Poll on contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy235 said:
I know you are a nurse. I was not trying to argue with you! If you took that the wrong way, I apologize.
Click to expand...
Tried to like your post…out of likes as usual. No problem. I clearly misunderstood, and I apologize. 💕💕
 
Right, to them they think it’s OK, but objectively speaking, it’s wrong no matter who does it.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
Contraception is an act not a substance.
NFP is not contraception.
Click to expand...
Again, per Oxford Dictionary:
Contraception - The deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

So according to the dictionary, yes it is…

Man, this is getting pedantic…
 
There are many Catholics who would agree with you on this for sure that NFP ought not be practiced because it runs a fine line as being a contraceptive. I think it is often abused as such. If it comes to fruition indeed that it is, then it should not be practiced at all.
 
Yes, thank you for clarifying that. My reference to endometrial shedding was to do with the normal menstrual cycle.

The bleeding while on the Pill is not, as you say, even needed. There is no endometrial lining to shed, and so such bleeds are not a true period.

It is nice to have a licensed medical professional as yourself to provide accurate, scientific information on this subject!
 
Out of likes…it’s the bane of my existence.

I just always found why they did that fascinating. I learned about that when the “continuous” OCPs were developed, and everyone was acting like it was something new and wonderful. The docs were like - uh you can do that anyway with the “regular” pills - that’s sexy packaging from a drug company and here’s why.
 
Last edited:
gcshapero said:
There are many Catholics who would agree with you on this for sure that NFP ought not be practiced because it runs a fine line as being a contraceptive. I think it is often abused as such. If it comes to fruition indeed that it is, then it should not be practiced at all.
Click to expand...
I don’t care either way.

It just offends my reason when someone tries to insist it’s not obviously contraceptive when the whole point of it is to avoid making a baby.

I’m like 🤔🤯
 
I respect those Catholics for being consistent in their convictions.

I don’t blame others who do use NFP though. It’s a lifeline for many of them and I’m glad the CC allows them that.
 
It is a bad idea to use hormonal therapy for any medical condition. The risks are very grave (especially considering they use it to treat non-life threatening conditions) and there are safer alternatives (Pope Paul VI Institute offers alternatives as well as many others). It is tragic to hear of young girls injured and even killed by the birth control pill they were taking for acne. If you don’t believe it, just search “birth control class action lawsuit.”
 
I went through NFP training years ago when I was in pre-cana but it was brief and I could have received more info because I think it is often misunderstood or even treated as the rhythm method.

I respect those Catholics too who are trying to live according to their faith and being skeptical out of concern of breaking God’s law for life.
 
QContinuum said:
I respect those Catholics for being consistent in their convictions.

I don’t blame others who do use NFP though. It’s a lifeline for many of them and I’m glad the CC allows them that.
Click to expand...
Oh I think NFP is a vital artery between young Catholics and the Church. If the Church went to “No barriers - behavioral or chemical, or you must live sexless lives” like some desire, I think the number of nominal “Catholics” in the west using contraception would go from around 90% to around 100% and there’d be about as many devout, practicing Catholics as there are practicing Church of Christ, Scientists (a few hundred thousand).
 
anon64350612 said:
It is a bad idea to use hormonal therapy for any medical condition.
Click to expand...
That is an awfully broad brush! And there are many kinds of hormonal therapies other than “the pill”. My point is, when talking about using hormones for treatment, it is advisable not to refer to it as “contraception”, even if that may be one of the side effects.

You may not realize that people who have had total hysterectomies generally take hormonal supplements.
 
Vonsalza said:
Oh I think NFP is a vital artery between young Catholics and the Church. If the Church went to “No barriers - behavioral or chemical, or you must live sexless lives” like some desire, I think the number of nominal “Catholics” in the west using contraception would go from around 90% to around 100% and there’d be about as many devout, practicing Catholics as there are practicing Church of Christ, Scientists (a few hundred thousand).
Click to expand...
yes I agree. I also think that a lot of people don’t really know what the early church Fathers had to say on this topic…they would have condemned NFP same as artificial methods. The Orthodox will allow for barriers on a case by case basis and the Catholics allow for NFP…both sides would be in for a talkin-to from the Church Fathers!
 
Sorry - I have a biased viewpoint having worked on the massive class action lawsuit against Bayer and all the generic birth control pill manufacturers. I know some things about the situation that you and most others do not.

I totally get your point about it being sometimes morally licit. What we fail to do though, as Catholics, is point out that the birth control pill (and other hormonal treatments) are medically dangerous. While the pill can be morally licit, using it is more often than not an imprudent course of action. The two are separate issues.
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Oh I think NFP is a vital artery between young Catholics and the Church. If the Church went to “No barriers - behavioral or chemical, or you must live sexless lives” like some desire, I think the number of nominal “Catholics” in the west using contraception would go from around 90% to around 100% and there’d be about as many devout, practicing Catholics as there are practicing Church of Christ, Scientists (a few hundred thousand).
Click to expand...
yes I agree. I also think that a lot of people don’t really know what the early church Fathers had to say on this topic…they would have condemned NFP same as artificial methods. The Orthodox will allow for barriers on a case by case basis and the Catholics allow for NFP…both sides would be in for a talkin-to from the Church Fathers!
Click to expand...
I think if the Fathers saw the slums of present day Manilla or Mumbai or Kinshasa or Shanghai or Mexico City or Sao Paulo then they might hold their tongues. These cities together contain roughly half the people that were alive worldwide when the Fathers lived.

Squalor as far as your eye can behold.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
I think if the Fathers saw the slums of present day Manilla or Mumbai or Kinshasa or Shanghai or Mexico City or Sao Paulo then they might hold their tongues. These cities together contain roughly half the people that were alive worldwide when the Fathers lived.

Squalor as far as your eye can behold.
Click to expand...
yes that is true…the world is very different than it was back then.

On that topic, back then alot of people believed in preformationism Preformationism - Wikipedia.

So yeah I can see where they might think that artificial contraception was this horrible horrible thing.
 
The fecundity of marriage
…
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

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

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
Click to expand...
Contraception is an act, not a substance.
NFP is not contraception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top