Can a married Catholic in good conscience use contraception?

[wasurso]

The use of any kind of contraceptive causes people to go to Hell when they die - this is why the Catholic Church can never permit any of them.

Actually, again, not true. People don’t go to hell for using contraceptives. People go to hell for committing sins that go without being forgiven. To be forgiven, one has to ask for forgiveness from God. Also, something cannot be a sin if morally, a person believes it is not.

 

[astegallrnc]

There are tiny, hair-like strands in the fallopian tubes called Fimbria that move the egg down the fallopian tube and into the uterus. If the wall of the uterus is favorable (a lining of about 10-15mm is ideal) then a fertilized egg can implant.

The cilia move the ovum. The fimbriae are fingelike projections that surrond the distal end of each fallopian tube.

even if a conception takes place, the lining of the uterus wouldn’t be favorable for a pregnancy implantation. The pill makes it so that the uterine lining does not build up. So a fertlitized egg will never implant and thus be “poisoned” as you have stated.

This is why the pill is a potential abortifacient.

BTW, BCPs do not contain progesterone. They contain progestin.

 

[wasurso]

Since there seems to be a discrepancy, I recommend that you read the Catechism, and decide based upon a more informed conscience. If your priest leads you into sin, it is better for him to have a millstone around his neck.

But cathecism isn’t the be all, end all. Aren’t we all Jewish because Jesus was a Jew? We are Christian because we believe Jesus is our Savior whereas Jews believe the Savior is yet to come… right?

Then why not question, research, lead a conversation, as Jews do?

Some people take the Bible literally. But we have been taught time and again that we should take it figuratively. Did Jesus really make one fish turn into thousands? Yes! He did that though by showing the goodness we all have inside of us. One fish turned into thousands when everyone opened up their own hearts and baskets to feed others - as Jesus had fed their souls.

 

[wasurso]

The best reason to place the church teaching over your own is because the Church has been following Jesus for 2000 years, and has more experience in understanding His will than each of us does individually. Also, Jesus guaranteed His spirit would guide the Church into all truth.

You’re right, the Church has been following Jesus for more than 2000 years. But when did the Church decide that Jesus would think that contraceptives would be wrong? That wasn’t 2000 years ago, yet our Church seems to think that we are still living in biblical times.

 

[wasurso]

The cilia move the ovum. The fimbriae are fingelike projections taht surrond the distal end of each fallopian tube.

In the female reproductive system, the fimbria is a fringe of tissue near the ovary leading to the fallopian tube. Cilia is located in fallopian tube - you’re right.

This is why the pill is a potential abortifacient.

BTW, BCPs do not contain progesterone. They contain progestin.

Progestin is a synthetic progesterone. Only natural progesterone can be called progesterone. Anything that is man-made, or synthetic is called progestin.

I don’t believe the pill is an abortifacient. The pill is over 98% effective in preventing conception. That is better statistics than condoms.

 

[jmcrae]

You’re right, the Church has been following Jesus for more than 2000 years. But when did the Church decide that Jesus would think that contraceptives would be wrong?

Contraceptive medicines (pharmakeia), together with abortion and child exposure, are forbidden in the Didache (which is an early teaching book of the sayings of Christ and the Apostles), which some scholars date as early as 50 AD - no scholar, even the most “liberated,” dates it any later than 150 AD.

That wasn’t 2000 years ago, yet our Church seems to think that we are still living in biblical times.

The Apostolic ban against contraceptives has never been rescinded.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t believe the pill is an abortifacient. The pill is over 98% effective in preventing conception. That is better statistics than condoms.

It is 98% effective in preventing full-term pregnancies - how much of that 98% is actual prevention of conception and how much of it is early-term abortion is impossible to tell, since the mother herself would have no way of knowing that she had been pregnant.

 

[astegallrnc]

Progestin is a synthetic progesterone. Only natural progesterone can be called progesterone. Anything that is man-made, or synthetic is called progestin.

I agree, but you will find a number of medical professinals disagree.

I don’t believe the pill is an abortifacient. The pill is over 98% effective in preventing conception. That is better statistics than condoms.

Notice I stated potential abortifacient.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe you should read this first before judging me:

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” Luke 6: 41-42

Setter, the poster was responding to your question as to whether you should become a “puppet”. The alternative to being a “puppet” is to be transformed into the image of Christ. No one was judging “you”. We are ALL called to be transformed into Christ equally. Our attidutes, beliefs, values, behavior, through and through. THe priests you consulted are also called to be transformed. The poster was trying to point out that it is transformation, not becoming a puppet, that we are being asked to participate in with Christ.

 

[wasurso]

I agree, but you will find a number of medical professinals disagree.

Actually, I got that information from my own Reproductive Endocrinologist, an MD that specializes in infertility.

 

[guanophore]

Setter, the poster was responding to your question as to whether you should become a “puppet”. The alternative to being a “puppet” is to be transformed into the image of Christ. No one was judging “you”. We are ALL called to be transformed into Christ equally. Our attidutes, beliefs, values, behavior, through and through. THe priests you consulted are also called to be transformed. The poster was trying to point out that it is transformation, not becoming a puppet, that we are being asked to participate in with Christ.

According to the priests that I consulted, the prohibition against contraception and not everything in the Catechism is infallible teaching. Who am I to believe or trust? Why would any priest lead me astray? Thay are there to teach and guide the flock, are they not? Btw – What are your credentials?

I think most priests make mistakes unintentially. They are not properly educated, or are unprepared. I recently had a monsignior tell me that the church no longer excommunicates people that have had abortions.

Yes, they are there to teach and guide, and may God bless them abundantly in their efforts, but they are not perfect either.

 

[wasurso]

Contraceptive medicines (pharmakeia), together with abortion and child exposure, are forbidden in the Didache (which is an early teaching book of the sayings of Christ and the Apostles), which some scholars date as early as 50 AD - no scholar, even the most “liberated,” dates it any later than 150 AD.

The Apostolic ban against contraceptives has never been rescinded.

But literal teaching from 50AD is different than teaching today, in 2007. In 50AD, what sort of birth control methods did they have? None. They didn’t even know the full scale of what a woman’s reproductive system does. They used the “moon” and “bleed” method.

I can’t, in good faith, listen to a doctor from 50AD when there is medical technology that fits well with my faith today.

That is like asking for an amputation with only ether.

 

[astegallrnc]

Actually, I got that information from my own Reproductive Endocrinologist, an MD that specializes in infertility.

I work in reproductive medicine, and they don’t agree.

 

[jmcrae]

Some people take the Bible literally. But we have been taught time and again that we should take it figuratively.

Who says that? Not the Catholic Church.

From the Catechism:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their signifi cance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of
   the heavenly Jerusalem.

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church
to form a fi rmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”

 

[wasurso]

I work in reproductive medicine, and they don’t agree.

Really? Are you a doctor? Do you work in a clinic? I see you’re in the midwest as am I. My doctor was Dr. Rodney Hoxsey, who was the Director of Reproductive Endocrinology at the hospital where I did my IVF. He is now the director at LSU for the OB/GYN residency program.

 

[wasurso]

Who says that? Not the Catholic Church.

From the Catechism:

You said it yourself in your quote, the different ways to interpret the bible. Literally is just one of them. Please don’t tell me you take the Bible, word-for-word as literal! The bible is meant to be interpreted. Any priest will tell you that much.

 

[jmcrae]

But literal teaching from 50AD is different than teaching today, in 2007. In 50AD, what sort of birth control methods did they have? None.

Why don’t you research the issue before deciding? Medical science is not a recent invention, and neither is chemical birth control. Chemical birth control is as old as the profession of prostitution and the sins of fornication and adultery, since without chemical birth control, all of these things are impossible to get away with.

The only thing new is that, for the very first time in human history, these things - first, chemical birth control, and then the sins that birth control enables - have become legal and even quite acceptable in certain strata of society.

They didn’t even know the full scale of what a woman’s reproductive system does. They used the “moon” and “bleed” method.

That’s very insulting - do you know this for a fact, or are you just assuming that our ancestors were as dumb as rocks?

 

[Cari]

Dear Wasurso,

To answer your question, yes I am married, with my 3rd child on the way. Yes, I too have suffered a loss in marriage (I assume you are referring to the very tragic case of miscarriage). I am very sorry to hear about your tubal pregnancy, and thank God it was detected before it was too late. You will be in my prayers.

However, what you are arguing is called moral relativism. God is eternal. His laws are eternal. You and I are not the only people who have faced hard hard times trying to follow the teachings of His Church. Ask St. Gianna how easy it was for her to make her decisions. However, like St. Gianna, I will not change Church teachings to suit my needs because I think too much time has passed since they were laid down. I will not twist the truth to be more in line with my life. I will change my life to be in line with the Truth.

 

[astegallrnc]

Really? Are you a doctor? Do you work in a clinic? I see you’re in the midwest as am I. My doctor was Dr. Rodney Hoxsey, who was the Director of Reproductive Endocrinology at the hospital where I did my IVF. He is now the director at LSU for the OB/GYN residency program.

Yes. No, I am a Women’s Health NP. No, I don’t work in a clinic. Dr. Hoxsey needs to educate other physicians, because this drives me crazy (though this is a short drive ).

 

[Cari]

Why don’t you research the issue before deciding? Medical science is not a recent invention, and neither is chemical birth control. Chemical birth control is as old as the profession of prostitution and the sins of fornication and adultery, since without chemical birth control, all of these things are impossible to get away with.

Just a quick search on Google revealed the following:

Efforts to prevent pregnancy have been attempted since ancient times and in many cultures. Contraception methods ranged from the use of tampons treated with herbal spermicide by the Egyptians in 1550 B.C. to the use of animal membrane condoms in the eighteenth century. The introduction of the oral contraceptive pill in 1960 launched a new era, making contraception easier and more effective than earlier methods. However, sterilization remains the method used most frequently. from science.jrank.org/pages/1769/Contraception.html

and

In the ancient medical manuscript the Ebers Papyrus (1550 BCE), women were advised to grind dates, acacia tree bark, and honey together into a paste and apply it with seed wool to the vulva. Modern science has shown that, since acacia ferments into lactic acid, a well-known spermicide, this method may have been effective. Other compounds that were smeared around the vagina included olive oil, pomegranate pulp, ginger, and tobacco juice. from medhunters.com/articles/historyOfFemaleContraception.html

and that’s just a 5 minute google search.