I follow Catholic teaching on contraception. Ask me anything.

[Anonymous]

2 Questions:

1.Does your parish subsidize your large family's catholic school tuition in exchange for you being a model mouthpiece for it's policies?

2. How do you reconcile following the teachings of a church that employs and protects known pedophiles who are never performing sexual acts for the sake of procreation?

[Anonymous]

It says ask me anything, not I will answer anything. OP is free to answer which questions she wants, in whatever fashion she wants. Stop being jerks about it. Smart people are careful about the questions they answer because many of you on here are just itching to start ranting. You don't want answers so you can be informed on how someone else thinks, you want answers so you can start some drama.

My question to OP is, why are you Catholic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We have free will. We can choose to align our will with the natural order of creation, or to step outside of the natural order. When we choose to go against natural law, there are negative consequences that follow. When we choose to follow natural law, and only then, we can have true joy and peace.

Do you consider taking ibuprofen for a fever "stepping outside the natural order?" Do you think taking folic acid while pregnant "going against natural law?"

And another question - are you Crazy 9 Baby Lady?

I hope not. I like her.

C9BL here to say...

Thank you for the kind sentiment. I must like you, too!

I also follow Church teaching on contraception. But I am not the only woman in this area who does.

I am always glad to talk about my passionate love of sex and all that goes with it. So you can ask me questions anytime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedom is not about doing what you want, but choosing what is right? Presumably there is only one "right" course of action. So where is the freedom if you have only one option to achieve this freedom? Not sure I follow your logic on this. Freedom = no choice other than the "right" choice? Doesn't sound very freeing to me.

This would require a longish discussion of natural law, but briefly:

We have free will. We can choose to align our will with the natural order of creation, or to step outside of the natural order. When we choose to go against natural law, there are negative consequences that follow. When we choose to follow natural law, and only then, we can have true joy and peace.

The temptation is always the same: that our will, set against natural law, will somehow result in something better. But that is a lie.

So we are free to choose good or evil. But actual freedom is only found in doing good. Choosing to do what is wrong is actually slavery.

I grew up Catholic, and this Natural Law argument is a tautology. If you define obedience to the law as the only way to be free, then of course freedom requires you to obey the law!

In reality, cheaters do sometimes prosper. And you can say they are "enslaved by their sin". But really, that's an assertion and not proof of anything. It plays well to a group of people who already believe, but it does not persuade those who do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It says ask me anything, not I will answer anything. OP is free to answer which questions she wants, in whatever fashion she wants. Stop being jerks about it. Smart people are careful about the questions they answer because many of you on here are just itching to start ranting. You don't want answers so you can be informed on how someone else thinks, you want answers so you can start some drama.

My question to OP is, why are you Catholic?

All of these questions are valid, and her OP implies she was willing answer anything. There is nothing here that she shouldn't be willing to answer. But she's actually not answering anything. She's stating her opinion over and over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We have free will. We can choose to align our will with the natural order of creation, or to step outside of the natural order. When we choose to go against natural law, there are negative consequences that follow. When we choose to follow natural law, and only then, we can have true joy and peace.

Do you consider taking ibuprofen for a fever "stepping outside the natural order?" Do you think taking folic acid while pregnant "going against natural law?"

And another question - are you Crazy 9 Baby Lady?

I hope not. I like her.

C9BL here to say...

Thank you for the kind sentiment. I must like you, too!

I also follow Church teaching on contraception. But I am not the only woman in this area who does.

I am always glad to talk about my passionate love of sex and all that goes with it. So you can ask me questions anytime.

I knew this wasn't you. You know why? You're respectful of others and their beliefs and come at things non-defensively and non-judgementally, even when people are coming at you pretty hard. It's why I like you. Wish I knew you IRL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It says ask me anything, not I will answer anything. OP is free to answer which questions she wants, in whatever fashion she wants. Stop being jerks about it. Smart people are careful about the questions they answer because many of you on here are just itching to start ranting. You don't want answers so you can be informed on how someone else thinks, you want answers so you can start some drama.

My question to OP is, why are you Catholic?

There is some truth to that but there are some questions that she won't answer that truly defy the (implied) point of the thread. For example - how many children does she have? I am not against OP and am just truly curious to know.

[Anonymous]

How do you reconcile the fact that the church is ok with one effective way to prevent babies (nfp) but not other ways?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain how thos makes sense in a way other than men trying to control women's bodies.

When sex is inextricably linked to the possibility of procreation, the full power of a woman is present. Think of it this way: if a man walks up to a woman in a bar and says, "I want to have sex with you," that is one thing. If a man walks up to a woman in a bar and says, "I want to have a baby with you," that is something entirely different. Because making love and possibly creating a new life is heavy. It requires commitment, fidelity, vulnerability, trust, patience, courage, and mutual respect. The woman is not an object to be used, but a whole person.

This presumes that sex is something men want and women dispense. And without protection, men can only have sex with women if they are willing to live with the consequence o pregnancy. So the threat of a baby is the "power" held by women. Otherwise she is an object.

Women also want to have sex, and sometimes without having a kid. A baby should not be a tool to secure commitment, respect, patience etc. Nor in practice does it seem to effectively guarantee those qualities, as demonstrated by the many bad marriages involving children.

There are other ways to get commitment and respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain how thos makes sense in a way other than men trying to control women's bodies.

When sex is inextricably linked to the possibility of procreation, the full power of a woman is present. Think of it this way: if a man walks up to a woman in a bar and says, "I want to have sex with you," that is one thing. If a man walks up to a woman in a bar and says, "I want to have a baby with you," that is something entirely different. Because making love and possibly creating a new life is heavy. It requires commitment, fidelity, vulnerability, trust, patience, courage, and mutual respect. The woman is not an object to be used, but a whole person.

This presumes that sex is something men want and women dispense. And without protection, men can only have sex with women if they are willing to live with the consequence o pregnancy. So the threat of a baby is the "power" held by women. Otherwise she is an object.

Women also want to have sex, and sometimes without having a kid. A baby should not be a tool to secure commitment, respect, patience etc. Nor in practice does it seem to effectively guarantee those qualities, as demonstrated by the many bad marriages involving children.

There are other ways to get commitment and respect.

Yes. Not only this but there are a lot of single parents missing their deadbeat partners.

[Anonymous]

Logically, it is difficult for me to understand how this works in practice. What if you and your husband feel that you have the maxium number of children that you can care for (financially, emotionally, etc.). But if you continue having unprotected sex, even if you use the rhythm metod etc., there is the possibility of having more children, pushing you over your tipping point. Do you not have sex any more? If not, isn't that terrible for your relationship?

[Anonymous]

Do you ever feel conflicted about following the teachings of a church that refuses to ordain women and allows pedophiles to thrive in its hierarchy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you ever feel conflicted about following the teachings of a church that refuses to ordain women and allows pedophiles to thrive in its hierarchy?

refusing to ordain women is just a reflection of christ having no female apostles. not ordaining women is not a sin, so it's passable. pedophiles are there and definately of satanic influence most are gay as well so it's a double. everybody is a sinner, everybody needs jesus the church is wrong in a civil manner not to turn the small minority of pedophiles over to the law, but the soul is for God to handle, Jesus decides. The unly unforgivin sin is the unconfessed sin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you ever feel conflicted about following the teachings of a church that refuses to ordain women and allows pedophiles to thrive in its hierarchy?

refusing to ordain women is just a reflection of christ having no female apostles. not ordaining women is not a sin, so it's passable. pedophiles are there and definately of satanic influence most are gay as well so it's a double. everybody is a sinner, everybody needs jesus the church is wrong in a civil manner not to turn the small minority of pedophiles over to the law, but the soul is for God to handle, Jesus decides. The unly unforgivin sin is the unconfessed sin.

Holy crap.

[Anonymous]

The unly unforgivin sin is the unconfessed sin.

Right, but you can't just confess and then go and do the same bad thing again and again. That's not true contrition.