A
AmyS
Guest
That is so true… Knowing how our bodies work actually makes me wonder why women use BC… It is poison. God sure made us well.
- Status
V
Veronica_Anne
Guest
Is this a pop quiz?
F
FightingFat
Guest
That’s a great question and I feel the same I have to say! Has anyone got an answer?
S
StephiePea
Guest
It is not the end desire (not getting pregnant), it is the method used to obtain it. Contraceptives, such as the pill, can actually cause you to abort a pregnancy early (like within a few days). Condoms use in marriage doesn’t allow you to give yourself fully to your spouse. The Pope has written on this subject, and that is what helped me understand. Also the book “The good news about sex and marriage–a Catholic perspective” was a great reference.
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Let us suppose that technology existed which allowed us to know the exact days on which a woman is fertile with 100% accuracy. A couple could then know precisely which days are “safe”.
Now suppose there are two couples. Both couples have sexual relations at the same frequency over the course of several months. Both are trying to avoid pregnancy.
Couple 1 abstains on the fertile days
Couple 2 uses some form of contraception on the fertile days.
In this aspect of their lives, both couples are the same except for this: Couple 2 has sexual relations during the fertile time.
The union of the spouses on the non-fertile days has no possibility of conception, whereas the union of the spouses on the fertile days has a significant possibility of conception.
However, couple 2 deliberately thwarts that potential outcome, thereby separating the act (sexual union) from its natural end (conception).
The sole and entire purpose of contraception is to prevent the male and female gametes from uniting. One only uses contraception when they think there is a possibility that sexual union will result in the fusion of the gametes.
One would not use contraception if there was no possibility of conception. On non-fertile days, there is no possibility of conception, therefore the act (sexual union) cannot be separated from its natural end (conception). That natural end does not exist on the non-fertile day. Contraception used on non-fertile days wouldn’t really be contraception – it would just be useless chemicals or neutral physical devices devoid of any contraceptive significance.
Contraception is objected to not because its goal is the prevention of conception but because it serves to separate sexual union from its natural end.
From a different angle, the couple which abstains during their fertile period does so because their is a very real connection between conception and sexual union during that fertile period. However, my suspicion is that the use of contraception would serve to weaken that connection, for sexual relations can be pursued during the fertile period with a lessened possibility of conception. Procreation then becomes merely an optional accessory rather than an integral part of the significance of the sexual union.
Now suppose there are two couples. Both couples have sexual relations at the same frequency over the course of several months. Both are trying to avoid pregnancy.
Couple 1 abstains on the fertile days
Couple 2 uses some form of contraception on the fertile days.
In this aspect of their lives, both couples are the same except for this: Couple 2 has sexual relations during the fertile time.
The union of the spouses on the non-fertile days has no possibility of conception, whereas the union of the spouses on the fertile days has a significant possibility of conception.
However, couple 2 deliberately thwarts that potential outcome, thereby separating the act (sexual union) from its natural end (conception).
The sole and entire purpose of contraception is to prevent the male and female gametes from uniting. One only uses contraception when they think there is a possibility that sexual union will result in the fusion of the gametes.
One would not use contraception if there was no possibility of conception. On non-fertile days, there is no possibility of conception, therefore the act (sexual union) cannot be separated from its natural end (conception). That natural end does not exist on the non-fertile day. Contraception used on non-fertile days wouldn’t really be contraception – it would just be useless chemicals or neutral physical devices devoid of any contraceptive significance.
Contraception is objected to not because its goal is the prevention of conception but because it serves to separate sexual union from its natural end.
From a different angle, the couple which abstains during their fertile period does so because their is a very real connection between conception and sexual union during that fertile period. However, my suspicion is that the use of contraception would serve to weaken that connection, for sexual relations can be pursued during the fertile period with a lessened possibility of conception. Procreation then becomes merely an optional accessory rather than an integral part of the significance of the sexual union.
S
Seven_Sorrows
Guest
What Percentage of Catholics use NFP?
I bet it is about the same % of catholics that get into heaven. I am not judging, I just have a hunch.
I bet it is about the same % of catholics that get into heaven. I am not judging, I just have a hunch.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Island Oak:
That is a very important question.
I would say that in of itself, trying to avoid pregnancy is not a bad thing. In fact, it may be the morally responsible thing to do. It is possible to try to avoid pregnancy for completely selfish reasons, but to simplify the question, let’s assume that everyone has good motives.
So, there are two means to the above end. One is that of abstinence – self control. The other is to effectively render the male or female infertile. This is done by physically containing or killing the male gametes or by preventing ovulation in the female.
One might object that having sexual relations during times known to be non-fertile also renders the male infertile, “containing” the gametes to a non-fertile environment. This is a good objection, so I should respond to it.
Abstinence takes advantage of the design of the female body – God has so designed her that there are naturally occurring fertile and infertile times. A couple may knowingly restrain their sexual activity to these infertile times, but their participation in the infertility is only passive. They do nothing to cause this infertility.
However, with birth control, the couple is taking what would otherwise be a fertile time and actively rendering it infertile. They are not passive participants in a God-created infertile state but active causes of an artificial infertile state.
The objection to contraception is its active rendering of a God-created fertile time into an infertile one. Rather than cooperating with God in his design of the human body, taking advantage of those natural infertile times, those who use contraception are working against his design.
Hopefully that makes the distinction and difference a little clearer. Of course, one has to decide whether there is any problem with working against rather than with our natural design.
Is it a distinction without a difference?
That is a very important question.
I would say that in of itself, trying to avoid pregnancy is not a bad thing. In fact, it may be the morally responsible thing to do. It is possible to try to avoid pregnancy for completely selfish reasons, but to simplify the question, let’s assume that everyone has good motives.
So, there are two means to the above end. One is that of abstinence – self control. The other is to effectively render the male or female infertile. This is done by physically containing or killing the male gametes or by preventing ovulation in the female.
One might object that having sexual relations during times known to be non-fertile also renders the male infertile, “containing” the gametes to a non-fertile environment. This is a good objection, so I should respond to it.
Abstinence takes advantage of the design of the female body – God has so designed her that there are naturally occurring fertile and infertile times. A couple may knowingly restrain their sexual activity to these infertile times, but their participation in the infertility is only passive. They do nothing to cause this infertility.
However, with birth control, the couple is taking what would otherwise be a fertile time and actively rendering it infertile. They are not passive participants in a God-created infertile state but active causes of an artificial infertile state.
The objection to contraception is its active rendering of a God-created fertile time into an infertile one. Rather than cooperating with God in his design of the human body, taking advantage of those natural infertile times, those who use contraception are working against his design.
Hopefully that makes the distinction and difference a little clearer. Of course, one has to decide whether there is any problem with working against rather than with our natural design.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
Thank you for your concise, thoughtful response. It does help clarify this distinction for me.
S
Seven_Sorrows
Guest
Island Oak:
Prometheum_x:
Ok, I am always mr. blunt and I am late for work…but real quick.
Their is a big distinction between nfp and abc. Just think, one you don’t have sex and one you have sex, but leave God out of the picture…simple? Who is gonna say you are bad for not having sex? is abstinence bad? When you use abc, you don’t care if God’s plan was for you to have a kid, you are going to fulfill your sexual desires and thus be selfish. on the other hand people using nfp may have sexual desires, but sacrifice and practice self control. So if you are using abc you are still having sex, you never have to control yourself. God did give women nonfertile times for a reason.
yes both people using nfp and abc don’t desire to have a kid at the moment, but nfp is leaving it into God’s hands. It is using the gift on nonfertile times that God gave us and we are just “NOT HAVING SEX!”. people who are using abc don’t care about God’s plan, they only want to fulfill their sexual desires. If they get pregnant it was a “mistake” or faulty condomn. (don’t try to say it was God’s will…yes it could be sometimes but probably not most). but if an nfp person gets pregnant it was God’s will.
I love all these helpful debates, I just find it funny that it isn’t good enough for people that it was what jesus taught, and his apostles and that Jesus’ church has kept this law for 2000 years. They don’t care that the church cannot error in faith and morals and what has to do with morals more than sex. So I applaud the people who want really know why to strengthen their faith, but if you are just doubting the church, you have bigger issues to deal with.
S
Seven_Sorrows
Guest
and again for my bluntness:
Just try common sense. God made adam and eve perfect, with no sin. he wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. If they had never needed, we would all be like them, naked in a forest having kids. So do you think that just because we sinned, God changed his laws and now all of a sudden you just get to “get off” with your wife with no consequences? It is all of a sudden alright to wrap something around your penis and block the very lifegiving fluid that God gave us? Yeah I am sure God appreciates that.
Not trying to be mean…it just seems like common sense.
Plus remember God strait killed Onan (in genesis) for using the pullout method and spilling his “seed” on the ground.
Just try common sense. God made adam and eve perfect, with no sin. he wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. If they had never needed, we would all be like them, naked in a forest having kids. So do you think that just because we sinned, God changed his laws and now all of a sudden you just get to “get off” with your wife with no consequences? It is all of a sudden alright to wrap something around your penis and block the very lifegiving fluid that God gave us? Yeah I am sure God appreciates that.
Not trying to be mean…it just seems like common sense.
Plus remember God strait killed Onan (in genesis) for using the pullout method and spilling his “seed” on the ground.
S
Steve_Girone
Guest
I
Island_Oak
Guest
Seven Sorrows:
With respect to your second response…I am not a man–so the condom discussion is misdirected. As far as your attempt to connect the fairly tale of Adam and Eve frolicking around in the buff in the Garden of Eden to this issue, you’ve lost me.
First of all, I am unaware of any pronouncements Jesus ever gave on birth control, NFP or otherwise, much less that he established a law on this topic that has been consistently observed for 2000 years. It is a matter of man-made law, which has and can vary throughout history. I undertand that today the church has a very well defined position on ABC. I am simply trying to get to the heart of the theology behind the policy.
With respect to your second response…I am not a man–so the condom discussion is misdirected. As far as your attempt to connect the fairly tale of Adam and Eve frolicking around in the buff in the Garden of Eden to this issue, you’ve lost me.
M
mercygate
Guest
Island Oak:
In Scripture, we learn that creation is good, and that we are to “be fruitful and multiply.” The scriptural warrant, coupled with the natural law, have been acknowledged throughout the history of Israel and the Church as rendering contraception sinful.
I’m not kidding. It wasn’t until 1930 that ANY Christian body accepted the very limited use of contraception of any kind (the Anglican Communion).
Island Oak:
Natural law is a source of truth, and one which undergirds Scriptural truth and all theological thinking. Natural law, in its own way, is sacred because it is God-given – not man-made. The arguments against contraception (including non-artificial distortions of the natural human act of intercourse, such as coitus interruptus and mutual masturbation) arise from the natural law governing the essence of humankind.
In Scripture, we learn that creation is good, and that we are to “be fruitful and multiply.” The scriptural warrant, coupled with the natural law, have been acknowledged throughout the history of Israel and the Church as rendering contraception sinful.
I’m not kidding. It wasn’t until 1930 that ANY Christian body accepted the very limited use of contraception of any kind (the Anglican Communion).
Island Oak:
I presume, by this comment, that you are not Catholic? Never mind: NFP does NOT mean “Not For Protestants!”
I
Island_Oak
Guest
With respect to your second response… As far as your attempt to connect the fairly tale of Adam and Eve frolicking around in the buff in the Garden of Eden to this issue, you’ve lost me.I presume, by this comment, that you are not Catholic?
??? I think it IS the Protestants who take this story literally, no?
M
mercygate
Guest
Island Oak said:
Guess again. Although Catholics are free to believe either in “long” creation or 6-day creation, we are required to believe in two original parents – however that original two came to be, and as long as we understand that they (and everything else) were created by God.
I know. It can be difficult to believe – but as a Convert, I have found about a million things I thought were absurd in Catholic teaching that proved to be spot-on, so I’ll go with the Church on this one.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
my catechism book is still in the packing boxes, could we have a reference on that one, Houston? (Not doubting your word–just wanting to know how it’s explained)
M
mercygate
Guest
Island Oak:
You can also search these forums. The “monogenesis” question has been thrown about quite a bit. It really sticks in the craw of many, and the Church has been accused of setting herself up for another “Galileo.”
For me (and I recommend this to nobody), the truth of the story is the deeper truth of creation and of human nature. I can shade my earth-bound eyes to the physical details – without calling it a “fable” – such a demeaning word for such a deep truth.
Here’s one you’re gonna LOVE (if you don’t know it already): scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
You can also search these forums. The “monogenesis” question has been thrown about quite a bit. It really sticks in the craw of many, and the Church has been accused of setting herself up for another “Galileo.”
For me (and I recommend this to nobody), the truth of the story is the deeper truth of creation and of human nature. I can shade my earth-bound eyes to the physical details – without calling it a “fable” – such a demeaning word for such a deep truth.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
Thank you for the referral. I found CCC 362 reads as follows: [The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in *symbolic language when it affirms that “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire is therefore willed by God.]
I will accede to your request to drop the fairy tale moniker–I meant no disrespect–merely that this was an allegory intended to accomplish the transmission of a truth deeper and more profound than the literal activity of the characters contained therein.
I will accede to your request to drop the fairy tale moniker–I meant no disrespect–merely that this was an allegory intended to accomplish the transmission of a truth deeper and more profound than the literal activity of the characters contained therein.
M
my4ducks
Guest
This is my first post so please bare with me. First of all I believe that some of you have gotten off the original premis for this thread. I am sure I will digress at some point too, but I’d like to get us back to the original question a bit and then touch on a couple of points that have come up. I personally believe that you need to put Catholics into two categories in order to get a somewhat better percentage on this subject. I would break it down into “nominal” Catholics and faithfully practicing Catholics. As we all know there are big differances between Catholics. Those who are well formed and faithful to the teachings of the Church - no matter how inconveniant or outdated they may seem. And those who are Catholic from birth and unfortunately, maybe by no fault of their own are not well formed in the teachings of the Church and therefore pick and choose what works best for their personal life. I want to emphasize that I know many “cradle catholics” who love the Church and are faithfull to her teachings so I would put them into the “well formed” category. (Granted we could have a whole other thread on the differant kinds of “Catholics” but I am just lumping for sake of argument) With that in mind, voting on nominal Catholics, I would vote 0% - 10%. With the well formed group I would have to vote 90% - 100%. The reason for the huge difference is pretty clear. The former are more open to life and Gods will. See NFP or other forms like it are not just Catholic, as already mentioned. It is a state of mind and a way of respecting yourself and the will of God. NFP is a means of spacing children but always with the heart open to the possibility of life. If you and your husband feel two children is perfect for you and you use NFP with a closed mind to the possibility of another child then you might as well use abc because when you use abc you are absolutely never open to having a baby. (By the way, in certain medical situations it is acceptable to use the Birth Control Pill. The practice is to obstain during what would usually be a regular ovulation period for you. Say day 11 - 18) Now if you decide that two is a good number for your family and practice NFP with an open heart to the potential of life it is acceptable to be dilligent. That is in keeping with the Church and the foundation of NFP. And if it is Gods will that two is in fact the magic number for you may His Blessings shine upon you. The point is that you are open to His will and that is what being a Christian is all about, even if you are not a Catholic. In my personal experience with NFP, because you have to have self control when you and your husband do have “relations” it is much more passionate, intimate, and enjoyable. The wait and anticipation is frustrating but the end result is worth it. And it brings you closer as man and wife because unlike popping a pill or putting in a diaphram or what ever your choice may be, with NFP your husband is fully involved. Just a note before I sign off on my short novel, no where in the Bible or in the Catechism does it teach that you have to make babies until you are no longer physically able. Again, it is a decision to be made by you and your husband with an ultimate answer by God and hopefully loving acceptance by you.
I don’t know if this is too long but I hope it was helpful. I praise those of you who are trying to understand and learn more about why we do things we do. I pray that your questions will be answered and that your journey will lead you closer to God and His Church.
God Bless
I don’t know if this is too long but I hope it was helpful. I praise those of you who are trying to understand and learn more about why we do things we do. I pray that your questions will be answered and that your journey will lead you closer to God and His Church.
God Bless
- Status