Catholic theology question

auntpolly said:
oh, not so differently as you might think for a lot of Catholics... :rolleyes1

But does that make us the garden variety, pick and choose, kind of Catholics? There is so much about the Catholic religion that is as much a part of me as my own name. I love the focus on good works and faith, not just faith. I love the incense and feasts and rituals. What I can't get behind is the weird relationship with sexuality that seems to exist. And then I wonder, does it have to be all or nothing?
 
gina2000 said:
I think there are far more Protestant churches and worshippers in the US than Catholics.

when you lump them all together, yes.

Another reason that we get so much heat is that we have such a strong central governing body. My sisters little tiny Presbyterian church has had all kinds of trouble (preacher having sex with a couple of teens being the big one) but the "Presbytery" (I think that's what it's called) really didn't want to hear about it. They were told it was their problem to handle.

I think the Protestant churches are so loosely linked that they don't run the risk of looking like one "BIG BAD PROBLEM"!! :)
 
There are more Protestants,,But they break up into many groups... 1 in 4r Christians in the US is Catholic 2 in 4 are protestant

Catholic 46,004,000 50,873,000 24.5% +11%
Baptist 33,964,000 33,830,000 16.3% 0%
Methodist/Wesleyan 14,174,000 14,150,000 6.8% 0%
Lutheran 9,110,000 9,580,000 4.6% +5%
Presbyterian 4,985,000 5,596,000 2.7% +12%
Pentecostal/Charismatic 3,191,000 4,407,000 2.1% +38%
Episcopalian/Anglican
 
auntpolly said:
oh, not so differently as you might think for a lot of Catholics... :rolleyes1

Don't get me wrong. I am not the type to think anything goes. I am pretty conservative in my thinking and I certainly believe that God intended sex in the confines of a marriage to be a very special thing. I guess I just don't get all the "rules" when you are talking about a married couple. I guess that is why I am not Catholic.

Sorry if I derailed this thread temporarily but I was curious. I have some Catholic friends so I know some of the basic beliefs behind NFP, etc. but I never felt like asking them the real specifics of what they can and cannot do...I am not THAT close to them. ;)

Thanks for the education. :)
 

snoopy said:
But does that make us the garden variety, pick and choose, kind of Catholics? There is so much about the Catholic religion that is as much a part of me as my own name. I love the focus on good works and faith, not just faith. I love the incense and feasts and rituals. What I can't get behind is the weird relationship with sexuality that seems to exist. And then I wonder, does it have to be all or nothing?

Yeah, I guess, but I just can't think of it that way. I just can't ignore what I believe from my own studying of the scripture. And you know, people on this board have more of a problem with it than my own priests, so I don't let it worry me too much. My priests have always seen me as a little "challenge" I suppose, when I've disagreed, but we love each other and discuss things and it's been OK. In some instances, I've come around to their way of thinking.
 
becka said:
Don't get me wrong. I am not the type to think anything goes. I am pretty conservative in my thinking and I certainly believe that God intended sex in the confines of a marriage to be a very special thing. I guess I just don't get all the "rules" when you are talking about a married couple. I guess that is why I am not Catholic.

Sorry if I derailed this thread temporarily but I was curious. I have some Catholic friends so I know some of the basic beliefs behind NFP, etc. but I never felt like asking them the real specifics of what they can and cannot do...I am not THAT close to them. ;)

Thanks for the education. :)

Well, there are some Catholics on this board who don't like to hear this - and I really am sorry to offend them - but I've only occasionaly run into a priest (the older ones - they are still very good priests) that counsels very specifically against birth control. When my friends and I were all geting married 25 years ago we were told that it was a our decision to make.
 
beattyfamily said:
Using birth control and "wasting the seed" so to speak are sins.

I've read the whole thead (whew!) and I've had this thought in my head since the beginning. I will use beattyfamily's quote to illustrate it, just because it was close to the end and easy to find.

So if "wasting the seed" is a sin...then how does NFP work? Isn't only having sex when you know you can't get pregnant "wasting the seed", whether you use anything artificial or not?

Someone at the beginning of the thread mentioned something about it being wrong to enjoy only the pleasure of sex without accepting the consequences of it (I'm paraphrasing...that was 10 pages ago). But with NFP, isn't this exactly what you're doing?

I am not trying to bash, just understand.
 
becka said:
I am just now back to this thread and I can see it has changed direction a little bit but I wanted to ask a few questions.

If sex for Catholics is supposed to only be about procreation are Catholics suppossed to refrain from all other sexual activity with their spouses that cannot lead to pregnancy? I don't quite know how to phrase this but if I was Catholic and DH and I used a condom during my fertile time to prevent a pregnancy this would be a sin because we are not open to life and we are not "giving ourselves to each other completly". Would a wife giving a certain "favor" to her husband during their fertile time be considered a sin as well because it cannot lead to pregnancy and they are not open to life?

Ok baby is napping so now I join the thread again. A lot of this was "against the law" in the middle ages. It isn't really focused on anymore. I remember being in the 8th grade and having to go through my second sex ed class. I went to Catholic school from K-12. Our priest just so happened to be visiting our class the same time we were learning about sex ed. I will never forget one of the boys in my class asking Father Miles "why is masterbation wrong?" Well of coarse the whole class starts to snicker. Good old Father Miles gave the text book explaination of how you need to be married and such. Other than that one instance, "other" acts have never been talked about. In my 13 years in Catholic school I had 4 sex ed classes, so it wasn't for lack of a good moment to mention it.
 
DisDuck said:
Read the whole thread and just want to bring it back to the topic of B/C. Why was it illegal for B/C other than barrier methods years ago? Why did Margaret Sanger(I think that is the person) go to trial over B/C?

It seems to me that religion has driven some laws for which it has no business getting involved. If someone wishes to use family planning thru artificial means than that is solely their issue and should not be legislated.

Someone who wishes to use non-artificial means is fine for them but should not impose on others as their beliefs may allow it. In fact curiously enough in Jewish Law the B/C is perfectly occur but not barrier methods.

I don't think anybody is mentioning legislation outlawing it. The thread is about Catholic Doctrine and why the Catholic Church is against it and nobody is suggesting that it becomes illegal.
 
becka said:
I am just now back to this thread and I can see it has changed direction a little bit but I wanted to ask a few questions.

If sex for Catholics is supposed to only be about procreation are Catholics suppossed to refrain from all other sexual activity with their spouses that cannot lead to pregnancy? I don't quite know how to phrase this but if I was Catholic and DH and I used a condom during my fertile time to prevent a pregnancy this would be a sin because we are not open to life and we are not "giving ourselves to each other completly". Would a wife giving a certain "favor" to her husband during their fertile time be considered a sin as well because it cannot lead to pregnancy and they are not open to life?

No--the Ford Family actually posted a link to a wonderful article that attests to this fact. NFP teaches the couple should learn to communicate---in other words if you agree no more kids (or at least no more for now)--then the fertile time is off limits if you wish to respect each other enough to hold yourselves true to your decision. Any other time within the guidelines you choose for how careful you wish to be...you are still being open to life--but the chances of getting pregnant are almost none....and in the 3rd phase once you've proven that ovulation has already occurred via the signs...it pretty much is IMPOSSIBLE to get pregnant...you can go to town as much as you want and the Catholic church is in support of that. It is an expression of love and is permitted to be enjoyable.
 
Maleficent13 said:
I've read the whole thead (whew!) and I've had this thought in my head since the beginning. I will use beattyfamily's quote to illustrate it, just because it was close to the end and easy to find.

So if "wasting the seed" is a sin...then how does NFP work? Isn't only having sex when you know you can't get pregnant "wasting the seed", whether you use anything artificial or not?

Someone at the beginning of the thread mentioned something about it being wrong to enjoy only the pleasure of sex without accepting the consequences of it (I'm paraphrasing...that was 10 pages ago). But with NFP, isn't this exactly what you're doing?

I am not trying to bash, just understand.

With NFP, you don't have sex without the seed going into the proper place, so to speak. So you are not "wasting" the seed. It's going right where God intended for it to go.
 
becka said:
I am just now back to this thread and I can see it has changed direction a little bit but I wanted to ask a few questions.

If sex for Catholics is supposed to only be about procreation are Catholics suppossed to refrain from all other sexual activity with their spouses that cannot lead to pregnancy? I don't quite know how to phrase this but if I was Catholic and DH and I used a condom during my fertile time to prevent a pregnancy this would be a sin because we are not open to life and we are not "giving ourselves to each other completly". Would a wife giving a certain "favor" to her husband during their fertile time be considered a sin as well because it cannot lead to pregnancy and they are not open to life?

Oh--just caught what you are asking...if you don't wish to get pregnant--you cannot have part to part contact...You can do anything you mutually agree upon...however, the key is to not bring yourself to that point (the "O" word) for either person...b/c then you are having the pleasure outside of the intended purpose.

So hard to answer a question....

Is it getting hot in here, or is it just me?
:blush:
 
becka said:
Are all sexual activities except for those than can result in a pregnancy considered a sin? That seems pretty extreme to me but then again I am not Catholic? ;) I guess being a Protestant I view sexuality very differently.

No--if they are mutually agreed upon and with each other...can't go having orgies or experimenting inappropriately (use your imagination...I ain't typing it!!!)......if it is out of love and within the marriage with each other...you can pretty much do what you want...but the seed must go where it is supposed to go.

In otherwords--you aren't limited to the missionary position :blush: .

I will dig up the appropriate text on this as it is worded so much better than I can embarassingly type it. Slowly digging my grave here....
 
6_Time_Momma said:
With NFP, you don't have sex without the seed going into the proper place, so to speak. So you are not "wasting" the seed. It's going right where God intended for it to go.

But if there is no chance to create a new life, isn't it wasting it? I have read a couple times on this thread about how Catholics need to be "open to life", which I interpreted as not trying to avoid getting pregnant. Since you are trying to avoid it when practicing NFP, isn't it the same thing?

Perhaps that is just me misinterpreting.
 
Maleficent13 said:
But if there is no chance to create a new life, isn't it wasting it? I have read a couple times on this thread about how Catholics need to be "open to life", which I interpreted as not trying to avoid getting pregnant. Since you are trying to avoid it when practicing NFP, isn't it the same thing?

Perhaps that is just me misinterpreting.

Okay--going to dig up my information to see if it can help you out.

Essentially--you aren't obstructing life from occurring which is what barriers/meds do--they obstruct it.
 
Lisa loves Pooh said:
In otherwords--you aren't limited to the missionary position :blush: .
boring.gif
 
Here's a good link...and some interesting things I found on it or links from it:
http://www.ccli.org/

Religious and moral convictions guide anyone’s decisions about sexual behavior. We believe that when people are fully informed about the advantages of NFP they will see that this method best agrees with their convictions as well as their practical desires for happier marriages and healthier lives.

NFP does not mean "Not for Protestants." You don’t have to be Catholic to have strong convictions that it is wrong to use unnatural methods of birth control. "Such 'providentialists' should at least learn the rules for ecological breastfeeding, God's own way of spacing babies." For a better understanding of the moral issue of birth control and to find out the true position of the Catholic Church on this matter, please see Church Teachings on NFP. and especially the full text of Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (On Human Life).

In the Pope's words:
John Paul II, 17 July 1994:
Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood on this point [about "responsible parenthood], as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so (italics in original).

Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God’s co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child.

Therefore when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.
 
Okay Maleficent...here's the best I could find for you on the differences between NFP and BC:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html
Birth Control and NFP: What's the Difference?

Tom and Jane have three children, and have determined that they cannot adequately provide for any more at the present time. They know that artificial means of birth control are morally wrong, and their priest recommended that they use NFP ( Natural Family Planning ). Yet they do not understand why NFP is OK if birth control is wrong. Don't they amount to the same thing?

Actually, they don't. NFP is very different form other methods of birth control. Here we will give some other reasons -- but first, a word about what NFP is not.

NFP does NOT refer to the so-called "calendar rhythm method", which was based on calendar calculations of a "normal" cycle. NFP, instead, based on direct observations of various signs that occur in a woman's body (changes in the cervix, cervical mucus, and temperature) which tell her when ovulation occurs. These observations are relatively easy to make, take only a few minutes, and work even for irregular cycles. NFP is internationally known and practical and is extremely effective. The medical principles on which NFP rests are being used by more and more doctors for a wide range of purposes.

Morally speaking, then, what is it that makes NFP acceptable while artificial birth control is wrong?

1 ) NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be "open" to life as long as the spouses do nothing to "close" it. Here's the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately "close" the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body's fertility and infertility -- patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman's cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act -- they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.

2) NFP is not just a "method" based on physiology. Rather, NFP is based on VIRTUE. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy marriage. There are times in any marriage when spouses have to put aside their desire for sex because of sickness, fatigue, travel, or other reasons. In a healthy marriage, love is shown in many ways, and not all these ways of showing love are physical. In fact, to refrain from sex when necessary is itself an act of love. Why? Because in effect the spouses then say to each other, "I did not marry you just for sexual pleasure. I married you because I love you. You are a person, not an object. When I have sex with you, it is because I freely choose to show you my love, not because I need to satisfy an urge." Using NFP requires abstinence from intercourse during the fertile days if a pregnancy has to be avoided. This actually can strengthen the couple's sexual life. When the spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons, they also come to trust each other more, and avoid the risk of treating each other primarily as objects of sexual pleasure rather than persons. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, gives free reign to the temptation to make pleasure the dominant element, rather than virtue. It encourages couples to think that sexual self-control is not necessary. It can encourage them to become slaves to pleasure.

3) NFP puts the responsibility for family planning squarely on the shoulders of both partners, because it requires communication and cooperation. Both spouses need to know when the fertile days of the woman's cycle have arrived, and then decide together what to do (depending on whether they are trying to avoid or achieve pregnancy). To think that such communication and cooperation make the sexual act less pleasurable (because less spontaneous) is simply not true. To know with certainty what stage of the cycle one is in can increase the pleasure and spontaneity of the act, since the spouses can ignore worries about contraceptive failure or side-effects of the pill. Artificial birth control, besides introducing these worries, also puts the "contraceptive burden" on the shoulders of ONE, not both, spouses. It makes it possible for a spouse to cut off the fertility of the act, even without the consent of the other spouse. It can introduce division into the marriage.

4) NFP is not just a means of avoiding pregnancy, as artificial contraception is. Rather, it can also be used to ACHIEVE pregnancy since it pinpoints ovulation. It is a wholly positive approach to the sexual life of the spouses. It is clean, inexpensive, morally acceptable, and reliable.

As with anything good, NFP can be misused, if a couple has the wrong motives. Married couples are called by God to cooperate generously in bringing forth and educating new life. For a couple to decide that "we don't want children at this time", there need to be serious, objective reasons (health, finances, etc.). If the reasons are not objective but selfish, then the couple cannot justify the avoidance of pregnancy just because they are using NFP to do it. In this case they are not practicing "family planning", but "family avoidance"!
There are differences between NFP and artificial birth control, but let these suffice for now. As Pope John Paul II has explained, the difference really rests on a person's answers to some very basic questions like, "What is marriage?" What is sex? What is the human body? What is love?" Artificial contraception distorts the meaning of all these things. It sees the body and its sexual faculties as something to be "used", and it fails to acknowledge God's place in love and marriage. NFP, instead, is a practice of virtue, resting upon self-control, inner freedom, respect, trust, communication, and reverence to God's plan for love and marriage. It enriches both love and marriage. Every couple owes it to themselves to learn more about it!

--Fr. Frank Pavone

This about sums it up--sorry I got crazy with the empasis.
 
auntpolly said:
Well, there are some Catholics on this board who don't like to hear this - and I really am sorry to offend them - but I've only occasionaly run into a priest (the older ones - they are still very good priests) that counsels very specifically against birth control. When my friends and I were all geting married 25 years ago we were told that it was a our decision to make.
That has been my experience as well. I think a lot of priests, at least in the US, are not really opposed to birth control or are afraid of alienating their entire parishes by preaching against it. My feeling is that there is too much good in the church to leave it over matters of sexuality. I'll deal with God directly on that one when the time comes.
 
Lisa Loves Pooh, thanks so much for searching out that information for me. It does help me to understand the Catholic view point. I do have to say this, however (bolds are my emphasis):

When the spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons, they also come to trust each other more, and avoid the risk of treating each other primarily as objects of sexual pleasure rather than persons. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, gives free reign to the temptation to make pleasure the dominant element, rather than virtue. It encourages couples to think that sexual self-control is not necessary. It can encourage them to become slaves to pleasure.

I had to :rotfl: when I read this. Does ANYONE know of any married couple with kids who think of each other as "primarily objects of sexual pleasure" or "slaves to pleasure"?

It just struck me as funny...
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom