Poll on contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If all Catholics believed in and followed the edict of absolutely avoiding contraception, most young married Catholic couples would be having a new baby every year. I don’t see that at My Parish … I do see a lot of pontificating on the subject, though … 🙂
 
There is NFP, but I suspect there are quite a few cafeteria Catholics who ignore the no contraceptive rule. I have to say though, families in my Parish clearly have more kids than the national average of 1.84.
 
anon64350612 said:
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.”
Click to expand...
There are plenty of medical conditions for which hormones are a completely appropriate treatment, in spite of the risks. I would be in constant and debilitating pain, were it not for cortisone.

The Paul VI Institute does good and important work, but this is a ridiculously broad statement. I’m pretty sure that endocrinologists know something that we do not.
 
I think the problem here is that most people are trying to mess with words instead of figuring out what is wrong with ABC and why NFP is permissible.
 
Last edited:
Thanks - I was getting there. I had “alternative”. 😆😆😆

Forgive me - between the USAF and medicine I carry around a literal Encyclopedia Britannica of acronyms.
 
goout said:
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
Click to expand...
I’ve wondered about this statement–on two fronts.
First, ABC does not render procreation impossible. It makes it less likely, but not impossible.
The failure rate as reported by the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals range from 0.2% for the Pill (taken perfectly) to about 5% for condoms used perfectly (how they measure perfect use, I have no idea), In contrast, the symptothermal method, which reads as NFP, shows a failure rate 0.4% when followed perfectly. So, on the basis of rendering procreation impossible, ABC is as open to life as NFP.
The other issue with the statement is the word “proposes”. One could argue that word is important–that it is trying to make procreation impossible that ABC is intrinsically evil. The problem with that, of course, is this is also what many who practice NFP are actually doing, trying to make procreation impossible.
Just something I’ve wondered about.
 
goout said:
“medical contraception” is a vague term, not sure what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...
Its pretty clear:
Do rape victims who ask for contraceptive treatment immediately afterwards medically contracept? Yes they do.

Why would you find “medical contraception” vague here. Did they engage in Church banned contraception? I hope not given the above practise has been approved by the USCBC for many years now with Vatican toleration.

Where is the problem with “medical contraception” for you…
It makes for a very clear and necessary distinction from Church contraception doesn’t it?
 
Last edited:
babochka said:
Contraception is intrinsically evil,
Click to expand...
Do you believe nuns taking the pill so as not to fall pregnant when raped are contracepting?
Doesn’t seem intrinsically evil then. Maybe there is bit more to it than simply choosing to use contraceptives for contraceptive purposes.
 
Last edited:
People aren’t messing with words.
They are saying the question for the above poll is naiive and the results will accordingly be meaningless due to different people understanding different things.
 
(a) “Proposes” therefore means its about intention not results. It doesn’t matter if condoms aren’t perfect. 100% no babies was the intent.
(b) “render procreation impossible”. Refers to thwarting the teleology of the given act of coitus itself. NFP does not do that. Semen is deposited where it should be. It doesn’t matter if nature fails a given act of coitus and the agents know that and planned that. Yes NFP is likely a form of “medical contracepting” by any modern definition of the word but acceptable to the Church. It is not an immoral act of contraception as the Church defines it.
 
Last edited:
Whatever dude. three women died in the development of the birth control pill.
 
Last edited:
The whole basis of the teaching of the Church in the matter is:Sex -it is meant for ,and use it only for ,procreation.Enjoying sex without resulting in procreation is immoral and sin.Exemption-Enjoy sex during safe periods or during pregnancy even if knowing very well that it is simply for enjoyment and there is no procreation.Not allowed- artificially preventing procreation during sex.
My point is that once the exemption is available(,that is you are allowed to enjoy without it necessarily resulting in procreation),the teaching that sex is meant only for procreation falls flat.Again,using artificial means for the period when natural protection is not available need not be considered as a sin.It is just like taking medicine or using specks.It is no more immoral than purposely abstaining from sex to avoid pregnancy during the fertile period.
 
joseie said:
The whole basis of the teaching of the Church in the matter is:Sex -it is meant for ,and use it only for ,procreation.Enjoying sex without resulting in procreation is immoral and sin
Click to expand...
From my understanding, this is not at all what the Church has ever taught. I want to be clear with this, and again, this is my understanding; Sex between the spouses must allow an openness to life; not interfering with this openness. It may not result in life being conceived, but that openness must be there.

Spouses can experience pleasure and being bonded to each other in it, and that is absolutely a good thing, but it is a means to the end, which is that openness to life. It is not a sin to enjoy, provided that enjoyment is found is total giving of one’s self to his or her spouse.

There may be more involved in this, but I’m just giving a bare bones understanding. It is not a sin to enjoy it nor does it become a sin if a child was not conceived provided there was no intention of blocking that conception.
 
Completely wrong. The Church does not teach this, never has and never will. Because your premise is totally false, all of your conclusions are in error.
[/quote]

Yes.
And everyone, this illustrates the importance of discussing this issue with some precision, and speaking with the mind of the Church.
The spiritual health of those asking questions and the spiritual health of families is stake. People deserve a Catholic Answer that is not cast in a suspicious or vague light, and represents the Church’s position with clarity and respect for it’s own language.
It’s only charitable for those reading and searching.
 
Last edited:
According to you sin only if you ‘block’ he conception.Now tell plainly if that is the criteria.Oral/anal ok? You don’t block!
But what I understand is that these are not permitted by church because this does to do the intended purpose namely procreation.
 
joseie said:
According to you sin only if you ‘block’ he conception.Now tell plainly if that is the criteria.Oral/anal ok? You don’t block!

But what I understand is that these are not permitted by church because this does to do the intended purpose namely procreation.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you just described sodomy. In their very nature, they block conception of life. These cannot be practiced with the openness to life.

I just want to make sure I understand without putting words in your mouth. Are you suggesting that if a married couple tries to conceive but has trouble, then they are now participating in sin?

edit: I had to reread your statement in order to better understand it.

No, of course that’s not all that transitions sex into sin. Sins of the flesh can go beyond contraception, but I will say that one can easily tie most sins of the flesh TO contraception because contraception normalizes sex to being nothing more than mere pleasure. But for example, if two people have sex outside of marriage and we can even claim they are trying to have a child, this is still sinful because it’s not within the confines of holy matrimony.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top