Anonymous wrote:Feel kind of bad for you OP. This forum hates Catholics and even though you didn't form the religion, they are going to associate and blame you with everything they feel is wrong with it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
This invokes the principle of double effect. You are not taking the Pill to contracept; you are taking it to heal your cysts. Even the Catholic institutions fighting the HHS mandate include therapeutic uses of the Pill as covered services. It would be the same if a mother had to have a hysterectomy for some medically indicated reason. The double effect would be healing an illness and rendering the woman infertile. But the intent was not to render her infertile, so it is not illicit.
So even a fertile, married woman can take the Pill, but the intent cannot be contraceptive.
PP here -- thanks so much for answering my question.
Another one -- If a woman has a chronic illness, one in which becoming her pregant would present serious risks to her health, maybe even death, is she still not 'allowed' to try to prevent pregancy? Even if the pregnancy could result in her already-born children being left motherless? How would she be able to have sex without worrying that it might subsequently lead to her demise?
Thanks in advance for answering. This is all fascinating.
Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
This invokes the principle of double effect. You are not taking the Pill to contracept; you are taking it to heal your cysts. Even the Catholic institutions fighting the HHS mandate include therapeutic uses of the Pill as covered services. It would be the same if a mother had to have a hysterectomy for some medically indicated reason. The double effect would be healing an illness and rendering the woman infertile. But the intent was not to render her infertile, so it is not illicit.
So even a fertile, married woman can take the Pill, but the intent cannot be contraceptive.
Anonymous wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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.