Why do Catholic women reject their Church’s teaching on contraception? Now we know.

LifeSiteNews ^ | Sep 18, 2012 | Carolyn Moynihan

[Mrs. Don-o]

Which democrats are getting assistance here from which Catholic FReeper?

[ansel12]

More avoidance of the fact that the democrats depend on importing more Catholics.

As far as some Catholic Hispanics becoming Protestant, well that leads to them voting more like Protestants, more pro-life republican, Protestant Hispanics are closer to a 50/50 vote.

[Mrs. Don-o]

How does the fullest application of border security, and no amnesty, make me a supporter of the Democrat-Mexican takeover of Texas?

[ansel12]

More avoidance and games, the catholic vote went for Obama and the protestant vote went for Romney.

While you defend importing millions more Catholics and democrat voters.

The democrats are not counting on non-Catholic Christians to turn the tide in Texas, they are counting on the Catholic denomination’s members to do that.

[ansel12]

You support the mass immigration that the left depends on.

I don’t see how a pro-life conservative can support this importation of millions of Catholic voters for the democrat party, but there you are.

As is common, the democrats are getting assistance here from a catholic freeper.

[Mrs. Don-o]

How does the fullest application of border security, and no amnesty, make me a supporter of the Democrat-Mexican takeover of Texas?

And as for http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3083071/posts?q=1&;page=1 --- I am not going to slog through and analyze that whole 97-item thread, but skimming the first page, I saw only one person who could have been called pro-JFK, and it's in this context:

"Only thing I am saying is research into Kennedy’s politics prove him to be as conservative or more conservative as today’s RINOs."

You seem to have absolutized that into "support" for "Kennedy" or "The Kennedies," when actually it is just a sardonic note that Baphomet is a relatively minor devil compared to Beelzebub.

I do not think you're aiming to defend today's RINO's, or dispute the notion that they are more to the left than anybody in the two major parties was in 1960.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"While you defend importing millions more Catholics and democrat voters."

I have never done that. It's really remarkable, the way you really think you can misrepresent me to myself!

I am bowing out. I hear a chocolate eclair calling my name.

[ansel12]

Wow, you really didn’t read the thread on JFK, I can see that it is useless to link you to what you asked for and to other such threads.

As far as immigration, you seem to be really committed to it.

You support the mass immigration that the left depends on.

I don’t see how a pro-life conservative can support this importation of millions of Catholic voters for the democrat party, but there you are.

To: Mrs. Don-o
Not on FR, if you think that then you must avoid the JFK threads and immigration discussions and not notice the dislike for our most conservative voters in America, Evangelicals.
91 posted on 1/5/2014 6:11:21 PM by ansel12

[ansel12]

You are defending it on this very thread.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"As far as immigration, you seem to be really committed to it. You support the mass immigration that the left depends on."

I do not! This is absurd.

I can't discuss your departures from reality. Again I say, Enough.

[ansel12]

It isn’t absurd at all since you started posting to me defending it, which is what I said we run into from many Catholics here.

To quote you. “”Lawful immigration is OK by me””.

You support the mass immigration that the left depends on.

[workerbee]

I thank you for your statements here. I believe birth control may be the most difficult topic for Catholics to address; I have certainly had and continue my battles. I hope you are involved in pre-Cana classes. The couple who taught ours could learn a bookstore’s worth from you!

[RobbyS]

Simple. Even before Vatican II they were being told by priests in the confessional that the Church was going to change its teaching on contraception. Humanae Vitae came as a jolt to these women but more to these priests, and they went “mute” on the issue.

[RobbyS]

If you have not, I invite you to read Humanae Vitae. I never did myself until much later. It is amazing how prophetical —I mean both spiritually and and in prediction of events — the document is. It gets to the heart of the abortion issue where “choice” means denying a woman’s obligations to the life within, of trying to reduce the moral universe to the principle of individual consent, of denying a natural obligation to anyone and having obligation only to those one has decided to give affection to and being free to end this obligation at will. This view is destructive of family and ultimately of society.

[Neidermeyer]

You are ignoring the fact that the church not only outlines and accepts but ENDORSES birth control in the forms that it approves of as long as the reason it is used is for the correct intent and not for selfish reasons.

There isn’t an ounce of difference between the rythm method and a condom or other barrier method (diaphram , cervical cap , etc.) ,, although I would say that the rythm method if practiced in it’s most effective way with daily temperature readings and mucus inspections is far more intrusive .. it is just another barrier method ,, only it’s barrier is time.

The method doesn’t matter it’s the intent and not disrespecting the gift of life when it is granted that matters.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"You are ignoring the fact that the church not only outlines and accepts but ENDORSES birth control in the forms that it approves of as long as the reason it is used is for the correct intent and not for selfish reasons."

I haven't quite kept up with what I've mentioned and what I've not mentioned on this particular 215-comment thread--- but if I have ignored that, now I will affirm it.

The Catholic Church DOES "outline, accept and endorse" birth control in the form of Natural Family Planning when used, as you say, with correct intent.

That's because we believe that people have a moral duty to control their sexual behavior. Couples should not beget more children than they can reasonably expect to raise and provide for. People who heedlessly increase their childbearing despite grave risk to the mother's health or life, for instance, are acting irresponsibly.

" There isn’t an ounce of difference between the rhythm method and a condom or other barrier method (diaphram , cervical cap , etc.)"

This is not true. A sound understanding of morality recognizes that all three elements of a moral act must be moral: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances (how/in what way we perform the act).

For a fuller treatment of this, you might take a few minutes and mouse around HERE (Link)

Let's say a young woman does not want to have children because she is severely handicapped. She can achieve this by never marrying and never having intercourse. This is abstinence, and it is not wrong.

She can also achieve this by marrying the wonderful man who loves her even though she is handicapped, but carefully refraining from intercourse in her fertile times, so that pregnancy cannot occur. This is periodic abstinence, and it is not wrong.

It would be incorrect in either case to say she is using a barrier method. In both cases (chaste single life, or marriage) she is refraining from an act, not perverting the act of intercourse with barriers, spermicides, hormonal derangement,etc.

It's like the difference between silence (refraining from speech), and lying (perverting one's speech). Abstinence is refraining from sexual intercourse (like silence.) Contraception is perverting the act of intercourse (like lying.)

Using timing (what you are calling "the barrier of time") is not morally objectionable. I didn't marry and have sexual union with my husband until I was 37 years old. Was I using the "barrier of time" all my life? Are young virginal children practicing contraception? --This is an obvious absurdity.

"The method doesn’t matter"

Here's your error. Method always matters. Say a couple said, "Our method of birth control is, we both watch porn videos together, and then the husband ejaculates into a sink and the wife gets off with a vibrator." Is this holy marital union as blessed by God? Is this the sanctity of sex?

Or say they decide, "From here on out, it's oral and anal for us." How would this be different from gay marriage? It IS gay marriage. Gay marriage for straights!

Or what if they say, "We'll get altered by hormones and/or an operation (sterilization) so we can have the sex life we want." How is that different from transsexualism? In fact the acts of contraception and of sex-change "therapy" have this is common: they both involve impairing the body because of the rejection of one's natural sexuality (or one's spouse's natural sexuality) and its consequences.

"It's the intent that matters."

Yes, certainly: that's one of the things that matters: the what; the why; and the how.

Good ol' natural sex ---normal sexual union in marriage ---makes three huge connections:

• to God (His blessing as we act according to His plan),
• to another gender (the astonishing male-female complementarity), and
• to another generation. (This connection is there even if --- say because of infertility--- children are never conceived. Sexual union still has the significance of being that great and act by which the human race comes into being.

  Contraception fails two out of three: the connection to God and the connection to generativity.

  Not surprisingly, contraception even damages the 3th connection: the bonding between the sexes. Contracepting marriages divorce at a far greater rate (up to 50%) than NFP marriages (0.2- 2%).

  Yes, that's backed up by Research (Link)

  Because it creates shallow bonds, contraception is of course the overwhelming choice of people who simply never wed at all but engage in nonmarital sex. Contraception fosters weak bonding, or no bonding, between men and women. As a destructive societal force, it is destroying the marriage culture all around us as we watch.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I did not support mass immigration, as you mistakenly said. In fact, if you will read the rest of that same paragraph, you will see that I bemoaned the fact that our government has been " too corrupt to enforce national security with respect to any aspect of immigration: numbers, countries-of-origin, background checks, criminal and terror risk, employability, impact on local communities economically and culturally, and so forth. "

Obviously I am saying that even legal immigration should be limited by the seven or eight important considerations I listed.

I've always written in paragraphs. I... I just... can't help myself.

:o)

[ansel12]

To quote you. “”Lawful immigration is OK by me””.

It is easy to misunderstand someone claiming to support you, when they are arguing against you on a subject.

It wasn't clear at all that you agreed with me about ending immigration.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for reading the rest of the paragraph!

I agree it can be easy for people to misunderstand each other when things get a little bit complex. I make mistakes especially when I'm just skimming and not getting the wider context.

Have a good evening, ansel.

[ansel12]

I had read all your paragraphs, if you are anti-immigration you could just say so, instead of saying you are pro-immigration.

I didn’t misunderstand you, the first thing you did was change my post on “immigration” to something about “illegal immigration”

You also pulled out some silly Mark Steyn attempt when you know very well that Mexican and Latin American immigration is, and has been our top problem with immigration.

Perhaps you should strive to be more honest in your posts.