Birth Control

[agapewolf]

I firmly believe that there are instances when couples should not have children. Period. What about in the case of mental illness? The type and severity of course should be taken into consideration. But let’s say there is a couple who get married knowing that they probably aren’t going to have children. Let’s say the wife is on medication that would DEFINITELY cause birth defects. You would go ahead and either sacrifice the wife’s health and/or the baby’s health for the sake of conception? And you would have the nerve to say that their marriage is invalid? That’s insane. And insulting.

Before you keep going on with such strong language, I highly recommend that you read those books first.

You are spouting off a lot here without having much of a background.

A valid marriage, BY DEFINITION is one that is open to life…that is for the raising of children. That is was makes marriage what it is.

 

[PatriceA]

I firmly believe that there are instances when couples should not have children. Period. What about in the case of mental illness? The type and severity of course should be taken into consideration. But let’s say there is a couple who get married knowing that they probably aren’t going to have children. Let’s say the wife is on medication that would DEFINITELY cause birth defects. You would go ahead and either sacrifice the wife’s health and/or the baby’s health for the sake of conception? And you would have the nerve to say that their marriage is invalid? That’s insane. And insulting.

That’s not what I said at all. There are couples that may have grave reasons why they should practice NFP and avoid having children. The Church does not say that someone that has a severe health issue MUST have children regardless of their own health or the baby’s. BUT, it must be a serious reason to avoid having children. And it would be a situation that the couple needs to consult their priest about. But a couple can not enter into a valid marriage if they have no serious reasons to avoid having children. They must enter the marriage freely giving consent that they are open to life, unless there is a grave reason otherwise.

If the only reason the couple is practicing any kind of birth control is that they do not want to have children, and that’s the only reason, its not a grave reason to avoid being open to life.

 

[catharina]

I am starting to understand more where you are coming from. BUT at the same time, I think that if a couple does not want children, they shouldn’t feel obligated to have them. I think it’s a personal decision and one that shouldn’t be made by the church. I’m pretty sure no one is going to change my opinion on that.

Such thinking makes you a product of the times,
a product of this culture.

As recently as the 1930s, ALL Christians agreed that
abc was (and should forever be) held as evil.

That was ALL Christians around the world,
100% faithful to the actual teachings of the Church.

And then … ?
God didn’t change His laws.
People began to ignore/defy His laws.

 

[CountrySinger]

I firmly believe that there are instances when couples should not have children. Period. What about in the case of mental illness? The type and severity of course should be taken into consideration. But let’s say there is a couple who get married knowing that they probably aren’t going to have children. Let’s say the wife is on medication that would DEFINITELY cause birth defects. You would go ahead and either sacrifice the wife’s health and/or the baby’s health for the sake of conception? And you would have the nerve to say that their marriage is invalid? That’s insane. And insulting.

The Churxh would also say that people like that shouldn’t get married at all. It is weird. No wonder people think Catholics are screwed up.

 

[kdragonfly]

Before you keep going on with such strong language, I highly recommend that you read those books first.

You are spouting off a lot here without having much of a background.

A valid marriage, BY DEFINITION is one that is open to life…that is for the raising of children. That is was makes marriage what it is.

Wow, thanks, I’m “spouting off” but I thought open dialogue was encouraged… good to know, thanks. Very Christian of you.

So according to you, a marriage is invalid even if a couple cannot be open to having children, even in cases of endangering the mother’s health? Please “enlighten” me.

 

[kdragonfly]

Such thinking makes you a product of the times,
a product of this culture.

As recently as the 1930s, ALL Christians agreed that
abc was (and should forever be) held as evil.

That was ALL Christians around the world,
100% faithful to the actual teachings of the Church.

And then … ?
God didn’t change His laws.
People began to ignore/defy His laws.

We aren’t talking about God’s laws, we are talking about church customs. Check out Vatican II in your spare time. Church customs do change!

 

[armywife]

Basically what is comes down to is obedience. I believe the Catholic church is the truth of Jesus Christ, so I will believe what she teaches.

Yes, we are pregnant with our 6th (due in a few weeks). It is a huge struggle at times. Most of the time we are fine, but there are times where I wish we could be permanently done. I know my husband would go have a vasectomy if tomorrow the Church announced it was ok (although he does waffle between no more kids and shooting for 10).

I do recommend studying and learning what the Church teaches and WHY. I am able to be obedient to this difficult teaching because I know why the Church teaches what it does. If I’m on ABC or DH get’s a vasectomy then I’m not fully accepting of him and he’s not giving his whole self to me.

In the end, God is in control and not us. If people use NFP as a form of birth control they will be very angry and disappointed. If you use NFP and realize God may have another plan then it won’t be so hard accepting another child.

 

[kdragonfly]

That’s not what I said at all. There are couples that may have grave reasons why they should practice NFP and avoid having children. The Church does not say that someone that has a severe health issue MUST have children regardless of their own health or the baby’s. BUT, it must be a serious reason to avoid having children. And it would be a situation that the couple needs to consult their priest about. But a couple can not enter into a valid marriage if they have no serious reasons to avoid having children. They must enter the marriage freely giving consent that they are open to life, unless there is a grave reason otherwise.

If the only reason the couple is practicing any kind of birth control is that they do not want to have children, and that’s the only reason, its not a grave reason to avoid being open to life.

Thank you. This is good to know. I’m glad to know that serious reasons are considered and factored in.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I am starting to understand more where you are coming from. BUT at the same time, I think that if a couple does not want children, they shouldn’t feel obligated to have them. I think it’s a personal decision and one that shouldn’t be made by the church. I’m pretty sure no one is going to change my opinion on that.

But this is part of the marriage vows…
Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?

I firmly believe that there are instances when couples should not have children. Period. What about in the case of mental illness? The type and severity of course should be taken into consideration. But let’s say there is a couple who get married knowing that they probably aren’t going to have children. Let’s say the wife is on medication that would DEFINITELY cause birth defects. You would go ahead and either sacrifice the wife’s health and/or the baby’s health for the sake of conception? And you would have the nerve to say that their marriage is invalid? That’s insane. And insulting.

This would easily fall into the category of being a grave/serious issue where NFP use would be valid. NFP is just as, if not MORE (when conservatively practiced) effective than most ABC’s… I’m not sure why this is an insulting option. Wouldn’t you also be risking the wife’s health and/or the baby’s health by using ABC which also isn’t 100% effective??

 

[catharina]

The Churxh would also say that people like that shouldn’t get married at all. It is weird. No wonder people think Catholics are screwed up.

As I said:

"As recently as the 1930s, ALL Christians agreed that
abc was (and should forever be) held as evil.

That was ALL Christians around the world,
100% faithful to the actual teachings of the Church.

And then … ?
God didn’t change His laws.
People began to ignore/defy His laws."

So Protestant Christians, already in some error,
fell into deeper error beginning in the 1930s.

NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

 

[catharina]

We aren’t talking about God’s laws, we are talking about church customs. Check out Vatican II in your spare time. Church customs do change!

Oh good grief.
I LIVED in the days of Vatican II -
as a fully grown adult!

Church TEACHINGS can NOT and did NOT change.
A teaching is NOT a custom.
A teaching is a “HOLY TRUTH.”

 

[kdragonfly]

But this is part of the marriage vows…
Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?

This would easily fall into the category of being a grave/serious issue where NFP use would be valid. NFP is just as, if not MORE (when conservatively practiced) effective than most ABC’s… I’m not sure why this is an insulting option. Wouldn’t you also be risking the wife’s health and/or the baby’s health by using ABC which also isn’t 100% effective??

I didn’t say that NFP is an insulting option - what is insulting is saying that a marriage is invalid if a couple goes into a marriage knowing they can’t have children even if it’s a very extenuating reason. However, Patrice did mention that it is possible to talk to the priest and that serious situations ARE considered and respected, so I am relieved to hear this at the very least.

 

[catharina]

We aren’t talking about God’s laws, we are talking about church customs. Check out Vatican II in your spare time. Church customs do change!

PS - this teaching (NOT a custom) is as old as Jewish Law.
Kind of 5000 years of the same law for ALL believers -
until the 1930s. LAWS do not change. Laws can not change.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I didn’t say that NFP is an insulting option - what is insulting is saying that a marriage is invalid if a couple goes into a marriage knowing they can’t have children even if it’s a very extenuating reason. However, Patrice did mention that it is possible to talk to the priest and that serious situations ARE considered and respected, so I am relieved to hear this at the very least.

Right - there’s not requirement that a couple HAS to have children (there are plenty of infertile Catholics out there!)… but the requirement is that marital chastity and respect for the morality of marital sexuality must be maintained… *regardless *of the extenuating circumstances (such as those grave/serious issues that may arise!)…

 

[PatriceA]

The Churxh would also say that people like that shouldn’t get married at all. It is weird. No wonder people think Catholics are screwed up.

You’re right, the Church probably would advise such a couple to not get married. You take the vow to be open to life during the Sacrament of Matrimony, you are taking an oath. You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the ceremony you’re going to promise to keep and which ones you aren’t. Would you want to stand up there at the altar the day of your wedding and have you intended promise you all the vows in the ceremony and maybe only mean to abide by some of the vows, OR would you want your intended to pledge to uphold ALL the vows? When we elect a president, do you want him to just mean part of his oath, or all of it? Couples need to take the time to study and discern what is being asked of them when they get married in the Catholic Church. If you don’t think you can promise ALL that is in the Catholic wedding ceremony, maybe its time to slow down and reconsider what you’re about to undertake.

 

[cviolette]

Oh good grief.
I LIVED in the days of Vatican II -
as a fully grown adult!

Church TEACHINGS can NOT and did NOT change.
A teaching is NOT a custom.
A teaching is a “HOLY TRUTH.”

 

[Gingersnaps4]

If the churches teachings never change I still don’t understand why an abortificant can be used as a treatment for a medical condition with the churches consent? It seems like a contradiction to me for soneone with a medical condition to get this free pass, as it were. Or am I wrong? If you are on hormonal BC to treat a medical condition, must you abstain? I’m not asking for myself, I am just curious. I wouldn’t take hormonal BC under any circumstance.

 

[catharina]

and to you :clapping:

 

[PatriceA]

I didn’t say that NFP is an insulting option - what is insulting is saying that a marriage is invalid if a couple goes into a marriage knowing they can’t have children even if it’s a very extenuating reason. However, Patrice did mention that it is possible to talk to the priest and that serious situations ARE considered and respected, so I am relieved to hear this at the very least.

Being open to life can take on many forms when a couple finds out they suffer from infertility. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’re off the hook if you can’t physically have children. A couple should still discern if God is asking them to be open to life through adoption, or through mentoring children or being foster parents, or even caring for their elderly relatives. It means being open to ALL life and how God may make that happen within the marriage relationship. It may mean for some couples that they become active in the pro-life debate, there are many, many ways being open to life can manifest itself in our relationships and marriages.

 

[Rico_S]

Congrats on your 6th!! Big families are great!

I do recommend studying and learning what the Church teaches and WHY. I am able to be obedient to this difficult teaching because I know why the Church teaches what it does. If I’m on ABC or DH get’s a vasectomy then I’m not fully accepting of him and he’s not giving his whole self to me.

So, after studying the why’s of the teaching…are you honestly on board with the reasoning (like you referenced above) and follow the teachings b/c you honestly believe they make sense. Or do you just accept the teaching b/c you are bound to obedience?