Catholics and birth control

So I was thinking about this last night and Catholics and birth control. First off what is the issue with it? Second is that when I was engaged to my wife we had to go to a “sex” class at the church about not using birth control and when is the “safe” time to have sex and not get pregnant, how she can check if she is fertile and so on. So I was wondering why this is not considered birth control and wearing a condom is? You are still taking precautions not to get pregnant and having sex knowing full well that she can’t, so what is the difference?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So I was thinking about this last night and Catholics and birth control. First off what is the issue with it? Second is that when I was engaged to my wife we had to go to a “sex” class at the church about not using birth control and when is the “safe” time to have sex and not get pregnant, how she can check if she is fertile and so on. So I was wondering why this is not considered birth control and wearing a condom is? You are still taking precautions not to get pregnant and having sex knowing full well that she can’t, so what is the difference?

It is a form of birth control. 😕

Um....there is no issue with it.
That night I was hospitalized a couple of months ago the doctor's were asking me questions and he found out I was sexually active and said that I need to get on birth control. And my Dad is pretty religious.

The issue is sex is meant to be an expression of love and a bunch of other stuff...all that is expressed through the union of the couple and the birth of a child.

the Church position is that having sex without wanting the child is defective of sex's purpose.

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Um....there is no issue with it.
That night I was hospitalized a couple of months ago the doctor's were asking me questions and he found out I was sexually active and said that I need to get on birth control. And my Dad is pretty religious.

Why would you add that your dad was religious? 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would you add that your dad was religious? 😆

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Why do you ask the stupidest of questions?

Because he's stupid?

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
Why do you ask the stupidest of questions?

It was funny the way you added it to the line before. As if there was some connection. 😆

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Because he's stupid?

I have a warped sense of humor, and I am generally a smart ass. 😎

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a warped sense of humor, and I am generally a smart ass. 😎

Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is because you head is closer to your ass 😛

😛 Don't be jealous. 😂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😛 Don't be jealous. 😂

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I'm smarter, my head is up my ass 😄

😆

Originally posted by Da Pittman
So I was thinking about this last night and Catholics and birth control. First off what is the issue with it? Second is that when I was engaged to my wife we had to go to a “sex” class at the church about not using birth control and when is the “safe” time to have sex and not get pregnant, how she can check if she is fertile and so on. So I was wondering why this is not considered birth control and wearing a condom is? You are still taking precautions not to get pregnant and having sex knowing full well that she can’t, so what is the difference?

This church considers deliberately altering fertility or the marital act with the intention of preventing procreation to be sinful. Thus, artificial birth control methods are forbidden, as are acts intended to end in orgasm outside the context of intercourse (e.g. masturbation or oral sex that is not part of foreplay). At the same time, not having sex at all (abstinence) is considered morally acceptable.

Having sex at an infertile time in a woman's life (such as pregnancy or post-menopause) is also considered acceptable, since the infertile condition is considered to be created by God, rather than as an act by the couple. Similarly, under Catholic theology, it may be morally acceptable to abstain during the fertile part of the woman's menstrual cycle. Increasing the postpartum infertile period through particular breastfeeding practices — the lactational amenorrhea method — is also considered a natural and morally unobjectionable way to space a family's children.

The Catholic Church acknowledges a potential benefit of spacing children and use of NFP for this reason is encouraged. Humanae Vitae cites "physical, economic, psychological and social conditions" as possibly compelling reasons to avoid pregnancy. Couples are warned, however, against using NFP for selfish, immoral, or insincere reasons. A few Catholic theologians argue that couples with several children may morally choose to avoid pregnancy, even if their circumstances (emotional, physical, and economic) would allow for more children. More commonly, Catholic sources extol the benefits children bring to their parents, their siblings, and society in general, and encourage couples to have as many children as their circumstances make practical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFP#Official_Catholic

Originally posted by King of Blades
This church considers deliberately altering fertility or the marital act with the intention of preventing procreation to be sinful. Thus, artificial birth control methods are forbidden, as are acts intended to end in orgasm outside the context of intercourse (e.g. masturbation or oral sex that is not part of foreplay). At the same time, not having sex at all (abstinence) is considered morally acceptable.

Having sex at an infertile time in a woman's life (such as pregnancy or post-menopause) is also considered acceptable, since the infertile condition is considered to be created by God, rather than as an act by the couple. Similarly, under Catholic theology, it may be morally acceptable to abstain during the fertile part of the woman's menstrual cycle. Increasing the postpartum infertile period through particular breastfeeding practices — the lactational amenorrhea method — is also considered a natural and morally unobjectionable way to space a family's children.

The Catholic Church acknowledges a potential benefit of spacing children and use of NFP for this reason is encouraged. Humanae Vitae cites "physical, economic, psychological and social conditions" as possibly compelling reasons to avoid pregnancy. Couples are warned, however, against using NFP for selfish, immoral, or insincere reasons. A few Catholic theologians argue that couples with several children may morally choose to avoid pregnancy, even if their circumstances (emotional, physical, and economic) would allow for more children. More commonly, Catholic sources extol the benefits children bring to their parents, their siblings, and society in general, and encourage couples to have as many children as their circumstances make practical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFP#Official_Catholic

Originally posted by Da Pittman
While that is nice and dandy, there is no difference in using a condom and having sex during her not fertile periods. Your intended purpose is to have sex and not get pregnant. You are still shooting your sperm in a "dead zone" be it her "fun box" or a condom, one is made of flesh and the other rubber. What about using natural spermicides, this is something that God made? I can see issues with the pill and how it works being against the faith, but having sex during her non fertile periods so she doesn't get pregnant is just the same.

Trying to read into it and reconcile all contradictions won't get you very far. For Catholics, it's an arbitrary rule in place to make them feel good about sex, but seems to make sense if you buy into their particular worldview. I, for one, can't quite figure out how a woman, or indeed a couple, is supposed to fully embrace and enjoy lovemaking if there exists strict rules about it and reasonable chance of (presumably unwanted) pregnancy at some point.

Or one could simply see it as our evolutionary procreation tool, and enjoy fully while realizing that a lack of procreation (traditional birth control) isn't blaspheming, but is normal and healthy, and also easier on one's wallet as well as the precarious population totals of the planet. But I realize that would be far too easy.

The rhythm method is also a less sure form of BC. So in theory, along with anti-abortion rules, it will increase the number of Catholic adherents. A clever way to wrap a religion's survival in fancy-sounding theology.

It's also inadvertently destructive in the Third World, where it could help curb population and disease totals. But given the church's humanitarian efforts and influence in such matters, it isn't likely to be corrected soon.

But I used to be Catholic, and know a ton of people who ignore this particular rule without letting it affect their psyche. So it is, refreshingly, largely ignored...at least in my experience.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
there is no difference in using a condom and having sex during her not fertile periods.

There is a difference. One is made by God the other is made by man.

Natural Family Planning is taking advantage of what God created.
Natrual Family Planning focuses on patience and and that sex is beyond a mere impulse that should be humored.
Condomns humor impulses and not so much the unitive and especially not the procreative aspects of the sex.
God is good condomns are not. Although (between the lesser of two evils) it is better to wear protection then not at all (I believe, God correct me if I'm wrong...)

Originally posted by Da Pittman
What about using natural spermicides, this is something that God made? having sex during her non fertile periods so she doesn't get pregnant is just the same.

But it's not the same. You recognize a clear distinction between killing in self-defense and murder. Both end up with a dead person. It's not so much the ends achieved but the means achieving them.

Originally posted by King of Blades
There is a difference. One is made by God the other is made by man.

Natural Family Planning is taking advantage of what God created.
Natrual Family Planning focuses on patience and and that sex is beyond a mere impulse that should be humored.
Condomns humor impulses and not so much the unitive and especially not the procreative aspects of the sex.
God is good condomns are not. Although (between the lesser of two evils) it is better to wear protection then not at all (I believe, God correct me if I'm wrong...)
...

Originally posted by King of Blades
There is a difference. One is made by God the other is made by man.

Natural Family Planning is taking advantage of what God created.
Natrual Family Planning focuses on patience and and that sex is beyond a mere impulse that should be humored.
Condomns humor impulses and not so much the unitive and especially not the procreative aspects of the sex.
God is good condomns are not. Although (between the lesser of two evils) it is better to wear protection then not at all (I believe, God correct me if I'm wrong...)

But it's not the same. You recognize a clear distinction between killing in self-defense and murder. Both end up with a dead person. It's not so much the ends achieved but the means achieving them.

What is this "impulse" thing? So just for 2 days out of the month you have to control your impulse but the rest you can go hog wild, that makes no scene at all. Condoms do not lead to "he I got one, lets do it" anymore than "I'm only fertile 2 days of the month, so lets do it".

The end result in either situation is that you want to have sex and not get her pregnant so by pulling out, condoms or not fertile cycles it is still the same thing. All are an impulse thing only you have to watch out for 2 days out of the month and if you even count the time that sperm can live that is still only 4 days. So exactly is this curbing the impulse thing? You could say that avid users of condoms also have impulse control that they will not have sex if they don't have one.

What about the women that have to take the pill for medical reasons?

Originally posted by King of Blades
But it's not the same. You recognize a clear distinction between killing in self-defense and murder. Both end up with a dead person. It's not so much the ends achieved but the means achieving them.

That's a terrible example.

If you use spermicide the sperm just dies. If you have sex when she's no fertile the sperm just dies. If you use a condom the sperm just dies. If you don't have sex the sperm just dies.

There is no difference between any of them. In all cases you are knowingly killing the sperm or letting them die.