Artificial Birth Control -vs- Cellibacy

[Uncle_Norbert]

As Practical Catholics, we belong to a Church that teaches that each occurance of the “conjugal act” must be open to the possibility of reproduction.

Yet, the same Church teaches that it’s primary clergy must remain cellibate, in direct conflict with one of the most basic instincts in nature.

Discuss ?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Well, celibacy is a discipline of the Latin rite of the Church. There are other rites within the church in which married men can and are ordained.

Christ told us that some would be celibate for God’s kingdom. Personally I don’t think it would hurt the Latin rite to adopt the same stance as some of our other Catholic Brethern have on the subject and ordain married men, however, this is the discipline of the Latin rite and they have the authority to set this discipline.

What’s this have to do with artificial birth control?

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

We don’t allow married couples to engage in the act while using any form of artificial birth control, which is directly opposite of our position with regard to priests and nuns.

While it IS “Church Teaching”, it seems contradictory. The stance against birth control is based in nature. Yet the concept of cellibacy is in direct conflict with nature.

 

[catherine_m]

We don’t allow married couples to engage in the act while using any form of artificial birth control, which is directly opposite of our position with regard to priests and nuns.

While it IS “Church Teaching”, it seems contradictory. The stance against birth control is based in nature. Yet the concept of cellibacy is in direct conflict with nature.

They are completely different callings. A vocation to the Priesthood or religious life is a totally different way of serving God than serving Him through a call to marriage.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As Practical Catholics, we belong to a Church that teaches that each occurance of the “conjugal act” must be open to the possibility of reproduction.

Yet, the same Church teaches that it’s primary clergy must remain cellibate, in direct conflict with one of the most basic instincts in nature.

Discuss ?

Not having sex is not “in direct conflict” with human nature. I gotta admit, despite my many and often unholy attempts to the contrary, most of my human existence is spent NOT having sex.

So, when one engages in the “conjugal act” it certainly must be in accord with what is “good” and not “evil.” Likewise, when one does NOT engage in the “conjugal act” it must be in accord with what is “good” and not “evil.” I don’t see any contradiction, do you?

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Not having sex is not “in direct conflict” with human nature. I gotta admit, despite my many and often unholy attempts to the contrary, most of my human existence is spent NOT having sex.

So, when one engages in the “conjugal act” it certainly must be in accord with what is “good” and not “evil.” Likewise, when one does NOT engage in the “conjugal act” it must be in accord with what is “good” and not “evil.” I don’t see any contradiction, do you?

So, you would disagree that the three most basic human instincts are food, shelter, and reproduction?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We don’t allow married couples to engage in the act while using any form of artificial birth control, which is directly opposite of our position with regard to priests and nuns.

Incorrect. I don’t think you have a good understanding of what the Church teaches regarding illicit means of birth control.

Fr. Gerald Kelly, S.J. explained the moral distinction between the use of "continence"–abstinence from the conjugal act–and artificial birth control very accurately and succinctly in his book, Medico-Moral Problems (1958):

“The Church teaches that contraception is a sin because it means doing what is evil. It is not the same with [periodic continence]. Those who practice [periodic continence] do nothing evil. They simply omit doing something good — that is, they abstain from intercourse at the time when it might be fertile. Therefore, the morality of using [periodic continence] must be judged in the same way as other omissions: if the abstinence from intercourse is a neglect of duty, it is sinful; if it does not imply a neglect of duty, it is not sinful.”

 

[Yerusalyim]

We don’t allow married couples to engage in the act while using any form of artificial birth control, which is directly opposite of our position with regard to priests and nuns.

While it IS “Church Teaching”, it seems contradictory. The stance against birth control is based in nature. Yet the concept of cellibacy is in direct conflict with nature.

We don’t allow? The Church doesn’t give people permission to have sex, it’s a gift from God. What the Church DOES do is tell us that there are ways we can misuse that gift. Among those misuses would be artificial birth control.

You ignore the fact that Christ said that some would be called to celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. A prime example is St. Paul.

If anything, the example of Christ tells us that as humans were are not to be driven by our nature. You mention food shelter and reproduction…At some time or another Christ did without food or shelter and did not reproduce…all for the sake of His mission to the rest of humanity.

Ergo, there is not a contradiction between the call to Celibacy practiced in the Latin rite as a discipline, and the use of artificial birth control which is a sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So, you would disagree that the three most basic human instincts are food, shelter, and reproduction?

If I sleep outside, I am not immoral in doing so. If I fast, I am not immoral in doing so. If I abstain from sex, I am not immoral in doing so. I can and often do give up something “good” for something better. That’s what “mortification,” “fasting” and “continence” is all about, no? It is not that the Church is against eating, is it? No. It is that we can and do give up something good for the strengthening of our spirit.

St. Paul, for example, explained that he “pummeled” his flesh in order to strengthen his spirit.

1 Cor 9:27 - “I pommel (Gk hupopiazo) my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”

Hupopiazo means literally, to beat black and blue that part of the face which is under the eyes, much like a boxer does to discipline himself. Giving up that which is good helps to discipline ourselves in order to strengthen one’s spirit (something better)

As was stated above by Fr. Kelly, the way to determine whether one is acting immorally with regard to “omissions” of certain moral acts pertains to whether or not one is neglecting an obligation, a duty. Only married couples have a duty to procreate for the generations and sustainment of human life. And, not all must marry and procreate to sustain the family, the Church, the society, or mankind.

With regard to shelter, food, and sex…

Am I obliged to sleep indoors? Only insofar as it is necessary for protecting my life. Am I obliged to eat? Only insofar as it is necessary for protecting my life. Am I obliged to procreate? Only insofar as it is necessary for protecting my life…wait a sec…contrary to popular belief, lack of sex will not kill me.

Let’s then look at our obligations to others. Is every person required to procreate in order to sustain the family? The Church? Society? No. Only those who marry have an obligation to procreate. However, any positive obligation can have justifying excusing causes which dispense from the positive obligation.

We cannot do what is evil (contraception). However, we can have justifying causes for abstaining from what is good (conjugal sex), for that which is better. For example, let’s say after two children, my spouse gets into a car wreck and her injury is such that she can no longer have conjugal sex. Should I affirm my right to have sex with her in order to continue to have children, or perhaps is their “just reasons” for abstaining from that which is good–sex–for something better–love.

“Responsible parenthood” is something the Church teaches, and it does not include the obligation to continue having as many babies as is possible.

See more here:

What is the morally correct level of children?

 

[catharina]

So, you would disagree that the three most basic human instincts are food, shelter, and reproduction?

Most basic human instincts? Having access to air, water, food, clothing, shelter - that meets the most basic human needs.

The practice of celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom” as is lived my nuns, priests, etc., is clearly, freely-chosen sacrificial action. That makes it an action that’s ABOVE the natural, the normative - and the choice involved is one of chosing the supernatural.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Ok, let’s throw in another one…guy gets married, has kids, and after kids are grown, wife dies.

Guy decides to enter priesthood…it DOES happen…yet his life was not cellibate.

Discuss?

 

[catharina]

Ok, let’s throw in another one…guy gets married, has kids, and after kids are grown, wife dies.

Guy decides to enter priesthood…it DOES happen…yet his life was not cellibate.

Discuss?

What’s to discuss?

He’s completed a Sacramental marriage.
Once again, he’s eligible for the Sacrament of Holy Orders or Matrimony.

 

[catherine_m]

Ok, let’s throw in another one…guy gets married, has kids, and after kids are grown, wife dies.

Guy decides to enter priesthood…it DOES happen…yet his life was not cellibate.

Discuss?

But he is celibate upon entering the Priesthood.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Ok, but now we have a priest with children and possible grandchildren. Is he “less of a priest” since he has a family than the priest who was always cellibate?

Same holds true with “convert” priests…if we accept men into the priesthood who were not cellibate to begin with, why is it neccessary to require cellibacy at all?

It’s ok for a priest to have a family, but only if he does it first?

As to the “completion of the sacrement” issue, what about a guy who marries, has kids, then divorces…gets an annulment and enters the priesthood?

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Question.

If an Episcopal priest with a wife and family converts and becomes a Catholic priest, is he required to be cellibate from that point on? I don’t know, do any of you?

 

[catherine_m]

I think he would not be accepted into the Priesthood unless his children were independant of him, that is adults and not minors.
He would be just like any other celibate Priest as he is now a widower. It is not the same thing as being a married Priest.

 

[catherine_m]

Question.

If an Episcopal priest with a wife and family converts and becomes a Catholic priest, is he required to be cellibate from that point on? I don’t know, do any of you?

I don’t know. If he was celibate would it be a marriage?

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

But he wasn’t always cellibate, so why should it matter?

I’m not trying to be a wise-guy, I’m trying to understand what seems to be circular logic.

As I’ve posted on other threads, I come from a heavy Catholic background with priests in the family. I am trying to understand what the issue of cellibacy has to do with the priesthood, when there are so many instances of priests who were previously not cellibate?

I am VERY interested is seeing an answer on the Episcopal convert with wife and kids question…

 

[catharina]

But he wasn’t always cellibate, so why should it matter?

I’m not trying to be a wise-guy, I’m trying to understand what seems to be circular logic.

As I’ve posted on other threads, I come from a heavy Catholic background with priests in the family. I am trying to understand what the issue of cellibacy has to do with the priesthood, when there are so many instances of priests who were previously not cellibate?

I am VERY interested is seeing an answer on the Episcopal convert with wife and kids question…

I can’t imagine how any special requirement for celibacy as a sacrificial action could be fitted into any circular logic. In any event, it’s likely the answers to your questions could be easily found through a google search.

 

[catherine_m]

It is not a question of them having to be celibate all of their lives, it is that they have to be celibate as Priests which allows them to dedicate themselves completely to God through service to the Church. I’m sure there are Priests who were not celibate before they entered the Priesthood but then had a conversion. An example would be St. Augustine.