Catholics to pope: Lift the birth control ban

I am hear because of the rhythm method lol.

rhythm and abstinence
rythm and blues

Proud Mamma wrote:

The church will never change it's stand on birth control. They teach abstinence until your married, and then the rhythm method.

Jammercolo wrote:

<quoted text>
I have two great kids a daught that is 19 yo and out of high school. I have a 13 yo son. Both are good kids do well in school are well behaved and healthy in every way. I could not have better kids if there was so god that made them. there was not my wife and I made them the old fashion way. we did it after 5 years with her on birth control (the pill). Married 4 years befor first kid. After I had a good job a nice home and a sence of security.(money in the bank,insurance plus a marrage that we felt would last. All without some Godtelling us right from wrong.

I am happy to hear you didn't cut yourself off entirely (pardon the pun) from having children, but what are you going to do if you want more in the future?

Also, it is not a guaranty that you will have money in the bank just because you have less children.

Didn't you know if your marriage would last BEFORE you got married? It sounds like you were on some kind of test.

There are some people that never have children and they are still poor.

capitalist wrote:

I know God's plan for sex because He makes it abundantly clear in the Bible. There is no room for interpretation there. Pretty darn clear. As for the one man one woman, what I actually meant was reserving sex for ONE partner within a marriage. Again, no AIDS spread that way. It is a scientific fact that you can't spread AIDS in a monogamous relationship. How does that make me an idiot?
God did not create birth control BTW...I don't see condoms raining down like manna from heaven, do you?

Actually, although many people believe God is "abundantly clear" about sex in the bible, a more analytical review of the bible indicates that God is rather cryptic about sex. Almost nothing is "abundantly clear".

What is "abundantly clear" is that people have interpreted various passages in the bible to support the various prohibitions that their own church leaders support.

FWIW wrote:

The whle abstinance things and the tradition that priests cannot marry only dates to Contantene (who created the decree only after a lifetime of debachery)
totally hypocritical.
God and Jesus never had these views....

You may be referring to Augustine, and you would still be greatly oversimplifying. The tradition that priests cannot marry has a long and complex history.

GeeGee wrote:

Capitalist-
You keep using the phrase "pro murder" to refer to contraception, but need I remind you that semen is not a baby? It only has half of the chromosomes needed for a baby. Using a condom is no more murderous than a woman menstruating and thus discarding an "unused" egg. Or is every woman who doesn't remain constantly pregnant a murderer?

some forms of contraception work by preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum

dont worry about the pope

if you parents do your job and teach your kids some values....little girls will not open thier legs until marriage...and little boys will keep thier rockets in thier pockets

texball wrote:

dont worry about the pope
if you parents do your job and teach your kids some values....little girls will not open thier legs until marriage...and little boys will keep thier rockets in thier pockets

right, and human nature and human sexuality will disappear becasue of decree.

Nice that we have some articulate and sincere Catholics on the thread. My question may sound loaded but I'm not really trying to make a point. I have wondered for a while what the difference is spiritually between calendar method and condoms, and how the Church can support one and not the other. In both cases there's clearly an intent to thwart the biological consequence of heterosexual intercourse. The fact that the technology varies seems a rather arbitrary materialism. Shouldn't the Church hold a clear line that abstinence is the only appropriate method of avoiding pregnancy?

I do think that Catholics could do a better job of distinguishing between contraception that prevents fertilization and contraception that prevents implantation. Personally I'm fine with either, but those who believe in human life starting at conception would be better served by understanding the difference.

I also think it is dishonest and harmful to argue that all attempts to provide true contraception are part of a pro-abortion agenda. For many of us the whole point of promoting contraception is to DECREASE the number of abortions.

Thank you

NJBRED wrote:

<quoted text>
Condoms do not STOP HIV. They may slow the process, but they certainly do not stop the spreading of disease. Do you know that condoms have miniscule holes in them? That's why they aren't 100% foolproof in preventing pregnancy. Go read some will ya.

You may be speaking of the old lambskin condoms. Here is a link to read.....
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2991537
Condoms, when used properly do stop the spread of HIV. It is not 100% safe- that is why usage of a condom is called safer sex- not safe sex. No method is 100%- except abstinence. That is not always a reality to some. Failure with condom use isn't usually caused by holes in the condom, but by human failure when using them. Improper usage will lead to spread of infectious disease and pregnancy.

Serious Question wrote:

Nice that we have some articulate and sincere Catholics on the thread. My question may sound loaded but I'm not really trying to make a point. I have wondered for a while what the difference is spiritually between calendar method and condoms, and how the Church can support one and not the other. In both cases there's clearly an intent to thwart the biological consequence of heterosexual intercourse. The fact that the technology varies seems a rather arbitrary materialism. Shouldn't the Church hold a clear line that abstinence is the only appropriate method of avoiding pregnancy?
I do think that Catholics could do a better job of distinguishing between contraception that prevents fertilization and contraception that prevents implantation. Personally I'm fine with either, but those who believe in human life starting at conception would be better served by understanding the difference.
I also think it is dishonest and harmful to argue that all attempts to provide true contraception are part of a pro-abortion agenda. For many of us the whole point of promoting contraception is to DECREASE the number of abortions.
Thank you

Natural family planning is based on the natural cycle and not doing anything to prevent a birth such as condom use.

In the event, through NFP, a woman does get pregnant then nothing has been done intentionally to prevent the conception altogether.

I hope that makes sense.

If you are checking the calendar daily to ascertain when you can't get pregnant- isn't that also a form of birth control?'Natural' still means that you are not wishing to get pregnant- hence a birth control method. Aren't we supposed to be considered to have sinned dependent upon our intent? If you use the rhythm method- you are intending not to get pregnant. Please explain.....

Let us PREY for salvation

natural family planning is called "parents with alot of kids".

my brilliant idea-

the bible says that a man and woman should have sex for the purpose of procreation...so maybe the Catholics should do just that by having sex and producing one or two children then STOP having sex forever to insure they don’t over populate or go against the church by using birth control....simple abstinence is the answer if they truly want to please God

No, this is not an adequate answer. NFP is most certainly doing something to prevent a birth. It is very, very much about intentionally preventing pregnance. Granted it differs from using a condom in that a condom is not used, but that's circular logic at best.

If you're going to have sex and you come up with a way to prevent insemination, what difference does it make what method you use? There must be some genuine, well-reasoned theology behind this somewhere, whether rank-and-file Catholics can articulate it or not.

What *categorical* difference is there in the methods that make one a sin against nature and god, while the other is "natural" acceptable? My best guess (trying to read into your reply) is that true NFP involves an attitude of openness to pregnancy if it happens, while condom use is accompanied by an utter unwillingness to allow conception. But what if a couple has an open mindset while using condoms which, and we all know, are not 100% effective? And what a couple who use NFP but who know that they would abort any child that was accidently concieved?

Ask your priest or local theologian to log on. I think this is important. The world needs the leadership of the Chuch as an institution that holds onto deeper values, but its credibility depends on providing coherent reasoning for moral dictates.

Cruzader99 wrote:

<quoted text>
Natural family planning is based on the natural cycle and not doing anything to prevent a birth such as condom use.
In the event, through NFP, a woman does get pregnant then nothing has been done intentionally to prevent the conception altogether.
I hope that makes sense.

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

Catholics for Choice, a Washington based pro-choice advocacy group, initiated this dissent.
To begin with, the headline should not state Catholics to Pope ... At best, the headline should read, Former Catholics to Pope...
The Church has stated clearly that you cannot be pro choice (abortion) and be Catholic at the same time. Either you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church or you are a protester. Protesters are normally called Protestants.
So to be really accurate, the headline should read, Protestants to the Pope...

Very well said.

try this wrote:

my brilliant idea-
the bible says that a man and woman should have sex for the purpose of procreation...so maybe the Catholics should do just that by having sex and producing one or two children then STOP having sex forever to insure they don’t over populate or go against the church by using birth control....simple abstinence is the answer if they truly want to please God

Where does the bible say that?

Serious Question wrote:

If you're going to have sex and you come up with a way to prevent insemination, what difference does it make what method you use? There must be some genuine, well-reasoned theology behind this somewhere, whether rank-and-file Catholics can articulate it or not.
What *categorical* difference is there in the methods that make one a sin against nature and god, while the other is "natural" acceptable? My best guess (trying to read into your reply) is that true NFP involves an attitude of openness to pregnancy if it happens, while condom use is accompanied by an utter unwillingness to allow conception. But what if a couple has an open mindset while using condoms which, and we all know, are not 100% effective? And what a couple who use NFP but who know that they would abort any child that was accidently concieved?
Ask your priest or local theologian to log on. I think this is important. The world needs the leadership of the Chuch as an institution that holds onto deeper values, but its credibility depends on providing coherent reasoning for moral dictates.
<quoted text>

I suspect it's a holdover from the time when the Catholic Church as well as the early Protestants, believed that sex should be only for procreation, and that sex for pleasure is sinful.

Pope Gregory (6th century): "If any pleasure is mixed with procreative sex the married couple has transgressed the law of marriage and have befouled their intercourse thereby"

It is difficult to back off a position that had such a significant role in the early church.

Franck wrote:

<quoted text>
I am happy to hear you didn't cut yourself off entirely (pardon the pun) from having children, but what are you going to do if you want more in the future?
Also, it is not a guaranty that you will have money in the bank just because you have less children.
Didn't you know if your marriage would last BEFORE you got married? It sounds like you were on some kind of test.
There are some people that never have children and they are still poor.

Me more babies,I'm in my mid 40's I do not want more kids.Having kids this late in life is wrong.
I'd be near 70 or dead when he,she got out of high school.
I plan to be there for my kids well past that.As it is now I will be in my 60's when my youngest is in his mid 30's.
True no guaranty I will have money because I have fewer kids but the odds are far better that I will have the money to give both a collage education. Besides the world has to many people already. Earth is dieing,people are using all her resources faster than she can build them back up.
Human beings are currently causing the greatest
mass extinction of species since the extinction of
the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in less than 100 years.
If you have more than two kids you are part of the problem.
What is your God going to do about I know,
http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html
NOT A DAMN THING!!!
that's what
Didn't you know if your marriage would last BEFORE you got married?
NO, no one does, AS an atheist my odds were better than a christians.Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
Young couples having kids right out of the gate is a large part of that.Need to be with each other love each other grow with each other before you add the stress of babies.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.ht...

texball wrote:

dont worry about the pope
if you parents do your job and teach your kids some values....little girls will not open thier legs until marriage...and little boys will keep thier rockets in thier pockets

What a pipe dream. Sounds good.Does not work in practice.
I had this very religious man I work with try to get me to teach my daughter abstanece only sex ed.
Where I live parants can keep there kids out of real sex ed class and go with the Abstanece only kind. Well he is raising his daughter baby now and my daughter is starting collage. He does not like it when I point that out or ask him what he is going to teach his youngest daughter and granddaughter..
"virginity pledges" teens are more liky to have anal and oral sex than nonpledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active. Get informed or live your pipe dream it is up to you.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/2160...