What's the problem with condems or birth control as long as the birth control doesn't kill the egg once it's firtilized? Is it because your only to have sex to have children? What if your wife needs certain medecine to control her period for health reasons but a side effect of that medicine does not allow an egg to become fertilized? Or what if a wife or husband is barren or sterile? Can they still have sex.

Is the natural way better? What is the natuarul way and how promising is it? What if two people don't wish to have 10 babies? Is that wrong?

I know, alot to answer!

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), January 22, 2004

Answers

What's the problem with condems or birth control as long as the birth control doesn't kill the egg once it's firtilized?

Birth contral is a problem because it seperates the two fold meaning of sex. One is to have sex with his/her spouse for procreative reasons and unitive reasons. But birth control seperates those two. I am sure someone will give you a better answer on that one.

What if your wife needs certain medecine to control her period for health reasons but a side effect of that medicine does not allow an egg to become fertilized?

That is fine. It is called the Principle of Double Effect. This means that one can do what is medically neccesary but the medication or what not might have unintended consiquences. So your wife not being able to have children because of a medically nessesary birth control medication fulfills that principle.

Or what if a wife or husband is barren or sterile? Can they still have sex?

Yes. Being barren is not your fault. As long as you are open to being able to conceive life. That is what counts. You might not be also to conceive but you would be happy to conceive if you could.

Is the natural way better? What is the natuarul way and how promising is it?

The natural way is more moral. It is just as effective as artificial birth control. It is called the Billing's Ovulation Method or the Rhythm Method. The best thing about thsi method is that it opens up communication channels between the man and woman. Instead of the man asking his wife if she took her pill today, he would ask her where she is along in her cycle. This could facilitate a better understanding of your wife's body and so better understand her.

What if two people don't wish to have 10 babies? Is that wrong?

No it is not wrong to not want 10 kids.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

William, it has been proven that with the hormone based birth control methods (the Pill, Depo-Provera, etc) and with the IUD, conception (defined here as the union of sperm and egg) does sometimes take place. The effect of the hormones in the contraceptive makes the uterus hostile to the fertilized egg, thus it can not implant and dies. An early abortion. The anti-life crowd tend to define "conception" as the point of implantation. Wrong! I would also question the real need for the wife to take the Pill to regulate her cycles or whatever. Find a pro-life doctor (very difficult these days) and get a second opinion as to whether this is truly necessary. There are many health risks to taking the Pill or any hormone based contraceptive. Just look at the insert that comes with it. You'll be shocked and will not want your wife taking this stuff for whatever reason!

-- Christina (introibo2000@nospam.net), January 22, 2004.

William, NFP (Natural Family Planning) is awesome! I didn't think I would ever use it, because I thought it was the old, unreliable "Rhythm Method."

But I was amazed when I took a class before my marriage -- I had no idea it was so effective and would bring me so much closer to God. When used properly, it's actually more effective at preventing pregnancy than condoms. Even my nonpracticing-Catholic husband is happy with it :) (And no, we don't have any children! I know one couple who's postponed pregnancy for nine years using NFP.)

There are several different versions of NFP out there -- symptothermal, Creighton (which I use) and Billings. Your diocese can provide you with more information on them and how to learn about them.

This site has a lot of very helpful info and links: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/2879/

To answer your other questions: The Church does NOT teach that sex is solely for procreation. It teaches that marital sex is a blessed and wonderful thing.

And the reason birth control is forbidden is because children are God's greatest gift, and to use chemical or surgical means to refuse that gift is to deny God's purpose for our bodies. (That's the short version! If you go to the site above, they explain it a lot better!)

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 23, 2004.

That's how I think about it, Hugh. Especially when to really be effective, most people need the thermometers and other gadgets, so what's the difference? Because you have to plan it?

You're still planning not to have kids. And NINE YEARS? What's with that? Why get married? I can see waiting a year or two, but NINE? By that time, unless a couple was very young when married the woman may have to look at in vitro or fertility drugs.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 23, 2004.

I was curious about NFP. My understanding is that it is to be used for grave reasons only not as the Catholic version of contraception. If you are in poverty or if you had a genetic disorder that was passed to most of your offspring it would be permitted but to use it to have the typical 1.8 children of American society is not. Correct me if I am wrong.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 23, 2004.

My understanding is that it is to be used for grave reasons only

That's correct, except that it's not "to be used." It's permitted under certain, grave circumstances.

not as the Catholic version of contraception.

I'm pretty sure that's how most Catholics use it, although few would readily admit that.

If you are in poverty

N.B.: Renting an apartment vs. owning a home, or not having enough to put down on that new SUV, does not constitute "poverty."

Luckily for the Church, the parents of St. Bernadette, St. Catherine of Siena (youngest of how many children!?), St. Pius X (one of 8), etc. didn't practice NFP.

Thank God Almighty that they did NOT practice NFP.

They wrote God a blank check, and let Him fill in the amount. He repaid their generosity by giving them little saints to raise. What more could a Catholic parent even possibly, remotely begin to hope for?

Just another $0.02.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 24, 2004.

Sigh.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 24, 2004.

Ok! So what's the case here??? Is NFP sinful or unsinful. If the Catholic church provides it how is it wrong? I'm confused here. One says this, the other says that. What's the answer? Are two Catholics who wish to get married because they love each other and do want to have children such as priest (hopfully) but don't have much money to be able to raise and take care of 5 to 10 kids? Should they just say "seeya later, we can't get married because it's possible we'll fall into debt by trying to give our children (if we have a number) the very best such as food, shelter, medicine, because were not rich like some people but would desire the health of our children"

And don't give me any of that "trust God only" nonesense! God gave us white blood cells to heal our sickness so why should we take medicine. Children have actually died because of beliefs like that. God gave us inteligent minds to discover medicine to make sickness easier (or is that wrong because we are making the suffering "easier") and minds to discover NFP? NFP is better than a birth control pill which kills the fertilized egg meaning (an abortion) and it's better than condems because they just get in the way of becoming one.

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), January 24, 2004.

Thanks AVC! I looked at that site and read "The Catholic Files" I understand now. Praise the Lord! :)

-- Jason Baccaro (LegendsRborn@aol.com), January 24, 2004.

I have read that address you gave me, thank you AVC, it helped.

-- William (Ducin25@aol.com), January 24, 2004.

I was told by a friend that the Bible has nothing to say about contraception. Is this true? Is contraception an unbliblical practice?

-- me (me@isp.net), January 24, 2004.

William, in the example you give of a family in poverty the spouses would have very grave reasons to avoid pregnancy. I think the example that AVC gave of a couple that was avoiding pregnancy for 9 years shows how NFP can be taken a bit far (unless they had grave reasons as well). Some of the NFP sites almost seem to have made this practice a bit of a cult. I would imagine if you asked 10 priests about NFP you would get many answers.

What would a priest say if a couple came in and asked about NFP with this example? A couple just got married and the husband works at the local Ford plant in upper level management and makes $100,000 yr with full benefits. The couple feels that 2 children is best for them because they want to travel a good bit and also want to live in the best neighborhood in town. Would NFP use to produce 2 children be ok? I think most priests would say sure. I think that is because most clergy want to bend the catechism without breaking it. Thats why some say use of condoms in marriage is ok if one member has AIDS. Bend the rules as much as you can but try not to break them.

Contraception is in the Bible and it is seen as sinful biblically.

Contraception and Sterilization (from catholic.com)

Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law.

Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Soon all Protestant denominations had adopted the secularist position on contraception. Today not one stands with the Catholic Church to maintain the ancient Christian faith on this issue.

How badly things have decayed may be seen by comparing the current state of non-Catholic churches, where most pastors counsel young couples to decide before they are married what form of contraception they will use, with these quotations from the early Church Fathers, who condemned contraception in general as well as particular forms of it, as well as popular contraceptive sex practices that were then common (sterilization, oral contraceptives, coitus interruptus, and orally consummated sex).

Many Protestants, perhaps beginning to see the inevitable connection between contraception and divorce and between contraception and abortion, are now returning to the historic Christian position and rejecting contraceptive sexual practices.

It should be noted that some of the Church Fathers use language that can suggest to modern ears that there is no unitive aspect to marital intercourse and that there is only a procreative aspect. It is unclear whether this is what some of them actually thought or whether they are intending simply to stress that sexual activity becomes immoral if the procreative aspect of a given marital act is deliberately frustrated. However that may be, over the course of time the Church has called greater attention to the unitive aspect of marital intercourse, yet it remains true that the procreative aspect of each particular marital act must not be frustrated.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 24, 2004.

I just wanted to add that I am by no means casting stones. My wife and I have broken many of the Church's rules on procreation. Some of that was because I was an ignorant Episcopalian and some was that my wife was not the Devout Catholic she is today.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 24, 2004.

Many people think that the translation "grave" is more accurately rendered "serious." Either way, the Church leaves it up to us to decide which reasons are grave and which are not :) There's no list of which reasons are acceptable or unacceptable.

The couple I mentioned before, who have postponed using NFP for nine years, have a lot of marital problems. Thankfully, they are trying to work them out rather than getting a divorce, but they don't wish to bring a child into that situation.

My husband and I are planning to postpone pregnancy for a couple more years, until we can afford for me to stay home. To me, it's VERY important (one even may say grave!) to stay home and raise my children, rather than sending them to a day care. That isn't financially possible at the moment, so we're postponing.

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 24, 2004.

By the way, GT, NFP does NOT necessarily require "thermometers and gadgets." The method I use, Creighton, requires nothing more than a chart and my powers of observation. And I've been married since July and haven't gotten pregnant in those six months.

William and others...there are some traditionalists who believe NFP is unacceptable. Apparently they feel they are more Catholic than the Pope ;) The Church teaches that NFP, used judiciously, is morally acceptable and even beneficial to a marriage. I trust the Magisterium to lead us in the right direction on this matter.

Here are a couple of good links from EWTN:

"Serious motives" for using NFP: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaq frame.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

The difference between using NFP and using birth control, and why NFP is not a form of birth control: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp? RecNum=378841&Forums=11&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=&pgnu=1&g roupnum=0

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 24, 2004.

AVC,

I think you express your stance well. I think that this is likely a traditionalist vs orthodox issue. The traditionalists would say grave means grave and the orthodox would say grave means serious. I would imagine JPII would agree with you but Pious X would not. Is there any written stance of John Paul II on this exact issue?

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 24, 2004.

David, here is a quote from Humanae Vitae, by Pope Paul VI. This is taken from the translation on the Vatican Web site:

"If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. "

I haven't found any quotes from John Paul II yet, but I think it's safe to say that wouldn't disagree with the above.

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 24, 2004.

Oh PUH-LEEZE don't make this a "traditionalist" issue! Humanae Vitae was authored by Pope Paul VI, whom most traditionalists have little use for! I myself attend an indult Latin Mass, but I know many many families (my sister's included) who let God plan their families totally (i.e. no NFP) who haven't attended a traditional Latin Mass ever, or at least not since the parents were toddlers).

It is my humble opinion that if every couple now using artificial contraception switched to using NFP "selfishly" that would at least be a step in the right direction...at least no abortifacient birth control would be used and there would be more of a chance that new lives would be conceived. Many couples who practice NFP at some time in their married life are in the end much more open to life and end up having large families anyway.

Having said that, we need to rethink the idea that we can't "afford" more than two children in today's society. Remember, the point of having children is not to have them go to college to become doctors and lawyers. The point is to raise them to the glory of God, and to save their souls and get them to heaven. Yes, to have a large family, one has to forego the fancy restaurants (or any restaurants, for that matter), trade fancy hotel vacations for camping trips with 8 people in a tent, eat beans and rice and other meatless meals several times a week, dress in second hand (but otherwise very useable) clothes from a consignment shop, buy only used cars, pack our own lunches to take to work, and make other sacrifices. It is not impossible. Saving for a college fund might be minimal until those braces are off the last child's teeth. But you have a family, and children who will be there for you when you are older, children who will realize when they are older how much you sacrificed for them so that they could have their dear brothers and sisters.

That "one more child" that you choose to have might one day be the Pope, or discover the cure for some disease, or be the one who will be there for you in your old age.

-- Christina (introibo@nospam.com), January 24, 2004.

Well put, Christina. I agree that switching to NFP has made me MUCH more open to life than I was before...I used to be TERRIFIED of being pregnant, but now I am waiting eagerly for the day when my husband and I will have children :)

I also agree that too many families are selfish and unwilling to make the sacrifices that having more than one or two children requires. I myself was an only child and wish so much that I had grown up with siblings. Socially, I can be a tad awkward, and I don't have that "through thick and thin" relationship with anyone (well, other than my husband) that my mom and her sister have. Sometimes they hate each other, but they're always THERE for each other.

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 24, 2004.

Hi Christina,

I'm glad to see you are still here. I was gone for awhile but I'm back now. I enjoy your posts so much!

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 24, 2004.

Great job Christina!

I am thankful my parents left it up to God. My Mom had children 15 years apart from the oldest to youngest. My youngest brother is my best friend(not counting my wife) and is 13 years younger than me. I wish I were half the Catholic that he is.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), January 24, 2004.

The couple I mentioned before, who have postponed using NFP for nine years, have a lot of marital problems.

Hmmm....

-- jake (j@k.e), January 25, 2004.

Jake, as you don't know the situation, I suggest you suspend judgment this one time.

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 25, 2004.

Ya, I see how many people can be selfish at times always wanting the best. I only want a modest house and vehicles (personaly I hate cars and rather like riding my mountain bike or walking) but I don't think people MUST raise their children to become rich, but to love God and become priest, holy people, etc. Lord knows we need more priest in this day and age.

I have never been out of NY state but a few times and only to Lake Ontario (which is not even far from upstate Albany.

My fiance and I (when married) hope to have boys who will desire to become priest and a daughter.

-- Jason Baccaro (Enchanted fire@aol.com), January 25, 2004.

"But you have a family, and children who will be there for you when you are older, children who will realize when they are older how much you sacrificed for them so that they could have their dear brothers and sisters."

Gee, I hope people aren't just having children counting on one or more of them to stay home and look after them (parents) when they get older. Isn't that kind of selfish? (No, I didn't say you were, but that is how it reads at first blush) Just because you do everything correctly as parents doesn't mean that children will turn out the way you want them to. I agree that children (all of them) should look after their parents, but it shouldn't be a main reason to have them in the first place.

"I also agree that too many families are selfish and unwilling to make the sacrifices that having more than one or two children requires."

I don't know about the sacrificing part of it--at least in this country, you are actually rewarded with all sorts of free financial aid when you can't or won't live within your means....Most people with large families not only qualify for it, but do accept it.

I did read the last site you mentioned, AVC, and that was not the most convincing argument, in that it talks about "thwarting God". How can you do that? If you could really do that, there wouldn't be all of these "oops" babies from birth control failures that most parents wind up loving anyway as soon as they make their appearance.

"I myself was an only child and wish so much that I had grown up with siblings."

Siblings do not always get along, everyone has different personalities. Sad but true.

I don't think Jake was judging in the 9-year NFP marriage you're talking about AVC. You were the one who mentioned it in the first place. Just from what you said, it sounds more like an intentional freeze-out than actual NFP (since you did say there were problems of some sort).

I stay home with my children. I honestly believe in the old saying "if you wait until you can afford to have children, you'll never have them". Unless you're pulling down some huge salary (like $100K + benefits), it just is not worth it for both parents to work by the time you add up all of the daycare, work clothing, gas, car, extra income taxes, etc. expenses. Most women find that they are actually paying to go to work, not the other way around.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 26, 2004.