Contraception Questions for a Newly Converted Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter tdakers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
Whoops! My mistake – I was under the mistaken impression that we actually believed in the Bible around here!
Click to expand...
Yes, you were wrong.

No one believes that every word in the Bible is literally correct. Quote mining is a favorite pastime of all the apologists, and somehow they can never come to the same conclusion. As a matter of fact, last time I heard, it was the official stance of the church, that no one can earn their way to heaven… (even the best ones of us deserve nothing but hell), a special grace from God is necessary for that. That is why I warned you about the quote mining.
 
Economist said:
Yes, you were wrong.

No one believes that every word in the Bible is literally correct.
Click to expand...
You moved the goal posts, brother. I never made that claim. (However, I think that Christians generally would agree that the words of Christ are believable, in contradistinction to your apparent opinion.) 🤷‍♂️
Economist said:
Quote mining is a favorite pastime of all the apologists
Click to expand...
You’re really making me laugh. I point out an entire portion of a chapter of a Gospel, and you claim that’s “quote mining”? If I quoted you the Gettysburg Address, would you make the same claim? :roll_eyes:
Economist said:
As a matter of fact, last time I heard, it was the official stance of the church, that no one can earn their way to heaven…
Click to expand...
Not on our own merits, but yeah… actions matter. Jesus says it explicitly… if you’re not missing the forest for the quote-mined trees. 😉
 
Gorgias said:
You moved the goal posts, brother. I never made that claim. (However, I think that Christians generally would agree that the words of Christ are believable, in contradistinction to your apparent opinion.)
Click to expand...
No, you did not. You merely insinuated that THAT particular quote must be accepted verbatim, in a literal fashion. General agreement counts for nothing. The point is that your quote and the teaching of the church are in contradiction. Can you “earn” your way into heaven, just by good behavior?
Gorgias said:
Not on our own merits, but yeah… actions matter.
Click to expand...
Of course actions matter. The question is “are they sufficient”? Matthew says yes, the church says no. Start from here.
 
Economist said:
You merely insinuated that THAT particular quote must be accepted verbatim, in a literal fashion.
Click to expand...
I see. How, then, would you accept it? (More to the point, for Catholics, is how the Church teaches it should be understood.)
Economist said:
The question is “are they sufficient”? Matthew says yes, the church says no. Start from here.
Click to expand...
I think I might prefer starting from the observation that you’re mischaracterizing both the Gospel of Matthew and the teachings of the Church… 🤔
 
“when we are ready to welcome a child”

By virtue of being married, I think the couple is stating that they are ready for a child. What do you think?

On the other hand, if the couple had a serious reason to postpone a pregnancy, until the serious reason is gone, that is my understanding of what the Church teaches. Is this what you meant?

If this is too-OT, maybe we can start a new thread.
 
tdakers said:
Others might not and based on the majority of comments from this post I would have been pushed farther away from the church than closer. Just food for thought
Click to expand...
I’m so sad about this! I highly recommend the book “The Sinnfers Guide to NFP” by Simcha Fisher. She will NOT make you feel bad about having questions. She faces the difficulty of this church teaching head-on. It is a fantastic, honest, real, heartening book for real people. Can’t recommend enough!!
 
U
“mythbuster1 said:
Consider food and weight loss. You can lose weight by fasting or by diet and exercise, or you can lose weight by intentionally vomiting after eating or sating your appetite with things that are not food. We praise the former two as acts of self-discipline, while considering the latter two eating disorders (respectively, bulimia and anorexia). Besides these, weight loss can be the result of an illness, such as an infection or cancer, which is morally neutral. So it is with sex and reproduction: You can licitly avoid reproduction by abstaining from sex or because a natural condition renders you or your spouse infertile, but you are forbidden from indulging in acts that subvert reproduction by intentionally ejaculating outside the vagina or using chemicals to suppress or destroy the gametes.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good analogy. In my experience with NFP I notice each time we abstain to avoid pregnancy it re-enforces the message that “sex is about responsibility.” If I’m not ready to take on the responsibility of further children, I must forego some sex. I feel the “worldly” view of sex is that it’s “for fun” (and not necessarily for fun among married parents - hence the prevailing concept that “good sex” ends once the baby comes). NFP counters that. Sex is FOR parents. It makes parents. If you want to avoid that you’re going to haveawhole lot less sex! It’s agood message these days. It’s the “catechesis of NFP” if you will. I don’t think any form of contraception reinforces this message. There is nothing “sacrificed.” Abstinence makes me & my husband think long and hard before we decide we REALLY can’t get it regnant this month. Hehe. “On second thought,” we may conclude, “we’ll be fine if we get to regnant now.” NFP “tempts” is to be more open to having more kids. Contraception doesn’t do that.

Yes I realize that didn’t address the scriptural basis or church moral teaching… it’s just a “fringe benefit” I thought I’d share.
 
Last edited:
The reasons must be just reasons. There are many, many just reasons why married people cannot welcome a child.
 
If you sincerely want to understand the “why” behind the “what” my suggestion would be to study John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. I was once where you are and TOB really opened my eyes to what our purpose is. In a nutshell, we are created in the image and likeness of God to love as He loves, and God’s love is ALWAYS life-giving. Free, total, faithful, and fruitful. If one of these four marks is missing it is not an image of God’s love but its counterfeit, lust. JPII’s writings are pretty profound and kinda dense at first, so I’d suggest you start with some of the people that work to put them in more plain and understandable language, like Christopher West or Jason Evert. I beg you to give it a chance, you will never see our faith the same way again…
 
I do not want to go into details, once a male is “finished”, he is unable to go on… with the same “equipment”.
 
“reasons must be just reasons” Okay, not really arguing that. I acknowledge that there could be many serious/just reasons.

My contention here is that by virtue of being married, the ‘default state’, so to speak, is that the couple is ready to have children, as that is the purpose of marriage, along with the unity of the spouses. A couple needs a serious/just reason to postpone, right?
 
A just reason to postpone, yes. And that just reason may exist from the moment of “I Do”
 
I’m not trying to give you a hard time; I just think this is an interesting point. That said, do you think that the default or normative state of the married couple is to be ready for children, by virtue of being married?
 
I do not have nearly enough expertise to know what the “default state” is for any marriage. The Church does not give a list of “if then” questions, She leaves this up to the spouses.
 
Thanks for the reply. OK. Since this thread began with questions about contraception and then NFP, the meaning and purpose of marriage seemed an apt extension to me.

Also, it seems to me that at times there is an attitude on the part of some (not saying you personally) of the married couple needing to be ‘called’ to have children, when I think it is the other way around. By being married, the couple is, by virtue of the fact of being married, ready for children; they do not discern if they are called to have children. That’s what marriage is, in a certain sense.

So yes, serious/just reasons may exist, but the couple has to evaluate those reasons, and in the absence of any reasons, the ‘norm’ is that a married couple is ready for children. I agree that the Church provides some general guidelines but then leaves it up to the spouses to apply the guidelines.
 
I appreciate everyone and their comments. However, I trust the church and am doing the NFP. Although I’m doing it because I trust the Church and hope that weather the Church is right or wrong I did it for Him.

After starting in this NFP I still don’t understand the coitus interuptus problem. This is also a 100% natural way to limit the timing of a baby. This is literally the same as sex during pregnancy or mental sex. Both I believe are approved by the church. Maybe even better since you still have a good chance of getting pregnant. I know genesis 38: 8-10 but this passage seems clear that it is because he does not fulfil his duty for Jewish tradition not the onenism act itself. The Bible also says do not withhold your self from one another lest you fall into sin. So if you are not able to have children due to timing or house constrains at the time are you supposed to with hold from each other? I truly do not understand how having relationships with your spose without necessarily trying for children is so wrong.
 
tdakers said:
This is also a 100% natural way to limit the timing of a baby.
Click to expand...
It is the least effective means of “birth control” that exists. Sperm is present and people who use this method of birth control are know as “parents”.

Besides, the “naturalness” has zero to do with the sinfulness of contraceptive acts/methods/devices. When one practices interruptus, one frustrates the marital act.

It is not ordered toward procreation.
tdakers said:
This is literally the same as sex during pregnancy or mental sex.
Click to expand...
Marital acts during pregnancy are to be no different than non-pregnant times, each ordered toward procreation.

“Mental sex”, honestly, are you talking about lustful thoughts/fantasies?
 
@TheLittleLady I meant menstral it auto corrected to mental sorry. I know that mental sex is lust and a no-go haha

I still don’t see how the NFP which is a form of natural contreseption is Church approved but coitus interuptis is not? The way I see it coitus interuptis has a higher chance of pregnancy results than NFP due do it being only 78% effective. It seems like splitting hairs that this form of contreseption is ok because we say it isn’t but this was is not ok because we say so.

I also am struggling with if sex was only for procreation and not for recreation at all why would their be a period of time such as in the NFP calendar that pregnancy is not possible. Additionally, the Church band NFP in its entirety for a more strick version of if you are having material relations it is only for procreation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top