Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I have no problem with them at all. The Catholic faith, that I left,
    did NOT support them.....at least the Pope didn't. Many people in
    my former parish did use birth control.
    
    Marc H.

	I support the use of them.



Glen

    From the Catholic Christian perspective, the use of artificial birth control
    does not allow the possibility of the creation of life through the
    procreative act according to God's Will. This violates the Sacrament of
    Marriage. 
    
    Birth control pills do not really keep fertilization from occuring;
    they do not allow a fertilized egg to have a natural environment within
    the womb necessary for development. In this way, birth control pills
    are actually a means of first-month abortion.
    
    Mary
     
    

    Re: .3
    
    Mary,
      Just to keep the discusion on track...I do not agree with
    you...but...I'm sure that we will just have to leave it at that.
    
    Marc H.

I just want to interject that I value and respect Mary's perspective and
appreciate her willingness to share it here, knowing not all here would
wholly agree with it.

It is important, at least to me, that we not exclude the traditional
Christian perspectives.

Peace,
Richard

I don't approve of birth control being freely distributed to dependent minors,
as I have stated in another note.  It sends the wrong message.  It tacitly
says, "Go ahead.  Go out and do it.  It's expected that you will.  Just take
some precautions, that's all."

I would favor a campaign promoting abstinence as the preferred - and the most
reasonable and responsible - behavior for dependent minors.  I would favor
acceptance of masturbation as a legitimate avenue of release for the apparently
uncontrollable condition known as "raging hormones."

I believe adults should have access to birth control.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .5
    
    Indeed, I was hoping for a complete sharing of ideals when I opened
    this topic, so I thank Mary for her response.
    
    However, I also believe that artificial means of brith control will be
    the only salvation for the human race on this planet from the
    environmental ravages that will be created by excess human population.
    
    I also think that just handing out birth control devices/drugs to
    teens are a mistake.  Clearly, there is a great need to teach them the
    value of not entering into sexual liasons before they are emotionally
    and physically ready.  However, just saying "no" is not a satisfactory
    approach to the problem, in my opinion.  Providing full and complete
    information on the moral, ethical, and physical aspects of the human
    reproductive system is, it seems to me.
    
    A full range of contraception methods should remain completely
    available on demand for adults, of course.
    
    Mike

    An age cutoff is never right for any one person. If I was to pick an
    age, I would use 18 years old. Thats when you can die for your country,
    vote, and most people tend to leave home at that age to( mentally 
    at least).
    
    Marc H.

    
    The whole idea that there is any valid message other than "abstinence"
    until marriage is an idea from hell.  The Bible and Christian tradition
    is absolutely clear on the sinfulness of fornication.  Yes this says
    deny your flesh.  There are consequences to sin and it is death -
    spiritual and physical.  To teach anyone differently is to deny the
    Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    
    You cannot promote birth control for the masses and hold to the
    Christian faith at the same time.
    
    jeff

In article <508.7-920820-092810@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, msmith@solvit.enet.dec.com (So, what does it all mean?) writes:
|>X-Note-Id: 508.7 (7 replies)
|>    I also think that just handing out birth control devices/drugs to
|>    teens are a mistake.  Clearly, there is a great need to teach them the
|>    value of not entering into sexual liasons before they are emotionally
|>    and physically ready.  However, just saying "no" is not a satisfactory
|>    approach to the problem, in my opinion.  Providing full and complete
|>    information on the moral, ethical, and physical aspects of the human
|>    reproductive system is, it seems to me.
|>    

	Oh, I wish I had written it down!  In the past year I read an article
in one of the news magazines that focused on teen pregnancies.  A large
majority of the girls they talked to indicated that in fact they had
wanted to have a baby because they wanted someone to love and someone to
love them.  They indicated as well that they knew about and understood
contraceptives but chose not to use them.  I don't think that education
is the total answer.  I'm not sure what is either.


---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.zko.dec.com
Gordon			or
Loptson		clt::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881 2221



			

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    Re: .10
    
    Who about married couples?
    
    Marc H.

    re: several
    
    My "Christian-Perspective" is a Catholic one, and I understand that
    the majority of readers here will not have the same viewpoint. I enter
    it with this understanding and without demanding that anyone here agree
    with me.
    
    re: .5
    
    I disagree that artificial means of birth control will be the only
    salvation of the human race on this planet from environmental, food,
    etc. problems.
    
    The salvation in this area will be when all people accept
    responsibility for their procreative and sexual acts according to 
    God's Will. Basically, only a fraction of the total world population,
    even amongst Christians, probably even TRIES to do this. It is also
    a wider issue than birth control; it has to do with how a marriage
    is lived completely according to God's Will with both the man and
    woman willing to have periods of abstainence as needed to naturally
    regulate procreation. 
    
    Beyond what I have already mentioned concerning the problems with
    birth control as a means of regulating population, there are other
    more ominious ones on the horizon which were virtually prophesized
    in the Encyclical on procration in the 1960's. 
    
    With the "pill", also in the 60's, procreative regulation seemed to be
    put into our hands. However, their use has led to decisions against
    the family and to decisions for a promiscuious lifestyle in general
    since there were no apparent consequences to the sex act anymore except
    "old fashioned morals". 
    
    Now the "singles lifestyle" is even accepted in our culture and an even
    greater evil is being accepted - that of abortion on demand. This has
    become the "fall-back" position for unwanted pregnancies and it kills
    1,600,000 human babies each year just in the USA. It is being demanded
    as a "right" and it does not even protect late-term abortions from
    occuring.
    
    This is not where the problem is going to stop, either. There is
    already a growing 'coldness' in our society against the undereducated,
    handicapped, mentally ill, those with a range of mental/physical
    deficiencies, and even the aged. We have campaigns to make euthanasia
    legal already. 
    
    Our families are already dispersed and nuclear with few children. What
    happens when the parents need care in their old age? With the children
    all working, there is no one to take them in. What happens if our
    social net that would put them in a nursing home fails?  How will 
    they manage?
    
    We are seeing the first appearance of really scary people on our
    political front : David Duke, Pat Buchannan to name two, who easily
    seem to write-off whole groups of our society as somehow being 
    less worthy. What happens when a person with such a view of others 
    gains political backing and laws are changed "for the good of the 
    people" which allows for the "unwanted" of our society to be 
    eliminated or treated poorly? 
    
    Therefore, when we as a people say that life is unwanted, whether in
    a marriage or otherwise, we start down a dangerous path. It becomes
    easy with precidents to start writing off other people, but one day
    it could be us that is written off!  When economic or other reasons
    become a higher priority than maintaining life, as we see today in
    many ways then we are already on the path.
    
    Unfortunatly, before anything significant can change, society must
    accept these truths about life and about the anti-life program of
    our current society. Until that recognition occurs, that ours is 
    a road to destruction, we will not be able to effectively change 
    things with little programs that pick at the problem.
    
    The best thing that can be done is to really live out God's will in
    the area of sexuality and respect for life. This takes His Grace to
    do, certainly, and it is not easy. Parents must be the example and
    to teach their kids by a complete and non-contradictory pro-life
    ethical and moral viewpoint.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary
    

    RE: .13
    
    What are, if any, exceptable Birth Control methods for married couples?
    
    Marc H.

Here's where I draw the line:

Is the person under 21 years of age and is the person economically and
legally dependant on his or her parent(s) or guardian(s)?

Emancipated minors might be a exception worth considering.

I don't agree with the "old enough to join the military arguement" because
the military serves as a strict surrogate parent, making all the judgments
and decisions for the person.  Very little independant thinking goes on in
the military.

Mature enough to make high consequence decisions and to take responsibility
for those decisions, would be my suggested guideline.

Peace,
Richard

I am the product of a congenital disease called Spinal Muscular Atrophy, or
Muscular Atrophy of Spinal Origin.  What this has meant in my life is that
my arms, legs and neck muscles are extremely weak, I have severe curvature
of the spine.  I had difficulty walking even as a child when I could walk.
I have required the use of a wheelchair since the age of eight.  Practically
speaking, it means I will never be able to enjoy the degree of physical
autonomy that most people do.

I had been advised by a doctor that the results of testing indicated that my
sperm count was too low to conceive a child.  And so, naturally, we didn't use
birth control.  And so, naturally, that's when my son, Ricky, was conceived.

My son doubtlessly carries the recessive gene.  One of our descendants could
inherit the condition full-blown under the right circumstances.  Ricky will
never experience first-hand the effects of the disease --- thank God!

Since, I have joined the ranks of the Society for the Prevention of Any More
Jones-Christies by having a vasectomy.

I've already talked with Ricky (12) several times about getting genetic
counseling before he decides to have children of his own.  I've told him
that when the time comes, I'd gladly pay for the genetic counseling.

Incidentally, I had a long, long talk about matters pertaining to sex with
Ricky several months ago.  He now wears a promise ring, which says he has
promised to his parents that he will refrain from engaging in sex with anyone
until he is either married or at least 21.  When he marries, he may give it
to his spouse to symbolize his faithfulness.

Peace,
Richard

    I am in general agreement with many sentiments here.

   People should be concerned with the population problem
   and not make it someone elses concern...  How they do that is
   a matter of personal concern and their conscience.

   If birth control is employed is should be available, reliable,
   and safe.  The condom, pill, and others do not meet both
   specifications.  The pill is hormones and potentially dangerous 
   for some women and does fail. The barrier methods are very 
   unreliable.  Abstinense works well but may not meet the needs
   or either or both parties and is also prone to fail.  Surgical 
   methods are generally permanent.  Science has done a poor job
   and has mostly targeted the woman as the person to decide when,
   how, and risk levels.  

   Children, they deserve education _and_ rules.  We tell little kids
   to not run in th street, but as they get older they also learn why.
   We don't wait till they are teenagers to tell them why playing
   in traffic is dangerous.  It should be the same for sex, take the
   mystery out of it and so when they get the urges they know what
   they are and how to deal with it.  There is no set age for learning
   or rules.  While I'm at it someone needs to be clear that sex is
   not bad, but irresponsable sex is, just like drug abuse.  Yet I've
   grown up around lot's of people that are borderline sex addicts
   because of confusion over sex, intimacy, and love.


   Peace,
   Allison

    re: .15
    
    Within the Catholic teachings, the proper birth control methods for 
    married couples are various methods taught which rely on abstainence
    during the wife's monthly time of fertility. The current method most
    in use is Natural Family Planning which conducts training on the
    procedure. (Since I am single, I'm not sure of the details of the
    procedure or how exactly the training is obtained; I think the 
    Catholic diocean office on the Family has that info.)
    
    Catholics are taught by the church that this NFP method is valid only
    if the couple is not doing it based on improper motives (such as the
    desire not to have any children even if they could be afforded, a greed
    concerning putting career over the possibility of children, etc., which
    would be a sin against the sacrament of marriage).
    
    Therefore, the couple should have a basic acceptance of having children
    if God so wills in their lives, but through NFP or more general
    abstainence they could plan their family development. This of course
    has some risks of possible pregnancy, but this is where God is allowed
    to act in the family and such preganancies would be welcome as from
    God. 
    
    NFP does require mutual restraint on the part of both couples, but
    the church sees this as being something which binds the marriage if
    both partners accept the responsibilities involved. If lived correctly,
    it promotes mutual respect for each partner in the relationship, not
    just in decisions regarding pregnancies. 
    
    This is often a very difficult concept to get across, and the Catholic
    Church desires that every couple who will be married in the Church
    go through a pre-marriage counseling session (Pre-Cana); birth control
    is not the only topic and it is probably brushed aside by both the 
    couples and the priest/counselor these days. The sessions are to help
    couples understand the responsibilities involved in a marriage to help
    them be better prepared and to help issues surface which may not have
    been resolved by the couple themselves (how each views/handles money,
    working/not working when children come along, family relationships,
    etc.); the hope is that this will decrease the number of requests for
    annullments at a later date.
    
    As far as abstainence within a marriage goes, I have read accounts from
    some married couples who have intentionally, and sometimes due to
    curcumstances, gone through such stretches. When it is voluntary or
    agreed upon as being necessary by both couples, it has a positive
    effect on the marriage. The couple experiences renewal in other areas
    of their relationship and then also sexually when they resume
    intercourse.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary
    

    re: .18
    
        Another things kids need is positive role models by adults, other kids
    and in our culture. Right now parents, adults, and our media culture
    tells kids either outright or through the way they act that it's 
    impossible to abstain and that it's unhealthy to 'suppress' their sexual 
    urges. They're also told that they're 'uncool' (or whatever the 90's 
    lingo is for being old-fashioned) or mocked in some other way.
    
        It certainly is not easy getting through the years of 'raging
    hormones' without intercourse, but it is possible and up until the
    60's it was expected of teenagers and young adults. Of course a certain
    percentage did not manage it, but it was not the cultural norm. Also,
    there were less unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and single parents in
    society so the social impact of these issues were less and when they
    occured.
    
        With youths and young adults sexually active before they are
    responsible and mature, is it any wonder more and more children are
    living in poverty, women (usually) are raising children alone, and
    abortion is so 'necessary' in our society?
    
    Praying for better for all of our people,
    
    Mary
    
    
    

    Mary,
    
    	I would be less inclined to blame everything on the "'60s," as
    is currently in vogue among those, like Pat Robertson, who boast
    of their political incorrectness.
    
    	Otherwise, I generally agree with .20.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    re: .17
    
    Richard, in another decade, if not now, precious humans like you will
    be tested for and eliminated in the womb. If you had taken certain
    steps, your son Ricky would not be part of your life right now.
    
    When it comes to something we've never had it is an easier decision to
    make, but when it becomes people we know then the consequences become
    more apparent.
    
    The Catholic Church promotes an openness to the possibility of life and
    then respect and care for life after it is born, no matter the genetic
    or other 'shape' of that life. 
    
    When humans either personally or through their 'laws' starts giving
    themselves the 'right' to determine which life is valuable and which
    life can be eliminated or discarded then no life is truely safe or 
    can be called sacred. Which life is 'protected' and which is not
    can become a political or economic decision.
    
    In China, where there is a two child limit, female babies are often
    aborted because males are prefered; the 'reason' for the abortion is
    usually given as something else, but both the statistics and cultural
    biases reveal the truth.
    
    In third world countries there are sterilization programs and birth
    control programs that specifically target certain 'less desirable'
    groups within the society. From time to time it is proposed in this
    country and there have even been judicial decisions along these lines
    in isolated cases.
    
    We are on the verge of gene manipulation that will make certain 
    characteristics selectable and, in a contrary fashion, make those
    people without the ability to 'select' their superior genes and also
    those who are in any way handicapped 'devalued' by the culture. Again,
    this could lead into some very dangerous ethics by those blinded by
    health care, finances, or bigotry concerns.
    
    How would the world be if every life was considered precious and
    sacred?
    
    Mary
    

    Mary .22,
    
    	Every human is of sacred worth to me and, I believe, to God.
    
    	Our decision to limit our offspring to 2 children (Jennifer is my
    stepdaughter by Sharon's previous marriage) was a conscious and, I
    firmly believe, a *conscientious* decision.
    
    	Indeed, genetic engineering will create a considerable amount of
    moral dialogue and debate, as it should.  The future looks just as full
    of moral considerations as did the past.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

  Tom,

   I was refering to NFP or any of the cycle monitoring approaches.
   They are not 100% reliable.  It may be due to unwillingness to follow
   through or medical problems masking the important signals.  On the 
   medical side it is nearly impossible to apply if the woman is prone
   to irregular cycle. On the relationship side it means when there is
   uncertainty or doubt around fertility status to say no unless one
   is willing to become pregnant. It requires both partners to be totaly
   commited to the idea of "not tonight".  It also places the burden of
   knowing when entirely on the woman.  

   I didn't say it wasn't a viable method just equally imperfect as
   others. It does work though.  It is also the only method that works
   in reverse by increasing likelyhood if you do want children.

   None the less the whole thing still leaves me thinking about the
   differences between the pill/barrier/or cycle as birth control.
   When I ignore the method and look at the goal of avoiding pregnancy,
   really what's the difference if you actively have to persue it in
   order to not have children?  Does actively trying to not have 
   children and for the moment ignoring how violate teachings?  That
   last question understandably is only valid to some depending on if
   you beleve the commandment to be fruitful and multiply.

   Peace,
   Allison

    Re.25

    Allison:

             Your point about the intent in using NFP being the same
      as "artificial" methods is something that I have always wondered
      about myself. I am inclined to think that birth control is birth
      control.
             H.L. Mencken once wrote that he could not understand why
      the Catholic church would "Allow a women to use mathematics, but
      not chemistry to avoid pregnancy." Both NPF and artificial birth
      control rely on science to prevent contraception. 

                                                               Mike
                                                               Mike

   Mike,

   The reason I've heard several time is that NFP does not preclude
   the possibility of pregnancy if it is God's will.  Well if it's 
   God's will nothing else will work either.  The pill and even
   vasectomies have been known to fail...  

   Peace,
   Allison

    Mencken didn't understand much.
    
    Can we discuss birth control without ridicule of the Catholic Church?
    No, I don't think so.

    RE: .29  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    			     I am getting very tired of this "ridicule" 
    syndrom of your's.  How did Mike ridicule the Catholic Church?  He 
    was quoting for goodness sake.  *AND* since the Catholic Church is the
    only major church that doesn't allow birth control through chemistry,
    it is normal and even correct to bring that issue up.  Isn't that part
    of the issue in this string?  I might suggest that you look toward God
    for your answers instead of depending on a man to interpret his words
    for you.  To use your own arguments....where in the Bible does it say
    not to use birth control pills?  And yes I would love to hear an answer
    as to why math is ok and not pills.  Is it because a man said so?  I
    would rather depend on God, thank you.
    
    
    Dave

    Mike in quoting Mencken ridiculed the Roman Catholic Church by making
    it the object of laughter.
    
    And Dave get used to the idea that there are Catholics who will speak
    up for their beliefs and defend their faith.

    If offense is taken at an attempt to point out a *seeming*
    inconsistency, we won't get very far.  I did not take .27 to be
    ridicule, but I am not Roman Catholic.  I thought it was an interesting
    point to ponder.

    RE: .31  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    			   As a Southern Baptist "fundie" I get 'beat' on
    pretty good.  Yes, and even laughed at but if I took every comment
    seriously, I would have no time to share....I would be constantly
    defending myself.  I worship God not the church.
    
    			   I have *NO* problems with Catholics, here or
    elsewhere.  I welcome them but when there is almost paranoia about
    anyone other than Catholics using the word Catholic then its time to
    speak out.  Mr. Sweeney.....I do not or do I imagine many people,
    equate beliefs and faith with their church.
    
    			   In my last, I asked some interesting questions.
    Care to answer any of them?
    
    
    Dave

   Brother Patrick,

   Since I launched the question I am particually bemused by your offense.
   I don't know who Menchan is, I did find the comment Mike made to be
   very succicent and pointed and not humorous.  I did find it very valid.


   Peace,
   Allison

    re: .27
    
        There is a difference between mathematics and chemistry.
    
        Mathematics is non-intrusive and also requires the union of both God's
    will and the couples will (through abstainence) to be achieved. 
    
        Chemicals kill or cause to be killed either the sperm (spermicide) or, 
    potentially, a concieved child. The result of birth control pills is the 
    chemically-induced shedding of the uterine lining and any fertilized 
    embryo. This is actually an action of abortion at it's embryotic stage 
    where conception has occured. With the use of effective chemicals, the 
    couple dis-engages the sexual act from God's Will for the Sacrament of 
    Marriage and sex itself and provides ample opportunity for the couple to 
    be against God's will for them, which is sin.
    
        Concerning sexuality, God has given us two "vocations" : Marriage
    which is open to the creation of life, and Virginity in which the
    individual foregoes sexual activity for God. Both 'authorized' ways
    are given to us by God our of His Love for us; what that means is
    that they are the ways to happiness and fulfillment in Christ. Other
    ways will be paths of sin and lead to destruction. 
    
        When people go outside the means that God has given us to deal with
    our sexuality, then what we are saying is that 1) we know better than
    God what is right or will make us happy, 2) that we don't think God
    is all Good or wishing us only good things. These are signs of weak
    faith and pride when we cannot trust God and His Word.
    
        It is argued, and will be, that the Church does not succesfully
    interpert God's Will on these matters properly. In this case, I ask
    in what manner God's truth IS passed through generations?  Why would
    God change nearly 2000 years of teachings on sexuality in the last
    half of a nortoriously corrupt generation? 
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

    Mencken intended the comment to be humorous.  He was a satirist, not a
    serious commentator on Catholicism.  In fact, he really didn't know
    much about Catholicism and what he did know was distorted by his own
    Protestant childhood.
    
    If you want participation in this conference, stop the personalization
    of attacks.  If you are bemused by my reply, then I am offended by your
    bemusement.
    
    I don't have to defend every attempt to make Roman Catholic beliefs the
    object of laughter but I have every right to.  I chose to speak out on
    this one.
    
    It would be "paranoia" if there was not ridicule of Roman Catholic
    belief in this topic, but there it appears in 508.27
    
    The anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigotry of Mencken is tolerated.
    His anti-black and anti-Semitism bigotry is not.
    
    The Roman Catholic teaching on human life respects marriage and human
    life.

   I give up.  What further is there to gain or learn.

   This is just another dead topic for me now.

   Peace,
   Allison

    RE: .36  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    			  Pray tell how .27 made a personal attact against
    you?  Your constant claim of ridicule and personalization of attacks is
    quickly losing you credibility.  Now *I* do know something about
    Catholicism....do you *really* want me to start asking questions?  But
    then again I have yet to see any substantive answers to the previous
    questions with the notable exception of Mary and I thank her for that.
    
    
    			  I have seen over the years your love for this
    country and its precepts including freedom of speech.  Why can't you
    carry that belief over to your church?  It seems anytime a non-catholic
    makes any comment on the Catholic Church you are calling it ridicule. 
    That is *NO* answer and only muddy's the water for honest seekers. 
    Answer the charges and prove them false instead of claiming persecution
    every time.  
    
    
    Dave

    'Tis a sad day when even this conference cannot be immune from tactics
    designed to stifle discussions that had been noting more than open and
    frank, but not disrespectful.  I guess some folks just like to be in
    constant control. 
    
    Mike

    If Mencken makes you laugh, go ahead and laugh and share in the
    experience of bigotry.

    Mencken neither makes me laugh, nor not laugh.  However, it is a sad
    day when an organization as powerful as the Catholic Church cannot
    chuckle at some of its own foibles.  Lighten up a bit, Patrick.
    
    Mike

    Whenever anti-Semitic bigotry, anti-gay bigotry, anti-black bigotry
    appears in a conference there's no chorus of "lighten up"'s.
    
    Rather there is outrage and there ought to be.
    
    Roman Catholic beliefs should not be made the object of laughter.
    
    There's at lot to laugh at other than people who are trying to follow
    their conscience in doing God's will in a world that is turning away
    from God.

    I most sincerely doubt any laughter was generated in this conference
    by Mencken's words which Mike cited in .27.  I am sure it served to 
    engender further contemplation on the issue, as it did for me.  
    
    It is unfortunate, imo, that discussions which ask honest questions 
    seem to continually get side-tracked by claims of bigotry, persecution 
    and ridicule of the Catholic Church;  and yet as of late, I have seen 
    much more intense questioning of Jehovah's Witnesses in this conference 
    and their beliefs bordering on, imo again, ridicule and persecution.
    
    Thank you Mary for sharing your understanding in .35.  It is most
    appreciated and also thought-provoking.
    
    Karen

    RE: .42 Mr. Sweeney,
    
    			  As I have said before *AND* I say again, I see
    nothing in .27 which is ridicule or defaming to the Catholic Church.
    The amusement....which you seem to have forgotten....was by another
    noter and was directed at your over-reaction to the note.  I am *NOT* 
    laughing and yet you ignore my questions.  Which way do you want it Mr.
    Sweeney?  Do you want discussion or to fuss some more?
    
    
    Dave  

    People have been laughing at Mencken's targets since the turn of the
    century.  I don't see how human nature has changed.
    
    I don't know why "honest questions" can't be raised without the sort of
    ridicule of .27, do you?
    
    The Roman Catholic position had already been stated earlier, namely
    that awareness of the dates on which a wife is fertile can be used as
    a guide to herself and her husband for when to have sexual intercourse.

    If you wanted it restated, well, it just has been.

    RE: .45  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    				*WHAT RIDICULE*??????
    
    
    Dave

    Since you asked, the quotation in .27 is not an invitation to
    respectful discussion of the Christian perspective on birth control,
    but a mocking wisecrack of an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic bigot.
    
    It makes Roman Catholic belief the object of laughter.

Note 507.7

>    One is a choice affirming life, the other is a choice denying life.
    
Pat,

	Well, I think I can see what you're getting at.  As it says in the OT
(paraphrasing here), "I set before you life and death.  Choose life."  Am I
correct?

	Allow me to suggest that while fertility drugs are used to artificially
enhance one's natural pro-generative ability, birth control drugs might be
thought of as artificially reinforcing one's choice to remain non-generative.

	Practicing NFP, after all, could be considered choosing to deny
life also, could it not?  I mean, perhaps I have a false notion of what NFP
is all about, but NFP seems to me to be a pretty contrived way of
controlling reproduction.

	And if it is contrived, then how natural could it be?

	Mind you, I'm not saying that something is wrong or sinful or evil
simply because it might not be considered natural.  For example, I owe my
mobility to a motorized wheelchair.  To me, this item is extremely beneficial
and a technological Godsend.  However, a vehicle such as mine cannot be found
anywhere in nature.  It is highly contrived.  It is the product of human
engineering and manufacturing.  And it is ultimately an artificial aid.  I
would be quick to add that so are telephones and computer systems, both of
which I use extensively.

Richard

      
      Re.47

    Pat:
          I realize that it is currently politically correct to disparage
      the writings of H.L. Mencken. This however does not alter the fact
      that despite his personal shortcomings he was a keen observer of
      human nature and the culture of the time and place in which he lived.
           He is considered by many , myself included, to deserve a place
      along side Mark Twain as a satirist and social commentator. Is is
      also currently politically correct to disparage Twain who was far
      from being an open minded individual. 
           Twain like Mencken directed his barbs at a wide range of targets
      including the Catholic Church. 
           As a former Catholic and as a person with members of his family
      who are practicing Catholics I am very sensitive about anti-Catholic
      bigotry. 
           Since you call even the slightest disagreement with or humor
      about Christianity or Catholicism bigotry it is impossible to have
      a "respectful discussion" with you. At least it seems that way to
      me.
           I had hoped my reply would stimulate a discussion about the
      intent of birth control as opposed to means of contraception.
      I believe that the means of contraception are really quite
      irrelevant. Both the intent and the result are identical whether or
      one uses NFP or so called "artificial" methods. 
           I get the impression that you would like to make sure this
      line of discussion never sees the light of day. Why ?


                                                               Mike    
      

    I concede that Mencken was a "keen observer", but a bigoted one.  His
    "personal shortcomings" have destroyed the myth that his cronies
    created for him, namely that he was...objective.  Mencken was just
    another Black- Jew- Catholic- Immigrant- hating Nativist elitist of his
    era.  Twain in public was the same as he was in private.  Mencken's
    place in history will carry the burden of being a hypocrite.
    
    As for your claim that I would "like to make sure this line of
    discussion never sees the light of day".  That's an incorrect and 
    insulting assertion.  Readers here are likely not to care for an
    extended discussion of your "impression" of what I "like".  I decline.

   Please,

   At this point I ask that and discussion of H. L. Mencken or Twain
   for that fact be taken to somewhere else or a new note.

   Peace,
   Allison
   Co-moderator

    First, NFP doesn't deny God's will.  It is is God's will that we be
    fruitful and multiply.  Jesus elevated the state of marriage during his
    ministry on Earth.  But to claim that knowledge of the days during a
    month when a woman is fertile is forbidden reduces us to the biological
    machines that the other side accuses Catholic teaching of forcing
    Catholics to become.

    Secondly, natural family planning is safe, inexpensive, and effective.
    It is not the denial of sex but the postponement of intercourse during
    the 4 to 6 days when the indicator of vaginal mucus indicates that an
    egg is about to be released.  If you have the discipline to do this,
    this it is the best birth control method, Catholic or not.  I will
    concede that people are conditioned by the secular culture to never
    deny an impulse, so this is not for everyone.

    Catholic teaching is based on human nature: that the love that unites a
    husband and wife, the pleasure, and the procreation are joined.

    Different methods of contraception have to be examined in light of both
    their positives and negatives.  It was not the Catholic Church that
    argued for the IUD or megadoses of hormones as birth control methods.
    Each year in painful and expensive operations 15,000 women attempt to
    reverse earlier sterilizations.  Total control over conception has had
    unintended consequences.
                            

  Patrick,

 <   First, NFP doesn't deny God's will.  It is is God's will that we be
<    fruitful and multiply.  Jesus elevated the state of marriage during his
<    ministry on Earth.  

   This was the question I raised 25 notes ago.  How is it that picking
   a time to abstain is any less deliberate then using another method?

<    Secondly, natural family planning is safe, inexpensive, and effective.
<    It is not the denial of sex but the postponement of intercourse during

   I never said the method is bad or Catholic.  It is widely practiced
   and accepted.  I also said before that is was a method of choice for
   getting pregant especially if fertility is problematic.  While is has
   some obvious problems it has equal or advantages as well.

<    Catholic teaching is based on human nature: that the love that unites a
<    husband and wife, the pleasure, and the procreation are joined.

   No arguement.  More of the teaching is needed to be informative though.

<    Different methods of contraception have to be examined in light of both
<    their positives and negatives.  It was not the Catholic Church that
<    argued for the IUD or megadoses of hormones as birth control methods.
<    Each year in painful and expensive operations 15,000 women attempt to
<    reverse earlier sterilizations.  Total control over conception has had
<    unintended consequences.

   Some very valid points many I agree with.  A nit, it is not megadoses
   of hormones though it used to be.  It is actually a very small amount.
   The IUD did prove to be flat out dangerous.  The pill is bad for many
   women for other health reasons.  Sterilization has it's place but 
   it is of last resort and should have good justification even then I'm
   uncertain.  These are not the only methods, barrier is nearly as good
   as NFP yet Catholic Church does not approve.  Why?  
         
   Peace,
   Allison

    There is nothing immoral in being "deliberate".  It is other aspects of
    artificial birth control that make them in opposition to the teachings
    of the Roman Catholic Church.  The enabling element of NFP is knowledge
    that there is only a few number of days during each menstrual cycle
    when a woman is fertile.

    The "safe" label that was applied to the IUD and megadose
    hormone-based oral contraceptives was the label applied by "science".
    Of course, science is an on-going process of the discovery of what
    makes women sterile, sick, and die, but in the meantime let me be
    faithful to what I believe to be God's plan for my family's life.

    Why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church approve barrier method of birth
    control?  Because it denies the natural union of marital love and
    procreation.

    For an overall context regarding why I'm in this: I want to make sure
    that Roman Catholic teaching on birth control is presented accurately,
    and if it is to be debated, let it happen without ridicule.  I have no
    interest in "imposing my views on others". 

    RE: .29
    
    Mencken understood a lot. But that's another subject.
    
    Lets don't jump to any conclusions about ridicule of the catholic
    church........
    
    Marc H.

    Let's not jump to the conclusion that Mencken wasn't a bigot either.

    
    Could someone please tell me the difference, from a Catholic
    perspective, between using the rhythm method and say, using a
    diaphragm?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

    Re: .58
    
    I've read some of Menchen's writing, rather than getting my knowledge
    from an Encyclopedia.
    
    But, I'll drop the Menchen discussion.
    
    I find the catholic method of birth control to be wrong. I just can't
    buy it. I believe that God gave us the knowledge of chemistry to
    help control the population. I also believe that Sex is a fundamental
    part of being a person, and that birth control is an excellent
    way to intergrate the natural sexual desire into a reasonable
    number of children.
    
    By the way, a personal note: I have 5 children by choice. Also,
    in my former catholic parish, the majority of the couples had
    two children; again by their choice. My conversations with
    a number of them indicated that they did not use the "natural"
    method.
    
    Marc H.

    From a Catholic perspective you might want to read the notes in this
    string that are written by professed Catholics.

    The rhythm method used the calendar and the average length of the
    menstrual cycle to determine fertility.  It was not as effective as
    later natural methods and is no longer taught.  The Billings or
    Ovulation method uses the viscosity of vaginal discharge as the
    indicator.  Delaying conception is a matter of delaying intercourse
    until an infertile interval starts.
    
    The moral difference between a diaphram and natural methods has already
    been mentioned.

    
<    Could someone please tell me the difference, from a Catholic
<    perspective, between using the rhythm method and say, using a
<    diaphragm?

   Carole,

   This is the same question I had asked a few notes back about NFP and
   barrier methods.  The answer wasn't clear, I was hoping for a more
   complete explanation.  Especially since both methods require concious
   and deliberate actions to implement.  I am unable to get any idea what
   the difference is as it seems the same to me.  

   FYI: The so called rhythm method is the precuser to NFP.  Diaphram,
   condom, are barrier methods, they are supplmented frequently with
   spermicides.

   Peace,
   Allison

re Note 508.54 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church approve barrier method of birth
>     control?  Because it denies the natural union of marital love and
>     procreation.
  
        This requires a lot of explanation, please.

        Bob

I believe that the important part of the Vatican teaching is lost within
the absolute nature of the teaching (a typically Anglican view).

Every act of sexual intercourse _is_ open to the possibility that the partners
will participate with God in the process of creation.  This is fact, not just
opinion.

No birth control method can change the fact that a conception may occur,
because no method is 100% reliable.  Every conception is part of God's will
for the continuing creation of the human race, as stated in Genesis 1:28
and 9:7, where God commands humankind to be fruitful and multiply, first
at creation and again when giving us the Noachide Covenant.

Thus, _even_if_ NFP (or any other method, for that matter) is used, the
couple must be prepared AND WILLING, every single time they have sex, to
proceed lovingly with any pregnancy that results.

While I think the condemnation of all use of artificial birth control goes
too far, I think misuse of birth control by couples who subvert the natural
order of creation by being unwilling to accept the possibility of creation
risk changing sex within marriage from an act of love to an act of lust and
risk accidentally creating children they really don't want (and may neglect,
abuse, or abort).

In my opinion, what is important is that every act of sex between two people
requires that their hearts and minds be open to God's will and the natural
order of creation, since their bodies always will be.

/john

    By saying that you find natural family planning to be "wrong", what do
    you mean?   Subjectively wrong for you or for some people you know, or
    objectively wrong for all people.  And by "wrong" do you mean
    "immoral", or "ineffective", or something else.

    I agree with you that sex is a "fundamental part of being a person" but
    control of oneself and not passively giving up to every appetite,
    greed, lust, and impulse, is also a fundamental part of being a person.

    I also agree with you that nearly all couples choose the number of
    children that they would like to have.  Catholics have been embarrassed
    into believing that natural family planning is difficult and
    ineffective and therefore don't bother to learn more about it.

    
    Thanks for the replies, Patrick and Allison.
    
    Guess I still have the same question as you do Allison.  What is
    the difference if both methods are used to avoid pregnancy?
    Particularly if no "chemical" is used with the diaphragm.
    
    Sorry to have repeated the question.
    
    Carole

    
    
    ....finally....dawn breaks on Marblehead!  ;^)
    
    Please correct me if I am wrong.  Is the whole point here to
    refrain from sexual intercourse if pregnancy is not a desired outcome?
    Is part of it also that there should be no sexual pleasure if pregnancy
    is not a possible result?
    
    Carole

>    Please correct me if I am wrong.  Is the whole point here to
>    refrain from sexual intercourse if pregnancy is not a desired outcome?

	No, the whole point is to refrain from sexual intercourse if pregnancy
	is not an acceptable outcome.

>    Is part of it also that there should be no sexual pleasure if pregnancy
>    is not a possible result?

	No. Where did that idea some from?

			Alfred

    
    Wow Alfred!  I haven't seen you here for awhile and then a note from
    me brings a reply from you! ;^)
    
    Ok, so we are on the same track with my first question, though there
    is a difference between desire and acceptance.
    
    Regarding my second question....I dont' know - it was the next question
    that came into my head.  There's no problem in asking a question, is
    there?
    
    Carole
    

    RE: .60
    
    Cheap Shot!
    
    If you are going to constantly "whine" about the agenda here, then
    don't start having your own agenda. Just because I have left
    the catholic religion for another don't make my comments
    or imformation about catholics worthless.
    
    Marc H.

re .70

I think .60 was in reply to .57, not to you.

It was a statement that the "Catholic Perspective" had already been
presented by Mary and Pat.

Procreation and sex cannot be separated because "male and female
he created them.  And God blessed them, and God said to them, `Be
fruitful and multiply...'"

    It seems self-evident that there is a natural connection between
    marital love and procreation.
    
    If you don't believe there is one, perhaps this needs to be explained
    to me.

   John,

   I think your correct about it being .57.

   Regarding explanations, I feel your explanation provided more detail 
   as to why one approach is significant over another and what that means.

   I get the idea(unconfirmed) that Catholic teachings seperate
   intercourse from sexuality somewhat.  Let me elaborate, intercourse
   always has the responsabilty(a better word than risk) of pregnancy and
   children. It should not be entered lightly unless the couple is
   willing and prepared and full accepts that.  What I don't hear but
   believe is being said(unconfirmed again) is that within marriage
   sexuality without intercourse is also acceptable and beneficial to
   the marriage.  I may have said all this in concrete terms but I feel
   what leads me to that is very fuzzy and could be wrong.  The is part
   of the question I feel is unanswered as yet.  There maybe more
   questions still.

   Does this help?

   Peace,
   Allison

re Note 508.72 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     It seems self-evident that there is a natural connection between
>     marital love and procreation.
  
        There is a "natural connection" between ingestion and
        nutrition, but does that mean that it is immoral to consume
        non-nutritive food or drink, "natural" or man-made?

        The natural use of the mouth is obviously for eating,
        drinking, speaking, and sometimes breathing.  Does this mean
        that kissing is unnatural and, hence, immoral?  Does this mean
        that playing the saxophone is unnatural and, hence, immoral? 
        (I expect some conservatives to agree to the latter!)

        The existence of an obvious "natural" use of a body part or
        function does not render human-devised uses immoral.  Is it
        immoral to use your fingers to play the piano (it sure is
        unnatural)?

        Bob

| Is part of it also that there should be no sexual pleasure if pregnancy
| is not a possible result?

	Carol, this is a great question. It can be taken many ways. I found 2. 


1) No sexual pleasure, meaning no orgasm by any means.

2) If either the woman can't get pregnant because of <insert any reason> is 
   intercourse allowed as no one has the possibility to get pregnant?


	Are either one of these permitted?



Glen

   Patrick,

   RE: .72

<    It seems self-evident that there is a natural connection between
<    marital love and procreation.

   It is not self evident to me.  I might say it's likely.  Being
   somewhat bold about it procreation is a side effect of sex and all
   too often(unfortuantly) love has little to do with it. 

   I get that perspective from lifelong sterility, kinda like explaining
   noise to the deaf. 
    
<    If you don't believe there is one, perhaps this needs to be explained
<    to me.

   I guess the last was basis for a reason to explain.  I don't generally
   consider the Catholic perspective seperable from a generalized
   Christian perspective.  The explanation does fit here even though it
   might be assumed that everyone who is Christian would know this.  I am
   trying to draw out explanation and perspective especially when it is
   different from mine.  It's not always what I believe as a matter of
   faith.  This concerns what I just might learn.  I don't know all the
   answers and I am uncomfortable with being told it's obvious.  Some
   things are not obvious to me and i'm guessing others too.  Different
   experiences in life teach us things, the rest we learn.


   Peace,
   Allison

re: .75 and others

< | Is part of it also that there should be no sexual pleasure if pregnancy
< | is not a possible result?

<	Carol, this is a great question. It can be taken many ways. I found 2. 


< 1) No sexual pleasure, meaning no orgasm by any means.

< 2) If either the woman can't get pregnant because of <insert any reason> is 
   intercourse allowed as no one has the possibility to get pregnant?

<	Are either one of these permitted?


In a marriage, if fertility does not seem likely for medical reason or
menopause, etc., the couple may continue have intercourse as long as they
are willing to accept a pregnancy from the union. It was God in this case
who 1) took away natural fertility, and 2) makes the choice as to if it
is restored (consider Abram and Sara from Genesis). The method of sexual
intercourse WOULD allow for conception to occur if God so Wills.

Unions that have no biological possibility of producing a pregnancy through 
the sexual act (mastrubation, homosexual sex) would be a mis-use of sexuality 
and therefore a sin. 

Mary

    RE: .77  Mary,
    
    		      Just for information sake, is there any Biblical 
    references for this belief?
    
    
    Dave

Mary .77,

	I thank you for your explanation.

	Let me make certain I've understood what you are saying.  Are you saying
that those sexual acts which have no potential for reproduction, even within a
heterosexual married relationship, are sinful (according to the teachings of
the Roman Catholic Church)?

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .78
    
    Some scripture has been mentioned in earlier replies; in Genesis, God
    created the union between Adam and Eve and told them to be fruitful and
    multiply. This would be the #1 scriptural reference on God's intention
    for the physical union of man and woman. Is there something specific
    in what I wrote for which you wish a scriptural content? 
    
    The Church's teachings on sexuality is not formulated from one or even
    a few verses, but on the full context of what Scripture has revealed to
    us about our purpose and our sexuality.  
    
    This would include Old Testament laws on what is right and an
    abomination in God's eyes (Leviticus??), and confirmed as still valid
    in the New Testament writings of St. Paul. Jesus also stated that 
    fornicators would not enter His Kingdom. 
    
    Also, Jesus' teachings on marriage which includes that it is more than
    a physical union, but also a spiritual one that cannot be broken by
    man. The Church views this as being a Sacrament since it gives an
    outward sign (and also grace) of the final union that we, the Bride of
    Christ, will have with Christ in His Kingdom. For this reason, and
    others, it is sacred.
    
    I'm sorry that I don't have the ability to look these references up
    at this time.
    
    re: .79
    
    No. The bottom line is that sexual intercourse must be made between
    organs of the body, male and female, which naturally according to God's
    intention, would provide a possibility for conception to occur. Other
    'positions' used which have no biological ability to produce a
    pregnancy is a mis-use of those organs and is not 'natural' according
    to God's intention for them. 
    
    If infertility existed in one of the spouses and yet they had
    intercourse according to methods in which fertile couples concieve
    then this would be ok since upon God's Will, conception could naturally
    occur. (See Genesis - Abram and Sara, plus other places in scripture
    for accounts of God's action in this way; plus there are certainly
    many cases of 'miracle babies' in life being given to couples who
    thought they were unable to have children.)
    
    God's Will seems to be concerned with :
    
    *  Proper sacramental vocation :  marriage or celibate state
    
    *  Proper alignment of our will with God's will for us :
    
    		marriage - openness to creation of life in the sex act
    		celebate - self-denial of the sex act
    
    *  Proper use of the body (the temple of the Holy Spirit) in the
       manner that God naturally created it based on His purposes :
    
    		marriage - sexual organs used in a manner that would allow 
    			   procreation to occur
    
    		celebate - since self-denial of intercourse is the
                           vocation, there is no possible procreative use
    			   of the sexual organs possible.
    
    
    Hope this helps!
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

Mary .80,

	Once again, I thank you for your explanation.

	I think I understand now.

	Gosh, under the criteria you've provided, I guess my spouse and I've
been sinning away even more than I thought we had!!

Peace,
Richard

    Re: .80
    
    Thanks for the information Mary. I don't agree with it, but, I do
    respect your view.
    
    I differ in that within marriage, I believe that the couple can use
    birth control. I also believe that sex has more purpose than to
    *just* produce children. Sex is a basic, needed part of a marriage
    in and of itself. For this reason, birth control has its place in
    a marriage.
    
    
    Now, sex outside of marriage gets into gray areas.....I'm sure we will
    go there in this note though.
    
    Marc H.

    Sexual intercourse outside of marriage isn't a gray area.
    According to the Bible, it is immoral.
    
    People do it, but it is immoral.

    Re: .83
    
    Sorry, but, for me its a gray area.  I would like to hear your comments
    on it, really.
    
    As a starting point, is  everything *up* to sexual intercourse O.K.?
    Where do you draw the line? Kissing?
    
    Its a gray area for me, because it seems that the teachings of Jesus
    mentions how a sin is still a sin if its in your heart( can't quote
    the chapter and verse)...and I know that as a college student....I
    sinned. Also, the events leading up to sexual intercourse are *all*
    part of the total sexual experience. Where do you draw the line?
    
    Comments?
    
    Marc H.  

    Mary (.77),
    
    I too respect your views Mary, but I would have difficulty accepting
    them for myself.  I'm getting married next week and am unable to have
    any more children due to having a hysterectomy a couple of years ago. 
    Even though we have seven children between us, there is a part of me
    that would have loved a baby from this union but that is not to be. 
    Because we can't have children, does that make us sinners?  Not in my
    eyes, and I can't believe that would be true in God's eyes either.  I
    believe I'm marrying my spiritual partner and that this is a sacred
    union.  The three ministers of God who are performing the ceremony (my
    fiance's father, brother, and the Episcopal minister of his church who
    is a dear friend) bless this marriage and view it as holy relationship.
    
    One of the inspirations for the way we want to live this life together
    came from one of my favorite book entitled The Shared Heart by Joyce
    and Barry Vissell.  In it they describe their marriage as a dedication
    to God's will, including the sexual aspect.  I can see no sin in this
    kind of shared love.  I know homosexual couples who also have this type
    of relationship.
    
    Ro
    
    
    

    My participation here is to discuss what the Roman Catholic Church
    teaches and to defend it as being in accord with Christian principles.
    
    Don't ask us to apply it to specific cases or beg us to call any act a
    sin.  We're not judges regardless of the baiting that is going on.

>I'm getting married next week and am unable to have any more children due
>to having a hysterectomy a couple of years ago. ...
>Because we can't have children, does that make us sinners?

Mary already stated that there is no sin in having sex within marriage
if your physical condition makes conception impossible.  The assumption is,
of course, that the physical condition was brought about either naturally
or to save your life; sterilization for the purpose of preventing future
children being born to healthy parents is forbidden.

But your hysterectomy was probably not done to thwart God's will, so you
are not viewed as a sinner.

Note that the Episcopal Church's teaching on marriage and sex differs only
in that other methods of birth control besides NFP are permitted.  Neither
the Episcopal Church nor the Roman Catholic Church teach that married
couples may avoid their obligation to have children, if it be God's will.
See page 423 of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.  Any form of birth control
may only be used to adjust the timing of children, but not to prevent them
altogether.

/john

    RE: .86
    
    Patrick,
     I just don't understand you. I'm asking an innocent question, and
    you take it as baiting. Why? I'm trying to learn from this
    notesfile about God and religion and all I get is reply .86.
    
    What is your problem? Listen: There is no agenda....there is no
    baiting...there is no Catholic Bashing....
    
    Simple.
    
    Marc H.

   Well,  I'm still fogged in on some of this...

   I restrict all of this to inside marriage to avoid other discussions
   for the moment.  I am intentional at being less than descriptive
   as to specifics of acts.   It is clear that branches of Christianity
   treat this very differently, so I would expect explanations to be tied
   to what faith.

   It is assumed intercourse and procreation are interrelated by doctrine
   and that abstaining(one method) is appropriate at times to schedule
   pregnancy and children is acceptable.  That's clear I believe.

   What I also hear is that sexuality other than intercourse for pleasure
   (within marriage) is not acceptable.  More clearly giving a partner
   pleasure without resorting to intercourse in unacceptable.  This seems
   to cause more conflict as most people agree that giving pleasure within
   marriage is an act of love.  Why the conflict?

   Peace,
   Allison

re Note 508.87 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Note that the Episcopal Church's teaching on marriage and sex differs only
> in that other methods of birth control besides NFP are permitted.  Neither
> the Episcopal Church nor the Roman Catholic Church teach that married
> couples may avoid their obligation to have children, if it be God's will.

        And how does one know God's will?

        Is simply letting what will happen happen the only acceptable
        way of knowing God's will?  Surely letting what will happen
        happen is not the only acceptable way of knowing God's will
        in other areas of human endeavor, e.g., in the treatment of
        illness.

        Bob

    Re: .85
    
    I tried to clarify .77 in the latter portion of .80 and John has also
    added further in .87. 
    
    Basically, a couple should have : marriage, openness to conception in
    every sexual act, and use of body parts according to God's intentions
    (dignity of the body). Infertility which occurs naturally, due to 
    a necessary medical procedure, or through the use of NFP does not
    affect the marriage union.
    
    I hope this is clearer; the points of proper sexuality involve more
    than one thing in order to gain an evaluation of the proper use of
    the body, the right circumstances, and the right attitude of our will.
    
    I am not a Catholic counselor and so what I write is only meant to 
    be of some explination of the Catholic teachings and to give some
    understanding of the background of our beliefs. Ones personal response
    to them must be based on more specific studies and perhaps actual
    counseling. 
    
    Some of the Church's teachings are very clearcut, (example, sex outside
    of marriage is immoral), but many of the within-marriage issues are
    probably not defined in a specific way and have a lot to do with the
    relationship itself. I am only outlining an overall guideline in this
    area based upon a general knowledge of the Church's teachings. 
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Mary
    

re Note 508.91 by JUPITR::MNELSON:

>     use of body parts according to God's intentions
>     (dignity of the body). 

        Where are God's intentions for particular body parts spelled
        out in a definitive and complete form?

        Bob

    Thanks Mary for your patience.  I have a better understanding now.
    
    Ro
    

   Mary,

   That makes understanding the churches position much easier.  Thankyou
   for the explantion.

   Peace,
   Allison

re:.89

>   What I also hear is that sexuality other than intercourse for pleasure
>   (within marriage) is not acceptable.  More clearly giving a partner
>   pleasure without resorting to intercourse in unacceptable.  This seems
>   to cause more conflict as most people agree that giving pleasure within
>   marriage is an act of love.  Why the conflict?

I cannot answer with authority a list of specifics on "dos" and "don'ts" 
within a marriage. When sexual pleasure is obtained by means other than
intercourse then the body is treated as an object and the spiritual
dimension of the person(s) are not engaged in a full union with the body.
The marriage union does not occur and it is more closely related to 
an act of mastrubation, even though the stimulation may come from another.
It is not considered an 'act of love' to the full person to treat the body
as an object for pleasure or release only. 

Although I'm not at all certain, my opinion would be that some stimulation
as a means of foreplay prior to intercourse is not a violation of the 
dignity of the union. However sitimulation without the intention of 
intercourse would be a mastrubatory act.

As a single and celibate person, I don't understand why married couples
cannot accept some abstainence within a marriage.

Peace,

Mary

re: .90

Bob,


>        And how does one know God's will?

	God's Will is already expressed 'to be fruitful and multiply'.

	God allows us to either have intercourse or to choose not to have
	intercourse (abstainence) at any given moment within a marriage. 
	With each act of intercourse, the couple is to be open to God's
	Will that that act will bring about a preganancy. 

	With all other methods of contraception, the choice of the couple
	is NOT for abstainence, but to proceed with a sexual act but to
	provide a barrier which would nullify a choice that God might have
	for that couple during that sexual act.

	Other types of sexual unions that occur for the purpose of pure
	sexual gratification, particularly if they are done deliberatly
	to avoid the possibility of pregancy would, again, not be an
	openness to conception and it would be the use of the body without
	the dignity God intends. 

	God desires wholeness and health for His children and the Church's
	understanding of what this involves is as expressed. Constraints
	upon sexual activities should be looked upon as God's love and the
	means to realize the greatest satisfaction possible through our
	relationships.

	Peace,

	Mary

    re: .92
    
    God's intention for our body parts is not explicitly 'spelled out',
    but they each have a natural function and to use them for other 
    purposes must be seriously questioned. No where in scripture is there
    a gospel of "If it feels good, do it!"
    
    Mary
    

re Note 508.95 by JUPITR::MNELSON:

> When sexual pleasure is obtained by means other than
> intercourse then the body is treated as an object and the spiritual
> dimension of the person(s) are not engaged in a full union with the body.

        Wait, wait, wait!

        Mary, you keep on basing your positions on such statements as
        if they were indisputable fact.

        (I can see how somebody might think this is true, but I'd be
        willing to bet that that person has or had a rather limited
        sex life.  :-}  I also find the above to patently false.)

        Bob

< When sexual pleasure is obtained by means other than
<intercourse then the body is treated as an object and the spiritual
<dimension of the person(s) are not engaged in a full union with the body.
<The marriage union does not occur and it is more closely related to 
<an act of mastrubation, even though the stimulation may come from another.
<It is not considered an 'act of love' to the full person to treat the body
<as an object for pleasure or release only. 

   Mary,

   That is the crux of the matter though I would focus on act of love the
   in the form of a gift of pleasure, not for ones own release.  The
   reverse would be truly selfish and objectify the other person.

   That might suggest motive(intent) as a defining element regarding
   acceptable behavour.


   Peace,
   Allison

re Note 508.95 by JUPITR::MNELSON:

> As a single and celibate person, I don't understand why married couples
> cannot accept some abstainence within a marriage.
  
        Since you are single and celibate, you are excused from
        knowing this, but many married couples have many occasions in
        which they must or choose to abstain.  The reason you don't
        understand it is because it isn't true as a general rule.

        Bob

re Note 508.96 by JUPITR::MNELSON:

> >        And how does one know God's will?
> 
> 	God's Will is already expressed 'to be fruitful and multiply'.

        Mary,

        The above clearly is not the full expression of God's Will
        for each and every person on the subject of reproduction, any
        more than God's commandment to keep holy the seventh day
        means that it is never in God's Will to take a job that
        requires working more than six days in a row.

        Bob

re Note 508.97 by JUPITR::MNELSON:

>     God's intention for our body parts is not explicitly 'spelled out',
>     but they each have a natural function and to use them for other 
>     purposes must be seriously questioned. 

        So how does one discover the complete range of "natural
        functions" for a given body part?

        Bob

   Bob,

   I'm generally not one to defend another beliefs, but they are not
   absurd to her.  The status that I cannot live by those beliefs does
   not negate her believing in them.  

   This is one of those cases where belief in inerrentcy and scriptures
   as the direct word of God will be questioned.  We can ask why it is
   believed as so.

   Peace,
   Allison

>        The above clearly is not the full expression of God's Will
>        for each and every person on the subject of reproduction, any
>        more than God's commandment to keep holy the seventh day
>        means that it is never in God's Will to take a job that
>        requires working more than six days in a row.

I know where in scripture Jesus relaxed the Sabbath commandments.

Where did he relax any of the sexual commandments?  (I think he even made
them stronger than what Moses required!)

/john

re Note 508.104 by COVERT::COVERT:

> I know where in scripture Jesus relaxed the Sabbath commandments.
> 
> Where did he relax any of the sexual commandments?  (I think he even made
> them stronger than what Moses required!)
  
        Well, He must have relaxed "be fruitful and multiply",
        because there are a lot of celibates in certain
        denominations!

        How can one say that every single sexual act must be open to
        procreation because any such occurrence would be a violation
        of "be fruitful and multiply," and yet say that it is OK to
        choose to be a lifetime celibate, in which one chooses to
        ignore "be fruitful and multiply" for a lifetime!?

        The point is that no Christians (as far as I'm aware)
        interpret "be fruitful and multiply" as an absolute, binding,
        with no exceptions commandment upon all persons.

        (No other sexual commandments are under discussion here --
        what do you have in mind?)

        Bob

re Note 508.103 by VIDSYS::PARENT:

>    I'm generally not one to defend another beliefs, but they are not
>    absurd to her.  The status that I cannot live by those beliefs does
>    not negate her believing in them.  
> 
>    This is one of those cases where belief in inerrentcy and scriptures
>    as the direct word of God will be questioned.  We can ask why it is
>    believed as so.
  
        I have changed the title of my reply to Mary.

        In my defense:  Mary is presenting her position not as if it
        is a doctrine being taught by an authority she respects but
        as if it is based on common sense and logic.  If she presents
        it as logic it seems reasonable to question the logic.  If
        she says "I believe this to be revealed truth" or "the Church
        teaches" then the issue of respect for a person's beliefs
        comes into play.

        Bob

>> Where did Jesus relax any of the sexual commandments?  (I think he even made
>> them stronger than what Moses required!)
>  
>        The point is that no Christians (as far as I'm aware)
>        interpret "be fruitful and multiply" as an absolute, binding,
>        with no exceptions commandment upon all persons.

In Matthew 19, right where Jesus makes it clear that sexuality and marriage
are inseparable, he also authorizes celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of
heaven.  But nowhere does he relax any of the sexual commandments for those
who are not celibate.

The scriptural passage generally used to show God's extreme displeasure with
sexual expression where conception is prevented is Genesis 38:9.

/john

    The overall context here for CP participants to take shots at Roman
    Catholic teaching on marriage and family life.

    As a target, I want to explain Roman Catholic teaching based on the
    moral and scriptural authority of the Church to give such instruction,
    and married Catholics as children and students of the Church to accept
    it and live it in their lives.

    Roman Catholics look to the Church as the interpreter of 1 Co 6:9-15.
    This is an interesting passage because each English translation will
    have some different words to describe the acts which are unrighteous or
    immoral.

    The point being that the interpretation of the Bible that affirms that
    each act of intercourse must be open to the possibility of conception
    isn't one that can be proven with as a logic theorem of a sequence of
    implications, nor can it be denied in like manner.

<      <<< Note 508.108 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>
<
<    The overall context here for CP participants to take shots at Roman
<    Catholic teaching on marriage and family life.

   Patrick,

   It's getting weary.  If explaining what you believe is "shots" then
   so be it.  Others have give explanations the were extrodinarily
   enlightening.  

<    As a target, I want to explain Roman Catholic teaching based on the
<    moral and scriptural authority of the Church to give such instruction,
<    and married Catholics as children and students of the Church to accept
<    it and live it in their lives.

    Who's the target you or the Church?   

   In all seriousness, I as one welcome explanations.  I do not however
   feel a rethorical response to be adaquate.  To me 1 Co 6:9-15, is such
   a response.   It sounds like we are being told to go look it up for
   yourselves in a most unflattering way.  The reference version of the
   KJV I have did not have such listings.  It does speak of abusing the
   body in myrid ways but does not clarify within marriage.

   I certinly agree on one thing you said.  It truly is a matter of
   faith.

   Peace,
   Allison


    Roman Catholics look to the Church as the interpreter of 1 Co 6:9-15.

    Mary and Bob's thread (.92,.97,.102) prompted me to examine the
    Scripture on this.
    
    "the body is not to be used for sexual immorality but to serve the
    Lord" 1 Co 6:13 (Today's English Version)
    
    The Roman Catholic teaches that sexual acts other than vaginal
    intercourse by a married couple are immoral and the scriptural
    support for this is verse 13 and the earlier verses cited.

The KJV uses the word "fornication" to mean any sexual immorality both here
and in Matthew 5:32.  RSV and NAB use "immorality".  NEB uses "lust".  NRSV
seems to have gone back to "fornication".

But the one I find most interesting is Martin Luther.  He uses "Hurerei"
which is a linguistic cognate with (but does not literally mean) "whoring".

Grab a German dictionary and the entry for "Hurerei" says that it does not
have a plural, that it's not a polite word, and that it means "Unzucht".

The entry for "Unzucht" is quite telling for postmodern culture.  It says
<judicially no longer used term for> "sexual activity which injures the
general feeling of decency".

But it's even more interesting linguistically, because "Unzucht" is a word
which is the negation of "Zucht" which means not only morality and discipline,
but also _propagation_of_the_species_.

/john

re Note 508.107 by COVERT::COVERT:

> The scriptural passage generally used to show God's extreme displeasure with
> sexual expression where conception is prevented is Genesis 38:9.
  
        It is always illuminating to actually quote the Scripture,
        rather than just reference it.  Taking the above with the
        verse before it:

        38:8  And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife,
        and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
        38:9  And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it
        came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he
        spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to
        his brother.
        38:10  And the thing which he did displeased the LORD:
        wherefore he slew him also.

        Onan defied a direct command from Judah, based upon an
        obligation to his brother.  In addition, it is clear that
        Onan was trying to avoid conception totally in this marriage
        to his brother's wife.  (E.g., it was not merely a mutually
        pleasurable practice in the context of a valid marriage open
        to children.)  For that he was slain.

        Bob

re Note 508.108 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Roman Catholics look to the Church as the interpreter of 1 Co 6:9-15.
>     This is an interesting passage because each English translation will
>     have some different words to describe the acts which are unrighteous or
>     immoral.

        As a Roman Catholic myself, I do look to the Church as AN
        interpreter of Scripture, but patently not the only one, and
        not guaranteed inerrant in all cases.

>     The point being that the interpretation of the Bible that affirms that
>     each act of intercourse must be open to the possibility of conception
>     isn't one that can be proven with as a logic theorem of a sequence of
>     implications, nor can it be denied in like manner.

        Pat, that's fair, and I thank you for posting it.

        Of course, you do understand that in this pluralistic
        conference, some do not share your Roman Catholic
        perspective, so some will continue to examine the same
        interpretations with the tools of logic -- right?

        Bob

re Note 508.110 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     "the body is not to be used for sexual immorality but to serve the
>     Lord" 1 Co 6:13 (Today's English Version)
>     
>     The Roman Catholic teaches that sexual acts other than vaginal
>     intercourse by a married couple are immoral and the scriptural
>     support for this is verse 13 and the earlier verses cited.

        This, of course, begs the nearly central question:  why
        should "sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse," when
        practiced by a married couple, always be considered immoral.

        Bob

    RE: Mary,
    
    		I am sorry I haven't answered before now...with my daughter
    being so sick, its been hard to find the time.  I want to sincerely
    thank you for you thoughtful answers.  You have been kind in the midst
    of turmoil.  My reasonings for my question was  only to start the
    string back on the original thread....you helped. :-)
    
    		My personal belief is somewhat less clear cut and still in
    the midst of forming.  I will say this though, I believe that it is a
    sin to bring an unwanted child into this world.  No, I don't mean
    abortion but I do believe birthcontrol (most forms) to be ok.  
    
    
    Dave

    On of the aspects of Sex that seems to be missing in these discussions,
    is the fact that , in my mind at least, sex is more than just a
    mechanical act to produce children....although it sure works in that
    regard!
    
    Humans in a loving, christian relationship need sexual contact. Its
    part of living, just like food is. Now, some people can be happy
    without it, but, not myself.
    
    I feel that sex is a great gift for mankind, that within marriage
    works to "strengthen" the relationship. I'll stop here, since
    "books" have been written about the subject. I see nothing wrong
    with viewing sex with two different purposes...children and
    human relationship. Thats why, I don't see anything wrong with
    birth control. 
    
    How do others view this?
    
    Marc H.

    Thanks, Marc for your refreshing response.  My own views are similar to
    yours.  I feel that becoming intimately close with one's partner brings
    one closer to God by celebrating God's creation.
    
    Ro
    

   One thing I've learned and heard, sex is important...  Just how
   important varies alot I hear.  However, sex in marriage is a 
   component, like the side dish in a feast.  It may be very good
   but it is not a complete meal.  Intimacy is a more complete
   emotional meal, so to speak.  Intimacy is the essentail ingredient
   while sex is subservient to that.  I get that from observation
   of copuple that are together for years despite distance, illness,
   kids, and all.  It's easy to get confuse things and get sex ahead 
   of intimacy instead part of it.  

   Having said all that, I agree with many here in the importance
   of intimacy as part of marriage or any commited relationship.
   Birth control is just managing the realities and responsabilies 
   that come with intercourse.


   Peace,
   Allison

   I just read about a new contraceptive vaccine being developed in 
   India.  It is for by the the woman, effective for about a year, 
   reversable, and low in cost.  The apparent mechanism is to block
   the hormone needed to aid implantation and possibly fertilization
   of the egg.

   Any thoughts?

   Peace,
   Allison

Well, I guess if it stops implantation, it's not a contraceptive (the word
means prevents conception) but an abortifacient, right?

   John,

   It may be.  Then again it may prevent fertilization.  I suspect though
   regardless of the specific way it functions the idea that it prevents
   pregancy is unacceptable.  Is that not true?

   Peace,
   Allison

In my personal opinion, _conception_ control should not be a problem if it
is not used to keep a marriage completely childless (i.e. it should not
be used all the time, but may be used to control the number and timing
of offspring).

The minds of both persons engaging in sexual intercourse must always be
open to the possibility that it may be God's will (or just plain chance)
for the contraceptive device to fail.

/john

I, too, read an article on it.

The article called it a contraceptive.

The next sentence said that it stops implantation, but
does nothing to prevent conception.  In fact, it is
intended for use *after* conception.

It is an abortifacent, not a contraceptive.  However,
it is obviously not wise to call it what it is in light
of the opposition to abortion in this country.  Therefore,
they (i.e. that who support such abortions) choose to
mislead us.  The media (either knowingly or unknowingly)
go along.

Collis 

    Well, I guess if y'all equate the word "conception" with the word
    "fertilize" then I suppose one might make a case for this new
    medication being referred to as an abortifacient.  However, in my
    dictionary, the word conception is _not_ synonymous with fertilization.
    In fact, it is more synonymous with the phrase to become pregnant. And
    if a fertilized egg does not implant on the uterine wall, pregnancy did
    not occur.  Ergo, those who attempt to brand such forms of
    birth-control as  "abortifacients" are the ones being less than honest
    (either knowingly or unknowingly) for obvious reasons.

    Mike

Re:  508.125

Hi Mike,

  >Well, I guess if y'all equate the word "conception" with the word
  >"fertilize" then I suppose one might make a case for this new
  >medication being referred to as an abortifacient.  However, in my
  >dictionary, the word conception is _not_ synonymous with fertilization.

I'm glad you consulted a dictionary.  Indeed, that is the first
thing I did when I saw your note - pull down a dictionary.

The American Heritage Dictionary, July 1987 edition gives the
following definitions:

    conception - the fusing of a sperm and an egg to form a zygote
      capable of developing into a new organism

    fertilize - to initiate biological reproduction, esp. to
      provide with sperm or pollen

It is not my intention to confuse fertilization (i.e. putting sperm
on the scene) with conception (fusing a sperm and egg).  

If conception never takes place, what does the woman care?

If conception does take place, this is an abortificant.

  >In fact, it is more synonymous with the phrase to become pregnant. And
  >if a fertilized egg does not implant on the uterine wall, pregnancy did
  >not occur.  

  pregnant - carrying a developing fetus within the uterus (AH dict.)

Seems clear to me that she is pregnant.  (Before you ask, yes, the
egg starts developing even before it attaches to the uterus.)  

Unfortunately, abortificant is not in the abridged dictionary I
have.  If someone else has a dictionary, I would appreciate
this definition being provided.

Collis

abortifacient: a drug or other agent that induces abortion

			-- G.C. Merriam Unabridged