Why does it (seem) that Catholics contracept and sterilize at the same rate as Protestants?

[Ma.Eugenia]

Wha always amuses me is that women who take artificial contraceptives then sometimes make ahuge fuss about “additives” in food. As if a few left-over growth hormones in your meat are going to make any difference after swallowing that little lot.

Interesting point.

 

[tvdxer]

In my experience? First my history:
I am a protestant(Lutheran).
I used to have NO problem with artificial b.c, in fact I couldn’t understand why you wouldn’t want to use it (although I was against surgicail abortion).if you were married, irt was like “duh of course you would use it, do you want 20 kids?”
After I got married(in my mid 30’s) dh and I became active in the local pro-life group and I started seriously question artificial b/c due to some excellent catholic pro-life books/magazines I read.
I found out the pill, IUD and most chemical b/c’s are mainly abortifacient, and are also harmful to womens health.(I’m condensing what toook to be about an 18 month journey before we threw out our contraceptives and used NFP and trusted God. I read some wonderful books, The Bible and Birth control,
A full quiver, All the way home, Humane Vitae, and Donum Vitae, ect. Couple to Couple league(and many more)
Well, Now I have some friends who have been raised in the Catholic faith and here I am defending (my stance) on contraceptives to them and they believe in using Contraceptives!
A friend of ours, much younger, who just had his third child, went and got a vasectomy. This guy was raised Catholic in a large family although he and his wife now attend an.
evangelical church.
My dh tried to gently tell him he shouldn’t do it, (beacause there are health risks to vasectomy just for starters) but he brushed him off with “well we can’t afford more kids, we had three right in a row”
My very best girlfriend and high-school classmate(we are both in our early 50’s) was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school K-8 (went to high school with me) and after #3 had her tubes tied.
She had this done many years ago so I supported her then.
But she is now dumbfounded that I no long believe in artificial b/c.
She says " I disagree with the Church on that issue."
I could name more but - I guess you get the point. Does the Church not have sermons on b/c?
I know myself growing up in a conservative Lutheran church, I sure never heard that contraception was wrong at all, but I was surprised to find out the the Reformers were once actually against limiting the number of children you would have(spilling the seed)

Simple: Catholics are as under the influence of contemporary culture just as much as Protestants or any other religious group. In modern-day America, choosing not to contracept is a counter-cultural decision. Acceptance of artificial birth control is near-universal today, and I do think that most non-Catholics are in invincible ignorance when it comes to it. It’s just not something that really comes with any guilt for most people.

As for Catholics, I think many are confused as to what the church really teaches. A lot of this might result from negligence which could be culpable. But how often do priests talk about contraception? It’s a very “hot button” issue, and attacking something that makes life a lot easier for many could have repercussions. Not that they shouldn’t talk about it, of course.

 

[Chancellare]

I think it is better that all the pros and cons be given to patients about contraceptive methods—both artificial and natural.

My understanding from school lecture is that **“Combination Estrogen and Progesterone pills” **suppresses ovum production–that’s why it is not abortifacient. Its supposed to have its own health benefits…BUT it is not without notable disadvantages or side-effects that patients should be made aware of–especially since this is medicine that is taken in the body that alters its normal functioning and may affect other body systems and not just the reproductive part.

Many other oral contraceptives have been known to change the uterus’ lining so that it becomes inhospitable to implantation by the the fertilized ovum (which in Catholic understanding is already “life”). That is why they are abortifacient.

In a lecture, our professor told us that taking “Estrogen-only” pills can cause a “blighted ova” that can result to a defective fetus in case pregnancy occurs despite taking that pill–thus according to the professor, “elective abortion is advised if this method fails”.

Plus, we were told that some clients with **Incompetent or Dysfunctional cervix **(a condition where there is premature opening of the cervix on the 2nd Trimester) had mothers who were treated with these estrogen-only pills while pregnant with the client–the effect of the estrogen-only pill can pass on to the next generation.

Patients, I am sure, would want to know about all possibe effects before agreeing to something that may irreversibly change their life.

We cannot overlook this fact and just concentrate just on the “health benefits” of oral contraceptives. There are also some very important “negatives” regarding artificial contraception that patients should be aware of.

I think concentrating primarily of the pros and downplaying the cons of artificial contraception is giving patients a false sense of security--that they will not get pregnant, that they will not get STD, and that nothing wrong will happen to them if they use these artificial means.

It can be very unfair to patients if they are left in the dark about these negative possibilities from usage of artificial contraception

It is difficult for a patient to make an “informed consent” when information given regarding their contraceptive method is incomplete.

Very objective and medically sound clarifications you have made here.

The biggest problem is this:
Pro-Choice people still believe that the moment you explain these medical facts to potential patients constitutes “scare tactics”, as in medical facts are scary.

I just wonder why the tobacco lawyers were not successful in using this argument in the US Supreme court to abolish the mandatory warning labels on cigarette packs. They’re supposed to be the best there are in the profession. (?)

The other thing here is: there is a law on bad side effects on all merchandise and it should be clearly explained to consumers. I wonder why this is not applicable to potential ABC users(?)

 

[Chancellare]

In my experience? First my history:
I am a protestant(Lutheran).
I used to have NO problem with artificial b.c, in fact I couldn’t understand why you wouldn’t want to use it (although I was against surgicail abortion).if you were married, irt was like “duh of course you would use it, do you want 20 kids?”
After I got married(in my mid 30’s) dh and I became active in the local pro-life group and I started seriously question artificial b/c due to some excellent catholic pro-life books/magazines I read.
I found out the pill, IUD and most chemical b/c’s are mainly abortifacient, and are also harmful to womens health.(I’m condensing what toook to be about an 18 month journey before we threw out our contraceptives and used NFP and trusted God. I read some wonderful books, The Bible and Birth control,
A full quiver, All the way home, Humane Vitae, and Donum Vitae, ect. Couple to Couple league(and many more)
Well, Now I have some friends who have been raised in the Catholic faith and here I am defending (my stance) on contraceptives to them and they believe in using Contraceptives!
A friend of ours, much younger, who just had his third child, went and got a vasectomy. This guy was raised Catholic in a large family although he and his wife now attend an.
evangelical church.
My dh tried to gently tell him he shouldn’t do it, (beacause there are health risks to vasectomy just for starters) but he brushed him off with “well we can’t afford more kids, we had three right in a row”
My very best girlfriend and high-school classmate(we are both in our early 50’s) was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school K-8 (went to high school with me) and after #3 had her tubes tied.
She had this done many years ago so I supported her then.
But she is now dumbfounded that I no long believe in artificial b/c.
She says " I disagree with the Church on that issue."
I could name more but - I guess you get the point. Does the Church not have sermons on b/c?
I know myself growing up in a conservative Lutheran church, I sure never heard that contraception was wrong at all, but I was surprised to find out the the Reformers were once actually against limiting the number of children you would have(spilling the seed)

Simple answer:
No warning labels on the ABC product.

Complicated answer:
Even if there is a warning label: contracepting Christians are like the people described by Christ on the issue of divorce: “because of the hardness of your heart”.

 

[manualman]

Before the 50’s many Catholics lived with a ghetto mentality.

I’ve heard this many times, but I’m not convinced. Perhaps it is because I grew up in the 70’s, and “ghetto” is now a word with different meaning than it might have had in the 50’s.

The word should be abandoned in favor of something like “fortress” mentality instead. “Ghetto” implies we escaped from something awful and impoverished and achieved sophistication and a wider education. In reality, catholic culture went from self-sustaining (if not perfect) to a label nearly devoid of meaning as regards the characteristics or behavior of the people claiming the name. Perhaps it was wrong for us to stay cooped up in a nice, safe sanctuary unchallenged by the corruption in the rest of the world. But IMO, it is worse to wallow in the filth and pretend it is fully compatible with the faith!

 

[zzz]

When I told my mother who was in her late 60’s at the time that ABC’s were a sin, she really was surpised and she is good standing Catholic. Of course, when she was in her child bearing years, they didn’t have the pill…she actually had a hysterectomy around 1973 when the pill was fairly new. I think a lot of Catholics are ignorant to the fact or just don’t plain like the teaching of the church so refuse to follow it. My husband is a good example. He refuses to have sex without a condom and since it is not my sin (as per a priest) we are still fairly active.

Actually, the Pill was around long before 1973. Enovid (the first) was approved by the FDA in 1960 and many women started using it in the early 1960’s.

 

[rwoehmke]

I’ve heard this many times, but I’m not convinced. Perhaps it is because I grew up in the 70’s, and “ghetto” is now a word with different meaning than it might have had in the 50’s.

The word should be abandoned in favor of something like “fortress” mentality instead. “Ghetto” implies we escaped from something awful and impoverished and achieved sophistication and a wider education. In reality, catholic culture went from self-sustaining (if not perfect) to a label nearly devoid of meaning as regards the characteristics or behavior of the people claiming the name. Perhaps it was wrong for us to stay cooped up in a nice, safe sanctuary unchallenged by the corruption in the rest of the world. But IMO, it is worse to wallow in the filth and pretend it is fully compatible with the faith!

Call it what you like. We were a people set apart. John XXIII had high hopes that we would take the Faith out into the world. Instead we brought the world into our lives and into the Church. Vatican II was all about changing the world for the better. Instead when out in the world we took the world’s values and thought we were doing good for the Faith by becoming active on the altar on Sunday. I still have hope that this will change but probably not in the lifetime I have left.

 

[manualman]

roemhke,

I think either extreme is a dead end. We NEED a ‘ghetto’ or ‘fortress’ to the extent that human nature requires a sense of belonging and right place in the world. But we also NEED to get out there and mingle with those who think/behave differently or we become the proverbial light under a basket.

After VII, we went from one damaging extreme to the other without hardly any time of living both. Sad.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…they believe in using Contraceptives!..

If you are happy that is great. I am not sure what your question really is, but some things you may wish to look at:

1. The document abortion rate of birth control pills by type. Ovulation suppression may be different than RU 486 (morning after pill)
2. Defining the negative affects of sterilization, condoms.
3. The moral separation of NFP verses sterilization, condoms (moral not physical) Also read the encyclical to midwifes (around 1934?)
4. The actual writing of Humanae Vitae and its consequences, it is very easy to see what ever you wish in the Humanae Vitae however a thorough read includes many issues commonly dismissed by most people. For example look at the sex life of Abraham and David in terms of Humanae Vitae guidance. Make your own conclusion (I hope you do not conclude God changed)
5. Study some Church history, again not just what you want to see but all of the Church history.

I do believe Humanea Vitea to be correct. I read it to tow all the lines at once which include no fornication, very strict sex restriction, full devotion with in marriage. All of these are good, and none are wrong. However when you study the Old Testament, and the Pauline Privilege (very far apart in time) you see the current issues are not current at all. I would not say your Catholic friends can be quickly dismissed as ignorant; I suspect at sometime a clarification will come down on some of these issues. IF (that is a big if) the issues do not become moot. For example there are experimental, but functioning methods, to determine if an egg is present, which would greatly impact the relationship of child spacing. As I did not truly understand your question, I hope this helps you ?

 

[GreenJeans]

I’ve heard this many times, but I’m not convinced. Perhaps it is because I grew up in the 70’s, and “ghetto” is now a word with different meaning than it might have had in the 50’s.

The word should be abandoned in favor of something like “fortress” mentality instead. “Ghetto” implies we escaped from something awful and impoverished and achieved sophistication and a wider education. In reality, catholic culture went from self-sustaining (if not perfect) to a label nearly devoid of meaning as regards the characteristics or behavior of the people claiming the name. Perhaps it was wrong for us to stay cooped up in a nice, safe sanctuary unchallenged by the corruption in the rest of the world. But IMO, it is worse to wallow in the filth and pretend it is fully compatible with the faith!

In the big cities immigrants tended to cluster along national and ethnic lines. Germans lived in German neighborhoods. Irish in Irish neighborhoods. Italians in Italian neighborhoods. This was reasonable. People settled where their neighbors spoke their language, relatives had settled, and a helping hand for a fellow immigrant was available.

Many of these groups came from Catholic countries. So, when Italians settled together, they also created a Catholic neighborhood. The Irish to the south settled together and created another Catholic neighborhood. The Poles north of the Italians created another Catholic neighborhood. Put the adjacent Italian, Irish, and Polish neighborhoods together and one could say there was a milti-ethnic Catholic neoghborhood.

This pattern gave both Church and ethnic leaders considerable political power.

However, as the immigrants and their kids prospered, they moved from the old neighborhoods, spread across the city, married outside their ethnic and religious groups, and moved to the suburbs. The just merged in with everybody else. Political power waned as the people left the old neighborhoods. Influence dropped, and identity disappeared.

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

The other thing here is: there is a law on bad side effects on all merchandise and it should be clearly explained to consumers. I wonder why this is not applicable to potential ABC users(?)

Its good that you mentioned this.

It is a bit perplexing that this hasn’t been applied to a lot of consumer products relating to artificial contraception.

I think having a complete, unbiased Product information inserts (like the ones we get inside medicine boxes) that also states its pros and cons, along with information about possible side effects will help patients understand their methods better in a more objective way rather than depend on healthcare professionals who may be Prolife or Prochoice and may unwittingly overemphasize information on one part, while downplaying another part depending on which side of the contraceptive debate we are in.

Personally, I am Pro-life. I realize, that not everyone has my beliefs regarding my faith and no matter how I try to explain it to some fellow Catholics in the context of our faith --many times, I get blank stares. Many of us are in different levels of cathetization even though we belong to the same Church…and some really don’t just get the moral reasoning behind it.

To non- Catholics (as well as Catholic) patients, I have to present an unbiased, objective view of contraception. It is what is expected of a healthcare worker. This is why, I agree that fair, complete and unbiased printed Product information fact sheets be included in the packaging of these artificial contraceptive products. I really think this is a good idea and may help healthcare professionals to be objective in their teachings. The patient, will also be able to read such information material for themselves.

I believe giving the objective medical facts in inserts with these products will even make it easier for the Church to introduce the issue of morality in using artificial contraception.

Example: If we get in a packet of condom a pamphlet that also says:

WARNING: Use of this product is not a guarantee that no pregnancy, STD will occur.

…then add to that a insert that explains that the sperm have been know to pass through the microscopic breaks that sometimes occur in condom usage and that HIV virus and many common STD viruses are so much smaller sperm.

Do you think people will even buy the product at the rate they are buying it now? …after all these are also medical facts.

 

[stbruno]

I think too many people, Catholics and Protestants alike, believe the lies that this culture tells them – living together before marriage will help you figure out if you’re “compatible,” same-sex marriage is fine if they love each other, contraceptives are the only way to plan your family, etc.

It sounds like the Catholics you spoke with knew that the Church teaches that contraceptives are wrong. They know but they do not believe.

I agree with all of the above…and just add, that most of these people have poor catechesis and little support in their faith from their own parents. Many times, these Catholics were taught in Catholic grade and high schools too, but they never took their faith seriously because their parents did not translate what they learned into actions. They did not live their faith. More reasons to pray and more reasons to evangelize. It’s important to set as our goals: to get to heaven and take as many people with us as we can.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Do you think people will even buy the product at the rate they are buying it now? …after all these are also medical facts.

some of that so-called facts pushed out by the “pro-life” brigade are not facts at all
you need to peruse the scientific literature for yourself not just believe what some fanatics say

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

some of that so-called facts pushed out by the “pro-life” brigade are not facts at all
you need to peruse the scientific literature for yourself not just believe what some fanatics say

Thanks for the advise.

I am trying to be balanced in my readings regarding this issue.

For one thing, the medical facts that I mentioned in some of my replies in this thread were from a lecture of a professor, who I believe is pro-choice.

Yet, she did not hold back in giving us (her students) the advantages and disadvantages of the artificial method she herself believed in—allowing me and some other students in my class to decide that natural method is the best and safest way to control family size (thus, say we are Pro-life). I guess, it is a testament to her being a fair and good teacher (even though we belong to opposite poles in the contraceptive issue.)

Some people, like in my case, decide to be Pro-life based on medical facts and religious beliefs. I do try to be fair and fact-based in my readings and so far, I believe, the facts that I mentioned in my replies to this thread, are medical facts.

While it is true that some artificial methods may have some advantages, I believe also that their disadvantages are significant and should merit serious concern.

I had noticed that some (if not most) instructors, I have come across, especially those that work directly to the poor people in our society, have a tendency to emphasize pros of artifical contraception and downplay its cons and makes me wonder if they are doing this to cater to some local or foreign organizations’ pro-choice agenda.