Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[larkin31]

Yes Bulimics themselves aren’t happy with their situation. The point is that they’re eating food for the taste, and vomiting it up. Not necessarily only bulimics or the psychological mindset of bulimics. Some upper class Romans would eat big meals and then immediately go vomit their food up so they could continue eating. Me and my brothers are slightly tempted to do this every time we walk into a chinese buffet.

NFP is no different, except for the time of the month. Many folks using ABC are “open” to the “consequences” should pregnancy still occur. As my wife and I were with one of our children. You folks continually over-generalize in order to disparage practices that are only slightly different from your own (if you even are married).

Here is another Protestant defense of ABC: it is an “honest” form of avoiding pregnancy, with no moral “winking”.

 

[larkin31]

Here, on bulimia:

In bulimia, eating binges may occur as often as several times a day for many months.

People with bulimia typically eat large amounts of high-calorie foods, usually in secret. The person generally feels a loack of control over their eating during these episodes.

These binges cause a sense of self-disgust, which leads to what is called purging, in order to prevent gaining weight. Purging may include: making oneself vomit, excessive exercise, and use of laxatives, enemas, or diuretics (water pills). Purging often brings a sense of relief.

Body weight is often in the normal range, although people with bulimia often see themselves as being overweight. Because weight is often normal, this eating disorder may not be noticed by others.

Symptoms or behaviors that may be noticed include:

Compulsive exercising
*Evidence of discarded packaging for laxatives, diet pills, emetics (drugs that induce vomiting), or diuretics (drugs that reduce fluids, also called water pills)
*Regularly going to the bathroom right after meals
*Suddenly eating large amounts of food or buying large quantities of food that disappear right away

Exams and Tests
A dental exam may show dental cavities or gum infections (such as gingivitis). The enamel of the teeth may be eroded or pitted because of excessive exposure to the acid in vomit.

A physical examination may also reveal:

*Broken blood vessels in the eyes (from the strain of vomiting)
*Dry mouth
*Pouch-like appearance to the corners of the mouth due to swollen salivary glands
*Rashes and pimples
*Small cuts and calluses across the tops of the finger joints due to self-induced vomiting
*A chem-20 test may show an electrolyte imbalance (such as hypokalemia) or dehydration

.

 

[mark_a]

What is the relevance of that? I said I don’t accept the CC’s authority. The OP linked contraception with the Church’s teachings. I answered his question.

It was a sincere question. Sorry to have offended.

 

[mark_a]

Here is another Protestant defense of ABC: it is an “honest” form of avoiding pregnancy, with no moral “winking”.

Does this “moral winking” include the growing number of Protestants who practice nfp?

 

[mark_a]

Conscience is king, no?

A properly formed concience is wonderful, but no “king”.

 

[larkin31]

A properly formed concience is wonderful, but no “king”.

“conscience” has the power and the right to trump all other teachings

 

[onenow1]

What is the relevance of that? I said I don’t accept the CC’s authority. The OP linked contraception with the Church’s teachings. I answered his question.

What is a Resovior Anglican ?

I would suggest that a good read Numbers 16. It is about the rebellion to the authority of Moses by Korah and his followers. Moses did everything he could to try and convince Korah that he was wrong.

Result: Numbers 16:30-35.As with the bible, Anglicanism stems from the authority of the CC. In this respct I believe you did at one time accept the authority of the CC.
Jesus himself said that “not an iota, not a dot” would pass away from the law of Moses before it was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18).

All through salvation history God has chosen men to teach and lead; And God never changes.

Abraham, Moses, Isaac, and Jacob,just to name a few; and of course St.Peter.

Peace
:twocents:

 

[Bluegoat]

Here’s an analogy that someone gave me to better understand the difference between NFP and ABC.

The natural purpose of eating is nutrition and sustenance. There is a pleasure that comes along with eating. If you want to eat ice cream, cake, or any other tasty foods that aren’t very good for you then you have to eat responsibly and practice self control. Eat healthy foods during the week and exercise and reward yourself every few days with a good desert or junk food. We have the technology to analyze the nutritional make up of food (carbs, proteins, starch,etc) so that you can decide what you should and should not eat and how much of what etc.

NFP is like this responsible way of dieting while birth control is like bulimia. NFP respects the purpose of the act, you’re playing by God’s rules. God gave a woman infertile times and we now have the technology to track those times just as we have the technology to to see what nutrients are in foods so that we can eat right, but have a treat when we’ve eaten healthy. The church doesn’t say that it’s wrong to have sex for pleasure, but you can’t alter the for your own pleasure.

Birth control is similar to bulimia in that the person pursues the pleasure of the act without accepting the natural result of their decision to perform the act. NFP requires you to be virtuous, it requires you to be temperate and practice self control. To me this just makes sense because it agrees with “everything in moderation”

I’m not trying to judge anyone who uses birth control, I just wanted to try and illustrate the difference between the 2. For a LONG time I didn’t see the difference at all and was really confused about what to think. I hope this helps.

This is a terrible analogy. I am going to assume that you have never suffered from bulimia. It is not a pleasure-seeking behavior, it is a type of disease. Bulimics are widely miserable.

Make it simpler, and talk about the Romans. They feasted until they were stuffed, then went to the vomitorium to get rid of it so they wouldn’t have to suffer the effects, or so they could feast more. A much better analogy then bulimia.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Phoenix! If you let the Church be your guide,it is I believe, a very good start .

Jesus said let your answer be yes or no,therefore make judgments in truth, one truth not many, no half truths either. No wishy washy stuff; There was some truth to the evil ones"s temptation in the garden ! But ! Wrong judgement, became disobediance ! Right from the get go salvation history begins as stated below !

Genesis 4: 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

God is telling us in Gen 4: 7, I gave you a mind to think,and a heart to see properly, Satan will play the emotional card to lure our egos to make wrong judgements !

God Bless
Hope this helps a little.

"God’s benevolence shines like a lighthouse in troubled waters.

Perhaps Islam’s position regarding birth control is much closer to Catholic than we care to know.

 

[mark_a]

“conscience” has the power and the right to trump all other teachings

Are you speaking of Catholic conscience?

 

[mark_a]

Perhaps Islam’s position regarding birth control is much closer to Catholic than we care to know.

Because their locals are their authority, Islam is taking the road(s) taken by Protestantism. They are all over the place.

 

[Saint_Castulus]

The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception (pill, condom, IUD, etc) is a mortal sin.

How are you able to accept condom use, etc? Do you not see it as the seed that led to a bad tree (sexual revolution, huge pornography industry, etc)???

I can not comprehend how Protestants have such varied views on artificial contraception. This might be because I have for most of my Christian life been a Catholic.

I am in full support of Catholic theology

 

[Jenny4Him]

I know the Church is very clear on this topic. It’s more of a struggle of accepting this particular teaching. The issue with the pill I understand but not so much the forbidden use of condoms to prevent diseases and unplanned pregnancies. I don’t plan on falling into the category your relatives are placed in; leaving the Church for my “fertile years” isn’t going to be an option. This is an issue I will continue to wrestle with nonetheless even though I’m well aware of the teaching.

What you are saying/struggling with is you will/may decide to pick and chose what to follow and what not to; the exact same thing my relatives did and probably still do. They don’t like discussing any aspect of Christianity; rarely if ever read their Bibles----won’t even discuss their Catholic faith, but if you ask them they claim to be devout and faithful Catholics. Why? Because they go to Mass regularly; so that is their definition of a devout Catholic; **I have a feeling many here on this forum would argue that just going to Mass regularly does not make one a faithful Catholic **and a faithful Catholic does not pick and chose what traditions to obey and which ones not to obey.

 

[Jenny4Him]

The Pope did not “justify” condom use in any circumstance. And Church teaching remains the same as it has always been,both before and after the Pope’s statements.

As always the I Gotcha Media had a ball ! Let’s extrapolate a little Jenny .

Pope Paul VI In humana vitae said it was wrong to use contraceptive period. ! 1968

Had this been accepted by all Christians, especially Catholics that have the fullness of the truth I bet the world would be a lot different today. “OH WELL” GOD HAS THE BLUEPRINT !

Peace
:manvspc:

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” – Pope Bendict XVI
Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” – Pope Bendict XVI

If you decide to get a copy of the Pope’s new book titled “Light of the World”, then you will see a change in policy with the idea of preventing the spread of infectious disease as opposed to preventing pregnancy. The obvious problem is that the use of condoms prevents pregnancy.

I hope to get a copy if this book when the price drops or used ones become available or perhaps I’ll visit the library and get one.

 

[DickVanDyke]

From the Washington Post (and yes I know what the opinion of the source will be, but their story is equivalent, nearly word for word, to every other one I have seen):

But by broadening the condom comments to also apply to women, the pope was saying that condom use is a lesser evil than passing HIV onto a partner, even when pregnancy is possible.

“We’re not just talking about an encounter between two men, which has little to do with procreation. We’re now introducing relationships that could lead to childbirth,” Martin said.

and

Lombardi said the pope didn’t use the technical terminology “lesser evil” in his comments because he wanted his words to be understood by the general public. Vatican officials, however, said that was what he meant.

from washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112301765_4.html

Father Lombardi, the official Vatican spokesman, says that Pope Benedict intended to communicate that the side effect of preventing pregnancy in condom use to prevent the spread of HIV was a lesser evil. Contraception, artificial no less, was called a lesser evil than spreading HIV by the Pontiff himself.

In every discussion I have ever had with anti-ABC advocates, they have claimed that the “lesser evil” argument is NEVER, EVER acceptable in defense of contraception. And yet, now the Pope himself has used it. If Fr. Lombardi had misrepresented Benedict’s words or intentions, don’t you think he would have spoken by now to clarify?

Yes, I know the Pope was referring to prostitution situations and not marital ones. They are outside the moral law already. Doesn’t really matter to me, because that one tiny thing, the use of the “lesser evil” argument, by the Pope, about contraception, is a seismic shift. Whether some of you want to admit it or not.

So it seems even Catholics may not be sure on this issue anymore, anyway. And if surveys are correct, most of us never bought the arguments in the first place. A teaching that is not received is no teaching. And the bishops have never had the unity on this issue required to assert infallible moral teaching by the Magisterium. And the Pope never spoke ex cathedra… so this CAN change and just might.

 

[brina1416]

What you are saying/struggling with is you will/may decide to pick and chose what to follow and what not to; the exact same thing my relatives did and probably still do. They don’t like discussing any aspect of Christianity; rarely if ever read their Bibles----won’t even discuss their Catholic faith, but if you ask them they claim to be devout and faithful Catholics. Why? Because they go to Mass regularly; so that is their definition of a devout Catholic; **I have a feeling many here on this forum would argue that just going to Mass regularly does not make one a faithful Catholic **and a faithful Catholic does not pick and chose what traditions to obey and which ones not to obey.

I think your assuming too much. I don’t pick and choose what teachings to follow or don’t follow. I may not be the best Catholic but I’m no cafateria one either. I love the Church and her teachings even if I don’t fathom certain things. The things I don’t understand about the Church I tend to wrestle with until I get it. That’s how I am. But seeming as though I’m still single and celibate this whole contraception issue has little to do with me. But I do like reading what different people have to say about this particular teaching on this forum.

 

[larkin31]

Are you speaking of Catholic conscience?

I would not exclude Catholics? Would you?

 

[larkin31]

“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.” – Pope Bendict XVI
Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?
“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” – Pope Bendict XVI

A “humanization of sexuality” indeed! I commend the Pope for these comments and am encouraged by these statements.

 

[inocente]

And the Pope never spoke ex cathedra… so this CAN change and just might.

From the article you posted: *Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau, an expert on the Vatican’s bioethics advisory board, said the pope was articulating the theological idea that there are degrees of evil. “Contraception is not the worst evil. The church does not see it as good, but the church does not see it as the worst,” he told the AP. “Abortion is far worse. Passing on HIV is criminal. That is absolute irresponsibility.” *

The quote is telling. As a non-Catholic but a big fan of Benedict’s theology, I took his recent comments as wanting to inject some realism. The Church has good arguments for marriage, against abortion and so on, and we can all ponder the spirituality of abstinence compared with regularly sharing our expression of love with our partner. But I’m totally confused about why condoms are held to be so sinful (CCC 2370 - 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).

Whatever the relative merits of NFP and condoms, I just don’t understand why one is not “giving oneself totally to another” to the extent that it’s a sin. The Bible verses used on this thread to support “condoms = sin” seem to have been pressed into service to support an existing idea rather than being the origin of the idea. Aquinas doesn’t use them (I’m assuming the correct section is Summa III 122), arguing instead that body parts somehow have a set purpose. Christ never spoke about it, and there’s no basis in science – millions of sperm are released in an ejaculation, most or all of which will die anyway.

Forsooth, anyone, educate me on how using a condom is intrinsically evil and a sin against God.

 

[onenow1]

Genesis 2: 24-25 And the two become one flesh= child.

no condom = a possibility of another Mother Teresa,etc.

Contraception= my will, the reality is we are supposed to procreate not obliterate!

Peace