Catholics take on Pope over birth control
Ya think it’s about time? And let’s face it, most Catholics ignore this little rule anyway.
Technically, the Catholic Church does approve of birth control – bad birth control called the “rhythm method”. So here are my questions: What’s the difference between artificial birth control and the rhythm method? (Besides the effectiveness) What’s the difference between using a condom and willfully and deliberately refraining from sex during ovulation when pregnancy can occur? Isn’t abstaining from sex during this time frame a conscious decision not to procreate? And, if so, how is that any different from regular birth control?
Excellent questions, P. I wish I had had the wherewithal to pose those same questions to my Theology teachers in high school.
Unfortunately for devout Catholics, I’d say the chances of the pope coming around on birth control are on par with him coming around on female priests and doing away with that silly vow of celibacy.
Actually the Catholic Church does NOT approve of the rhythm method. I vividly remember my pastor at Holy Cross telling us (a group of 14-year-olds in the process of being Confirmed) that sex was for procreation, and not for any other reason whatsoever. For some reason we had a hard time grasping that…
Funny, because during my Pre-Cana class we were taught the Rhythm Method. Now the Catholic Church calls it “natural family planning”.
a hard time grasping that…
Tee hee…
a hard time grasping that…
Tee hee…
yeah, it was a slippery concept
But seriously folks. It is time for the Catholic Church to help end abortions in our lifetime by putting its weight behind real sex education.
Of course it’s time for the Catholic Church to update their antiquated and barbaric views on sex education, but you’re talking about the institution that just a couple of years ago, finely tuned their doctrine on exorcism for fuck’s sake!
Such a medieval view on the world will not just leap into the present without causing a huge upheaval on their faithful. Keep in mind that the Catholics in the US are some of the most progressive in the world, but represent a small fraction of the faith. Many in the smaller, more isolated communities are very old-school when it comes to subjects such as gay rights, female priests, or sex ed.
A wild switch in policy on any one of these would completely alienate a majority of the Catholic faithful.
I could explain it to you, but I think all you are interested in is picking on an institution you perceive as hostile.
Okay, Tom… please explain. I’m listening.
Tom, if you have a reasonable, well-thought-out argument supported by evidence, I would like to hear it.
The way things change in the Church is you get a new pope. Benedict is 81 years old.
Vatican politics, from which the next pope will emerge. The conservative factions have had the upper hand for decades.
There are liberal factions in the Vatican. Unfortunately, many of them are U.S. based, and the US Church has been weakened by the pedophile scandals, so their influence is lessened.
should be:
The battleground is Vatican politics, from which the next pope will emerge…
Unfortunately, those wishing for a more liberal or progressive church are probably going to be disappointed. I don’t know that there’s one voting age cardinal appointed by anyone other than John Paul II or Benedict. JPII changed the face and direction of the church (much of it for the better, BTW), reverting to a more conservative, centralized church.
Tom, the attitude toward the church here and elsewhere is often hostile, but I think the good folks who read DL would welcome your input.
The church does approve the rhythm method — natural family planning — because the couple isn’t doing anything extraordinary to prevent pregnancy. The couple in that case is at least open to the possibility of procreation.
I am disappointed at times reading this and other blogs because I see how much good the Catholic Church does in so many areas. However, it has its faults and makes itself an easy target for critics. And there are definitely areas, such as birth control, where the church and I disagree.
My main point was about making a “conscious” decision not to procreate. I wanted to know how deliberately not having sex (to avoid pregnancy) and using a condom were different. Both strike me as willfully preventing pregnancy.
That’s the question.
I think the difference, as far as I can tell, is that to deliberately impede or prevent the possibility of procreation through artificial means is not allowed, which does not occur (obviously) if a couple is abstinent. Abstinence in and of itself is not a sin.
But doesn’t the Rhythm Method (if successful) achieve the same means as artificial birth control? I keep coming back to that conscious (willful) decision.
Basically both (BC and Rhythm) are designed not to produce a baby.
Well gather round–“natural or rhythm ” indicates man’s ability to “bridle his passions”, hence not being enslaved to urges and desires. This would separate us from the animals who attack at will, whiz and dump at leisure, and mount anything, anyone,at anyplace if all fits. Artificial means permits us to join the lower animal kingdom without reproductive consequences.Ironically, man has proven he can’t handle the higher order concept of “delayed gratification”, or thinking outside the pants….so…we are left with an array of choices in birth control, because most can’t practice this degree of self-control. Procreation yes, recreation encouraged–full well knowing the responsibility of our actions. But let’s face it–most of us are just lions, and tigers and bunnies hopping around…having not evolved (actually matured) to the expectation that man should dominate this planet–BECAUSE he can think, evaluate and choose–unlike our animal cousins. A whole new visual for a “roll in the hay”….The Catholics aren’t the “heavy” here. Man and his will are the walking advertisement for not doing “the job”.
So, is your point that… well, I don’t get your point. Do you accept the notion that humans (and let’s narrow it down to married humans for simplicity), have the right to “roll in the hay” at their mutual pleasure and to use birth control other than “hope”?
Speaking for Shirley, based on her writings, I would guess that she would fight for man’s right to “roll in the hay”. (women’s too.) (lol) I sincerely hope my comment does not offend her, but that comment was set up far too nicely…and is just so…..well, …Curmudgeous……. I tried to refrain for two seconds, but couldn’t pass it up……. I’m so sorry….
While I appreciate someone finally trying to explain this, I don’t buy it. If delay f gratification was the point, then Catholics would still be encouraged to to have sex only when the woman is fertile for procreation. Rhythm method is still for people who can’t wait to get some and want it with less risk of a baby.
I don’t think anyone is saying that Catholics are the heavy, I personally am saying the Church is the heavy for failing to relinquish a method of sexual protection that is unsafe and unstable. Remember, if the Church decides to allow life-saving methods of contraception and protection, then all the Catholics will simply fall in line.
Also, the moral implications of this outdated method of birth control have to be considered: is the moral value of sexual restraint really that much more important than containing and preventing a deadly epidemic?
PS: Restraint is by far not the only thing that separates us from the “lower order” of animals and it would take more that just its loss to equate us with them.