Open to Life mean

[1ke]

But I gotta say I think your trying to tie contraception to the abortion train is…welll…wrong, if not ourtrageous.

Perhaps you are unaware that the Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey expressly “tie” contraception and abortion together-- stating abortion must be available to women for this very reason:

“for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

The fact that several types of “contraception” act as an abortifacient rather than a true conception-prevention mode is also well documented. The Pill (and its variants) and the IUD both act in this manner.

So, I don’t know why you think these statements are outrageous.

 

[MercyMia]

perhaps you are unaware that the supreme court decision in planned parenthood v casey expressly “tie” contraception and abortion together-- stating abortion must be available to women for this very reason:

“for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”

the fact that several types of “contraception” act as an abortifacient rather than a true conception-prevention mode is also well documented. The pill (and its variants) and the iud both act in this manner.

So, i don’t know why you think these statements are outrageous.

exactly!

 

[utunumsint]

The teaching of the magesterium is the only thing that actually matters on the topic of “being open to life.” What individual people mean is not relevant-- they can have *erroneous *ideas of what it means.

What the Church actually teaches is the starting point of any conversation on the morality of family planning.

So, what’s your point in posting if not to discuss the Church’s teaching?

Alright. Assuming the church’s teachings, what does it mean to be open to life? This term has not been formally defined by the magisterium, and yet one’s attitude when it comes to using NFP can be good or bad. Do you not agree? So my questions are based on the intention behind using NFP.

God bless,
Ut

 

[1ke]

So, after reading this list, and showing that NFP has serious problems, what shoud I, a 29 year single and looking, trying to be a good catholic (I think we all try to be good catholics, but all of us fall short) think about my the NFP?

You should educate yourself because the list, as I have pointed out twice now, is inaccurate. Get your information from medical studies and get the details of each individual method. Don’t rely on “about.com” for accurate information. I will state it again: the list on about.com puts calendar rhythm and medical NFP in one category. That is completely inappropriate and distorts the effectiveness of medical models of NFP.

What if my wife doesn’t want to use it because of this?

You don’t have a wife. You are single. You should limit your dating to women who embrace and follow Church teaching, eliminating those from spousal consideration those who do not.

What about vice versa?

Then perhaps you are not yet mature enough in your faith for marriage. The Church does not require you to use NFP-- many couples do not use it at all, they simply have intercourse whenever they are in the mood because they have no serious reason to avoid conception. What the Church teaches is that when one has a serious reason to avoid, one may do so via abstaining-- either completley or through periodic continence (NFP). Those are your choices. If you do not like the choices, perhaps marriage and family are not for you.

I mean no disresect to anyone, just asking some questions.

Study what the Church teaches and why. Marital sexuality is God’s, not ours. The culture obscures that and leads you to believe sex is your right, and it’s for your pleasure. It is not. It is God’s domain and God gives us the gift of our sexuality for a specific purpose and within His moral framework.

 

[1ke]

Alright. Assuming the church’s teachings, what does it mean to be open to life? This term has not been formally defined by the magisterium,

Certainly the Church has defined this. The vague term “open to life” is NOT Church teaching. The Church teaching is that each act of intercourse must be per se ordered to both procreation and unity of the spouses. That is the teaching, and it is completely unambiguous.

Drop the “open to life” line of reasoning. It will get you nowhere.

and yet one’s attitude when it comes to using NFP can be good or bad. Do you not agree? So my questions are based on the intention behind using NFP.

That has nothing to do with “openness to life” however.

 

[utunumsint]

Certainly the Church has defined this. The vague term “open to life” is NOT Church teaching.

Right. Then lets change the wording to “Open to procreation”.

The Church teaching is that each act of intercourse must be per se ordered to both procreation and unity of the spouses. That is the teaching, and it is completely unambiguous.

So don’t use NFP if you are not open to procration?

Drop the “open to life” line of reasoning. It will get you nowhere.

Done.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Jennifer_J]

Right. Then lets change the wording to “Open to procreation”.

So don’t use NFP if you are not open to procration?

Done.

God bless,
Ut

No, each act is to be ordered to both PROCREATION (that act is objectively procreative, even if there is natural infertility), and UNITY…again, ordered to procreation doesn’t mean procreation has to happen, just that it could.

 

[utunumsint]

No, each act is to be ordered to both PROCREATION (that act is objectively procreative, even if there is natural infertility), and UNITY…again, ordered to procreation doesn’t mean procreation has to happen, just that it could.

How is this different from what I said? Maybe I’m slow.

If the act is ordered to procreation, doesn’t that mean there is a chance that procreation could happen? And if you 100% don’t want procreation to happen, you should not be engaging in the act?

Or is it that your intentions don’t matter, just the nature of the act?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Rascalking]

You might be right 1ke, on many of those topics. Ill keep you posted if I find a wife who is 100% faithful to those teachings.

 

[utunumsint]

You might be right 1ke, on many of those topics. Ill keep you posted if I find a wife who is 100% faithful to those teachings.

Rascalking, your question was legitimate. Even couples who marry intending to follow the church’s teachings can find themselves diverging on this issue after three kids.

God bless,
Ut

 

[1ke]

You might be right 1ke, on many of those topics. Ill keep you posted if I find a wife who is 100% faithful to those teachings.

My husband found one. You can too.

 

[Rascalking]

Rascalking, your question was legitimate. Even couples who marry intending to follow the church’s teachings can find themselves diverging on this issue after three kids.

God bless,
Ut

Thank you very much. I sometimes feels as though honest questions (which I meant with no disrespect) and answered in the, almsot cruel, “Shut up and obey”.

Thanks again. It helps to know that there are people who genuiely want to be good Cathoilcs who might maybe, just maybe-say, "Jeez this is hard, can anyone help us with this? Has anyone one else gone through this?

God Bless .

 

[utunumsint]

Thank you very much. I sometimes feels as though honest questions (which I meant with no disrespect) and answered in the, almsot cruel, “Shut up and obey”.

Thanks again. It helps to know that there are people who genuiely want to be good Cathoilcs who might maybe, just maybe-say, "Jeez this is hard, can anyone help us with this? Has anyone one else gone through this?

God Bless .

I’ll keep you in my prayers. I feel like it was a small miracle that I met my wife the way I did. But now that I am knee deep in kids and bills and work, I often wish I had apreciated my single life more.

Anyway, don’t despair. And don’t rule out cafeteria Catholics, especially if they don’t have hatred for the church or for her teachings. You might change his or her mind.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Rico_S]

Rico, how is it outrageous?

Hi Shanny:

In a nutshell, contraception is the separation of procreative and unitive aspect of the marital embrace. Abortion is murder. There is quite a canyon between the two, imo.

 

[Rico_S]

I

That is because no NFP method has such a rate. As I pointed out above, the chart you linked to puts calendar rhythm (25% failure rate) in with the other, more effective, methods in one category. This skews the information. Go to each of the major methods’ websites and they have the published studies and effectiveness rates.

Creighton, for example, has a 99-100% method effectiveness rate in the various studies and a 94-99% use effectiveness rate in the various studies.

I have seen numbers where perfect use effectiveness is very high, but most of the time the typical use #'s are usually in th 14-25% range. And, like you showed, it is not always clear exactly what method to which the numbers apply…so it can be misleading. Do you know where you found the numbers you cited?

That has no bearing on the morality of contraception, as it is not based on “openness to life” or “willingness to accept” or “effectiveness” of the method involved.

Just to be clear, I wasn’t implying that the church’s position on the immorality contraception is based on any of that. (Despite the fact that so many use that as the basis for their arguments defending the church’s teaching).

 

[Good_Daughter]

If the act is ordered to procreation, doesn’t that mean there is a chance that procreation could happen?

Not necessarily.

I’m pregnant right now. My husband and I can engage in the marital act and keep it ordered to procreation, knowing there’s no chance of us actually procreating due to my natural infertility. Even in times of infertility the marital act can be ordered to procreation, as long as it remains “the act that makes a baby”.

And if you 100% don’t want procreation to happen, you should not be engaging in the act?

Or is it that your intentions don’t matter, just the nature of the act?

Catholicism doesn’t teach either of these things. Catholics couples are permitted to engage in the marital act without any intention to conceive, if they have just reason (ie. they’re already expecting ).

Intentions and actions both matter a great deal.

The bottom line, as 1ke and Jennifer J have been explaining, is this: Catholicism does not teach that every married couple must be “open to life” all the time. Catholicism does teach that the marital act must be ordered toward both procreation and unity.

 

[1ke]

Do you know where you found the numbers you cited? /QUOTE]

As I mentioned, those numbers are for the Creighton Model. The studies are in the NaPro book, which I have because I use Creighton.

However, I believe they have a chart/summary on their website, www.creightonmodel.com and look under Effectiveness of the System.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Even couples who marry intending to follow the church’s teachings can find themselves diverging on this issue after three kids.

I can back you up on this statement! I think the problem my husband and I had is that we intended to follow Catholic teaching before grasping it fully. If only someone had stated things this clearly in our marriage preparation:

What the Church teaches is that when one has a serious reason to avoid, one may do so via abstaining-- either completley or through periodic continence (NFP). Those are your choices. If you do not like the choices, perhaps marriage and family are not for you.

It’s simple, yet true and every couple who intends to marry in the Church should know what they’re signing up for. A faithful Catholic married couple practices some form of abstinence to avoid children, should the need arise. They either abstain during fertility or they abstain fully (whether it’s simply their preference or they’re unsure of fertility). This leaves no room for cries of, “NFP is too stressful”, or “NFP doesn’t work for us”. (I’ve cried both in the past.)

Catholic teaching offers no guarantee of freedom from hardship. What it does offer, presented properly, is God’s truth about marriage and the freedom to accept or decline entrance into a state that often comes with as many responsibilities as rewards.

 

[utunumsint]

I can back you up on this statement! I think the problem my husband and I had is that we intended to follow Catholic teaching before grasping it fully. If only someone had stated things this clearly in our marriage preparation:

We got the full teaching in marriage prep, but its hard to really drive home the reality of what things will be like five years down the road when you’re totally in love with each other, and not really seeing things in a rational way.

It’s simple, yet true and every couple who intends to marry in the Church should know what they’re signing up for. A faithful Catholic married couple practices some form of abstinence to avoid children, should the need arise. They either abstain during fertility or they abstain fully (whether it’s simply their preference or they’re unsure of fertility). This leaves no room for cries of, “NFP is too stressful”, or “NFP doesn’t work for us”. (I’ve cried both in the past.)

Agreed. I’m not the one who’s saying this though. And I can’t very well force my views.

Catholic teaching offers no guarantee of freedom from hardship. What it does offer, presented properly, is God’s truth about marriage and the freedom to accept or decline entrance into a state that often comes with as many responsibilities as rewards.

100% agreed. Our issues with NFP have only solidified my faith it the church’s teachings.

God bless,
Ut

 

[jwashu]

I think another dangerous aspect of artificial contraceptive vs. NFP is that artificial contraceptive accompanies an abortive mindset, while NFP does not. I think that artificial contraceptive is intertwined with abortion. With contraceptive, people rarely think of the failure rate, even though pregnancy is the natural conclusion to a union. The contraceptive mind is somehow trained to see life as an unnatural and annoying consequence of sex. The baby is the enemy, so rude to sneak up and run everyone’s fun! For NFP users, the failure rate is known and accepted, so the idea of life resulting in the union is par for the course - even when we are trying to avoid we still knowingly accept the natural aspect of life. So, when artificial contraceptive fails, we feel like something “went wrong.” That something is a baby, and because it “wasn’t supposed to happen” our mind can ease towards an abortion. Suddenly, when you see a baby as an unintended intruder, we can justify taking it out of the equation. When we use NFP and understand that a pregnancy is not always expected, but it is the natural consequence and certainly not something that has to be remedied.
What do you think the abortion rate of a Christian couple that uses NFP is? Now, what do you think the abortion rate of a Christian couple that uses artificial contraception is? I am willing to bet the fist is pretty much non-existent. If anyone has numbers on this I would love to see it. This is why I do not understand why or protestant brothers and sisters embrace artificial contraception when it so cheapens the value of marriage and the value of life. You are correct, contraception is a lie! Plus, think of the gains abortion has made since contraception became legal and widely used. It is a shared mindset.

I disagree, not being with your spouse because you are afraid of pregnancy is just as much an abortive notion as contraception except it’s worse because then both spouses wind up being frustrated in many cases and are pushed apart. Is that what it’s suppose to lead too? No of course not, each spouse is suppose to devote that time to God… but I would be interested to see how often that actually happens outside of our CA family here.

What do you think the abortion rate is for Christians couples (who don’t believe in abortion but do in contraception)? Considering that’s the majority of Christians when you take into account Protestants… I would wagers they are the same.

In all actuality many of the women who died from abortions previous to it being legal were ones who didn’t use contraception - more because of money and superstition though than refusal.

As a Protestant most of my life I know many couples who have used contraception on and off their entire life (or been sterilized), been married just as long, and many times longer, than some of the Catholics I know and are very happy and fulfilled. I know of no one who believed it cheapened the union until I started studying the teaching of the Church… If you told any of them, both the devout (ministers) and non they would laugh at the notion… and considering the Divorce rate for Catholics is the same as Protestants we wouldn’t have much of a leg to stand on statistically.

It’s not a shared mindset. The abortion mindset is a belief that life doesn’t being at conception. That’s completely different than trying to prevent conception. I know I know some people link them together because the responsibility of the marriage bed has been taken out of the equation. I don’t buy it though… the responsibility is still there even if you use contraception, just like it is if you are using NFP.

Just my 2 cents…

Joe