Thoughts on contraception

[deadlift750]

Read this:
That Celibate Bachelor Was Right
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9804fea1.asp

Also check out Janet Smith’s lecture called “Contraception: Why Not”
I believe it is on Youtube but also you can get a free CD copy if you get it off the internet (google it)

 

[deadlift750]

How Birth Control Changed America For the Worse
insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5358&Itemid=48

 

[lostandconfused]

The article was interesting, but I really disagree with this woman saying that all wives get turned into objects and feel like “drive thrus”. So women dont get any pleasure out of sex unless they think they may get pregnant? Theyre not allowed to want to express their love and bond with their husband, they must only think of doing God’s will of having a baby? I feel like many wives would disagree with this.

Then she says at the end that she might die in childbirth and leave behind children and her husband but thats a-ok, and that Americans are a bunch of pansies because theyre afraid of people dying and leaving children motherless?

So wait, we need to fight for our liberty from being treated like objects by our evil husbands and people need man-up and realize that death happens, stop being such a frady cat of death, keep on poppin out babies until you die, because thats much nobler. Your children will understand, they cant be afraid of death.

Once again, whats the difference of taking a pill and your husband saying “I will not have sex with you tonight because the odds of you conceiving are high, so I am going to wait until they are lower so I can use you like a drive thru and therefore have less fear of having to deal with your mother-less child when you die in childbirth”

Its arguments like this that lead to the belief that sex was bad bad dirty horrible and shouldn’t even be enjoyed by women.

I am all for keeping sex within marriage and respecting it as a privilege to those in love and properly joined, but this? This is just…wow. I dunno what to think.

 

[deadlift750]

First, using NFP is a joint decision. Its not, I’m doing this for us. Its, we’re doing this for us. Also lets talk about natural vs artificial. The Church allows for people to die naturally with dignity by refusing to draw out an illness with medicine that will only prolong their suffering. On the other hand, the Church is strongly against euthanasia which removes the dignity of the human person. You can die with dignity by refusing chemo that will only make you suffer- you can’t die with dignity when you use a suicide bag or overdose.
NFP is the same way - God has built in natural birth control into our lives just like he built in natural death. He didn’t want every love making act to be responsible for a new life just as He doesn’t want us living forever on earth (he wants us with Him in heaven). NFP is merely using what God has already put into place. That is why it is natural.

I asked my best friend who is a priest and one of the smartest people I have ever met if it is EVER ok to use contraception. Keep in mind I’m 23 y/o red blooded male. If it was EVER ok. Like say my wife would die if she got pregnant.

Well my friend calmly asked me if I’d have sex with my wife if she was paralyzed. I was like NO WAY. That I felt like love making had to be between to people. He was like of course. Not having sex with your wife because she could DIE if she became pregant is the same thing- you sacrifice not because you want to or it is easy but because it is right.

Something about birth control just feels selfish. Now what I would ask is this: is sexuality the only reason to be married. I think many people need to take a second look at what marriage is or why it is right for them.

 

[mpartyka]

mpartyka;4958312:

Here’s the question, though: Is waiting until the “God part” of the mousetrap has left on its own before triggering the trap really any different? Isn’t that like sneaking a cookie when Mom’s not looking?

I guess I don’t quite understand what you mean, here. Expand please.

Yeah, I don’t think I said that quite right. What I mean is, you can spring the trap at any time you want, but God can only perform the creative act when the mouse is sitting on the right spot (i.e., where the net will land). Every time the mouse lands on that spot, God is ready to perform the creative act. But the NFP couple doesn’t want God’s creative act to take place, so they make sure to spring the trap only when the mouse is off the target. Isn’t that still a way of telling God, “We don’t want you involved?” At the very least, isn’t that still a way of using the mousetrap to do something it wasn’t designed for? After all, it’s supposed to be for catching mice, right?

Key is, yes, the ECF’s would have likely turned their faces or covered their eyes. But is that the proper way to treat the sons and daughters of God?

I don’t think the story is a good fit. We’re talking about how the ECFs would view doctrines or attitudes about sex in marriage, not about how they would view people who have been caught in sexual sin. Indeed, one of the things I’ve repeated over and over is that even though the ECFs thought sex in marriage for reasons other than procreation is venially sinful, they also thought that this particular venial sin was automatically excused under the Sacrament of Marriage, so it’s not like a priest would have any grounds to behave negatively toward a couple for their actions (though at the same time he might preach against the attitude toward sex they might hold in the hopes that they would eventually come around to his way of thinking).

To me it is… but what is change? There is the apostles creed and the Nicene creed… there was a change… the Truth we know, got bigger…that’s all.

“Change” is when something that was previously not true becomes true, or vice versa. An expansion of truth is one thing, but reversing oneself on what is or is not sinful would definitely be a change.

I guess I didn’t understand that while in the garden they didn’t have sex… Not sure when they became “married.” either. I’ll have to go look into that.

They were married at the moment of their meeting, I’m sure, but consider this: In Eden, everything was perfect. So, if Adam and Eve had had sex, they would have conceived because (1) God wasn’t going to let them be disappointed in Paradise and (2) they, being perfectly aware of their bodies, wouldn’t have felt the desire to procreate unless it were possible to do so. But it was only after the Fall that Abel was conceived, so they must have had sex only after the Fall.

As they get older, some do exactly that. It’s not that bad of a thing.

I’m not saying it is. What I’m asking is, “When was the last time you heard somebody (particularly a priest) tell you that was a desirable goal?” Today, we all hear things like, “A healthy sex life is essential for a healthy marriage.” How is that consistent with the old attitude that sexual desire was something married couples eventually ought to work out of their systems?

Well, that’s another thread… And for me, it’s not that much of a stretch to accept this. It’s logical mostly… I’ll look for a thread or something that can walk you through it. .

You can check out my thread Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception to get a grasp of my objections to it. (Recall also the “seed and soil” argument I made a while back in this thread because I think it bears directly on the subject of the Immaculate Conception.)

–Mike

 

[JACQUE_D]

I’m sorry and will pray for you and your family.:console: I grew up with an alcoholic (and abusive to my mother) stepfather and my father also has drinking problems–probably also an alcoholic, but he was able to quit cold turkey (but not before endangering me as a child, driving drunk! AND having severe health issues). Needless to say, I don’t drink.

I grew up with it too. Although I don’t drink, somehow I was attracted to someone just like my dad. Any way, its more common in families than most care to accept. I think thats perhaps why I feel the way I do on the whole subject, I need to somehow keep control of the situation at home because more often than not, he cannot. I feel the burden of knowing that ABC is totally against what we believe, but I’m feel in my case, its the right thing to do. I feel that the Lord is with me. Thanks Jennifer. By the way I have a 10yr old girl, 12yr old twin boys, a 14yr old boy, a19yr old boy in spirit, and a 23yr old son who has 3 girls.
Jacque.

 

[mpartyka]

Do not put your Lord God to the test… That is exactly what we are doing with contracepted sex and an attitude like that.

Really? Because a couple that uses ABC usually does so because they’ve come to the same conclusion as a couple who uses NFP: “We don’t want to get pregnant right now.” It’s just that the NFP couple finishes with, “…so we won’t have sex,” and the ABC couple finishes with, “…so we’ll use a birth control method.” The intent is the same – Humanae Vitae even admits this. What differs is the mechanics of accomplishing that intent.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

I noticed you mentioned bonobos, so you know about bonobos…bonobos are famous for having casual sex for pleasure. A lot. Dolphins do it as well. A few other species of primates do it as well, I forget which, but they blow off steam by mating when they are not in heat. Are bonobos corrupted by sin?

That’s a good question, and I wonder how the early Church Fathers would have responded to that. I wonder if they would have said, “That is evidence of how the whole world has been corrupted on account of Adam’s sin. Even these poor animals can’t control themselves.”

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Read this:
That Celibate Bachelor Was Right
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9804fea1.asp

With regard to this article:

First, I’m a reasonably young woman with heart problems, a history of blood clots, and a cardiologist who told me not to risk another pregnancy…despite all this, we managed to have three children before he had a vasectomy, motivated largely by my serious health problems.

This brings up a good question. If a couple, for serious reasons like these, wants to avoid pregnancy, wouldn’t the best course of action be to use both NFP and ABC? I would think that as a husband I would want to minimize the chance of conception however possible if it appeared that my wife could possibly die from an unintended pregnancy. Heck, I would probably insist upon a vasectomy, NFP, and condom use!

Also check out Janet Smith’s lecture called “Contraception: Why Not”

We did. Good article, but I did have some things to say in reply. My comments are a couple of pages back.

Married partners are the “permanent reminder to the Church of what happened on the cross” (FC 13). Sexual acts between husband and wife are representations of God’s love for his created…

Wow…I just read this to a friend of mine (without telling him where it came from), and he said, “So…Jesus got nailed, therefore we nail each other? What the–?” Seriously, what’s next? Do we sexualize “God’s interpenetrating love for the Church?” Is this really how far St. Paul intended us to take his analogy of marriage?

Every priest we talked to correctly said that we were not obligated to undo what we had done. After considerable guilt and prayer, John and I decided to pony up the five thousand dollars and have his vasectomy reversed.
…
Closely akin to the woman saddled with a brute are those women whose health will not “permit” a pregnancy – women such as I. While I don’t claim a strong desire to exit this world before age forty and leave my children motherless, I realize full well that I may wind up doing just that…people die, even lovely, young people who leave little children behind them.

This might personally offend some people, and I apologize in advance, but how in the hell this woman can say she loves her children is beyond me. Come to think of it, there’s not much of a loving tone throughout the majority of this article. The author may be right on several points, but her wretched attitude will likely prevent many from realizing it. And her overzealousness may cost her kids their mother. This family is not what I would hold up to anyone as a role model. I’m just floored by this.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

How Birth Control Changed America For the Worse
insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5358&Itemid=48

I liked this article a lot better, but it makes me wonder, “What’s the use?” Okay, we know that birth control changed America for the worse. We ate the apple, and now we’re paying for it. But the apple is not going back on the tree, and the Church should know this especially if it’s going to continue in the “sex is good” vein that it’s been dragged into by the world. Instead of telling its members, “No ABC,” it should open up the option of ABC to them and say, “But do you know that NFP is physically, psychologically, and spiritually better for you than ABC?” I think many young couples who are taught that NFP is the better option for spacing births would be more inclined to use it (or at least try it) than those who are told that NFP is the only option they have for spacing births. I myself have never been married, but I would seriously consider trying NFP even though I’m not Catholic and am under no religious obligation to abstain from ABC.

I just think it’s ridiculous to keep preaching about what a mistake letting birth control into society was when the fact is it’s never going to leave and the only option now is to deal with it as best we can, and one way to do that is to recognize that (1) most people simply don’t see a difference between natural and artificial birth control (largely because the intent is the same), and (2) the more productive avenue for the Church to take would be to show all the ways that NFP has better results and better effects than ABC. Telling people, “NFP is the better option,” might garner more positive response than continuing to tell people, “NFP is the only option.”

Plus, if the Catholic Church were to fall in line with the rest of Christendom, then all of Christendom would be preaching the same message, which is, “Sex is only for marriage,” which is a much easier message to preach than, “Sex is only for marriage, and NFP is the only moral form of birth control.” Heck, maybe Planned Parenthood would be willing to teach NFP if the Church weren’t so insistent about taking every form of ABC off the market!

Anyway, my point is, I think the Church is fighting not a losing battle but a lost battle, and sometimes the best thing to do in war is retreat to a better-fortified position and just try to hold your ground.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

I asked my best friend who is a priest and one of the smartest people I have ever met if it is EVER ok to use contraception. Keep in mind I’m 23 y/o red blooded male. If it was EVER ok. Like say my wife would die if she got pregnant.

Here’s what interests me about this question: Would the Church allow a couple to get married if that couple were to decide in advance, “Because of the health risk, we’re not going to have sexual intercourse during our marriage, ever”? I’m guessing the answer is, “No,” because that would basically amount to the couple’s agreeing to never fulfill each other’s sexual desires…but isn’t that only because the Church condemns more risque sexual techniques like…well, like things I probably shouldn’t list in polite company?

Well my friend calmly asked me if I’d have sex with my wife if she was paralyzed. I was like NO WAY. That I felt like love making had to be between to people. He was like of course. Not having sex with your wife because she could DIE if she became pregant is the same thing- you sacrifice not because you want to or it is easy but because it is right.

First, I have to believe that you mean “comatose” rather than “paralyzed”, because even quadraplegics can experience feeling in some parts of their bodies, though not necessarily the parts that most readily come to mind when discussing sex. Even a totally immobilized person can perhaps watch or listen…and can’t that be a kind of intimate sharing? I think one of the Church’s most crippling self-limitations is its unwillingness to see anything besides “the usual way” as being “sex” per se.

Now what I would ask is this: is sexuality the only reason to be married? I think many people need to take a second look at what marriage is or why it is right for them.

Very true. In olden days, when marriages were practically 100% arranged, the reasons for getting married were pretty simple in the eyes of the early Church Fathers. There was procreation, and there was “mutual help” – which basically meant that marriage was a legitimate forum for satisfying one’s libido. Virginity was prized because it meant one could be unreservedly devoted to God rather than having to divide one’s priorities between God and spouse. Virginity was the greater gift; marriage was the gift for people who couldn’t attain to virginity. I can’t speak for the Catholic Chuch today, but in Orthodoxy and in Protestantism I get the feeling this view has become reversed so that marriage looks like the better and more fulfilling path, probably because so many priests and pastors are married and have kids – the pastor/priest is supposed to be an example to the congregation, and a married w/ kids pastor/priest will naturally evoke a married w/ kids aspiration in the hearts of the congregation. I suppose this point goes to Catholicism for keeping with the spirit of the early Church Fathers…

–Mike

 

[lostandconfused]

That’s a good question, and I wonder how the early Church Fathers would have responded to that. I wonder if they would have said, “That is evidence of how the whole world has been corrupted on account of Adam’s sin. Even these poor animals can’t control themselves.”

–Mike

Yeah, I am still kind of wondering what people’s thoughts are on this…early Church Fathers didnt observe primates so of course they wouldnt have any idea about their behaviors, so it was easy for them to say “Look, the birds and the bees are doing this…” well, thats not true.

So, if its so natural and the way God intended it to be, then sexual pleasure is okay within married couples? (Heck, the bonobos arent monogamous! lol)

This whole thing is very difficult for me to understand. I still feel like if its a matter of intent, then there is no difference between stopping yourself from ovulating or letting ovulation go unsuccessful…its all a matter of intent. Its not like NFP is some natural, built in thing. You have to count days, be extra careful, take your temperature, everything. Its just as much of a science experiment as taking a pill is.

 

[Janet_S]

This whole thing is very difficult for me to understand. I still feel like if its a matter of intent, then there is no difference between stopping yourself from ovulating or letting ovulation go unsuccessful…its all a matter of intent. Its not like NFP is some natural, built in thing. You have to count days, be extra careful, take your temperature, everything. Its just as much of a science experiment as taking a pill is.

If there is no difference between NFP and ABC, why don’t you go ahead and use NFP? That way you will be faithful to the teachings of the Church and will not be doing anything that the Church defines as intrinsically evil.

If, though, you prefer to use ABC because it is more convenient, more effective, and requires less sacrifice than NFP, isn’t that an admission that they aren’t the same?

The Church’s teaching is clear; do not separate life from love. If you need to space pregnancies, use NFP.

Also, there are other moral problems with taking the pill. It’s main mechanism in preventing pregnancy is through blocking ovulation (contraceptive) but it also may act by blocking implantation of the newly fertilized ovum (interceptive). Since life begins at conception, before implantation, part of the pill’s effectiveness may be due to this early abortifacient effect. NFP does not act as an early abortifacient. Nor does it cause blood clots, breast cancer, birth defects, weight gain, or depression like the pill does, but that’s another story.

 

[lostandconfused]

I was talking about the intent though, the intent is the same, and isnt that what the “evil” part is? With both methods youre still “separating love from life” and working your own will.

“Spacing pregnancies” is just a euphemistic term for saying “I want to have sex without getting pregnant.” They are both the same.

You yourself said that the pill is more effective, so of course I would opt for that. If I were to use NFP, I am obviously that dedicated enough that obviously I cannot have kids right now, why not just be safe…the whole goal - the entire intent - is to NOT have kids.

And if youre so worried about the pill canceling implantation, then use a condom. Then nothing gets anywhere.

I am just saying, the intent is still the same, so technically, everyone who isnt just having babies all the time or isn’t celibate in their marriage because they cant afford to have a/another child is as you said “intrinsically evil”: it basically says that they’re working their will, not God’s.

 

[Janet_S]

I was talking about the intent though, the intent is the same, and isnt that what the “evil” part is? With both methods youre still “separating love from life” and working your own will.

“Spacing pregnancies” is just a euphemistic term for saying “I want to have sex without getting pregnant.” They are both the same.

You yourself said that the pill is more effective, so of course I would opt for that. If I were to use NFP, I am obviously that dedicated enough that obviously I cannot have kids right now, why not just be safe…the whole goal - the entire intent - is to NOT have kids.

And if youre so worried about the pill canceling implantation, then use a condom. Then nothing gets anywhere.

I am just saying, the intent is still the same, so technically, everyone who isnt just having babies all the time or isn’t celibate in their marriage because they cant afford to have a/another child is as you said “intrinsically evil”: it basically says that they’re working their will, not God’s.

It’s not the Church’s position that intent is the only thing that matters. There are moral and immoral ways to achieve the same ends. You must have heard the saying, the ends don’t justify the means? That’s what we’re talking about. NFP is morally acceptable while ABC is not. Just like wanting to be a parent; it’s a good thing to want a child, but if you get one through IVF or a surrogate mother, that is immoral.

You seem to realize that NFP is different from ABC. The Church believes that too, and that was what I was pointing out.

The encyclicals Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and *Veritatis Splendor *go into a lot of detail about the morality of ABC, so if you’re interested, and you haven’t already read these, I recommend them.

 

[lostandconfused]

Well, I do want to say that I respect people who use NFP. I will hopefully look into using it myself one day, because that would be nicer to be all natural and ‘within the law of the Church’.

However, right now, I just simply cannot get pregnant until probably 5 years from now. I will be honest with you, I am all for doing the “right” thing, I am not totally convinced that NFP is the only way to do this, but the thing is, I cant even try it because if it fails, then it would be disaster, you cant just play around with stuff like this. As you all say all the time, this is LIFE.

We live in a day and an age when you absolutely must be prepared for having children, they arent an economical benefit for the household and farming like they were in Jesus’ time, they are a huge responsibility and if youre not prepared, then your poor child’s life can suffer greatly. I just cant take that chance right now.

This kind of stuff scares me, I would like to come back to the Catholic church, but with these kind of extreme measures that just seems to defy reason, I just dont know if I am meant to be in the Church. I disagree respectfully, but I know thats just not enough for the Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

Thanks for sharing. don’t let this issue preclude your coming back to the Church. The Catholic Church is so wonderful and rich, there’s so much more to it than birth control.

Cheers

 

[Matt33]

We live in a day and an age when you absolutely must be prepared for having children, they arent an economical benefit for the household and farming like they were in Jesus’ time, they are a huge responsibility and if youre not prepared, then your poor child’s life can suffer greatly. I just cant take that chance right now.

.

:tsktsk:
This is absolutely not true. Many many many happy productive poor people have great kids with great lives everyday. (Hi nice to meet you I am one)Yes it is nice and actually responsible if you are prepared but if you are not then you have to make it work out. This is about gifts, and lives that God infuses with a soul. Be very careful about putting a families status before the status of human lives being brought into this world. God has to be trusted, not the lie of materialism.

 

[Matt33]

I liked this article a lot better, but it makes me wonder, “What’s the use?” Okay, we know that birth control changed America for the worse. We ate the apple, and now we’re paying for it. But the apple is not going back on the tree, and the Church should know this especially if it’s going to continue in the “sex is good” vein that it’s been dragged into by the world. Instead of telling its members, “No ABC,” it should open up the option of ABC to them and say, “But do you know that NFP is physically, psychologically, and spiritually better for you than ABC?” I think many young couples who are taught that NFP is the better option for spacing births would be more inclined to use it (or at least try it) than those who are told that NFP is the only option they have for spacing births. I myself have never been married, but I would seriously consider trying NFP even though I’m not Catholic and am under no religious obligation to abstain from ABC.

I just think it’s ridiculous to keep preaching about what a mistake letting birth control into society was when the fact is it’s never going to leave and the only option now is to deal with it as best we can, and one way to do that is to recognize that (1) most people simply don’t see a difference between natural and artificial birth control (largely because the intent is the same), and (2) the more productive avenue for the Church to take would be to show all the ways that NFP has better results and better effects than ABC. Telling people, “NFP is the better option,” might garner more positive response than continuing to tell people, “NFP is the only option.”

Plus, if the Catholic Church were to fall in line with the rest of Christendom, then all of Christendom would be preaching the same message, which is, “Sex is only for marriage,” which is a much easier message to preach than, “Sex is only for marriage, and NFP is the only moral form of birth control.” Heck, maybe Planned Parenthood would be willing to teach NFP if the Church weren’t so insistent about taking every form of ABC off the market!

Anyway, my point is, I think the Church is fighting not a losing battle but a lost battle, and sometimes the best thing to do in war is retreat to a better-fortified position and just try to hold your ground.

–Mike

I don’t understand this way of thinking. Yes we ate the apple and in your analogy we should then sin, or realized that we will sin even knowing what the better (holy) way is. Lets keep it biblical in analogy… Israel would constantly turn and worship other gods, CONSTANTLY! The ideas prevaled in thier societies especially during the exile. But God asks them to turn from them and back to him! Not just to expect that it has already been introduced to society so all is lost. Turn and be faithful to the gospel. That is our calling. The Church never fights a losing battle in this area. Society, and God’s lost sheep are really the ones losing this war because they are losing thier souls.

 

[lostandconfused]

:tsktsk:
This is absolutely not true. Many many many happy productive poor people have great kids with great lives everyday. (Hi nice to meet you I am one)Yes it is nice and actually responsible if you are prepared but if you are not then you have to make it work out. This is about gifts, and lives that God infuses with a soul. Be very careful about putting a families status before the status of human lives being brought into this world. God has to be trusted, not the lie of materialism.

I dont doubt you work very hard to give your children good lives. Youre being a good person and I respect you.

But, just as you said, I want to be “nice and responsible” and be prepared, if I am not, then yeah, I will deal with it. But, the matter is, I can be responsible, I can try to be prepared, I can have that choice, and I am going to do everything in my power to be in a situation that will be good for my children when I have them.

I am not saying there there is no chance a surprise pregnancy can happen, and if it does, I will take it as a blessing and love my child, but the thing is, right now, I have the choice to take every measure to be responsible.

This isnt about a family’s status, this is about simple things like being able to pay to feed, clothe, and shelter the child, and save for their college fund. Its not about the nice things, its about the essentials here, and I dont have the means for that, so I am not going to be taking any chances.