ABC/NFP have worked for us....Birth Control in the Catholic Church
This topic can be found at:
http://dialogue.infopop.cc/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=6096067251&f=9436001351&m=7756025771
momof3
Member
December 15, 2002, 08:12 AM
answers to your questions
Hello Dr.,
1) PPD refers to post-partum depression. It is a very commonly used abbreviation in medical circles.

2)Incontinence interferes with NFP in this manner.
When you lose a good amount of urine everytime you laugh, sneeze, blow your nose, exercise or just plain stand up you are losing very valuable mucus observations. The Creighton Model of NFP teaches you to wipe before and after you urinate.
The effectiveness of the method depends on these observations.
Taking my temperature the same time every morning is not possible. (In case you were going to ask) I have had erratic sleep due to the baby. Fortunately now my husband takes the baby. But I am also up at night as a result of my mental illness and going to the bathroom which renders my temperature readings unreliable.

momof3

momof3
momof3
Member
December 15, 2002, 08:13 AM
? for you Dr.
What type of doctor are you?

momof3

momof3
Editor
Member
December 15, 2002, 09:11 AM
Please, mom!
Mom, please don't start a thread which is a continuation of a discussion going on in another thread.

What you can do is go to the thread that you're replying to and use the Post Reply button at the top or bottom of that page to add your comments and questions to the discussion.

Would you consider going back to the thread in question and doing so? I'll delete this thread once you've done this.

Thanks! smile
awfltdoc
Member
December 15, 2002, 02:41 PM
I am a Family Physician. Thanks for answering my question, I typically try to avoid assumptions, I almost assume PPD was related to a pelvic floor problem.

Thanks
smile

Anthony Waldroup, MD
momof3
Member
December 15, 2002, 04:45 PM
I'm confused
I'm sorry editor, I'm confused I don't see where I started a new topic. I just hit reply while I was under the same topic. I did see it go to a 2nd page which you had to click on at the bottom of the page but it was still under the same topic.
Anyway, I know the jist of not starting new threads.
peace, momof3

momof3
momof3
Member
December 15, 2002, 04:51 PM
hi editor
gee I don't know. Is it the question I asked the doc re: what type of doc he was.... was asked else where already? I didn't read it. Remember you're dealing with a woman whose has limited brain function right now and probably shouldn't even be attempting to communicate. momof3

momof3
Editor
Member
December 15, 2002, 06:46 PM
No problem, mom. You're doing great keeping the replies going on this thread. smile
awfltdoc
Member
December 20, 2002, 09:03 PM
posted December 17, 2002 02:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good possibility Susan re: Dr. W

Hello there,
I found it very odd that dear Dr. W didn't know what PPD stood for in reference to post-partum depression. It is the standard medical abbreviation for it. Or for one who seems to know alot about NFP couldn't figure out why if you are urinating in your pants the method which relies highly on mucus observations couldn't be used.
Of course I could be way off base.
I've realized that there are 2 types of individuals who disagree with this board. One type will stay and look at issues and really discuss...this is about .00005%. The other 99...%
will say, "the church says so" No matter what the Church says you're going to hell if you don't follow it.
I can't really offer deep theological insight but perhaps I can offer my experiences.
It's interesting how after being around here for awhile there's always the same type of personality coming back as in P6 and Dr.W
Their MO shows up right away.
momof3

momof3

Dear momof3,

If you would not assume others including physicians knew what PPD means then confusion would not be present. I didnt know what ABC stood for either. PPD means purified protien derivative to some.

Now I was being charitable, I didn't wish to be accusatory or non-charitable with your past NFP history. However, the incontinece issue is a cop-out. There are ways to treat this. And how does PPD prevent your use of NFP. Take a teperature, make mucous and cervical observations. Even if the mucous signs are not readable, Have you tried researching ovulation kits to provide more information while your trying to make these observations. There are studies ongoing with these kits. There are physicians out there that can help you.

Anthony Waldroup, MD
Charles
December 20, 2002, 10:56 PM
quote:
Take a teperature, make mucous and cervical observations. Even if the mucous signs are not readable, Have you tried researching ovulation kits to provide more information while your trying to make these observations. There are studies ongoing with these kits. There are physicians out there that can help you.


When I read something like this, I think of how NFP teachers have been known to say that couples using artificial contraception treat their fertility as a disease.

Everyone read the good Dr.'s advice and see what approach is more suggestive of viewing fertility as a disease: inserting a diaphragm before intercourse, or doing all that the Dr. recommends?

I'm sure the reply from the anti-ABC crowd will be that these practices are all in the spirit of respecting fertility and that there is still "openness to new life" being honored in these sex acts.

Does anyone really believe this?
James
Member
December 21, 2002, 02:44 PM
Good posts Charles. To answer your question, only less than 3% of practicing Catholics actually believe the claims of NFP as admitted by John Kippley (see ccli.com). It is also interesting to note, that none of the NFPonly crowd has answered my questions in regard to what the true "totality of the act" really means, and does it require ejaculation in the vagina for the totality to occur. I know that sounds crude, but when one spells it out bluntly it certainly illustrates the ridiculousness of this line of thinking. The totality of the act is base on intent. Just because ejaculation does not occur in the vagina, it in no way implies that the totality of the act was not intended in the same way that it is intended during the infertile periods while using NFP. As NFP proponents tell us, it is ok to not want to have a baby when a couple has sex. In both ABC and NFP not wanting to have a baby is what is occuring. If in one instance it is licit to not want a baby and the totality of the act is assumed preserved, then the other instance being nonabortificient it would follow preserves this totality as well.

My point here, these types of people do not answer these questions, because they do not have logical answers except to demand blind obedience. They do a lot of talking, but really say nothing. Regards-
kevin
Member
December 21, 2002, 05:54 PM
Totality
The totality of the act is the very essence of the unitive/procreative being preserved as is the case with NFP. Whatever is mutually acceptable,the sky is the limit when it comes to lovemaking techniques as long as the male seed is deposited in the vagina.In contrcaception how can you give of self in totality in the physical as well as the spiritual when you have a condom on as a intrusion,or there^s some plastic contraption in the middle of what is suppose to be natural.It takes a bite out of the quality of the act. Yes I know some here will say that NFP separates the unitive & procreative but I don^t buy that B.S. Like Dino pointed out:Sex after the child bearing years,sex during pregnancy,sex by a natural sterile couple,sex using NFP means the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved & thus the Totality of the conjugal act in its fullness is present(physical,spiritual,emotional) Sorry James but putting cow dung to prevent conception as some of the egyptians use to do or ejaculating in some plastic cup is not giving of self in Totality.It is not of the very essence of the conjugal act.Just like in vitro fertilization, is that the same as concieving a child as in marital intercourse. Not !!It is simply not the same. I understand some people have to use ABC for good reasons,it^s up to them to form their conscience in that manner after all this is not an issue like fornication or adultrey where the moral prohibition as far as a christian goes is absolute, with due respect to JP ii who certainly woul deny this as far as ABC goes. Regards
NF
December 21, 2002, 06:19 PM
after all this is not an issue like fornication or adultrey where the moral prohibition as far as a christian goes is absolute, with due respect to JP ii who certainly woul deny this as far as ABC goes.

What is absolute and what not as far as prohibitions go? As far as I know there is no parvity of matter when it comes to Church teaching on sexual matters. Fornication is a mortal sin. Adultery is a mortal sin. Pre-marital sex is a mortal sin. Masturbation is a mortal sin. Abortion is a mortal sin. Sterilization is a mortal sin. Looking at pornography is a mortal sin. Birth control is a mortal sin whether by condom, pill, iud, foam, diaphragm, withdrawal or other means. Heavy petting is a mortal sin. Homosexual behavior is a mortal sin. Any perversion of the natural law and separation of the generative/procreative and unitive aspects is a mortal sin and abortaficience is a double mortal sin. It's all there in the CCC. I know some of you complain that someone who masturbates even for a sperm count should not be placed in hell next to Hitler. We don't make God's laws. We simply must follow them.

NFH
kevin
Member
December 21, 2002, 06:31 PM
Remember that some of us people here don^t have the time or energy to constantly debate.It^s not like Crossfire on tv where Republicans vs democrats or right vs left.Debating in person is a lot easier because certain things can be explained better or quicker if there is misinterpretation or disagreement.In short if you state & argue your view & decide then to fade out or take a break or sabbatical it doesn^t mean your giving up or losing. It simply means that hey I gave my opinions or convictions wich some may agree/disagree but your not gona become obseessed with defending your view left, right & centre as if your General Custar surrounded & fighting to the last man.Sometimes we move on or take it easy .Merry Christmas to all !
Momz
Member
December 21, 2002, 07:10 PM
Precisely, Kevin. Merry Christmas to all!
Love,
momZ
[fka Mo4]
Charles
December 21, 2002, 08:46 PM
quote:
The totality of the act is the very essence of the unitive/procreative being preserved as is the case with NFP.


I can respect your appreciation for NFP, Kevin, but I do not see how NFP preserves the procreative aspect of sex. If you choose to use the act only when you are sure it is likely to be non-procreative, then how is this preserving the procreative?

The answer I have heard to this by some NFPers is that no obstacle is being placed in the way of procreativity. That is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the act is being used precisely because it is not likely to be procreative. This is no different from artificial contraception.

You go on to note:
quote:
Whatever is mutually acceptable,the sky is the limit when it comes to lovemaking techniques as long as the male seed is deposited in the vagina.In contrcaception how can you give of self in totality in the physical as well as the spiritual when you have a condom on as a intrusion,or there^s some plastic contraption in the middle of what is suppose to be natural.It takes a bite out of the quality of the act.


Surely you must know that the most commonly used forms of artificial contraception (the hormone pills) place no barrier obstructions. Therefore, pill users would seem to meet your minimalistic requirements for "totality," namely a penis ejaculating in a vagina without obstructions. One could note here as well that there are couples using barrier methods (diaphragm) who also satisfy your requirements anbd who don't experience a loss of quality in their lovemaking.

I agree with you that we all have our opinions on this matter, but it seems to me that some are more convincing than others. I really am open to being persuaded that NFP allows for fuller experience of sexual lovemaking and that it is a more honest "language of love," but every time someone tries to explain how this is so, I am left unconvinced. Putting down the lovemaking experiences of couples using arficial contraception depsite their testimony to very satisfying and quality experiences in this regard seems a particularly arrogant approach to shoring up a teaching that just can't seem to hold together under scrutiny. I might add that that is most uncharacteristic for a Catholic moral teaching.

It was good to see that you recognize the right of Catholic couples to form their conscience on this issue and use artificial contraception if they have a good reason for doing so. That's not really such a liberal concession, however; it is their right to do so within the parameters of the marriage commitment and this point is inarguable, even if it's not frequently preached from Catholic pulpits. Those who wish to equate such decisions with abortion, murder, theft or other acts which deprive individuals of freedom, property and life are only distorting the issues, I'm afraid.
James
Member
December 21, 2002, 09:32 PM
Kevin said, "Whatever is mutually acceptable,the sky is the limit when it comes to lovemaking techniques as long as the male seed is deposited in the vagina."

I know this is the opinion on the NFP side. But what I am asking is can you prove or demonstrate this is so and why do you believe this is so? Why does this in itself define the totality? In spirit all of this can be met and the totality lacking spiritually. Likewise this can be lacking and spiritually and emotionally the totality completely preserved. The totality of the act transcends locality and physicality completely! I do not accept this interpretation of complete marital intimacy, it reduces the act to mere mechanics. I believe that is wrong. I understand you may not have time to reply and I certainly do not think this forum is anything like "Crossfire". Regards-
Joe Ratz
December 21, 2002, 09:59 PM
distortion? tu quo que
Charles, our latest doctor, this one of moral theology, wrote:
quote:
It was good to see that you recognize the right of Catholic couples to form their conscience on this issue and use artificial contraception if they have a good reason for doing so. That's not really such a liberal concession, however; it is their right to do so within the parameters of the marriage commitment and this point is inarguable, even if it's not frequently preached from Catholic pulpits. Those who wish to equate such decisions with abortion, murder, theft or other acts which deprive individuals of freedom, property and life are only distorting the issues, I'm afraid.


By "those who equate", are we to assume you are talking about the CDF and the CCC? Is your doctorate in Catholic moral theology?

Here, below, is the equivalent of your PDF big grin


( quoted segment from ccc deleted )

Note to moderator: Don't butcher this post based on copyright infringement without checking with the CDF first; for Christ's sake it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We should be shouting it from the rooftops!

( correction: it is your responsibility to obtain permission from the copyright holder, not matter how worthy you think the bloc of material. )

Note to Charles: Sorry if you think the CDF and CCC are distorting things frown Obviously, you are a Protestant?

( note: this kind of remark contributes nothing to the discussion. )

(parenthetical comments are from edit by "mod")

[This message was edited by moderator on December 22, 2002 at 09:01 AM.]
Momz
Member
December 21, 2002, 10:35 PM
Joe, while I appreciate your perspective, it appears you glossed over the lead sentence in Charles paragraph, which you quoted: It was good to see that you recognize the right of Catholic couples to form their conscience on this issue .

Perhaps you could use a little catechism lesson yourself: Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths. Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience. Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt. The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.

In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

In summary, we are bound by our conscience and guided by Church teaching and not the other way around as implied by you, NF, Paul VI, Dr. W and others who seem to suggest that we are bound by Church teaching and guided by our conscience (as if they were always one and the same thing).

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but perhaps you guys could better explain your approach? Somewhere in the past there were some great discussions on primacy of conscience and if the Editor was here we could be pointed to those resources, those old threads. Maybe in the spring we could take this on more in depth by looking at those threads.

Have a Holy Holiday EVERYBODY!
In His Love,
momZ
Momz
Member
December 21, 2002, 10:40 PM
post script
p.s. I wrote the opening and closing paragraphs of that post but the stuff in the middle was verbatim from the very same CCC (different format). I'm not sure I framed the issue properly or said what others here might agree with but it feels and sounds right to me. It fits the old primacy of conscience discussion and some others, too.
anon
December 21, 2002, 11:06 PM
point of info
not to stray off-topic but in the context of what must be followed or or not and under what sanction or penalty or power or whatever

someone said that as far as the creed and church creedal doctrine and sacraments and stuff, that's nonnegotiable - believe or leave

then, as far as moral doctrine, conscience rules

okay, assume that's true (or not)

the other day, someone told me that a fellow parishioner couldn't be a lector because they had been divroced and remarried w/o an annulment

where does something like that fit? are some parts of canon law in category one, creedal, and other parts in the moral category? can someone openly dissent from the teaching on birth control and still be a religion teacher or a member of the Knights of Columbus? or a Eucharistic minister? or is there some type of don't ask don't tell policy? if i dissent from certain moral teachings am i failing as a prophet of protest to not do so openly and how will we ever change such teachings? why not become an Episcopalian?

confused roll eyes