Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Journey to the Truth (Natural Family Planning) [Open]
Catholic Exchange ^ | April 23, 2008 | Anna Pier Day (pen name)

Posted on 05/23/2008 6:26:42 PM PDT by Salvation

Journey to the Truth

May 23rd, 2008 by Anna Pier Day

I argued with the priest — the strong-willed one — who sat opposite me in the confessional. For every argument I presented, though, his response was the same: a calm, understanding, but firm, “There are no exceptions to the Church’s teaching against contraception.”

Truth be told, if the Church had been less wise and had made exceptions, our family situation might have qualified as one. A few months earlier, after the birth of our youngest son, I had suffered from an acute depression with accompanying suicidal thoughts and a brief psychotic episode that had landed me in two different mental hospitals. I had been torn away from my life as the stay-home mother of a toddler and a still-nursing infant for the two weeks of hospitalization my treatment required, and the whole experience had been devastating — not only for me, but also for my family and everyone who cared about us. As a result, my husband and I were very afraid of the possible ramifications of another bout of post-partum hormone fluctuations. And, having recently returned to the Church after a 20-year absence, I was finding her teaching against contraception very difficult to accept.

But there was something about the way this priest calmly stood his ground (even when I told him for the twenty-third time why my family should be exempt from this particular teaching) that made me believe he was giving me the Truth. So, after a few more weeks, my husband and I discussed natural family planning, and we (somewhat fearfully) agreed to try it.

Our priest helped us again by putting me in touch with a nearby couple who taught the Creighton method of NFP. Soon after I began NFP classes, my husband and I did away with the contraceptives we had been using. As soon as we did, an amazing thing happened. It was as if God lifted the scales from my eyes, and instantly, I understood. I suddenly saw the pain a “contraceptive mindset” must cause our Loving Father, who cares for us and would never let anything happen to us that was not for our good. I saw what a great privilege He gives us by letting us share with Him in creating His greatest miracle — a new baby’s life. And I saw contraception for what it is — something we do to thwart God’s loving plan for our families.

Since then, our family has experienced God’s love more fully. He has blessed us with our first daughter, who was conceived when our Creighton chart said conception was possible. Our daughter brings great joy and love to our family, and the happiness she brings us far outweighs the pain of the (relatively minor) symptoms I experienced during pregnancy and shortly after her birth. I shudder now to think that we might have missed out on the privilege of raising her — and a lifetime of joy with her — just because of the weakness of our faith that God would take care of us. And I pray every day for a world full of priests who will stand firm on Church teaching, just like the one who first told us the Truth.

God Our Father, please send us holy priests…all for the Sacred and Eucharistic Heart of Jesus…all for the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary…in union with Saint Joseph. Amen.

 

Anna Pier Day (who used a pen name for this article) lives with her husband and three children in North Central Florida. She has been a teacher and now enjoys being a full-time mother and an author. Her first picture book for children is tentatively scheduled for release in May 2009.



TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: birthcontrol; catholic; catholiclist; naturalfamily; planning; protestant; protestanttheology; sex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
For your information and discussion.
1 posted on 05/23/2008 6:26:45 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation

What a beautiful, Spirit-filled post. Thank you.


2 posted on 05/23/2008 6:34:10 PM PDT by huldah1776 ( Worthy is the Lamb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

Yes, it is.


3 posted on 05/23/2008 6:40:25 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
Journey to the Truth (Natural Family Planning) [Open]

Enslaving Women One Pill at a Time (Birth Control Pills and Natural Family Planning)

New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More “Effective” Than Contraception

Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning

Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning

Clerical Contraception (Important Read! By Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer)

(Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning

Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 25, 2004

IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)

Thanks Doc: More (and Younger) Doctors Support Natural Family Planning

Couple say Natural Family Planning strengthens marriage

Reflections: Natural family planning vs sexism

British Medical Journal: Natural Family Planning= Effective Birth Control Supported by Catholic Chrch

Natural Family Planning

4 posted on 05/23/2008 6:41:11 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; sandyeggo; Lady In Blue; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; Catholicguy; RobbyS; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

5 posted on 05/23/2008 6:43:37 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All; Salvation

NFP should NOT be confused with the rhythm method.

Sean Hannity once seemed to confuse the two, so I contacted his producer, who said he would pass it on to Sean.

btw, I have heard that some secular women also use NFP, because it is natural and safe (no blood clots, etc.).


6 posted on 05/23/2008 6:58:52 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

So contraception to prevent pregnancy thwarts God’s will, but trying to thwart pregnancy via the avoidance of sex when a woman might become pregnant is alright.

Isn’t God more powerful than a thin latex barrier? As those opposed to condoms or birth control pills assert when counseling against sex outside marriage - birth control isn’t 100% effective - so isn’t there enough wiggle room for God to get around barriers humans might throw in her way? - whether condoms, rhythm method or pill? The intent is the same - avoid pregnancy; it is only the method that differs - mere hair splitting.

Clerics argued against anesthia for women during childbirth when it was first utilized to that end as avoiding the full penalty of woman’s ‘curse’ - and avoiding “God’s will.” This article expresses the same mentality. If God’s purposes are worked out in spite of a condom at the outset or a life support system at the end - God’s will will be accomplished in traditional theology.

More power to them I suppose.


7 posted on 05/23/2008 7:39:21 PM PDT by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Alleluia

And nice to see you as ornery as ever, Salvation. Do you creak when you walk? ;-)

8 posted on 05/23/2008 7:48:31 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Good for you for getting the truth to Hannity!


9 posted on 05/23/2008 8:12:52 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

** Do you creak when you walk? ;-)**

Not quite. But I sure noticed the change in that hip joint a little differently when it went from very hot to a rainy day here. LOL!


10 posted on 05/23/2008 8:14:36 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev

No barrier. No pills. No thwarting God’s will here.

Just abstinence until fertile times and the couple wishes to conceive.

Please read some of the other links for more explanation about Natural Family Planning.


11 posted on 05/23/2008 8:16:36 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
We used NFP very successfully, and have three wonderful blessings. You'd be amazed at the technology out there to help support NFP!

I can't say enough about a computer program (of all things) called Ovusoft. I've recommended it to all my girlfriends who use NFP, and it's a Godsend.

12 posted on 05/23/2008 8:35:42 PM PDT by Malacoda (A day without a pi$$ed-off muslim is like a day without sunshine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev

It isn’t just a matter of God wanting more babies. Unlike condoms or the pill, abstinence doesn’t turn a sacrament between a husband and wife, meant to create life, into a self-serving recreational act.


13 posted on 05/23/2008 8:54:25 PM PDT by To Hell With Poverty (I'll take a "third Bush term" over a second Carter term ANY DAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Malacoda

A big bump for the two of you.


14 posted on 05/23/2008 8:57:04 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: To Hell With Poverty

By your reasoning, a couple incapable of conceiving a child should not have sex? Post-menopausal women, those with infertility issues, etc. have sex for a number of reasons - conceiving a child is not one of them. I suppose you might call it recreational sex. Self-serving? Why? It involves mutuality, love, concern for the other - all certainly sacramental, if by sacramental you intend a means of experiencing grace.


15 posted on 05/23/2008 9:13:57 PM PDT by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev

Um, no.

Sterility is not usually willed, and otherwise healthy, moral people who are sterile would be overjoyed if they conceived despite their apparent sterility.

Mutuality, love and concern for others which has been closed off to sharing those gifts with a third party are not fully healthy.


16 posted on 05/23/2008 9:17:31 PM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev
All good points, but the people you cite aren't making that separation (sex from procreation) themselves.

Besides, by your own reasoning God can overcome those situations, too. Like the couples who give up trying to conceive, adopt, then shortly thereafter become pregnant. ;)

17 posted on 05/23/2008 9:29:23 PM PDT by To Hell With Poverty (I'll take a "third Bush term" over a second Carter term ANY DAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius

Your postulate that a third party must exist in a relationship of mutuality and care to be healthy is completely arbitrary and a non sequitor.

You view, then, as unhealthy, sex between a married couple who cannot conceive a child whatever the reason might be? Aristotle was liable to err you know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8


18 posted on 05/23/2008 9:34:17 PM PDT by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: To Hell With Poverty

Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii wrote:

“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, ... in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, ... proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. “

Wouldn’t the folk who practice the rhythm method or attempt to determine in any way when the woman would not be fertile be an attempt to have sex without pregnancy as a potential result?

More power, as I say, to the couples who wish to only have intercourse with the view to welcome any resulting pregnancy and abstain otherwise. I find the castigation of responsible family planning to be odd and one result is abortion.

For the good folk practicing the rhythm method, it would surely seem they run afoul of the spirit, if not the letter, of Pius XI’s promulgation above. That’s just an outsider’s view.


19 posted on 05/23/2008 9:47:50 PM PDT by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev

Opposition to the occasion (regardless of how likely that occasion is) of a third party is a form of selfishness, which represents an imperfection in the love and self-giving of the act.


20 posted on 05/23/2008 10:53:50 PM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev

Even NFP can be abused, it is true.

But abstinence is of a different order of moral intent than sexual activity, since having sex is never a necessary action of which the failure to undertake would be culpable.


21 posted on 05/23/2008 10:58:31 PM PDT by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I have noticed that there seems to be a better understanding of NFP through out the medical community. At least with my midwife. She asked very reasonable questions, such as if abstience was hard since women tend to desire sex more when they are ovulating and how it is practiced before a cycle returns after birth. This indicates at least a basic understanding of how it works and a general respect for the priniciples behind it. Of course, midwives tend to favor the more natural approached to women’s health in general.


22 posted on 05/23/2008 11:16:21 PM PDT by mockingbyrd (peace begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev
so isn’t there enough wiggle room for God to get around barriers humans might throw in her way?

Just out of curiosity (and it might help me to understand better where you're coming from theologically) was that a typo?

23 posted on 05/23/2008 11:20:47 PM PDT by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

24 posted on 05/24/2008 6:11:24 AM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Our “surprise” continues to be a great blessing in our family. He’s a wonderfully good natured person.

God does know best.

Glad to see you back.


25 posted on 05/24/2008 6:12:08 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev; To Hell With Poverty
By your reasoning, a couple incapable of conceiving a child should not have sex?
Strawman argument there "Rev". Won't wash, isn't what was said. If infertile married couples have sex, sometimes we find out they aren't fully infertile. Those that are by God's Will still leave themselves open to His Will, got it?
26 posted on 05/24/2008 6:16:29 AM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Petronski and I are firm believers in NFP. I’m totally open to having kids esp. now that my mother’s health is in question.


27 posted on 05/24/2008 6:27:33 AM PDT by cyborg (Living Strong every day since March 12, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Wonderful article, Salvation. NFP bump!


28 posted on 05/24/2008 6:30:47 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd; Salvation

A lot of folks confuse NFP with the calendar method of days gone by. I use a combo of both. God knows what’s what. Now if the men would only be as frisky as us ladies around ovulation instead of running for the hills :O)


29 posted on 05/24/2008 7:05:45 AM PDT by cyborg (Living Strong every day since March 12, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: narses

No, I don’t ‘get it.’ The Roman theory of marriage as sacrament and prohibition on contraception is rooted in Aristotelian philosophy and certain of the fathers such as Clement - it’s rooted in the notion of what is ‘natural’ vs. what is ‘unnatural.’

Humans are equipped for sex not only as an instrument of procreation, but for pleasure as well. A great deal of sex takes place in the animal kingdom that is non-procreative but for purposes of conflict resolution or avoidance, food exchange and it would seem, simply, pleasure.

Beyond that - take a look at St. Paul in his instructions to the Corinthian Church regarding celibacy and chastity. Paul certainly roots his opinions in a companionate view of marriage. Contraceptives were known in the ancient near east, but their is no mention of the practice of pregnancy prevention in the New Testament.

Again, none of the good folk supporting the Roman prohibition on contraception on this thread will directly address the issue, the infertile aside - can sex without the possibility of pregnancy be moral - should post-menopausal women or pregnant women have sex with their husbands? The issue, as Rome has framed it and as it exists in classical Roman theology, is that sex without the possibility of procreation, is sin.

Are condoms de facto immoral? Should spermicidal jelly or condoms, for instance, be made more available in Africa with its high rate of heterosexual AIDS? Can a married couple practice anal sex, fellatio or cunninglingus? Must a married couple in financial straits remain celibate if they feel they could not support a child? For them to utilize any means that would avoid conception is immoral? Such a view is simply silly and unbiblical. I feel sorry for the folk who reduce married sex to simply a guilt-ridden instrument of procreation and rob it of its depth and richness within the covenant of marriage. The author of Hebrews enjoins us to honor the marriage bed without any qualification, without reference to procreation. The Song of Solomon celebrates a lusty sexuality between a man and a woman, quite explicit in the Hebrew, without any reference to procreation - the human body, the lover, is celebrated for his or her own sake.

Marriage is a covenant of companions and exists for its own sake, not merely for the purpose of procreation. In the archetypal story of Genesis, God creates Eve not for the birthing of a child, but as Adam’s helpmate, his companion.

The social sciences, human experience, common sense and Christian theology stand againt Rome’s opposition to family planning. Happily, most American Catholics disregard Rome’s teaching on this matter.


30 posted on 05/24/2008 7:05:49 AM PDT by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: narses

Don’t worry about what presbyrev says. I’m a NFP believing, natural birthing believing Roman Catholic. We’ll outnumber the contracepting protestants soon enough.


31 posted on 05/24/2008 7:14:40 AM PDT by cyborg (Living Strong every day since March 12, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev
So contraception to prevent pregnancy thwarts God’s will, but trying to thwart pregnancy via the avoidance of sex when a woman might become pregnant is alright.

I wouldn't put it that way. It's more about the wholeness or the nature of the act.

What do we think about the Romans who ate and then made themselves sick so they could eat some more? Don't we consider that intrinsically perverse, revolting not just because puking is revolting (by definition?) but because, whatever the fallibility of Aristotle, we think that eating is FOR nourishment, that the mastication and swallowing are just the beginning part of an hours long nutritional process, and that to break it up and frustrate it by unnatural emesis is almost emblematic of the fractured state of fallen man.

In thinking about this, I find that the word "artificial" in "artificial birth control" is important. There is a natural birth control technique, and it's well known. Chastity among the unmarried is not generally considered perverse or unnatural, is it?

When I was a Protestant I thought that the Catholic view arose out the Church's alleged aversion to people having any fun. As time went by I saw wives sort of throwing themselves at their husbands like a sop to Cerberus, to hush their whining because there was no "real" "practical" reason, since they'd rendered themselves infertile, to deny what Kant supposedly called "the mutual abuse of bodies."

"After all," said a friend, "it doesn't take that long, and afterwards he'll go to sleep and I can get back to my book."

In this view the playful or urgent side of sexual intercourse is exaggerated to the point that, if it were possible, the animal side of human nature would be sundered from that which makes us human. The notion that sexual intercourse is, at its best and properly, the deliberate and considered physical joining of mature saints who honor and cherish one another and have committed themselves to do so for the rest of their lives is lost in a the notion of a vacation from reality and humanity, or of the mere quieting of an appetite.

AND, with contraception (and abortion) the generally more insistent urge to merge of the male is not so likely to be brought up into the human realm of deliberate choice because part of the act itself is excised from it.

It is also interesting to remember the promises made about ABC. There would be a reduction in unwanted pregnancy and divorce. I am 60 years old and I remember the conversation (and believed the promises.) Some time back I was discussing this with a woman maybe 10 years younger than I and she had no recollection of all that was said before Griswold v. Connecticut when states could prohibit the sale of contraceptives even to married people. Those promises were broken and have been forgotten, except when they are re-made to argue for free or reduced-price contraception for college kids or the poor.

Our culture now generally assumes that chastity is a disease for which intercourse is the cure, and the ABC-enabled sundering of sexual activity from full humanity has not worked out well for us.

That'll do for an opening articulation of "the other" view. It's not well-expressed and it's incomplete, but I hope it presents the thinking comprehensibly.

32 posted on 05/24/2008 7:17:38 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

I agree with you - in the first sentence of your post - and that is the essence of the issue & the source of the disagreement between the pro and con positions on contraception.

The nature of ‘the act’ of sexual expression between a husband and wife is that they become one flesh - the first and primary end of their relationship is companionship and unity. Secondarily, the end of sexual expression in marriage may be for procreation, but that is not the radical nature of the sex act; it is the sexual expression (and sex is only one component of the contract and covenant of marriage) of a relationship of mutuality and care.


33 posted on 05/24/2008 7:32:07 AM PDT by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

I’m sure the participants in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre said the same thing about Protestants. “We’ll outnumber the Protestants soon enough.” Lovely sentiments.

A Protestant position regarding contraception would include the idea of freedom of conscience - to use or not to use; when and how to utilize family planning methods.

They’ll be plenty of us homeschooling Protestants with a full-orbed Christian worldview saving civilization with our families - small, medium and large. Don’t worry. We’ll let the Roman Catholics help.


34 posted on 05/24/2008 7:42:32 AM PDT by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev

AGREE. THE LESS THERE ARE OF YOU THE BETTER. Post stupid comments trying associate me with murdering mobs and you’ll get the same response in kind. Goodbye!


35 posted on 05/24/2008 8:10:15 AM PDT by cyborg (Living Strong every day since March 12, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev
BTW, Former Episcopal priest here. Became RC in 1994.

The nature of ‘the act’ of sexual expression between a husband and wife is that they become one flesh - the first and primary end of their relationship is companionship and unity.

Does the part ofter the dash explain the part before the dash?

Secondarily, the end of sexual expression in marriage may be for procreation, but that is not the radical nature of the sex act; it is the sexual expression (and sex is only one component of the contract and covenant of marriage) of a relationship of mutuality and care.

You got a source for this? Despite the great admiration for making whoopee in the Song of Songs, I would imagine those folks knew the usual relationship between "baby carriage" and "love and marriage", and I'm saying that the sexual act in all its fullness would include procreation just as the chewing and swallowing act in all their fullness (so to speak) include nutrition.

I think there is a gnostic tinge maybe (this is not an argument, not at all, it's kind of a "here's where I may try to go with this" statement) to separating the sexual act from its social, economic, and biological side and making it "radically" about the relationship between husband and wife simpliciter. In fact I think that a lot of the pressure to "perform" (perceived and real) comes from that divorce.

Again, it's no kind of argument, but ABC was touted as the great hope for marital sexual frustration and for illegitimacy, remember? It SURE didn't work out that way.

Principle for consideration: Just because Chimpanzees do something doesn't mean it's not perverse. Goats masturbate. The occasional ram (I ran sheep and goats for a while - goats are cooler - but stinkier) will attempt to mount another ram. (If all he mounts are other rams he ends up in the pot.) And certainly ewes will overeat - with disastrous consequences. So the argument from "what critters do" to "what an act 'is'" is not a slam-dunk.

36 posted on 05/24/2008 8:29:14 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

I did get a snarky doctor once ask what I was doing for birth control and then made the “oh rythmn” comment. To which I, never known to back down from a confrontation, snapped right back “No, I said NFP, using the sympto-thermal method. There’s a significant difference and you should you that.”

I was being seen for upper right quadrant pain, so I wasn’t even sure why birth control factored into the conversation. And snarky doctor was worthless and clueless. Turned out, I was pregnant after all. Which I figured out all on my own. All three of our kids are NFP babies....not that we used NFP to conceive them. Just that we slacked off on the rules enough until someone showed up. That way we still got the thrill of a sort of surprise pregnancy without the total and complete shock.


37 posted on 05/24/2008 8:40:40 AM PDT by mockingbyrd (peace begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
I was a NFP practicing Roman Catholic and after 3 unplanned blessings plus a doctor that said my wife's (Perpetual) medication (Contains decongestants),irregular periods can effect/prevent signs of ovulation the priest said it was Ok to get a vasectomy. My soul was not in peril he proclaimed. Since left the Roman Church but on topic, NFP is not effective for everyone who is fertile.

I find it hilarious that those who take an oath to refrain from sex issue decrees of regulations, i.e. climaxing from male on female oral sex is Ok but somehow the sperm is sacred and only should be “naturally” ejaculated into the vagina thus climaxing from female on male is a “sin”. Some artificial contraceptives should be avoided (Those that do not prevent conception i.e. the “pill”) but those who say your soul is in peril if spontaneous sex between a married couple who happen to use a condom for instance is ARROGANCE. Where is this condemned by God not from “traditions” of men who take a vow of chastity?

God's Words, mutual agreement and a Spirit filled conscious, that is all when it comes to the marriage bedroom.

38 posted on 05/24/2008 8:46:16 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd

Lately I’m being a slacker too especially since I’m getting older and want my mother to have some good news for a change this year. Most people are still snippy when it comes to NFP until one points out the dangers of chemical birth control for women!


39 posted on 05/24/2008 8:47:32 AM PDT by cyborg (Living Strong every day since March 12, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

I’ve never been told that sperm is sacred by a priest but OK. I don’t think anyone’s soul is in danger just because they use contraception either. It’s your personal life though so I’m not really going to comment further.


40 posted on 05/24/2008 8:53:36 AM PDT by cyborg (Living Strong every day since March 12, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

Then why is it forbidden for a male, married even, to ejaculate outside the vagina? All those little sperm have a sacred (As decreed by Holy Men of the cloth) right to implant an egg. Not natural perhaps? Why then are (Married) females allowed to climax outside of the frame of intercourse?

Questions then babble from traditions of men, which lead to even more questions.

I am not saying a man has a right to force oral sex (To climax) from his wife but why is wrong if it is mutual? Again, if it’s not natural then apply it to the female as well. Hence the sperm has some “special” little favors going for it, (I.E worthy of respect) deemed too “sacred” to “abuse”.


41 posted on 05/24/2008 9:11:19 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

I’m not into debating as much as my husband petronski is. However, even I know having a conversation about the RCC with an ex-catholic is sometimes not the best thing to do. I honstly can’t answer your questions. Maybe some of the RCC experts can answer.


42 posted on 05/24/2008 9:16:51 AM PDT by cyborg (Living Strong every day since March 12, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

I would question the idea of sinful (perverse) chimpanzees. I simply raised the issue of natural example, because that is one of the bases for the Aristotelian tradition’s argument for what is ‘natural’ vs. ‘unnatural’ sex.

I provided Biblical references for my viewpoint in a previous post. As a former Anglican priest, I am sure you are well aware of the tradition’s rationale for marriage as a holy commonwealth.

Here is one source for my own Reformed, Protestant perspective on this issue.

Worldly Saints by Leland Ryken.

“The Puritan doctrine of sex was a watershed in the cultural history of the West, The Puritans devalued celibacy, glorified companionate marriage, affirmed married sex as both necessary and pure, established the ideal of wedded romantic love, and exalted the role of the wife.

This complex of ideas and values received its most eloquent and beautiful expression in Milton’s picture of the married life of Adam and Eve in his epic Paradise Lost. In portraying the perfect marriage in book four, Milton went out of his way to show that Adam and Eve enjoyed sexual union before the fall. As Adam and Eve retire to their bower for the evening, we read,

‘Straight side by side were laid, nor turned I ween
Adam from his fair spouse, nor Eve the rites
Mysterious of connubial love refused:
Whatever hypocrites austerely talk
Of purity and place and innocence,
Defaming as impure what God declares
Pure, and commands to some, leaves free to all.
Our maker bids increase, who bids abstain
But our Destroyer, foe to God and man?’

Having dissociated himself from the [Roman] Catholic tradition, Milton proceeds to give his famous apostrophe (address) to wedded love:

‘Hail wedded love, mysterious law, true source
Of human offspring, sole propriety
In paradise of all things common else.
By thee adulterous lust was driven from men
Among the bestial herds to range, by thee
Founded in reason, loyal, just and pure,
Relations dear, and all the charities
Of father, son, and brother first were known
Far be it, that I should write thee sin or blame,
Or think thee unbefitting holiest place,
Perpetual fountain of domestic sweets,
Whose bed is undefiled and chaste pronounced.’

All the usual Puritan themes are here: the Biblical basis for affirming sex (as evidenced by several key Biblical illusions in the passage), the differentiation between animal lust and human sexual love, the domestic context into which sexual fulfilment is put, and the romantic overtones of the passage. This, and not the modern stereotype, is what the Puritans really said about sex.” (Worldy Saints)

“[Husband and Wife] may joyfully give due benevolence one to the other; as two musical instruments rightly fitted do make a most pleasant and sweet harmony in a well tuned consort.” (an anonymous Puritans source, Worldly Saints, p. 44)

Richard Baxter is also a good primary source for a Protestant and Reformed companionate view of marriage and married sexuality.


43 posted on 05/24/2008 9:39:42 AM PDT by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

I’m not sure the information you’re getting about RC teaching on what’s okay is, uh, okay. Can you cite some sources?


44 posted on 05/24/2008 9:40:03 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev
Yeah, well, I mean MILton, fer cryin' out loud! (He WAS great, wasn't he?)
Hee for God only, shee for God in him:

God is thy Law, thou mine: to know no more
Is woman's happiest knowledge and her praise.

Well nobody bats 1000.

I didn't say Chimps were sinful. "Perversion" would need a will' to become sinful. And I don't think Aristotle means by "nature" the same thing that empiricists" would mean by it. For an empiricist the very concept of "perversion" would be hard to maintain. Either it happens or it doesn't. I think for Aristotle human nature means what humans should be like not what they are,like as observed.

But back to Milton. To put it jocularly, did they have ABC in Eden? More seriously, while affirming what Milton says (and despising the caricature of Puritans as much as those of Catholics), I still wouldn't bet that he'd approve of Artificial Birth Control, would you?

45 posted on 05/24/2008 10:06:10 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
Again, none of the good folk supporting the Roman prohibition on contraception on this thread will directly address the issue, the infertile aside - can sex without the possibility of pregnancy be moral - should post-menopausal women or pregnant women have sex with their husbands?
Sure we can. In fact we have. The answer is yes. The Catholic Church teaches BOTH uses of the marital act, procreation and mutual pleasure. That you keep pretending otherwise reflects on you and your men of straw.
46 posted on 05/24/2008 10:41:20 AM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev
Again, none of the good folk supporting the Roman prohibition on contraception on this thread will directly address the issue, the infertile aside - can sex without the possibility of pregnancy be moral - should post-menopausal women or pregnant women have sex with their husbands? The issue, as Rome has framed it and as it exists in classical Roman theology, is that sex without the possibility of procreation, is sin.

I'm not sure that's exactly right. Sexual intercourse when the possibility of conception has been deliberately precluded by artificial means is a no-no.

47 posted on 05/24/2008 10:45:11 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

He has it wrong. His posit that sin exists in those cases is a strawman argument. It is false-to-fact.


48 posted on 05/24/2008 11:13:36 AM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

Of course. Here and the hereafter.


49 posted on 05/24/2008 11:15:45 AM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PresbyRev

“The Roman theory of marriage as sacrament and prohibition on contraception is rooted in Aristotelian philosophy and certain of the fathers such as Clement - it’s rooted in the notion of what is ‘natural’ vs. what is ‘unnatural.’”

Is that the sort of nonsensical drivel that is taught in protestant seminaries?


50 posted on 05/24/2008 11:17:23 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson