S/O Post- Thoughts on Birth Control?

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. 

nerdwife

Okay, @flantastic and @banana468, thanks again for your responses. I'm relieved to hear that this is the case, though the infertility issue does break my heart. I can't imagine being stuck between your faith and your desire to have biological children.

I do want to say one thing - I'm not being judgmental of your views here and trying to be very conscious of how I phrase things. But I think saying something like "avoiding the hassle of maybe having kids" is a little condescending and also really minimizes the responsibility of having children. I don't have children yet not because I don't want them, but because I understand the incredible responsibility that it is and FI and I know that we aren't ready for that yet (hence the BCP). Having children isn't a "hassle" so much as a completely life-altering experience.

PrettyGirlLost

flantastic said:

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.

But avoiding pregnancy by taking BC, even though avoiding pregnancy is supposedly a lesser evil compared to abortion, is still not ok.

In the quotes above, it wasn't really made clear as to whether or not the Catholic Church is ok with women who might be exposed to Zika using BC to avoid pregnancy, or if everyone- including the MEN- are just supposed to remain abstinent until there's a vaccine. . . which let's be real, could be decades or longer.

So is Pope Francis saying that it's ok to use BC in South America due to the Zika issue?

banana468 said:

nerdwife said:

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. 

You can probably tell that I'm with you- there's a lot I don't agree with and never have from the 1st day I attended CCD, lol.

PrettyGirlLost

holyguacamole79 said:

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 **

You're one of the people I was thinking of, and I was trying to be careful in my questioning.  I really do feel for you ladies and wish you success and the best!

natswild

Late to the conversation, but it is very interesting.  I'm on Depo Provera, although it's to control my cycles, not for birth control.  I'd always had really horrible periods, and eventually went on Depo for 12 years, then went off again for 5 years, then back on again this time after my periods went haywire, and had the doc check me out.  He decided to do an ultrasound, and discovered that I have advanced Adenomyosis, which causes a lot of pain, but also causes the uterine walls to stiffen, and become unable to expand.  In my case, if I were to get pregnant, there is the potential that it could kill me, due to the uterus being unable to expand.  The only other treatment is a hysterectomy, which I am seriously considering at this point. 

I guess my point is that regardless of desire to have a family, some people just need outside intervention.

Also, a question for those of you who have a moral objection to birth control, what about people, like me, who have zero desire to have children?

banana468

Quite frankly, until the Vatican issues a statement clarifying what was stated, I'm not going to claim to say, "Here's what the Pope meant."   To say that there's a lot of hair on that issue is an understatement.    

And I do understand that those who use BC are doing it because they feel that's the way they're being responsible because having kids is such a big deal. 


Can I say that I really like how respectful this thread has been?   I know we won't all agree but I do love when we can share views. 

banana468

natswild said:

Late to the conversation, but it is very interesting.  I'm on Depo Provera, although it's to control my cycles, not for birth control.  I'd always had really horrible periods, and eventually went on Depo for 12 years, then went off again for 5 years, then back on again this time after my periods went haywire, and had the doc check me out.  He decided to do an ultrasound, and discovered that I have advanced Adenomyosis, which causes a lot of pain, but also causes the uterine walls to stiffen, and become unable to expand.  In my case, if I were to get pregnant, there is the potential that it could kill me, due to the uterus being unable to expand.  The only other treatment is a hysterectomy, which I am seriously considering at this point. 

I guess my point is that regardless of desire to have a family, some people just need outside intervention.

Also, a question for those of you who have a moral objection to birth control, what about people, like me, who have zero desire to have children?

Is the question a moral question about where you get married or leading life?

Because if you know that you have zero desire to have kids but you want to get married in a Catholic church, then you'd be  lying in your vows.   So I'd say that you shouldn't get married in the Catholic church for starters.   

If the question is what do those who have a moral issue with BC do with people who don't want kids?    I think it's honestly a case by case basis.   I talk with a family member who says she doesn't want kids and the only thing I'll say is, "Please don't do anything permanent when you're only 21 because you could change your mind one day." 

charlotte989875

I just wanted to say as a very non-church going scientist how much I really appreciate and respect you ladies coming here and explaining NFP. I never thought that much about it and I (shamefully admits) judged it as not being well thought out. You all have changed my mind and while it isn't right for me I have a lot of respect for you all willing to come and explain it all (while knowing there are many people here who don't share your religious beliefs). Thanks for teaching me something today. 

PrettyGirlLost

banana468 said:

Quite frankly, until the Vatican issues a statement clarifying what was stated, I'm not going to claim to say, "Here's what the Pope meant."   To say that there's a lot of hair on that issue is an understatement.    

And I do understand that those who use BC are doing it because they feel that's the way they're being responsible because having kids is such a big deal. 


Can I say that I really like how respectful this thread has been?   I know we won't all agree but I do love when we can share views. 

Oh ok so there has been no further statement?  That's what I was wondering.

Pope Francis is a very savvy man, and a very liberal pope. . . I could see him being intentionally vague for the time being, then making a more definitive statement later.  I really like him, for a variety of reasons. . . one being that St. Francis is one of my favorite saints, lol.

banana468

PrettyGirlLost said:

banana468 said:

Quite frankly, until the Vatican issues a statement clarifying what was stated, I'm not going to claim to say, "Here's what the Pope meant."   To say that there's a lot of hair on that issue is an understatement.    

And I do understand that those who use BC are doing it because they feel that's the way they're being responsible because having kids is such a big deal. 


Can I say that I really like how respectful this thread has been?   I know we won't all agree but I do love when we can share views. 

Oh ok so there has been no further statement?  That's what I was wondering.

Pope Francis is a very savvy man, and a very liberal pope. . . I could see him being intentionally vague for the time being, then making a more definitive statement later.  I really like him, for a variety of reasons. . . one being that St. Francis is one of my favorite saints, lol.

I think @holyguacamole79 posted the actual text but I haven't seen anything clarified.     I don't check as often as she does but the point I'm making is t hat media (secular and Christian) are in LOVE with turning this into things that it isn't.   The only thing getting more press is how Pope Francis insulted Donald Trump and Trump retaliated.   Then Trump's numbers started to go into the crapper and Trump is pretending that Francis is a cool cat again. 

PrettyGirlLost

banana468 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

banana468 said:

Quite frankly, until the Vatican issues a statement clarifying what was stated, I'm not going to claim to say, "Here's what the Pope meant."   To say that there's a lot of hair on that issue is an understatement.    

And I do understand that those who use BC are doing it because they feel that's the way they're being responsible because having kids is such a big deal. 


Can I say that I really like how respectful this thread has been?   I know we won't all agree but I do love when we can share views. 

Oh ok so there has been no further statement?  That's what I was wondering.

Pope Francis is a very savvy man, and a very liberal pope. . . I could see him being intentionally vague for the time being, then making a more definitive statement later.  I really like him, for a variety of reasons. . . one being that St. Francis is one of my favorite saints, lol.

I think @holyguacamole79 posted the actual text but I haven't seen anything clarified.     I don't check as often as she does but the point I'm making is t hat media (secular and Christian) are in LOVE with turning this into things that it isn't.   The only thing getting more press is how Pope Francis insulted Donald Trump and Trump retaliated.   Then Trump's numbers started to go into the crapper and Trump is pretending that Francis is a cool cat again. 

Someone should really pray for that guy :-P  What a maroon!

holyguacamole79

MyNameIsNot said:

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. 

Re:  Pope Francis "allowing" contraceptives in the case of Zika.

Pope Francis can't change the Church's teaching on artificial contraception.  To Catholics, that would be like a doctor announcing that humans now have 15 fingers on their right hand.  It is Church teaching that is actually in the Catechism (see below).  When the Pope says 'avoiding pregnancy', he is not referring to artificial contraceptives, but NFP.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

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? 

The sadness of it goes without saying, but the couple has a choice about how to view their situation just as with any other life setback. They can focus on the positive or the negative of their situation. If they go the route of adoption, they should view that as valid a means of having children as having one biologically. That child was still chosen for them every bit as much.

If they remain childless by birth or adoption, that doesn't mean they won't be gifted with children throughout their lifetime. I have a friend who will never have children who is a principal of a grade school. She talks about the 400+ children she has been given everyday and rejoices in the opportunity she has to be a part of their lives.

holyguacamole79

PrettyGirlLost said:

holyguacamole79 said:

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 **

You're one of the people I was thinking of, and I was trying to be careful in my questioning.  I really do feel for you ladies and wish you success and the best!

You've known me long enough that you can ask  Will post later, I promise!  Spoiler alert - it's not easy.

holyguacamole79

Here's the text of the interview:  http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-mexico-to-rome-85821/?platform=hootsuite

(FYI, this is not an official Vatican transcript, but this site is a legit source, and this is simply a transcript).

Here is also some good satire regarding the whole thing - http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2016/02/18/francis-declares-plane-interviews-new-authoritative-form-of-magisterial-teaching/

PrettyGirlLost

holyguacamole79 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

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. 

Re:  Pope Francis "allowing" contraceptives in the case of Zika.

Pope Francis can't change the Church's teaching on artificial contraception.  To Catholics, that would be like a doctor announcing that humans now have 15 fingers on their right hand.  It is Church teaching that is actually in the Catechism (see below).  When the Pope says 'avoiding pregnancy', he is not referring to artificial contraceptives, but NFP.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

Sure he can, from the papal throne, right?  Anything he says while seated on the throne is to be assumed to be coming directly from God.

I'm not suggesting that any pope would go sit on the throne and announce a change just because he decided to.  I assume that if a change in church laws is being communicated to everyone, then the pope believes the change is coming directly from God. . . if that makes sense.

flantastic

nerdwife said:

Okay, @flantastic and @banana468, thanks again for your responses. I'm relieved to hear that this is the case, though the infertility issue does break my heart. I can't imagine being stuck between your faith and your desire to have biological children.

I do want to say one thing - I'm not being judgmental of your views here and trying to be very conscious of how I phrase things. But I think saying something like "avoiding the hassle of maybe having kids" is a little condescending and also really minimizes the responsibility of having children. I don't have children yet not because I don't want them, but because I understand the incredible responsibility that it is and FI and I know that we aren't ready for that yet (hence the BCP). Having children isn't a "hassle" so much as a completely life-altering experience.

I agree, that was more flippant. I apologize. It was an example - I'm not saying that everyone who would take that step simply in order to avoid pregnancy is being that casual about it, but it definitely would be an issue per the Catholic Church if they were.

PrettyGirlLost

"I think our culture has put having our own biological children on a sort of pedestal and if we can't achieve that we have to "settle" for an adopted child. "

I don't think it has anything to do with culture. . . it's a primal, basic biological urge, for those that want children, to want to have their own children, generally speaking.  That's how you maintain the species at the most basic level.

I certainly wasn't trying to make it sound like adoption was "settling."  Adoption is great! 

But I can understand why a couple might want to have their own biological kids, and how terrible it must be to be faced with the knowledge that the medical innovations exist to help them towards that desire, but their church views those methodologies as taboo, so now they are dealing with yet another layer of stress in trying to decide what to do.

ETA: Of course, there's a 3rd option- trying IVF and letting that decision stay between you, your spouse, and  your God, since God is the only one with the credentials for judgement of others anyways, and your reproductive choices aren't really anyone's business unless you choose to make it their business.

MyNameIsNot

holyguacamole79 said:

MyNameIsNot said:

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. 

Re:  Pope Francis "allowing" contraceptives in the case of Zika.

Pope Francis can't change the Church's teaching on artificial contraception.  To Catholics, that would be like a doctor announcing that humans now have 15 fingers on their right hand.  It is Church teaching that is actually in the Catechism (see below).  When the Pope says 'avoiding pregnancy', he is not referring to artificial contraceptives, but NFP.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

That's not a parallel comparison. The church's teachings are not a verifiable fact. I understand that they are believed to be divinely inspired, but they are still rules and beliefs, not facts. You or I could objectively prove that [most] humans do not have 15 fingers. No one can prove that it is morally right to use NFP or wrong to take the pill. The church's teachings have changed over the years, and they will change again. On top of that, the Pope is the spiritual head of the church, not some random doctor. He does have the ability to change church teaching, albeit not through random commentary. 

I guess I just don't know what you're saying here. Quoting church doctrine really has nothing to do with why one method of avoiding is acceptable while another method is not. 

Maybe I made it murky by tangentially speculating on where the church may go in the future. If I made that confusing, mea culpa. I thought it was interesting and appropriate to this conversation. 

holyguacamole79

MyNameIsNot said:

That's not a parallel comparison. The church's teachings are not a verifiable fact. I understand that they are believed to be divinely inspired, but they are still rules and beliefs, not facts. You or I could objectively prove that [most] humans do not have 15 fingers. No one can prove that it is morally right to use NFP or wrong to take the pill. The church's teachings have changed over the years, and they will change again. On top of that, the Pope is the spiritual head of the church, not some random doctor. He does have the ability to change church teaching, albeit not through random commentary. 

I guess I just don't know what you're saying here. Quoting church doctrine really has nothing to do with why one method of avoiding is acceptable while another method is not. 

Maybe I made it murky by tangentially speculating on where the church may go in the future. If I made that confusing, mea culpa. I thought it was interesting and appropriate to this conversation. 

That's why faith is so powerful & beautiful.  We trust without seeing.  

Regarding the Pope "changing" things, he really doesn't do that.  Yes, there is Infallibility when he speaks from the chair of St Peter, but that doesn't happen very much.  Here's more info:

Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in 1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements as infallible.

The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary magisterium (teaching role) has been used only once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s liturgy.  (source) 

Pope Pius XII was simply confirming something they'd long believed.

It's kind of like "that" couple who has been together for so long that everyone knows, but they don't make it "Facebook official" until later.  

The Church has always stated that it is immoral to use artificial contraception. As a Catholic, for the Pope to declare it "okay" now would (for me) be like the head of the Mayo Clinic declaring that all humans have 15 fingers (as I said earlier).  It goes against everything we've ever said and believed.  

btw, quality use of "mea culpa"

natswild

@banana468, I asked that question, because over the years I have been judged for my decision to not have children.  The one comment I remember most is "How DARE you not have children?!?"  Among some other stuff from the same person.  I've gotten other comments along the same line.  My personal feeling is that it is more responsible for someone to use BC if she's sure she doesn't want children, versus potentially having an unwanted child, or terminating.

holyguacamole79

As a Catholic woman with fertility issues, here are my views

These are just that ... my views and my story.  This is not meant to be preachy or judging of couples who use other methods to start a family.  I know this post is long, but there are some details that help explain how I got to where I am now.

I've always had wonky cycles, so I am not terribly surprised by any of this.  I was diagnosed with PCOS in my mid-late 20s.  My former ob-gyn put me on the Pill in my early 20s to regulate my cycles.  It gave me high blood pressure and heart palpitations.  I tried 2 different versions and had the same reaction to both, so I said I'd never do that again.  Also, it didn't make sense to me why I'd go on a medication that would "regulate" my cycles for the time being, but when I was ready to TTC, I'd likely have the issues I had before.

Fast forward to 2012.  I missed my period for 5 months.  I wasn't sexually active, so that wasn't an issue.  I saw an ob-gyn who specializes in Napro technology.  She put me on progesterone to trigger a period, which was super fun </sarcasm>.  I took supplements and other treatments.  Still nothing, and I had to take vaginal suppositories of progesterone to make me have a bleed.  After several months of this and having what we called "pansy-ass periods", my (now) husband learned how to give me progesterone injections in my ass.  Several times in 2013 and early 2014, I'd do a 10 day regimen of progesterone suppositories & injections.  It was miserable.  For older regs who recall how BSC I was during those times on these boards, it was because of this.  I was not myself at all, and I was miserable.

In March 2014, I had an ovarian wedge resection (I had 11 cysts on one ovary).  It helped IMMENSELY and I've had good cycles since then.  However, we were still TTCing with no success.  I'd go in for bloodwork every month to see if I had truly cycled.  If I had any signs of ovulation, it would be like "okay, sex.  now".  (total mood killer, btw).  That fall, I found out that my sister was pregnant.  10 days later, I found out that my brother's gf was pregnant.  I was crushed and depressed.  We continued trying.

I had a heart-to-heart with my ob-gyn and she wanted to put me on Femara to help increase our chance.  After my hellish experience with progesterone, I was afraid to do anything else to my body's chemistry.  At that point, DH and I came to a place of acceptance.  I wanted to adopt, but we had to wait until we had been married 2 years before we could seriously start the process.  I also didn't want the decision to adopt to be a knee-jerk reaction to my sister's baby (brother's gf miscarried at 13 weeks.  I was by her side holding her hand in the hospital.  I know that had I been pregnant byy her side during that time, it would've been incredibly difficult for both of us.)

Regarding IVF/IUI and other fertility treatments ... those were never an option for us mostly because of our faith.  Do I feel oppressed or upset that there are options that I cannot use?  No, and here's why:  I read about the reasoning the Church has for opposing these treatments and it makes sense to me.  Sex is so beautiful that we don't want to separate the process of creating life from the act of intercourse.  

Additionally, adoption has always been on my heart.  Today is my brother's birthday, and we adopted him when he was 3 months old.  I see what it has done to our family (and for him), and I hope that we have the opportunity to start a family that way soon.  Adopting a newborn is crazy expensive, so I want to look into adopting a child from the foster care system.

After we came to the point of acceptance, I've been a lot better.  When I hold my nephew, I get a twinge of jealousy.  Then he poops and that ends .  I had a few tears on his baptism day.  I held him and told him that I hope and pray that I can give him a cousin at some point to play with.  We'll see.

In the meantime, H and I teach Sunday school. @banana468 & I were chatting about this ... I dont' know if we'd be able to put as much energy into that as we do now if we had children of our own.  And, I see the 25 kids in our class as our spiritual children for now.

If anyone has made it through this mini-novel, thanks for listening / reading.  I'm happy to answer questions, and I'm a bit of an open book when it comes to this.

glasgowtolondon

Beautifully written  @holyguacamole79

I have nothing to add and no skin in this particular game but have lurked this thead and just wanted you to know that I'm sorry you've been dealt a shitty hand here but I'm glad you've been able to find peace and a different route to happiness. 

holyguacamole79

Thanks, @glasgowtolondon ... yeah, this part of my life has been challenging, but I truly have been blessed.  I honestly think that God has helped me get to this point of acceptance and peace.

Kahlyla

May I ask where male orgasms outside a woman's vagina fall into this? Do people who practice NFP for religious reasons also abstain from oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc.?

holyguacamole79

Kahlyla said:

May I ask where male orgasms outside a woman's vagina fall into this? Do people who practice NFP for religious reasons also abstain from oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc.?

The biggest key in Catholic sexual morality is that both parties are respected and loved.   That said, anal and oral can be used in foreplay as long as the intent is that the man finishes in the vagina.

Masturbation is considered immoral because it does not unite a couple.  

banana468

holyguacamole79 said:

Kahlyla said:

May I ask where male orgasms outside a woman's vagina fall into this? Do people who practice NFP for religious reasons also abstain from oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc.?

The biggest key in Catholic sexual morality is that both parties are respected and loved.   That said, anal and oral can be used in foreplay as long as the intent is that the man finishes in the vagina.

Masturbation is considered immoral because it does not unite a couple.  

However the woman can orgasm with manual stimulation as part of the act.   So Catholics do understand that a woman may need more than just internal stimulation and it doesn't frown upon it occurring as long as it's within the context of the main event.  

scrunchythief

banana468 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

Kahlyla said:

May I ask where male orgasms outside a woman's vagina fall into this? Do people who practice NFP for religious reasons also abstain from oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc.?

The biggest key in Catholic sexual morality is that both parties are respected and loved.   That said, anal and oral can be used in foreplay as long as the intent is that the man finishes in the vagina.

Masturbation is considered immoral because it does not unite a couple.  

However the woman can orgasm with manual stimulation as part of the act.   So Catholics do understand that a woman may need more than just internal stimulation and it doesn't frown upon it occurring as long as it's within the context of the main event.  

Far from not frowned upon, I think St. John Paul II said it's the husband's responsibility to ensure this (as long as the wife is ok with it. I'm sometimes too tired).

tigerlily6

banana468 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

Kahlyla said:

May I ask where male orgasms outside a woman's vagina fall into this? Do people who practice NFP for religious reasons also abstain from oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc.?

The biggest key in Catholic sexual morality is that both parties are respected and loved.   That said, anal and oral can be used in foreplay as long as the intent is that the man finishes in the vagina.

Masturbation is considered immoral because it does not unite a couple.  

However the woman can orgasm with manual stimulation as part of the act.   So Catholics do understand that a woman may need more than just internal stimulation and it doesn't frown upon it occurring as long as it's within the context of the main event.  

Both Guac and Banana have it right. Just wanted to stress the word "intent" from earlier -- just as the Catholic Church understands that a woman may need extra time and stimulation, it also recognizes that sometimes the guy will not last as long as he planned. If during an act of foreplay the man should accidentally finish outside the vagina, that is not considered a sin. Accidents happen. (And if that happens, well, then, all the more reason to extend the session by an extra half hour and try again if you are able to! )

PrettyGirlLost

glasgowtolondon said:

Beautifully written  @holyguacamole79

I have nothing to add and no skin in this particular game but have lurked this thead and just wanted you to know that I'm sorry you've been dealt a shitty hand here but I'm glad you've been able to find peace and a different route to happiness. 

This.

Good luck with the adoption process!