Why NFP rather than condoms, sponge, etc.?

[1ke]

Jack-- Please start your own thread on “contraceptive effectiveness”. As has already been stated, this thread is not about that, nor is “effectiveness” an element of church teaching.

You are continuing to post on a topic that is not relevant to this thread. Please desist and start your own thread, or stick to the topic.

 

[wanner47]

you have still haven’t explained your statement in a previous post to the effect that if the pill isn’t 100% effective at stopping ovulation, it must be an abortifacient - therefore this post is begging the question

Jack - yes I did! I just explained that in my previous post!

If the pill isn’t 100% effective at stopping ovulation, then IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OVULATION CAN OCCUR. Can we agree on this?

IF OVULATION CAN occur, there is a CHANCE that conception could ALSO occur. Can we agree on this?

If conception occurs, and the pill has already made the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation, then the baby cannot implant and is killed.

But ke was right, this is off-topic. If you would like to start a new thread I’m more than happy to continue this conversation.

 

[jack_hawkins]

well if I were posting about “contraceptive effectiveness”, I might agree with you:thumbsup:

 

[jack_hawkins]

Jack - yes I did! I just explained that in my previous post!

If the pill isn’t 100% effective at stopping ovulation, then IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OVULATION CAN OCCUR. Can we agree on this?

IF OVULATION CAN occur, there is a CHANCE that conception could ALSO occur. Can we agree on this?

If conception occurs, and the pill has already made the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation, then the baby cannot implant and is killed.

But ke was right, this is off-topic. If you would like to start a new thread I’m more than happy to continue this conversation.

I highlight “If conception occurs, and the pill has ] made the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation, then the baby cannot implant and is killed.”
the point in question is whether or not the uterine lining is made significantly more inhospitable to implantation byt the COCP (1st gen)

the point was made by the OP that the COCP is “abortifacient”, therefore this is on topic IMO

 

[1ke]

well if I were posting about “contraceptive effectiveness”, I might agree with you:thumbsup:

You are arguing about the nature of the pill, and it is NOT relevant to church teaching regarding contraception,

Start your own thread on whether or not the pill is abortifacient and quit hijacking this one.

 

[BigE]

No, it is not a subjective determination of what the act should be. It is **God’s **determination of what the Act should be, which can be known definitively through Scripture and Tradition/Magesterium.

I disagree…I think it would be more accurate to say…it is someone’s (in this case, Pope John Paul’s) interpretation of what they think God is saying what the act should be.

Merely not having “loving feelings” is likely not-- as the act is still done with free will. Therefore, it does have the unitive element present.

So your saying is ok for a couple to eliminate the unitive part of the equation (mutual love) as long as it is their own free will. But they can not eliminate the procreative part of their own free will. Hmmm…now whose making the women the “object”.

 

[wanner47]

I highlight “If conception occurs, and the pill has ] made the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation, then the baby cannot implant and is killed.”
the point in question is whether or not the uterine lining is made significantly more inhospitable to implantation byt the COCP (1st gen)

the point was made by the OP that the COCP is “abortifacient”, therefore this is on topic IMO

from here: patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068708/

Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill

The combined oral contraceptive pill is often just called ‘the pill’. It contains two hormones, an oestrogen and a progestogen. If you take it correctly it is a very effective form of contraception.

How does the pill work?

The pill works mainly by changing the body’s hormone balance so that you do not ovulate (you do not release an egg each month from your ovary). In addition, it causes the mucus made by the cervix to thicken and form a ‘mucus plug’ in the cervix. This makes it difficult for sperm to get through to the uterus (womb) to fertilise an egg. The pill also makes the lining of the uterus thinner. This makes it unlikely that a fertilised egg will be able to attach to the uterus.

emphasis mine

from here: appco.com.au/appguide2005/drug.asp?drug_id=00075263&t=cmi

Levlen ED is the brand name for 21 small beige active tablets, each containing **2 active ingredients; 30 micrograms of ethinyloestradiol (an oestrogen hormone) and 150 micrograms of levonorgestrel (a progestogen hormone) **and 7 inactive tablets (last row of the blister pack).

…]

What is Levlen ed used for and how does it work?

Levlen ED is an oral contraceptive, commonly known as a Birth Control Pill or The Pill that has been prescribed to prevent you from getting pregnant. Levlen ED prevents pregnancy in several ways:
• inhibiting the egg release by stopping it maturing;
• changing the cervical mucus consistency making it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg;
• changing the lining of the uterus making it less suitable for implantation.

bolding mine

 

[1ke]

I disagree…I think it would be more accurate to say…it is someone’s (in this case, Pope John Paul’s) interpretation of what they think God is saying what the act should be.

Are you a Protestant? The Church speaks with the authority of Christ. It is not what they “think” God is saying. The Church cannot teach wrongly on faith and morals. We may know with certainty.

So your saying is ok for a couple to eliminate the unitive part of the equation (mutual love) as long as it is their own free will.

“Love feelings” are not what make the act unitive. If they engage in the act via their free will then they are not eliminating the unitive element.

But they can not eliminate the procreative part of their own free will. Hmmm…now whose making the women the “object”.

Um… I *am *a woman.

 

[jack_hawkins]

You are arguing about the nature of the pill, and it is NOT relevant to church teaching regarding contraception,

Start your own thread on whether or not the pill is abortifacient and quit hijacking this one.

it’s relevant to the original post tho - I quote " That is absolutely out of the question because of the abortive method of it"

 

[jack_hawkins]

from here: patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068708/
emphasis mine
from here: appco.com.au/appguide2005/drug.asp?drug_id=00075263&t=cmi
bolding mine

You’re just repeating the same point, basically:thumbsup:
the posited mode of action remains only posited until it has been proven
read the contents of the one link I have posted - I think their line of reasoning is pretty good

 

[1ke]

it’s relevant to the original post tho - I quote " That is absolutely out of the question because of the abortive method of it"

Then start a thread about that.

They are not asking about the abortifacient nature of the pill, they are asking about the **morality **of contraception.

Abortifacient or not, it’s not relevant to the **morality **of contraception or why the Church teaches what it does regarding contraception.

Therefore you are on a tangent, please take it off to another thread.

 

[jack_hawkins]

It was obviously relevant to the OP hence their comment?
In any case, if I started a thread saying for the sake of argument (not that I would) “Benedict XVI is a shape-changing vampire lizard, so therefore should I join the JWs or the Mormons?”, would I expect people to keep to the subject of JWs versus Mormons? Of course I wouldn’t.

 

[wanner47]

You’re just repeating the same point, basically:thumbsup:
the posited mode of action remains only posited until it has been proven
read the contents of the one link I have posted - I think their line of reasoning is pretty good

That’s ridiculous.

By your logic, evolution doesn’t exist because it hasn’t been conclusively proven.

 

[jack_hawkins]

That’s ridiculous.

By your logic, evolution doesn’t exist because it hasn’t been conclusively proven.

No it’s not ridiculous.
It’s called the theory of evolution for a reason. For many people it is the only theory that makes sense.
I am not asking for “conclusive” proof, just solid proof.
I can prove that digoxin affects cardiac tissue - so why can’t you prove that the COCP (1st gen) affects implantation?
As I have mentioned there is evidence to suggest it doesn’t.

 

[wanner47]

No it’s not ridiculous.
It’s called the theory of evolution for a reason. For many people it is the only theory that makes sense.
I am not asking for “conclusive” proof, just solid proof.
I can prove that digoxin affects cardiac tissue - so why can’t you prove that the COCP (1st gen) affects implantation?
As I have mentioned there is evidence to suggest it doesn’t.

Then why do the manufacturers not state so in their packaged inserts? If this information is blatantly false, why is it promulgated on public websites with nary an outcry?

Let me ask you this:

Do you concede that it is possible for the pill to be abortificent? In the absence of solid proof, and given the information provided by the manufacturers of the pill, is it possible? Yes or no?

 

[StCsDavid]

But that’s what I’m getting at - WHY is it evil?

How is me expressing my deep love for my wife, in the most intimate of ways, without the procreative process - mechanical? Where in that fullest expression of love for another am I treating her as an object?

Okay, I know you’ve posted a few messages since this one, but I had to go to mass and didn’t have a chance to respond…so I appreciate your patience.

First, let’s take God out of the picture for a moment, and just speak about this contraception issue from a strictly humanitarian point of view. This is a bit difficult for me as I don’t know how one can seperate man from God, but for conversation sake, let’s say there is no God, and only us humans running the world.

As such, we humans are mammals. No other species of mammals that I’m aware of proactively takes the pro creative function out of the sexual act. Survival of the species depends upon it. So one could posit that non-contraceptive sex is the natural law in mammals.

Now you exist today because your biological parents had sex. And they exist because their biological parents had sex. If you go back a thousand generations in your family tree, then you discover that thousands of your ancestors existed and theirs and your very existence was contingent upon non-contracepted sex. If just one of those folks in the chain had used contraception…you and thousands others never come into being. So the choices you make today in this regard have a very real consequence upon not only the next generation, but even the very make up of the species a thousand years from now. Who are we to say that anyone should not exist in the future?

You could even throw in a Darwinian slant to this. If the best and brightest of the species is also the demographic of the species that practices contraception the most, then fewer of the good genes get passed on to the next generation and weakening of the species begins to occur.

That’s the best I can do leaving God out of the equation.

Let’s touch on the marriage. Do you really give yourself totally to your wife if you are contracepting? Are you not saying “I give all of myself to you except my fertility?” So it’s not a total gift. Do you give yourself freely if you’re contracepting? You can’t because you’re enslaved by your fear of pregnancy. Do you give yourself faithfully if you’re contracepting? No, because contraception is an act of self-absorption versus the a self-donating act. You’re holding back from wife. Finally, do you give yourself fruitfully to your wife if you’re contracepting? Absolutely not. Without the openness to the normative purpose of the act, it’s merely an outlet for lust, which is the very thing that turns your wife or you into that mechanical entity. It is an affront to your human dignity. That’s what makes it evil. Simply stated, as a human being, you deserve better.

 

[BigE]

Are you a Protestant? The Church speaks with the authority of Christ. It is not what they “think” God is saying. The Church cannot teach wrongly on faith and morals. We may know with certainty.

No…I am Catholic, I am just trying to understand the logic of this teaching beyond “because the church said so”.

And are you trying to tell me the church has never made a mistake in anything she has taught?

 

[1ke]

No…I am Catholic, I am just trying to understand the logic of this teaching beyond “because the church said so”.

The reason contraception is immoral is not “because the church said so”. There is a “why” the church says so, and it is true without error.

And are you trying to tell me the church has never made a mistake in anything she has taught?

Yes, that is exactly correct, the church has never made a mistake in anything she has taught.

 

[BigE]

From1ke;

Yes, that is exactly correct, the church has never made a mistake in anything she has taught.

1. Galileo
2. Crusades/Inquisition
3. Attitudes and teachings towards Jewish Faith
4. Support of Slavery
5. Organ donation
6. Cremation

You are blinded if you think the church has NEVER made a mistake in anything she has taught.

Even she knows she makes mistakes and occasionally teaches in error (one of the things I admire about her). And the teachings on contraception have never been declared infallible.

 

[Chancellare]

From1ke;

1. Galileo
2. Crusades/Inquisition
3. Attitudes and teachings towards Jewish Faith
4. Support of Slavery
5. Organ donation
6. Cremation

You are blinded if you think the church has NEVER made a mistake in anything she has taught.

Even she knows she makes mistakes and occasionally teaches in error (one of the things I admire about her). And the teachings on contraception have never been declared infallible.

There is a big difference between “error” or “mistake” as opposed to the doctrine of “infallibility”.
In your list you mentioned the Galileo affair, which is not a case of Church error or Papal infallibility. The facts of the case are:

In the Galileo affair, it should be noted that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained – which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.

Citing all facts of the matter and all the rest of broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. What you have are cases showing incompetence of a group of people of the cloth, not the whole church.