iamonetruth blog

Catholic Natural Family Planning is sometimes referred to as “Catholic Birth Control” that reference would be a ‘misnomer’. Because, there is no such thing as “Catholic birth control”. If by the definition of birth control we mean;
Another word for contraception.
www.iwannaknow.org/glossary/

It seems that no matter how much I share with non-Catholics or, for that matter, Catholics, they can not grasp the idea that “contraception” is against the Law of Love or as St. James refers to it in His Letter, “The Royal Law”, “according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,”".

The Bible clearly states that to have sexual relations with your wife to fulfill your lust is wrong. [1 Thessalonians 4:3-5]
1 Th 4:3  “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; 4  that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, 5  not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God”.

“Loving your neighbor”, means never using your spouse to fulfill your selfish lust.

A friend of mine sent me an email on a technique to monitor the time of fertility for a woman. He asked me if the Catholic Church (your church) would approve of such a method of birth control. The following is our exchange of information, starting with his email:

EMAIL:
{curious, since your church allows  rhythm or calendar method, do u think they would approve of this device to more accurately predict non fertile times? or would it be considered an “artificial assist”????? and thereby not allowed.

“it is scientifically well established that hormones filter into saliva and that during fertility a ferning pattern can be seen in saliva under a high powered magnification lens. Just prior to or during fertile days the sample will typically resemble “ferns,” while during non-fertile days, only random and shapeless dots will be visible.

The Ovu-Tech is a hand-held mini-magnification lens about the size and shape of a lipstick holder. If you want to check whether you may be fertile, you simply:

Make sure you haven’t had anything to eat or drink for 2 hours.
Put a small amount of saliva on the lens and allow it to dry.
Insert the lens into the magnification lens and push a little button to illuminate the lens.
If you are just about to become fertile or if you are fertile, you will easily see a beautiful crystalline ferning pattern under the magnification lens. This is an easy and convenient way for you to monitor your hormonal changes and enhance your awareness of your menstrual cycle. If you track your cycles and fertility on a calendar, soon you will have a keen awareness of where you are in your monthly cycle, and what is happening hormonally in your body.” Mercola.com}

My answer to him, since he is, in fact a Baptized Catholic, and so ‘your church’:

{…I would say ‘your church’ would approve. It isn’t an ‘abortifacient or a contraceptive’. But many people get birth-control wrong, in the sense that the Catholic Church is speaking about it. If the couple has in mind to thwart God’s Will - no matter how they circumvent His Will it is wrong. That is…. ‘the intent’ makes the act wrong. Not necessarily, as in this case, the action.  If they use the device as a married couple to never have children then it is morally wrong even if the device is approved.

That is why the Bishops (in Africa) were suggesting to use condoms to ’save a life’ [for the sake of a clear argument] as in the case of a husband and wife who are beyond the age of child bearing and still want to make love without the risk of death.

The Bishops main purpose is not to allow condoms as birth control but rather as death control between a husband and wife.

It would be something like saying to a wife, you are allowed to wear a surgical mask to kiss your husband so that either one of you do not catch a cold. It would “not be like”, saying to a spouse you could wear a surgical mask when kissing your spouse because you skive your spouse and don’t want to have contact with him. “The intent”.

I hope that this helps.

I don’t think that it should be approved because 99% of Christians will misread the ‘allowance’, but I am not the Holy Father.} END EMAIL

I added; “[for the sake of a clear argument]”, just now, because I was trying to make the point clear, that being, the Bishops are not in anyway giving approval of a condom for its intended use, that being birth control, so I used the example of the couple that is beyond childbearing, however that is not what the Church document contained. I was trying to clarify “the point”.

The theological discussion is a Church teaching that comes down to us from the time of the early Church as all our teachings do and is clearly seen in the Bible. That spouses can never deny sexual intimacy with one another except for serious reasons, by mutual consent. [1 Corinthians 7:1-5]
1 Cor. 7:1  “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2  But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3  The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4  For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5  Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.”

So, the discussion in the Church at the moment, is which is the greater ‘wrong’? That is, while it is morally wrong to use a contraceptive device to undo the will of God by trying not to have children is it a greater immorality than a spouse denying “conjugal rights” to another spouse to not contract the Aids virus, which will kill the spouse?

Am I making my “point” clear? Both the use of the condom and the denial of conjugal rights are wrong. If the condom is used to help save the life of a spouse trying to fulfill the teaching from God on “conjugal rights” then the question arises, should the use of condoms be allowed between a married couple where one spouse has the Aids virus?

The Church is discussing a ‘medical device’ to save the life of married Catholics, not whether condoms can be used as ‘birth control’.

For excellant information on this subject:
CatholicEducation.org

Survey:   Should The Catholic Church allow the use of condoms?

I’ve held a private theory for years that with some weight gain or obesity, it is beyond the control of the person to lose weight. I, of course, say that not only from personal experience but observation of people in my life. For example the medical experts tell us that because people are overweight sometimes they develop diabetes. I believe the opposite to be true. That being, people who have the diabetic ‘gene’ in their ‘code’ are pre-disposed to weight gain. There seems to be sparse medical proof for this assumption, mostly observation of my own weight gain and my family history. Oh, and a deep mistrust of the AMA in their caring for my medical needs.

The following is some information I found in researching this ‘theory’:“Genetic Factors: Obesity tends to run in families, suggesting that it may have a genetic cause. However, family members share not only genes but also diet and lifestyle habits that may contribute to obesity. Separating these lifestyle factors from genetic ones is often difficult. Still, growing evidence points to heredity as a strong determining factor of obesity. In one study of adults who were adopted as children, researchers found that the subjects’ adult weights were closer to their biological parents’ weights than their adoptive parents’. The environment provided by the adoptive family apparently had less influence on the development of obesity than the person’s genetic makeup.”   BlackDoctor  

On to the present article: “Weight May Be Linked to Type of Bacteria” “The size of your gut may be partly shaped by which microbes call it home, according to new research linking obesity to types of digestive bacteria.” “It was as if one group got far more calories from the same bowl of Cheerios than the other, Gordon said.”What do you think?   

Merry Christmas!    

My name is Philip Turgati.
I was born November 20, 1951.
Growing up in “The Bronx”, I attended Catholic schools.
  
Since I was a child I knew from the nuns that the date for celebrating Christmas was an arbitrary one. It was chosen for many reasons, one of which was its proximity to the pagan festival for the winter solstice.
 
When Christianity started making inroads into the surrounding pagan cultures the Catholic Church (which was the only Christian Church at the time) felt that since an exact date for Christ’s Birth could not be both agreed upon and confirmed, choosing one that showed the ending of darkness in our world giving way to light was perfect (the solstice).   

I, personally, have no problem with this date for Christmas. I believe, first of all, as the Bible and history tells us that the First Christian Church was founded upon the Apostle Peter as the head of The Church established by Jesus. So, leading from that knowledge, I am willing to accept this date not only for the common sense of their reasoning but also because their authority to set any Christian Feast comes from God.
    
For more on the origin of choosing December 25th for Christmas.   

What do you think.

Should Christians celebrate The Birth of Christ on December 25th?

To Whom It May Concern;

On a Local Catholic radio show it was announced that “BT”, a Catholic parish, was a pro-choice parish, because the pastor isn’t doing enough, in the mind of some for the pro-life cause. I did not hear the comment myself, but was informed by a reliable source.

The person who told me about the comment and I are registered members of this parish (BT). He took sincere offense at the statement as he is on the pro-life group at BT and a supporter of the radio station in question.

I have given the statement some thought and although I think another statement might have expressed the opinion of the Catholic talk show host better, I find little fault in what was said. The following explanation is my reasoning.

There is another pastor in our area that is very pro-life. So, it is said that because of his many homilies on the subject and his rules for different ministries in the parish, such as you must be pro-life to be a Minister of the Eucharist, because of his stance, the parish is known as a “pro-life” parish.

When someone refers to “QP” as a pro-life parish no one gets upset. Yet the designation “pro-life parish” is actually a misnomer. The designation “pro-life parish” can imply that the “whole” parish is “pro-life” yet it is common knowledge that this is not so. Yet everyone knows that it is called a pro-life parish because of its pastor not because everyone in the parish is pro-life.

Hopefully by now the reader can see where I am going with this…

Why, when someone calls BT a pro-choice parish should people suddenly think that it means the whole parish is pro-choice?

My thought is that my friend should look at the statement dispassionately.

What do you think?

First Merry Christmas!

As to the question about swearing in on the Koran if you are Muslim, I personally do not have problem with that. Because, if a person doesn’t believe in the Bible there isn’t much ‘force’ to their ‘vow’ or ‘oath’ that they will uphold the responsibilities of their office just because they lay their hands on a ‘book’ and say some words.

Let me quote Prof. Scott Hahn from SalvationHistory.com on the meaning of ’swearing an oath’ on The Bible.

First, contracts involve promises, covenants involve oaths.
When you enter into a contract, say, to buy a house, you make a promise to the seller, along the lines of: “I give you my word that I will pay you this amount of money for your house.” The seller, in turn, makes a promise: “I give you my word that if you pay me the sum we have agreed upon, I will turn over to you the deed to my house.”

The “word” you each pledge to the other is your name. And you each sign your name on the contract as a “sign” that you’ll uphold your end of the bargain or keep your promise.
Covenants are much different. In a covenant, you elevate and upgrade your promise. Not only do you give your word, you also swear an oath, invoke a higher authority - you call God in as your witness.

Think of the oath we’re most familiar with, the oath you swear before taking the witness stand in a courtroom: “I promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
You’ve promised, given your word to tell the truth. You’ve also asked God to help you keep your promise. It’s not only you and the judge now. It’s you, the judge and God. Now, if you lie under oath, you’re not only liable to go to jail, you’re liable to be punished by God. The flip side of asking for God’s help in an oath is surrendering yourself to God’s judgment. You say, in effect, “I’ll be damned if I don’t tell the truth.”

In the old days, we used to have politicians swear on the Bible and the Bible would be opened to the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, where the blessings and the curses are recorded. We were asking them to swear to uphold the constitution or suffer the curses recorded in those pages.

Even in our highly secularized society, we retain elements of this older understanding of oaths. We make doctors, police officers, military personnel and public officials swear oaths. Why? Because we depend on them; we literally put our lives in their hands. We want them to swear to God that they’ll do their jobs. We can’t just take their word for it, we want them to know that they’ll have to answer to a higher authority.

Incidentally, did you know that the word “oath” translates the Latin word sacramentum, where we get our word “sacraments”? In a future course, we’ll look sacraments as oaths. But for now, just keep in mind, as we mentioned earlier, that the notion of covenant and oaths is crucial to understanding the sacraments and our relationship with God.
END SALVATIONHISTORY.COM

Literally when a Christian lays their hands on the Bible and swears to uphold their office or ‘tell the truth, so help me God’, they are saying that if they tell the truth, by God’s Hand they will receive all the blessings contained in the Bible or the reverse is also true. They are saying that if they lie, all the curses contained in the Bible will come upon them.

A heady thought when understood properly.

My problem isn’t with the Koran.
But I pose a further question, if we allow the Koran, then we would have to cater to every possible group. For example, The Book of Mormon for Mormons or let’s get right to the nitty gritty… perhaps we would have someone who believes in Satan who wants to swear in on a Book of Rituals for Satanic practices.

In a case like that, you would have someone promising to … what? To cause chaos and disruption at every chance… perhaps. Then where would a nation founded on Christian principles be?

I submit that it is dilemma. Maybe we could have an “approved list” of books allowed.

I am wishing for you this day a Happy Christmas!
I wish you laughter, pure joy, a merry heart and a clear conscience!