sign of contradiction,” (22) yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.

Can you recognize this quote? (hint: it comes from the church’s teaching on birth control)

 

[BlazingBolt]

No, I do not recognize the quote. It does seem to be incomplete and out of context.

However I was reflecting on this a bit during Mass. I realized that ABC is wrong because it closes the sexual act to life. This is pretty much exactly why sodomy and masturbation are sinful. So how can one condemn one and not the other? It is basically removing God where you are trying to enjoy sex how you want to instead of how he intended. There is nothing artificial about NFP but even the Church recognizes that it can be mis-used.

All these ABC arguments amount to saying “God, just let us screw as much as we want to whenever we want to, it’s none of your business”. It also seems to me that NFP is attacked by trying to say it is the same thing as ABC, well then that would mean that they are both sinful. So do those who use that argument reject both?

 

[Greg72]

In one sense you are comparing apples and oranges here. ABC = Always intrisnically evil and gravely disordered.

NFP = Always morally neutral, can be misused in intent and rended the use of NFP sinful by intent.

I would suggest that unless one is using NFP to have a larger family, then there is great danger of it being misused.

I have often heard speakers on Chastity (wisely) say that we shouldn’t try to figure out how far we can go before it becomes sinful. If we have to even ask, then we know the answer - and it’s not something that’s healthy to entertain. NFP, to me is on a dangerous edge (where does “Can we properly support another child?” turn into “Do we really want another child?” and should we be asking either of those questions anyway?)

What bothers me the most about it is how NFP is so often promoted enthusiastically as an effective alternative to contraception.

-All of those hormones are dangerous, and often abortifacient.

-Condoms aren’t reliable (so people are, in a sense, more open to life when using a condom than when they use the more reliable NFP methods?)

• etc…

When NFP is criticized for encouraging a contraceptive mentality, they’ll never fail to mention how it can be used to improve your chances of having a child, but it’s definitely being sold as the Church-approved alternative to contraception.

Rather than act as if this is a wonderful thing to be doing, it would make more sense to me if using NFP to avoid pregnancy was treated as civil divorce (which the CCC says is “tolerated” under specific circumstances).

I’m sure that at the moment the Church would be delighted if more Catholics would use NFP instead of ABC to limit the size of their families, but the idea of people going to such lengths to deny life (while remaining open to the possibility, of course - even if it’s a 1% chance or less) doesn’t sit well with me.

I am not fit to judge individual situations, and I am certainly NOT arguing that ABC is in any way acceptable, nor that it is comparable to NFP.

I am simply wondering why NFP is being so strongly embraced.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

One of the most popular methods of ABD, “the pill,” causes early abortions: “Ethical side effects: It is estimated that women experience at least one very early abortion for every year that they are on the Pill.2 Both pro-abortion and pro-life groups acknowledge that the Pill causes early abortions.3”
Other ABC methods (with citations from the medical literature)are discussed in the article at this web address:
omsoul.com/contraception-side-effects.php

Cathy this appears misleading as it appears to group all pills including those which are designed to abort with those designed to stop ovulation? If you know of any data which show “combined oral contraceptives (COC)” have a quantifiable abortion affect that would gladly be received however this current site appears to intend to mislead. To date I have only seen the “thinning data” of endometrial thickness, which is suggestive however not conclusive. If the thinning data were conclusive the birth rate on the COC would be zero, which we know is not true.

I do thank you for providing the information, as most of us are looking to separate the facts from the accusations - thank you

 

[apricot_yogurt]

If the thinning data were conclusive the birth rate on the COC would be zero, which we know is not true.
The pill can stop ovulation, however, it doesn’t always.
It also causes thinning of the endometrium, stopping the child from implanting, however it doesn’t always-hence “pill babies”.
That means that sometimes, there is this early abortive effect, and sometimes it fails to work, just like sometimes the pill doesn’t always work to prevent ovulation.
Also if you were to miss a pill by a few hours or all together, you can throw this all out of whack anyway.

 

[rpp]

There seems to be a tendancy to use science to try to prove that ABC in it’s various forms is good. neutral or bad. That is fine. But it does not matter.

This is the religion/heresy of “science-ism” at work.

We must never loose sight of the fact that ABC is utterly immoral and morally indefensible. Faith and reason are not in conflict. However, for reason to work, it must be objective, and there is precious little information about ABC that is not prompted by the desire of the reasearches to have illicit sex.

 

[mark_a]

In my opinion, if the intention behind NFP is to limit children (for selfish reasons) than it is no different that using barrier methods.

No different?

I gotta be blunt. If I weren’t a Catholic and barriers and bc pills were ok, there is no way in hades that I would choose a barrier for myself over bc pills for my wife.

And I’ll bet most men feel the same.

 

[cynic]

If there’s a seriouse reason to not have a child, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply tell people to abstain completely?

 

[mark_a]

If there’s a seriouse reason to not have a child, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply tell people to abstain completely?

Funny you should ask. . . . .

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There seems to be a tendancy to use science to try to prove that ABC in it’s various forms is good. neutral or bad. That is fine. But it does not matter.

This is the religion/heresy of “science-ism” at work.

We must never loose sight of the fact that ABC is utterly immoral and morally indefensible. Faith and reason are not in conflict. However, for reason to work, it must be objective, and there is precious little information about ABC that is not prompted by the desire of the reasearches to have illicit sex.

Did you read any of the other posts? Did you know Jesus was chasten for reaping wheat on Saturday (Jewish Holy day)?

 

[rpp]

If there’s a seriouse reason to not have a child, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply tell people to abstain completely?

Umm… I think they do. But it must be, as you said, a grave reason.

 

[rpp]

Did you read any of the other posts? Did you know Jesus was chasten for reaping wheat on Saturday (Jewish Holy day)?

I am well aquainted with the story in both Mark (2:23-25) and Matthew (12:1-8).

I am not certain what your point is. Can you help me?

Are you (and I am speculating here) suggesting that using science is okay to make important points about, among other things, ABC? I would agree with you. I think that when appropriate, using science and research can help us to understand the issue and problems better.

If that is indeed your point we agree so far. (If that was not your point, then you have my apologies for misunderstanding you and then running with it.)

My point was that we must be careful not to put our faith, literally out faith in science as so many today do. Another important point I was trying to make was that there is a powerful motivation for many researchers to skew their results. After all, we would not have these things if people simply wanted to help married people. ABC was invented specifically to allow people to commit adultery and fornication without the “pesky side effect” of an “unexplained” child. Its intended purpose is to both enable and promote grave sin.

These grave sins have become inculcated in western society. Thus when researchers look athe safety and efficacy of ABC, their entire approach is colored, contaminated and prejudiced, by this strong deisre to promote conduct which they themselves often participate in. They are not going to rain on their own parade.

 

[Greg72]

"cynic:

If there’s a seriouse reason to not have a child, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply tell people to abstain completely?"

Umm… I think they do. But it must be, as you said, a grave reason.

Actually they don’t. If there’s a serious reason to not have a child, the couple can have sex when there’s practically no possibility of conception. As long as the seed winds up in the right place, the Church doesn’t seem to mind.

 

[Greg72]

"cynic:

If there’s a seriouse reason to not have a child, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply tell people to abstain completely?"

Umm… I think they do. But it must be, as you said, a grave reason.

Actually they don’t necessarily. If there’s a serious reason to not have a child, the couple can have sex when there’s practically no possibility of conception. As long as the seed winds up in the right place, the Church doesn’t seem to mind.

If the Mother’s life would be endangered by a pregnancy, then they might encourage abstinance - that’s beside the point though.

The Church, by allowing couples to have intercourse with no intention of creating life, set a new course.

Regardless of whether or not the act allows for the possibility of conception, the couple is allowed to “overcome senseless nature” by minimizing the chances of conception.

I guess that it is too much, anymore, to ask the couples to overcome their carnal natures.

That, I believe, is the point that cynic was making.

 

[setter]

The Church, by allowing couples to have intercourse with no intention of creating life, set a new course.

Can you explain and source cite this further?

 

[Greg72]

"Greg72:

The Church, by allowing couples to have intercourse with no intention of creating life, set a new course.

Can you explain and source cite this further?

Sure.

The Church (through NFP) allows couples to limit intercourse to those times in which there is the least possibility of conception.

My understanding is that this allowance is a new one (well, since before I was born, but still new in Church history and that prior to this, intercourse was supposed to be primarily for procreation; the strengthening of the marital bond was a distant second at best.

I assume that everyone reading this thread is aware of NFP and I am unable to cite anything supporting my second paragraph. I invite anyone older or better-informed than I am to correct me if necessary.

 

[rpp]

Actually they don’t necessarily. If there’s a serious reason to not have a child, the couple can have sex when there’s practically no possibility of conception. As long as the seed winds up in the right place, the Church doesn’t seem to mind.

If the Mother’s life would be endangered by a pregnancy, then they might encourage abstinance - that’s beside the point though (empasis added).

Actually, I think that was his point. But perhaps we should let him weighi in on that.

Couples who remain chaste, that is they never engage in the marital act and instead remain virgins, thoughout their entire marriage is not something new for the Church. That is, after all what the Blessed Virgin Mary and her holy husband St. Joseph did.

The Church, by allowing couples to have intercourse with no intention of creating life, set a new course.

Hmm… I do not know much about the history of this, but I am uncomfortable with the idea of “a new course”.

Regardless of whether or not the act allows for the possibility of conception, the couple is allowed to “overcome senseless nature” by minimizing the chances of conception.

“Senseless nature”? What is that? Does “senseless nature” include God’s part in the act of procreation when he imbues the child at the instant of conception with a soul?

I guess that it is too much, anymore, to ask the couples to overcome their carnal natures.

That, I believe, is the point that cynic was making.

Yes, it does seem that western society today is rather sexually over-stimulated.