Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

Maybe it is just my brainwashing speaking

You said it. Not me.

Quote:

but I believe there is no one besides God who sets Church policy in matters of faith and morals.

Quote:

The Pope nor more than my mom can change or set anything different.

Sorry, that won't fly. The pope is real. "God" is not.

Besides, I asked about health, reproduction and sexuality, not faith.

Quote:

Here are some articles you might find interesting

You know you don't have to look hard at all to find articles proving the Earth is flat? I'm cursed by knowing enough science to know how bad the popular press is at communicating it.

I also know enough to be able to say this: given the rampant use of the pill in Western countries, do we see comparable detriment on women's health and/or lifespans?

I'm not saying it's 100% safe for everyone. If it were, it would be the first ever drug to achieve such an impressive milestone. I'm not saying it may not carry a generalized increase in the risk of some types of maladies, from cramps to cancer. I'm saying if it were that bad, women around Europe, Canada and America would be dropping like flies.

Instead life expectancies keep rising. What does this tell you?

Quote: Nareed

Sorry, that won't fly. The pope is real. "God" is not.

Sorry to tell you but God is indeed real and the is the source of all things including the universe itself and the teachings of the Church.

Quote:

Besides, I asked about health, reproduction and sexuality, not faith.

And I responded that God is the source of our beliefs on faith and MORALS. Morality includes the discussion about health, reproduction, and sexuality.

Quote:

I'm not saying it's 100% safe for everyone. If it were, it would be the first ever drug to achieve such an impressive milestone. I'm not saying it may not carry a generalized increase in the risk of some types of maladies, from cramps to cancer. I'm saying if it were that bad, women around Europe, Canada and America would be dropping like flies.

It already is the first drug I know of that treats a sign of healthiness in women as a disease that needs to be interrupted and artificially interfered with.

Quote: FrGamble

It already is the first drug I know of that treats a sign of healthiness in women as a disease that needs to be interrupted and artificially interfered with.

Oh, please.

You would never even dream to say the same thing about Propecia and Minoxydil. And how about exercise? It can play havoc on the menstrual cycle.

But in the first place, you can tell me how "healthy" a regular cycle is when you have a period month after month, year after year. Do you know the discomfort and inconvenience involved? I know several women who get contraceptive shots not to guard against pregnancy, but to reduce the frequency of menstruation.

Depending on the source, NFP refuses the chance of conception with a 99% effective rate. That is from a catholic source. Official health department rate is 74%

Condoms are 98% effective, or worse.

Other methods of birth control are less effective than that.

I think it is another game of verbal gymnastics the way that the church denies that NFP is "contra"ception, and somehow a method of avoiding conception which can be more effective (according to them) than some "blocking" method is morally acceptable.

I think it has been mentioned before that Catholics generally use whatever form of contraception that they want, anyway.

Treating it as a disease? Seriously? The goal is to avoid pregnancy. The goal of NFP is to avoid pregnancy.

Quote: Dalex64

Depending on the source, NFP refuses the chance of conception with a 99% effective rate.

Condoms are 98% effective, or worse.

Other methods of birth control are less effective than that.

I think it is another game of verbal gymnastics the way that the church denies that NFP is "contra"ception, and somehow a method of avoiding conception which can be more effective than some "blocking" method is morally acceptable.

I think it has been mentioned before that Catholics generally use whatever form of contraception that they want, anyway.

Treating it as a disease? Seriously? The goal is to avoid pregnancy. The goal of NFP is to avoid pregnancy.

You raise an important question and one that applies to a lot about what we are discussing. NFP stands for NATURAL Family Planning. The way our bodies are designed is so that we are only fertile a few days every month. If you pay attention to when those times are you can avoid pregnancy if you and your spouse prayerful discern that for any variety of reasons it is not the right time to have a child. This varies greatly from ARTIFICIALLY filling yourself with dangerous synthetic hormones to interpret the healthy, natural, and normal process of ovulation. If we paid more attention to the reason and wisdom that our own bodies can teach us we would avoid a lot of these discussions.

I went looking for statistics. This is from a recent gallup poll of americans:

Quote:

Catholics were only slightly less open to birth control, with 86 percent of them saying that it was “morally acceptable” in comparison with 90 percent of all respondents. But Catholics were more permissive than all respondents when it came to sex outside marriage (acceptable to 72 percent of Catholics versus 66 percent of Americans overall) and gay and lesbian relationships (70
percent versus 58).

It looks like the church is losing the battle against birth control and premarital sex.

Sample opinion of why the church is handcuffed by their own claims of infallibility, hampering their ability to change with the times:

Quote:

The church came close to lifting its
condemnation of contraception back in the 1960s, when a
significant majority of theologians, bishops and cardinals
who were asked to take a formal look at that teaching
recommended such a swerve. Pope Paul VI overruled them
— partly, it’s believed, out of fear that an admission of error on the birth-control front might prompt assaults on other
teachings and open the fallibility floodgates.

Quotes from this post and the previous one are from
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-pope-francis-birth-control-and-american-catholics.html?referer=

Quote: FrGamble

You raise an important question and one that applies to a lot about what we are discussing. NFP stands for NATURAL Family Planning. The way our bodies are designed is so that we are only fertile a few days every month. If you pay attention to when those times are you can avoid pregnancy if you and your spouse prayerful discern that for any variety of reasons it is not the right time to have a child. This varies greatly from ARTIFICIALLY filling yourself with dangerous synthetic hormones to interpret the healthy, natural, and normal process of ovulation. If we paid more attention to the reason and wisdom that our own bodies can teach us we would avoid a lot of these discussions.

Condoms don't fill your body with "dangerous synthetic hormones"

The prohibition against "artificial" contraception is also completely artificial.

The bible didn't prohibit birth control, and neither did Jesus.
http://www.gotquestions.org/birth-control.html
And
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-the-bible-permit-birth-control

Quote: FrGamble

What in the world are you talking about? Let's try to find common ground where we agree. Do you think we should continue to call men and women by different names? Do you think we should continue to have separate men and women bathrooms? Finally, do you think this is unequal treatment?

If a parent wants to give their male child a female name, there is no law preventing it.

If a girl grows up and wants to legally change her name to a boy's name, there is no law preventing it.

I'm not aware of laws that prohibit unisex bathrooms.

There is a difference here between tradition and law.

It also matters who has the power to break with tradition. In the case of names, pretty much anyone has the power. In the case of only allowing male priests, well it would take an act of god to overturn that one.

Quote: Dalex64

Condoms don't fill your body with "dangerous synthetic hormones"

The prohibition against "artificial" contraception is also completely artificial.

The bible didn't prohibit birth control, and neither did Jesus.
http://www.gotquestions.org/birth-control.html
And
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-the-bible-permit-birth-control

I do think the links you provided are good and they well represent the Protestant take on birth control. I found it interesting for you that the second one uses 1Cor 7 as guidance that it even thought children are a great gift from God it is still okay to remain single. I also like how these articles remind us that along with birth control is the intention behind it. I do admit that one can use modern versions of NFP with a contraceptive mindset. One can also use artificial means of contraception with a healthy respect and desire for kids but have reasonably determined now is not the right time.

So really again the question becomes why don't we do things naturally. It is popular now a days to buy organic and reject things like processed foods ad GMO stuff. Yet we are okay in either using chemicals or implanted devices to mess with our bodies. Or in the case of a condom to put barriers up between us. Why don't we just use the natural cycles of a woman's body so that we have to include her in the conversation if we want to have sex and we have to respect her health, well being, and desire?