I follow Catholic teaching on contraception. Ask me anything.

[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.

Care to weigh in on this, OP, & C8BL? Not related to contraception, I know, but I'm interested in what you think of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With so much misinformation out there, I wanted to make myself available for questions. Peace!

Why do you think you have a right to
impose your religious beliefs on others, particularly women? It is none of my business if you have six stair-step kifd and is none of your business if I do not want to have a child and have an abortion, whatever my reason.
f

[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.

If God calls women to the priesthood, then it is a sin, just as if the Church prohibited women from receiving communion based on the gender of the Apostles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

There are many Catholic couples who prayerfully decide that they are tapped out. They can then either practice periodic abstinence (NFP) or total abstinence. NFP leaves open the possibility of a pregnancy, but if used correctly, it is extremely effective, especially with our modern understanding of cycles.

Of course, it would be an incredible cross to bear. I cannot imagine. But NFP is not supposed to be used lightly, and there are many other situations that restrict spouses' access to one another (travel, long-term illness, stresses). And yet spouses are called to be faithful to one another.

Someone else pointed out that NFP couples face the same decisions as contracepting couples, and this is true. I did not mean to say otherwise. But NFP couples, as well as couples who completely let God determine their family, start from a different place.

[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?

I am an adult convert. My conversion began with an intellectual inquiry into jurisprudence, and then I happened to read Pope John Paul II's
Letter to Families, and it blew my mind. I loved it. So I kept reading and talking with friends who were faithful Catholics, and eventually, I embraced the faith myself.

[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.

Well, I think Jesus did have a female apostle, Mary Magdalene. There is a Gospel according to Mary, although it isn't included in the canon (just like several other gospels that were discovered later...like Gospel according to Thomas). Peter had his own reasons for excluding Mary from the recorded history, like to start with the fact that Mary said that Jesus had shared things with her he hadn't shared with anyone else. Who did Jesus appear to first after the resurrection? That's right, Mary Magdalene. Who told the other apostles he was risen? Yep.

The church doesn't have female priests because they are preserving an established way of life (a way of life I might add that allowed rampant sexual transgressions to persist for years.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

There are many Catholic couples who prayerfully decide that they are tapped out. They can then either practice periodic abstinence (NFP) or total abstinence. NFP leaves open the possibility of a pregnancy, but if used correctly, it is extremely effective, especially with our modern understanding of cycles.

Of course, it would be an incredible cross to bear. I cannot imagine. But NFP is not supposed to be used lightly, and there are many other situations that restrict spouses' access to one another (travel, long-term illness, stresses). And yet spouses are called to be faithful to one another.

Someone else pointed out that NFP couples face the same decisions as contracepting couples, and this is true. I did not mean to say otherwise. But NFP couples, as well as couples who completely let God determine their family, start from a different place.

How does it leave open the possibility of pregnancy if it is extremely effective. If you know you are not ovulating and you are too far from ovulation to get pregnant, how then are you open to pregnancy when you are having sex? When I went through pre-cana the lady went on and on about this while in the same breath talking about how effective NFP is and how you can pretty much guarantee that if you do it correctly you won't get pregnant. How are you leaving yourself open to the "procreative" aspect of sex if you are only having sex when you know you will not get pregnant?

[Anonymous]

OP, I respect your opinions although I don't share them, and I think posters who have been disrespectful on this thread are out of line. My issue with all of this - meaning, women's reproduction- is that I believe the Church (I am Catholic) makes this out to be a much more simplistic, black and white issue than it really is. For example, the medical eatablishment at this time considers it dangerous for a woman to have more than a certain number of c sections. What is a woman supposed to do in the situation where she's already had up to about the limit that the established medical profession is comfortable with? She doesn't want to potentially put her life in danger (yes the risk is small but it's scientifically established) with another pregnancy. Is the answer truly to stop having sex with her husband? I think that's ludicrous. Sex is not just for procreation, it's for maintaining a loving and close relationship in a marriage. And this is where I personally believe celibate male priests Just have no frame of reference.

[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.

So to answer the question, you don't feel conflicted about taking advice regarding sex from an institution that doesn't ordain women and allows pedophiles to remain in its ranks.

By the way, there are a lot of attributes associated with the apostles that don't seem to get in the way of ordination (e.g., race, sexual orientation, age, marital status, etc.). Why is sex the sole criteria that stands in the way of ordination?

[Anonymous]

But NFP is not supposed to be used lightly, and there are many other situations that restrict spouses' access to one another (travel, long-term illness, stresses). And yet spouses are called to be faithful to one another.

Two questions:
Why is NFP acceptable, but other methods of contraception are not? Is there a biblical basis for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so much misinformation out there, I wanted to make myself available for questions. Peace!

Why do you think you have a right to
impose your religious beliefs on others, particularly women? It is none of my business if you have six stair-step kifd and is none of your business if I do not want to have a child and have an abortion, whatever my reason.
f

To be fair, Catholicism is not the only religion 'to impose religious beliefs on others'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I respect your opinions although I don't share them, and I think posters who have been disrespectful on this thread are out of line. My issue with all of this - meaning, women's reproduction- is that I believe the Church (I am Catholic) makes this out to be a much more simplistic, black and white issue than it really is. For example, the medical eatablishment at this time considers it dangerous for a woman to have more than a certain number of c sections. What is a woman supposed to do in the situation where she's already had up to about the limit that the established medical profession is comfortable with? She doesn't want to potentially put her life in danger (yes the risk is small but it's scientifically established) with another pregnancy. Is the answer truly to stop having sex with her husband? I think that's ludicrous. Sex is not just for procreation, it's for maintaining a loving and close relationship in a marriage. And this is where I personally believe celibate male priests Just have no frame of reference.

I don't recall there being anything in the bible that allows c-sections. Are you catholics actually having c-sections even though they don't say it's OK?

[Anonymous]

My catholic friend made a "deal with god" so that she could get her tubes tied. I wasn't aware that you could do this. However it seems to be a pretty slick option.

[Anonymous]

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

This is actually a very deep and a very simple question, and it speaks to another misunderstanding.

The default setting for married couples is to be completely open to the possibility of children. If the couple faces serious reasons for not having a child, then they may not have sex--they need to express their love in chastity.

Women's bodies were designed to have long stretches of natural infertility. Knowing that you're naturally infertile and making use of that time is not contra-cepting, as in preventing conception. The unitive and procreative aspects are both still intact, and the couple would lovingly accept a baby no matter what.

But there is a lot of discussion among faithful Catholics about having a "contraceptive mentality.". Some believe couples should just trust in Divine Providence no matter what, as if that is the best way to live.

But there is no requirement for married couples to have sex at any given time.

So the focus is not on preventing babies; it is on preserving the sanctity of the full meaning of sex. Contraception is intrinsically wrong brcause it separates the unitive and procreative meanings of sex. So while it is not a requirement to have sex, when the sex is had, it needs to be real, honest, true, complete sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is actually a very deep and a very simple question, and it speaks to another misunderstanding.

The default setting for married couples is to be completely open to the possibility of children. If the couple faces serious reasons for not having a child, then they may not have sex--they need to express their love in chastity.

Women's bodies were designed to have long stretches of natural infertility. Knowing that you're naturally infertile and making use of that time is not contra-cepting, as in preventing conception. The unitive and procreative aspects are both still intact, and the couple would lovingly accept a baby no matter what.

But there is a lot of discussion among faithful Catholics about having a "contraceptive mentality.". Some believe couples should just trust in Divine Providence no matter what, as if that is the best way to live.

But there is no requirement for married couples to have sex at any given time.

So the focus is not on preventing babies; it is on preserving the sanctity of the full meaning of sex. Contraception is intrinsically wrong brcause it separates the unitive and procreative meanings of sex. So while it is not a requirement to have sex, when the sex is had, it needs to be real, honest, true, complete sex.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that one up.