M
- Status
D
DevotedCatholic
Guest
I understand that the Church is not happy about artificial birth control in a sense that we are using it out of turn or for no good reason at all, but I think it has so good medical benefits, which brings me to wonder what other alternatives there could be besides birth control, I for one are not knowledgeable in this area, and I am not trying to commit any sins, but when you do something before you conversion into the church it does not seem to matter, but when you come into it , it is like a big no no. sometimes it makes me frustrated.
N
newbetx
Guest
I’m sure it’s confusing. On the surface it doesn’t seem to make sense… But in the grander scheme of things, ABC users can suffer, themselves. BTDT.
From what I heard, there are many alternative medications for various conditions that aren’t BC pills. JP II Institute can help out there. Most Dr.s just prescribe the BC pills because it’s easier… And it may be more of a patch of symptoms vs. solving the real problem. However if you really need such medication for a serious illness that has a contraceptive side efect, it is permissible.
D
DevotedCatholic
Guest
I thought I was just going crazy, I would like to read some information on this issue, if there is are any suggestions about what I should read. I would think the church would have been a little more clearer on the subject, however I think they have takenit as far as they can without offending anyone too bad. However there are still a lot of questions about this that have not been answered. I really think I am just not familiar with the way it works and not comprehending in this view.
R
Revelation1412
Guest
Whatever we believe about this, it is important to communicate it in a spirit of love and respect.
N
newbetx
Guest
True… but sometimes I just can’t resist sarcasm.
N
newbetx
Guest
Sorry. I was very busy yesterday and couldn’t create the proper response…
Go to the Family Life forum. There a many older threads on this.
The Church guides us… If something is very concrete, she will tell us. Most things aren’t the black and white we love to demand (and then reject, sometimes). She gives us guidance. Everone’s situation is different so in this area so we are given some lattitude based on the conditions.
The Church, contrary to what some would like to believe, didn’t come up with a compromise solution to please as many people as possible. It’s just that neither extreme of the matter is correct. I am a big proponent of Theology of the Body because it takes the larger perspective of the issue and shows consistancy and the reasonableness of the “rules” based on the biblical context by which we are to love one another. I think you’ll find it informative if not enlightening.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Well put!!
There is really nothing “new” in TOB. It just explains so deeply what was always Truth.
N
newbetx
Guest
I’ve always dissagreed with that statement. It seems to me to diminish the revelation. The content of the bible did not change, True. The path to understand how that content interrelates IS new. So it would be like saying the freeway they just built across the country wasn’t “new” because you could always have traveled across the country… TOB is a new perspective or presentation of something that was always there, agreed. TOB is collectively MORE than the sum of it’s parts so therefore, new.Well put!!
There is really nothing “new” in TOB. It just explains so deeply what was always Truth.
Revelation \Rev`e*la"tion, n. [F. r['e]v’e]lation, L. revelatio. See Reveal.]
- The act of revealing, disclosing, or discovering to others what was before unknown to them.
- That which is revealed.
- (Theol.)
(a) The act of revealing divine truth.
(b) That which is revealed by God to man; esp., the Bible.
By revelation he made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words. --Eph. iii. 3. - Specifically, the last book of the sacred canon, containing the prophecies of St. John; the Apocalypse.
Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
L
LittleDeb
Guest
I understand what you are saying, but we do need to use caution using the word, “revelation.” It can easily be confused with “Revelation.” Since all Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle it can confuse some people.
Yes it is definitely more than the sum of its parts. I just caution calling it “new” information specifically because of the discussion in this particular thread. The OP is arguing that there has been a change in teaching, hence something “new” and therefore not in union with the original teaching.
But yes, I did not intend to diminish the message. No one in history has ever made the connections so clear before. No one in history has ever brought Scripture, especially the Fall, and Christ’s teaching on “in the beginning” to such a concrete reality. Understanding TOB takes the student to a place of deep desire for change. It is a new *knowledge *(for the student) that makes one *have *to act on it.
N
newbetx
Guest
I guess we can have a side discussion while Mike reads the Wednesday Audiences…
Interesting. I knew there were no new prophets but I had never heard there were no more revelations. I’ll have to go look into that.
I guess when I hear “that there is nothing new in TOB” it saddens me because then people think that it some sort of rehash… it is far from it. That is why I thought revelation is appropriate… but we have to be careful of definition…
Since this debate started on the change of teaching… I guess I need to understand the definition of “church teaching.” My assumption is that just because a pope said it, does not make it a teaching… but then, what does?
M
mpartyka
Guest
Yeah, y’all go ahead. I’m close to halfway through.
Probably I need to restate my present position just to be clear why I’m reading TOB:
My present position is that the teaching of the early Church on sex in marriage, as revealed in the consensus of all the early Church Fathers who have written on the subject – a consensus which has been verified by an anti-contraception Orthodox author who did his own independent survey of the ECFs – is as follows:
- Having sex to make a baby is 100% okay.
- Having contraceptive sex is mortally sinful.
- Having non-contraceptive sex for reasons other than making a baby is venially sinful but is excused under the Sacrament of Marriage.
That’s the big question, isn’t it? If you ever get an answer that doesn’t reduce to a tautology, let me know.
–Mike
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
Maybe you could start a new thread with your questions. You are a little vague here, so I don’t know what you don’t understand…
N
newbetx
Guest
Well, I will try to understand that.
Mike, I want you to understand that I come here to learn, too. As a relative newbie to a religion that is 2000 yrs old, it’s richness is beyond what I can comprehend in my spare time.
I’ll be interested in your discoveries.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Three quarters of the way through TOB…should be finished sometime next week, I hope…
–Mike
–Mike
D
Daedelus76
Guest
If contraception is “unnatural”, why doesn’t the church condemn aviation or medical research? Human beings were never meant to fly or have artificial hearts… right? The standards for sexuality in the Church make it sound like everybody should be a monk or nun, wheather they desire that or not, the effect is the same. No allowance is made for the fact we don’t live in a perfect world, we live in a world of conflicting interets. Don’t make it sound like life before contraception was some kind of paradise.
And everything is about a juridical duty to God… what about the the rest of the human race? Do people have any obligations to their fellow humans that might moderate their religious obligations? Especially in the US, children use up alot of resources.
And everything is about a juridical duty to God… what about the the rest of the human race? Do people have any obligations to their fellow humans that might moderate their religious obligations? Especially in the US, children use up alot of resources.
Y
yellowbicycle
Guest
The best analogy I can come up with for NFP vs. ABC is that it’s like going on a diet. When you go on a diet, you restrict your caloric intake. You abstain, as it were, from certain foods, or certain amounts of foods. You do this to achieve a desired result from your body, which is to lose weight. This is akin to NFP - you restrain yourself during your fertile periods.
But if you’re trying to lose weight, instead of restricting your calories, you could just throw up the food you just ate. It would yield the same result, but through different means. Rather than changing your behavior, you ‘break’ your body as it were. You take food for the pleasure it gives, not the sustenance.
Now, please do not read more into this analogy than I intend. I know alot of people don’t see the difference between ABC and NFP and this is my best, albeit not great, way of explaining. I am not expecting to change your views on this, I assure you. I am just hopeful that the position of the catholic church on this will be clearer.
Changing your behavior is not sinful.
Changing sex, and what it DOES, however, is.
Here’s the thing with NFP - I know when I’m fertile. I have ALL of my information. I am now able to make the most educated decision, which is to engage in sexual relations or not. But I know, all the time, every time, that, if it’s God’s will, I’ll get pregnant. I accept that is a consequence of my actions. As it should be! I’m always shocked when I hear how shocked people are that they got pregnant.
They say ‘How did this HAPPEN?!?’ and I say ‘Did you have sex?’ and they say ‘Yes’.
Huh.
You mean you did the thing that humans have done to make babies since humans have been on the earth and you don’t know how you made a baby? Seriously?
So, here’s one of the rubs with ABC - it sets up a VERY unrealistic expectation that you can control biology. With NFP, you accept that babies are a very real and natural and, sometimes, likely consequence of sex. That is the mindset. With ABC, you are attempting to trick the body into not getting pregnant when you are doing exactly the thing that gets you pregnant. With ABC, the mindset is that you can ‘fix’ this, you can ‘control’ fertility.
One only need to look at planned parenthood’s own website, where half of women getting abortions said they were on some form of artificial birth control, to realize that birth control is not much of a control at all. It says so right on the packaging! But ask anyone using it, and they are certain they can’t get pregnant on it! Again, seriously?
And, for me, I need only look in the mirror - I was conceived while mom was on birth control. YEAH for birth control failing!
Children are not the only ones who use resources. Adults and the elderly do, too. I guess I don’t get what you are getting at - should people who use resources not be around? Cuz, that’s everyone.
M
mpartyka
Guest
I’m glad you chipped in because you seem to have a very good grasp on the subject. I’m wondering if you could weigh in on whether the following reflects, in your opinion, the teaching of the Church concerning sexual relations in marriage?
- Having sex to make a baby is 100% okay.
- Having contraceptive sex is mortally sinful.
- Having non-contraceptive sex for reasons other than making a baby is venially sinful but is excused under the Sacrament of Marriage.
J
Janet_S
Guest
The Church teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open ‘per se’ to the transmission of life.” (*Humanae Vitae *11)
#1 and #2 do reflect Church teaching, but #3 does not. Read sections #2360 to #2379 to see what the Church teaches. Particularly look at section #2370:
J
Janet_S
Guest
I’ve heard that men who are impotent aren’t allowed to be ordained as priests either. I’ll look up to see if there are any references to this in canon law.
Also, have you read the book Contraception by John Noonan?
amazon.com/Contraception-Treatment-Catholic-Theologians-Canonists/dp/0674168534/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237123055&sr=8-1
I haven’t read it, but I’ve heard that it’s a comprehensive study of the Church’s teaching on contraception; that the Church has always taught contraception is gravely wrong; and that the Church’s explanations for this teaching have changed over time. I think Noonan wanted the Church to change her teaching, but he had to admit it has always been the same, at least in regard to its being wrong.
- Status