S/O Post- Thoughts on Birth Control?

vikinganna87

lovesclimbing said:

I use the diaphragm with spermicide. I did not want to use hormonal BC for numerous reasons. I know quite a few people who have gained considerable weight on it. I have a bad enough time gaining weight I don't want to risk that. I also know one woman who had such horrid mood swings on it, she almost ruined her marriage before she got off it. I also just plain don't want the hormones in my body. I'm not super into clean living - I don't buy organic everything - but I do seek to eat healthy and avoid taking lots of pills and going to the doctor for every little thing, so I don't want hormones in my body. Also, my cycles right now are about as perfect as a woman could ask for. Little to no cramping, and only on the first day or two, no PMS. I don't want to worry about hormones affecting that when I eventually would go off it (which I would at some point because H and I plan to have children.)

I like the idea of a non-hormonal IUD, but it was and is too expensive.

The diaphragm is not perfect. It's a bit annoying to go put it in, but I definitely prefer it over condoms (we both hate those!) and putting hormones in my body. 

They say the diaphragm has a pretty low prevention rate. The CDC says 12 percent of women will experience an unintended pregnancy within the first year with typical use. But that typical use includes people not using it correctly.

H and I have used it for over three years and no babies yet. My mom also used it with no pregnancies for a year and a half (and got pregnant within a couple times having sex without it. They know this because of my dad only being home for a day or two between work trips.)

I also know other people who have used it with perfect success.


I used the diaphragm for years [until recently since we're TTC] and was very happy with it.  I'm surprised it's not very popular in the US. 

spockforprez

But ladies, I need to know. Your husbands and future husbands... ARE THEY SPONGEWORTHY?????? 

scrunchythief

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

PrettyGirlLost

scrunchythief said:

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

SO that all goes back to the dogma that sex is for procreation, and God wants us to procreate because life is a gift, right?  Because the physical parts that we're holding back by using BC or pulling out are our gametes.

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how using NFP to try and hold back our gametes "naturally" in order to avoid getting knocked up is any different than using BC to hold back our gametes to avoid getting knocked up.  Especially if what NFP practitioners say is true and when done correctly NFP is just as accurate as correctly used BC. 

scrunchythief

Also, @marriedhamstermom wow are our stories similar!  I also ended up in the ER as a teen because of ovarian cysts and was put on ortho tricyclene to prevent more.  I call myself a member of the "my ovaries tried to kill me" club:)

And YMMV, but I think the cysts, which for me had been undetected for a very long time, may have caused my period to be irregular.  When I got off the pill at 22, they because regular pretty soon after.

PrettyGirlLost

scrunchythief said:

Also, @marriedhamstermom wow are our stories similar!  I also ended up in the ER as a teen because of ovarian cysts and was put on ortho tricyclene to prevent more.  I call myself a member of the "my ovaries tried to kill me" club

And YMMV, but I think the cysts, which for me had been undetected for a very long time, may have caused my period to be irregular.  When I got off the pill at 22, they because regular pretty soon after.

Insert Fight Club meme here ;-)

It's a shitty club, for sure ><

scrunchythief

PrettyGirlLost said:

scrunchythief said:

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

SO that all goes back to the dogma that sex is for procreation, and God wants us to procreate because life is a gift, right?  Because the physical parts that we're holding back by using BC or pulling out are our gametes.

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how using NFP to try and hold back our gametes "naturally" in order to avoid getting knocked up is any different than using BC to hold back our gametes to avoid getting knocked up.  Especially if what NFP practitioners say is true and when done correctly NFP is just as accurate as correctly used BC. 

Also, not trying to argue, just explaining why my H and I do this.  And to reiterate, I'm not trying to apply my statements generally.

Yes, it does partly go back to that sex is for procreation (and unity).  But it also has to do with the unity part as well.  Whether we want to procreate or not, those gametes are part of us so the church teaches they, along with the rest of us, should not be held back during sex.  It would be just as wrong to hold back emotionally by having sex purely to satisfy a physical urge while being emotionally withdrawn from your spouse.

And NFP is not acceptable because it's "natural."  Withdraw is natural and it's not allowed.  And you could argue it's unnatural to not have sex when a woman is fertile.  Also, NFP can't hold back gametes.  Instead practitioners hold back sex (mutually agreed upon by the spouses).

Sorry if I'm being too long winded. I love studying and discussing theology of the body:)

banana468

PrettyGirlLost said:

scrunchythief said:

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

SO that all goes back to the dogma that sex is for procreation, and God wants us to procreate because life is a gift, right?  Because the physical parts that we're holding back by using BC or pulling out are our gametes.

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how using NFP to try and hold back our gametes "naturally" in order to avoid getting knocked up is any different than using BC to hold back our gametes to avoid getting knocked up.  Especially if what NFP practitioners say is true and when done correctly NFP is just as accurate as correctly used BC. 

You're still leaving the door open to possibility.   Even if that possibility is scientifically small, you're engaging in an act that is leaving the door open.  

The difference with other methods is that you're going against nature.   From a theological perspective, it's why you can marry after menopause and there's no claim that sex after fertility ends is "bad".   It's still ordered towards life.   Sex itself is a normal natural part of a marriage.   The male orgasm is supposed to be in the vagina.    


A barrier method is blocking what is natural.  Therefore you're not fully giving yourself to your partner because you set up a physical barrier in the process.    A hormonal method is shifting the body to block nature by not allowing ovulation and secondarily implantation (which is then considered abortive).   Other methods that end fertility (like a tubal ligation) unless for medical reasons also stop the natural process.      

If it helps, there are TONS of discussions on NFP boards about where even avoiding is acceptable.   

scrunchythief

PrettyGirlLost said:

scrunchythief said:

Also, @marriedhamstermom wow are our stories similar!  I also ended up in the ER as a teen because of ovarian cysts and was put on ortho tricyclene to prevent more.  I call myself a member of the "my ovaries tried to kill me" club

And YMMV, but I think the cysts, which for me had been undetected for a very long time, may have caused my period to be irregular.  When I got off the pill at 22, they because regular pretty soon after.

Insert Fight Club meme here ;-)

It's a shitty club, for sure ><

The first rule of Killer Ovaries Club, is always talk about Killer Ovaries Club.

Seriously.  In school, I took a classmate to the nurse while she had abdominal pain and told her not to freak out, but it sounded like what happened to me.  It was.  They caught hers early and she didn't need surgery:)

geebee908

PrettyGirlLost said:

scrunchythief said:

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

SO that all goes back to the dogma that sex is for procreation, and God wants us to procreate because life is a gift, right?  Because the physical parts that we're holding back by using BC or pulling out are our gametes.

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how using NFP to try and hold back our gametes "naturally" in order to avoid getting knocked up is any different than using BC to hold back our gametes to avoid getting knocked up.  Especially if what NFP practitioners say is true and when done correctly NFP is just as accurate as correctly used BC. 

It's not that sex is for procreation only; that would go against Catholic church teaching also. The principle is that God created sex to contain two inseparable aspects-- a unitive aspect and a procreative aspect, and to actively hold back either of these aspects by man-made means is to hold back part of that gift of yourself to your spouse. It's the basis for why IVF and methods like it are not approved by the church, because they separate procreation from the unitive.

holyguacamole79

banana468 said:

If it helps, there are TONS of discussions on NFP boards about where even avoiding is acceptable.   

Those discussions are the bane of my existence.
(I'm a moderator on one of the NFP boards)

nerdwife

@scrunchythief, @banana468 and @geebee908 - that's really all I wanted to know, and I can see what you mean. Appreciate it.

flantastic

@nerdwife Here's my crack at it.

Well, the moral standpoint is mostly that our vocation to marriage is to make us less selfish - drawn out of ourselves to care for others. There are many ways in a marriage, or a friendship, or whatever, to do that, but certain ways would be more specific to marriage. Like sex. If you don't believe that getting less selfish is a goal of your life, you're not going to agree with this. That's one premise.

As @scrunchythief said, we believe that sex has the dual purpose - unifying the two participants and at least the possibility of procreation. If you can't get behind that premise, NFP also doesn't make sense. The idea behind giving all of oneself, including the gametes at whatever point in the cycle, is that you're at least open to having a baby, even if it's highly unlikely... and obviously taking care of a baby is supposed to draw you both out of your selfishness towards caring for a new person. Another premise is definitely that if a baby were to happen, you know you would love it and care for it. If you're not in that mindset, then the moral standpoint says that sex isn't for you right now. Find other ways in your marriage to become closer.

A third premise is generally an active reproductive system, in that having sex might conceivably (pun intended) get you pregnant. However, while having sex without the possible (baby) consequences (i.e. we want the pleasure, because we want it, but will actively try to avoid the pregnancy) MAY be selfishly motivated, it's not necessarily selfish to just not have sex (although anyone can twist anything - so someone could try to use no sex as a power play, which would also be bad). So rather than being actively anti-procreation, it's just non-procreative. Nothing wrong with that. And obviously both partners get to have sex or not, so you're both very much in it together - which can also be unitive for a marriage.

Postpartum NFP is a bitch, in that your signs are either unclear or your body ramps up to ovulate multiple times before it actually does. We (so far) have been more committed to spacing another baby out a little than to having sex, so it's been something like 40 days. We absolutely are in it together and have grown closer, though, and we can choose to blame his (always) fertility or my (maybe) fertility, so it's no one's "fault" or burden.

flantastic

LOL everyone beat me to it.

geebee908

flantastic said:

LOL everyone beat me to it.

Good perspective on it though. I appreciated you sharing your personal experience.

banana468

nerdwife said:

@scrunchythief, @banana468 and @geebee908 - that's really all I wanted to know, and I can see what you mean. Appreciate it.

You're welcome!

And ditto @holyguacamole79, it's GREAT (eyeroll) when you get a group of women together bashing each other about the level of holiness.   

holyguacamole79

@nerdwife, I don't want to pile on, but I agree 100% with the others.

Here's something additional that helped me understand when I first learned about all this ...

We (man & woman) are made in the image & likeness of God.  So, our love should be as God loves - free, total, faithful, fruitful.  During the marriage rite, the priest / deacon asks the following:

(Name) and (Name), have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?Will you love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?The following question may be omitted if, for example, the couple is advanced in years.Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?Each answers the questions separately.-----

We believe that sex is a renewal of the marriage covenant.  So, each sexual act should be free, total, fruitful, and faithful.  Essentially (sorry to be blunt), it needs to end with the man finishing in the vagina.  Does that always happen?  No.  But that needs to be the intent.  

Artificial contraception either poses a physical barrier to this or it alters the biology of the body such that one (usually the woman in the case of the Pill) is not totally offering herself (holding back her fertility).  So, in that case, the sexual act doesn't completely meet the "definition" of total.  Note - I am in no way attempting to say that those who are using contraceptives are not totally loving each other.  I'm simply explaining the theology.

So, with NFP, the barrier is gone and the woman's body is ovulating (assuming she doesn't have issues).  

I hope that helps.

PrettyGirlLost

scrunchythief said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

scrunchythief said:

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

SO that all goes back to the dogma that sex is for procreation, and God wants us to procreate because life is a gift, right?  Because the physical parts that we're holding back by using BC or pulling out are our gametes.

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how using NFP to try and hold back our gametes "naturally" in order to avoid getting knocked up is any different than using BC to hold back our gametes to avoid getting knocked up.  Especially if what NFP practitioners say is true and when done correctly NFP is just as accurate as correctly used BC. 

Also, not trying to argue, just explaining why my H and I do this.  And to reiterate, I'm not trying to apply my statements generally.

Yes, it does partly go back to that sex is for procreation (and unity).  But it also has to do with the unity part as well.  Whether we want to procreate or not, those gametes are part of us so the church teaches they, along with the rest of us, should not be held back during sex.  It would be just as wrong to hold back emotionally by having sex purely to satisfy a physical urge while being emotionally withdrawn from your spouse.

And NFP is not acceptable because it's "natural."  Withdraw is natural and it's not allowed.  And you could argue it's unnatural to not have sex when a woman is fertile.  Also, NFP can't hold back gametes.  Instead practitioners hold back sex (mutually agreed upon by the spouses).

Sorry if I'm being too long winded. I love studying and discussing theology of the body:)

Right. . . you choose not to have sex when you think you are ovulating so that you don't get pregnant when you don't want to get pregnant.  Which is the "natural" way to hold back your gametes- it's abstinence.

But abstinence and NFP is still you controlling when you get pregnant. . . which is the same thing women that are using BC or condoms or men who are using withdrawal are doing.

I get what the theory is behind this religious "rule", but I've never bought into it.  The invitation analogy is cute, though.

holyguacamole79

PrettyGirlLost said:

Right. . . you choose not to have sex when you think you are ovulating so that you don't get pregnant when you don't want to get pregnant.  Which is the "natural" way to hold back your gametes- it's abstinence.

But abstinence and NFP is still you controlling when you get pregnant. . . which is the same thing women that are using BC or condoms or men who are using withdrawal are doing.

I get what the theory is behind this religious "rule", but I've never bought into it.  The invitation analogy is cute, though.

If a couple completely abstains all the time, then yeah - they are absolutely controllling it.  But couples who only have sex during phase 3 (to use NFP lingo, that's the luteal phase) aren't controlling their body ... they are simply doing it based on what their body tells them.  But there's always a chance.  I know several couples who have had surprises.  

MyNameIsNot

banana468 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

scrunchythief said:

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

SO that all goes back to the dogma that sex is for procreation, and God wants us to procreate because life is a gift, right?  Because the physical parts that we're holding back by using BC or pulling out are our gametes.

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how using NFP to try and hold back our gametes "naturally" in order to avoid getting knocked up is any different than using BC to hold back our gametes to avoid getting knocked up.  Especially if what NFP practitioners say is true and when done correctly NFP is just as accurate as correctly used BC. 

You're still leaving the door open to possibility.   Even if that possibility is scientifically small, you're engaging in an act that is leaving the door open.  

The difference with other methods is that you're going against nature.   From a theological perspective, it's why you can marry after menopause and there's no claim that sex after fertility ends is "bad".   It's still ordered towards life.   Sex itself is a normal natural part of a marriage.   The male orgasm is supposed to be in the vagina.    


A barrier method is blocking what is natural.  Therefore you're not fully giving yourself to your partner because you set up a physical barrier in the process.    A hormonal method is shifting the body to block nature by not allowing ovulation and secondarily implantation (which is then considered abortive).   Other methods that end fertility (like a tubal ligation) unless for medical reasons also stop the natural process.      

If it helps, there are TONS of discussions on NFP boards about where even avoiding is acceptable.   

I really don't get this. Using NFP and abstaining during fertile days which has a 90 something % effectiveness is leaving the door open to possibility, but using medical birth control methods with a 90 something % effectiveness is blocking nature? I really can't wrap my head around the difference.

If it really is about the natural/medical, then why don't people who oppose birth control have a moral problem with other medical interventions?  

Again, I don't want to be argumentative. I've just never been able to wrap my head around the catholic opposition to BC. (I know I'm not alone. I've left the church, but most of my catholic relatives and friends use or used hormonal BC.) 

IMHO, this Pope may lead the church in a different direction. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_POPE_ZIKA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT  Yes, Zika is a specific, extreme situation, but it is not the first time that the church has allowed for an exception. If you read his actual comments, he's talking about "avoiding pregnancy" not avoiding hormonal BC. Using NFP is still avoiding pregnancy. To me, it just further blurs the line.  

PrettyGirlLost

holyguacamole79 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Right. . . you choose not to have sex when you think you are ovulating so that you don't get pregnant when you don't want to get pregnant.  Which is the "natural" way to hold back your gametes- it's abstinence.

But abstinence and NFP is still you controlling when you get pregnant. . . which is the same thing women that are using BC or condoms or men who are using withdrawal are doing.

I get what the theory is behind this religious "rule", but I've never bought into it.  The invitation analogy is cute, though.

If a couple completely abstains all the time, then yeah - they are absolutely controllling it.  But couples who only have sex during phase 3 (to use NFP lingo, that's the luteal phase) aren't controlling their body ... they are simply doing it based on what their body tells them.  But there's always a chance.  I know several couples who have had surprises.  

Yep, that was part of my earlier point.  That's why NFP is ok, because it's not foolproof and there's always a chance to get pregnant, whereas hormonal BC, etc. is not. . . even though there can still be an oopsie with those methods too ;-)

holyguacamole79

MyNameIsNot said:

I really don't get this. Using NFP and abstaining during fertile days which has a 90 something % effectiveness is leaving the door open to possibility, but using medical birth control methods with a 90 something % effectiveness is blocking nature? I really can't wrap my head around the difference.

If it really is about the natural/medical, then why don't people who oppose birth control have a moral problem with other medical interventions?  

Again, I don't want to be argumentative. I've just never been able to wrap my head around the catholic opposition to BC. (I know I'm not alone. I've left the church, but most of my catholic relatives and friends use or used hormonal BC.) 

IMHO, this Pope may lead the church in a different direction. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_POPE_ZIKA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT  Yes, Zika is a specific, extreme situation, but it is not the first time that the church has allowed for an exception. If you read his actual comments, he's talking about "avoiding pregnancy" not avoiding hormonal BC. Using NFP is still avoiding pregnancy. To me, it just further blurs the line.  

If it really is about the natural/medical, then why don't people who oppose birth control have a moral problem with other medical interventions?  

Which kinds of interventions are you referring to?  IVF / IUI?  If so, the Catholic Church does oppose these.




Regarding the Pope, here's EXACTLY what was said (emphasis added):

Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain): Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”

Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.  (Hg79's note - we're talking about NUNS HERE).  

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no?  It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.  

PrettyGirlLost

geebee908 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

scrunchythief said:

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

SO that all goes back to the dogma that sex is for procreation, and God wants us to procreate because life is a gift, right?  Because the physical parts that we're holding back by using BC or pulling out are our gametes.

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how using NFP to try and hold back our gametes "naturally" in order to avoid getting knocked up is any different than using BC to hold back our gametes to avoid getting knocked up.  Especially if what NFP practitioners say is true and when done correctly NFP is just as accurate as correctly used BC. 

It's not that sex is for procreation only; that would go against Catholic church teaching also. The principle is that God created sex to contain two inseparable aspects-- a unitive aspect and a procreative aspect, and to actively hold back either of these aspects by man-made means is to hold back part of that gift of yourself to your spouse. It's the basis for why IVF and methods like it are not approved by the church, because they separate procreation from the unitive.

This is very sad to me.  So what are Catholics who are having issues conceiving supposed to do- give up or adopt? 

geebee908

PrettyGirlLost said:

geebee908 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

scrunchythief said:

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

SO that all goes back to the dogma that sex is for procreation, and God wants us to procreate because life is a gift, right?  Because the physical parts that we're holding back by using BC or pulling out are our gametes.

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how using NFP to try and hold back our gametes "naturally" in order to avoid getting knocked up is any different than using BC to hold back our gametes to avoid getting knocked up.  Especially if what NFP practitioners say is true and when done correctly NFP is just as accurate as correctly used BC. 

It's not that sex is for procreation only; that would go against Catholic church teaching also. The principle is that God created sex to contain two inseparable aspects-- a unitive aspect and a procreative aspect, and to actively hold back either of these aspects by man-made means is to hold back part of that gift of yourself to your spouse. It's the basis for why IVF and methods like it are not approved by the church, because they separate procreation from the unitive.

This is very sad to me.  So what are Catholics who are having issues conceiving supposed to do- give up or adopt? 

No one says life has easy choices. It's using an an immoral means to gain an end that we (humans) would will. It takes God's will of the picture, and having faith means trusting that God knows better than we do what we need and how He wants to provide for that need.

nerdwife

geebee908 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

geebee908 said:

It's not that sex is for procreation only; that would go against Catholic church teaching also. The principle is that God created sex to contain two inseparable aspects-- a unitive aspect and a procreative aspect, and to actively hold back either of these aspects by man-made means is to hold back part of that gift of yourself to your spouse. It's the basis for why IVF and methods like it are not approved by the church, because they separate procreation from the unitive.

This is very sad to me.  So what are Catholics who are having issues conceiving supposed to do- give up or adopt? 

No one says life has easy choices. It's using an an immoral means to gain an end that we (humans) would will. It takes God's will of the picture, and having faith means trusting that God knows better than we do what we need and how He wants to provide for that need.

Can I ask a follow-up question? 

Does this logic apply to all medical interventions? Like, is getting cancer god's will and so you just die from it?

I don't mean to be insensitive - again, I'm genuinely asking.

MyNameIsNot

holyguacamole79 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

I really don't get this. Using NFP and abstaining during fertile days which has a 90 something % effectiveness is leaving the door open to possibility, but using medical birth control methods with a 90 something % effectiveness is blocking nature? I really can't wrap my head around the difference.

If it really is about the natural/medical, then why don't people who oppose birth control have a moral problem with other medical interventions?  

Again, I don't want to be argumentative. I've just never been able to wrap my head around the catholic opposition to BC. (I know I'm not alone. I've left the church, but most of my catholic relatives and friends use or used hormonal BC.) 

IMHO, this Pope may lead the church in a different direction. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_POPE_ZIKA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT  Yes, Zika is a specific, extreme situation, but it is not the first time that the church has allowed for an exception. If you read his actual comments, he's talking about "avoiding pregnancy" not avoiding hormonal BC. Using NFP is still avoiding pregnancy. To me, it just further blurs the line.  

If it really is about the natural/medical, then why don't people who oppose birth control have a moral problem with other medical interventions?  

Which kinds of interventions are you referring to?  IVF / IUI?  If so, the Catholic Church does oppose these.




Regarding the Pope, here's EXACTLY what was said (emphasis added):

Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain): Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”

Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.  (Hg79's note - we're talking about NUNS HERE).  

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no?  It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.  

No, I'm talking about medical interventions outside of reproductive health. It would seem to me that if the problem is that it isn't natural, then it should also follow that there'd be a ban on vaccines (not natural) or a moral objection to plastic surgery. 

And the Pope quote is exactly what I'm saying. He supports permitting use of contraceptives in the case of Zika saying "avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil." Avoiding pregnancy is avoiding pregnancy. Sure, the church can decide that some reasons are more valid than others, but I don't understand how one method of avoiding is acceptable while another is not. 

*I am not bringing abortion into this. While I am pro-choice, I fully understand the church's position on the matter. Either way, I don't think it has anything to do with this conversation, except that it was part of the Pope's remarks about Zika. 

holyguacamole79

PrettyGirlLost said:

This is very sad to me.  So what are Catholics who are having issues conceiving supposed to do- give up or adopt? 

As someone who has fertility issues, I can tackle this one .....

H and I have been trying since we got married (we're in our mid-late 30s, so we didnt' want to wait).  My PCOS was so bad that I had surgery in May 2014

** I'm gonna come back to this later .... trying to get work done **

PrettyGirlLost

geebee908 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

geebee908 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

scrunchythief said:

nerdwife said:

Okay, I know this thread is like basically dead and I do not - really, seriously do not - want to argue with anyone, but I have a question for NFP people that has been kind of driving me crazy.

So, for those of you who are using NFP for religious or moral reasons and don't have sex when you're fertile at all (as opposed to using condoms or something like that), can you explain to me what the moral/religious difference is between that and using condoms or BCP? Like, if you're only having sex when you can't get pregnant, you're essentially using a specific form of birth control, so I just don't get how it's different from using condoms all the time.

I'm not trying to be judgmental, I just genuinely want to know.

I'm going to preface my answer by saying that I'm not trying to apply this thinking to anyone not of my faith.  Any generalities or "shoulds" or "supposed tos" I use should be interpreted as such since I'm terrible at making that clear when I write.

I do get why people get that impression.  But like with a lot of things, just because two means have the same goal does not mean that those means are equally justified.

The short answer is that sex is supposed to be a complete and free gift of self, physically, emotionally and spiritually.  Methods of regulating pregnancy that would render the gift of sex incomplete are therefore not allowed.  Periodic abstinence on the other hand, doesn't hold anything back and therefore is permissible when a couple has a grave reason to avoid pregnancy.

Coincidentally, the best metaphor I've read uses wedding invitations.  Since we believe God creates children in cooperation with their parents, having sex is like sending a wedding invitation, or in this case an invitation for God to bless you with a child.  

So, having sex when you know you are fertile is like sending an invitation to someone who has already told you they're coming to your wedding.  Barring a problem, they'll be there.  Having sex when you're not sure you're fertile is like inviting someone you think has a good chance of coming, but you're not sure either way.  Having sex when you know you're not fertile is like sending an invitation to a beloved, but distant relative.  You know there's a small chance they can make it, but you'd be really happy if they could.  Having sex while trying to hold back your fertility is like sending an invitation that tells a person they're not invited to the wedding.  

On the spousal gift side of it, a person's fertility is part of them.  By using a barrier or chemical or by withdrawing in order to reject fertility, this would make the gift incomplete.  Whereas having sex when you think you're not fertile means you are still giving all of yourself as you are at that moment.  It also does not try to frustrate their fertility if they are in fact fertile at that time.  

SO that all goes back to the dogma that sex is for procreation, and God wants us to procreate because life is a gift, right?  Because the physical parts that we're holding back by using BC or pulling out are our gametes.

Not to be argumentative, but I honestly don't see how using NFP to try and hold back our gametes "naturally" in order to avoid getting knocked up is any different than using BC to hold back our gametes to avoid getting knocked up.  Especially if what NFP practitioners say is true and when done correctly NFP is just as accurate as correctly used BC. 

It's not that sex is for procreation only; that would go against Catholic church teaching also. The principle is that God created sex to contain two inseparable aspects-- a unitive aspect and a procreative aspect, and to actively hold back either of these aspects by man-made means is to hold back part of that gift of yourself to your spouse. It's the basis for why IVF and methods like it are not approved by the church, because they separate procreation from the unitive.

This is very sad to me.  So what are Catholics who are having issues conceiving supposed to do- give up or adopt? 

No one says life has easy choices. It's using an an immoral means to gain an end that we (humans) would will. It takes God's will of the picture, and having faith means trusting that God knows better than we do what we need and how He wants to provide for that need.

So then you're supposed to just give up on your dreams of having kids.  Or adopt.

I sincerely wish those women faced with this issue the best of luck.  Fertility issues are shitty enough on their own.

flantastic

nerdwife said:

geebee908 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

geebee908 said:

It's not that sex is for procreation only; that would go against Catholic church teaching also. The principle is that God created sex to contain two inseparable aspects-- a unitive aspect and a procreative aspect, and to actively hold back either of these aspects by man-made means is to hold back part of that gift of yourself to your spouse. It's the basis for why IVF and methods like it are not approved by the church, because they separate procreation from the unitive.

This is very sad to me.  So what are Catholics who are having issues conceiving supposed to do- give up or adopt? 

No one says life has easy choices. It's using an an immoral means to gain an end that we (humans) would will. It takes God's will of the picture, and having faith means trusting that God knows better than we do what we need and how He wants to provide for that need.

Can I ask a follow-up question? 

Does this logic apply to all medical interventions? Like, is getting cancer god's will and so you just die from it?

I don't mean to be insensitive - again, I'm genuinely asking.

Nope. Basically, it's a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and the Church doesn't view people's fertility as a disease but rather a gift. If you have an actual disease, try to fix that.

It's not wrong for a woman to say, get a hysterectomy that's medically necessary, or for her to have unitive sex with her husband after. But getting a hysterectomy just to avoid the hassle of maybe having kids when you have sex would be an issue.

banana468

nerdwife said:

geebee908 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

geebee908 said:

It's not that sex is for procreation only; that would go against Catholic church teaching also. The principle is that God created sex to contain two inseparable aspects-- a unitive aspect and a procreative aspect, and to actively hold back either of these aspects by man-made means is to hold back part of that gift of yourself to your spouse. It's the basis for why IVF and methods like it are not approved by the church, because they separate procreation from the unitive.

This is very sad to me.  So what are Catholics who are having issues conceiving supposed to do- give up or adopt? 

No one says life has easy choices. It's using an an immoral means to gain an end that we (humans) would will. It takes God's will of the picture, and having faith means trusting that God knows better than we do what we need and how He wants to provide for that need.

Can I ask a follow-up question? 

Does this logic apply to all medical interventions? Like, is getting cancer god's will and so you just die from it?

I don't mean to be insensitive - again, I'm genuinely asking.

No, Catholics are not against medical procedures because they correct a problem.   I think Christian Scientists may be against chemo and medical treatments but I'm very educated on the matter.  Chemo for cancer, a needed hysterectomy for a medical condition and even plastic surgery can all be done to fix things that aren't working.

But they don't believe in treating what isn't broken.   So a vasectomy because you don't want kids isn't acceptable according to church teaching. 

Example: You have a breast lift because you have chronic back pain - fine.

You have a breast augmentation because you want bigger boobs - not OK.

Couples dealing with infertility can use treatments that don't remove the act of intercourse but it is against teaching to go with IUI or IVF.     

In some cases, I don't agree with everything.  I don't want to open the door to a Pandora's box of what is teaching that I agree with or disagree with though.   

And it absolutely sucks to know a couple who tries everything to have a baby and then they're told that the other options that may work will make the family and their faith judge them.   My heart breaks for those I know that are struggling with infertility.   Life in many ways isn't fair.