Natural Family Planning dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aaahm28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So in the eyes of the church, I should have my coil removed, and abstain until through the menopause, end up anaemic and ill .
You hadn’t elaborated beyond “medical issue” before, so that could have meant many things. There are tons if ladies with bleeding and other cycle problems. It is not wrong to treat the problems. I would suggest talking about alternatives with your dr because there are many who experience problems with IUD’s, but if it’s working for you, fine. No one is suggesting you should end up ill.

As for abstaining until menopause, that’s really not the only option for most people. But the way that you lump it all together makes it seem that the IUD is for birth control more than medication.

Look, my husband and I are much younger tan you and have tons more time before menopause, and we may be abstaining until then ourselves. I don’t say any if this without knowledge of how hard a road it is. NFP doesn’t work for us. If things don’t improve for our family, we can’t have another little one. I understand it’s not easy, but my husband means more to me than sex, and I mean more to him than sex. Not saying that sex isn’t important, but honestly it isn’t necessary.
 
thewanderer, maybe people did think that, but I think condoms should be allowed to be used sometimes if necessary. ?
 
thewanderer, maybe people did think that, but I think condoms should be allowed to be used sometimes if necessary. ?
The then Pope BXVI once commented that condom use among male prostitutes to prevent the spead of disease could indicate a beginning step of moral responsibility in a person… but purely as a contraceptive, condom use doesn’t conform to Church teaching.
 
thewanderer, maybe people did think that, but I think condoms should be allowed to be used sometimes if necessary. ?
And there you part ways with the Church. Unfortunately, so long as the Church wishes to be able to claim infallibility in its teachings, She cannot backtrack and all of a sudden claim that contraception used as contraception is now ok. To do so would undermine Her whole teaching authority and She would no longer be able to claim that She is the one true Church. That is why you have so many people telling you the Church will never change on this. It has become a part of authoritative Church teaching. If any authoritative Church teaching can be changed, then all of them can, and so there will no longer be any reason to follow anything but your own interpretation of the Bible. Does that make sense?
 
bitterhope, it is totally unreasonable to be expected to possibly abstain until your menopause, sex is not the be all and end all in a marriage but it is a big part of it.
 
bitterhope, it is totally unreasonable to be expected to possibly abstain until your menopause, sex is not the be all and end all in a marriage but it is a big part of it.
Was it unreasonable of Christ to expect martyrdom of all our martyred brothers and sisters?
 
So I suppose yiu would say I shouldnt recieve the eucharist, and thst I should leave the church.
 
My question wasn’t to try and condemn you, but to get you to rethink all of this from another perspective. Sometimes Christ asks us to carry unbelievably difficult crosses, sometimes these crosses are made even harder because we know that we could get out of it if we just did the one thing we know we’re not supposed to do. For instance, with the martyrs, they knew it was wrong and sinful to renounce Christ and so they accepted the cross of torture and martyrdom Christ asked them to carry.

That doesn’t mean that it is easy to carry our crosses, or that we should look down on or judge people who take up sinful behavior to avoid their crosses. What it means is that we should acknowledge that just because something is difficult, or even extremely difficult, doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.
 
So I suppose yiu would say I shouldnt recieve the eucharist, and thst I should leave the church.
I’m gonna be honest, you sound really defensive about this as if you’ve had many people attack you in the past about it. I’m not going to sit around judging you and what you do, but I will do my best to help you see things the way I do if you are interested.

And just for the record, the Church on earth is made for sinners. It is completely out of line to tell someone to leave the Church just because they are a sinner, so I sincerely hope no one has ever directly said that to you.
 
bitterhope, it is totally unreasonable to be expected to possibly abstain until your menopause, sex is not the be all and end all in a marriage but it is a big part of it.
No. Not having sex is a piece of cake compared to loosing my babies. Trust me, I’m without sex most of the time anyway. My husband is gone more than he’s home, and when he’s home I finally catch up on sleep. It’s not that hard. Only holding my babies after they were gone is so much harder. And still, I’ve been let off of the hook so much easier than many in this world. I can’t complain about much. I have so much more than many. Don’t live in Iraq and fear for my life. My babies have never known hunger. I have not gone to war. It’s really not that bad of a life.
 
Im not suggesting that your life is bad, but I think the church is obsessed with sexual matters, I just dont see using condoms sinful.
 
Im not suggesting that your life is bad, but I think the church is obsessed with sexual matters, I just dont see using condoms sinful.
You see it as unreasonable to abstain, yet the Church is the one obsessed with sexual matters.
 
You see it as unreasonable to abstain, yet the Church is the one obsessed with sexual matters.
Why must a married couple abstain? Even after you have several children, there is something wrong with sexual relations with your own spouse? The discussion about sex in marriage always seems to center on what the right way is to have sex, not the good of the couple and their already living children. I have a hard time accepting a teaching that is only about following a rule, not doing what is best for the people with whom the rule is concerned.

If a couple can better provide for three or four children than seven or eight, why should they conceive children they cannot provide for? Why isn’t the discussion about what is best for families instead of what the best way is to have sex?

Sirach 16: 1-4
1 Do not yearn for worthless children, or rejoice in wicked offspring.2 Even if they be many, do not rejoice in them if they do not have fear of the LORD. 3 Do not count on long life for them,or have any hope for their future. For one can be better than a thousand;rather die childless than have impious children! 4 Through one wise person a city can be peopled; but through a clan of rebels it becomes desolate.
 
Why must a married couple abstain? Even after you have several children, there is something wrong with sexual relations with your own spouse? The discussion about sex in marriage always seems to center on what the right way is to have sex, not the good of the couple and their already living children. I have a hard time accepting a teaching that is only about following a rule, not doing what is best for the people with whom the rule is concerned.

If a couple can better provide for three or four children than seven or eight, **why should they conceive children they cannot provide for? **Why isn’t the discussion about what is best for families instead of what the best way is to have sex?

Sirach 16: 1-4
You can’t really complain both that the Church is telling spouses to have a million kids and that the Church is telling spouses to abstain. Its mighty hard to follow both those commands at the same time. 😉
 
Most married couples don’t need to abstain. For the small percentage of us that must, it’s really not the end of marital intimacy. I am able to bond with my spouse and express love for him in so many ways besides in the bedroom. The Church doesn’t ask anyone to have a lot of kids. But there is a link between sex and children. God made it that way. To have sex only for pleasure and bonding is not the way it is intended in the sacrament of matrimony. It is only recently that Protestant churches changed their stance on birth control. This used to be what ALL Christian churches taught, and then it was most, and only very recently was it changed to a few. There are Protestant denominations that are coming back around to accepting that birth control is wrong. There are quite a few converts that start investigating the Catholic Church because they realize that this teaching is truthful. And at the same time a large number of Catholics walk away from the faith because of it.

NFP is highly effective for most couples. It doesn’t work for me but for most at least one method does work for them. It’s more effective than condoms or withdrawal. I hope one day scientists will be able to learn more information and make it work for those of us that current methods fail. But until that time I’m sticking with abstinence. Other people can chose whatever they want. I really don’t care. It is not my business. Except when someone puts it out there and asks others opinions, then they kind of are asking what we believe and making it our business. But it is wrong to say the Church obsesses over sex issues when it is really people in the general public that are doing the obsessing.
 
There was no knowledge of contraception in bible times, obviously there is a link between sex and children, but its a fact that many catholics have a problem with it. My priest when I was in Rica classes actually said that women cannot be expected to keep having children, he also said the church needs to have more compassion, I know that people will say the priest is wrong
 
There was no knowledge of contraception in bible times, obviously there is a link between sex and children, but its a fact that many catholics have a problem with it. My priest when I was in Rica classes actually said that women cannot be expected to keep having children, he also said the church needs to have more compassion, I know that people will say the priest is wrong
Actually there was contraception during biblical times.
History further illuminates the Church’s position on this subject. Anthropological studies show that means of contraception existed in antiquity. Medical papyri described various contraceptive methods used in China in the year 2700 BC and in Egypt in the year 1850 BC. Soranos (AD 98-139), a Greek physician from Ephesus, described seventeen medically approved methods of contraception. Also at this time, abortion and infanticide were not uncommon practices in the Roman Empire.
I’m sorry your priest was not clear, but in a very real sense, he is correct. A woman is not made to continue to give birth her entire life. We do reach menopause at some point. I am at that point (just beginning.) After 10 children born and two lost, I am coming to the realization that my days of child bearing may be over. It is a beautiful feeling to know I followed God’s will in my child bearing until the end! Deo Gratias! What a gift he has given me in being able to follow His Will.

Dear Bitterhope, I am sorry for your loss. Yes, I think you are experiencing one of the deepest sorrows a woman can go through. May God bless you and may Our Blessed Mother hold you as she held her Son when he was taken from the cross.
 
thewanderer, maybe people did think that, but I think condoms should be allowed to be used sometimes if necessary. ?
I think robbing a bank would put me on easy street too but I can’t do that either. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Your choice, but remember you have to pay the consequences. You might as well give up on trying to tell the Church what to teach. We’re not God even tho we like to think we can tell him how to run HIS creation. The sooner we start doing things ‘right’, the better off we will all be. Remember Nineva!!! God Bless, Memaw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top