I follow Catholic teaching on contraception. Ask me anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Quite the opposite. This is empowering to women, while contraception results in men controlling women, body, heart, mind, and soul.

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.

It is both the man and the woman who are required to control their bodies if they are not ready for the possibility of a new life when the woman does not use artificial contraception. Mutual communication and respect is essential.

Anyone who reads DCUM for any length of time sees the fallout of contraceptive sex: disagreements about having another baby. Resentment because one partner wanted a baby more than the other. No sex drive. Feeling used when TTC.

This is not a random rule, like driving on the right side of the road. This is the essence, the real truth, of the meaning of sex. If sex is disrespected, if its full meaning is not appreciated, then negative consequences follow.

So it is not about control, but about freedom. Freedom is not about doing whatever you want, but about choosing to do what is right.

In a perfect world, where men were always interested in raising the children who are the result of intercourse, you might have a point.

In the real world, where the female of the species must bear the physical, financial, and emotional toll of child bearing and rearing, whether the men choose to stick around or not, contraception DOES empower women.

Also, part of the problem with your interpretation above is that it assumes the men want the sex. The woman merely decides whether to agree and bear him the resulting children.

I believe women are empowered by being able to choose when to have sex for recreation and when to have it for procreation.

As for disagreement s about whether to have another baby, I am reminded of a scence from Angela’s Ashes, where the Irish Catholic family had more children than they could feed, house, or clothe. Many of the babies died. Finally the wife says to the husband, “no more babies”. Which meant “no more sex”. And so he left. In countries the world over, when it would be irresponsible to have more children to starve to death, you see how far women get with, “not tonight dear, I don’t want to have another baby”.

[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.

You are actually wrong here as a matter of doctrine. Humanae vitae makes clear that couples can discern for themselves when to use nfp if another baby would be emotionally or financially harmful for their family. It does not push abstinece as birth control.

The arguments for nfp have always struck me as totally specious. Nfp is ok because it takes advantage of "natural" infertility. But in no other area does the church make such a distinction between natural and unnatural - instead, in catholic bioethics, the emphasis is always on intent and effects. So how is the intent of nfp any different than the intent of using condoms? And what if you wanted to use condoms at infertile times in addition to nfp - why would this be wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are actually wrong here as a matter of doctrine. Humanae vitae makes clear that couples can discern for themselves when to use nfp if another baby would be emotionally or financially harmful for their family. It does not push abstinece as birth control.

The arguments for nfp have always struck me as totally specious. Nfp is ok because it takes advantage of "natural" infertility. But in no other area does the church make such a distinction between natural and unnatural - instead, in catholic bioethics, the emphasis is always on intent and effects. So how is the intent of nfp any different than the intent of using condoms? And what if you wanted to use condoms at infertile times in addition to nfp - why would this be wrong?

And also, since abstinence is okay, even if it is for "contra-ceptive" reasons, why aren't other forms of bc okay? I get it, they aren't natural. They don't rely on some system already put into place by god (like a woman's cycle). But I mean from my understanding of what you're saying, it is technically permissible (or "licit" as you like to say) for a couple to say they will never have sex again, rather than risk getting pregnant. And that is okay, technically. Abstinence is okay. But that isn't open to life. And the intent is to keep from getting pregnant.

So it is okay (licit) for a married couple to cut themselves off from both the unitive and procreative aspect of sex at the same time, but not just the procreative aspect. That doesn't make sense, except that it's probably unsustainable and the church knows it...so instead people will have sex and get pregnant and have more babies that they hopefully raise Catholic and let's stop bullshitting and admit that this is the real point of all this.

Point me to the part of the bible where Jesus talks about birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

First question: NFP is not a "method of contraception," because it is in no way contraceptive. Contraception is the choice (by any means) to impede the procreative potential of a given act of sex. If you are "using NFP," you NEVER choose to impede the procreative potential of a sexual act. It is the difference between sterilizing yourself and recognizing God-given times of infertility.

Second question: Church teaching is found in encyclicals (Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae) and the Catechism, because Catholics accept the authority of the Church. But all of these teachings have a biblical basis. Christ Himself taught that men and women become "one flesh," and what God has joined, no man may put asunder (Mt 19:6). God created sex to be unitive and procreative, and it is not our place to separate sex from babies. Ephesians states that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and His love would never be deliberately sterilized. Genesis states we were created in the image and likeness of God, that His creation was "good," that we are "fruitful.". Children are referred to over and over again as great blessings.

Scripture is a love story. God is love, God loves us, we are to love as God loves. God chose to have sex be the way more humans, with eternal souls, come into being. The uncreated Love that is God touches the created world, between husband and wife, and a unique new person begins. Amazing.

The real question is, how can contracepted sex be biblical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

First question: NFP is not a "method of contraception," because it is in no way contraceptive. Contraception is the choice (by any means) to impede the procreative potential of a given act of sex. If you are "using NFP," you NEVER choose to impede the procreative potential of a sexual act. It is the difference between sterilizing yourself and recognizing God-given times of infertility.

Second question: Church teaching is found in encyclicals (Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae) and the Catechism, because Catholics accept the authority of the Church. But all of these teachings have a biblical basis. Christ Himself taught that men and women become "one flesh," and what God has joined, no man may put asunder (Mt 19:6). God created sex to be unitive and procreative, and it is not our place to separate sex from babies. Ephesians states that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and His love would never be deliberately sterilized. Genesis states we were created in the image and likeness of God, that His creation was "good," that we are "fruitful.". Children are referred to over and over again as great blessings.

Scripture is a love story. God is love, God loves us, we are to love as God loves. God chose to have sex be the way more humans, with eternal souls, come into being. The uncreated Love that is God touches the created world, between husband and wife, and a unique new person begins. Amazing.

The real question is, how can contracepted sex be biblical?

Is abstinence within marriage to avoid pregnancy licit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are actually wrong here as a matter of doctrine. Humanae vitae makes clear that couples can discern for themselves when to use nfp if another baby would be emotionally or financially harmful for their family. It does not push abstinece as birth control.

The arguments for nfp have always struck me as totally specious. Nfp is ok because it takes advantage of "natural" infertility. But in no other area does the church make such a distinction between natural and unnatural - instead, in catholic bioethics, the emphasis is always on intent and effects. So how is the intent of nfp any different than the intent of using condoms? And what if you wanted to use condoms at infertile times in addition to nfp - why would this be wrong?

Correct: Humanae Vitae states couples may discern for themselves whether periodic or total abstinence is necessary because they cannot welcome another baby for a time, or for an indefinite time.

The Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it is artificial, but because it is contraceptive. NFP never frustrates the possible fertility of a given sexual act. There is no sexual act at all. Here's an analogy: when you choose whom to invite to your wedding, you need to decide why to include or not include certain people. If you cannot invite distant relatives, you simply do not send them an invitation. What you do not do is send a contra-invitation: we are getting married, but DO NOT COME. That would violate the relationship.

Same thing with sex. When married couples have sex, they are inviting God to work His most creative act, a new human life. If they have contraceptive sex, they are sending Him a contra-invitation. Whereas if they abstain from sex, they are not sending an invitation at all.

The NFP couple intends to abstain from fertile sex. The contracepting couple intends to sterilize fertile sex. Their mutual further intention--to avoid pregnancy--is the same, but their immediate intentions are different.

[Anonymous]

Nothing on earth can exist against God's will.
Therefore human exploration of science and resulting medical advances, inc. contraception, are God's will.

God is all powerful. If God wanted me to have a baby, I would get pregnant, regardless of any pill I may take.

God gave all humans free will. To use the science, or not. To use knowledge for good, or for evil. Free will includes sexual and reproductive free will. No church or employer should interfere with the exercise thereof. By all means, preach your heart out. If your arguments have merti, they will persuade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are actually wrong here as a matter of doctrine. Humanae vitae makes clear that couples can discern for themselves when to use nfp if another baby would be emotionally or financially harmful for their family. It does not push abstinece as birth control.

The arguments for nfp have always struck me as totally specious. Nfp is ok because it takes advantage of "natural" infertility. But in no other area does the church make such a distinction between natural and unnatural - instead, in catholic bioethics, the emphasis is always on intent and effects. So how is the intent of nfp any different than the intent of using condoms? And what if you wanted to use condoms at infertile times in addition to nfp - why would this be wrong?

Correct: Humanae Vitae states couples may discern for themselves whether periodic or total abstinence is necessary because they cannot welcome another baby for a time, or for an indefinite time.

The Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it is artificial, but because it is contraceptive. NFP never frustrates the possible fertility of a given sexual act. There is no sexual act at all. Here's an analogy: when you choose whom to invite to your wedding, you need to decide why to include or not include certain people. If you cannot invite distant relatives, you simply do not send them an invitation. What you do not do is send a contra-invitation: we are getting married, but DO NOT COME. That would violate the relationship.

Same thing with sex. When married couples have sex, they are inviting God to work His most creative act, a new human life. If they have contraceptive sex, they are sending Him a contra-invitation. Whereas if they abstain from sex, they are not sending an invitation at all.

The NFP couple intends to abstain from fertile sex. The contracepting couple intends to sterilize fertile sex. Their mutual further intention--to avoid pregnancy--is the same, but their immediate intentions are different.

This is sooooo splitting hairs it's laughable. But hey, whatever you need to think to get through the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

First question: NFP is not a "method of contraception," because it is in no way contraceptive. Contraception is the choice (by any means) to impede the procreative potential of a given act of sex. If you are "using NFP," you NEVER choose to impede the procreative potential of a sexual act. It is the difference between sterilizing yourself and recognizing God-given times of infertility.

Second question: Church teaching is found in encyclicals (Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae) and the Catechism, because Catholics accept the authority of the Church. But all of these teachings have a biblical basis. Christ Himself taught that men and women become "one flesh," and what God has joined, no man may put asunder (Mt 19:6). God created sex to be unitive and procreative, and it is not our place to separate sex from babies. Ephesians states that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and His love would never be deliberately sterilized. Genesis states we were created in the image and likeness of God, that His creation was "good," that we are "fruitful.". Children are referred to over and over again as great blessings.

Scripture is a love story. God is love, God loves us, we are to love as God loves. God chose to have sex be the way more humans, with eternal souls, come into being. The uncreated Love that is God touches the created world, between husband and wife, and a unique new person begins. Amazing.

The real question is, how can contracepted sex be biblical?

Is abstinence within marriage to avoid pregnancy licit?

Yes, if the (periodic or complete) abstinence is mutually agreed upon and is for grave reasons.

But even a couple who is not deliberately sterilizing particular sexual acts could still be violating their relationship with God and with each other through periodic or complete abstinence. We need to open our hearts in a very brave and profound way to see children as gifts, rather than burdens. It can be a real struggle.

[Anonymous]

I respect anyone who is so faithful to their beliefs when these choices are so difficult to make, but I am glad I am Jewish and sex (within marriage) is for fun and procreation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You know, this is something my family talks about a lot. Fact is, NFP is extraordinarily effective. So if you see children as a burden, you have NFP in your arsenal of methods to avoid such a burden, and you're right with the Church, too?! Awesome!

Or not. When Catholics marry in the Church, they vow before God and guests to accept children lovingly from God. If their attitude towards children is negative, they are violating their vows in their hearts, even if they do not intentionally sterilize a given act.

This negative understanding of children requires a change of heart. Sinice effective NFP requires great sacrifice to practice, it kind of has a built-in mechanism to work on couples' hearts. As in, "You are so gorgeous tonight. How seriously do we need to avoid another baby?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a great plan if you want 3-30 kids. Good luck with that. I know several people who do it and they all have "oops" kids.

I know several people who use contraceptives and have oops kids too. Funny right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

First question: NFP is not a "method of contraception," because it is in no way contraceptive. Contraception is the choice (by any means) to impede the procreative potential of a given act of sex. If you are "using NFP," you NEVER choose to impede the procreative potential of a sexual act. It is the difference between sterilizing yourself and recognizing God-given times of infertility.

Second question: Church teaching is found in encyclicals (Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae) and the Catechism, because Catholics accept the authority of the Church. But all of these teachings have a biblical basis. Christ Himself taught that men and women become "one flesh," and what God has joined, no man may put asunder (Mt 19:6). God created sex to be unitive and procreative, and it is not our place to separate sex from babies. Ephesians states that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and His love would never be deliberately sterilized. Genesis states we were created in the image and likeness of God, that His creation was "good," that we are "fruitful.". Children are referred to over and over again as great blessings.

Scripture is a love story. God is love, God loves us, we are to love as God loves. God chose to have sex be the way more humans, with eternal souls, come into being. The uncreated Love that is God touches the created world, between husband and wife, and a unique new person begins. Amazing.

The real question is, how can contracepted sex be biblical?

That is very poetic. But you make this huge leap from "children are blessings" + "sex is the way humans come into being" to "we can't limit the number of children we have through contraception".

I do not believe that medicine interferes with God's plan for calling us home at death. Why is that any different than contraception interfering with God's plan for birth?

[Anonymous]

I have a question I have always wanted to ask someone who is anti-birth control; forgive me if anyone has already asked it, but this thread has gotten rather long. Some of us who have ovarian cysts or other issues like endometriosis have been on birth control pills not only for the intended use, but also because they can help prevent further issues with those conditions. Let's suppose you were not going to be having sex with anyone; would you not feel like you could take oral contraception, even though not taking it could result in your developing numerous cysts which would result in pain and eventual surgeries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thank you for answering.

The reason I asked is because I am not quite sure I fully understand Catholicism. I really want to understand, but there are some things I don't get. Like when you say the faith...what is your faith in? Is it in the Catholic Church, or do you mean something else?