Women immoralitiesgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
The church is strongly against abortion, and I agree with this. But what will the church and government do to fix the probelms that cause abortion? Has anyone ever considered why women are looked upon as victims, when in actuality they are the predators, and they are the ones who cause the majority of the family problems. Let us take a look for instance at child support enforcement. A women may have numerous one night affairs with married as well as single men, and become impregnated. She did nothing to prevent the pregnancy and decides to continue the pregnancy. The man knows nothing of the pregnany because he did not know the women and chances are he was too intoxicated to remember. The women then feels she is entitled to receive money (compensation for being immoral?) and gives numerous names to the child support agencies, who gladly hunt down these men. These women have up to 18 years to file suit, so imagine the choas and confusion that is caused not only to the children, but the men and their families. Women are manipulating the system and men. They are also destroying their children's life. How many of these kids are in prison, or will end up there. Why don't we change the child enforcement laws and start making these women pay for their immoralities, and maybe they will stop having so many one night stands
-- Nayda (NaydaV1@aol.com), June 12, 2003
Um...quite scathing. Do you think all women are predators? What about flipping the coin and considering the fact that the men are just as at fault as the women, especially those men that are possibly married. Why is all the blame falling on women? It takes two people to make a decision. I agree that there may be times when either party may be too intoxicated to make an educated and moral decision, but ease up a bit. What kind of response are you looking for? I think you would like to see the guillotine brought back to the political arena. Frankly, I'm scared of you.
-- Kristy (kristybale@msn.com), June 12, 2003.
Well Nayda, maybe it's time to enroll in a basic anatomy class. It takes TWO people to make a child. If a woman becomes pregnant, it means neither she NOR the gentleman involved did anything to prevent a pregnancy, or their methods failed. Being intoxicated excuses no one from the repercusions of their actions. And child support is not compensation for the woman, it is just what it says it is, support for the child. And just because a child comes from a single parent home does not mean it he or she is destined to end up in prison. Are there abuses to the system? Absolutely. But men are guilty just as much as women. Anytime we feel we can pin the blame for a social problem on one sex, race, or group, we are treading on dangerous ground. Blame is not the answer, but working together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help corect these problems is. The Church and the government are unable to "fix the problems", but if we all commit time and effort to works that benefit our parishes and communities, we can make a difference. God Bless.
-- Jackie (jackieE1972@hotmail.com), June 12, 2003.
You begin by mentioning the Church's (actually God's) opposition to abortion. Then you ask what the Church is doing to address the underlying problems. Then you launch into a tirade against child support policies, which are governmental policies having nothing to do with the Church.From the Church standpoint, the Church is doing just what it is supposed to be doing - proclaiming the truth on matters of faith and morals. The Church cannot force people to accept and live by the truth. People have free will. If people accepted and followed the teaching of the Church, such problems would not exist! The other thing the Church is doing is offering support, both material and spiritual, to women who find themselves in such difficult situations.
From the civil standpoint, a child has two parents, a mother and a father. The mother alone, in most such cases, is left with full responsibility for the life of another human being, a human being with TWO parents. She can't avoid the tremendous expenditure of time, effort, and emotion which this situation will require of her for at least the next 18 years. Is she supposed to single-handedly provide all of the financial needs as well? The very least that should be required of the child's FATHER is full financial support. If that makes his life tougher, well being a parent is tough. If he didn't want to be a parent he shouldn't have participated in behaviors that cause people to become parents. But now that he IS a parent, his child is his responsibility just as much as the mother's. And if he isn't man enough to meet that responsibility voluntarily, then the government must force him to do so.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 12, 2003.
While I agree with you that many women do in fact manipulate the system, they are certainly not always to blame. How about the many women who feel the same way you do about abortion but are impregnated by men who they are dating or married to and these men decide they don't want to be fathers? What happens then? What about the many cases when women who are actively trying to prevent getting pregnant do in fact get pregnant, who is to blame then? Fortunately the system exists in the manner that it does to help women in these types of situations. It is important that all parties maintain some sort of responsibility for their actions in order to protect the best interest of the most important person: the child.
-- Donna Callagain (DanieRie23@hotmail.com), June 12, 2003.
JmjHello, Donna. You asked:
"What about the many cases when women who are actively trying to prevent getting pregnant do in fact get pregnant, who is to blame then?"Excuse me if I am making an incorrect assumption here, but I suspect that you are referring to women who are taking part in consensual intercourse while using some form of contraception. If so, then ...
If you are referring to a married couple, the couple bears the responsibility. Why? Because the use of contraception is always gravely immoral. And, practically speaking, it sometimes fails, so they needed to "expect the unexpected." [I refuse to use the word "blame," because a pregnancy means a new immortal soul has been created, and this is always a beautiful gift from God. The word "blame" does not fit.]
But if you are referring to an unmarried couple, the girl/woman bears the greater responsibility. She too should not be contracepting. She should not be fornicating either. She should be saying, "NO," keeping herself pure for her future husband. The boy/man is not off the hook though. He has no right to contribute to the corruption of the morals of his partner.
Donna, if what I have stated strikes you as strange, old-fashioned, etc., I want to let you know that you need to expect more of the same here, because you are visiting a genuinely CATHOLIC discussion forum. We are trying to share what Jesus taught.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 12, 2003.
Donna:
You are actively supporting artificial contraception in a Catholic page.''What about the many cases when women who are actively trying to prevent getting pregnant do in fact get pregnant, who is to blame then? Fortunately the system exists in the manner that it does to help women in these types of situations.'' Who is to blame then? you ask--?
God is to blame them and the Church exhorts them (and us) to lead sinless lives or suffer the pains of hell. Any woman who sleeps around and takes a birth ''control'' pill is sinning against her neighbor & against God, and doing so deliberately.
No righteous woman takes the pill and absolves herself of blame for ANY consequence of her actions. She will be actively expecting to sin if she's unattached; and still sinning if she's a married woman.
No artificial means of avoiding conception are licit in the Catholic Church or in the eyes of God. Blame isn't the real problem. Immorality is.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.
It takes two to tango, so both bear equal responsibility as far as sinning goes. Neither should be fooling around, but what is most important is that an innocent child should not suffer because of it.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 12, 2003.
Hi, GT,
I see your quick reply here. In the first part, I have to agree. Anything the woman does illicitly is also a sin for her ''partner''. That includes causing the sin of immoral contraceptive practices. It cuts both ways.When you say the most important thing is not bringing forth any innocent children, to live a life of suffering, I disagree; it's not the most important thing. As John said very well, a new baby is cause for celebration and happiness. Even if he/she was given life by immoral actions of the adults.
Every child everywhere is subject to suffering, (OR NOT) and we accept that.
GT; I have a certain feeling that in all our diverse family trees we have some ''illegitimate'' ancestors. Life is that way; if not for me, for somebody else.
The most important thing to faithful Catholics is that the sin is repented of. Or never committed in the first place. Extramarital sex & blocking conception by artificial means are sins. We're discussing morality and immorality in this thread; not giving birth.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.
Eugene, I mean that innocent children should not suffer through being aborted (murdered) because of the actions of their biological parents.Although, as far as birth control, when you have to use artificial means of calculating when one is fertile or not to decide whether or not to engage in sex within marriage for Natural Family Planning, that is not significantly different from using some other barrier method, if the reason is to prevent pregnancy from occurring by your choice.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 12, 2003.
I say it IS significantly different. Very much so. I realise that the motive for planning to avoid conception can be immoral. But not the action. That is merely abstention.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.
spam me with good answers
-- h desk (help_desk@berea.edu), June 13, 2003.
So what should happen in these cases: I have a friend Holly Gilbert who had a one night stand with a married man, a man with a severe drug problem. A man who she knew was married and whom she knew was so intoxicated that he would not even remember the affair. She became pregnant and claims he is the father. He is married leaving in another state and has no idea who she is, he can't remember anything. She has filed for child support. Why should she get any money from this man? And take more away from his wife and legitimate child.
-- Nl (covincraig@aol.com), June 13, 2003.
Why should she raise this man's child using only her own resources? The child has two parents. She is only one of them. As it is, she has many years of hard work ahead of her. He doesn't. He just fathers a child and walks away. The child has two parents, who were equally responsible, and equally irresponsible, in that child's conception. Now one of them is a mother and the other is a father. Both of those positions call for care and upbringing of the child they parented.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 13, 2003.
Another important aspect of Nayda's question is "What is the Church doing to correct these things?" The fix can't come from the Church or the government. The Church sets up guidelines on how on should live one's life. It is the person's choice to follow the guidelines. The problem with abortion and what not is that it is an "easy" way out of a very complex "problem." Often times these women are very scared and don't know what to do and they don't know where to turn for answers. Everyone does not give the scared woman all the informaion about what her options are. That is why there are great laws like the one in Indiana that women must go to counciling before having an abortion. They have to go to the clinic to receive it and then three days later go to have to abortion. While it doesn't provent abortion, it does give women time to think about what they can do. Abortion is a crime of laziness, being scared, and not having all the information. To stop abortion we must become a culture were quick fixes are not the best ways to do things. The Chuch can't do this. We the people must do this.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 13, 2003.
Jmj
Hello, GT.I was extremely surprised by your comments. They tell me that you must not have ever been exposed to a really good explanation of NFP, either in a talk or in written form. You seem to have serious misconceptions about it [no pun intended].
You wrote:
"Although, as far as birth control, when you have to use artificial means of calculating when one is fertile or not to decide whether or not to engage in sex within marriage for Natural Family Planning, that is not significantly different from using some other barrier method, if the reason is to prevent pregnancy from occurring by your choice."Let me go through this, bit by bit ...
(1) In NFP, there are no "artificial means of calculating" anything. A woman uses natural, God-given signs of (in)fertility.(2) No form of NFP is a "barrier method." [You referred to "some other barrier method."] Not being or involving any "barrier," NFP is therefore not CONTRA(con)ception -- unlike artificial birth control. NFP never sets up an obstacle to conception, while contraception does. (The latter does not "let God be God," making it gravely sinful.)
(3) Contrary to what you stated, NFP does not "prevent pregnancy from occurring by [a couple's] choice." Only contraception (sometimes) "prevent[s] pregnancy," while NFP allows God to act as he wishes.
(4) For these reasons, NFP is "significantly different" from contraception. It raises no obstacle, and it lets God be God.
When you say that there is no significant difference, you seem to demonstrate a lack of faith in the Catholic Church to teach morality infallibly. Certainly you know that the Church has always taught that contraception is intrinsically evil (grave matter leading to mortal sin), while also teaching that the use of NFP (for a serious reason) in not in the slightest bit evil. The only way for a person to conclude that there is no "significant difference" between contraception and NFP is to believe that the Church has taught wrongly, for 2,000 years, about a serious moral matter. GT, I pray that you won't make such a grave error. Please reassure me that you now realize that you were mistaken.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2003.
Hi John,I did read up on NFP, and at least one method does involve, to a certain extent, the use of instruments (such as thermometers), to determine fertile/infertile days. Using instrments to be more accurate makes the issue just as artificial as using some item. Other methods talked about include counting days from last period (and how do you count those accurately, from the first spot, first "heavy" day, or what), or measuring secretions, which can change for any number of reasons, such as say a yeast infection. Many women are irregular in their periods, and or engage in activities which play hob with the cycle (strenuous exercise), spending time with other women say in a dorm or boot camp, etc.
If the Church's position is that you should be having kids, and that every time you have sex that you be open to that possibility, well, any prudent person who uses birth control (barrier type) within marriage knows that it can fail, and they accept the baby and go on from there.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 16, 2003.
JmjNo, no, GT. You are not using the good head that God put on your shoulders!
In NFP, there is no "artificiality" in the use of a thermometer ... or of counting days ... or of observing cervical shape or mucus. A woman's temperature, her bodily signs, and the number of days since an event are all totally natural, God-given things. In NFP, they are merely "observed." There is no "artifice" related to them -- unlike every form of contraception. Each contraceptive involves artifice, and that's the first distinction, but not really the key distinction.
Not all artificial things are bad -- e.g., eyeglasses, hearing aids, prostheses. But all of those things supply for a lack, or they improve faulty natural performance. This makes them legitimate, even praiseworthy. But notice the difference between those good artificial things and contraceptives?
Contraceptives "supply" nothing to remedy a "lack" (as prostheses do). Some of them, instead, intentionally prevent the proper functioning of something that is already present, good, and natural -- fertility (ovulation, fertilization, or nidation). This is terribly wrong.
Nor do contraceptives "improve faulty natural performance" (as eyeglasses do). Instead, some of them intentionally destroy what is already good, natural performance.
In short, contraceptives do not use what is God-given, but they stymie God's gift. By not letting God be God, they are a grave insult to him. Every one of them is, objectively speaking, mortally sinful to use.You stated: "If the Church's position is that you should be having kids, and that every time you have sex that you be open to that possibility, well, any prudent person who uses birth control (barrier type) within marriage knows that it can fail, and they accept the baby and go on from there."
I don't think that I grasp your meaning. Maybe you can break this into smaller chunks for me. However, I can make these observations:
----- Surely you know that, while the Church teaches that a married couple must be generous, they must also be responsible in procreation. Unless circumstances allow a couple to raise an unlimited number of children, the proper use of NFP is the only way for a couple to be both generous and responsible.
----- Surely you cannot seriously mean to say that it is "prudent" to use a "barrier type" of birth control? It is never "prudent" to commit a mortal sin, is it? Every use of a contraceptive of any kind is grave matter, contrary to the Sixth Commandment. I have to ask you, in different words this time, something similar to what I asked last time (but which you evaded answering directly): Do you reject the Church's teaching on this, even though she considers it infallible? Think hard before you answer. You have to decide whether you know better than the popes of almost 2,000 years, protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit. You have to decide if you will be humbly obedient and trustful.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 16, 2003.
Using a thermometer to take your temperature is in the same category as implanting a lethal device in your body?? NOT!Pregnancy from rape is extraordinarily rare; however, for the occasional case that occurs - would YOU volunteer to be "terminated" because your mother was raped? Does the violent death of a child somehow compensate for the violent abuse of a woman? Does one violent crime against an innocent victim neutralize a previous violent crime? What kind of logic is there to that?
Couples who cannot afford to have "child after child" should not do so. There are methods of accomplishing such necessary spacing of births without introducing dangerous substances and devices into a mother's body, and without causing the deaths of preborn children.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 16, 2003.
Since when are condoms dangerous? They don't always work, but I haven't seen them ever portrayed as dangerous.John, I agree that abortion is wrong, and that birth control that causes abortion is wrong, but birth control that does NOT cause abortion, well, that is something else again. I don't understand the Church's position on birth control within marriage.
I also think it is wrong to take fertility drugs that result in multiple births of children who are born with severe problems or in many cases do not survive. If you can't have children biologically, adopt.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 16, 2003.
"Since when are condoms dangerous?"Condoms are dangerous to your soul, as well as to your relationship with your wife/husband AND God.
Condoms are dangerous in that they afford one to derive the unitive pleasure of sex while throwing the procreative aspect of sex to the wayside. The procreative aspect of sex should not be confused to represent merely the possibility of Childbirth. Even when there is no fertilization, in a pure act of love during intercourse there is the creation of LOVE. This is where we get the term, making LOVE. Though it is a highly abused term. You see. When you use a condom, you cannot make LOVE. You can only have sex. If you look up the definition of love in the Bible you will note that it is in no way self centered, it is pure, and it is complete. It lacks nothing. If you use a condome during intercourse you are withholding a part of yourself from your spouse, namely, the sperm. Therefore, since this kind of intercourse lacks something, and is incomplete, therefore it cannot be LOVE. It can only be lust. Lust is a sin because if fosters selfishness.
These ideas, to avoid any confussion, are not my own. Statistics and hard evidence prove that married couples who use condoms have a divorce rate in the 60% or so. Ask couples who have used artificial contraception and then realized their faults. They'll tell you! The women, when she is able to be honest with herself and her husband, will admit to feeling like nothing more than a sex machine. It is usually the women who are hurt, because when there is no mutual comunication as to intercourse then it is merely at the whim of the husband. When consiquences and feelings are not in question, then it becomes a selfish thing. If you don't have to agree with your wife about wanting a child, or whether or not she really would like to make LOVE, then it is simply a lustfull fulfilment of one partners craving.
Therefore, yes, condoms do indeed damage people. They damage souls, and they damage relationships.
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), June 17, 2003.
Nice answers, Jake, Paul and J.F.! I'm interested in the Church's view of fertility drugs, too; I can't remember hearing much about it.An interesting stat: women who have abortions have suicide rate 6x greater than normal; women keep and give birth to an "unwanted" child actually have a 3x lower rate. (I was just at a conference on Saturday, so I can still remember these things!)
-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), June 17, 2003.
Jake, fyi, I'm female. And women unfortunately have in many cases been used as simply sex machines, both within marriage and outside of it. Some husbands even use the Church's teachings wrongly to force sex upon wives, often causing a lot of physical and mental abuse when these women have babies again while still breastfeeding the first one. It takes AT LEAST a year for a woman's body to get back to normal after having a baby. I think some women wind up using birth control pills (because they can hide them) just in self defense.I think in the context of a loving marriage there is room for birth control that does not cause abortion, when both parties agree to it, and both realize that no form of birth control is 100% effective, so that when (not "if") the inevitable "happy accident" occurs, courtesy of God, they can be happy about it.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 17, 2003.
"Some husbands even use the Church's teachings wrongly to force sex upon wives..."I'll pause it right there just to point out that you yourself have said that its using "the Church's teachings wrongly". So, if it's using the Churhces teachings wrongly, how does that detract from the validity of the Churches teachings?
"It takes AT LEAST a year for a woman's body to get back to normal after having a baby. I think some women wind up using birth control pills (because they can hide them) just in self defense."
Hmmm... That's kinda like the argument of having an abortion because of a rape. Sinning in order to try to "make up for" another sin? Just because the couple (or the husband at least) is abusing a Church teaching (i.e. sinning) doesn't make it right for the woman (in this case) to compound the sin by taking the pill (which I'm sure you know causes abortion also).
"I think in the context of a loving marriage there is room for birth control that does not cause abortion, when both parties agree to it..."
That is a wonderful statement that even the Pope supports. Now, the form of birth control is the question. Contraceptive or not contraceptive. In otherwords, does it prevent the couple from giving themselves completely to eachother during intercourse, or does it allow for complete union and complete procreation (creation of a child and/or the creation of LOVE). If it is contraceptive, and therefore frustrates the possibility of conception DURING SEX, and thus frustrates unity and procreativity, then it cannot be a truly LOVING ACT and must not be a truly loving relationship.
"..., and both realize that no form of birth control is 100% effective, so that when (not "if") the inevitable "happy accident" occurs, courtesy of God, they can be happy about it."
Another wonderful statement that confuses the heck out of me. If you are agreeing that NO form of birth control is 100% effective, then why are you arguing so hard for condoms? Do you not know that Natural family planning is 99% effective (equal to condoms and pills)? Natural family planning is a form of birthcontrol that is not contraceptive, because it does NOT frustrate conception DURING SEX. It is merely the avoidance of sex during a fertile stage in a womans natural cycle. The practice of abstinance not only builds stength in a marriage, but it also is healthy (as you know) for the woman who may need that break inbetween children. NFP promotes communication between the couple. And furthermore it forces the couple to HAVE to communicate their desire for oneanother. Even a loving husband can sometimes unintentionally use his wife for pleasure when using a condom. Because even if the wife isn't in the mood, she may feel obligated to perfore based on the fact that a) he has a condom and there should be no conception, and b) the guy doesn't really need to have any type of self control if his wife can't get pregnant. She's supposed to be there for him to fulfil his pleasures. But with NFP neither is used AND selfcontrol is practiced and perfected regularly!
I just have to ask, why is it that people who know this at least try it. Of all the couples that I have talked to who have goen from condoms to NFP, they all have testified to the change in their hearts, to the increase in love. This is testimony to the fact that they are truly MAKING LOVE! You see, when you marry someone LOVE is present, but that love will stay the same if you simply have sex with a condom. But when you make LOVE you increase your original love. You continue to kindle the flame you have!
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), June 17, 2003.
GT,
I was sure you were a woman. It's they who always dread pregnancies, in or out of wedlock. (Allowing for the majority wanting their baby.)It's humanly understandable a woman will resist efforts to convince her birth control is a sin. Most have NO intent to offend God. They want protection, and a sense of security when they indulge.
Married or not, all want to indulge, GT. It's called a sex ''drive''. They feel driven. But, Sheee! Double standards, etc.! Men don't get pregnant! They indulge at will! (You figure they do, but that's a bad premise.)
It's the indulging which makes this such a problem. You would think a woman had sufficient ''security'' in her marriage to say to the spouse instead of ''I've got a headache,'' --We shouldn't indulge until-- Hm, September the 4th-- or some date when conception was less natural. Because nature is what drives the woman to ovulate. Not self-indulgence! Nature takes its course; and men & women ought to leave the intercourse for a natural outcome, not an ''arranged'' outcome. The pill is NOT natural, GT.
Just as sleeping around isn't natural. Except for alley cats.
God is not offended by natural family planning. He is nature's Creator. One day the womb will be dust. Every one. So will the sperm.
Meanwhile, we must protect not only these, but the immortal souls we were given. And, let's keep one thing in mind. Even if a woman has already given birth to a dozen babies; pregnancy for her (13 times) is never a disease.
I bristle when I see women's libbers crabbing about ''women's health issues''. They are simple, pure hypocrites. Pregnant women are healthy, and if not, it can't be her unborn baby's fault.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 17, 2003.
Well, Eugene, after having two children without ANY medication, I can attest to the fact that pregnancy is not an illness. I didn't even have the IV that they now want to stick into you even for routine deliveries. So there. But not every woman is like that. For many women, there is no such thing as a normal pregnancy, and for some, pregnancy is actually life-threatening--although most of these cases would willingly go through this for the sake of their child.I do not support using the pill, as it does cause abortions.
What I was trying to say, is that it is not healthy for a woman, even one in excellent shape, to be having a another baby within a year of giving birth. It isn't fair to the babies, either, since most studies support breastfeeding for at least a year. Pretty difficut to keep up your strength when you are not only feeding a baby but growing and nurturing one inside of you. Not to mention that since women bear most of the child rearing responsibilities they are understandably tired most of the time, something that many men don't seem to understand for some reason.
Maybe women should just refuse to indulge at all for an entire year after having a baby, to make sure they don't have one so soon, and see how their husbands like it. I doubt that even the most loving of husbands would put up with that.
And as to sex drive, what if you (male or female, doesn't matter) don't have one? You don't know if you'll be in the mood on Sep. 4th Does the Church want you to take Viagra or the female equivalent? How many times are you required to indulge, whether you feel like it or not?
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 17, 2003.
GT,Who's saying to have a baby every year? The Church doesn't teach that. And if a condom and NFP are of equivalant effectivness, one being moral the other not, than what's the beef? I don't understand your frustration?
Are you affraid of abstaining for a week out of the month? So far the Church is in line with all that you are saying, except that condoms are a licit method of birth control. But since NFP is (in grave circomstances - such as finance, health, or whatever), then I'm not sure I follow your argument?
Are you just against women having a baby every 9 mo.? Or are you against the Church? Are you against NFP? What's up?
Thanks.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), June 17, 2003.
Jmj
Thanks, Gene, Paul, and Jake, for trying to talk to GT since my last message. I am sure that you are sharing my complete frustration at being unable to get through to GT. The thing that breaks my heart the most is that she is promoting sin and doesn't seem to care.
GT, let me try to make one last attempt now.
You told me: "John, I agree that abortion is wrong, and that birth control that causes abortion is wrong, but birth control that does NOT cause abortion, well, that is something else again. I don't understand the Church's position on birth control within marriage."If you really meant this -- that you "don't understand" -- I could respect that. But I just cannot believe you. Surely, you DO "understand." We have explained the Church's INFALLIBLE TEACHING -- not "the Church's position" -- on this subject in every possible way. You have read these explanations, here at the forum for a couple of years. And you must have read other explanations in Catholic documents, magazines, etc.. How could you possibly NOT "understand" the Church's teaching?
Isn't it rather that you DO "understand," but you REJECT the teaching? Please be honest with us and with yourself! Do you think that the Church is wrong, so you reject the teaching? If that is what you believe, I ask you to leave the Church formally/explicitly instead of pretending to be Catholic while "leaving" the Church implicitly. A Catholic is not allowed to pick and choose which teachings he/she will believe. How could you even WANT to stay in the Church if you think that she can teach wrongly about something so crucial as this? Surely thinking that the Church is wrong about this must lead you to believe that she is FALLIBLE and probably wrong about numerous other things. Why do you stay? Is it merely that you think that the Catholic Church is the Christian body that teaches the FEWEST ERRORS? [Lord, how sick it is making me just to have to write these things!]
Or, GT, is it rather that you know that the Church must be right about condoms -- having taught for 2,000 years exactly what Jesus and the apostles taught -- but you have decided to sin intentionally anyway (because you feel you have no other choice)? In other words, are you saying the following?: "I know that it's mortally sinful to do this, but the alternative that I perceive -- constant pregnancy -- is even worse than mortal sin ... so I will take a gamble, go ahead and sin, and hope that I can confess it before I die." Is that what you are saying? [Lord, let it not be so!]
GT, Jake explained some of the ways in which condoms are dangerous -- spiritually so. You ignored what he said. It is as though you don't give a damn about the spiritual side of this. It appears that you want to argue only in practical terms -- related to pregnancy. Why are you running away from the spiritual side and the other things Jake mentioned (about building intimacy and increasing love)? Are you so obsessed with making yourself (or other women) sterile that you don't care about how contraception damages souls and marriages?
Jake mentioned the very high rate of divorce (over 50%) for couples who contracept. In putting down NFP, are you really unaware of the fact that couples who space their children naturally get divorced no more than 5% of the time? It is God's way, GT! NFP-using couples grow in love, self-respect, mutual respect, self-mastery, ability to cooperate, sharing the burden, etc.. They have repeated "honeymoon-like" experiences after periods of abstinence. You don't know what you are missing, GT!
You are not facing reality when you say that users of contraceptives accept surprise pregnancies as "happy accidents." Some do have this accpetance, but a huge percentage are extremely resentful. Thinking that life "owed" them infertility (because they "did their part"), loads of them go and get abortions; the rest of the resentful give birth but are prone to abusing their unwanted children. [By the way, the failure rate of condoms is huge, compared to "the pill" and NFP. Until AIDS came along in the early 1980s, condoms were a laughingstock. The fact that they (and diaphragms) were such poor "baby-preventers" was the reason for the feverish search for hormonal contraceptives! And yet, you are recommending their use now? That's plum crazy.]
Repeatedly, GT, you made inaccurate statements about breast-feeding and recurrence of pregnancy. Again this reflects a lack of knowledge of NFP. Have you really never studied the Couple to Couple League's Internet site, despite the many times I have recommended it (www.ccli.org)? They teach women what they call "ecological breast-feeding," which -- for nearly everyone -- results in natural infertility for at least 18 months (if I recall correctly). What you said about nursing mothers getting pregnant within a year is false -- provided that those mothers are nursing properly! Again, God provides, if couples avoid sin.
Well, I've gotten all that off my chest. Sorry if I got a little too emotional, but my vehemence comes out of a good motive -- wanting to keep decent people from choosing a life filled with mortal sins.God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 17, 2003.
No John, I wouldn't advise using a diaphragm.I just now went to that site you mentioned, and it was interesting. However, I venture to say that when you have a baby in bed with you, most DHs would be somewhat less than interested when they are losing a lot of sleep themselves, due to baby's crying and/or turning over in bed. Obviously, the less one is making love, for whatever reason, the less of a chance one has of getting pregnant.... Yes, I am aware that breastfeeding does act as a natural form of birth control, but there are always exceptions.
The family bed has a lot going for it if everyone sleeps! But lots of babies do not sleep through the night, and consequently, no one else does, either. But it is much easier to breastfeed when babies are in bed with you!
I read about NFP, and it is not the simplest program in the world-- there is a lot of room for interpretation of symptoms (conditions). Condoms only work if you pay attention, which is the same issue with NFP.
When I say I do not understand, it is because I do not "get" their reasoning. I do not deny that more study on my part is probably in order. So thanks for providing some more information.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 17, 2003.
"Condoms only work if you pay attention, which is the same issue with NFP."So, I'm still not sure why you don't just use NFP. If condoms and NFP are virtually the same to you (in terms of morality AND effectivness), then why not just use NFP?
Sure it may be a little more work. But if the Church is promoting it, and you are a Catholic, why not try?
If we can't convince you that using a condom is a sin, but you cannot show us how a condom is better than NFP than what gives? What is your main argument against NFP? And why do you think a condom is better for you?
If it is the ease, I must remind you that the road to damnation is wide and easy. I'm not saying you're damned or anything - just a reminder of how easy things aren't as easy as they seem in the long run. Work usually has a reward. And as I am practicing NFP, and understand the work - I also can attest to it's rewards!
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), June 18, 2003.
This world would be a better place if wommen would just have sexual intercourse when they are married. It is a women's moral right to sustain from sex. She opens the door to all these immoralities. If women would be respectful of themselves they would not be getting pregnant out of wedlock, and causing so much pain. So many of these children are born out of wedlock w/ the father not wanting anything to do with them, because all it was, was a one night stand. Yet the women decides that it is her right to give birth to this child, and demand child support.These women are the ones that are living in mortal sin. I agree, the child support laws should be changed. Women are abusing the system... Women who are having one night stands should not get child support, unless the man agrees to it. All we are doing is supporting their immoralities, and teaching our daughters that it is ok to have sex before marriage, if you get pregnant, don't worry you'll get money. What kind of discipline is that. These laws make it easy for women to destroy men financially.. As for men who are intoxicated - it is considered statuatory rape, so why should he pay for this child. By the way I am a women, and I'm tired of seeing the evil women are creating.
-- L.V. (covincraig@aol.com), June 19, 2003.
FYI: It is only considered statutory rape when the woman is under age.
-- Me (nomail@nomail.net), June 19, 2003.
Me. Take some classes in law, because you are wrong.
-- NV. (covincraig@aol.com), June 19, 2003.
statutory rape n. sexual intercourse with a female below the legal age of consent but above the age of a child, even if the female gave her consent, did not resist and/or mutually participated. In all but three states the age of consent is 18, and the age above which the female is no longer a child varies, although 14 is common. The theory of statutory rape is that the girl is incapable of giving consent, although marriage with a parent's consent is possible in many states at ages as low as 14. Intercourse with a female child (below 14 or whatever the state law provides) is rape, which is a felony. Increasingly statutory rape is not charged when there is clear consent by the female, particularly when the girl will not cooperate in a prosecution. Controversy continues over what constitutes "resistance" or "consent," particularly when some men insist a woman who said "no" really meant "yes."law.com
-- me (nomail@nomail.net), June 19, 2003.
Regardless of the definition, it is rape. When a person is intoxicated he is not in the right state of mind. Women go to trail all the time and claim they were raped when they were drunk, so what is the difference. There should be no gender discrimination. Men can be violated as well
-- Deanne (deanne@msn.com), June 19, 2003.
Just to clear things up, I was just correcting the use of the term "statutory rape". I agree that both men and women can be victims of rape(whether intoxicated or sober) and should be entitled to the same punishments.
-- moi (nomail@nomail.net), June 19, 2003.