Contraception question

[benedictaoo]

First of all, I haven't even been married for 2 years yet, so no I don't have children, And secondly, I have no closed off my mind of EVER having children, but right now having a child would not be a smart or advisable decision right now.

I could list off all the things that are going on right now, or have gone on since I've been married, but I think I've already kind of done that...and it didn't seem to matter.

NFP's still birth control the way I see it.

The this is between you and God and your husband and y'all's priest.

I, nor anyone can tell you if it's right or wrong... this is about YOU and your life and your husband's, it's about what does God want for you both? what is His will for you? This is how you discern it.

You gotta pray about it. I can't tell you are either right or wrong. You have to seek God's will and IF you don't and just decide for what ever reasons... that may be where you err. I don't know.. you have to pray about it and be open to God's will.

and NFP is not birth control because birth control does not try to seek out God's will but it just decides, you aren't going to have children and that's that.

 

[epiclesis]

First of all, I haven't even been married for 2 years yet, so no I don't have children, And secondly, I have no closed off my mind of EVER having children, but right now having a child would not be a smart or advisable decision right now.

I could list off all the things that are going on right now, or have gone on since I've been married, but I think I've already kind of done that...and it didn't seem to matter.

NFP's still birth control the way I see it.

What does that have to do with anything? I got married in September and "knocked up" in November. Has nothing to do with the timing of when you got married.

And to comment on what you said in a previous post, when I got pregnant: I wasn't working (didn't get a response to any application i filled out), my husband lost his job due to the company closing and was unemployed for about 3-4 months, we didn't have health insurance, and we were just trying to get adjusted to our married life, let alone dealing with all the complications to life that pregnancy brings.

If God means for it to happen, it'll happen no matter what. And he'll take care of the other details.
NFP isn't birth control because it's not being against the possibility of life. And I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this in a previous post (I kind of just skimmed it all), but you can't just practice NFP "because you feel like it".... you have to have a valid reason to. But that's between your spouse, God, and your priest/spiritual director.

 

[dusky_tresses]

Like I said before, someone is always going to take a stab at what can happen in someone's life. Not being married very long has everything to do with it-- we would have certainly gotten divorced or separated, who knows! Try dealing with not having health insurance for over a year-- that would certainly make for a responsible way to get prenatal care. Not to mention my body's so unhealthy who knows if I could even have a healthy pregnancy without huge consequences. My husband and I are in no position to have a child-- we still have a lot to work through between ourselves.

And no, I don't want to just pop out a ton of kids either just because I feel like it. That seems rather irresponsible, doesn't it?

I guess I just don't have enough faith. (end of sarcasm)

 

[Assisi]

dusky_tresses, to be honest it's no one's business whether or not you are able to have children at this point in your marriage. Please don't feel like Catholics can judge you or your decision. It is between you, your husband, and God.

Paul says not to deprive each other 'except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.' What does this mean? Does it mean that we must have regular sex? Does it mean that illness is not a good reason to tell our husband's 'not tonight'? Does it mean that if we're not having sex it must only be because we've decided to have a prayer-a-thon for the evening instead?

No.

I think he's telling us not to treat sex as a weapon against each other, not to ignore our sex lives, not to put sex second to some evil means of satifying our lusts (like porn), and not to treat sex as 'what's in it for me'. Don't deny one another. Not having sex for a time is okay as long as we do it prayerfully and make sure to come together again.

I could say some stuff about why I think NFP is different to contraception, but first, do you agree with the above? What do you think Paul is saying here?

 

[benedictaoo]

Like I said before, someone is always going to take a stab at what can happen in someone's life. Not being married very long has everything to do with it-- we would have certainly gotten divorced or separated, who knows! Try dealing with not having health insurance for over a year-- that would certainly make for a responsible way to get prenatal care. Not to mention my body's so unhealthy who knows if I could even have a healthy pregnancy without huge consequences. My husband and I are in no position to have a child-- we still have a lot to work through between ourselves.

And no, I don't want to just pop out a ton of kids either just because I feel like it. That seems rather irresponsible, doesn't it?

I guess I just don't have enough faith. (end of sarcasm)

I don't know what the sarcasm is for. I said, non of us can tell you if you are right or wrong. I have no idea if you are.

What I am saying is, it's not in the numbers, in how many... it is in the mentality, a anti life, a anti baby mentality. You can have zero and not be "sinning" or you can have 10 and be sinning... it is not about how many but about your attitude and mentality about it.

You have to figure out for yourself with God's help what your mentality about is. I can't tell you...

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I tend to agree with you, but I would point out that it isn't entirely accurate to say that the EO have maintained unity with the CC on this issue. Many have a view similar to the one described by Lambeth which you quoted, and in some North American parishes it is interpreted somewhat liberally. What is different though is that they are expected to discuss such matters with their spiritual advisers, and actually take that authority seriously.

Like many teachings among the Orthodox, it matters what jurisdiction you are in. The ROC has approve methods of contraception which do not have an abortive effect (e.g. IUDs, hormonal birth control), which essentially limits contraception to the use of condoms but that is Onanism without question. So by the ROC's own standards, there are no acceptable means of contraception even though they allow for the theoretical possibility. This seems serious ignorant and irrational, especially considering Russia's fertility crisis (60% of pregnancies end in abortion and the population is shrinking).

This also points out one of the fundamental problems with the Orthodox structure, whether something is right or wrong, true or false, depends on your jurisdiction, where you live. While the bishop has authority over his diocese, there needs to be centralization in certain issues in order to retain sanity and right reason.

The Fathers are unanimous in condemning both abortion and contraception (which dates back much farther than the invention of "the pill"). If the ROC, OCA, and other churches have abandoned the Fathers in this regard (and especially without any clear explanation of why), it goes to further prove that it is hard to maintain orthodoxy within the headless Orthodox structure. I refer only to those Orthodox who have maintained orthodoxy on this issue and I am well aware of its contention among Orthodox just as much as it is among Catholics. But Anglicans and Protestants have almost universally defined contraception and abortion as acceptable, the latter at least in some cases.

 

[MKJ]

Like many teachings among the Orthodox, it matters what jurisdiction you are in. The ROC has approve methods of contraception which do not have an abortive effect (e.g. IUDs, hormonal birth control), which essentially limits contraception to the use of condoms but that is Onanism without question. So by the ROC's own standards, there are no acceptable means of contraception even though they allow for the theoretical possibility. This seems serious ignorant and irrational, especially considering Russia's fertility crisis (60% of pregnancies end in abortion and the population is shrinking).

This also points out one of the fundamental problems with the Orthodox structure, whether something is right or wrong, true or false, depends on your jurisdiction, where you live. While the bishop has authority over his diocese, there needs to be centralization in certain issues in order to retain sanity and right reason.

The Fathers are unanimous in condemning both abortion and contraception (which dates back much farther than the invention of "the pill"). If the ROC, OCA, and other churches have abandoned the Fathers in this regard (and especially without any clear explanation of why), it goes to further prove that it is hard to maintain orthodoxy within the headless Orthodox structure. I refer only to those Orthodox who have maintained orthodoxy on this issue and I am well aware of its contention among Orthodox just as much as it is among Catholics. But Anglicans and Protestants have almost universally defined contraception and abortion as acceptable, the latter at least in some cases.

Well, I think I disagree about centralization, but that is a somewhat different discussion.

I do agree that the Father's are pretty much down on contraception, but I don't agree that the Orthodox have offered no explanation - to me it hinges on their understanding of the purposes of marriage. Whereas Catholicism understands procreation to be one of the fundamental purposes, Orthodoxy doesn't in the same way> I suspect this rests ultimately on their different views on original sin and human nature as being changed by it, or not.

Interestingly, this could also allow for a marriage without any sex at all, which seems much more accepted as legitimate among the Orthodox. Many Catholics get quite perturbed when this possibility is mentioned (and I'm speaking of serious Catholics, not the wishy-washy ones.)

The Protestant Churches in general have really missed the boat on this issue, and certainly those that consider themselves pro-choice are pretty incomprehensible to me, even without holding to a strictly Catholic definition of what that means.

 

[MKJ]

dusky_tresses, to be honest it's no one's business whether or not you are able to have children at this point in your marriage. Please don't feel like Catholics can judge you or your decision. It is between you, your husband, and God.

Paul says not to deprive each other 'except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.' What does this mean? Does it mean that we must have regular sex? Does it mean that illness is not a good reason to tell our husband's 'not tonight'? Does it mean that if we're not having sex it must only be because we've decided to have a prayer-a-thon for the evening instead?

No.

I think he's telling us not to treat sex as a weapon against each other, not to ignore our sex lives, not to put sex second to some evil means of satifying our lusts (like porn), and not to treat sex as 'what's in it for me'. Don't deny one another. Not having sex for a time is okay as long as we do it prayerfully and make sure to come together again.

I could say some stuff about why I think NFP is different to contraception, but first, do you agree with the above? What do you think Paul is saying here?

This is a really good post.