Despite Catholic teachings, women religiously take the pill

[edwest2]

Talk to the newspapers. They can refuse the ads. They are in the newspaper business. People pay money to put the ads in.

You can’t legislate morality, no matter how hard you try.

Sex education and the use of barrier contraceptives helps to prevent STDs. So does abstinence, but few appear to follow that course.

Oh, but morality has been legislated. It’s time people gave up using that excuse. Abortion was illegal. In 1973, the Supreme Court says OK.

Graphic pornography was illegal, then a handful of judges, lawyers and members of organized crime open a ton of Adult Bookstores.

Immorality is being legalized.

And here, on a forum called Catholic Answers, the safest and most effective form of birth control, 100% guaranteed, abstinance, should be promoted.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

I’m not currently a Catholic, but a non-Catholic studying Catholicism and leaning more and more in that direction.

We’re trying to learn about NFP so that we can use it effectively, as we currently have legitimate (and very serious) reasons to delay our large (we hope) family.

Unfortunately, we’re in that difficult phase, where we’ve used contraceptives and are used to certain aspects of the marital act, but are now waiting until we can use NFP. Learning self-control, to say the least!

When we first got married, my wife went on the pill. We didn’t realize that it could potentially cause an abortion (the doctors directly said it could not, in fact). After a little under 2 years, she stopped taking it (we went on a trip and she left it at home, then she just stayed out of the routine). Surprisingly, the constant stomach aches went away as soon as she stopped taking the pill…and they say it doesn’t have ill effects.

We still used barriers for 8-10 months before learning about the full teaching of the Church (we vaguely knew the what, but not the why).

It makes me sad that people could have grown up in the Church with which I’m falling in love and never heard the beautiful teaching behind the full purpose of marital intimacy.

The World Health Organizations lists the pill as a carcinogen.

 

[sidbrown]

The World Health Organizations lists the pill as a carcinogen.

So that makes it a carcinogen, a contraceptive and an abortifacient. Would that mean that you are committing three mortal sins when you take the pill, since it is gravely wrong on three counts?

 

[Elizabeth502]

So that makes it a carcinogen, a contraceptive and an abortifacient. Would that mean that you are committing three mortal sins when you take the pill, since it is gravely wrong on three counts?

No: at least, that’s not what I have been told. For example, perjury is a single mortal sin, even though it violates two separate commandments. That said, it always helps, in confession, to state your awareness of the many dimensions of a single sin. (“I sinned by doing the following, and in so doing I hurt both myself and someone who is dependent on me.” etc.) Another example: the sacrilege of knowingly receiving communion in a state of sin is an offense which has by definition two aspects, but it is also a single grave sin. You wouldn’t have to mention the two aspects to a priest because he knows that already. (Same for The Pill; he knows the aspects, categories, consequences.)

One categorizes the sin by its most grave category of offense. It’s a grace, and a fuller confession, to admit secondary or collateral evils created by or originating the single sin, such as a sinful state which motivated you or blinded you, a habit of irresponsibility or pride, etc. The more disclosing we are in confession, the more benefits we receive, because truly we’re confessing to God; the priest is just the intermediary.

As to the carcinogen aspect, if a person takes any medication not knowing its side effects, it can be irresponsible, but it can also be that the research was not available at the time the medication was taken. It would obviously be bad to endanger one’s health with deliberate knowledge, but many, many people are virtually required to take preventative or rescue medications despite being quite aware of the risks, because not taking them could be quite dangerous to their survival.

 

[OriginalJS]

This is quite a thread. One rarely sees such diverse opinions based on unsupported “facts” and suppositions that ramble from the observation that Catholic women use the pill as much as any other women do - at least in the US (which seems plausible) to disputes over how many indigenous folks were killed by the Spanish and whether Catholics treated the Indians better than the Protestants.

I have to smile at all this because in my lifetime respected historians have differed widely on many issues. For example, when it comes to populations of indigenous peoples in the Americas before Columbus some place the number quite low and others maintain that there were more people in the Americas than in Europe. These historians are sometimes casually referred to as “high counters” and “low counters.” The fact is, they don’t know; they just estimate based on various factors such as how large a population the agriculture of the time could have supported.

Others have maintained that the degree of civilization was higher in the Americas than in Europe and point invariably to the Mayan Calendar. All in spite of facts that the indigenous peoples were living in a stone age culture - they were still chipping knife blades out of obsidian, and they did not use the wheel, glass, iron or steel.

As for the results of the use of the pill - who knows? Promiscuity did not start with the advent of the pill. When I started high school in 1954 a pregnant 14 year old left the class during the first week! (Back then pregnant girls had to leave the school and could not return after the baby was born - bad influence, you know.)

STD’s did not arrive with the pill. Back in the dark ages when I was growing up they were referred to as venereal diseases. Watch some of the old military service films about “prophylactics” if you doubt this.

All this speculation is fun, but not to be taken too seriously.

 

[rlg94086]

As for the results of the use of the pill - who knows? Promiscuity did not start with the advent of the pill. When I started high school in 1954 a pregnant 14 year old left the class during the first week! (Back then pregnant girls had to leave the school and could not return after the baby was born - bad influence, you know.)

STD’s did not arrive with the pill. Back in the dark ages when I was growing up they were referred to as venereal diseases. Watch some of the old military service films about “prophylactics” if you doubt this.

All this speculation is fun, but not to be taken too seriously.

Those are both straw men. No one has claimed that promiscuity and/or STDs started/arrived with the pill. However, those who favor contraception will have a tough time arguing that promiscuity and STD rates have decreased as pill usage increased. Pre-marital sex and “shacking up” have become *de regeur. *

 

[OriginalJS]

Pre-marital sex and “shacking up” have become *de regeur. *

This seems to be true. Laws against cohabitation have been repealed; laws against adultery, where they still exist, have not been enforced; divorce is widespread and it is now politically incorrect to speak of bastards. In some states it is illegal to refer to a child as “illegitimate” in official documents. I have been to Catholic weddings in which a child of the marrying couple served as a flower girl and nary an eyebrow was raised. Annulments which used to be hard, and I mean hard, to get are today almost routine. A family member of mine married a grandfather who got an annulment of his marriage to his wife of 20 plus years, Euphemisms for cohabitants have been developed from “significant other” to “special friend.” For less formal (!) relationships we have “friends with benefits.” It is the society we live in now. But as to the causes, I’m not sure we know.

 

[rlg94086]

This seems to be true. Laws against cohabitation have been repealed; laws against adultery, where they still exist, have not been enforced; divorce is widespread and it is now politically incorrect to speak of bastards. In some states it is illegal to refer to a child as “illegitimate” in official documents. I have been to Catholic weddings in which a child of the marrying couple served as a flower girl and nary an eyebrow was raised. Annulments which used to be hard, and I mean hard, to get are today almost routine. A family member of mine married a grandfather who got an annulment of his marriage to his wife of 20 plus years, Euphemisms for cohabitants have been developed from “significant other” to “special friend.” For less formal (!) relationships we have “friends with benefits.” It is the society we live in now.

Agreed, except that annulments are being tightened up by the Church.
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5294

OriginalJS:

But as to the causes, I’m not sure we know.

The pill (contraception, in general) is a huge factor, even if it isn’t the only factor. It would be pretty silly to deny it. When you remove the procreative purpose of marital relations and make it all about “sexual fulfillment,” there is bound to be an increase in promiscuity.

 

[Julianna]

This seems to be true. Laws against cohabitation have been repealed; laws against adultery, where they still exist, have not been enforced; divorce is widespread and it is now politically incorrect to speak of bastards. In some states it is illegal to refer to a child as “illegitimate” in official documents. I have been to Catholic weddings in which a child of the marrying couple served as a flower girl and nary an eyebrow was raised. Annulments which used to be hard, and I mean hard, to get are today almost routine. A family member of mine married a grandfather who got an annulment of his marriage to his wife of 20 plus years, Euphemisms for cohabitants have been developed from “significant other” to “special friend.” For less formal (!) relationships we have “friends with benefits.” It is the society we live in now. But as to the causes, I’m not sure we know.

…basically, to legislate morality is difficult…

I do see the tide turning…in the wake of the “alienation of affection” laws that are moving to the forefront…at least in my state anyway.

 

[rlg94086]

…basically, to** legislate morality** is difficult…

I do see the tide turning…in the wake of the “alienation of affection” laws that are moving to the forefront…at least in my state anyway.

That statement is the biggest canard - morality has always been legislated! You do realize that we have laws that don’t allow people to lie, cheat and steal, right? Should we remove them so we don’t “legislate morality?”

 

[Julianna]

That statement is the biggest canard - morality has always been legislated! You do realize that we have laws that don’t allow people to lize, cheat and steal, right? Should we remove them so we don’t “legislate morality?”

yes we sure do. However, everyone in the US does not follow Catholic doctrine when it comes to birth control…nor should they. Morality in this country is not legislated based on what the Catholic church finds immoral, and that is a good thing. Drinking and dancing is immoral in the Baptist Church because…as Catholic’s say it leads to a near occasion of sin. In the Pentacostal Church…a woman who wears a dress above the knee…pants or shorts or a top that shows her arms or cleavage is considered near occasion of sin. I was told (back in high school) by my then boyfriend when I went to his church, I could not wear a dress above the knee and it had to have sleeves and my hair had to be pulled back. Have you ever been to an Irish/Italian Catholic wedding…totally different than what you would find at a Baptist wedding.

The use of birth control in some faiths in not immoral because to them, having more than you can feed is immoral. However, they agree that aborition is a sin.

You see…why this could be difficult. I always say if you want a country run by religious theocracy…move to the Middle East.

 

[Tigg]

Despite Catholic teachings, women religiously take the pill

Are we surprised at this? The American clergy themselves roundly rejected Humanae Vitae! Which, some would say, was the birth of Cafeteria Catholicism.

 

[miguel]

What native peoples the Spanish and Portuguese (Brazil) didn’t kill, or who didn’t die as a result of famine,war and disease–was enslaved and some survived and multiplied. Many retreated into the mountains, like the Tarahuamara in Mexico who fled the Spanish into Copper Canyon, where they survive to this day. Whether they intermarried or were raped, and I suspect the latter to a very large degree, the surviving Indian populations are mixed–Indian, Spanish and African, from imported African slaves.

For a bit more balance:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Mexico

 

[rlg94086]

yes we sure do. However, everyone in the US does not follow Catholic doctrine when it comes to birth control…nor should they. Morality in this country is not legislated based on what the Catholic church finds immoral, and that is a good thing. Drinking and dancing is immoral in the Baptist Church because…as Catholic’s say it leads to a near occasion of sin. In the Pentacostal Church…a woman who wears a dress above the knee…pants or shorts or a top that shows her arms or cleavage is considered near occasion of sin. I was told (back in high school) by my then boyfriend when I went to his church, I could not wear a dress above the knee and it had to have sleeves and my hair had to be pulled back. Have you ever been to an Irish/Italian Catholic wedding…totally different than what you would find at a Baptist wedding.

The use of birth control in some faiths in not immoral because to them, having more than you can feed is immoral. However, they agree that aborition is a sin.

You see…why this could be difficult. I always say if you want a country run by religious theocracy…move to the Middle East.

Not difficult at all. You clearly don’t understand how a pluralistic society works. If the majority agreed that a woman’s dress could not be above the knee and decided to pass a law requiring it, then we it would be illegal to wear a dress above the knee. It wouldn’t be “a country run by religious theocracy” because of it…it would be the will of the people. The fact that it “is not immoral” to some people is irrelevant. Now, if the law was impinging on someone’s God-given rights (I can’t think of any related to skirt/dress length), then the law would be problematic.

All laws are like this. The reason we passed Prohibition, and later repealed it, is because it was the will of the people. There is nothing theocratic about it. If you wish to only pass laws that everyone agrees with morally, then you would have nothing but licentiousness. I don’t want to live in a country that goes by the lowest common denominator, when it comes to morality.

 

[Rence]

Not difficult at all. You clearly don’t understand how a pluralistic society works. If the majority agreed that a woman’s dress could not be above the knee and decided to pass a law requiring it, then we it would be illegal to wear a dress above the knee. It wouldn’t be “a country run by religious theocracy” because of it…it would be the will of the people. The fact that it “is not immoral” to some people is irrelevant. Now, if the law was impinging on someone’s God-given rights (I can’t think of any related to skirt/dress length), then the law would be problematic.

All laws are like this. The reason we passed Prohibition, and later repealed it, is because it was the will of the people. There is nothing theocratic about it. If you wish to only pass laws that everyone agrees with morally, then you would have nothing but licentiousness. I don’t want to live in a country that goes by the lowest common denominator, when it comes to morality.

The majority supports availability of contraceptives and other forms of birth control. Even Catholics are among those who take contraceptives to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Julianna]

The majority supports availability of contraceptives and other forms of birth control. Even Catholics are among those who take contraceptives to avoid pregnancy.

Glad that you brought that up. That is what I was getting at.

 

[Rence]

Glad that you brought that up. That is what I was getting at.

Well, it’s a fact that’s hard to ignore or dispute. People ask how they can get contraceptives outlawed in the U.S. … I just don’t see that happening. Too many people want it available, regardless of whether or not they’re Catholic.

 

[rlg94086]

The majority supports availability of contraceptives and other forms of birth control.

I agree. Julianna brought up the idea of outlawing them - not me. Maybe someone else posted something about outlawing them, but I don’t remember reading it.

I was only making comment on the idea that “legislating morality” doesn’t work and/or shouldn’t be done. It is a common cry of those who oppose any notion of Natural Law. They are never consistent though - otherwise they would be in favor of ending all laws regarding public nudity, for example.

Rence:

Even Catholics are among those who take contraceptives to avoid pregnancy.

Indeed, and that is what the thread is really about. I don’t see the laws changing, but hopefully Catholics will become more faithful. I certainly don’t see the Church changing her teaching in the same manner that the Protestants did - based on popular opinion.

 

[Rence]

I agree. Julianna brought up the idea of outlawing them - not me. Maybe someone else posted something about outlawing them, but I don’t remember reading it.

I wouldn’t know if it was on this thread either, because I haven’t read the whole thread. But I do know that many pro-lifers who are trying to make abortion illegal in all cases, are also trying to have contraception outlawed, on the basis that they believe them to be aborficants.

I was only making comment on the idea that “legislating morality” doesn’t work and/or shouldn’t be done. It is a common cry of those who oppose any notion of Natural Law. They are never consistent though - otherwise they would be in favor of ending all laws regarding public nudity, for example.

I have noticed the inconsistencies, you’re right.

Indeed, and that is what the thread is really about. I don’t see the laws changing, but hopefully Catholics will become more faithful. I certainly don’t see the Church changing her teaching in the same manner that the Protestants did - based on popular opinion.

You know, I was watching a commercial on TV last night. Yeah, I know I had an ephiphany about contraceptives last night I’m sure it wasn’t a new commercial, but I don’t watch too much TV, let alone stick around for commercials. Anywaays…

These ladies/actresses were saying stuff like, who needs to get a period every month? with the pill you only get a period every three months. Woo hoo!! (added by me for emphasis regarding their euphoria). That means only 4 periods a year!! Yay!!

And I just don’t get it: take a pill so that your body stops doing what it’s supposed to be doing. How is that good? Don’t we usually take medications to try to get the body to do what it’s supposed to be doing? or not do what it’s not supposed to be doing? how is it good to mess up your system so that it’s not doing what it’s naturally supposed to do? What is the benefit of that? I just don’t get it

Now don’t get me wrong: periods are not a joy. Neither are cramps. And I’m all for some pills to control cramps, and then, I don’t have bad cramps or bleeding (though I used to). But…take some pills so that your system is so messed up that it stops working correctly? And certaily if you have bad enough cramps or bleeding to need intervention, go for it. But the commercial advertised the joys of something that doesn’t make sense to me.

I completely understand when women take contraceptives to treat medical conditions. And I agree they should if they’ve exhausted other methods of treating whatever conditions they have. But I don’get get purposely screwing up your system.

Just saying…

 

[Julianna]

It was not me who suggested outlawing contraceptives.

It is not against the law and should not be. If you are against taking the pill or using contraceptives because of your religious beliefs…go ahead…just don’t infuse into the public arena where the will of the people will not go for it.

I saw the commercial you speak of. We certainly don’t know the consequences down the road…that is troublesome. But if women want to do that…they should be able to. I for one am glad it’s over for me. I had a hysterectomy and haven’t looked back.