Contraception

Foxhound38

Has the Catholic view regarding the use of contraception changed over recent years? Can one still be a good catholic if one uses contraception for birth control? Does this change if it is used in the context of birth control within marraige?

In terms of schools, does teaching about contraception in catholic secondary schools not run counter to their catholic-ethos? What form of sex-education should there be for Catholic schools?

gimmebroadband

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Has the Catholic view regarding the use of contraception changed over recent years? Can one still be a good catholic if one uses contraception for birth control? Does this change if it is used in the context of birth control within marraige?

No!

Humanae Vitae

Birth Control

In terms of schools, does teaching about contraception in catholic secondary schools not run counter to their catholic-ethos? What form of sex-education should there be for Catholic schools?

Sex Education and Catholic Schools

Benny_Cake

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Has the Catholic view regarding the use of contraception changed over recent years? Can one still be a good catholic if one uses contraception for birth control? Does this change if it is used in the context of birth control within marraige?

In terms of schools, does teaching about contraception in catholic secondary schools not run counter to their catholic-ethos? What form of sex-education should there be for Catholic schools?

The official line is no, birth control is a sin, regardless of the circumstances. The reality is that most Catholics have taken a conscience decision to ignore this, a recent survey in the US found that 98% of sexually active Catholic women had used artificial contraception at some point. Now this is where someone usually comes along and says "a sin is a sin, if 98% of people thought murder was ok, then it wouldn't make it ok". Which is true enough, but the evidence to support the notion that artificial contraception is a sin is pretty thin. Before Humanae Vitae was issued, Pope Paul VI convened a commission made up of Catholics from a variety of backgrounds including theologians. Of the 72 members on the commission, an overwhelming majority found that artificial contraception was not intrinsically evil, but this was overruled by the Pope - the suspicion being that there was a reluctance to admit that the church might have been wrong in previous statements on the matter.

Regarding sex education in schools, the curriculum for the subject should be the same for Catholic schools as it is for every other school - Catholic schools are state funded.

Onesimus

No the position hasnt changed on contraception. But the Church does allow NFP ( natural family planning ) which is 97% as effective as the fake contraception pill.

I know people who have used it for years and it is great as long as you follow the rules. If you want more details on nfp pm me and I'll give you more on that teaching and point you in the right direction there.

You are probably wondering ''hmmm if contraception is morally wrong then what makes NFP any different hm?''

The Following is by Christopher west:

<cut and paste removed>

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Onesimus

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry Plowman I cant. The link is from an article not available to the public as it once was and is just been recently archived by Catholic answers until they fix the site and this is why I copied and pasted all of it. You'll have to delete it for now I guess and I'll get something else with a link.

Onesimus

Benny_Cake

Onesimus wrote: »

No the position hasnt changed on contraception. But the Church does allow NFP ( natural family planning ) which is 97% as effective as the fake contraception pill.

I know people who have used it for years and it is great as long as you follow the rules. If you want more details on nfp pm me and I'll give you more on that teaching and point you in the right direction there.

You are probably wondering ''hmmm if contraception is morally wrong then what makes NFP any different hm?''

The Following is by Christopher west:

<cut and paste removed>

There is a piece on natural family planning (rhythm method) from the HSE here.

The critical point is that it is effective "as long as the instructions are followed correctly". The problem is that the instructions are quite complicated, as is the female body and many women may have irregular cycles and so on! So the pill or other contraception methods are probably a lot more effective in real world scenarios. Now that isn't to say that the rhythm method doesn't have a place, where there are medical reasons why other forms of contraception might be unsuitable. The problem begins when it becomes a requirement for moral reasons, which to me is completely inexplicable and detracts from the credibility of the Catholic Church in a big way. To non-Catholics and Catholics who dissent on this, it begins to look a bit like the Jehovah's Witnesses prohibition on blood transfusions - we know this is a bit silly, but we'd look even more stupid if we admitted we were wrong all these years! I'm not comparing the Catholic Church to the Watchtower Society or saying that the real world consequences of these policies are the same.

Onesimus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is a piece on natural family planning (rhythm method) from the HSE here.

The critical point is that it is effective "as long as the instructions are followed correctly". The problem is that the instructions are quite complicated, as is the female body and many women may have irregular cycles and so on! So the pill or other contraception methods are probably a lot more effective in real world scenarios. Now that isn't to say that the rhythm method doesn't have a place, where there are medical reasons why other forms of contraception might be unsuitable. The problem begins when it becomes a requirement for moral reasons, which to me is completely inexplicable and detracts from the credibility of the Catholic Church in a big way. To non-Catholics and Catholics who dissent on this, it begins to look a bit like the Jehovah's Witnesses prohibition on blood transfusions - we know this is a bit silly, but we'd look even more stupid if we admitted we were wrong all these years! I'm not comparing the Catholic Church to the Watchtower Society or saying that the real world consequences of these policies are the same.

No not difficult to use at all. You get a chart and you chart your tempreatures with a monitor and after a while ya become such an expert with your cycle that you wont even be using the moniter anymore, just the chart. And it's all free bar the thermometor gosh I cant spell that word. lol

I'm not a scientist or doctor all I know is that it's worked for many many people and I've never seen a slip up only those who were lazy about the rigorous use of the charter slipped up on it.

The whole idea of NFP is that the couple practice Sex whilst being open to life in the process where as contraception isnt. It should also only be used in grave circumstances they are: pshychological, Physical ( as in danger of death or whatever other physical reasons ) and financial reasons.

Another reason you dont seem to get is the one on a theological level and that is that just as Christ ( the bridegroom ) gave his whole body to the Church ( his Bride ) so too a man gives his whole self to his wife and vice versa. Christ could not do this ( commit to the Church that is as man to wife ) if he didnt shed his blood for the Church, if he held anything back then it truly wasnt a sacrafice. Like wise with man or woman when they hold something back, they do not wholly commit themselves to Christ through one another and to one another or live out his plan. for the contraceptive mentality is mans doing, not Gods and NFP and responsible parenting is Gods creation not mans.

Therefore Contraception from a Theological perspective manipulates Gods plan for marriage. There are also tonnes of studys proving that the man made drug contraception causes breast cancer and irregular cycles amongst a whole host of other physical problems and all from a non-biased source too if you do some research on it. I suggest you look them up.

For the theological perspective I suggest you watch this youtube video on theology of the Body. Watch all of it if you can. This is also for the OP too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0-wXODqTsU

prinz

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The critical point is that it is effective "as long as the instructions are followed correctly". The problem is that the instructions are quite complicated, as is the female body and many women may have irregular cycles and so on! So the pill or other contraception methods are probably a lot more effective in real world scenarios. Now that isn't to say that the rhythm method doesn't have a place, where there are medical reasons why other forms of contraception might be unsuitable..

Any form of contraception is effective "as long as instructions are followed correctly", so there is no more of a burden with NFP than any other. The instructions aren't very complicated and it actually helps people (male and female) to understand the human cycle better and more thoroughly rather than just trying to sweep it under the carpet so to speak. In that alone I feel it helps couples to become closer in understanding each other.

It's free more or less (a biro, a sheet of paper and a thermometer - how much is one pack of condoms these days?). It doesn't involve putting hormones and chemicals into your body, and it certainly doesn't involve the kind of ecological damage being linked to other forms of contraception.

Benny_Cake

You live and learn - I had seen the rhythm method as somewhat discredited but from what you've said and a little reading it seems like it may be a valid option for couples, particularly if they've had problems with the pill or other forms of contraception in the past. I still don't buy the moral argument though, given that there is no such thing as a 100% foolproof method of contraception, surely there is always the chance, however slight, of pregnancy?

charlietheminxx

The Natural Method is very hit and miss - it works under the assumption that a woman's body will fall into the default patterns and many women in fact have fluctuating cycles. Also, semen can survive internally for up to 5 days, so even if it's "safe" the day you have intercourse, a fluctuation that triggers early ovulation a couple of days later can result in pregnancy.

It has quite a high failure rate actually - something I have witnessed in my own family!

prinz

charlietheminxx wrote: »

The Natural Method is very hit and miss - it works under the assumption that a woman's body will fall into the default patterns and many women in fact have fluctuating cycles.

It doesn't. If you are using it correctly you should be continually monitoring basal body temperature and cervical mucus. You should be updating your records daily and then fluctuations and cycle differences are picked up. In NFP you do not assume that there will be any default of standard cycle.. it's for this reason too that the same method is encouraged when couples are trying to conceive, because with regular checks you will indentify the most fertile period from cycle to cycle.

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Also, semen can survive internally for up to 5 days, so even if it's "safe" the day you have intercourse, a fluctuation that triggers early ovulation a couple of days later can result in pregnancy..

Yes, that can happen. Just like any other contraceptive method. However if monitoring the biological signs effectively you shouldn't be caught on the hop unless it's due to flu or infection causing sustained temperature changes.

charlietheminxx wrote: »

It has quite a high failure rate actually - something I have witnessed in my own family!

Used correctly it hasn't. Anyone assuming a standard default cycle and not checking daily I imagine would fail. That's why the Symptoms methods rather than the standard days works best. A number of studies linked to on Wikipedia would indicate a effectiveness rate for symptoms based method of 99+%. Calendar/Standard Days at around 95% effective.

charlietheminxx

prinz wrote: »

Used correctly it hasn't. Anyone assuming a standard default cycle and not checking daily I imagine would fail. That's why the Symptoms methods rather than the standard days works best. A number of studies linked to on Wikipedia would indicate a effectiveness rate for symptoms based method of 99+%. Calendar/Standard Days at around 95% effective.

The birth control failure rate for this is approximately 3 per 100 with perfect use, and around 25 per 100 with standard use. I can give you links for these figures if required?

To put that in context - Implanon has a 0.05 per 100 failure rate, the combined pill has 0.3 per 100 with perfect use and 8 per 100 with standard use, and condoms are 2 per 100 with perfect use and 8 per 100 with standard use. To say the natural method is as effective? Well unfortunately, that isn't the case.

Onesimus

charlietheminxx wrote: »

The birth control failure rate for this is approximately 3 per 100 with perfect use, and around 25 per 100 with standard use. I can give you links for these figures if required?

To put that in context - Implanon has a 0.05 per 100 failure rate, the combined pill has 0.3 per 100 with perfect use and 8 per 100 with standard use, and condoms are 2 per 100 with perfect use and 8 per 100 with standard use. To say the natural method is as effective? Well unfortunately, that isn't the case.

The lead author of the report, Petra Frank-Herrmann, assistant professor and managing director of the natural fertility section in the Department of Gynaecological Endocrinology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, said: "For a contraceptive method to be rated as highly efficient as the hormonal pill, there should be less than one pregnancy per 100 women per year when the method is used correctly. The pregnancy rate for women who used the STM method correctly in our study was 0.4%, which can be interpreted as one pregnancy occurring per 250 women per year. Therefore, we maintain that the effectiveness of STM is comparable to the effectiveness of modern contraceptive methods such as oral contraceptives, and is an effective and acceptable method of family planning."


Of the 900 women, 322 used only STM and 509 women used STM with occasional barriers during the fertile time. Sixty-nine women did not document their sexual behaviour. Out of the women who documented their sexual behaviour and abstained from sex during their fertile period ("perfect use") the unintended pregnancy rate was 0.4 per 100 women and 13 cycles [2], and 0.6 for women who used STM plus a barrier if they had sex during their fertile period. For cycles in which couples had unprotected sex during the fertile phase, the pregnancy rates rose to 7.5 per 100 women and 13 cycles. The drop-out rate from using STM for reasons such as dissatisfaction or difficulties with the method was 9.2 per 100 women and 13 cycles, and compared well with the drop-out rates from other methods of family planning, which can be as high as 30%, although direct comparisons are difficult due to methodological problems. "This demonstrates a fairly good acceptability for this particular FAB method," said Prof Frank-Herrmann.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm


I've scourged the internet and A lot of non-catholic doctors say its just as effective.



I'm trying to look for sources that say different so by all means qoute me some links.

prinz

charlietheminxx wrote: »

The birth control failure rate for this is approximately 3 per 100 with perfect use, and around 25 per 100 with standard use. I can give you links for these figures if required?

You are making a number of mistakes here or at least the sources where you got the above figures. First and foremost they are lumping all NFP methods into one. There is a huge difference between the Symptothermal method and the Calendar Days method for example, but both are natural family planning methods. The withdrawal 'method' if it can even be called that could also easily be included in your figures above.

Here is the German study of 2007 on the Symptothermal method (STM)

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.full to quote the results I think this is alright, not up to date on the new boards rules on how much you are allowed to quote by copy and paste...

Charting of sexual behaviour occurred in 85% of the cycles; analyses of these cycles showed that in more than a third the STM was used with abstinence during the fertile time, which reflects the ‘perfect-use’ scenario and true method effectiveness. For perfect use, the unintended pregnancy rate was 0.43 per 100 women and 13 cycles

There is a good overview here of the difference between the rhythm method which you seem to be referring to earlier and STM for example.

http://www.women-health-beauty-tips.com/pregnancy/natural-family-planning.html

charlietheminxx wrote: »

To put that in context - Implanon has a 0.05 per 100 failure rate, the combined pill has 0.3 per 100 with perfect use and 8 per 100 with standard use, and condoms are 2 per 100 with perfect use and 8 per 100 with standard use. To say the natural method is as effective? Well unfortunately, that isn't the case.

Less than 0.5% difference with perfect use between STM and the best artificial contraceptives out there.

http://contraception.about.com/od/prescriptionoptions/p/prescription.htm

snafuk35

Foxhound38 wrote: »

Has the Catholic view regarding the use of contraception changed over recent years? Can one still be a good catholic if one uses contraception for birth control? Does this change if it is used in the context of birth control within marraige?

In terms of schools, does teaching about contraception in catholic secondary schools not run counter to their catholic-ethos? What form of sex-education should there be for Catholic schools?

The only kind of sex that is permitted is unprotected sex between a heterosexual married man and woman for the purposes of procreation.

Any other kind of sex is a mortal sin and therefore punishable by eternal hellfire and this includes anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, wearing condoms, homosexuality, bestiality, rape, visiting prostitutes etc etc.

gimmebroadband

snafuk35 wrote: »

The only kind of sex that is permitted is Natural sex between a husband and wife for the purpose of showing their love for each other, at the same time they must be open to life.

Any other kind of sex is a mortal sin and therefore punishable by eternal hellfire and this includes anal sex, oral sex, masturbation, wearing condoms, homosexuality, bestiality, rape, visiting prostitutes etc etc.

Fixed it for ya!

prinz

snafuk35 wrote: »

The only kind of sex that is permitted is unprotected sex between a heterosexual married man and woman for the purposes of procreation........

Wrong so far....