Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
One wonders what explanation the RC establishment has for the decline of 10 child families.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.

---

And all other sexuality is sinful?

How about when our families are complete?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:


The idea that a decision that a family is complete would somehow completely change a marriage relationship and its meaning seems to me a little bizarre!

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
or because they use the equally effective natural means of family planning.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowhund:
If someone thinks that the universal Christian consensus on the issue (until recent decades) is bizarre, perhaps that person is the one who "has issues" not the execrated Prada-wearing Pope in Rome.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowhund:
The fact that such a thing would seem bizarre would seem to be a radical failure to imagine outside one's own individual life situation. The choice to contracept within marriage was not considered to be a valid moral choice by virtually any Christian church until 80 years ago or so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
or because they use the equally effective natural means of family planning.

---

Whatever the moral rights and wrongs of the situation - that statement is factually inaccurate.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Off the top of my head, I remember watching a dramatisation of Dickens "Christmas Carol" a while ago - and I vaguely remember the character of Scrooge expressing the idea that men shouldn't start families until they have learnt a trade, so that their children do not become a burden on the ratepayers.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
This wiki article gives standardised comparisons. I belive the table is based on the World Health Organisation data from an internaitonal study - but I can't swear to it. What's your source ?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not going to do this work again.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Off the top of my head, I remember watching a dramatisation of Dickens "Christmas Carol" a while ago - and I vaguely remember the character of Scrooge expressing the idea that men shouldn't start families until they have learnt a trade, so that their children do not become a burden on the ratepayers.

---

The way a tradesman refrained from starting a family, at that time, was by refraining from marriage. Not by marrying and using contraception.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Typical use 1-5%
Which give the typical use failure rate as very similar to that given in the wiki article I cited above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Reluctant as I am to speculate upon your sex life, let me just say this - it is evident from your years of posting on the ship that you are a *very* precise and logical man. Many members of the human race are not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
More pertinently, we are talking about a married couple - more likely long term contraception in a monogamous relationship would be the pill, an implant, an IUD or a sterilisation operation.

---

Precisely. Our use of NFP predates my becoming Christian. My wife had significant side effects from even the 'weakest' pill (one should note that there are several variants, and not all of equal 'security'). All the other methods you mention are 'invasive' in some sense as compared to NFP. When we actually wanted to have a child, we had to do precisely nothing, i.e., stop watching which days are safe. (In fact, regrettably we used the NFP info to have sex on the maximally fertile days. That proved to be instantly effective. In retrospect I would have liked to 'try' a bit longer... )

It is clear that to adopt NFP one needs some motivation. However, I do not think that this motivation has to be Catholic. I would be happy if people just considered this without prejudices. I think it could be good for many couples.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shadowhund:
Well that's a silly comment. The Pope has never taken away your "choice" to do anything. What you really saying is that the Pope is saying that your choice is an evil choice, and you don't like being told that your decisions are wicked. Understandable, because no one likes being told that they are doing wicked things, especially when they are, like contraception, very wicked indeed.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
I hope this isn't a Dead Horse- I checked the guidelines and it doesn't seem to be- but could someone explain to me why natural family planning is OK with some people who believe that barrier methods are wrong?

If the intention is what counts, then purposely having sex at the "wrong" time of the month doesn't look that much different to me from using a condom. Your intention is to avoid procreating.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Oddly enough the cochrane collaboration libraries have little information on this method and the latest studies on the academic database top out a tthe late 80s. This being a case of people not throwing good research money after bad I believe.

This wiki article gives standardised comparisons. I belive the table is based on the World Health Organisation data from an internaitonal study - but I can't swear to it. What's your source ?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
The other thing both partners have to be able to deal with is of course not having sex for two weeks in the month, or so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
It gives a 3% failure rate in perfect use for the cervical mucus spotting, but a 25% rate in typical use. ... The argument for natural family planning on the grounds that non-procreative sex is a problem is theologically inconsistent.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Sperm are not so precious. Millions are produced every day. Where the idea that each time they are 'spilled' there needs to be the possibility of conception comes from - I cannot imagine.

I do know that there is nothing ungodly about ejaculation and there is nothing ungodly about family planning.

We live in times when women no longer need to be kept as tame child bearing cows and ignored in all matters involving decision making.

Thank God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Where the idea that each time they are 'spilled' there needs to be the possibility of conception comes from - I cannot imagine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I do know that there is nothing ungodly about ejaculation and there is nothing ungodly about family planning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
We live in times when women no longer need to be kept as tame child bearing cows and ignored in all matters involving decision making.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
From you link IngoB

"it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. "

No sex without the possibility of procreation?
I can't see this as good for anyone.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
As a silly example, it's clear that if a professional sex worker asks for advice, offering NFP in the mix of options isn't going to be a good start.

---

quote:

---

And there will be a range of people who one could doubt the likely effectiveness of NFP in. (I'd count myself frankly). I know from experience that I can usually manage to use a condom, but sometimes can't manage to abstain.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unjust Stuart:
I haven't read the interview, but why is everyone assuming that the male prostitute is having sex with another man?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:


And if it's a matter of respecting and valuing the fertility cycle of one's wife - as it is in the case of using NFP - what does it say about one's relationship if abstinence for a short time in a cycle is too difficult to manage?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
]That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.

---

quote:

---

That's the short version. For the long version, read John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
From you link IngoB
"it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. "
No sex without the possibility of procreation?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
You know, people do sometimes say that, but it does indicate a very low level of self-control. I've never knowingly spoken about anything like this with a man who really couldn't control his sexual urges when his wife was sriously ill, or when he was out shopping with his family; why is it apparently impossible at other times?

...And unless you regard marital rape as acceptable, both men and women are reasonably expected to control themselves when their spouse says no. This is supposed to be a freely given gift of self, one to the other, not just an animal satisfaction of desire.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" was interesting this morning (which, of course, is itself a sign of the end times). Clifford Longley, who swam the Tiber, was extolling the Pope's statement as the begining of the melting of the ice cap (his words) on Catholic teaching about sexuality, that it begins a move from the abstract to the humanly pastoral.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
You know, people do sometimes say that, but it does indicate a very low level of self-control. I've never knowingly spoken about anything like this with a man who really couldn't control his sexual urges when his wife was sriously ill, or when he was out shopping with his family; why is it apparently impossible at other times?

...And unless you regard marital rape as acceptable, both men and women are reasonably expected to control themselves when their spouse says no. This is supposed to be a freely given gift of self, one to the other, not just an animal satisfaction of desire.

---

Are you really suggesting that my inability to abstain in the context of my relationship is analogous to rape? Please clarify.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
And as Catholic teaching is about marital sexuality, that's probably not a germane issue. In the context of this thread, that's probably exactly why the Pope chose to use a male prostitute as his example: someone to whom he teaching did not apply, so a situation in which the discussion of the use of a condom could be logically separated from the main Catholic teching.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
]That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.

---

In short, the repugnance stems completely from the gibberish that the Roman Catholic Church preaches.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
No, I'm suggesting that the *inability* to abstain isn't really an inability at all, and that if you consider the situation in which your wife says no, then you'll agree that in that case you would be able to abstain.

Your claim that you are unable to abstain therefore is invalid.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" was interesting this morning (which, of course, is itself a sign of the end times). Clifford Longley, who swam the Tiber, was extolling the Pope's statement as the begining of the melting of the ice cap (his words) on Catholic teaching about sexuality, that it begins a move from the abstract to the humanly pastoral.

---

That, I think, is a classic example of wishful thinking that goes way beyond what is merited by the actual source.

I catch a whiff from some commentators of intepreting and proclaiming the Pope's opinion to the world in such a way that it far exceeds his meaning, but by which they hope he'll thereby be cajolled into revising doctrine more radically for fear of being seen to dash expectations which he had no intention of raising. I predict that won't work - but get ready for "disappointed" liberal voices to shake their heads in disgust at the Pope's "backtracking" (which will of course be nothing of the sort).

In other words, some of the "enthusiasm" we're hearing from some quarters may be a deliberate tactic to corner the Pope under the guise and by means of praising his "courage" to the hilt. If their "interpretations" are not borne out, they at least get to lambast the poor old man afresh for his "intransigence" - so it's win-win.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
No, I'm suggesting that the *inability* to abstain isn't really an inability at all, and that if you consider the situation in which your wife says no, then you'll agree that in that case you would be able to abstain.

Your claim that you are unable to abstain therefore is invalid.

---

Of course the inability is only relative and depends on the perceived consequences. An alcoholic might claim to be unable to not have a drink. In a sense that is true - but it is equally true that if you promised them a million pounds to not drink for one evening they'd probably be able to do it.

Nevertheless, concluding that they were therefore perfectly able to become sober ignores the strong compulsion they are under to drink.

Likewise with human beings and sex. The fact that in certain instances I can control my sexual impulses doesn't mean that NFP is a realistic option for me. If I really became convinced that my salvation depended on it that might change, but I don't think like that so it isn't.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've often wondered why journalists covering religion had such trouble providing accurate analysis of religious topics.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by coniunx:
If you ever become convinced that contraception is actually seriously wrong, though, the option of NFP will be open to you;

---