Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pumped4Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
youoldbum said:
"Sorry to use an inappropriate posting style, but it is extremely frustrating to me that people like those on this site as well as people I know, are willing to hand over all their personal decisions to doctrine. I know someone who is 50 years old, poor, moved here form Mexico, can barely afford the two kids she has, cleans houses for a living, wants to please her husband, but is Catholic so won’t use birth control. She has miscarried several times and is pregnant again. Does this make ANY sense?
P.S. at your suggestion, I went to the Creighton Model (NaPRO) website and there is only information about Getting pregnant – not not getting pregnant. God (not a church, but God himself) has given every woman reproductive rights, the right to control her own body with her own brain. "

You also have the right to NOT have intimate relations, if your circumstances are such that you cannot support more children. To do the convenient thing, is not the same as doing the right thing.

Dogma is revealed truth. We can choose to follow God’s will, the teachings of His church throughout the ages, or we can choose to do our own thing. That is the curse of free will, the ability to choose wrongly.

To limit our sexual behavior properly, is both a joy and, a cross we bear in this life. We either accept it or we rebel against any ideas that limit our seeking worldly pleasure.

You can always rationalize, come up with reasons, to indulge in wrong behaviors. That is not the same as doing the right thing,
Click to expand...
The Creighton model must be learned with an instructor, so the website doesn’t give the particulars on how it works.
 
choose_to_love said:
@chrono13: As I have no idea what you are talking about vis-a-vis irresponsible parenthood, I cannot comment. What do you mean?

Regarding the ECFs and NFP, what do you think they say?
Click to expand...
Humanae Vitae recommended responsible parenthood, which means that you can be irresponsible as a parent. The latter scenario has never been explained in theological manner.

If couple is irresponsible, does God create a child He won’t back up to punish them for their lack of control? Sounds difficult to chew.
 
Chrono13 said:
Because they are not very effective means of controling fertility. And they often lower the stability of marriage.
Click to expand...
Actually, you’re wrong on both counts. NFP has a method effectiveness of 99%, and divorce rate among NFP couples is extremely low.
These arguments have their logic, but give more questions then answers. If “preventing conception” counts as morally acceptable end, then one could rightfully ask how NFP is open to life.
Click to expand...
Deliberately frustrating conception is not morally acceptable. Avoiding conception by choosing not to engage in intercourse is not the same as frustrating conception. NFP works with God’s design for our bodies. Contraception works against it.
Indeed. The veracity is determined by fact.
Click to expand...
And the facts are that NFP is effective as well as good for marriages.
 
wanner47 said:
Actually, contraception has a great deal to do with eugenics.
Click to expand...
I find this remark dangerous for credibility of your religious stances. I am a Roman Catholic too, but would never make such claim.
 
wanner47 said:
Yes, it has. Read JPII’s Theology of the Body.
Click to expand...
I am ready to be corrected, but Theology of the Body did not address this issue.

With God, no one is an accident.

It takes only a thought or two to see how paradoxal Father Rocky is. In case that every child is God’s will (on that, I agree) NFP is completely useless form of birth control. Being open to life, means you will have same number of children no matter what you do with charts and calendars.
 
wanner47 said:
Have *you *ever heard of Margaret Sanger?
Click to expand...
Yes. But calling contraceptive acts part of eugenical agenda is simply going too far. They have their part in this movement, but one has to ask whether contraception was just a mean to an evil end. Using something for evil doesn’t necessary mean that it is evil per se.
 
Chrono13 said:
I am ready to be corrected, but Theology of the Body did not address this issue.
Click to expand...
Check out the section called Responsible Parenthood.

Also see JPII’s Love and Responsibility.
With God, no one is an accident.
Click to expand...
It takes only a thought or two to see how paradoxal Father Rocky is. In case that every child is God’s will (on that, I agree) NFP is completely useless form of birth control. Being open to life, means you will have same number of children no matter what you do with charts and calendars.
Click to expand...
So, do you believe that we do not have free will?
 
Chrono13 said:
Yes. But calling contraceptive acts part of eugenical agenda is simply going too far. They have their part in this movement, but one has to ask whether contraception was just a mean to an evil end. Using something for evil doesn’t necessary mean that it is evil per se.
Click to expand...
Contraception is *always *intrinsically evil in Catholic moral theology. It is an evil means to a good end (spacing pregnancy).
 
wanner47 said:
Check out the section called Responsible Parenthood.

Also see JPII’s Love and Responsibility.

So, do you believe that we do not have free will?
Click to expand...
No source you provided explained anything regarding irresponsible parenthood. They stress the importance of responsible one, but fail to address the issue we discuss. Will irresponsible pair beget children God doesn’t want? If answer is yes, it would mean God doesn’t control begetting of children. If no, then there is no such thing as responsible parenthood.

People have free will to abstinate at fertile days. But it is theological problem if they think they control birth that way.
 
wanner47 said:
Contraception is *always *intrinsically evil in Catholic moral theology. It is an evil means to a good end (spacing pregnancy).
Click to expand...
No. Prior to 19th Century, contraception was evil because sex could only be practiced for procreation. This is why Church forbade NFP in the past. Sex was not unitive in theory.
 
Chrono13 said:
No. Prior to 19th Century, contraception was evil because sex could only be practiced for procreation. This is why Church forbade NFP in the past. Sex was not unitive in theory.
Click to expand...
The Church has never forbidden NFP, nor has the Church ever formally taught that sex was only for procreation. (That was a theological opinion held by some theologians, but it was never a formal teaching.)
 
Chrono13 said:
No source you provided explained anything regarding irresponsible parenthood. They stress the importance of responsible one, but fail to address the issue we discuss. Will irresponsible pair beget children God doesn’t want? If answer is yes, it would mean God doesn’t control begetting of children. If no, then there is no such thing as responsible parenthood.

People have free will to abstinate at fertile days. But it is theological problem if they think they control birth that way.
Click to expand...
Edit - did you read “Love and Responsibility” in its entirety? If so, I am in awe of your speed-reading skills.

People have free will to sin, which includes having children when it may be irresponsible to do so. However, the children are always a gift from God, regardless of the circumstances of their conception, and should be treated as such.

Why do you say “there is no such thing” as responsible parenthood? Do you think it is impossible for God to bring good (children) out of a bad situation (sinful parents)?
 
belorg said:
Or: I do trust You, God, and I am very grateful that in You have given scientists the inspiration to come up with a method so that I can still have a normal sexual relation with my wife/husband and at the same time make sure that my condition does not get passed on.
Click to expand...
 
wanner47 said:
People have free will to sin, which includes having children when it may be irresponsible to do so. However, the children are always a gift from God, regardless of the circumstances of their conception, and should be treated as such.

Why do you say “there is no such thing” as responsible parenthood? Do you think it is impossible for God to bring good (children) out of a bad situation (sinful parents)?
Click to expand...
If children are gift of God, then He will take care of them and provide parents with wealth to support them. Since every child is gifted and supported , then there is no situation where pair can be irresponsible. How can be sinful to beget a child you know Lord will provide for? Responsible parenthood simply can’t exist because it’s alternative (irresponsibiliy) doesn’t exist.
 
wanner47 said:
The Church has never forbidden NFP, nor has the Church ever formally taught that sex was only for procreation. (That was a theological opinion held by some theologians, but it was never a formal teaching.)
Click to expand...
This is simply ignoring centuries of Catholic faith. The doctrine that sex is only for procreation has been constantly repeated by saints and doctors of the Church. No document prior to Casti Connubii claimed sexuality is sign of marital love and joy. The role of secular pressure comes to mind.

Leading figure of mentioned document, St. Augustine of Hippo, claimed heretics can be recognized by their calculation when woman is fertile after menstruation.

If Church did not teach these things, then it never teached anything.
 
wanner47 said:
Edit - did you read “Love and Responsibility” in its entirety? If so, I am in awe of your speed-reading skills.
Click to expand...
I have knowledge of the text you provided. As well as those you mentioned before.
 
Chrono wrote: Responsible parenthood simply can’t exist because it’s alternative (irresponsibiliy) doesn’t exist

I think you’re saying that responsible/irresponsible don’t apply to conception, bringing the kiddos into the world? Because there is very definitely irresponsible post-birth parenthood/parenting, and that’s what TOB etc are talking about.

Yep, children are blessings and God has a way of always providing at least at the level of making things work out for good, but it can be really irresponsible to add to a family that is stretched to the limit. Think about people who have several kids very close together and mom is about to breakdown physically and emotionally. Sure, God will provide for another kid, but He may have to do it while mom is unable to mother.

In those cases, I don’t think it’s by any means sinful or evil to conceive, but it sure could be unwise.
 
EvelynEVF said:
Chrono wrote: Responsible parenthood simply can’t exist because it’s alternative (irresponsibiliy) doesn’t exist

I think you’re saying that responsible/irresponsible don’t apply to conception, bringing the kiddos into the world? Because there is very definitely irresponsible post-birth parenthood/parenting, and that’s what TOB etc are talking about.

Yep, children are blessings and God has a way of always providing at least at the level of making things work out for good, but it can be really irresponsible to add to a family that is stretched to the limit. Think about people who have several kids very close together and mom is about to breakdown physically and emotionally. Sure, God will provide for another kid, but He may have to do it while mom is unable to mother.

In those cases, I don’t think it’s by any means sinful or evil to conceive, but it sure could be unwise.
Click to expand...
I am simply addressing the issue from theological point of view. Applying the view Catholic took on nature, there can’t be unwise or irresponsible acts, since their outcome belongs to God.

Case of NFP is most evident. If you are always open to life during intercourse, there is no theological explanation why you would have less children then God intends to give you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top