The Contraception Thread

[Loki]

This seems to be a huge sore spot for many denizens of this forum, so let's have it out.

What are your objections, justifications?

Personally, I think it's immoral to have children that you will not support, cannot support, or do not want. And there are already too many unwanted children awaiting adoption.

For me, intentions are of the utmost importance, and if the goal is regulation of pregnancy, then NFP is no different than many other forms of birth control.

There could be prophylactics interfere with the intimacy of the couple. It could reduce spontaneity by a couple of seconds or minutes in some cases. I argue that fear of unwanted children could also interfere with the intimacy of the couple.

[JasonV]

I have no objections to birth control. I'll leave it at that.

[Protinus]

I think that contraception should be used by married couples and those that are in such communion and love that it is necessary...I say this as per the 3rd gradation in the Wiki rules that I added and I dissent on this teaching having done much internal thought, conference with my Lord and knowing that I want to change my Church for the better.

[PaladinGirl]

I also see nothing wrong with contraception. You shouldn't have children if you don't want them as someone else said. There are already too many children waiting to be adopted.

[boughtwithaprice]

I assent to the church teaching on contraception in my own marriage, but I have serious objections on the Church's logic on the subject.

The Church teaching from Humana Vitae is based on the concept of a "Natural Law". Natural Law in regards to human sexuality came from the ancients and was based on a faulty premise in regards to male sexuality. The ancients believed that the entire human person was contained in the sperm, hence it was called "seed". Females were regarded as incubators for the seed, but the contribution from the ovum was not recognized until modern times.
This error in understanding of human sexuality had lead to the gross inequities between the sexes over the centuries. They believed that males were responsible for passing on the next generation and females were only recepticles, so males were more highly valued, and male seed was inordinately valued. Seed is precious and should not be casually spilt on the ground, as one would not toss a baby into a cesspool. Knowledge was seminal fluid, which is where we get the term "Seminary".

This error in the understanding of human sexuality was completely debunked by modern science. Males and females are equal partners in reproduction, and the female is not the mere recepticle of the male seed. I want to say that I do not believe that the church was the perpetrators of this error, but that ancient way of thinking has clouded her judgement.
Despite the advances of modern science and our understanding of human sexuality, the Church appears unwilling to correct her teaching, and it appears that it is for one reason only. Changing the church teaching on contraception would undermine the Church's claim to infallibility. Church teaching has always been that contraception was sinful, but this was based on faulty assumptions, and that would mean that an infallible teaching was based on an error, and if so, can it really be infallible?

The Papal birth control commision, Started by John XXIII, came to the conclusion that the teaching could be changed, but that conclusion was rejected by Paul VI, because he was convinced that its acceptance would undermine infallibility. That rejection was further propagated by John Paul II, for the same reason, IMO.

This is where I am at in my thinking. I assent to the teaching, as I am a Catholic, but I wonder if it is real, because it is based on error, IMO. This causes me to wonder if the church is really capable of proclaiming infallible propositions. What shall I do? I need to think more and wrestle with this some more, until I can get it settled.

[JasonV]

This causes me to wonder if the church is really capable of proclaiming infallible propositions. What shall I do? I need to think more and wrestle with this some more, until I can get it settled.

As you know, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Old Catholics do not subscribe to the teaching of infallibility. To them, the concept is foreign, and not part of tradition. I'm not suggesting you leave the communion of Rome, but perhaps you can consider this one of those things that, with further discussion and prayer, might be altered at some point as Ecumenism progresses with these other bodies mentioned?

[Protinus]

As you know, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Old Catholics do not subscribe to the teaching of infallibility. To them, the concept is foreign, and not part of tradition. I'm not suggesting you leave the communion of Rome, but perhaps you can consider this one of those things that, with further discussion and prayer, might be altered at some point as Ecumenism progresses with these other bodies mentioned?

Jason! this is a fellow RC lamenting and proposing ...certainly the most ardent supporter of this cause AND the call to ecumenical life.

BWAP was very active in our request thread and preceeds me here as far reform needed in the RCC.

[fragmentsofdreams]

The teaching breaks down when considering female sexuality. Can anyone figure out what the rules are for when a wife can have an orgasm while having sex with her husband?

[HyacinthBouquet]

The teaching breaks down when considering female sexuality. Can anyone figure out what the rules are for when a wife can have an orgasm while having sex with her husband?

The female orgasm is not considered to be important by the RCC. Therefore, the woman can have one whenever she wants (and by whatever method) as long as she is with her husband at the time.

The husband, however, is not permitted to "spill his seed" so he is only allowed to have an orgasm inside his wife's birth canal and NOWHERE else.

Believe it or not, I know of a couple who feel that they have to stick to these rules and this has resulted in them having 10 children during their 20 year marriage.

I know of another couple who also believe that these rules are God-given and therefore cannot be argued with. This has resulted in the man having to give up sex for the rest of his life because his wife is unwilling to have any more children. This couple are in their late thirties.

I do feel sorry for the man who has to give it up but I also think that he should have the common sense to work it out for himself.

[HyacinthBouquet]

This seems to be a huge sore spot for many denizens of this forum, so let's have it out.

What are your objections, justifications?

Personally, I think it's immoral to have children that you will not support, cannot support, or do not want. And there are already too many unwanted children awaiting adoption.

For me, intentions are of the utmost importance, and if the goal is regulation of pregnancy, then NFP is no different than many other forms of birth control.

There could be prophylactics interfere with the intimacy of the couple. It could reduce spontaneity by a couple of seconds or minutes in some cases. I argue that fear of unwanted children could also interfere with the intimacy of the couple.

I also see nothing wrong with contraception. You shouldn't have children if you don't want them as someone else said. There are already too many children waiting to be adopted.

The RC Church will never accept an unfruitful marriage. Even if they do progress to allowing artificial contraception, it will only be for circumstances surrounding the birth of children. These are the existing, acceptable, circumstances for using NFP.

The Orthodox and Anglican Churches also teach that a marriage should be fruitful. They accept the use of contraception to help with "family planning", i.e. limiting and spacing the number of children in a family. Orthodox and Anglican couples are not expected to have more children than they can physically cope with.

However, you will find that most religions in the world believe that a marriage should be "fruitful", i.e. should produce at least one child.

[boughtwithaprice]

As you know, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Old Catholics do not subscribe to the teaching of infallibility. To them, the concept is foreign, and not part of tradition. I'm not suggesting you leave the communion of Rome, but perhaps you can consider this one of those things that, with further discussion and prayer, might be altered at some point as Ecumenism progresses with these other bodies mentioned?
I am there with you Jason; that is the point that I am wrestling with at this time. I might be able to stay Catholic if I dissent from the teaching on Birth control, but would I be able to stay Catholic if I dissent from the teaching on infallibility?, and if I dissent from the teaching on birth control, does that mean that I dissent from the teaching on infallibility by definition? Did the church err by claiming the Pope infallible in teaching authority, which has come to mean irreformable in modern times?
These are the questions that are running through my mind and I am wrestling with. I do not think that a lay person, such as myself, should tackle them alone. I need more study, thought and discussion.

[Rochir]

As with everything, I believe in CHOICE! I can understand people who argue against contraceptives, and I understand the arguments brought forth by those who support using them.

What I do not understand or abide, however, is taking a person's deciision away from him/her and dictating what s/he should do!

If you condemn contraceptives - do not use them!

If you see no problem with contraceptives - use them!

But let evryone make up their own minds about this matter and don't mandate one position or the otehrs!

[Rebekka]

I assent to the church teaching on contraception in my own marriage, but I have serious objections on the Church's logic on the subject.

The Church teaching from Humana Vitae is based on the concept of a "Natural Law". Natural Law in regards to human sexuality came from the ancients and was based on a faulty premise in regards to male sexuality. The ancients believed that the entire human person was contained in the sperm, hence it was called "seed". Females were regarded as incubators for the seed, but the contribution from the ovum was not recognized until modern times.
This error in understanding of human sexuality had lead to the gross inequities between the sexes over the centuries. They believed that males were responsible for passing on the next generation and females were only recepticles, so males were more highly valued, and male seed was inordinately valued. Seed is precious and should not be casually spilt on the ground, as one would not toss a baby into a cesspool. Knowledge was seminal fluid, which is where we get the term "Seminary".

This error in the understanding of human sexuality was completely debunked by modern science. Males and females are equal partners in reproduction, and the female is not the mere recepticle of the male seed. I want to say that I do not believe that the church was the perpetrators of this error, but that ancient way of thinking has clouded her judgement.
Despite the advances of modern science and our understanding of human sexuality, the Church appears unwilling to correct her teaching, and it appears that it is for one reason only. Changing the church teaching on contraception would undermine the Church's claim to infallibility. Church teaching has always been that contraception was sinful, but this was based on faulty assumptions, and that would mean that an infallible teaching was based on an error, and if so, can it really be infallible?

The Papal birth control commision, Started by John XXIII, came to the conclusion that the teaching could be changed, but that conclusion was rejected by Paul VI, because he was convinced that its acceptance would undermine infallibility. That rejection was further propagated by John Paul II, for the same reason, IMO.

This is where I am at in my thinking. I assent to the teaching, as I am a Catholic, but I wonder if it is real, because it is based on error, IMO. This causes me to wonder if the church is really capable of proclaiming infallible propositions. What shall I do? I need to think more and wrestle with this some more, until I can get it settled.
My thoughts are the same, but I do not assent in my own marriage. I would obey if my circumstances had been different. This is the one thing that I really struggle with - if it weren't for this issue, I wouldn't even be "liberal", and all would be fine and dandy and no one in OBOB would call me cafetaria catholic, or throw me out. The thing that makes me mad is that I can't help it - I didn't want the things that happened to me in my youth. I didn't want them at all. People have ruined me and now I can no longer assent to this doctrine, and I am punished for it, I am "selfish", I am a bad catholic (or not catholic at all) - for what?! It's not as if I chose those things that happened to me.

I know myself better than theologians who have studied ethics and whatnot - I know my heart. I know that children don't fit into our marriage - and I know that not marrying would have killed me, too. I mean that literally. I was suicidal for years, until I met my husband. He is the one who brought me back to the church - so the church should bless our marriage, not deny it (marriage should be open to life, couples who don't want children should not marry; their marriage can be seen as invalid - I didn't know all this when I got married though - so I think we were validly married). If I hadn't met my husband, I would not be alive now. If anyone here tells me that I shouldn't have married my husband because I don't want kids, then this person should know that whoever takes my marriage away from me will contribute to my suicide. If you want me to kill myself, tell me that my marriage is a lie, that our sex life is a lie, that I don't give myself completely to him. The idea that contraception is a lie, THAT's a lie IMO.

I was severely bullied as a child - you can't imagine how badly. Not just as a child, either - it continued until I was in my twenties (and now I have a mother-in-law who bullies me - but she's only one person, I can handle one-on-one situations), it started when I was 2 years old. And it was always a majority who bullied me - not a few individuals, but large groups - in my class at primary school there were 30 kids, and only one of them didn't bully me. It happened not just at school but everywhere: daycare, the girl scouts, field hockey, kids in my street, my cousins, my swimming team, my friend;s cousins - everywhere I went. Every day. And it was bad, really very bad.

For several reasons I can't have children. I am so traumatized that I have an irrational fear of children, really a phobia. I see them all as bullies. I really do. Also, I am terrified that history will repeat itself. I was bullied, my husband was bullied, so it's likely that our child would be bullied too. I would become violent to my child's bullies if I discovered that. And if my child were a bully, I'd probably be violent against my own child. I don't want to send my kid to school because I think social settings are bad - they were bad for me. Homeschooling is against the law in the Netherlands.

For my own sanity and for my children's sake it is better that I don't have children. So I must contracept.

I don't see the difference between NFP and contraception - the intent is the same, and saying that contraception is intrinsically evil because of its means, not because of the intention (if the same intention in case of NFP is allowed), does not make sense. After all, for non-contraceptive reasons, contraception is not intrinsically evil (e.g. the pill for medicinal use). So if the thing itself is not evil (condom - does it do harm?), and the intention (avoiding pregnancy - see NFP - is allowed) isn't evil, then the logical conclusion would be that the thing isn't intrinsically evil.

Contraception can be evil if it is abortifacient (e.g. IUD), and I am against premarital or extramarital sex so contraception is sinful there too - not because of the contraception though but because of the fornication.

The church's teaching has been changed, because NFP wasn't allowed for a long time, and now it is. I don't see an intrinsic difference between NFP and artificial birth control, so I don't see why the church allows the one and not the other. (I have read all church texts on this, including Humana Vitae and the catechism, so my not understanding is not because I am ignorant of the teaching but because I don't understand WHY it is as it is.)

Anyway, I am married because the choice was marriage or death. Surely it is still worse to end a life than it is not to start a new one. I chose the lesser of two evils - a childfree marriage.

And disclaimer for those who equate contraception or voluntary childlessness with abortion: I'm fully pro-life, I would never ever abort should I ever become pregnant. I would try to raise the child as my own and be the best parent I possibly can. I just think I'd be the worst parent in the world, and I don't want to harm any child.

[Loki]

I don't see the difference between NFP and contraception - the intent is the same, and saying that contraception is intrinsically evil because of its means, not because of the intention (if the same intention in case of NFP is allowed), does not make sense. After all, for non-contraceptive reasons, contraception is not intrinsically evil (e.g. the pill for medicinal use). So if the thing itself is not evil (condom - does it do harm?), and the intention (avoiding pregnancy - see NFP - is allowed) isn't evil, then the logical conclusion would be that the thing isn't intrinsically evil.


This is my point; NFP _is_ a form of contraception, and if a woman has regular cycles, it can be reasonably effective. If the intent is to avoid the production of children, then both NFP and physical or chemical means of BC seem morally equivalent.

[Rebekka]

I agree Loki. Also, for many women who are irregular (me for example), NFP is less reliable. And as I said, there may be reasons why avoiding a child is better than accepting it.

[JasonV]

RebekkaH...I am so very sorry you had to endure so much as a child. If one of my three girls was being bullied like that, there's no way I would let it lay.

Did your parents intervene, or where they part of the problem?

(Feel free to not reply if it's too personal. )

[Rebekka]

RebekkaH...I am so very sorry you had to endure so much as a child. If one of my three girls was being bullied like that, there's no way I would let it lay.

Did your parents intervene, or where they part of the problem?

(Feel free to not reply if it's too personal. )
My parents told me it was my fault - the democratic principle of "the majority is right". (Since I was bullied by large groups, and it always happened to me whenever I was in a group of peers. And also because the children who bullied me denied it - it was my word against theirs, and well - the majority is always right. Sigh.)

They never helped me, so after a while I stopped telling them. When I talk about it now, they don't believe me - it was on such a large scale that it sounds incredible. And if something sounds incredible, it must be untrue.

[Protinus]

My thoughts are the same, but I do not assent in my own marriage. I would obey if my circumstances had been different. This is the one thing that I really struggle with - if it weren't for this issue, I wouldn't even be "liberal", and all would be fine and dandy and no one in OBOB would call me cafetaria catholic, or throw me out. The thing that makes me mad is that I can't help it - I didn't want the things that happened to me in my youth. I didn't want them at all. People have ruined me and now I can no longer assent to this doctrine, and I am punished for it, I am "selfish", I am a bad catholic (or not catholic at all) - for what?! It's not as if I chose those things that happened to me.

I know myself better than theologians who have studied ethics and whatnot - I know my heart. I know that children don't fit into our marriage - and I know that not marrying would have killed me, too. I mean that literally. I was suicidal for years, until I met my husband. He is the one who brought me back to the church - so the church should bless our marriage, not deny it (marriage should be open to life, couples who don't want children should not marry; their marriage can be seen as invalid - I didn't know all this when I got married though - so I think we were validly married). If I hadn't met my husband, I would not be alive now. If anyone here tells me that I shouldn't have married my husband because I don't want kids, then this person should know that whoever takes my marriage away from me will contribute to my suicide. If you want me to kill myself, tell me that my marriage is a lie, that our sex life is a lie, that I don't give myself completely to him. The idea that contraception is a lie, THAT's a lie IMO.

I was severely bullied as a child - you can't imagine how badly. Not just as a child, either - it continued until I was in my twenties (and now I have a mother-in-law who bullies me - but she's only one person, I can handle one-on-one situations), it started when I was 2 years old. And it was always a majority who bullied me - not a few individuals, but large groups - in my class at primary school there were 30 kids, and only one of them didn't bully me. It happened not just at school but everywhere: daycare, the girl scouts, field hockey, kids in my street, my cousins, my swimming team, my friend;s cousins - everywhere I went. Every day. And it was bad, really very bad.

For several reasons I can't have children. I am so traumatized that I have an irrational fear of children, really a phobia. I see them all as bullies. I really do. Also, I am terrified that history will repeat itself. I was bullied, my husband was bullied, so it's likely that our child would be bullied too. I would become violent to my child's bullies if I discovered that. And if my child were a bully, I'd probably be violent against my own child. I don't want to send my kid to school because I think social settings are bad - they were bad for me. Homeschooling is against the law in the Netherlands.

For my own sanity and for my children's sake it is better that I don't have children. So I must contracept.

I don't see the difference between NFP and contraception - the intent is the same, and saying that contraception is intrinsically evil because of its means, not because of the intention (if the same intention in case of NFP is allowed), does not make sense. After all, for non-contraceptive reasons, contraception is not intrinsically evil (e.g. the pill for medicinal use). So if the thing itself is not evil (condom - does it do harm?), and the intention (avoiding pregnancy - see NFP - is allowed) isn't evil, then the logical conclusion would be that the thing isn't intrinsically evil.

Contraception can be evil if it is abortifacient (e.g. IUD), and I am against premarital or extramarital sex so contraception is sinful there too - not because of the contraception though but because of the fornication.

The church's teaching has been changed, because NFP wasn't allowed for a long time, and now it is. I don't see an intrinsic difference between NFP and artificial birth control, so I don't see why the church allows the one and not the other. (I have read all church texts on this, including Humana Vitae and the catechism, so my not understanding is not because I am ignorant of the teaching but because I don't understand WHY it is as it is.)

Anyway, I am married because the choice was marriage or death. Surely it is still worse to end a life than it is not to start a new one. I chose the lesser of two evils - a childfree marriage.

And disclaimer for those who equate contraception or voluntary childlessness with abortion: I'm fully pro-life, I would never ever abort should I ever become pregnant. I would try to raise the child as my own and be the best parent I possibly can. I just think I'd be the worst parent in the world, and I don't want to harm any child.

blessed sister in Christ...if this forum was created for this one post, that you could express yourself freely and openly without repercussion or castigation...then it would have fulfilled it role as a discussion board for Catholic inquiry.

You have a disagreement with the Church's Authoritative Doctrine on one issue.The Church's teachings always account for the real possibility of implicit error...however remote. They are not saying that to do against Church writings is "right"- they ARE stating that error is always a possibility.

As Catholics, we are, and as stated in VII, required to participate in "religious docility, obsequium, of will and intellect". Even this phrase is fraught with problems in interpretation. The Latin for obsequium can be translated to: "obedience", "submission", "docility", "due respect", and even "assent". The Latin can embrace all of these definitions. Taken literally, "protinus" means "immediately" in Latin...but it also means "before one's self" in Latin literature and is the reason I chose it for my name.

My point is that by the testament of your post alone, you have met this requirement of religious docility, made herculean self inquiry as to this matter and made a profoundly genuine effort to integrate this teaching in your religious life. You have met the requirement of "internal assent" yet still have difficulty. You have gone way beyond what typical Catholics do and have analyzed the arguments that underlie a particular teaching.

So, you haven't denied that your views on this issue do not warrant further study...I sense that you reveal that to us...that you are willing to dissent yet keep studying doctrine or even try to influence change in doctrine. And you have thoroughly engaged in the matter of examined your conscience on the matter: you have wrestled with the pain and difficulties of the teaching. In other words, you have discerned the difference between the difficulty being that it is either a something that might not be the "will of God" versus the teaching, "if true", would cause real conversion. And I think that you have discerned that it might not be the teaching that you have difficulty with but it might with the Church's office of teaching.

You have met a demanding regimen of self inquiry as is required when taking issue with a specific teaching. And given the above, and still not being able to provide internal assent, you have done all that the Church asks of you and your ARE NOT separated in communion from the RCC, imho, no matter what anyone says on this board.

We are compelled to reason with our priests and spiritual directors on this matter. There is a whole discussion that awaits as to how appropriate the guidance is with our doctrinal teachers...but that is a discussion for another day!! Do not let comments about your Catholicity bring you down!! You are blessed!!!

[fragmentsofdreams]

The female orgasm is not considered to be important by the RCC. Therefore, the woman can have one whenever she wants (and by whatever method) as long as she is with her husband at the time.

Do you have a source for this?

[Protinus]

Do you have a source for this?

Christopher West, Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000), 88

I think that Church teaching promotes orgasms as a method that enhances love and procreation however...not the particular timing of orgasms.

[fragmentsofdreams]

Christopher West, Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000), 88

I think that Church teaching promotes orgasms as a method that enhances love and procreation however...not the particular timing of orgasms.

Why am I not surprised that Christopher West addressed this issue? :) I may disagree with him about some things, but he is very conscientious and charitable.

[_Shannon_]

This is one of my current struggles... I believe that not contracepting has brought huge, ginormous healing to a very wounded part of my being. I am so grateful for the Church's teaching about it.

That said, I am struggling- because well- we're broke. God has always provided for our basic needs- and a couple splurges here and there. But we're reaching the limit of our financial means (we make less than $30,000 a year and have 5 kids --eg right now I am struggling deciding how little food we can get by on so that my oldest three can take art class).

Also I suffer from depression - both during and after pregnancy- which has taken it's toll.

To top off my struggle- my husband is an aetheist- and while he is a great supporter of me- has absolutely no moral conviction in regards to NFP whatsoever.

I also view NOT having a child as an emormous sacrifice- greater for me than having more children. I want to be prudent. I want to be faithful. I am just struggling in regards to seeing how to do those things with any more kids.

I wish it could be a matter of ekonemia- where not contracepting (non abortive contraception) would be the ideal- the goal...but as a matter of what might be best for a certain soul at a certain time in certain circumstances-permission could be given for that soul to contracept.

[_Shannon_]

BwAP--I just wanted to offer you a great big hug-- I am struggling right there with you, brother...and also still assenting.:hug:

[CaDan]

Anencepholapathy.

Tegretol.

'Nuff said.

[Protinus]

Anencepholapathy.

Tegretol.

'Nuff said.

CaDan: tegretol increases the risk of children born with anencephaly but there are newer agents that have less side effects. Is your point that women should contracept if they have epilepsy?

[drstevej]

Thanks for letting me lurk here. I think this thread illustrates the value of this forum. I am a Protestant that has benefited from listening to Catholics think through issues and especially thanks BWAP for your comments, my brother.

[Cosmic Charlie]

I assent to the church teaching on contraception in my own marriage, but I have serious objections on the Church's logic on the subject.
{snip}


BWAP and I have aways agreed on the logicial and likely poliitcal aspect of the Chruchs stand on birth contro and he stated it much clearly than I ever have.

Our division is this:

I don't assent.

If the teaching has a logical flaw, or in the case of Humanae Vitae is logically circular, the chruch has the responsibility to expland and explain teaching further.

They don't, the build on the logic. Which is interesting in that the teaching that are built on HV are, in many cases, superb examples of Christian love and compassion as seen through the lens of marriage.

But the never explain the underlying logic.

I'll assent to most if not all the thelogy built on HV but not HV itself because I will not allow my marriage to be dictated to by at teaching the is, imho, wrong.

But I will allow my marriage to be dicated to by a correct teaching based on a wrong teaching.

Cognotive dissodence never had it so good.

[Cosmic Charlie]

I agree Loki. Also, for many women who are irregular (me for example), NFP is less reliable. And as I said, there may be reasons why avoiding a child is better than accepting it.

It goes waaaay beyond irregular cycles.

I was an NFP'er for 10 year and gave it up because my wife had an irregular lifesytle. She was a nurse working a rotating shift. This screwed up here bio-signs. Making it virtually impossible to predict menstruation accurately.

One of my problerms with HV, the chruch and the couple to couples leaque is the to complete overselling of NFP.

In truth, it seems to barely work, and then only under very good circumstances. Any variation and you have, well, in my case 2 kids.

[Protinus]

Thanks for letting me lurk here. I think this thread illustrates the value of this forum. I am a Protestant that has benefited from listening to Catholics think through issues and especially thanks BWAP for your comments, my brother.

We don't want lurkers...we want contributers and you have already given much...please feel welcome steve.

[MikeK]

This thread was better in OBOB. I don't see any point in an "I struggle with/reject this teaching" thread if every followup post says "me too, good for you". That's not discussion, that's garbage. Liberal schmiberal. Four of the best OBOB posters are in this thread laying down some serious concerns, deserving of serious responses - only to have them tarnished by a bunch of "yeah, do whatever you want" tripe. This thread sucks because there is no yang, just a bunch of the same old yin. I'm all for commiseration and I'm even all for dissent....but it just isn't fun anymore. Eh, maybe it never was fun, but at least it provoked some thought. This doesn't. My friend's friends are my enemies. I don't want anything to do with this forum.....sorry for the long attention-whoring diatribe (that probably made little sence thanks to some help from New Glaurus Brewery's wonderful India Pale Ale) but I had to get it out.

MikeK...assenting for the next 4 weeks or so, I promise. I havn't the feintest idea what we're going to do after that....but I promise not to come here to discuss it where padded gloves and headgear are the rule.

[Protinus]

This thread was better in OBOB. I don't see any point in an "I struggle with/reject this teaching" thread if every followup post says "me too, good for you". That's not discussion, that's garbage. Liberal schmiberal. Four of the best OBOB posters are in this thread laying down some serious concerns, deserving of serious responses - only to have them tarnished by a bunch of "yeah, do whatever you want" tripe. This thread sucks because there is no yang, just a bunch of the same old yin. I'm all for commiseration and I'm even all for dissent....but it just isn't fun anymore. Eh, maybe it never was fun, but at least it provoked some thought. This doesn't. My friend's friends are my enemies. I don't want anything to do with this forum.....sorry for the long attention-whoring diatribe (that probably made little sence thanks to some help from New Glaurus Brewery's wonderful India Pale Ale) but I had to get it out.

MikeK...assenting for the next 4 weeks or so, I promise. I havn't the feintest idea what we're going to do after that....but I promise not to come here to discuss it where padded gloves and headgear are the rule.

whatever your characterizations, the OP is not "Catholic", that is, displaying a "Catholic Icon"...as a result, she is not allowed to debate this subject in OBOB. Have you read the OBOB rules or are you just trolling?

She is welcome here as are all questions questions regarding Catholic faith, assenting or dissenting.

[HyacinthBouquet]

This thread was better in OBOB. I don't see any point in an "I struggle with/reject this teaching" thread if every followup post says "me too, good for you". That's not discussion, that's garbage. Liberal schmiberal. Four of the best OBOB posters are in this thread laying down some serious concerns, deserving of serious responses - only to have them tarnished by a bunch of "yeah, do whatever you want" tripe. This thread sucks because there is no yang, just a bunch of the same old yin. I'm all for commiseration and I'm even all for dissent....but it just isn't fun anymore. Eh, maybe it never was fun, but at least it provoked some thought. This doesn't. My friend's friends are my enemies. I don't want anything to do with this forum.....sorry for the long attention-whoring diatribe (that probably made little sence thanks to some help from New Glaurus Brewery's wonderful India Pale Ale) but I had to get it out.

I don't agree with some of the posters here but I am not going to stick my oar in and tell them how to live their lives. If they want that treatment they can go over to OBOB even if they don't have a catholic icon. It is easy enough for them to change their icon if they really want a bashing in OBOB.

This forum was created as an oasis for people who had been bashed by conservative catholics. Although I could disagree with some people here, thankfully, I had the forethought to realise that my motives would have been the same as the conservative catholic bullies in my family. I am not about to join them.

[boughtwithaprice]

BWAP and I have aways agreed on the logicial and likely poliitcal aspect of the Chruchs stand on birth contro and he stated it much clearly than I ever have.

Our division is this:

I don't assent.

If the teaching has a logical flaw, or in the case of Humanae Vitae is logically circular, the chruch has the responsibility to expland and explain teaching further.

They don't, the build on the logic. Which is interesting in that the teaching that are built on HV are, in many cases, superb examples of Christian love and compassion as seen through the lens of marriage.

But the never explain the underlying logic.

I'll assent to most if not all the thelogy built on HV but not HV itself because I will not allow my marriage to be dictated to by at teaching the is, imho, wrong.

But I will allow my marriage to be dicated to by a correct teaching based on a wrong teaching.

Cognotive dissodence never had it so good.


Well Charlie, I have to tell you that I don't assent, because I am some great Catholic guy, it is just convenient for me right now. My wife's cycles are like clock work, so we can just be together every 20 days. My libido is also severly limited due to chronic disease, so the regularity about matches my appetite. If I had a normal level of desire, my probability of dissent would be higher. My wife is 37, had two children by C-section and her body is most likely to go through a high risk pregnancy should she get pregnant again. I am debating getting a vasectomy and just be done with it, but our current arrangement has worked for over 9 yrs.
This just leaves me in no mans wimp land that assents to a teaching that he does not believe in

This thread was better in OBOB. I don't see any point in an "I struggle with/reject this teaching" thread if every followup post says "me too, good for you". That's not discussion, that's garbage. Liberal schmiberal. Four of the best OBOB posters are in this thread laying down some serious concerns, deserving of serious responses - only to have them tarnished by a bunch of "yeah, do whatever you want" tripe. This thread sucks because there is no yang, just a bunch of the same old yin. I'm all for commiseration and I'm even all for dissent....but it just isn't fun anymore. Eh, maybe it never was fun, but at least it provoked some thought. This doesn't. My friend's friends are my enemies. I don't want anything to do with this forum.....sorry for the long attention-whoring diatribe (that probably made little sence thanks to some help from New Glaurus Brewery's wonderful India Pale Ale) but I had to get it out.

MikeK...assenting for the next 4 weeks or so, I promise. I havn't the feintest idea what we're going to do after that....but I promise not to come here to discuss it where padded gloves and headgear are the rule.


This thread was not better in OBOB. In there, I had people comparing marital love to vommit and gluttony and non-abortive birth control to murder. Excuse me, but I dont need those kind of arguments right now.
Just have some more pale ale and relax, k?

Talking to Charlie and Rebekkah and Rose here without those distractions helps me more to work through this.

[Cosmic Charlie]

This thread was better in OBOB. I don't see any point in an "I struggle with/reject this teaching" thread if every followup post says "me too, good for you". That's not discussion, that's garbage. Liberal schmiberal. Four of the best OBOB posters are in this thread laying down some serious concerns, deserving of serious responses - only to have them tarnished by a bunch of "yeah, do whatever you want" tripe. This thread sucks because there is no yang, just a bunch of the same old yin. I'm all for commiseration and I'm even all for dissent....but it just isn't fun anymore. Eh, maybe it never was fun, but at least it provoked some thought. This doesn't. My friend's friends are my enemies. I don't want anything to do with this forum.....sorry for the long attention-whoring diatribe (that probably made little sence thanks to some help from New Glaurus Brewery's wonderful India Pale Ale) but I had to get it out.

MikeK...assenting for the next 4 weeks or so, I promise. I havn't the feintest idea what we're going to do after that....but I promise not to come here to discuss it where padded gloves and headgear are the rule.
The man has a point, (although when he parts his hair corrently no notices).

I will no longer post on contrceptive threads on OBOB because I am sick to death of being PM'ed by certain cowardly people (and they know who they are) claiming I am courting the wrath of God by making a good arugment against HV and its precepts.

1) If you can't make a statement like that over the board, you are just being fascist.

2) If you can't refure my arguremnts effectively then admit that you are unable to defend the doctrine.

3) If you won't do either, then don't blame me if your thread falls flat.

4) If we all run alway and do our thing elsewhere without you. then Mikey has the good pont the we have threads that suck.

Maybe threads the suck in OBOB and here will be the norm from now on.

In thet case the great CaDan was correct about this forum being a bad thing.

[Cosmic Charlie]

A now lets see if we can make the peace and quiet a good thing:

Totally new concept (no pun intended0

I beleive that the problem with the church generally isn't that they don't understand sexuality. I am beginning to senerely believe they (the suits who run this store: the institutuional chruch) don't understand the essesental bonds and relationship of marriage.

This puts a severe crimp on their abitlity to minister to married people and to insert themselves as they would like to into married peoples lives as a totality. They can insert themselves into married peoples individual lives but have a hard time understanding how to do that for marriedpeople as a unit.

A transluceint veil surrounds marriages, through which no one (not even children) can clearly see. That relationship is special and the chruch wants to put something in between the married people without seeing what it does to/for them.

What the chruch seems to fail to understand is that married people are going to reject any attempt to manage thier relation from the outside on spec and use thier own judgement.

As they should.

As the have a right to.

We talk a lot about stuff about our marriages on this fourm that is embarrassing to post and to read. Things we probably don't talk about to anyone else we actaully KNOW. We do this here because we know better then to peirce to veil the protects and obsucres our marriage from the rest of the world. Here we are anonimous.

The chruch has yet to figure any of this out. Unitl it does, its stand on birth control, as written in HV, will be an issue because it assumes to know how married people operate.

And the chruch just don't get it.

I think this is why indiviual preists seem so leineint in inforcing HV in the parishes. They see married people up close and personal the know and understand the dyamics of the married relationship and have a better handle on the fact that anyone outside cannot understand the relationship inside the marriage.

[Loki]

I agree that criticism can be helpful, but I feel like a hare in a pack of hunting hounds at OBOB.

But please, tell me what I need to be reading, tell me where to find the original source material.

[boughtwithaprice]

I agree that criticism can be helpful, but I feel like a hare in a pack of hunting hounds at OBOB.

But please, tell me what I need to be reading, tell me where to find the original source material.
The original source material that I would use is

Humanae Vitae
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html


Theology of the Body
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM


Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry
Hans Kung

The Church
Hans Kung

Readings in Moral Theolgy, by Charles E Curran
(I bought 4 of these books outlined below)

Change in official Catholic Moral Theology
Dissent in the Church
Conscience
The Moral Theology of John Paul II

Loyal Dissent: Memoires of a Catholic Theologian
Charles Curran

[Protinus]

Polls taken from American Catholics consistently say that 90% of them support the use of contraception. When I posted this in OBOB it was met with derision and treated as drivel. What is wrong with this picture???

My wife is among those practicing Catholics that thinks contraception is not necessary because the conjugal act is for procreational purposes only. This has created a major impasse between us and I don't want to tell you how many years we have not been together...it is achingly personal information. I do not react to this with adultery or masturbation as they are strictly against what is taught in the Catechism as well.

No, I will discuss my views of contraception within the Church from a Catholic theology standpoint and will dissent having done much examination of conscience, many attempts at internal assent and self clarification that the teaching is flawed as per the Church's teaching office.

[Protinus]

Oh!, btw!! The collective response to Paul VI's HV (perhaps the first time in any encyclical) from the layity was a collective "Oh, we're not going to pay attention to that". More Catholics dissented from teaching or, quite frankly, left the Church upon the release of that encyclical than ever before.

The clergy stepped up with a collective "don't ask, don't tell" and we come all the way from the 60's to Charlie's post today without much change.

So we have 90% of Catholics supporting the use of contraception (Harris Poll 2005) as compared to 93% of non-Catholics. Catholics have abortions at the same rate as others and the divorce rate is the same.

Teaching is flawed and the theology that the teaching is supposed to convey is problematic. The coming Church is facing the requisite reform that she needs.

[RadicallyTransformedMom]

wow. i have just read this entire thread and i must say there is some definite food for thought here.

i myself havent really had to put a whole lot of thought into what i believe or disbelieve when it comes to birth control...until recently. I got married at age 18. When i was 19 the dr found huge cysts on Both my ovaries. i had surgery to remove all the cysts as well as part of both my ovaries. I was told by the OB that i would have a slim chance of ever getting pregnant but if i ever did, it might heal my body and i would become fertile again. Well, i adopted one son that year (he is now 18). i never got pregnant though i wanted to through the rest of that 6 yr marriage. Then i divorced and 3 yrs later got re-married to my current hubby. The first 7 years of that marriage i never got pregnant either. So basically for 6 yrs of one marriage and 7 yrs of another marriage..i never used birth control..and never got pregnant. Then in 2004 i got pregnant with my son luke!!! (he turned 3 on june 8). The doctor was right, the pregnancy healed me and made me fertile again and i got pregnant 2 yrs later and then had my daughter and she was born on may 8, 2007.

So here i am at 38 yrs old with an 18 yr old, a 3 yr old and a 2 mos old. (I had two high risk pregnancies, got pre-eclampsia with both. My son was born 4 wks 5 days early, my daughter was born 3 wks 5 days early. I was on bedrest the last couple months of each pregnancy).

So here i sit..for the first time in my life having to think about whether or not i believe that birth control is wrong or not. So far..we arent using birth control and leaning in the direction of..well..we never did have control over this..even all those years we were desperately wanting a child..so why take control now?? My son and daughter are 2 yrs 11 mos apart..we used no birth control in between the two of them, unless you want to call 15 mos of breastfeeding birth control.

So...even though i am now Fertile..i must not be like SUPER fertile or my kids would be 16 mos apart not 35 mos apart..right? (this is ME, thinking it through). i do know i will never use sterilization (neither tubes tied or vasectomy). I do know i wont use any abortificacient form of birth control like IUD or the pill. The jury is still out on whether i would ever use somethign like a condom or whether only NFP will be used. Right now i am not using anything and if and when i get pregnant again ill be happy and if i dont then ill be happy. so i really cant lose. But if i have another one..i think i would have to put MORE thought into whether or not we believe what the church teaches. I am getting kinda old and dont have the energy for all these little ones..lol.

[Fish and Bread]

I find this thread very helpful, actually. Now, if you know me, you might be wondering "How? You're not married. You don't expect to find a wife, though you'd like one. So if you follow the church's teachings about sex, the subject will never come up. And if you have in the future or are currently having sex outside of marriage, I don't think you're going to be worrying about following the church's teaching on birth control. So how does this effect you?". That's a good point.

However, what I like is that it's an examination of how these issues affect people and how they struggle with them, and their thinking about them. OBOB often, with the exception of RoseofLima's posts, which are refreshingly honest and forthright, can tend to give mostly the perspective of people who are happy with the way not using birth control is working in their lives and the second anyone says "But having children is a health risk to me, I can't afford more children, and so forth; and I want to be able to make love to my spouse" they get attacked as if they're Satan himself. I want to be able to hear the perspectives of people like me who struggle and how they deal with being Catholic (or leaving the church), and I find those here.

I know it can look to some like a whine fest or whatever, but I want a place for that perspective. HV is a big deal. People can pretend it's not if they want to. But, yes, it's a big deal if you can't have sex with your spouse. Yes, it's a big deal if you're having twelve children and you aren't financially, medically, or psychologically equipped to handle it. So it's a teaching that I think bears some discussion. I am not telling anyone to violate the teaching or to uphold it, I just like to see discussion that feels real to me, and this does. I guess I have trouble relating to some of the thoughts expressed on OBOB in this regard, whether it be because am more a sinner than a saint, or because I don't like the way it's presented, or a combination, I don't know. But I do know I find this forum a valuable resource on a whole lot of things (If nothing else, between the two forums, there will be balance).

And you guys welcome me to participate! Right now my nominal home forum of STR has been debating for weeks whether I'll be allowed to participate fully or not (i.e. whether to require affirmations of various creeds and documents). It's nice to know I'll have a home here regardless.

[Cosmic Charlie]

My wife is among those practicing Catholics that thinks contraception is not necessary because the conjugal act is for procreational purposes only. This has created a major impasse between us and I don't want to tell you how many years we have not been together...it is achingly personal information. I do not react to this with adultery or masturbation as they are strictly against what is taught in the Catechism as well.



PMs are fascist. A stand that come back to haust me from time to time.

Might I sugget a book.

The Sexless Marriage.

Its a nice read. Nobdy gets blamed Everybodys view is maintained.

The last chapers are reseved for peaple like you.

She uses the word "admirable" a lot in that chapter.

Yours in Christ

[Cosmic Charlie]

I find this thread very helpful, actually. Now, if you know me, you might be wondering "How? You're not married. You don't expect to find a wife, though you'd like one. So if you follow the church's teachings about sex, the subject will never come up. And if you have in the future or are currently having sex outside of marriage, I don't think you're going to be worrying about following the church's teaching on birth control. So how does this effect you?". That's a good point.

However, what I like is that it's an examination of how these issues affect people and how they struggle with them, and their thinking about them. OBOB often, with the exception of RoseofLima's posts, which are refreshingly honest and forthright, can tend to give mostly the perspective of people who are happy with the way not using birth control is working in their lives and the second anyone says "But having children is a health risk to me, I can't afford more children, and so forth; and I want to be able to make love to my spouse" they get attacked as if they're Satan himself. I want to be able to hear the perspectives of people like me who struggle and how they deal with being Catholic (or leaving the church), and I find those here.

I know it can look to some like a whine fest or whatever, but I want a place for that perspective. HV is a big deal. People can pretend it's not if they want to. But, yes, it's a big deal if you can't have sex with your spouse. Yes, it's a big deal if you're having twelve children and you aren't financially, medically, or psychologically equipped to handle it. So it's a teaching that I think bears some discussion. I am not telling anyone to violate the teaching or to uphold it, I just like to see discussion that feels real to me, and this does. I guess I have trouble relating to some of the thoughts expressed on OBOB in this regard, whether it be because am more a sinner than a saint, or because I don't like the way it's presented, or a combination, I don't know. But I do know I find this forum a valuable resource on a whole of things (If nothing else, between the two forums, there will be balance).

And you guys welcome me to participate! Right now my nominal home forum of STR has been debating for weeks whether I'll be allowed to participate fully or not (i.e. whether to require affirmations of various creeds and documents). It's nice to know I'll have a home here regardless.
HV is a big deal.

Most of what it says is remarkabe. Sex as tool to heal and deepen marraige.

As a means to mingle soul and spirit Why not to treat your spouce as a means to sexual objectifcation.

Its a terrible that in one paragraph it is all undone by linking unity to physicality and physicality to unity that the whole thing got undone by circling the logic of contraception.

[Rebekka]

This thread was better in OBOB. I don't see any point in an "I struggle with/reject this teaching" thread if every followup post says "me too, good for you". That's not discussion, that's garbage. Liberal schmiberal. Four of the best OBOB posters are in this thread laying down some serious concerns, deserving of serious responses - only to have them tarnished by a bunch of "yeah, do whatever you want" tripe. This thread sucks because there is no yang, just a bunch of the same old yin. I'm all for commiseration and I'm even all for dissent....but it just isn't fun anymore. Eh, maybe it never was fun, but at least it provoked some thought. This doesn't. My friend's friends are my enemies. I don't want anything to do with this forum.....sorry for the long attention-whoring diatribe (that probably made little sence thanks to some help from New Glaurus Brewery's wonderful India Pale Ale) but I had to get it out.

MikeK...assenting for the next 4 weeks or so, I promise. I havn't the feintest idea what we're going to do after that....but I promise not to come here to discuss it where padded gloves and headgear are the rule.
I think I understand what you mean, but I disagree Mike. I didn't like the creation of a separate forum, but I could never write about this in OBOB. I agree with Charlie - I don't like the PMs that people think they can send you, telling you that using birth control is intrinsically evil and that you can no longer call yourself a catholic. That's why I avoid posting about this subject in OBOB. I'm sorry that I'm such a coward - but I refuse to let myself be compared to bulemia patients or murderers, or to be called ulitmately selfish, or part of the culture of death, or a fascist, just because I contracept.

I'm sure that there are people in OBOB who will think of me as uncatholic now that they have read my posts here. They are free to post their concerns here - or there - I don't care. But it's nice to have said it to fellow catholics, it's nice to not be interrupted for a change, it's nice to not have to read the same explanation of the theology of the body over and over again. I've read them all ad nauseam.

Some of the threads in OBOB have been very helpful and respectful, especially the ones where you and RoseofLima and boughtwithaprice participated. I agree that we should continue to post about this subject there. But for me, it was nice to have said it in a safer environment.

I'm praying for all who struggle with this teaching that they may find peace. :crossrc: (And financial stability;) - for those who need it. :hug: )



BTW Charlie I agree, the church's teaching on birth control is circular thinking.

[Protinus]

I'm sure that there are people in OBOB who will think of me as uncatholic now that they have read my posts here.

To me, you are the very Catholic that I strive to be...loving her while trying to express your troubles with problematic and flawed teaching.

Rebecca...this is not a church, THE Church or a sanctuary. We have broken fellowship...that is true. But at what cost? Suppressed communication about the Church's teaching in our lives???

[drstevej]

We don't want lurkers...we want contributers and you have already given much...please feel welcome steve.

As an outsider, it seems that one can not embrace tradition as authoritative and then argue circular reasoning disqualifying the pronouncement.

Question: is this issue a matter of settled tradition over time or a matter of papal decree being accorded infallible status? Or something in between? (I do not know the answer)

Question: Does a papal statement have to be ex cathedra to be accorded infallible status? Was HV ex cathedra?

A curious reader.

[Rochir]

Polls taken from American Catholics consistently say that 90% of them support the use of contraception.

I think the numbers would be very similar if one polled German, French or Dutch Catholics! :)

[drstevej]

Catholic tradition is not a member WIKI it is a magisterial WIKI. Member polls are irrelevant in a church where the priestly authority is final.

[Rochir]

Catholic tradition is not a member WIKI it is a magisterial WIKI. Member polls are irrelevant in a church where the priestly authority is final.

Priestly authority may work in the ivory towers of Vatican City.

Real life looks differently! :)

[drstevej]

Priestly authority may work in the ivory towers of Vatican City.

Real life looks differently! :)

Real life is irrelevant to revealed Truth. Truth is not a WIKI. (Also the reason this site is in big trouble).

10 spies said NO
2 spies said YES

The 10 were judged by God.

Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me

go figure.

[Cosmic Charlie]

BTW Charlie I agree, the church's teaching on birth control is circular thinking.
You know the thing that really bothers me about HV is that Paul wansn't a fool . He most have known it was circular thinking when he wrote it.

It makes you wonder about his actually motives.

[Protinus]

Question: is this issue a matter of settled tradition over time or a matter of papal decree being accorded infallible status? Or something in between? (I do not know the answer)

Contraception is condemned by the Church although it is not infalliby claimed. A papal encyclical, like the one from JPII, could cultivate and make an infallible claim in Authoritative Doctrine. BXVI could consummate his friend's best efforts to make it infallible.

[Protinus]

Catholic tradition is not a member WIKI it is a magisterial WIKI. Member polls are irrelevant in a church where the priestly authority is final.

actually the pope and the Council of Bishops that revise, but true.

[drstevej]

If Benedict does then how can disobedience be countenanced without rejecting the founding principle of the Catholic Church?

[Protinus]

If Benedict does then how can disobedience be countenanced without rejecting the founding principle of the Catholic Church?

The universality of the Catholic Church has experienced earthquake changes caused by the astronomical amount of papal encyclicals, changes to the catechism, directories, episcopal letters, curial intructions, and on and on, for the last 50 years!!

No other Catholic generation in the history of the Church has ever experienced this. The Church is no longer the "creed" but letters about the morality of invitro fertilization, the appropriate recipe for making the host and the morality off using first strike nuclear weapons.

Don't tell me I don't know my faith...tell me that it is impossible to spit out a rendition of my ginormous faith...as the Church would have it.

[drstevej]

The universality of the Catholic Church has experienced earthquake changes caused by the astronomical amount of papal encyclicals, changes to the catechism, directories, episcopal letters, curial intructions, and on and on, for the last 50 years!!

No other Catholic generation in the history of the Church has ever experienced this. The Church is no longer the "creed" but letters about the morality of invitro fertilization, the appropriate recipe for making the host and the morality off using first strike nuclear weapons.

Don't tell me I don't know my faith...tell me that it is impossible to spit out a rendition of my ginormous faith...as the Church would have it.

I am not questioning your faith. Just observations. Were I a Catholic I would be a Trad (a-la Gerry Matatics).

[Protinus]

I am not questioning your faith. Just observations. Were I a Catholic I would be a Trad (a-la Gerry Matatics).

I actually could see that!! And I didn't think that you were questioning my faith...I leave that to ad nauseum attacks from my Catholic brethren.

Oh I see what you meant..."Don't tell me my faith" was directed at my world...not you...I apologize.

[Loki]

Thanks for the reading list BWAP (i pronounce it as 'bwap,' btw :P)

[HyacinthBouquet]

You know the thing that really bothers me about HV is that Paul wansn't a fool . He most have known it was circular thinking when he wrote it.

It makes you wonder about his actually motives.

His actual motives were there somewhere in HV. I think he said (some people say "predicted") that the use of artificial contraception would lead to widespread promiscuity, the breakdown of marriage and a general lowering of moral standards within society. He also expressed a fear that artificial contraception and, in particular, sterilization would be used by governments to control the birth rate and keep the population down.

[drstevej]

I actually could see that!! And I didn't think that you were questioning my faith...I leave that to ad nauseum attacks from my Catholic brethren.

Oh I see what you meant..."Don't tell me my faith" was directed at my world...not you...I apologize.

No problem.

BTW Gerry Matatics also did a PhD (he left ABD) from Westminster in the same program I was in. He and I differ over Trent. We agree that V2 was an abandonment of tradition.

[Rebekka]

As an outsider, it seems that one can not embrace tradition as authoritative and then argue circular reasoning disqualifying the pronouncement.

Question: is this issue a matter of settled tradition over time or a matter of papal decree being accorded infallible status? Or something in between? (I do not know the answer)

Question: Does a papal statement have to be ex cathedra to be accorded infallible status? Was HV ex cathedra?

A curious reader.
As far as I know, HV is not ex cathedra and therefore not infallible - although it is said to have infallible status - most things said by the pope that end up in an encylic are seen as more or less infallible.

If the church is right, then why does she need circular thinking? "I'm right because I say I'm right." I think I deserve a better explanation.


His actual motives were there somewhere in HV. I think he said (some people say "predicted") that the use of artificial contraception would lead to widespread promiscuity, the breakdown of marriage and a general lowering of moral standards within society. He also expressed a fear that artificial contraception and, in particular, sterilization would be used by governments to control the birth rate and keep the population down.
That is not a reason to say birth control is intrinsically evil, though. Promiscuity is the evil. I use birth control but have never been promiscuous in my entire life - hah - my husband is the only man I ever kissed, let alone sleep with.

[Protinus]

We agree that V2 was an abandonment of tradition.


The abandonment of VII is the mess we are in...we are here to see that VII is fulfilled and not retracted...so, yes, it WAS the abandonment of tradition...but the most encourageing and hopeful way to proceed in our modern Church.

The "restoration" should be in VII...not current enamoration of sclerotic and obsolete old ways.

[HyacinthBouquet]

That is not a reason to say birth control is intrinsically evil, though. Promiscuity is the evil. I use birth control but have never been promiscuous in my entire life - hah - my husband is the only man I ever kissed, let alone sleep with.

From my experience, my husband/boyfriend was more inclined to wander before we had children. It was the children that kept us together. Sooner or later, in any relationship, people tire of each other especially once they get to middle-age. However, the more children you have the more difficult it is to leave your husband/wife. So you have to stick it out. Tell me to shut up if you like but this has been my experience. My husband and myself felt more "together" after we had children.

[drstevej]

The abandonment of VII is the mess we are in...we are here to see that VII is fulfilled and not retracted...so, yes, it WAS the abandonment of tradition...but the most encourageing and hopeful way to proceed in our modern Church.

The "restoration" should be in VII...not current enamoration of sclerotic and obsolete old ways.

Yep as a conservative Protestant I see V2 as a parallel of the infusion of ecumenical liberalism into mainline denominations in the late 1890s.

I prefer Protestants and Catholics who know exactly where we differ!

[Protinus]

Yep as a conservative Protestant I see V2 as a parallel of the infusion of ecumenical liberalism into mainline denominations in the late 1890s.

I prefer Protestants and Catholics who know exactly where we differ!
what are you saying...please repeat.

[Protinus]

That is not a reason to say birth control is intrinsically evil, though. Promiscuity is the evil. I use birth control but have never been promiscuous in my entire life - hah - my husband is the only man I ever kissed, let alone sleep with.

bless you..and HV is not ex cathedra, however, there is theologic will to make it so. You are a Catholic that will discern and speak up though, I believe.

[Cosmic Charlie]

His actual motives were there somewhere in HV. I think he said (some people say "predicted") that the use of artificial contraception would lead to widespread promiscuity, the breakdown of marriage and a general lowering of moral standards within society. He also expressed a fear that artificial contraception and, in particular, sterilization would be used by governments to control the birth rate and keep the population down.
All well and good, but why did he not use that logic speically to write agaisnt ABC ?

Instead he used the circular logic of Natural Law and unity.

[drstevej]

what are you saying...please repeat.

Protestantism saw the rise of liberalism in the late 1800s ( a mixture of Higher Criticism, Darwinianism and the Social Gospel) and by the 1920-1950s it split most American mainline Protestant churches. The National Council of Churches (1908) and World Council of Churches (1948) formed liberal Ecumenical coalitions of mainly Protestants. This movement compromised historic Protestant doctrine. J Gresham Machen's book (Christianity and Liberalism, 1923) outlines the issues.

This same infusion of liberal ecumenism is seen, I believe in V2. The NO mass, trads would argue, is an accommodation to Protestant ecumenism. The push for change in traditional Catholic issues of sexual morality spiked in the wake of V2.

So I see a parallel development. Both move away from historic doctrine and moral principles. Both down play moral absolutism for relativism.

Now, I think B16 is a real opportunity to recoup some of the drift of V2. And were I a Catholic who affirmed Trent. I would :clap:Benedict.


In fact on another site I offered my trad friends the option of electing me the first Calvinist Pope and I would return them to Trent and then abdicate so we could resume the debate of that era without the cloudiness of liberal drift.

They took me up on that and still refer to me as Pope Piel I, The Pocket Fisher of Men. I had a new Inquisitional team of Calvinists and Trads recruited when Benedict was elected. Upon His elevation my candidacy seemed moot.

I think he'll get us there in time.

Is that a better explanation?

[Fish and Bread]

I have a question for anyone who might have an opinion on the matter: Ultimately, in many ways, don't all moral questions when traced back far enough to the roots and the assumptions present, come down either to a relativistic world view or to faith?

For example, that the question "Why is stealing wrong?". One answer, at it's root would be "Because God says it is" -- they might quote tradition or scripture saying stealing is wrong, or even go beyond that and say something like "Stealing is wrong because we God tells us believe that people should love each other and it does not demonstrate concern for another human being" or "We believe that it is not in the best interests of the society and God tells us to take the best interest of the society into account.". Either way, that appeal to an objective morality always ends with "God" or "Bob the Spiritual King we don't call God" or some similar concept. Even "I believe stealing is wrong because Bob the guru said so and I trust him or her" ultimately goes back to faith.

Alternately, the other way of saying that stealing is wrong is an appeal to self, ultimately, i.e. "I believe stealing is wrong because that's what I think" or "I believe stealing is wrong because I believe we should love each other" or "because I believe we should work for the society's good".

I am not sure there is any moral argument that can not either ultimately traced to faith or to self. Usually in some senses even an atheist makes decisions based on each, and even the most traditional theist makes decisions based on each. Few people wholly create their own world view or wholly submit to the world view they believe God has.

At least, that's my thought for the day. I'm often wrong about such matters. :)

[Fish and Bread]

Also, tangentially, I would be interested in seeing a case made as to why one could believe the Church is wrong when it comes to contraception and God actually favors it, and yet we must believe the Church on other matters. If the Church is wrong about birth control, could it be equally as wrong about the Council of Nicea? The resurrection of Christ? Monotheism? Loving one's neighbor? Can we believe that the Church has God-given authority that is always right on some topics they talk about and not others? Isn't that ultimately relativism (Not saying there is anything wrong with relativism)?

Just some ideas to explore. I'm not really setting out to make any point in particular, I just enjoy delving a little deeper into some of these topics.

[HyacinthBouquet]

I have a question for anyone who might have an opinion on the matter: Ultimately, in many ways, don't all moral questions when traced back far enough to the roots and the assumptions present, come down either to a relativistic world view or to faith?

For example, that the question "Why is stealing wrong?". One answer, at it's root would be "Because God says it is" -- they might quote tradition or scripture saying stealing is wrong, or even go beyond that and say something like "Stealing is wrong because we God tells us believe that people should love each other and it does not demonstrate concern for another human being" or "We believe that it is not in the best interests of the society and God tells us to take the best interest of the society into account.". Either way, that appeal to an objective morality always ends with "God" or "Bob the Spiritual King we don't call God" or some similar concept. Even "I believe stealing is wrong because Bob the guru said so and I trust him or her" ultimately goes back to faith.

Alternately, the other way of saying that stealing is wrong is an appeal to self, ultimately, i.e. "I believe stealing is wrong because that's what I think" or "I believe stealing is wrong because I believe we should love each other" or "because I believe we should work for the society's good".

I am not sure there is any moral argument that can not either ultimately traced to faith or to self.

Yes, there is: Stealing is wrong because it hurts other people.

This moral argument relies on empathy. (I've only met one person who uses this moral argument.)

[boughtwithaprice]

As an outsider, it seems that one can not embrace tradition as authoritative and then argue circular reasoning disqualifying the pronouncement.

Question: is this issue a matter of settled tradition over time or a matter of papal decree being accorded infallible status? Or something in between? (I do not know the answer)

Question: Does a papal statement have to be ex cathedra to be accorded infallible status? Was HV ex cathedra?

A curious reader.


HV was not an Ex Cathedra statement, but some have argued that it meets the criteria for infallible status because the church has taught against birth control since the beginning. Some believe that the church cannot correct a teaching that it has always taught, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, because that would undermine infallibility.

Catholic tradition is not a member WIKI it is a magisterial WIKI. Member polls are irrelevant in a church where the priestly authority is final.

Priestly authority is not final to some. My priest told me that using artificial birth control in my situation was fine, as it was the lessor evil. I spoke with him frequently in the sacrement of penance. Should I listen to him? or those in OBOB that disagree, or the roving lecturer/book/tape sellers that love to talk about JPII's theology of the body?

Real life is irrelevant to revealed Truth. Truth is not a WIKI. (Also the reason this site is in big trouble).

10 spies said NO
2 spies said YES

The 10 were judged by God.



go figure.

The question remains, is teaching on birth control revealed truth or the commandment of men?

Isaiah 29:13

Joshua and Caleb had the direct promise of God to go into the land of Canaan and conquer it. What we have with birth control is the product of human reason at this time.

I am not questioning your faith. Just observations. Were I a Catholic I would be a Trad (a-la Gerry Matatics).


But the fact remains that you are not Catholic, so your friend Gerry has not had much effect on you

No problem.

BTW Gerry Matatics also did a PhD (he left ABD) from Westminster in the same program I was in. He and I differ over Trent. We agree that V2 was an abandonment of tradition.

V2 was a fulfillment of Tradition. The Gospel is for the whole world, not for the perpetuation of petty theological turf wars.

Yep as a conservative Protestant I see V2 as a parallel of the infusion of ecumenical liberalism into mainline denominations in the late 1890s.

I prefer Protestants and Catholics who know exactly where we differ!

So you prefer Catholics and Protestants to be constantly in opposition instead of following the same Lord? Call it liberalism if you wish, but at the throne of grace there will be people there from all nations tribes and tongues. I am with the Apostle Paul on this one; I stirve to know nothing among you, save for Christ and Him crucified. 1Cor2:2

Thanks for the reading list BWAP (i pronounce it as 'bwap,' btw :P)

Its pronounced BeeWap btw, and your welcome:)

[HyacinthBouquet]

Also, tangentially, I would be interested in seeing a case made as to why one could believe the Church is wrong when it comes to contraception and God actually favors it, and yet we must believe the Church on other matters. If the Church is wrong about birth control, could it be equally as wrong about

the Council of Nicea?

Possibly, because not scriptural. (Not in the Bible.)


The resurrection of Christ?

No, it's in the Bible.


Monotheism?

No, it's in the Bible.



Loving one's neighbor?

No, it's in the Bible.

[Fish and Bread]

Yes, there is: Stealing is wrong because it hurts other people.

This moral argument relies on empathy. (I've only met one person who uses this moral argument.)

That this either comes down to faith ("Hurting people is wrong because God/Bob/the universe/my hero says we should have empathy for the suffering of others.") or yourself ("I believe I/we should act empathetically and not hurt others because because I believe empathy is good.").

[Fish and Bread]

No, it's in the Bible.

Doesn't the bible say the church is "the pillar of all truth"? :) And, also, who approved the books in the bible and compiled them? That comes down to Church, too.

[HyacinthBouquet]

That this either comes down to faith ("Hurting people is wrong because God/Bob/the universe/my hero says we should have empathy for the suffering of others.") or yourself ("I believe I/we should act empathetically and not hurt others because because I believe empathy is good.").

Do you think it could be possible that someone just has empathy, anyway, without having to make a conscious effort to behave that way?

[drstevej]

BWAP, I do not view the issues of the Reformation as petty turf wars. But that does not mean you and I are not friends and brothers in Christ.

[Fish and Bread]

Do you think it could be possible that someone just has empathy, anyway, without having to make a conscious effort to behave that way?

Sure. I think that people often acted based upon instinct, for good or for ill, but in such instances they're not really determining moral questions at all. People who act on a purely instinctual level are not thinking things through logically, or perhaps are going against their logic, or acted in accord with logic but for non-logical reasons. And I think often that can be a good thing. I'm not Mr. Spock. :) But it still leaves my two categories as the ones that answers to moral questions come down to when people think about what they believe is moral, generally, in a logical and objective way.

[boughtwithaprice]

Also, tangentially, I would be interested in seeing a case made as to why one could believe the Church is wrong when it comes to contraception and God actually favors it, and yet we must believe the Church on other matters. If the Church is wrong about birth control, could it be equally as wrong about the Council of Nicea? The resurrection of Christ? Monotheism? Loving one's neighbor? Can we believe that the Church has God-given authority that is always right on some topics they talk about and not others? Isn't that ultimately relativism (Not saying there is anything wrong with relativism)?

Just some ideas to explore. I'm not really setting out to make any point in particular, I just enjoy delving a little deeper into some of these topics.

you have hit on the reason that Paul VI did not change the church teaching of birth control with HV. If one teaching is wrong, how can we trust the others? or is there another way? Are we headed for a theological crisis in the Catholic church?

I do not believe that it necessarily follows that if the church is wrong on birth control she is wrong on everything. I think that with the light the church had at the time, she made the correct pronouncement on birth control. But when new knowledge about human sexuality came in the Nineteeth and twentieth centuries, the church should have adapted to this new knowledge and seen that its former teaching was based on an incorrect premise; instead she chooses to maintain the past. I am still wrestling with this one and don't have a firm grip on all the concepts yet.

[fragmentsofdreams]

You know the thing that really bothers me about HV is that Paul wansn't a fool . He most have known it was circular thinking when he wrote it.

It makes you wonder about his actually motives.

From what I've read, his primary motive was to prevent a loss of prestige of the teaching authority of the pope by condoning something that was previously condemned. This makes the reaction to HV ironic.

[fragmentsofdreams]

His actual motives were there somewhere in HV. I think he said (some people say "predicted") that the use of artificial contraception would lead to widespread promiscuity, the breakdown of marriage and a general lowering of moral standards within society. He also expressed a fear that artificial contraception and, in particular, sterilization would be used by governments to control the birth rate and keep the population down.

I don't think that was his primary motivation. From what I've read, it seems he would have loved to ease the burden of married couples if he could find a way to do so without tarnishing the papal teaching office.

[boughtwithaprice]

BWAP, I do not view the issues of the Reformation as petty turf wars. But that does not mean you and I are not friends and brothers in Christ.

I apologize if I have offended you, but what I mean is seeking to maintain the divide with people that are the most radically opposed, seems petty to me.

I understand what you mean, when you say that you fear the influx of liberalism in the church, as it seems to water things down, and decrease thinking, which can ultimately lead to error, but I don't see that being the case here in the liberal Catholic forum. I see an increase in thinking and reflection, a greater desire to follow Christ in spirit and in truth and not just mouth the words or ignore revealed truth.

My theological taste would be a dialogue of understanding ala Karl Barth and Hans Kung discussing Justification, rather than a knock down drag out of James White vs Gerry Matatics.(only used as an example of the two extremes that I could think of:sorry: )

I appreciate you as a friend DrSteve, I just disagree with you in your approach to theology and the Catholic church.

[drstevej]

I apologize if I have offended you, but what I mean is seeking to maintain the divide with people that are the most radically opposed, seems petty to me.

I understand what you mean, when you say that you fear the influx of liberalism in the church, as it seems to water things down, and decrease thinking, which can ultimately lead to error, but I don't see that being the case here in the liberal Catholic forum. I see an increase in thinking and reflection, a greater desire to follow Christ in spirit and in truth and not just mouth the words or ignore revealed truth.

My theological taste would be a dialogue of understanding ala Karl Barth and Hans Kung discussing Justification, rather than a knock down drag out of James White vs Gerry Matatics.(only used as an example of the two extremes that I could think of:sorry: )

I appreciate you as a friend DrSteve, I just disagree with you in your approach to theology and the Catholic church.

I was not offended at all, BWAP. I know you well and know you are not at all antagonistic towards me and respect my views. I expect us to disagree. And if we had tickets to both debates you suggest I think it would be easy to determine who goes to which debate. Now, CaDan might mug ya for the Kung ticket. :-)

I am a supporter of this forum and OBOB. I think both have there place and can be places for good interchange.

Could we do a four way debate with those mentioned? That would be wilder than WIKI.

Steve

[Rebekka]

From my experience, my husband/boyfriend was more inclined to wander before we had children. It was the children that kept us together. Sooner or later, in any relationship, people tire of each other especially once they get to middle-age. However, the more children you have the more difficult it is to leave your husband/wife. So you have to stick it out. Tell me to shut up if you like but this has been my experience. My husband and myself felt more "together" after we had children.
That is your experience, so in your case it is true. Still my point stands: it is not the birth control itself that is intrinsically evil, that is, evil in itself. I don't believe in divorce. I don't believe in premarital sex. The existence of contraception has never tempted me to have premarital sex. Saying that contraception is evil because it always leads to promiscuity is a bad reason to prohibit it - as I said, it doesn't always lead to promiscuity, so if it's about promiscuity, using contraception in a faithful marriage is morally neutral.

And I wouldn't say that "the more children you have", the happier the marriage is. I don't know. I know lots of couples who had 8+ children who were very unhappy together. My grandparents for example, who had 9 - not because they wanted 9, but because they weren't allowed to use birth control and because the priest insisted on them having another baby every time when the youngest was about 1 - despite them being too poor to feed the older children. Common practice here until the 1960's.

[Protinus]

Protestantism saw the rise of liberalism in the late 1800s ( a mixture of Higher Criticism, Darwinianism and the Social Gospel) and by the 1920-1950s it split most American mainline Protestant churches. The National Council of Churches (1908) and World Council of Churches (1948) formed liberal Ecumenical coalitions of mainly Protestants. This movement compromised historic Protestant doctrine. J Gresham Machen's book (Christianity and Liberalism, 1923) outlines the issues.

This same infusion of liberal ecumenism is seen, I believe in V2. The NO mass, trads would argue, is an accommodation to Protestant ecumenism. The push for change in traditional Catholic issues of sexual morality spiked in the wake of V2.

So I see a parallel development. Both move away from historic doctrine and moral principles. Both down play moral absolutism for relativism.

Now, I think B16 is a real opportunity to recoup some of the drift of V2. And were I a Catholic who affirmed Trent. I would :clap:Benedict.


In fact on another site I offered my trad friends the option of electing me the first Calvinist Pope and I would return them to Trent and then abdicate so we could resume the debate of that era without the cloudiness of liberal drift.

They took me up on that and still refer to me as Pope Piel I, The Pocket Fisher of Men. I had a new Inquisitional team of Calvinists and Trads recruited when Benedict was elected. Upon His elevation my candidacy seemed moot.

I think he'll get us there in time.

Is that a better explanation?
Thank you for the theology progression history. I disagree fervently with your end point however...please post more though we disagree.

[drstevej]

Thank you for the theology progression history. I disagree fervently with your end point however...please post more though we disagree.

Sure. Thanks for the hospitality.

[Protinus]

I understand what you mean, when you say that you fear the influx of liberalism in the church, as it seems to water things down, and decrease thinking, which can ultimately lead to error, but I don't see that being the case here in the liberal Catholic forum. I see an increase in thinking and reflection, a greater desire to follow Christ in spirit and in truth and not just mouth the words or ignore revealed truth.

gentle soldier...we have but begun. For what we have written to date in OBOB is so simple as to invite derision and redicule. On the other hand, things that I have written in the other forum about Church teachings are met with so much hostility that I wonder why I am here as a practicing Catholic.

I have written harshly...but let God himself judge me and let me rot and burn in Hell before I finish here....so I am guided by my Lord, so I trust that the Holy Spirit inspires me.

[Abiel]

you have hit on the reason that Paul VI did not change the church teaching of birth control with HV. If one teaching is wrong, how can we trust the others? or is there another way? Are we headed for a theological crisis in the Catholic church?

I do not believe that it necessarily follows that if the church is wrong on birth control she is wrong on everything. I think that with the light the church had at the time, she made the correct pronouncement on birth control. But when new knowledge about human sexuality came in the Nineteeth and twentieth centuries, the church should have adapted to this new knowledge and seen that its former teaching was based on an incorrect premise; instead she chooses to maintain the past. I am still wrestling with this one and don't have a firm grip on all the concepts yet.

My church is a mere 150 years old , but even in that short time, I see something which causes similar feelings.

We have, for many years, not used sacraments in our worship. The reasons for this are way back when, and imo, daft. But there we are. This is who we are- and there are rumbles in the jungle seeking change. But when these rumbles burst into the open, they are (at this time) throughly squashed by the powers that be. And one of the reasons offered is that it would be dishonouring to those who have faithfully gone before if the position was changed. Worse- if we admit we are wrong, then we bear responsibility for denying those who went before a significant means of grace.

If your Church's position on contraception changed, might that not be so? That those who faithfully adhered to a teaching which in some cases caused severe difficulty would feel misused in some way?

[HyacinthBouquet]

I don't think that was his primary motivation. From what I've read, it seems he would have loved to ease the burden of married couples if he could find a way to do so without tarnishing the papal teaching office.

From what I've read this was a theory put forward by some writers in the RC Church. I'm not sure, but I do not think anyone can actually prove that this was Pope Paul VI actual motive. In theory, yes, it could have been. But no-one can prove it.

And I wouldn't say that "the more children you have", the happier the marriage is. I don't know. I know lots of couples who had 8+ children who were very unhappy together. My grandparents for example, who had 9 - not because they wanted 9, but because they weren't allowed to use birth control and because the priest insisted on them having another baby every time when the youngest was about 1 - despite them being too poor to feed the older children. Common practice here until the 1960's.

I never said "the more children you have the happier the marriage". No, downright miserable is the actual fact - I agree with you there. But I was trying to explain the Church's motive for encouraging people to have more children in the first place.

Historically, the Church is not interested in making people happy. The main motive of HV was to stop people from being immoral i.e. to prevent divorce and promiscuity. Obviously, if you have so many children that you have no time for yourself, you are unlikely to try to get a divorce or to be tempted into having an affair.

But what I said about having a child i.e. one child, is true. One child causes the parents to feel more "together" than before. There is a biological link between those people which was not there before. It is possible to have a happy marriage with one child (I think :scratch: ).


If your Church's position on contraception changed, might that not be so? That those who faithfully adhered to a teaching which in some cases caused severe difficulty would feel misused in some way?

They've already changed the teaching on contraception. Historically, the Church taught that people should have as many children as God sends them. Vatican I taught that a wife should not withhold herself from her husband. This teaching was against abstinence.

More recently, however, Pope John Paul II has actively encouraged abstinence in marriage and the limiting of the birth of children. Pope John Paul II wrote that for some couples it is their moral and social duty to limit the number of children in their family through abstinence.

This contradiction led to me leaving the Church. What it meant was that some of my family were able to look distastefully down their noses at me for having so many children which I was unable to support, financially. It also enabled them to look up with admiration to my sister who used abstinence to limit herself to just one child. The misery which this abstinence caused to her husband was not important to them. My sister's wishes and her career were far more important than her husband's carnal desires. This was their attitude.

And, I might add, the abstinence teaching goes against the words of St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the verse. (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)

[boughtwithaprice]

My church is a mere 150 years old , but even in that short time, I see something which causes similar feelings.

We have, for many years, not used sacraments in our worship. The reasons for this are way back when, and imo, daft. But there we are. This is who we are- and there are rumbles in the jungle seeking change. But when these rumbles burst into the open, they are (at this time) throughly squashed by the powers that be. And one of the reasons offered is that it would be dishonouring to those who have faithfully gone before if the position was changed. Worse- if we admit we are wrong, then we bear responsibility for denying those who went before a significant means of grace.

If your Church's position on contraception changed, might that not be so? That those who faithfully adhered to a teaching which in some cases caused severe difficulty would feel misused in some way?


They could, but it would only expose their wrong reasons for following the teaching in the first place. I would think that married couples would feel used now, at the church's intrusion into their private love life, not if the church decides to leave married couples alone. I faithfully adhere to the teaching, but I don't agree with it. If the church changed her teaching on birth control, I would be relieved, not angered.
Those that would be angered have a secondary reason of entitlement for following the teaching. I would most compare them to the older brother in the story of the prodigal son. He followed his father faithfully thinking that he would get a reward for this, but he did not realize that he had everything already. He should have been enjoying his father's kingdom. Much like those that are following the teaching on birth control; they should be enjoying the richness of the kingdom, and if the teaching changes, others can come in and share our joy.

[Rebekka]

They could, but it would only expose their wrong reasons for following the teaching in the first place. I would think that married couples would feel used now, at the church's intrusion into their private love life, not if the church decides to leave married couples alone. I faithfully adhere to the teaching, but I don't agree with it. If the church changed her teaching on birth control, I would be relieved, not angered.
Those that would be angered have a secondary reason of entitlement for following the teaching. I would most compare them to the older brother in the story of the prodigal son. He followed his father faithfully thinking that he would get a reward for this, but he did not realize that he had everything already. He should have been enjoying his father's kingdom. Much like those that are following the teaching on birth control; they should be enjoying the richness of the kingdom, and if the teaching changes, others can come in and share our joy.
I agree. Besides, the church hasn't changed the teaching even though they are aware of the fact that many people struggle with it, disagree with it and disobey. So if the hurt of other people is not a reason to change the doctrine, it's also not a reason to not change it.

They've already changed the teaching on contraception. Historically, the Church taught that people should have as many children as God sends them. Vatican I taught that a wife should not withhold herself from her husband. This teaching was against abstinence.

More recently, however, Pope John Paul II has actively encouraged abstinence in marriage and the limiting of the birth of children. Pope John Paul II wrote that for some couples it is their moral and social duty to limit the number of children in their family through abstinence.

This contradiction led to me leaving the Church. What it meant was that some of my family were able to look distastefully down their noses at me for having so many children which I was unable to support, financially. It also enabled them to look up with admiration to my sister who used abstinence to limit herself to just one child. The misery which this abstinence caused to her husband was not important to them. My sister's wishes and her career were far more important than her husband's carnal desires. This was their attitude.

And, I might add, the abstinence teaching goes against the words of St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the verse. (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)
Yes, it has changed already, and this is one of the reasons why I don't understand why it can't be changed to acceptance of birth control within a faithful marriage, and why you're immediately condemned when you take NFP one step further. I would understand the church's position better if NFP weren't allowed, either. It confuses things too much. Artificial birth control isn't really different from NFP, so if you allow the one and not the other, that's really confusing.

I agree AprilAngel that children can bring spouses closer together, but it would be an oversimplification to say that it brings all spouses closer together. As I already explained, for some people it is better not to have children. The rule is too broad. The church should take individual circumstances into account, such as medical reasons (and if you have a medical problem that makes a pregnancy life-threatening, NFP is playing with fire), psychiatric ones (as in my case - I have PTSD), financial ones, and possibly other reasons as well.

Also, I don't see why the church should interfere with married people's sex lives, as long as they are faithful and as long as they love each other and respect each other.

[HyacinthBouquet]

I agree AprilAngel that children can bring spouses closer together, but it would be an oversimplification to say that it brings all spouses closer together. As I already explained, for some people it is better not to have children. The rule is too broad. The church should take individual circumstances into account, such as medical reasons (and if you have a medical problem that makes a pregnancy life-threatening, NFP is playing with fire), psychiatric ones (as in my case - I have PTSD), financial ones, and possibly other reasons as well.

My medical problems (psychiatric and physical) were not enough to stop my family from criticizing me for not having children or not having enough children. I was expected to produce children no matter how sick I was or how difficult my life was. When I complained of depression, I was told that it was because I was not holy enough, not religious enough. I should go to confession and holy communion and stop committing mortal sins i.e. stop using condoms.

Later, after I had had several pregnancies which had caused me to develop very painful, crippling carpal tunnel syndrome, I was told that I should have an operation on my wrists to enable me to be "open to life". When I told them that the carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by pregnancy and, therefore, would get worse if I became pregnant again, I was told that this was not true and that the real reason was because I was too fat.

So, anyway, I'm glad that you don't have this type of pressure from your family (or maybe you do?).

[Rebekka]

My medical problems (psychiatric and physical) were not enough to stop my family from criticizing me for not having children or not having enough children. I was expected to produce children no matter how sick I was or how difficult my life was. When I complained of depression, I was told that it was because I was not holy enough, not religious enough. I should go to confession and holy communion and stop committing mortal sins i.e. stop using condoms.

Later, after I had had several pregnancies which had caused me to develop very painful, crippling carpal tunnel syndrome, I was told that I should have an operation on my wrists to enable me to be "open to life". When I told them that the carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by pregnancy and, therefore, would get worse if I became pregnant again, I was told that this was not true and that the real reason was because I was too fat.

So, anyway, I'm glad that you don't have this type of pressure from your family (or maybe you do?).
No, not from my family thank goodness. I'm so sorry to hear that you were pressured so much. :hug: And carpal tunnel is awful, my brother has it too. :(

In a way, my grandparents' situation (pressure by the parish priest to have more children) was one of the reasons why my parents only had two children, and they don't pressure us to have children at all. My inlaws do a bit - they don't understand my situation very well - but it's only a mild pressuring and they don't do it out of religious reasons. I think it's particularly nasty when people threaten you with hell or tell you that you are unholy - yuck. That's mental abuse IMO.

[kimber1]

i'm not sure where i stand on this issue. i'm not on birth control and haven't been since my second son was born. (he's 7) actually, come to think of it i was on birth control with both my children, go figure....

but to me i see NFP as so close to the same as birth control i can't reall tell the difference. add to that that my hubby is not Catholic adn i don't EVEN want to try o explain the whole concept of NFP to him and i doubt he'd go for it anyway, i'm lucky he let me baptize our son into the Church.

i don't think the Church allows enough thought for those who are married to someone who isn't Catholic as well. you can't choose who you fall in love with.

i recall back when i first visited the Catholic Church before converting and the lady who was showing me around and giving me pamphlets to read and such pulled one out and saw it was on NFP and made the comment, "oh we don't even need to go there. we'll skip that" and it pretty much showed me that alot of Catholics don't adhere to it as some would like you to think they do.

[HyacinthBouquet]

No, not from my family thank goodness. I'm so sorry to hear that you were pressured so much. :hug: And carpal tunnel is awful, my brother has it too. :(

Thank you. You do not realise how much your sympathy means to me. I am very isolated and depressed at the moment.
(Sorry to ask, just out of curiosity: is your brother fat?)


In a way, my grandparents' situation (pressure by the parish priest to have more children) was one of the reasons why my parents only had two children, and they don't pressure us to have children at all. My inlaws do a bit - they don't understand my situation very well - but it's only a mild pressuring and they don't do it out of religious reasons. I think it's particularly nasty when people threaten you with hell or tell you that you are unholy - yuck. That's mental abuse IMO.

Yes, I agree with you but it has only become clear to me just how much I have been abused over the years now that I have seen how differently she (Mother) treats my sister.

[Rebekka]

Thank you. You do not realise how much your sympathy means to me. I am very isolated and depressed at the moment.
(Sorry to ask, just out of curiosity: is your brother fat?)



Yes, I agree with you but it has only become clear to me just how much I have been abused over the years now that I have seen how differently she (Mother) treats my sister.
No, my brother is athletic.

I'm so sorry to hear about your depression. I'm praying that you will find peace of mind and that your isolation will end.

[JasonV]

My church is a mere 150 years old , but even in that short time, I see something which causes similar feelings.

We have, for many years, not used sacraments in our worship. The reasons for this are way back when, and imo, daft. But there we are. This is who we are- and there are rumbles in the jungle seeking change. But when these rumbles burst into the open, they are (at this time) throughly squashed by the powers that be. And one of the reasons offered is that it would be dishonouring to those who have faithfully gone before if the position was changed. Worse- if we admit we are wrong, then we bear responsibility for denying those who went before a significant means of grace.

If your Church's position on contraception changed, might that not be so? That those who faithfully adhered to a teaching which in some cases caused severe difficulty would feel misused in some way?

Brother this can of worms is exactly what nobody want's to open. I've seen this with many churches, Catholic, Protestant, and neo-Protestant (JW's, Mormons, SDA's, etc).

[fragmentsofdreams]

My church is a mere 150 years old , but even in that short time, I see something which causes similar feelings.

We have, for many years, not used sacraments in our worship. The reasons for this are way back when, and imo, daft. But there we are. This is who we are- and there are rumbles in t