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?
Leave a Reply
|
December 29th, 2006 at 7:35 p12
by MY most humble definitions, birth control and contraception are NOT the same. To me,
Contra-ception would be the preventing of fertilization, so the sexual act needs to have occured first.
Birth control is simply the means of regulating how many children you have; here the sexual act not only isnt necessary but in fact it better NOT have taken place or you WILL be either practicing “contraception or playing russian roulette - baby style, a.k.a. the approved catholic style birth control.
in pursuing this subject i came across several items, that when combined are driving me nuts. and ive seen them more than in one instance. In fact i havent even “blogged” them yet because i just dont know what to say (unusual 4 me). they are:
1) the church “doesnt want you to have more kids than you can afford”
2) “physical” lovemaking is an important, indeed necessary part of marriage that the church acknowledges (no sex is grounds for annulment i think)
3) contraception is wrong
my math tells me that you cant possibly have all 3 in the same equation. frequent “physical lovemaking” over the course of a lifelong marriage WILL no doubt result in MANY more kids than you can afford. in fact its a favorite line i use that says u can tell there arent many “good” catholics out there because there arent many families of 12 or more like the “good” old days. that in itself is (for me at least) unequivocal (even if unacknowledged) proof that most catholics ignore the teaching on contraception - thank god!
Onto using condoms. Maybe it would help if we changed the way we viewed condoms. Instead of them being a “contraceptive” that ALSO “may” (usually) prevent disease. Maybe we ought to view them as a disease preventative, that ALSO “may” (usually) prevent pregnancy.
Similar in some ways to you view in your next blog that instead of obesity causing diabetes, instead diabetes causes obesity. see that was easy. Now condoms are no longer contraceptives, but disease preventers. Glad i could help.
P.S. Your friend has good ideas indeed! He must be a smart fellow.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:35 p12
When God created man and woman He expected them to seek and follow His Will in all things. He did this so they could have the fullness of life. Since the time of Adam and Eve, mankind has decided repeatedly to do their own will.
There is no contradiction in Church teachings and reality, in fact the highest reality is in God’s Will.
When the Church teaches that physical intimacy between a husband and wife is “holy” (Hebrews 13:4), and should be sought after, it is not meant in the context of “sexual addiction”. Readers might wonder why I bring up sexual addiction when it wasn’t mentioned, but it is behind our society and pertinent to our discussion. It makes people think that they have to have sex all of the time, which is not true.
In any normal marriage there is much more to do than have sex day and night. If a couple is living their lives for God and not for themselves (again need I mention that we can not be seeking our own selfish desires in a loving relationship), then in the beginning they would have the freedom to have sex more often discovering the beauty of one another’s body. They would be seeking God’s Will and guidance in how many children and when and, above all, trusting in God to provide. They must follow His Will in every aspect of their lives. If they do not follow God’s Will, the system will not work!
Most married couples, as they grow in their mutual love and respect for each other will make love sporadically and spontaneously but very rarely ‘constantly’. If they have a sexual addiction then they should “repent”, seek counseling and get help.
You brought up two points that I tried to look up online with no success, so I can only give my opinion at this time.
1. “the church “doesn’t want you to have more kids than you can afford”"
This seems to me like it would be a Church teaching, but if you know where it is I would like to read the whole article or teaching, in context.
2. “”physical” lovemaking is an important, indeed necessary part of
marriage that the church acknowledges (no sex is grounds for annulment i
think)”
The part you mentioned; “(no sex is grounds for annulment i
think)”.
I do not believe this is so. I could not find any reference online. If you know where it is, please let me know. I will say that, to my knowledge, if someone is getting married and secretly intends to never have sex with their spouse, I believe that would be grounds for annulment. But, if once you have a valid Sacramental marriage your spouse says, “no more frisky time”, then you are just plain out of luck!
For more on Annulment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment
There is an old adage, that “if you want to seem wise to those around you, keep your mouth shut”. It should be so on the Internet also, only it would be; “if you want to seem wise to those around you, do not type”!
So much for; “P.S. Your friend has good ideas indeed! He must be a smart fellow.”!
December 29th, 2006 at 7:35 p12
lol…….. at the last part, so true, for so many; most of which dont even know it. like us for example.
but lets not lose site of the “prize,” that being sex, condoms & catholics. i didn’t mean to imply constant or even frequent sex. but even occasional sex, like say “anniversary sex” are problematic and would no doubt result in 8 or so kids over the course of a “lifetime” marriage. Now if you add to that equation your “safe time” calculations, then either you arent gonna have sex on your anniversary many times, or at ANY “spontaneous” time OR your going to be “shooting craps” if you do. either way a “healthy” sex life, “catholic style,” will have the average family begging for food scraps before their life is over.
I actually thought you would like my take on birth control vs contaception as it pertains to the “accepted” catholic style. i tried deliberately to stick up for your church for a change, when making my definitions.
Also thought my redefining condoms would have been thought provoking but it didnt even get a nibble. i’m upset because like many things in todays world, how society defines it, dictates how we view it. like muslims=terrorists, republicans=conservatives = religious = anti abortion etc., democrats = far left = liberal = socialism = pro abortion etc. like clergy = good = god-like etc. like I’m always wrong, your always right, etc. all of these things we know (or should know) are NOT universally true, so if we could change our view of condoms we might be better able to accept them as disease preventers. sorry if again i overestimated myself by thinking this a very interesting idea. i only try to create a thought provoking environment, which hopefully would lead to discussion, which hopefully would lead to resolution in my favorite neighborhood - the “middle.”
December 30th, 2006 at 7:35 p12
You seem to be under the impression that every time a husband and wife have sexual intercourse it will result in a pregnancy. I know that is not true. There are many couples who have healthy sexual relations and only have one or two children.
I was unable to find the ratio of pregnancy to intercourse, but I did uncover some information that might be germane (no not the Germans), to our discussion.
[Nationally, one out of six couples (15 percent) are infertile, using the official definition of not being able to conceive after 12 months of regular intimate relations without any form of birth control.
As many as 10 million Americans are affected by infertility. In about 20 percent of the cases, both partners have problems that cause the infertility.
notes Sharon A. Winer, M.D., clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and a reproductive endocrinologist affiliated with Cedars-Sinai Hospital in Beverly Hills]
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n239/ai_19587339
As far as begging for food, I sincerely doubt that.
Mt 6:29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith?
“O man of little faith?”
January 1st, 2007 at 7:35 p01
little faith - thats me alright. not braggin, just stating fact.
i also am not the least bit concerned about stats on infertile couples, but rather with the fertile ones. the infertile ones will just dilute the average, not disprove my point. heck if i or my female partner(s), were 100% INFERTILE i would follow church teaching 100% myself. you dont really think using birth control is a “fun” part of the act , do you?
Nor do i think that sex always results in pregnancies.
in my “travels” across women of all ethicities i remember one group (shall remain nameless, out of respect) in particular that came with the warning, “they get pregnant just by lookin at them.” and in looking around society, i must say its might be true. want to try something? look around when your out and really study the women with the most kids. then write me with your guess. hints: they are overwhelmingly catholic and are almost always pregnant!
you know of couples with healthy sex lives that have only 1 or 2 kids you say? well despite what you “may” say in reply, you do NOT, and cannot know what they “might” be doing to prevent conception, despite what they tell you, so that statement is meaningless. i dont have the figures handy but sveral places ive read that only 3% of catholics follow the church teaching on birth control.
ok couldnt find the #3% stat, but did find this one:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/15/bishops_stress_sexual_issues_and_warn_on_communion/
I quote: “The bishops ……. acknowledged that most married Catholics — 96 percent, according to their own estimate — use birth control.
i mean look at me; im born & baptized catholic and dont have lots of kids, but you dont and cant know why that is, can you? as i recall it took quite awhile for my wife to get pregnant also, but even assuming it takes two years for a woman to conceive, that still extrapolates over a “lifelong” marriage to about 6 or 7 kids average (assuming marriage at 25 & fertility til say mid 40’s thats 20 or so years, divided by the 2 it “may” take to get pregnant and giving another 1 full tear of recovery” for the woman after birth, that becomes 3 into say 21 = 7).
“begging for food scraps was a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally, sorry to mislead you. what was meant was that there will be MUCH they will have to do without that is routinely considered a “necessity” in todays society.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:35 p01
“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die, so that you can live as you want.” ~ Mother Theresa
January 19th, 2007 at 7:35 p01
For all those TTC’ing out there, let me tell you about our experience. We were years trying for a baby with no luck, then we tried this fertility monitor and we were pregnant within a few months. It may not work for everyone, but it did work for us.