The Catholic Church is out of touch...

[rubato]

So Aspirin is not 'natural' now?

So of course you will never use it again.

Because it is "unnatural"

yrs,
rubato

How is it that so few people know that an appeal to what is "natural" is a childishly badly disguised appeal to ignorance? Its 'reasoning' on an infantile level.

[Andrew D]

There are, by contradistinction, two meanings of "natural". One is "natural" as distinct from "supernatural". If the meaning of "natural" is viewed that way, then, of course, rubato is correct. Condoms, IUDs, birth-control pills, etc., are completely natural. And they are as natural as are the rhythm method, coitus interruptus, abstinence, etc.

The other meaning, by contradistinction, of "natural" is as distinct from the product of human artifice; hence "natural" vs. "artificial". If the meaning of "natural" is viewed that way, then the rhythm method, coitus interruptus, abstinence, etc., are natural in a way that condoms, IUDs, birth-control pills, etc., are not.

The bottom-line question, it seems to me, is given that some methods of birth control are non-natural in the sense of being artificial (but not in the sense of being supernatural), why, if at all, should they be considered wrong?

[Crackpot]

Because of a misapplication of the story of Onan

[dgs49]

In the eyes of the Church, "Marriage" is a spiritual institution, created by God, for the purpose of creating a family (i.e., having children). To get married with the specific intent NOT to have children is a perversion of the institution, and the couple is merely using Marriage to legitimize their copulation.

On the other hand, if the intention is to create a Christian family but the couple wants to limit and "time" the birth of children, then use of birth controls (natural) are perfectly fine. In fact, although the formal position of the Church is expressly against the use of "artificial" birth control by married couples, when the issues arises in the Confessional, most priests for the past 40 years will tell Catholic confessors that it is no big deal to use "artificial" birth control under those circumstances.

This is usually done by implication rather than overtly. One tells the priest that one is using artificial birth control because one wants children to be at least two years apart. The priest says, "You shouldn't do that." The priest assigns Pennance of three Our Fathers and three Hail Mary's. The message is fairly clear: Don't worry about it.

[Big RR]

dgs--doesn't that smack a bit of hypocrisy, to pronounce something wrong, and then in the US say "it's no big deal" while going t overpopulated countries nd saying use of the same "artificial" birth control is a big deal and shouldn't be available, even to prevent the the spread of deadly sexually transmitted diseases?

[dgs49]

Yes, it's somewhat hypocritical. The problem is that we live in a world of people who abuse nuance. If the Church were to articulate the reasons for its teachings and acknowledge that there is not a clear line, the general population of Catholics would collectively say, "Well, then I guess it's OK to use artificial birth control."

The issue of condoms and the spread of disease is largely a red herring. The Church takes no position on whether UNMARRIED people should use a condom when copulating because in the eyes of the Church, the fornication/adultery itself is forbidden. Hence there is no reason whatsoever why a given fornicator or adulterer would give any sort of a damn whatsoever whether it offends the sensibilities of the Church that s/he use a condom.

In the rare case of a married couple, one of whom is infected and the other not infected (as I have indicated elsewhere on this BBS), I cannot imagine that any cogent, responsible representative of the Church would demand that the couple either (a) not engage in sex or (b) knowlingly subject the non-infected partner to exposure, just to insist that condoms are BAD.

But then, I've only been a Catholic for 61 years, and I don't know what's in the heart or mind of every priest on the globe.

[oldr_n_wsr]

What about vasectomies?

[Lord Jim]

What about older couples who get married with no expectation, (or ability) to have children...Or where one or both couples can't conceive for some medical reason.

Is that sinful too? Are folks who can't have children expected to suck it up with a lifetime of celibacy?

[Big RR]

The Church takes no position on whether UNMARRIED people should use a condom when copulating because in the eyes of the Church, the fornication/adultery itself is forbidden.

You sure about that; recently the pope issued a book saying condoms may be used in a few circumstances, specifically noting male prostitutes (who I doubt are married to their clients). this suggests that use by other unmarried people is not permitted.

[dgs49]

(a) What do you mean by "older"? If the wife is still capable of bearing children (say, 35-45 years old), and they decide that they do not want the "bother" of children, and use artificial birth control...I think it's pretty clear that the Church would consider this to be a faux marriage at that point, and the use of artificial birth control would be sinful.

Of course, most such cases involve one or both parters being divorced, in which case the Church wouldn't recognize the marriage anyway - any sex they engage in would be adulterous. So who cares about whether BC is "sinful"?

(b) Infertile couples, in a sense, get a "get out of Hell card." The Church recognizes that intimacy is an intrinsic part of marriage, and would not require that they refrain from sex, just because they can't conceive. This would apply whether the infertility is due to age or some reproductive anomaly.

(c) For a Catholic man to get a vasectomy or a Catholic woman to get her fallopian tubes "tied" or get a hystorectomy for the express purpose of not having additional children would be sinful. A more painful illustration would be a woman having her tubes tied because her doctor tells her that a future pregnancy would be a serious health danger to her. Not acceptable. Sorry.

My wife first conceived when she was 29 years old. After our son was born we hoped to have more children but "nothing happened," so we went to a fertility specialist. The fertility specialist not only could not offer anything to help the process along, but was totally mystified as to how she got pregnant in the first place. Her physical problems precluded her from getting pregnant in the normal way. Thus we never used birth control of any kind, but continued to do what married people are wont to do.

Ironically, one of things that came up in discussion with the fertility specialist to HAVE kids (i.e., artificial insemination) would also have been sinful in the eyes of Mother Church. We elected not to do the artificial insemination for other reasons, and would not have let the Church's teachings stand in the way.

[Scooter]

The issue of condoms and the spread of disease is largely a red herring. The Church takes no position on whether UNMARRIED people should use a condom when copulating because in the eyes of the Church, the fornication/adultery itself is forbidden.

Absolutely, completely incorrect. The RC Church takes the position that every sexual act must lend itself to procreation; therefore, to begin with, even within marriage, only penile/vaginal intercourse is considered licit, and oral or anal intercourse is prohibited. But an unmarried couple who engages in sexual intercourse using a condom commits two sins, one by engaging in sex outside of marriage, and one by impeding that sexual act from lending itself to procreation.

In the rare case of a married couple, one of whom is infected and the other not infected...

What gives you the idea that such cases are anything close to rare? There are MILLIONS of serodiscordant married couples around the globe, which is why, for example, there are studies going on in several countries to determine whether HIV transmission can be effectively prevented by providing antiretroviral drugs to the UNINFECTED spouse, as a means of preventing infection from the infected spouse.

...I cannot imagine that any cogent, responsible representative of the Church would demand that the couple either (a) not engage in sex or (b) knowlingly subject the non-infected partner to exposure, just to insist that condoms are BAD.

And yet, until recently, that is PRECISELY the position which has been taken by the Church at its highest levels. And until further clarifications are issues, it is unclear whether or not this still represents the position of the official church.

But then, I've only been a Catholic for 61 years, and I don't know what's in the heart or mind of every priest on the globe.

You might not know, but I have been doing this dance for almost 25 years now, and I have sat across the table from several bishops, archibishops, and even a cardinal or two who have said precisely that.

What about vasectomies?

Not allowed.

What about older couples who get married with no expectation, (or ability) to have children...Or where one or both couples can't conceive for some medical reason.

In such cases, the Church points to the examples of Abraham and Sarah, and Elizabeth and Zechariah, and says, in effect, miracles can happen, so fuck away.

[Scooter]

And Dave, if you have any confusion about this whatsoever, call your diocesan Office of Family Life (every diocese has once), ask them whether your understandings are correct, and come back here and tells us what you were told.

[dgs49]

"You might not know, but I have been doing this dance for almost 25 years now, and I have sat across the table from several bishops, archibishops, and even a cardinal or two who have said precisely that."

In addition to being an idiot, you are a liar.

[Scooter]

You're free to believe whatever you wish about me, Dave, your opinion is as valuable to me as the piece of toilet paper I used a few hours ago to wipe my ass, but I directed you to the means of finding out which of us is correct, if you so choose. Somehow I don't believe you have the balls to take the chance of learning you are wrong.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Guess I'm going to hell.
On the other hand AA tells me to turn my will and my life over to the care of God (as we understand him).

[loCAtek]

Don't think so oldr, sounds like you're been given a second chance.