Catholic theology question

[6_Time_Momma]

And you think fordfamily's post was nice? Calling Church followers naive, etc.?​

ACk... You mis read me,or I misposted... I was on your side adding to your comments about that post. Sorry if I was unclear

Okay, I realize I may have been sarcastic sounding in my post, but I did think mine was minor. In that case, carry on.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It's the same thing, with a few extra temperature measurements

Ummmm know it is not. Mucous and cervix and temparture---and observing these signs. Not looking at the calendar saying--well, it's been 14 days since my last period....I should be safe or not.

If you have not studied it--then you really cannot comment on it reliably.

 

[Kermit]

I just wanted to add that there is a small, but growing, percentage of Protestants who also don't use birth control. I'm one of them. To us, there isn't a form of birth control that fits with what we feel God wants for our lives. I am disappointed that Protestant churches rarely mention the topic when it's a decision that every married person has to make.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I just wanted to add that there is a small, but growing, percentage of Protestants who also don't use birth control. I'm one of them. To us, there isn't a form of birth control that fits with what we feel God wants for our lives. I am disappointed that Protestant churches rarely mention the topic when it's a decision that every married person has to make.

Don't know--I think it's called fertility awareness method though--isn't it?

In all reality..not every Parish of the Catholic Church will speak openly on NFP--they do allow the classes....but the Priest doesn't mention it during mass or anything...it is listed on the marriage preparation/maintenance fliers with the Marriage ministry. But it is still taboo to a certain degree in the church, when it shouldn't be.

 

[katerkat]

Personally, I don't think FAM/NFP is as effective as the pill. I'm not "living proof" (we were trying for BR) but I had a cycle in which I was charting my temp and CF, and I had no indication that I was about to ovulate early until it was too late. With taking the pill perfectly, it never would have happened; but with FAM, there's always a chance, even when doing it perfectly.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Personally, I don't think FAM/NFP is as effective as the pill. I'm not "living proof" (we were trying for BR) but I had a cycle in which I was charting my temp and CF, and I had no indication that I was about to ovulate early until it was too late. With taking the pill perfectly, it never would have happened; but with FAM, there's always a chance, even when doing it perfectly.

There are different parts of NFP that can be used..we do first 6 days...so day 7 is automatic phase II/abstain until ovulation can be verified by temp rise. Phase III is 100%--and then how you choose to start your phase II (there are a couple of choices), the effectivness varies. When done perfectly NFP is as effective as the pill..I'd have to dig through my literature to get the stat and what you'd have to do for "perfect" execution of NFP for the best effectiveness rate.

I'm sorry--I don't know what "BR" is--edited to add...just saw your siggy and now know what it is. BR is living proof then that the method works when trying to conceive if that is what you used to determine your fertility.

 

[katerkat]

Oh, I don't remember those phases being mentioned - we used the Taking Charge of Your Fertility book. But even if we had started to abstain on CD7, it would have been too late that cycle - for some reason, I ovulated on CD10. (And BR was conceived by an "act" three days before ovulation, in the next cycle.)

But, yup, it did work for us - we avoided pregnancy for four cycles and conceived BR (yes, Baby Russ! ) on the third try.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Oh, I don't remember those phases being mentioned - we used the Taking Charge of Your Fertility book. But even if we had started to abstain on CD7, it would have been too late that cycle - for some reason, I ovulated on CD10. (And BR was conceived by an "act" three days before ovulation, in the next cycle.)

But, yup, it did work for us - we avoided pregnancy for four cycles and conceived BR (yes, Baby Russ! ) on the third try.

Okay--now I'm challenged...I must go look this up. I think Sperm only lives for 72 hours. But I could be misremembering...

I know that you must wait until Day 4 after a particular mucous sign or The 3rd day above midline after temperature has risen at least 0.6 degrees. This keeps those fast swimmers from success. Not recalling what the technicalities are prior to ovulation.

Going to have to go read now--it becomes so ingrained, articulating it correctly becomes tough when it gets too technical.

And FYI--though the act occurs--the conception doesn't necessarily happen the same day.....those slow swimmers sometimes succeed as the tortoise can win the race

 

[katerkat]

I think I remember reading that sperm *can* (but doesn't always) live 5 days? I know I had a friend who conceived 4 days after the act. And I know BR was definitely 3 days after the act - I definitely ovulated on July 4th and we only had time for a quickie before leaving to visit family on the 1st. (That's why we thought he was a girl, since the slower swimmers are usually the females!)

I can't remember what we used as signals before the act - it was nine months ago, after all! I think we usually abstained from CD8 until after there was a clear rise.

 

[chrissyk]

What your church did could have been awful, but there could have been good reason behind it--though I don't know the full story behind it as I am sure there is one--it could have been something justifiable--who knows.

I guess that it is justifiable now, in light of the fact that the Archdiocese of Boston needs to sell off so much church property to pay for the settlements. The order of brothers that he belongs to started trying to take the house WAY before so much church land and property was being sold off to pay for the abuse settlements, though. There was just no good reason then...it was total greed.

BTW, this priest is a rare good priest in the Archdiocese of Boston. He speaks out against the child molester priests, and he was all for Cardinal Law getting kicked out/defrocked/whatever from the get go. He's a good guy. If all priests were like our friend, there would be a lot fewer recovering Catholics.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I guess that it is justifiable now, in light of the fact that the Archdiocese of Boston needs to sell off so much church property to pay for the settlements. The order of brothers that he belongs to started trying to take the house WAY before so much church land and property was being sold off to pay for the abuse settlements, though. There was just no good reason then...it was total greed.

BTW, this priest is a rare good priest in the Archdiocese of Boston. He speaks out against the child molester priests, and he was all for Cardinal Law getting kicked out/defrocked/whatever from the get go. He's a good guy. If all priests were like our friend, there would be a lot fewer recovering Catholics.

ooohhhh....Boston--now I sense you're frustration. Haven't had much of that in the Orlando Diocese that I know of. There are recovering Catholics who want to come back--and the good parishes are those that welcome them back with open arms and answer ANY questions or concerns they have.

 

[chrissyk]

ooohhhh....Boston--now I sense you're frustration. Haven't had much of that in the Orlando Diocese that I know of. There are recovering Catholics who want to come back--and the good parishes are those that welcome them back with open arms and answer ANY questions or concerns they have.

Wasn't there a bigtime molester priest from the Diocese of Orlando?! I could swear that that one made the Boston news a couple of years ago. Sex abuser priests are headline news there a lot...I think that misery loves company, because the local news just loved to report when one had surfaced outside of the Archdiocese of Boston It was like "See! It's not just the Archdiocese of Boston!"

For so many personal reasons, I'd never go back to the church myself. I left the day that I turned 18, and I would never have even been confirmed if I'd had a say in it. However, it is good to know that there are good parishes out there for recovering Catholics who do want to return. For me, I just feel blessed that both my DH and I made it through our Catholic childhoods without either of us having been victimized by a priest. In my town, it was just a matter of choosing the right church. Come to find out, the other parish in town had a very active child molester priest

 

[Cruise04]

Wow...if you didn't want your kid to learn how to get pregnant - don't let them read this thread!!!!! (just kidding but all this talk about this day to this day sure can make someone figure out what's the best way and time to get pregnant)

Back to the subject of birth control, there are people, like myself, that can't conceive any longer - I was lucky to have been able to with my daughter. Because of the problems that I have with my cycles and my hormones and the depression that it causes me, it's much better for me to be on BCP than off. I was told that under extenuating circumstance, the church does not look down upon you. And trust me, when we were thinking about conceiving I couldn't tell if I was or was not getting pregnant. The two months without a period were pure hell on me and then I would have one and it would last over 2 weeks. Then I'd be on for a month. My body does not produce ovulates like other people and thus didn't know when to "clean" itself. And my raging hormones and depression were getting way too much to bear and antidepressants were working alone. I was a HUGE complete mess and to the point that I was having suicidal ideations and counseling was not going to do anything about that. It was a chemical imbalance in my brain. As soon as I went on BCP, it helped regulate me out. They do scare me to death but I'm on such a low dose that I shouldn't have to worry about breast cancer with them; which can be a cause of breast cancer if you are on them too long.

So hope that answers that part of anyone's mind.

 

[Kallison]

They want more Catholics to support the church.

 

[MrsKreamer]

They want more Catholics to support the church.

here we go again.

 

[chrissyk]

They want more Catholics to support the church.

I don't understand why so may people have taken offense at this statement in varying forms on this thread. This was what I was taught in CATHOLIC CCD at my CATHOLIC CHURCH. I'm obviously not the only one! If the church is teaching it, why do people find it so offensive? Maybe there are other reasons for the no-birth-control doctrine, but the main one that I was taught BY THE CHURCH itself is the one about maximizing the # of Catholics (and, by association, maximizing donations to the church). BTW, I far preferred hearing this explanation from the nun teaching my CCD class than hearing the details of "accepting ALL of your husband" from her I would have about croaked if I'd heard a nun talking about that

 

[beattyfamily]

I don't understand why so may people have taken offense at this statement in varying forms on this thread. This was what I was taught in CATHOLIC CCD at my CATHOLIC CHURCH. I'm obviously not the only one! If the church is teaching it, why do people find it so offensive? Maybe there are other reasons for the no-birth-control doctrine, but the main one that I was taught BY THE CHURCH itself is the one about maximizing the # of Catholics (and, by association, maximizing donations to the church).

Because it's NOT the Churches teaching just because that is what you heard. It's not what I was taught in my classes at my Catholic Church.

You're not the only one? The others saying it are atheists who are NOT Catholic as far as I can tell (ford family as one example).

 

[Kermit]

Don't know--I think it's called fertility awareness method though--isn't it?

From what I've read, the difference between NFP and FAM is that, with FAM, you use another form of birth control during your fertile times rather than abstaining. So it's not really for people opposed to birth control but rather more for people who don't want to use hormonal methods but who also don't want to mess with whatever they're using every time.

 

[chrissyk]

Because it's NOT the Churches teaching just because that is what you heard. It's not what I was taught in my classes at my Catholic Church.

You're not the only one? The others saying it are atheists who are NOT Catholic as far as I can tell (ford family as one example).

What I meant by not being the only one is that I know other people who were taught the same thing. We weren't all raised in the same parish either.

If it's not the churches teaching it, then how did I learn it from a CCD-teaching NUN at CHURCH?! Maybe some parishes aren't teaching it this way, but some are. Like anything else, it probably depends on the particular parish where you took your CCD classes. I also learned that my non-Catholic mother was going to burn in h@ll from another CCD teacher. I remind her of this whenever she pats herself on the back for agreeing to raise us Catholic in the first place

I can understand that people get offended when someone who has never been Catholic chimes in and says that the church just wants more Catholics, but I was raised Catholic and I'm saying that this is what I learned from my own church CCD teachers growing up! It might not be what they're supposed to say according to Vatican II or whatever, but it certainly felt like a rare moment of honesty to me when they said it.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

From what I've read, the difference between NFP and FAM is that, with FAM, you use another form of birth control during your fertile times rather than abstaining. So it's not really for people opposed to birth control but rather more for people who don't want to use hormonal methods but who also don't want to mess with whatever they're using every time.

Perhaps there is a non-NFP version that is similar to NFP without the Catholic Doctrine/reasoning in it. NFP cannot use any supplemental artificial means b/c then it would camoflouge symptoms when you are trying to document your information.

ChrissyK--the information you received growing up was wrong...I know that you aren't the only person who got this and it just didn't linger in Boston--it doesn't mean that it was correct. Though church Doctrine doesn't evolve very much--how the clergy handle it is evolving so that they are in fact leading the flock and not misguiding the flock.

There is a church in Melbourne that is a "traditional Roman Catholic Church"--but it is not recognized by the Vatican or the Diocese--it was someone who went out on their own to create a church b/c of their feelings towards the RCC. So no, you aren't the only one who believed the incorrect information you were taught.

The church is definitely trying to mend itself--and in the Orlando Diocese, you cannot be in ministry with children or the elderly without fingerprints and an FBI background check. This includes Priests, Deacons, Parish Staff, Laity, and school parents who volunteer with the kids.

I only came to Catholicism in the mid-90s as a college student, so I pretty much escaped the molestation issues. I saw one documentary/teleplay on it on HBO back in the 80s, so had heard of it then.....very sad. If these horrible events were close to you--then it is understandable the wedge that they have created between the church and its former followers. I think this next generation of Catholics will be stronger than in previous decades....but we won't really know for some time.