Contraception Questions

[choose_to_love]

faithand,

“Onan directly disobeyed (deceived)” Every brother who failed to take the deceased brother’s wife as his own to continue the deceased brother’s family directly disobeyed, no? But the consequence was different because of what he did.

“fallibility of man/church politics” I suppose you should not read any early church history then. Again, everything you know about our faith has been transmitted by fallible men - - fallible men wrote the books of the Bible, fallible men decided on which books would make up the New Testament. How do you know about the Trinity? How do you know about the Eucharist? You accept these dogmas in their fullness, presumably, but question/reject the teaching on contraception. Why - - because it does not make sense to you? By what authority do you get to decide what is authentic and true?

Consider the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:31 - - how will I understand unless someone teach me (paraphrase). Surely you can appreciate the need for a teaching authority. Why do you get to reserve that authority to yourself on this particular issue? Again, I am not trying to be harsh, but just to provide more questions to ponder.

I would think Humanae Vitae would support just the opposite conclusion, that in the face of intense worldly pressure to conform, and to deviate from almost two millenia of consistent teaching, P. Paul VI was guided by the Holy Spirit to protect us from false teaching. Fallible (and good-intentioned, compassionate) men were arguing for the “easy” way, but Truth prevailed.

 

[LittleDeb]

BUT a couple who purposely avoids sex during fertile times has indeed seperated the procreative and unitive properties of marital relations. They say NO to procreation and YES to unity.

So you are saying that I am separating the procreative from the unitive? I desperately wish that God was calling us to more children. He isn’t. That is very hard for me to accept. But you are saying that since I am not supposed to have more children that we are then called to total abstinence? I don’t think we are. If I am exactly following God’s plan for us and I wind up pregnant, then that will be a total celebration. It means that God has called us to another child. I *know *how to chart. My cycles are wild and crazy by secular standards. But since I know how to chart, they are totally predictable.

But by what you are saying here, I am still separating the procreative from the unitive by making exclusive use of the infertile times. Please believe me, an honest answer will not hurt me. I appreciate your understanding and compassion. But I am trying to help you see that this is a real world scenario, where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. I am not asking you a hypothetical here. You can’t have it both ways. There is an objective answer. Either I am separating the unitive from the procreative or I am not. That has an objective answer.

By your definition of procreative, do you believe I am called to total abstinence? God has told me NO when it comes to more children, (I keep hoping that it is just for now, though.) Remember, I KNOW how to chart. Remember, I have serious reason not to have more children. Am I called to total abstinence so that I don’t separate the procreative from the unitive? What do you really believe and why?

 

[kage_ar]

Try NFP in the third-world, starving, overpopulated countries in Africa and it is a much different story. God does not want us to ignore the tools his people have devised to help make the world a better place.

.

You may find these studies of interest:

**3. Acceptability **

Due to its high efficacy, low expenditure and extreme safety incomparable by any other contraceptive methods, the BOM is well accepted by the Chinese couple of different cultural and economical backgrounds.5-7 Lower reproductive tract infection (vaginitis and cervicitis), quite common in the low cultural stratum in China, does not influence the observation of the mucus symptoms.
It is interesting to note that in one field trial, most failure cases had a relatively high cultural level (two university graduates and two lecturers). They all felt sorry and admitted that since they considered the method was simple and easy to master, they had paid less attention to the teaching course and had not strictly followed the rules. The consequence was use-related failures. On the contrary, the illiterate women were generally very attentive to BOM teaching and rigidly stuck to the rules, and failures were very rare. This experience gives us the following elicitation:

3.1 The BOM is simple and easy to comprehend; almost all the women, including the illiterate, can successfully learn the method and identify their own mucus symptoms.

3.2 During the training, special attention should be paid to the intellectuals and professionals. The method seems to be too “simple” to them and they could not get hold of it without strict supervision.

*Interim conclusion: *BOM is well accepted and by the Chinese women of different cultural and economical backgrounds; illiteracy and lower reproductive tract infection are not incompatible with the use of the Method.

woomb.org/omrrca/bulletin/vol27/no4/chinaEvaluation.html

woomb.org/bom/trials/index.html

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Good Morning,

Tex, could you possibly mean PPVI as in post Vatican II, and Human Vitae?

yes, sorry about the error

… Perhaps we would all do well to read about the “politics” in the church surrounding PPVI and also Pope John 23 (the good 23) who immediately preceeded PPVI.

'um so maybe there is more to your consideration than Church teachings?

… I pray to God fir guidance and humility to accept his will and in many instances, he makes clear what I must do. Once again, however, he also makes me keenly aware of the falibility of man and when I read the history of the politics surrounding Pope John 23 and Pope Paul VI and Vatican II and Human Vitea,** I see much more politics than faith **and liturgically based doctrine.
…

So you do not accept Humanae Vitae?

 

[Alindawyl]

BUT a couple who purposely avoids sex during fertile times has indeed seperated the procreative and unitive properties of marital relations. They say NO to procreation and YES to unity.

The Church teaches otherwise.

What authority do you possess which makes your personal opinion carry more weight than the Magisterium?

 

[PeterMuz]

I am raised Catholic from a large family, as was my wife. We are raising our children Catholic as well. I was taught to question, and sometimes it gets me in hot water, but I think I am better as a whole for it. I consider my self pro-life, but can’t help but noticing research that shows that in countries where contraception is practiced, abortion rates are lower. My question is this: How is contraception (specifically condom) any different than NFP. The goal of NFP is to have sex inside a marriage while AVOIDING conception. Respectfully, how is a condom different? Thank you.

Hey FaithandWorks, I was just saw your user name and was thinking. Why did you call yourself faithandworks? Probably because of your understanding of Salvation and the need and importance of both.

Sex is the exact same thing. Sex is both unity and procreative. This does not mean that you have to create a life every time you have intercourse, but you have to be open. If the woman is infertile and you have intercourse(without contracepting) you are fulfilling both. When you have intercourse and the woman is not fertile, your wife will not get pregnant. But if God could work a miracle. If he wants you to conceive a child, you will. But the point is that you are open. Using contraception is a statement of not being open.

usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/Unitive.pdf

 

[PeterMuz]

But doesn’t NFP also seperate the procreation away from the unity? If I have sex with my wife, but purposely avoid times of fertility through NFP, then am I not purposely separating the procreation away…

The key here is that YOU are not separating the two, God is. That is up to him, being that he created you, your wife, and your fertility.

As one who has used contraception earlier in my life…(full disclosuere here)…I can say personally that it was not at all merely pleasure, but also very much an act of unity, and also I still fail to understand how sex with contraception is more of a taking than sex outside of fertile periods through NFP. Once again, it was, at least for me, a very giving and uniting experience with my new wife at that time in our lives. I do appreciate the “fasting” argument…absence makes the heart grow fonder

Using contraception you are saying to your wife… “I give you 100% of myself, EXCEPT for my fertility”. Its not an act of unity if you are holding something back. You wouldn’t marry a woman and say “I will spend the rest of my life with you, except on Saturdays, I hold those days back for myself.”

 

[PeterMuz]

I must respectfully disagree, however, as I can find no liturgical, nor biblical authority for the stance on contraception, and I also believe that differentiating NFP from other common contraceptions is virtually impossible.

You can respectfully disagree as much as you want, but do not forget that if you are wrong, this is a serious sin. Do you really want to take that chance?

Have your read Genesis 38:1-10? Is that not clear?

I know that you have seen here many reasons and explanations for why NFP is different from contraception and at this point I have a hard time believing that you are open to NFP. Are you sure that you are open to being wrong about this?

Here is a lot of information from Janet Smith that makes real good solid points and lists has some Church history on the teaching that contraception is wrong.

 

[Texan77]

The goal of NFP is to have sex inside a marriage while AVOIDING conception. Respectfully, how is a condom different? Thank you.

I am sorry but this is not the goal of NFP

NFP is planning ones family - we do not have quotas

For those who wish to wait and post pone pregnancy we will abstain from the marital act during that fertile time - this is not contraception

Likewise we use NFP to get pregnant

 

[faithandworks]

**“fallibility of man/church politics” I suppose you should not read any early church history then. Again, everything you know about our faith has been transmitted by fallible men - - fallible men wrote the books of the Bible, fallible men decided on which books would make up the New Testament. How do you know about the Trinity? How do you know about the Eucharist? You accept these dogmas in their fullness, presumably, but question/reject the teaching on contraception. Why - - because it does not make sense to you? By what authority do you get to decide what is authentic and true? **

Great question, and I have great difficulty with this point. But in return, if we subscribe to the infalibility of the Pope, then do we still abide by the teachings and actions of the original Pope John 23 (early 800’s I think)and his evils? At what point do we stop and look and say, “what is the purpose of this rule or distinction?” Do we continue to persecute the Muslims in the Holyland or do we find peace and recognize them as humans made in God’s likeness? Do I continue to listen to the priest who says that my sister can never marry in the Catholic church because she has a child born outside of marriage? He is wrong, and I believe the Church can be wrong too as it is run by Man.

Consider the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:31 - - how will I understand unless someone teach me (paraphrase). Surely you can appreciate the need for a teaching authority. Why do you get to reserve that authority to yourself on this particular issue? Again, I am not trying to be harsh, but just to provide more questions to ponder.

Once again, great questions. Still, I have the GOD-GIVEN ability to understand above and beyond what is taught to me in many areas of life. We all do. That is how we grow. Take that which is taught to us and expand on it by and through our life experiences.

I would think Humanae Vitae would support just the opposite conclusion, that in the face of intense worldly pressure to conform, and to deviate from almost two millenia of consistent teaching, P. Paul VI was guided by the Holy Spirit to protect us from false teaching. Fallible (and good-intentioned, compassionate) men were arguing for the “easy” way, but Truth prevailed.

Wonder why it is that you automatically believe P.Paul VI was so much more enlightened with the Holy Spirit than P. John 23 (the good one ? Not trying to be harsh here… Read P.John 23 and his take on these issues.

 

[nodito]

faithandworks:

Wonder why it is that you automatically believe P.Paul VI was so much more enlightened with the Holy Spirit than P. John 23 (the good one ? Not trying to be harsh here… Read P.John 23 and his take on these issues.

Faithandworks, could you point me to the particular document or encyclical you’re referring to? It’s hard to discuss Pope John XXIII’s take one on natural family planning without context.

For my part, I esteem both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, and would prefer that you not refer to one of them as “the good one.” It seems a little disrespectful to the other, who was also Christ’s representative on earth and the leader of our holy Church.

 

[Kaninchen]

For my part, I esteem both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, and would prefer that you not refer to one of them as “the good one.” It seems a little disrespectful to the other, who was also Christ’s representative on earth and the leader of our holy Church.

Now, prepared to be amazed (on the grounds of “fancy a Jew knowing that”)?

There was a naughty Pope John XXIII, so the modern Pope John XXIII was Pope John XXIII rather than Pope John XXIV because the other one didn’t count.

 

[nodito]

Now, prepared to be amazed (on the grounds of “fancy a Jew knowing that”)?

There was a naughty Pope John XXIII, so the modern Pope John XXIII was Pope John XXIII rather than Pope John XXIV because the other one didn’t count.

I learn something new every day.

I’d still be interested in reading the John XXIII document you’re referring to.

 

[Kaninchen]

I learn something new every day.

I’d still be interested in reading the John XXIII document you’re referring to.

Actually, the only reason I know is that his tomb is in the baptistery adjacent to the duomo - cathedral - Santa Maria dei Fiori in Florence (we spent two weeks in there in September) and I read it in a guidebook.

 

[YADA]

Though I am not a big fan of Guttmacher … this report indicates that in the US abstinance was responsible for 25% of the drop in abortions between between 1988 and 1995 [you have to read far into the report to find that fact ]

alanguttmacherinstitute.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_decline.html

Here is a couple of articles with a different take on the most recent Guttmacher Report that led to the OP’s stance …

healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGMyY2UyYTIwOWRjNGJmY2U3OTJiYjExY2MwOTU5OGU

and healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWQ1NGYwNjA5YzlkNTNlNzRiZGYyMjI3YzhjMzdjZjE

and here is the Guttmacher Report

guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/10/13/index.html

But then one should ask “Who is Guttmacher?” … is this some independent and unbiased Insitute? …

guttmacher.org/about/alan-bio.html

Can some one [and / or organization] who is tied to the “Abortion and Contraceptive” Industry - directly tied - … *[Remember the old adage “Follow the Money!”] *be considered to present information in a balanced and unself interested manner? …

Alan Guttmacher and Magaret Sanger … two peas in a pod - and it is not a healthy pod … Eugenics … bigotry and hatred … Margaret Sanger toured Hitler’'s Germany, reviewed his EUthanasia program and declard it superbly wonderful … my mother always told me to look to the root, the foundation upon which something stands … Planned Parenthood had to sell their message in ‘civilized’ terms …

thus the killing of a child becomes a ‘right to choose’ …like choosing what dress to wear to dinner

and we have ‘women’s repoductive health’ … though there is no reproduction [and certaiinly the childs health is of no concern ]

and ‘birth control’ where there is no self control at all and no birth

Dear OP, I pray that you will resist the Deceiver … his tongue is slick … he is the ancient enemy … listen to Christ and His Church … do not be deceived … as Satan said to Eve … 'surely you will not die … " … It was a lie then and it is a lie now -

I pray for you … please be in the world but not of it …

 

[faithandworks]

Dear Kaninchen and Nodito,

I see you have my “Good Pope/Bad Pope” cleared up. Thanks, K, for your help. Absolutely, Nodito, I also esteem both John 23 and Paul 6. I was simply referring to the former John 23, from the year 800’s-ish, who was truly evil and as was pointed out, didn’t count. In the 1960’s Pope John 23 “the good one” finally took on the same name of John 23 to effectively wipe out and cancel the papacy of the former John 23.

Thank you both for asking and understanding.

 

[faithandworks]

Dear YADA,

Thank you so much for your prayers. God knows I can use all the help I can get.

I see in your signature, you have an icon which says in effect, vote life. I love it. I wonder of you have an opinion on whether the social structure and policies of the Democrats or the Republicans are more effective at removing the root-cause of abortions. I personally find this a difficult question. A vote for Obama is a vote for a man who is outwardly “pro-choice” whereas a vote for McCain is a vote for a man whose party espouses many of the policies that force women to choose abortion. I know people have to be responsible for their own actions, but I wonder sometimes which is best…

May the Peace of Christ and the Holy Spirit be with you in all your dealings…

 

[Janet_S]

Well there have been some very interesting answers, and most have been very consistent. I must respectfully disagree, however, as I can find no liturgical, nor biblical authority for the stance on contraception, and I also believe that differentiating NFP from other common contraceptions is virtually impossible. I am concerned that man makes rules for us to follow, but that man is fallible. Avoiding sex at a time when we know we are fertile, and having sex when we “know” we are probably not is no different than using a condom – we are thwarting the procreative process, but allowing ourselves to indulge in a sex act. If it is God’s will, can he not break through a condom just as easily as he can make a woman fertile during unlikely times of the month? We are using science to determine if we are fertile and having sex only when we are not. That, in and of itself, is messing with the way God meant it to be, according to what Catholics say about contraception. We are seperating the procreative and the unitive properties of sex.

I am open to God’s will as much or more than most people I know. God’s will is that I use my intellect. My intellect wants to know how the Church can differentiate the two. Many tell me that NFP is easy, and I would have to agree – for normal, advanced first-world societies. Try NFP in the third-world, starving, overpopulated countries in Africa and it is a much different story. God does not want us to ignore the tools his people have devised to help make the world a better place.

God and Peace be with you all. Thank you for your insight.

If you think NFP and condoms are just the same, and interchangeable, why not go ahead and use NFP.

 

[Janet_S]

Dear YADA,

Thank you so much for your prayers. God knows I can use all the help I can get.

I see in your signature, you have an icon which says in effect, vote life. I love it. I wonder of you have an opinion on whether the social structure and policies of the Democrats or the Republicans are more effective at removing the root-cause of abortions. I personally find this a difficult question. A vote for Obama is a vote for a man who is outwardly “pro-choice” whereas a vote for McCain is a vote for a man whose party espouses many of the policies that force women to choose abortion. I know people have to be responsible for their own actions, but I wonder sometimes which is best…

May the Peace of Christ and the Holy Spirit be with you in all your dealings…

I don’t agree that the Republican Party’s policies take money away from the poor or force people into a life of poverty or that poverty is the root cause of abortion. I’ve known several women who have had abortions, and each of them had a job and sufficient money. They had abortions because they were sexually active, unmarried, and didn’t want the inconvenience. How is that the fault of the Republican Party?

During the Depression, lots of people were poor and that didn’t keep them from having babies, even though they probably weren’t always thrilled about it. Poverty and lack of government intervention is not the problem.

Republicans may not have done enough to strengthen the laws in our country against abortion, but at least they aren’t actively promoting the rights of abortionists and taking away aid to crisis pregnancy centers The Democrats are doing this in our country and in countries abroad.

So, to summarize, I don’t accept your thesis. The root cause of abortion is immorality, materialism, and the devaluation of human life; not poverty and lack of government handouts. Democrats really don’t value human life; their policies prove it. And, contrary to popular myths, conservatives are more generous with charitable giving than liberals. All the crisis pregnancy centers are run by conservative, pro-life people. Where’s Planned Parenthood’s crisis pregnancy center? Or any pro-choicer crisis pregnancy center? You won’t find them because they don’t exist.

So it’s a no brainer for me. A vote for Obama was the vote against life.

 

[Janet_S]

The Church has always taught against artificial birth control. This was true before Pope Paul VI and has been true ever since. Pope John XXIII was no different.

This is from Gaudium et Spes with pre-dates Humanae Vitae in 1968:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)