Hypocritical Contraception?

[Good_Daughter]

Tell me how charting, testing mucus, taking internal temeratures are nore taking definitive steps to aviod conception?

They most certainly are definitive steps to avoid conception. Can you show me which Church teaching says Catholics are not allowed to avoid conception?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Actually the only correct action, to fulfill the Catholic teaching of each act containing a pro-creation and a unitive aspect to it, and to aviod being in a state of mortal sin, is to throw away all charts, thermometers and just have sex every time you want to, or your partner requests it.

Actually, sex that is naturally infertile can still be procreative (not necessarily creating life, but ordered towards life), according to Catholic teaching. That includes sex during pregnancy, menopause and cyclical infertility.

 

[Seatuck]

Of course it is.
Ther are two purposes of NFP:
One to aid conception, and one to aviod conception.

When using NFP to “space children” you are still having sex, but making procreation impossible. By their own published statistics, NFP far more effective at avioding conceiving than ABC. It’s most certainly a contradiction.

I agree with your second line, that if a child is conceived you welcome him/her with open, loving arms…same would go for ABC, really. It depends on the couple. They can conceive through NFP and not want the child too…It’s the mentality, not the means.

NFP is no different from any other non-abortive contraception.

The last part is just silly. There is no addition of any chemical or other contraceptive substance added to the act . There is just husband , wife and God when NFP is used.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m a little late on this discussion… but I’ll still add my two cents…

Back to the Catechism…

2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

The difference between NFP and ABC is seen at each unique decision to engage in the conjugal act or not.

NFP makes the decision NOT to engage in the conjugal act… so this doesn’t even apply because the act is never DONE:

“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible”

In contrast… ABC still allow the conjugal act to OCCUR.

BIG difference.

As for the unitive and procreative aspects of marital unity…
“Procreative” does NOT mean “Fertile”…
The term “procreative” mean “done in a manner that COULD result in life if fertility is present”…

 

[KathleenBP]

Hello all,

This topic is always a difficult for non catholics to understand and obviously Catholics as well. I was of the belief, in my wandering days, that contraception was not evil, that it brought couples together, that it prevented over population and all the other baloney that the secular culture would have us believe. The main concept that I think all people should understand is that We Must Be Open To Life. As with any contraceptive measure, the love and understanding of each other’s bodies must be taken into consideration. NFP is a very loving and open aspect of marriage. Look at the divorce rates of those who use NFP. Pope Paul the VI was so right when he warned the world against contraception. Look what happened to the family unit. Look what happened to the views of the woman’s body. We took love and the openess for life out of the marital union. I have been there, I have done that. I was never so empty, and sick, from having to endure many surgical procedures to rid my “free love” body of a very aggressive form of HPV. I had to have a hysterectomy at 38. By the way, condoms do not protect people from many of the diseases they are touted to protect us from. Think about life. Think about the sacredness of it. Think of the chances that we endured to even be here. God planned each and everyone of our lives, and to change his beautiful design never works. As a young person, I encourage you to go to PureLoveClub.com and listen to the college discussion given by Jason and Chrystalina Evert at Harvard. It will answer many of your questions. Please know that all of us here are glad that you are thinking and asking for answers. Pray, pray pray and pray some more. Ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten your mind and heart in this very important part of all of our lives. There are soooo many reasons to allow God into our sexual lives. You will be surprise at how beautiful love and intimacy can be, if you only let God be a part of it.
I have a 16 year old daughter who has completely grasped the Evert’s call to chastity and purity. Not because sex is BAD, but because sex is so beautiful and is meant to be saved for that very special someone that God has given you to be a life partner, should that be your calling.
In Christ’s Peace
Kathleen

 

[homeloan]

I’m a bomb-thrower here, so take this question with a grain of salt, even though I don’t mean this to be sarcastic, disrespectful or titillating. I really would like to have an answer or some perspective…

Quote from CCC, lifted from “quote” of recent post: “…In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” ** is intrinsically evil:159**
Does this mean that certain types of foreplay, or certain types of monogymous intimacy, lets see,… I don’t think there is a delicate way of saying this,… (toys), would be mortally sinful for RC husbands & wives?

My apologies to Mets for this question.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m a bomb-thrower here, so take this question with a grain of salt, even though I don’t mean this to be sarcastic, disrespectful or titillating. I really would like to have an answer or some perspective…

Quote from CCC, lifted from “quote” of recent post: “…In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” ** is intrinsically evil:159**
Does this mean that certain types of foreplay, or certain types of monogymous intimacy, lets see,… I don’t think there is a delicate way of saying this,… (toys), would be mortally sinful for RC husbands & wives?

My apologies to Mets for this question.

Foreplay may be done in about any method, completion must be as designed for procreative purposes

 

[KathleenBP]

Hello all, again!

A few other thoughts to think about. In our society, children are for some considered a disease. If you are using NFP, you are always open to life. If you are poisoning the womans body with chemicals to avoid pregnancy you are obviously not open to life, but the chances are still there. According to statistics, 70% of women who have abortions were using some sort of birth control. What an awful thought and what carnage we have allowed to happen, as we gleefully go about contracepting! Of note, I had many problems because of my “free love” attitude, after graduating from nursing school - yes, they taught us to not judge and to just do what felt good and I was a very willing subject to absorb their lies. I was told that I would never be able to conceive a child, without various medical procedures done prior. Well, one day I was at work and because my period was late, I grabbed a pregnancy test out of the cupboard and took it. I was shocked to find that I was pregnant. I went and told my boss, who was a nurse practitioner. The first words out of her mouth were “I’ll go schedule you for an abortion”. I was living with my boyfriend at the time…yes, when I did the free love thing…I did it up right! I was 28 years old and the only thing going through my head was…I don’t know, this might be my only chance to have a child. NOTE, GOD WAS NO WHERE IN THIS PICTURE…IT WAS ALL ABOUT ME! To make a long story short, I had to stay home and stay in bed for the first 8 weeks of my pregnancy, as my body was cramping and trying to rid my poor beat up body of this precious baby. It was God’s will that I should have this child. She was born 2 months premature, but is now a beautiful, loving, spiritual 16 year old woman who plans on joining the Navy after college as an RN. She is active in her church, volleyball, FFA and has many family and friends that she enjoys. God was giving me and my husband ( we married when I was 4 months pregnant) a wake up call to what is really important. When she was 5, I returned to the Church, knowing somewhere in my heart that I should go back to the one who gave us life and who died for our sins. God works in mysterious ways and thank goodness he does. Do not fight the fact that God asks us to be open to life, both brand new and old and life that the secular world considers a burden. Look at Pope John Paul II…look how he remained a suffering servant of God’s and the world’s long after the Parkinson’s had taken his vibrant out ward appearance away. Love our Lord and all things will fall into place…I am the ultimate example of that. God is NEVER wrong and ALWAYS loving.
In Christ,
Kathleen

 

[Em_in_FL]

Does this mean that certain types of foreplay, or certain types of monogymous intimacy, lets see,… I don’t think there is a delicate way of saying this,… (toys), would be mortally sinful for RC husbands & wives?

Foreplay may be done in about any method, completion must be as designed for procreative purposes

TR is right…
If the foreplay was the ENDS of the intimacy (ie, completion in a non-procreative way) then that would be sinful…
But as a MEANS to completion in a procreative manner, then that is okay (as long as the unitive is not excluded here… in other words, BOTH partners need to be okay with this and not feel insulted or misused in any way)…

 

[newbetx]

And yet the Catechism states that every action should conform to these requirements, and even the teachings of sex in the Church…every action should have a pro-creative and unitive aspect to it.
This means every time a couple engages in intimacy. That is how the CCC is written. And that is how it’s taught and enforced. Any deviation from that results in mortal sin, by the teachings themselves.

So there are teachings that are enforced by mortal sin that state that every act should have the unitive and procreative aspects to them, but then other teachings that state that if this act occur during the infertile time, it’s not necessary for the pro-creative aspect to be present? I’m sorry that’s even more contradictive.

Charting is just another means to have sex but avoid conceiving. And it’s man made. It’s just another contraceptive tool. Condoms, spermacide, thermometers, charts, it’s all tools to avoid conceiving.

I agree that NFP is just a mind game.

Fine. You may believe what you want. Please state clearly that it is your personal interpretation and not that of the Church.

It’s even less impossible with ABC.

But the CCC mentions that impossibility :" In contrast, “every action that renders procreation impossible is intrinsically evil”

So, NFP should be more intrinsically evil than ABC.

Hardly. Taking 1 line from the CCC out of the full context to “prove” your point is deceptive.

Here is your line:

In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Here’s the full text. Note the bolded portion.
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, **is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.**158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

So while he feels the last sentence in the paragraph pertains to NFP, it is obvious it can not since the first statement in the paragaph distinctly says it is allowed. If he claims the first part of the paragraph is invalid, then the whole thing has to be thrown out and the CCC is no longer a valid basis for argument.

Now backing up, we see:

[2361](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2361.htm’) "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

This states that you don’t have sex specifically ONLY to have children OR a means of ‘relief’. And this is where condoms are different from NFP. When you use a barrier, it violates the totality of the act and is selfish in nature. Abstenance is an act of self-denial which is considered admirable. And that is the main difference between ABC and NFP.

Again, this is where you misunderstand…

Maybe. But based on these and other posts of similar nature, I doubt he misunderstands unintentionally.

I’ve seen many posts by some that are just of the mindset that we should have as many children as physically possible. Some claim we are not allowed to choose how many children we bring to the marriage. This, in direct opposition of the very documents they quote, sometimes. They claim only God can determine this through the fertility He gave us. Many other people think the same thing. PM is not unique. Wrong, but not unique.

 

[hasikelee]

I would like to ask people who marry out of college who have no money to raise a family what they do if not use NFP. Do they abstain until they are ready to have children, or merely have a hundred children.

No, they use hormonal replacement therapies and/or condoms.

Isn’t the percentage somewhere around 84% for couples who use ABC?

The idea of a “hundred” children is a bit of an exaggeration, right? In contrast to most other mammals on earth, humans have extremely limited fertility. Now, exceptions exist, but overall, a female human’s fertility window is 24 hours, with prior and post-sexual incidents causing fertilization only because of the “shelf-life” of sperm, which can be around 7 days. Furthermore, although sperm can live to the 7 day mark, with the average man marrying past 25 years, his “shelf-life” is probably half of that. One week out of a month is not going to net you a hundred kids, no matter how hard you try.

Tie that into the way breastfeeding is coming back as a fad and you push the fertility window out even further.

 

[Calliso]

That may be okay in the Church of Calliso, but we aren’t allowed to be fast and loose with our understanding of Scripture and morality. As I posted earlier, *all *Christian leaders, Protestant and Catholic agreed contraception was a sin up until the 1900’s. What changed to the Bible at that time?

I am curious how is my interpretation loose? But I have yet to see anything in the bible that suggests that God is against contraception and not just organized religion. Also up until fairly recently I bet most denominations would have told you slavery is ok and been able to support it bibically far better then I have seen anticontraception claims supported. Nothing changed in the bible during those times either though.

 

[KathleenBP]

Hi All,

The most important part about this contraception controversy is that God stands for life! The Church understands that sometimes it is an undue hardship to bring another baby into a family, but since the beginning of time, God was the creator and protector of life. To use NFP is to remain open to life, but to merely share intimacy when the wife is less likely to conceive. It is totally different from pills and condoms and the like. To place barriers in front of the possibility of conception is to forget the reason God gave us sex in the first place. It is a sacred act, created to bring a man and a woman closer. Not merely just an free for all activity. Look what has happened as we have said no to life and yes to instant gratification. Does not the secular mess that is considered NORMAL concern any of you who want to hold fast to the fact that contraception doesn’t hurt anyone? There is so many scientific findings coming to light that prove that a woman and a man become one in so many ways when intercourse is not limited by a barrier. Did you know that the woman’s body takes the man’s sperm and recognizes the DNA, so that if and when she does conceive, the body is less likely to reject the fetus and the woman is less likely to have Eclampsia later in the pregnancy? God has known in his infinite wisdom all along that humans were created to procreate. Gee guys…look at our world…look at what is considered normal? I believed the lies and it could have cost me my life! Be open to love…and life and know that God is so very wise. Thank God the Catholic Church has not gone with the rest of the world. Someone has to be the keeper of the truth.
In Christ,
Kathleen

 

[Calliso]

Hi All,

The most important part about this contraception controversy is that God stands for life! The Church understands that sometimes it is an undue hardship to bring another baby into a family, but since the beginning of time, God was the creator and protector of life. To use NFP is to remain open to life, but to merely share intimacy when the wife is less likely to conceive. It is totally different from pills and condoms and the like. To place barriers in front of the possibility of conception is to forget the reason God gave us sex in the first place. It is a sacred act, created to bring a man and a woman closer. Not merely just an free for all activity. Look what has happened as we have said no to life and yes to instant gratification. Does not the secular mess that is considered NORMAL concern any of you who want to hold fast to the fact that contraception doesn’t hurt anyone? There is so many scientific findings coming to light that prove that a woman and a man become one in so many ways when intercourse is not limited by a barrier. Did you know that the woman’s body takes the man’s sperm and recognizes the DNA, so that if and when she does conceive, the body is less likely to reject the fetus and the woman is less likely to have Eclampsia later in the pregnancy? God has known in his infinite wisdom all along that humans were created to procreate. Gee guys…look at our world…look at what is considered normal? I believed the lies and it could have cost me my life! Be open to love…and life and know that God is so very wise. Thank God the Catholic Church has not gone with the rest of the world. Someone has to be the keeper of the truth.
In Christ,
Kathleen

Umm do you have any sources for the sperm thing? Cause everything I have read suggests that the woman’s body sees it as an intruder. I don’t think our bodies can reconize foreign dna at least not sperm dna. As far as I know the sperm is attacked all the way to the egg. That;s why there is so many of them.

 

[hasikelee]

Umm do you have any sources for the sperm thing? Cause everything I have read suggests that the woman’s body sees it as an intruder. I don’t think our bodies can reconize foreign dna at least not sperm dna. As far as I know the sperm is attacked all the way to the egg. That;s why there is so many of them.

It sounds as if KathleenBP is referring to two different stages as one.

Hey, you might be interested in this:

universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/7768

 

[KathleenBP]

Hello All,

I read this study in an article a few months back and can not remember where. BUT, I typed in Sperm DNA read by woman’s body and the prevention of various pregnancy problems. I got a site from fortune city? It was very secular but the science was there. As we have sex much semen is introduced into the woman’s vagina. It was previously thought that any that might have made it into the uterus was merely flushed out during the next menstrual cycle. Now studies show that some of the sperm is actually absorbed and the woman’s anitbodies register the DNA from the sperm. Later, when the woman conceives, her body accepts the fetus at a greater percent due to the acknowledgment already given to the DNA. Science is always changing and it is proven that the more scientists delve into Genetics and DNA, etc, the more scientist are coming to believe in a higher power…It is fascinating and always comes back to God’s infinite wisdom. Hey, I had to rethink so much of my thinking…it can be done! Be open to new studies and findings by the scientific community. Ask any gynecologist, or look at any website that is frequented by the MD community and you will find lots of incredible information. Be aware of the secular garbage that is often still intermingled…but the Church, even if secular society does not believe it…has always tried to be open to the scientific explanations of our universe. Hey, I could go on all day…but take a look at some of the websites available.
And yes, I am talking about the act of sex as the vehicle to allow the sperm to be absorbed by the woman’s body. Not the basic act in black and white.
In Christ,
Kathleen

 

[KathleenBP]

Something to think about,

If you took the population of the entire planet and put it in the state of Texas, each and everyone of us would have 2000 square feet to ourselves. Anyone who wants to believe that we are an overpopulated planet is merely looking at the sadness and desperation that many third world countries are enduring. It has nothing to do with population, but everything to do with governments gaining power and control by withholding food stuffs, medication and many other things that should be available to all human beings. Anyone who still wants to believe in contraception, look into where the clinics are and who they are targeted at. Initially, “Family Planning” was a eugenic organization, wanting less desirables to be sterilized or to at least practice birth control. It was not meant for the “elite” on the planet. Margaret Sangor’s works were read by Adolf Hitler…need I say more? Contraception is evil and continues to bring about evil. Look at our divorce rates, look at all the public scandals, look at abortion…more babies have been killed in the name of convenience than humans that have perished in all the wars that have occured since man has kept records of such terror. And yet, the secular society would make us believe that all is well here on the planet…as long as we humans continue to live as if we were each a god. Trust me, when I lived according to the doctrine of Kathy…I failed miserably…and if you look at our society, all of this convenience has failed as well. Has contraception allowed us to grow closer? Has it allowed people who live in poverty to live better lives? The list goes on and on…
Think about it…ask the Holy Spirit for guidance if you are too hardened by society’s lies…that is what I had to do. It is hard to admit that I do not have all the answers and that maybe I should listen to the Church and 2000+ years of spirituality and knowledge.
In Christ,
Kathleen:knight1:

 

[homeloan]

…Initially, “Family Planning” was a eugenic organization, wanting less desirables to be sterilized or to at least practice birth control. It was not meant for the “elite” on the planet. Margaret Sangor’s works were read by Adolf Hitler…need I say more? Kathleen:knight1:

Actually, I think if you look at some of the existing records from the old South, those rascally plantation owners, all Christian’s, did some pretty horrible eugenic’s of their own with African American slaves. They bred them just like farm animals.

But those plantation owners slept well at night, except when they did their midnight roamins to the slave quarters. After all, the Good Book supported the slave - master relationship. Dilly here, dally there, all under the watchful protection of the Holy Ghost.

Red-headed step-children had its own meaning back on the plantation. I don’t think this has anything to do with contraception (actually, just the opposite), but it sure was hypocritical.

 

[rlg94086]

I am curious how is my interpretation loose? But I have yet to see anything in the bible that suggests that God is against contraception and not just organized religion. Also up until fairly recently I bet most denominations would have told you slavery is ok and been able to support it bibically far better then I have seen anticontraception claims supported. Nothing changed in the bible during those times either though.

I said Scripture *and *morality. Protestants, especially “non-denominational” Christians can pretty much accept any interpretation or “Bible-based” belief as they like…there is no authority to turn to. That is the reason that many, many Christians abused the biblical passages regarding slavery. The Catholic Church’s history with slavery is a little more complicated. Read about it here, if it interests you: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

However, slavery is not what we are discussing here, so I don’t want to get into a lot of back-and-forth on an unrelated topic.

Now, can you or can’t you explain what happened in the understanding of the majority of non-Catholic Christians in the early 1900s with respect to contraception? I think it is easier to understand how something that is allowed and/or tolerated in Scripture (with certain caveats) is later more strictly defined as sinful, in the case of slavery. I think it is much more difficult to go from something defined as seriously sinful to suddenly being embraced by most Christians. It is also interesting that a number of “non-denominational” churches are starting to rediscover the sin of contraception.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Ok then new question. What do couples do if they don’t plan on having children for awhile? Assuming that NFP is a sin I assume they must abstain.