Posted on 09/01/2003 7:03:21 PM PDT by Polycarp
|
Lacking your deep knowledge of all societies and your deeper understanding of huamn nature, I asserted that it is possible to practice contraception without favoring the killing of already existing posterity via abortion. That is my 'illiterate opinion'.
Huh? When I had kids we all grew up together, with them showing me the way to maturity by forcing me to meet life head on and to do the right thing. This is how life works. Having children changes us forever, as we suddenly see the world differently and develop the desire to make the world a better place for them. Children force us to take the focus off our own selfish little desires, while we protect them and pave the way for their future.
Anyone who thinks parents need to be well established financially, fully mature and "ready" for children before allowing their birth is way off the mark. Nothing strengthens and bonds a married couple more than having beautiful, and totally vulnerable, little children. They instinctively work together for the welfare of the children, and the survival and prosperity of their family. Children are not the reason for the 52% divorce rate in our country, they are the victims of it.
The real culprit behind divorce is the anti-Christian, anti-male and narcissistic sentiment in our nation that was let loose from the sulphuric bowels of hell around 35 years ago. Our own government has been a dispenser and a blind agent of this new-age, demonic "freedom". Once women felt that they no longer needed the male to survive, men became dispensable. And now that men feel unneeded in the traditional role of protector and provider, women have been reduced to mere sexual objects.
The juggernaut of the 'culture of death', dealing a mortal blow to our nation's sense of morality via birth control devices and the legalization of abortion, has hardened the hearts of women and men, and turned what formerly was the procreative marital act into a sensual playground of lust; forcing all of its participants into a perpetual state of immaturity. As a result, when a child is born, he/she is often more of a 'mistake' than a heavenly blessing, and the parents often remain immature because they don't really want to raise their little 'mistake'. Selfish hearts are cold hearts. Of course this is not always the case, but it too often is.
It seems to me that this phenomenon started in America, but it has now spread its tentacles all over the earth. The answer? A return to the True God, and the living of our lives in Christian morality. Nothing else is going to work.
The Marriage is validated by properly exchanged vows. As far as I know, which could be wrong, you cannot remove an impediment like this by simply "willing it away". My understanding is that you would have to have your Marriage validated by your supplying the proper consent that was lacking at the time of your marriage ceremony using the vows. Confession would be helpful too.
This is what I don't understand about many of the process annullments (the 40,000 contended annullments requiring testimony), although I only have hearsay evidence. Why doesn't the Church do more to encourage such people to validate their existing civilly recognized Marriage? Maybe Sinky can answer that.
I learned about the abortifacient effect of the pill in pharmacology class in medschool and private research. Even when I was a lukewarm Catholic, even during my stage as an intellectual atheist in college, I was still pro-life.
The rest was purely through prayer, while praying the Rosary.
maybe God has a reason for your seeming infertility
Certainly! God has a reason for every cross He allows us to carry.
Thread: Sealed With Blood: Letter From a Father to His Beloved Son
Somwhere along the way, priests "on the street" must have observed the selfishness of some couples planning their sexual relations around the menstrual cycle, which would have given rise to the need for the Church to (eventually) take a formal position.
The Manichees did this to avoid children completely, for which St. Augustine famously condemned them and their practice of perpetual barrenhood.
"Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable chastity consists. For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse. ... Didn't you warn us before to watch as carefully as possible for the time after the monthly period, when a woman may be expected to conceive, and to abstain from intercourse at this time, lest a soul be enclosed in the flesh? It follows from this that, in your opinion, marriage was not intended to beget children but to satisfy desires." (St. Augustine of Hippo, "Morals of the Manachaeans", Chapter 18)
Maybe I need to get a life, but I think it would be real interesting to learn how the Church's position on children and family planning came to be from its inception, starting WAY before 1930, when the Protestants started giving in, but probably well after the original disciples.
The Church has never condemned abstinence or periodic continence. In fact, the old disciplinary norms of abstinence from sex on Friday and Saturday (to prepare for Holy Communion), all of Lent, and during the days of fast in Ember Days, Rogation Days, and Vigils meant that more often than not, a couple would not be having sex at a fertile time.
The Sacred Penitentiary also approved of the Rhythm Method back in 1853 and again in 1880. In fact, Confessors were directed to suggest the practice to penitents engaged in repeated acts of Onanistic intercourse for contraceptive purposes. The notion spread abroad by some that NFP is some new heterdox teaching is not true. It is perfectly licit, provided the people involved adhere to the moral norms of marriage concerning the necessity of having children if possible, and a concrete number of at least four.
"Question: Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month when conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days, to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?"Response: Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception." (Decree of the Sacred Penitentiary, 2 March 1853)
"Married couples who use their marriage rights in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism." (Decree of the Sacred Penitentiary, 16 June 1880)
It is with the denial of the plain words of these decrees of the Holy See that the anti-NFP heretics (I will call them that since they contest against the Magisterium), like Solange Hertz and various extremists associated with "The Remnant" have gone so famously wrong in their denunciation of NFP.
Again, there is nothing wrong with using NFP or equivalent for one's entire marriage, provided that the married couple fulfills their duties of justice to society of having at least four children. Catholics are not under an obligation to have as large a family as possible. The Popes have called those who do so "praiseworthy" (because they have performed an act of supererogation) but they do not simultaneously condemn those who have fewer children, so long as they do not use contraceptives and do their duty.
In a way, its somewhat akin to Holy Communion. It is praiseworthy to receive Holy Communion every day. But it is not sinful to only receive it just once a year. We might judge a man foolish who did this, counting God's blessings for so little, just as we might judge a man foolish who decided not to have more children when he had done the minimum, counting God's blessing of children for little. But we cannot condemn either person as having done something intrinscially wrong.
The problem today is that 1) many Catholics do not recognize this duty to have four children, 2) some Catholics promote and use NFP for sinful reasons like this "growth in maturity" nonesense, 3) there appears a general expectation and promotion of NFP as a norm for all, rather than something one may or may not use depending upon the circumstances of ones life (I do see this last point as caused by the overwhelming contraceptive mentality of today, and Catholic attempts to hold it back at the lowest level possible so as to include the greatest number of people).
If people marry over the age of 45, they do have a valid Catholic Marriage, and do not sin by the fact that they cannot have children. They don't need to intend the physcially impossible, although they can be open to miracles.
IUDs are almost always abortive. They cause a foreign body inflammatory response within the uterus that prevents implantation if conception occurs. If newer IUDs are impregnated with long term chemical hormones, they may at times prevent conception by stopping ovulation. However I'm not up on newer IUDs, and I'm not sure if they do use hormones in addition to the foreign body effect.
The Pill really isn't designed to prevent conception at all. I'm pretty sure it doesn't intentionally alter the properties of the egg by making it less penetrable, more breakable, or whatever, it only prevents any egg that happens to get fertilized from implanting. That's in vitro abortion pure and simple, and unless I misunderstand the full scope of what The Pill does, it's a pure abortificant and (agreeing with you) it shouldn't even be CALLED a contraceptive.
Actually, the pill WAS designed to be solely contraceptive by blocking ovulation. Here's a couple articles I wrote that explains what happened during the progreesion of the pill's dosages:
The Pill: Contraception Or Abortion?by Brian J. Kopp, DPM When speaking about "contraception" most of us normally assume that fertilization of an ovum by a sperm is being prevented. The two main ways of preventing fertilization are barrier methods (condoms, diaphragm, spermicides, coitus interruptus, etc.) and inhibition of ovulation (release of an egg by the ovary). Inhibition of ovulation is most commonly accomplished today by the use of oral contraceptives ("the pill"). The original intention of the inventors of the pill was to inhibit ovulation by interrupting the natural hormonal cycle with high doses of estrogen and progesterone. These early combination pills were very successful in completely inhibiting ovulation but caused unacceptably high levels of side effects. Therefore, the hormonal content was progressively reduced. At the same time, other mechanisms by which the pill "prevents" fertilization were discovered. These are as follows: 1) Inhibition of ovulation: During the normal reproductive cycle, the pituitary gland in the brain releases hormones which stimulate the ovary to mature and release an ovum (egg). The combination pill usually interrupts the release of these pituitary hormones, thereby inhibiting ovulation. The progestin (synthetic progesterone)-only products (the mini-pill, Norplant, Depo-provera injections) generally do not suppress ovulation due to their weaker effect.1 2) Impeding sperm migration: The womens cervix produces a watery mucus through which sperm can swim and by which the sperm are nourished in the female reproductive tract. Progestin causes thickening of this mucus, impeding sperm motility and migration. 3) Changes in fallopian tubes: The fallopian tubes transport the egg to the uterus. Progestin decreases the motility of the tube, thereby slowing down the transport of the egg to the uterus. 4) Changes of the endometrium: The endometrium, the lining of the uterus, undergoes a monthly cyclical build-up in preparation for the possible implantation of a fertilized egg. The initial build-up occurs under the influence of the bodys own natural estrogen produced by the ovary itself during a normal cycle. After release of an egg at ovulation the endometrium is maintained and further developed by the bodys production of progesterone. The combination pill causes an asyncronous build-up of the endometrial lining and altered maturation of that lining.2 The progestin component causes the inner lining of the uterus to become thin and shriveled, unable to support implantation if fertilization occurs.3 HIGH "SUCCESS RATE"? This point is key in understanding the overall "success rate" for oral contraceptives today. As mentioned above, due to the multiple undesirable side effects, the dosages of the hormones in the oral contraceptives were progressively decreased. However, their overall effectiveness has remained around 98% to 99%. Why? Multiple studies have established that with the reduced hormone dosages breakthrough ovulation occurs. The rates cited in the literature range from 2% to 10% for breakthrough ovulation for all forms of oral contraception. Triphasic preparations may allow an ovulation once every four months.4 The progesterone only products may allow breakthrough ovulation 50% of the time; very low dose and long term use products (such as Norplant, Depo-provera) may alter the endometrium without inhibiting ovulation at all.5 In these cases where breakthrough ovulation has occured, the other mechanisms of the pill come into play. The barrier effect of the thickened cervical mucus may prevent sperm transport thereby preventing fertilization. However, when breakthrough ovulation occurs, the body produces its own estrogen which may allow the cervical mucus to support sperm migration. We must assume, therefore, that fertilization of the egg can occur with breakthrough ovulation. What happens to the new life conceived when fertilization does indeed occur? The progestin slows the transport of the embryo through the fallopian tube. The embryo may become too old to be viable when it does enter the uterus, and it will die. If the embryo is still viable when it reaches the uterus, it is unlikely that implantation would be possible in the altered endometrium developed under the influence of the pill, and again in would die.6 Clearly, by preventing the transport and implantation of this newly conceived life, oral contraceptives are indeed abortifacient. No concrete number can be given as to the absolute frequency with which the pill acts as an abortifacient and not as a contraceptive. However, if even the possibility of an abortifacient effect exists we as Christians must seek other ways of spacing or limiting pregnancy. "JELLIES, JAMS, AND DAMS" Barrier methods are the second most popular form of contraceptives used by Americans. Again these include condoms, diaphrams, sponges, spermicidal jellies and foams, etc. Barrier methods as a whole have an effecitve rate of approximately 85%. This is certainly much less effective than the pill and other related medications. (Furthermore, in Genesis, Chapter 38, God speaks very clearly about Onan who "wasted his seed on the ground. . . What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too." Gen 38: 10. Onan practiced coitus interruptus, withdrawing and wasting his sperm. This same thing is practiced today with barrier methods of contraception which also "waste the seed." All Christian faiths taught artificial contraception was wrong until as recently as the 1930's based on this and other Biblical texts.) THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY... There is a method that is entirely safe, very effective, and requires no abortifacient chemicals or artificial barriers. This is called the symptothermal method of natural family planning. It relies on the naturally occuring symptoms of a womans fertility including her body temperature, cervical mucus, and other signs, to determine when the women is potentially fertile. Selective abstinence during the 6 to 10 fertile days per month allow the couple to space or limit pregnancies with a 95% to 99% use effective rate. The British Journal of Medicine recently reported a study in which 20,000 poor, mostly illiterate women from Calcutta learned and practiced this method with a 99% effective rate.7 If you would like to learn more about the symptothermal method of natural family planning, or if you provide spiritual counsel to individuals or couples who might benefit from this knowledge, please contact Natural Family Planning of the Alleghenies at (814) 946-3544 or Dr. Brian Kopp at (814) 266-1582. 1. Goodman, Gilman. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. Pergamon Press. 1990. P. 1405. 2. Pritchard, MacDonald, Gant. Obstretics. Appleton-Century- Crofts. 1985. P. 812. 3. Weckenbrock. The Pill: How Does It Work? Is It Safe? pamphlet: The Couple To Couple League International. 1993. 4. Ehmann. Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust. Human Life International. 1993. p. 19 5. Goodman, Gilman. p 1405 6. Ibid. 7. British Medical Journal, March 1993. |
Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent.by Brian J. Kopp, DPM A groundbreaking study was published in the February 2000 edition of Archives of Family Medicine entitled "Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent." This study has far reaching ramifications for all pro-life individuals who believe life begins at conception, as well as the health care professionals who treat them. According to the authors, while the primary mechanism of oral contraceptives (OC's) is to inhibit ovulation, breakthrough ovulation (release of an egg) does occur. Analyzing journal articles on OC's published since 1970, they found breakthrough ovulation occurs between 1.7% to 28.6% for combination OC's and from 33% to 65% for progesterone only OC's. The authors show that OC's maintain a high effective rate by "postfertilization effects," which come into play after an egg is released and is fertilized. According to the authors, postfertilization effects involve one or more of the following: "(1) A postfertilization preimplantation effect would consist of a slower transport of the preembryo through the fallopian tube, preventing the preembryo from implanting in the uterus... (2) A peri-implantation effect would be the alteration of the endometrium, such that a preembryo that reached the uterus was unable to successfully implant into the endometrial lining of the uterus. (3) A postimplantation effect could result from alteration of the endometrium not sufficient to prevent implantation but unfavorable for maintenance of the pregnancy..." Most patients, for personal, scientific or religious reasons, identify the start of human life at conception. For some, a method of birth control that has the potential of killing their newly conceived child (an abortifacient) may not be acceptable. This would include all oral contraceptives, as well as Norplant, Depo-Provera, the morning after pill, emergency contraceptives, and RU486. According to the authors, "Since it would be difficult to predict which patients might object to being given an OC if they were aware of possible postfertilization effects, mentioning the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs to all patients and providing detailed information about the evidence to those who request it is necessary for adequate informed consent." Of course, "adequate informed consent" has legal ramifications beyond the question of medical ethics. For the pro-lifer, "postfertilization effects" is simply a medical term for early chemical abortions. How many pro-lifers are aware of these facts? Have they truly received "informed consent"? More importantly, why are our preachers and priests silent in the face of these chemical abortions, which far outnumber surgical abortions? The journal article is available online, at http://archfami.ama-assn.org/issues/v9n2/full/fsa8035.html |
Some sort of pre-marital advice and counseling by the couple's Church may be a great idea, as a step towards tying the knot; but actually forcing an adult couple to pass some sort of maturity litmus test is nuts. By this formula, immature couples should not be allowed to purchase a home either, which requires the long committment of a thirty year mortgage and hard work to maintain it. Their income would not be the only factor, but also their maturity level to meet such a long committment. It's all ridiculous to me. People grow up in a hurry when they want to. Today they don't want to grow up because it's too much "fun" and it's too easy remaining irresponsible. But growing up is a choice we all have to make, ---sooner or later. There was only one Peter Pan. :o)
I've heard this a lot, but I've come to doubt that there is much backing for it. The total number of Catholics alive today ever divorced is around 21%. This is equivalent to the figure for atheists, and well below the 30%+ figure for Baptists and other "Fundementalist" types.
The 50% divorce "rate" is a simple division of current year divorces over current year marriages. It has little bearing on the actual outcome of any given marriage contracted today. More simply put, 50% of people married during the last 10 years are not already divorced. In fact, there isn't a single cohort of the population where over 40% of them have been divorced ever. If you grasp that truth, you can see the fallacy of predictions based on "rates".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.