Posted on 04/14/2011 8:18:23 AM PDT by Grunthor
Catholic women overwhelmingly use birth control, despite an official ban by the church, a new study finds......
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The bottom line is to have a lot of children, a family has to be wealthy OR live in poverty.
______________________________________________________________
What nonsense! My mother gave birth to 11 children. We were neither wealthy nor poor. (Mom didn’t work)
Campion, bless you.
You are the first person —in many years-—who I have heard refer to “pharmakeia”. Yes, it was not only an ancient contraceptive potion, but also acted as an abortifacient.
At this moment, I can’t recall where it occurs in the Epistles of Paul, but he does make a negative referral to pharmakeia.
You are right:every Christian group did reject contraception until the Lambeth Conference took place in 1930.
“See also Genesis 38. Notice what is specified about Onan’s behavior as “wicked in God’s sight”.
But we all sin every day. How many of us follow Christ’s advice to the rich man to give away all his wealth and follow him.
The great majority of Americans are wealthy is worldly terms, how many of us have given our wealth away to follow Christ?
Are we all sinning when we don’t?
Just a question.
A Doctor is free to prescribe any medication for any medical reason, which in all good conscience and within his professional judgment, is appropriate to any condition.
E.G., a woman may have irregular menstrual cycles that prevent reliable use of the "Rhythm Method." The hormonal medication's primary purpose therefore is not to prevent conception, but to regularize the cycle. The prevention of pregnancy is an undesired effect.
The hormones in these medications often help skin conditions, arthritis, even diabetes. In each case, the primary purpose stated, would not be the prevention of conception, but the treatment of the condition for which these hormonal medications might be found useful.
This is generally called
The "secondary, or officially undesired effect, i.e., "Birth Control," unfortunately has a tertiary undesired effect. I.E., Western Christian Civilization will be overwhelmed by Muslims, many with 4 wives at a time and literally dozens (that's sets of 12) or more children.
Google the "Principle of Double Effect" and discuss amongst yourselves.
Sorry to disagree with you. I am not talking about living in luxury either. I am talking bottom line: feeding, housing, clothing of children. It is very expensive. I knew a family when I was in Catholic school that had 12 children. The children were unbelievably skinny and when not in hand me down uniforms, wore clothes that were torn, ripped, faded and ill fitted. I remember handing Rita my snack at lunch and many times sneaking in an extra sandwich. I guess this is just my life experience... I asked her once why she was so thin and she said that there wasn’t a lot of food with 12 children. My point is to behave responsibly toward society (i.e. not going on WIC, welfare, etc) then have the number of children that YOU can feed, clothe, educate etc...
The Church needs priests who will preach and teach the Catholic faith without apology. The rebellion by so many priests against Humanae Vitae set the stage for the crisis the Church is undergoing today. The idea that one can be Catholic and reject the teachings of the Church.
Richmond too, I think.
I don’t know how you can disagree with a fact. My friends in Catholic school also were from large families of at least 7 children. None of us were on the dole and none of us were starving.
What’s wrong with hand me down clothes?
True we had only 1 phone (I mean phone,not phone line) 1 TV and didn’t get cable until 1980. But we also lived in a house my parents owned with a large yard in suburban NJ. We took vacations (in shifts!) every year, went out to eat, went to the movies etc.
I guess it depends on what your priorities are.
I have no problem with your assertion that people should limit their family size based on their ability to support them.
But to say you must be wealthy or on the dole to have a large family is demonstrably false.
Well, you know, God could see how things were back in the thirties. Everyone was so poor they couldn't even afford color. Look at all those old photos everyone says are B&W. They're not, they were taken with color film but everyone was so poor they just had to go without color. God knew people would spend all of what little cash they had on contraceptives and then be hungry, so in His infinite mercy and wisdom, He just said that for the time being it was wrong.
Now, He knows things are better and everyone is more educated as well as more sophisticated due to how easy it is to be informed, so sure, God changed. But He didn't really change, H just waited until we were better off and had the free time to really enjoy contraception then opened the eyes of all those people who interpret the Word for themselves and showed them that contraception is just fine.
The study was done by the abortion lackey Guttmacher.
A keeper.
The only reason that the girl I knew went to a Catholic school was (in those days ) Catholic schools stopped charging tuition after a number of children attended. If memory serves me, the family paid three tuitions and the other 9 went free. That being said, nothing is wrong with hand me down. Something is wrong, however, with wearing rags. Nothing is wrong with being thin, however, something is wrong with not being able to afford food for a brood. It all comes down to what you make, if you want both parents to work, if you want to educate your children (private school or college), and what type of life you want for them. However, I do have an issue with some people saying that limiting a family size is equated with sin.
My great-aunt heard this story and told my MIL that it was "easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission". My great-aunt simply used birth control and asked for forgiveness when she went to confession.
I applaud your MIL. However, it seems that many front row Catholics would throw the first stone at her. IMHO.
Those “contraceptive” potions were really abortion potions. Clearly a wrong. When did effective barrier methods/surgical sterilization become viable? Sometime around 1930? I don’t have a problem with barrier method contraception - after all I worship a God who isn’t stopped by things like condoms. But anything that deliberately kills a child as its operation method is not ok.
Medical knowledge changed in that we now know that Fathers are not the generators of life, as was the understanding until the mid-1800’s. Contraception does not necessarily kill. Sterilization and barrier methods destroy no more lives than celibacy or NFP.
I do have an issue with some people saying that limiting a family size is equated with sin
____________________________________________________________
I have the same issue! I don’t agree with the church’s BC position.
I was just saying if you have your priorities straight there is no reason you can’t have a large family without being rich or on the dole.
Some were and some weren't.
I worship a God who isn’t stopped by things like condoms.
Whether he's "stopped" by them or not isn't relevant to the issue of whether they're morally permissible. He's omnipotent; he's not ultimately stopped by anything unless he chooses to be.
Birthrates of 1.3 children per woman destroy entire cultures over time.
Which is not the position of the Catholic church, unless the "limit" in question is "zero".
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.