The Deacon's Bench

The Deacon's Bench


Free birth control?

posted by jmcgee

Maybe, according to this report:

Fifty years after the pill, another birth control revolution may be on the horizon: free contraception for women in the U.S., thanks to the new health care law.

That could start a shift toward more reliable — and expensive — forms of birth control that are gaining acceptance in other developed countries.

But first, look for a fight over social mores.

A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventive care for women should be covered at no cost to the patient, as required under President Barack Obama’s overhaul.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., author of the women’s health amendment, says the clear intent was to include family planning.

But is birth control preventive medicine?

Conflicting answers frame what could be the next clash over moral values and a health law that passed only after a difficult compromise restricting the use of public money for abortions.

For many medical and public health experts, there’s no debate.

“There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that family planning saves lives and improves health,” said obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. David Grimes, an international family planning expert who teaches medicine at the University of North Carolina. “Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventive medicine.”

But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness. In comments filed with the Department of Health and Human Services, the bishops say they oppose any requirement to cover contraceptives or sterilization as preventive care.

“We don’t consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice,” said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. “We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance.”

Read on.  

COMMENTS on this thread are now closed.
 


Advertisement
Comments read comments(43)
post a comment
Carolina

posted October 31, 2010 at 7:26 pm


The “read on” link doesn’t seem to work.
[Thanks, Carolina...I fixed it and it should be working now. DGK]



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted October 31, 2010 at 8:16 pm


Certainly no down side that I can see for this plan. If it helps women to space or prevent children, it lowers the possibility of abortions. There are many choices on the market, long term means of pregnancy prevention as well as short term ones.
Each woman can call on her beliefs as to whether to use the means offered to space children or to not have any at all. Women, not an organization, should always be the judge of what to do about her body.



report abuse
 

Michele

posted October 31, 2010 at 9:23 pm


Hmmm…I don’t see how funding can be provided for a Catholic couple who wishes to use the services of a fertility care expert using the Creighton Method…shouldn’t they fund this also? It is natural, approved by the Catholic Church and 99% effective to either prevent conception or achieve conception.



report abuse
 

Lynn

posted October 31, 2010 at 11:20 pm


While I don’t have serious objections to birth control as such, I do object to treating it as a preventive health measure. Pregnancy may not be a ‘healthy condition’ – only unmarried men could say that with a straight fact, not anyone who’s had a difficult pregnancy or seen a spouse endure one – it’s not an illness, either. It’s a situation that can be avoided by any number of means, and each person should pay for his or her own means.



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted October 31, 2010 at 11:29 pm


“But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness”
How many pregnancies have these guys had to carry to term?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 1, 2010 at 12:15 am


Yikes…well pregnancy in and of itself is not an illness, and is a natural condition, which is probably what they meant. Some pregnancies are impacted by other health issues from the mother, and some pregnancies cause other health issues for the mother.
There are all kinds of reasons why a responsible mother should space her pregnancies or even prevent further pregnancies, in which case the pill could be considered preventative medicine, but then all methods of birth control, including NFP consults, should be treated equally, if that’s the sole reason why the pill would be categorized as such.
The pill, though, is used to control/treat several conditions and, along with other hormonal BC, requires a prescription. The prescription factor probably impacts how it’s covered under a health care plan more than the preventative medicine factor alone.



report abuse
 

Eka

posted November 1, 2010 at 1:10 am


I wonder when and if the medical community will ever appreciate the efficacy of NFP as an environmentally friendly, relationship building, cost effective, and healthy alternative to medical contraceptives?
I am surprised that scientists haven’t developed more research into easier applications of NFP. Though it might not jive 100% with Catholic teaching…it could be a radical improvement for society in general.



report abuse
 

John B.

posted November 1, 2010 at 1:59 am


A study of women physicians age 30-44 showed they use contraceptives themselves even more than the general population. If contraceptives are so risky (relative to unwanted pregnancy and childbirth), and natural family planning so effective and relationship-enhancing, you’d think they of all people would be practicing NFP, wouldn’t you? But they don’t. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10546707
When it comes to health, women should probably listen more to their doctors than their bishops.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted November 1, 2010 at 5:07 am


John B.,
Your thoughts are understandable, but are in actuality way off the mark. The truth of the matter is that most physicians are unaware of the literature that have shown the link between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer. The same holds true for many scientists. That’s because they are taught some mighty PC lessons in medical school and graduate school. What follows is not religion, but studies done at the highest levels of science and published in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals.
Dr Chris Kahlenborn and colleagues performed the largest ever meta analysis of oral contraceptives and their link to breast cancer and published it in:
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2006;81(10):1290-1302
The article is titled:
Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer:
A Meta-analysis
The article may be viewed here for free:
http://mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/81/10/1290.full.pdf+html
Among the many findings was that oral contraceptive use for four or more years in women before a first full term pregnancy increased their pre-menopausal risk of breast cancer by 52%.
In a study performed at the renowned Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Washington and published last year, the results are frightening. The study performed was on the effects of oral contraceptives in the development of the deadliest, most aggressive and difficult to treat form of breast cancer: Triple Negative Breast Cancer. Jessica Dolle and her colleagues found:
For Women under 40 years:
1+ year of use 320% increased risk
1-3 years of use: 200% increased risk
3-6 years of use 390% increased risk
6+ years of use 370% increased risk
Age at First Use:
22+: 250% increased risk
18-22: 270% increased risk



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted November 1, 2010 at 5:11 am


Forgot to include the following under Age of first use in the Dolle study:
For girls whose age of first use of the pill is below 18 years old, her risk of triple negative breast cancer increases 540%.



report abuse
 

Goodguyex

posted November 1, 2010 at 5:31 am


Hormonal Contraception is a poison from the classical definition of the term “poison”.
Any contraception is a slow poison in other ways too. Its overall use should be reduced as much as possible, and it should be limited to barrier methods or substitutes like oral sex.
There is really little or no practical reason why fertility awareness should not be a basis for family planning. Fertility awareness method (NFP + condoms) could be useable by all, going to more pure NFP as time goes on. Barrier contraception can be reduced to occasional drips and then closed out almost altogether if couples set that as their goal. The most sensuous pair of Yahoos can learn fertility awareness and not contracept for 65% of their acts and still have high effectiveness family planning and pregnancy postponment. And that is a start.
I think people who consider NFP think that this has to be done with perfect purity which is beyond their reach so they do not consider it at all. This is the big mistake in our time. Close does count.
Sometimes it takes some time for the chaff to fall off the wheat.



report abuse
 

Goodguyex

posted November 1, 2010 at 8:48 am


Gerand Nadal,
Is there anything to the reports or discussion of the buildup of estrogens in the streams and rivers due to birth control pills or tje xeno estrogens from other uses. Some say this is producing effects on fish and reptiles and maybe also mammals and people. Effects such as near sterilization of some male species. And some think this is behind the phenomenom of lowered puberty age of girls.
I understand estrogens from the Pill are excreted in urine and get into the water table from the sewage which is not properly treated.
Is any of this true or even possible?



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted November 1, 2010 at 9:43 am


Goodguyex,
I’ve seen several studies that have discussed this, as well as presentations at international conferences. The estrogens are wreaking havoc with male fish and cutting the reproductive cycles of species in rivers and coastal waters.
The estrogens in the pill are excreted unchanged in urine and can’t be removed/destroyed by current water treatment techniques. All true, I’m afraid to say.



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted November 1, 2010 at 5:13 pm


BC is a dead issue. Tragically, much ground, hearts and common sense appeal was lost when use of condoms was equated to abortion. That makes no sense to many faithful and no seminars with sister/father/bishop could change that. If we would have focused efforts on abortion rather than married people using non-abortive artificial methods, we’d likely had saved some fetus’ from going directly to heaven.
One of the purest hearted faithful, true child of God types told me how she went to confession and relayed details about NFP practices. The priest told her to call her husband into the confessional and he began to explain to them what they were “doing wrong.” If that image alone doesn’t relay the ridiculousness of it all… God saves us from our stupidity.



report abuse
 

Goodguyex

posted November 1, 2010 at 11:40 pm


We do not yet have thousands of years of history behind us about the use of effective and increasingly effective NFP.
Fertility monitoring and awareness is knowledge every woman should have and should be the base platform for family planning. Not just birth control but “planning to be and remain a family”.
There is human weakness and there is lazy-cowardness. Both may be connected to human autonomy, the source of much (but not all) sin and evil in the world.
Lazy-cowardness would tend to prevent some from not adopting fertility monitoring and awareness as the base-platform for family planning. Human weakness may result is isolated and scattered practice of contraception (condoms, withdrawl, oral sex) in conjunction with fertility awareness and efforts at NFP.
Many dedicated NFP couple typically use some isolated barrier contraception or withdrawl once in a while. Maybe these sins serves to show they are not perfect and thus should not become proud.



report abuse
 

Mary Russell

posted November 2, 2010 at 10:40 am


I am a female family practice physician. I can certainly attest to what Gerard Nadal says above: that most physicians get no meaningful instruction about NFP in med school or residency. I could give a long-winded explanation about why this is so- our pharaceutical driven medical culture is partly to blame- but allow me to say that NFP has worked great for my husband and me, and I regularly recommend it to patients.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 2, 2010 at 11:12 am


“That makes no sense to many faithful and no seminars with sister/father/bishop could change that.”
The fact that something “makes no sense” hardly means it is wrong. There is such a thing as objective truth as JPII wrote in his encyclical. Much of the world including Catholics give in to moral relativism which Benedict has been speaking about since he became Pope.
How many anti-BC people have ever even read “Humanae Vitae” or “Veritatis Splendor”???
If Catholics would read some of the documents before making up their uninformed minds they might think differently. Kind of like those who voted for health care without reading the bill.
If Catholics are so theologically unsophisticated to understand even the most basic Church teachings it is their own fault.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 2, 2010 at 11:36 am


The problem with the Church’s teaching on birth control is that it is illogical — it completely defies reason, which most people recognize. That there are some people willing to go along with the pretzel-logic of the Church’s teaching doesn’t make it right or divinely inspired or anything other than what it is — completely illogical.
If the Church was against all birth control, like the “quiver-full” crowd, that would be more logical than saying it’s fine to totally divorce fertility from sexuality but only if you use OUR method, not another one.
Anyway, men who eschew women and women who eschew men aren’t my go-to source for anything regarding heterosexual intimacy.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 2, 2010 at 11:46 am


RomCath, you are falling into “no true Scotsman” logical fallacies.
Many Catholics have read the Church’s documents re birth control and they have found them lacking in the logic and consistancy departments.
To claim that anyone who disagrees just doesn’t understand, or is uneducated, or never read the teachings, and it’s all their fault is not a serious argument for or against anything. The “no true Scotsman” argument only undermines your own position.



report abuse
 

Goodguyex

posted November 2, 2010 at 11:54 am


Your Name writes “The problem with the Church’s teaching on birth control is that it is illogical — it completely defies reason, which most people recognize. That there are some people willing to go along with the pretzel-logic of the Church’s teaching doesn’t make it right or divinely inspired or anything other than what it is — completely illogical. ”
Defies reason? What organ are you thinking with? Just wondering?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we do not have centuries of experience with the practice of fertility awareness and periodic abstinance. This has to be build. If a “pretzel” is a construction, so be it. It was build too. Yes there are perks but there are also perks with adultry otherwise no one would do it, but huge numbers do it. People go to sleep at the wheel of marriage on contraception, forgettting to re-examine their motives. This is impossible with NFP.
NFP and contraception, especially system contraception are vastly different anthrpologically even if you can not discern the causity and telological/anological difference.
NFP is not always easy to do, especially for couples who jumped into bed quickly without a courtship and on contraception. Getting out of the contraception matrix takes courage if you have been in it for a long time. It is almost impossible for some.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 2, 2010 at 11:58 am


Your Name, because you THINK the Church’s teaching on birth control is illogical does not mean it is. Did you ever think that your reasoning is illogical. The Church’s teaching is quite simple–the unitive and procreative aspects of conjugal love must be present and not impeded by any artificial means. Nothing illogical about it. Perhaps your Doctorate in Moral Theology causes you to think differently.
If you have read Humanae Vitae and come to your own conclusion, fine. I would suspect that 99 per cent of the anti-BC whiners have never read it or even heard of it. I simply can’t see how anyone who has read it doesn’t get it. Whether you accept it or not is another story.
The Men who eschew women nonsense is not worthy of comment.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 2, 2010 at 12:14 pm


Yes, RomCath, and just because you think the teachings are indeed logical doesn’t make them so, either.
No, I don’t think my reasoning is illogical anymore than the celibate men who came up with the Church’s teaching think theirs is.
That’s how opinions and viewpoints work.
The problem with the teaching is that, on the one hand, the Church claims divorcing the unitive from the procreative flies in the face of God’s natural design for our sexuality. Okay. Fine. We’re both on board here.
Then, the Church says it’s just fine and dandy to divorce the procreative and the unitive, but ONLY if you use NFP.
So who’s being illogical — me or the Church?
I don’t use ANY BC, including NFP, never have. However, I don’t think there is any difference between using NFP and using a diaphragm. The intent is the same — the intent is to avoid the procreative nature of sex while enjoying the unitive nature of sex. The intent is to space one’s children. The intent is to manage fertility and intimacy in order to benefit the family.
GoodGuyEx — I don’t respond to sexually sleazy commentary any more. If you want to rephrase without the dishonorable and immoral sexual cheap shots, fine, but until then, you’ve already shown me what you think of sexuality.



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted November 2, 2010 at 12:37 pm


Absolutely, Your Name, the illogical theology and disregard of physical and pscyhosocial facts and factors in human sexuality renders NFP n/a to the majority of faithful. This is evident in the stats… that it has not caught on and been embraced by the masses. For those who feel compelled to use NFP, they certainly should.
Btw, there was a comprehensive, exhaustive and fact based CTS study banned in the 70’s…
“By then the majority of laypeople had already concluded that artificial birth control was a necessity, and therefore a right for them and their families. The theological community (lay men and women among them by that time) felt that their role in serving the church community compelled them to dissent from Humanae Vitae. “Traditional” moral teaching was woefully inadequate, many concluded, and imposing it with this unilateral decision was a misuse of papal authority.
Thus it was that the Catholic Theological Society of America commissioned a study of sexual morality to be undertaken by a committee chosen from their members. Theologians Anthony Kosnik, William Carroll, Agnes Cunningham, Ronald Modras and James Schulte took on the task. In 1977 they published Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought.
In a near instantaneous reaction that bordered on hysteria, it was condemned by the hierarchy, despite the fact that the Catholic Press Association that year gave the book its first-place award in the theological category.” The NCR, National Catholic Reporter



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted November 2, 2010 at 12:44 pm


Exactly… we can use our brains to plot against creating, enjoying the act with the expectation of no fruit. But artificial non-life creating BC is clearly completely different and sinful. Sure that’s logical… to those who don’t have sex, spouses or desires. Imagine how many married faithful lose sleep at night wrestling with their consciences because they used condoms.
Can’t help but wonder how many pre-borns would’ve been spared heaven had the Church like laypeople buried BC and focused upon abortion.



report abuse
 

Goodguyex

posted November 2, 2010 at 12:48 pm


“Then, the Church says it’s just fine and dandy to divorce the procreative and the unitive, but ONLY if you use NFP”.
I suppose couples who use NFP should say a prayer during the fertile period “Lord, I know you want me to have sex tonight. Please forgive me for not doing this.” And during the infertile period “Lord, I know you do not want me to have sex tonight. But I will anyway. However, I will accept any miracles that you send to us, even if this is almost impossible.”
I guess we have to say that if God puts the infertility there it may be OK. The act is infertile, nothing you can do about that.
Is it your thoughts now to then tell me that since God also made both a woman’s and a man’s anus infertile this is open for discussion as a means of birth control, like a diaphram or NFP?
Yeah, all this is a bit or a riddle. But you know, I like riddles. It is a riddle for our modern times.
I write again for the 3rd time we do not have centuries of experience on this. Once the understanding and broad use of fertility monitoring becomes more widespread and with a history this will become more obvious, if the trumpets do not blow soon.
Fertility has remained largely hidden but if something like the Billings Method were known in Biblical times history would be quite different we would not be having these discussion on the same plane. Maybe we would still be argueing about something here but not the same thing!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 2, 2010 at 1:12 pm


GoodGuyEx — remedial English classes — get some. And then just get some class. You’ve a dirty mind and a dirty mouth. Shame on you and shame on the mother who raised you.
SF — yes, apparently we are allowed to use science and all sorts of fertlity awareness/testing methods to pinpoint to a 99.9% efficacy rate the exact days we should avoid sexual relations in order to avoid pregnancy (days which, btw, usually coincide with the female sex drive — females are more likely to desire sex when they are most fertile).
And all the women who came before this uber-fine-tuned NFP method were just out of luck — the women who suffered from debilitating health problems due to too many pregnancies too close together, the women who were subject to insensitive and even abusive husbands, the women who were told by their priests to basically shut up and take it.
So, too, were the families who suffered because there were too many children and not enough resources, or because the parents were so stressed and overwhelmed they couldn’t be good parents to the children they had.
Yes, sex belongs in marriage, and marriages should be open to having children. And, yes, being a mature, responsible Christian means we think before we act, especially when it comes to creating a human life.
But to say the only way to be responsible is one particularly burdensome, over-sold method that has often created a great deal of strife in marriages (even the break-up of marriages in some cases) defies all logic and reason.
If the Church is REALLY about God’s will, then the logical conclusion is no birth control including NFP. If they allow for married couples to manage their fertility in order to best serve the needs of their particular families, then it’s totally illogical to claim the method itself implies holiness rather than the intent and the process of discerning family size.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 2, 2010 at 1:56 pm


Perhaps people ought to look up in their dictionary the difference between ARTIFICIAL birth control and NATURAL family planning. Time is not artificial, condoms, diaphragms etc. are.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 2, 2010 at 3:25 pm


RomCath — your statistics to substantiate your assertion that those who don’t follow the Church’s teaching re BC don’t do so because they can’t control their libidos, please…
You don’t know.
The knee-jerk reaction of the rigid, legalistic faction of the Church to automatically accuse who do not walk in lock-step with them of sin is getting old.
You haven’t addressed a single thought or idea or argument — just nore accusations that anyone who disagrees is doing so out of evil intent.
Barrier methods are all “natural” in the same sense NFP is — they work based on knowledge of the body’s natural reproduction system. NFP, as it is practiced, is no more natural than a barrier method, however.
It is not natural for women to get up every morning and do what they have to do to use NFP.
Here’s how all BC, including NFP, works — you figure out how to enjoy the unitive while avoiding the procreative — you can do this via NFP, a barrier method, a hormonal method, or surgery. It’s all either as natural or unnatural as you spin it, depending on your agenda.
If you want to argue against hormonal BC, fine — there are good arguments against it for a variety of reasons, as there arguments against surgical reasons — although if surgeries performed have the effect of sterilizing a man or woman, it’s fine to go ahead and enjoy the unitive aspects of sexual intimacy just fine.
And so the illogical and inconsistant arguments for the Church’s position continue…on and on and on.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted November 2, 2010 at 3:26 pm


The purpose of NFP and artificial birth control is exactly the same—-not getting pregnant. The problem with the NFP? Not calculating a woman’s fertile period properly leads to OOPS! Lots of OOPS in the world. Even “artificial” barriers have their problems, but are certainly more reliable most of the time.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 2, 2010 at 3:48 pm


That’s why I included the disclaimer “over-sold” re NFP earlier.
NFP proponents claim it is 99.9% effective, which may be true in a perfect, controlled environment, but, in practice, NFP is impacted by a slew of factors, many of which those using it aren’t even aware of. Taking cold/cough medicine, for example, can render NFP totally ineffective. Stress, lack of sleep, diet, normal vagaries of the female cycle can all impact NFP.
Also, while some proponents are quick to claim NFP has made their marriages stronger, many others speak of the burdensomeness of NFP, of how it has driven a wedge between husand and wife, and how it has killed desire, intimacy, etc. Those women are usually silenced pretty quickly with the usual accusations of not being “faithful” enough, or praying hard enough, etc.
The other problem is that NFP works against the natural rhythms of female desire — so much for “natural”. Female desire peaks during the fertile days, yet they are told by the Church that they can’t plan their families and follow the natural, female-specific rhythms of their own bodies at the same time, while men can.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 2, 2010 at 4:32 pm


“The knee-jerk reaction of the rigid, legalistic faction of the Church to automatically accuse who do not walk in lock-step with them of sin is getting old”
What’s getting old is your beating of a dead horse. Those who do not follow the teaching on BC as objectively guilty of grave sin. Not my opinion, the Church’s teaching–you know that legalistic faction.
If think abstaining during fertile periods is the same as putting on a condom or inserting an IUD then you can’t be helped.
Whatever faith you are follow it.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 2, 2010 at 5:12 pm


RomCath — I’m a Christian — are not Catholics Christians, too? Perhaps not. Lately, I’m not so sure.
Blindly following an illogical teaching is wrong, no matter what your religion, but if all you can do to justify your opinion is that it is the teaching of the Church and therefore the only right opinion, no questions asked, so be it. Just say that up front and be done with it.
I’m not Catholic, however, so I don’t have to blindly follow what the Catholic Church teaches.
As I do not use any BC, not now, not ever, I’m hardly in a state of sin by anyone’s standards (although God’s standards are the only ones that count on Judgment Day). I am also free to disagree with the doctrines of a Church I don’t belong to without incurring any penalty.
It’s nice to be independent-minded. ;-)
All birth control exists to achieve the same end. Each method is different. Some methods may be morally questionable, some downright unhealthy in the long-term, and some may just not be to your personal liking, but the intention behind each method is exactly the same — to enjoy an intimate sexual relationship while avoiding having babies.
You can try to spin NFP into something else, but that’s all it ever is — a method of BC — a way for couples to be intimate while avoiding pregnancy — it’s divorcing the procreative from the unitive. It ain’t anything else no matter how hard you try to make yourself believe it is.
The intent with which a couple uses NFP or any other method is what makes the use of BC moral or immoral. Using NFP or another method to enjoy sex outside marriage, for example, would be sinful for any Christian, Catholic or otherwise. Using NFP to manipulate one’s partner in marriage would be immoral. Using NFP to avoid children so one can indulge one’s most selfish instincts would be immoral.
Using NFP doesn’t make anyone good and not using NFP doesn’t make anyone bad. WHY and HOW anyone uses any BC is where the morality comes in.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 2, 2010 at 6:26 pm


“Blindly following an illogical teaching is wrong, no matter what your religion, but if all you can do to justify your opinion is that it is the teaching of the Church and therefore the only right opinion, no questions asked, so be it.”
When the Pope writes an encyclical, it is always concerning an issue of great importance. It is not merely his opinion, it is a teaching imparted for all the faithful to follow.
Your anti-Catholic bias in calling the Pope’s teaching illogical is bigoted and un-Christian. If you are not Catholic, what in the world do you care anyway? Stop beating a dead horse.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted November 2, 2010 at 7:01 pm


BC is BC—no matter what method one uses or what religion one follows or doesn’t. No babies is the point of birth control, while enjoying intimate moments with ones partner. No sin involved at all.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 2, 2010 at 7:29 pm


Right, pagansister — if it’s sinful to want to enjoy an intimate relationship with one’s spouse while avoiding pregnancy, then the only logical “teaching” would be that no BC, including NFP, is allowed.
If it’s not sinful to enjoy an intimate relationship with one’s spouse while avoiding pregnancy, then the method of BC doesn’t matter (unless that method involves a separate immoral situation — hormonal BC, for example).
To insist there’s something different about NFP that makes it different on a moral level is ridiculous, but the Church, having thrown the laypeople a bone with their Vatican Roulette back in the day, are now forced to justify the new, improved to 99.9% effective NFP that has evolved from the old rhythm method — which is a real slap in the face to the women who suffered in the past, IMO.
RomCath — we get it — you think the Church’s teaching is logical, can’t be argued with, and is right. Who’s beating a dead horse again?



report abuse
 

Goodguyex

posted November 2, 2010 at 10:30 pm


When my Presbyterian nephew gets engaged I think I am going to give he and his a prophetic gifts:
Arrangements and fees for course in fertility awareness (the Couple to couple league is big in my area and this would be too Catholic for them so I will arrange something else if I can find it)
and 490 Condoms
Of course I will give them other things.



report abuse
 

Goodguyex

posted November 3, 2010 at 1:43 am


NFP is free. Once you learn NFP you do not have to pay a nickel.
Maybe that is one of the reasons it is not promoted or hardly mentioned in the health care circuits; no money in it.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 3, 2010 at 7:35 am


“No sin involved at all.”
Well since Pope Pagan has spoken I guess we all have to now accept her pontifical statement and since she doesn’t believe in sin anyway I guess nothing is a sin!Too bad some people are too dense and oversexed to understand the difference between artificial and natural.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 3, 2010 at 7:37 am


DcnGreg,
It is getting a little tiresome on this post to hear the Pope being called illogical and Church teaching ridiculous. Perhaps you could remind some of the non-Catholic visitors to have some respect or leave.



report abuse
 

Sensus Fidei

posted November 3, 2010 at 8:01 am


Sorry to relay that the reality that just like artificial BC, those of us who choose Jesus and the Holy Eucharist are here to stay. Our pews are warm and welcoming and we truly pray that you too will stay and tolerate our flaws too.
By the way, you best not torture yourself and imagine the beliefs of those with whom you are shaking hands.



report abuse
 

Goodguyex

posted November 3, 2010 at 10:07 am


This issue will be with us forever, along with all the other “pelvic” issues.



report abuse
 

YourNameWhatever

posted November 3, 2010 at 10:31 am


RomCath: it is attitudes and rhetoric such as yours that I am not Catholic.
Also, why do you whine and cry every time someone offers a differing opinion or argument? Can’t handle it? Faith not strong enough?
If there is to be nothing but blind, mindless regurgitation of official Church teaching, no questions asked, no alternate opinions, then why have comboxes? So the author can bask in the glory of the yesmen’s praise?
Heck, why have Catholic blogs at all? The Vatican’s website should be enough — the Pope has spoken, there it is, agree or be damned. Fine.
If you don’t agree, then argue the points, and stop whining that no one agrees with you. If you can’t argue the points, then that alone is a pretty poor defense of them — if the teaching is so illogical that you can’t defend it, what else does anyone need to know?
No one is calling “the Pope” illogical. They are calling that specific teachign illogical, and we’ve given detailed reasons for our position. Instead of clearly refuting those detailed reasons, you whine and cry and stamp your little foot and say it’s not faaaaiiirr that people disagree with you.
Grow up.



report abuse
 

YourNameWhatever

posted November 3, 2010 at 10:36 am


Also, your continued insistance that anyone who disagrees with you is engaging in sexual sins or is oversexed or can’t control themselves is getting really, really old.
Prove it, boy. Prove it — what about my life is sexually sinful, oversexed, or shows I have no control of myself when it comes to sexual matters?
Who, exactly, are you accusing of what specific sins? Put up or shut up already.
When you’ve been married as long as I have and have raised as many children as I have, you get back to me about my big sexually sinful lifestyle.
In the meantime, I would be willing to bet one of my oceanfront properties that your hard drive is loaded up with all kinds of interesting material and that your right hand is your BFF — except when you’re feeling exotic and switch to your left. You’re just that sort, grubby and immature and unable to sustain a serious relationship with a real, flesh-and-blood woman.
You are an appalling witness to your faith. Appalling.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

This blog is no longer active
This blog is no longer being actively updated. Please feel free to browse the archives or: Read our most popular inspiration blog See our most popular inspirational video Take our most popular quiz

posted 10:42:40pm Dec. 12, 2010 | read full post »

One day more
A reminder: "The Deacon's Bench" is closed! Please enjoy the archives!

posted 11:26:20pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Meet Montana's married priest
Earlier this week, I posted an item about Montana getting its first married priest. Now a local TV station has hopped on the bandwagon. Take a look, below.

posted 10:29:55pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Big day in the Big Easy: 10 new deacons
Deacon Mike Talbot has the scoop: 10 men today were ordained as Permanent Deacons for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. This group of men was formally selected on the day the evacuation of New Orleans began as Hurricane Katrina approached. The immediate aftermath of the storm for this class would be

posted 6:55:42pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Gaudete! And let's break out a carol or two...
"Gesu Bambino," anyone? This is one of my favorites, and nobody does it better than these gals: Kathleen Battle and Frederica von Staade. Enjoy.

posted 1:04:10pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.