E
e46m3
Guest
I was wondering if the rythm method is an acceptable form of birth control. If you don’t know what that is, it’s when you only have sex when the womon is not ovulating.
- Status
R
Rence
Guest
The ‘rhythm method’ is an old, outdated and ineffective method. But Natural Family Planning is much more effective and yes, is accepted by the Catholic Church for married couples who have discerned with a lot of thought and prayer, and maybe even in consultation with their priest, that they have ‘grave’ reason to space out or delay pregnancy.
Here’s some information about NFP. It’s not like the old rhythm method
nfpandmore.org/
Here’s some information about NFP. It’s not like the old rhythm method
nfpandmore.org/
E
e46m3
Guest
Thanks. Is one of the “grave” reasons financial?
S
spencer2
Guest
it is acceptable by the church but only for serious, well grounded reasons. not just because you don’t desire any children. reasons and circumstances will vary for every couple and situation. just because problem X is a reason for john and sally it may not be for scott and shirley, get my drift. everything from finances, psychological well being, medical issues and risk and how it will affect your relationship all have to be considered.
R
Rence
Guest
It depends. If you are delaying having kids, or have discerned that your family is complete because you need to finance fancy cars, huge houses, yearly trips to Paris, etc, then I would say one doesn’t have grave reasons. However, if a family really can’t support another mouth (and it’s not just the healthcare, or the first few months or first few years one has to consider) then that is just reason. But one should always consult with their priest. But yes, financial reasons is among “grave” reasons and for every single family the factors and coming to a decision are all different and specific for each family.
E
e46m3
Guest
Thanks. That makes a lot of sense.
E
e46m3
Guest
I want to serve god. Not myself. vacations and fancy cars are not important. (even though cars are one of my favorite things, I can do without)
R
Rence
Guest
I can’t do without a car, however, it doesn’t need to be a car with $350/month payments
Everyone’s situation is different, that’s why the CC gave us a general guideline with wiggle room. Wanting to serve God is a good start and, if you truly build from there, you should be okay. And again, your priest is a great resource, so use him.
B
bingbang
Guest
So if you don’t have a “grave” reason are you just supposed to have kids constantly? Or if you really don’t have kids you have to abstain from sex altogether? This isn’t the 1920’s anymore where families would have 10 or more kids.
D
davidv
Guest
No.
What is wrong with that?
Morality is unchanging. It doesn’t matter if is 1920, 1820 or 2020.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
bingbang, perhaps you could share your understanding of why the Church sees contraception as a morally illicit way of spacing births, so perhaps we could have a better idea where you are coming from, so to speak.
R
Rence
Guest
No, the Church doesn’t expect everyone to just churn out kids every year, for years, until they can’t anymore because their body just can’t take it anymore. Some couples are blessed with the want and capacity to have many children, while some others are blessed with only a few. Either way, no, you don’t have to completely abstain, the Church doesn’t require that. But it does require you use NFP to space out children and/or delay having children. If a couple has discerned that they are finished with their family, they still have to use NFP.
The Church knows that not everyone is going to have large families for various reasons, that’s why they left “grave reasons” open for families to discern with the help of their priest. “Grave” reasons can mean many things to many different families.
B
bingbang
Guest
What is wrong with not having sex with your spouse? Sex is a big part of marriage. It is a physical manifestation of your love for your spouse.
Morality isn’t really unchanging to be honest. Paul had a slave and talks about it extensively in philemon. If I had a slave nowadays I think people would be on my case about it. Jesus talked about slavery in at least one parable but made no mention of condemning the practice. If I went by what it said in the Bible, I would think that slavery was A-OK.
N
NoAvailableName
Guest
Paul did not have a slave. Onesimus was the slave of Philemon.
D
davidv
Guest
If there are grave reasons to not have children and NFP techniques are not sufficient, then abstinance is the most loving thing to do.
It is not honest. Morality is based on Devine Law which is unchanging.
How does slavery relate to regulating births?
B
bingbang
Guest
And he became Paul’s slave when he ran away from Philemon.
B
bingbang
Guest
It relates because you said morality never changes (which technically should be true) but there are things that people do in the church now, and are allowed to do, that would have been a big problem hundreds (or thousands) of years ago. If a priest tried to say mass in the vernacular before vatican II they would probably be seen as a heretic of some sort.
D
davidv
Guest
What people do in opposition to the teachings does not change the teachings.
M
Moscati
Guest
Not that this has anything to do with the thread . . . but that makes no sense at all. Have you actually read Philemon? Paul indicates the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.
10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment.
15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, as a beloved brother.
B
bingbang
Guest
This is saying that during Paul’s imprisonment Onesimus became his slave, and he is trying to return him to Philemon, and he is asking philemon to release him when he gets him back. He is just asking him though. He isn’t saying that the Lord demands it or anything like that. Paul just thinks it would be nice.
- Status