M
maryjk
Guest
But of course, we can say that using ABC for birth control is a sin.
So, no you are not required to use NFP.
There are two moral ways to avoid conception. Total abstinence. Or periodic abstinence.
The choice is yours.
- Status
So, no you are not required to use NFP.
There are two moral ways to avoid conception. Total abstinence. Or periodic abstinence.
The choice is yours.
S
Slime13
Guest
I am 100% sure that total abstinence is not moral in a marriage.
1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
M
maryjk
Guest
So how often do you have to have marital relations? What is the minimum? How long is “a limited time?”
What if a partner is sick? Recovering from surgery? Or in a terrible accident? Has a heart condition?
You may not be as sure as you think you are.
S
Slime13
Guest
I’m certain. If you deny what Paul is saying you are doing nothing differently than what I am doing by questioning a ban on contraception.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Actually it is moral. It is 100% certain that such can be moral. We are not talking about denying marital relations (such can yes be immoral).
Paul is not discussing the questions of - if you have another child it will be the death of your spouse.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Good summary from the *Compendium *issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**
497. When is it moral to regulate births?
**
2368-2369
2399
The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
**
498. What are immoral means of birth control?**
2370-2372
Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
**
497. When is it moral to regulate births?
**
2368-2369
2399
The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
**
498. What are immoral means of birth control?**
2370-2372
Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
S
Slime13
Guest
So Paul, an apostle, was not discussing the risk of life, yet you suggest the tradition of the Catholic Church was taking that into consideration when they say don’t use contraception.
Please step back and consider this conflict. I am here looking for answers and have an open mind, but that does not seem to be a 2 way street.
And yes, I’m suggesting that tradition may be in conflict with scripture. (it wouldn’t be the first time)
M
maryjk
Guest
Actually, you aren’t being opened minded at all. You have unequivocally stated that you and your wife would not use NFP.
Please answer my previous question. How often must you have sexual relations to follow St Paul’s directive? And if one partner has a medical condition that prevents them from having relations, how long can you abstain before you have to divorce?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Be careful there. Mary and Joseph practiced total abstinence.
It’s not moral for one spouse to deliberately withhold sex from the other. But abstinence itself is not immoral if mutually agreed upon. What of people who through age or medical conditions are simply unable to participate in the marital embrace (e.g. one spouse is paralyzed in an accident)? We wouldn’t say they are sinning because they are abstaining.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
You may feel 100% sure, but you are mistaken.
There are situations which might require abstinence within marriage. That passage you quote from St. Paul says not to deprive each other, but notice what he immediately follows with “unless you both agree”. He is describing periodic continence. Today there are family planning models that use periodic continence (abstinence). It is permitted to use periodic continence if pregnancy must be avoided, rather than strictly using periodic continence for prayer only. For some serious reasons, total abstinence might be necessary. The writings of the Church Fathers reflect this understanding of marital relations. For couples who were in a position of needing to avoid having any more children, they were advised to abstain. Contraception was always forbidden, all the way back to the beginning of the Church.
Kefla was right that NFP is not absolutely certain to prevent pregnancy and that no one is required to use it. She is also right that you really need pastoral direction to be able to manage the challenge that your wife’s medical condition is to you and her.
But everyone else here is telling you the truth: that there are only two morally licit options, both using some amount of abstinence, either abstinence until her medical condition changes or is managed or she reaches menopause OR periodic abstinence using an NFP method.
Whether you choose to follow the teachings of the Church is still your choice. But seek out the actual teachings, and seek out counsel from knowledgeable people.
Here are a few links to get you started.
The National Catholic Bioethics Center
ncbcenter.org
The Way of the Lord Jesus, by Germaine Grisez, a moral theology work for modern Catholics
twotlj.org
Humanae Vitae, by Pope Paul VI, a letter to Catholics on the various forms of birth regulation, and which forms are moral and which are immoral
w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
And one last one that I found extremely helpful when I was learning about the Church, especially with explaining how to navigate questions about marriage and sexuality is the
Catholic Education Resource Center
catholiceducation.org/en/
They have a searchable database of educational articles as well as topical categories that you could choose from and just scroll through and start learning.
I hope these links help you! God bless you!
B
Bookcat
Guest
No I did not refer to that verse in the discussion of contraception- I did not suggest such (you must be thinking of another poster). St. Pauls words there are about a different matter.
There is absolutely no conflict.
U
Usige
Guest
The Epistles are written to a specific church at a specific time. The Church’s tradition unpacks scripture and interprets their impact in a specific time. Please, remember that Catholics do not hold scripture to be the only source of truth.
Even given that, scripture does condemn contraception. First with the wasting of Onan’s seed (against withdrawal and barrier methods). But again in several passages in reference to the Greek word pharmakeia. That words is used in the New Testament 3 times (Galatians 5:19-21, Rev 9:21, Rev 21:8). While it is often translated as sorcery, the word is generally used at that time to speak to mixing potions (aka drugs) in secret. So are drugs/medications immoral? No, so we should look at the word in context. In every case this word is used in conjunction with sins of the flesh and unchastity. In two cases it is linked to murder. So given the context there is certainly scriptural reference to use of drugs related to sexual sins.
Also remember that both Martin Luther and John Calvin condemned contraception as more vile than adultery, so this isn’t a Catholic teaching. This was a constant teaching of every Christian sect for 1900 years, without fail. So the question is, did we suddenly get smarter in the last 100 years or perhaps the wisdom of a hundred generations should be valued.
I’m not sure what two way street you want to see. The Church has spoken definitively on this on numerous occasions. Catholics are called to obedience and while we can discus teachings, once spoken to definitively one can lobby all they want, but it changes nothing. The teaching stands. As Catholics we accept that the Church and Her Magisterial teachings on Faith and Morals are Christ’s arbiter on Earth. To reject the definitive teachings of the Church is to reject the teachings of Christ.
K
kozlosap
Guest
But we chose it anyway. That is the mortalest of all mortal sins. We have grave matter(contraception which is intrinsically evil) and full consent and full knowledge but we chose it anyway. If one of us had died we would have gone to hell.Who said that?
I was responding to a post that Hoosier Daddy wrote…
J
jmjZelie
Guest
ANY sin of grave matter, willfully chosen with full knowledge of just how serious a sin it is, is a mortal sin. The more understanding one has, and the more willfully and stubbornly one persists in the sin, the worse of a sin it is. That is not to compare to other sins of grave matter. That is an explanation of how we become more and more culpable as our understanding increases, especially if we dig in our heels and persist in sin.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I was referring to the fact that of all my potential mortal sins, this one stuck out as one we blatantly chose, so it was “flagrant”. The “clearest” of all mortal sins I have confessed. Racism and murder were not amoung them. Though the definition of racism as sin would be interesting. And surely fodder for another thread. It was odd how you seized on those issues. If you wish to listen to the pope and not focus SOLEY on these issues great! But that doesn’t mean these are not incredibly vital issues. The pope surely did not mean " interject murder and racism" into threads about birth control!
But since you brought it up, racism and murder are indeed factors in a lot of birth control issues…
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Ah, I see. I understand your point now, thanks.
My guess is that Hoosier Daddy was being hyperbolic rather than asserting that contraception is literally the worst possible mortal sin.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
This thread is about to go BOOM.
L
Listener
Guest
Please don’t change your mind about joining the Catholic Church because of your opinion on birth control. Please listen to your priests regarding this matter. It is nonsense to think that strangers on a forum have more authority than a priest. Jesus said to the Apostles, “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven. Whose sins you shall retain they are retained.” He was speaking to all of the apostles, not just St. Peter. Here is a quote from Pope Francis that I just came across:
ABOARD THE PAPAL FLIGHT FROM MEXICO - With physicians across Central and South American urging women to postpone pregnancy because of the Zika virus that causes birth defects, Pope Francis said using contraceptives could be a “lesser evil.”
Holding a news conference Feb. 17 on his way back to Rome after a six-day visit to Cuba and Mexico, the pope was asked if the use of artificial contraceptives or abortion could be considered “a lesser evil” when the baby had a high risk of birth defects.
“Abortion is not a lesser evil – it’s a crime,” Pope Francis said. It is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. “It’s an absolute evil.”
“Don’t confuse avoiding pregnancy with abortion,” the pope said.
The concept of a “lesser evil” may apply to artificial birth control, however, he said, pointing to Blessed Paul VI’s consent in the early 1960s for women religious in the then-Belgian Congo to take the pill when rape was being used as a weapon of war.
Unlike abortion, he said, “avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one and such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.”
ABOARD THE PAPAL FLIGHT FROM MEXICO - With physicians across Central and South American urging women to postpone pregnancy because of the Zika virus that causes birth defects, Pope Francis said using contraceptives could be a “lesser evil.”
Holding a news conference Feb. 17 on his way back to Rome after a six-day visit to Cuba and Mexico, the pope was asked if the use of artificial contraceptives or abortion could be considered “a lesser evil” when the baby had a high risk of birth defects.
“Abortion is not a lesser evil – it’s a crime,” Pope Francis said. It is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. “It’s an absolute evil.”
“Don’t confuse avoiding pregnancy with abortion,” the pope said.
The concept of a “lesser evil” may apply to artificial birth control, however, he said, pointing to Blessed Paul VI’s consent in the early 1960s for women religious in the then-Belgian Congo to take the pill when rape was being used as a weapon of war.
Unlike abortion, he said, “avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one and such as the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.”
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
One man goes to a priest and the priest says that he can use abc in his marriage. Another man asks another priest who says no. The both use it. Which one sinned?
B
Bookcat
Guest
The Pope was not saying of course that one could use contraception. And it is important to note that the case of the nuns being attacked and raped is different matter than say a married couple engaging in marital relations - contraception of the marital act is a grave evil.
- Status