church authority

[fhkjds]

I did not grow up religious but over the past few years I’ve come to faith. I want to be part of the church that Jesus founded and to be able to participate in all the sacraments. I want to be Catholic.

However I’ve been looking at some of the church teachings and I don’t agree with them. It is uncomfortable for me to say “I don’t agree with the church on that issue” so I read a lot of articles and blogs online hoping one will convince me or help me see the truth of what the church teaches, because it’s not comfortable to disagree. But if I don’t believe something, I can’t just say I believe it. I believe that the desire for truth is a divine prompting, and to say I believe something I don’t would be to sever that. It is hard to accept that the church is not run by angels, but by fallible human beings. It is hard to disagree, but it would be harder to PRETEND to myself and to God that I believe something I don’t.

I do let the church teaching challenge me, it is not “picking and choosing.” If I see a teaching that seems strange I try to understand it and I will likely accept it even if it’s going to be really hard to live up to. I am not being capricious. If I say I disagree with something it’s only after a long hard challenging thought process that is not at all casual. Anyway after all my thought and reading I just can’t see why contraception is a moral wrong. I am confused, so please help me–not on the contraception thing per se, but just about the feelings I’m having about disagreeing with the church.

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

What are the some of the things you disagree with?

 

[Spencerian]

I did not grow up religious but over the past few years I’ve come to faith. I want to be part of the church that Jesus founded and to be able to participate in all the sacraments. I want to be Catholic.

However I’ve been looking at some of the church teachings and I don’t agree with them. It is uncomfortable for me to say “I don’t agree with the church on that issue” so I read a lot of articles and blogs online hoping one will convince me or help me see the truth of what the church teaches, because it’s not comfortable to disagree. But if I don’t believe something, I can’t just say I believe it. I believe that the desire for truth is a divine prompting, and to say I believe something I don’t would be to sever that. It is hard to accept that the church is not run by angels, but by fallible human beings. It is hard to disagree, but it would be harder to PRETEND to myself and to God that I believe something I don’t.

I do let the church teaching challenge me, it is not “picking and choosing.” If I see a teaching that seems strange I try to understand it and I will likely accept it even if it’s going to be really hard to live up to. I am not being capricious. If I say I disagree with something it’s only after a long hard challenging thought process that is not at all casual. Anyway after all my thought and reading I just can’t see why contraception is a moral wrong. I am confused, so please help me–not on the contraception thing per se, but just about the feelings I’m having about disagreeing with the church.

Hi, there.

I’d be happy to answer your question on why contraception is morally wrong in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

The fact is that the Church is against all forms of *artificial *contraception, which either places a physical barrier, changes hormonal chemistry of a woman, or outright destroys a conceived embryo in the womb. To use artificial means to control pregnancy is to bypass God’s natural design in creating children, and therefore challenge the will of God.

That said, the Church understands the need for *natural *contraception in married life in order to space out children, say for financial reasons or when a pregnancy could be a dangerous event for a woman due to medical reasons or age. That’s why the Church encourages the use of Natural Family Planning, or NFP, which allows couples to enjoy the marital act by recognizing the natural patterns of infertility in a woman’s menstrual cycle. It is safe, requires no drugs and is as effective (if not more so) than artificial means.

You can read more about this at this web site.

Catholic.com (the parent site of this forum) also has a commentary on the issue with Scriptural support and teachings from the Magisterium on the matter.

Regarding disagreeing with the Church:

It’s understandable. Think back to when you were a child and your love for things like candy. You would not think it a bad idea at all to have it all the time. But your parents knew better. It was a hard lesson to learn but time allowed you to understand the why of the decision.

Not all matters in the Church are easily digestible. But your mind appears to be open to the idea of understanding, and thus, you are open to adhering with a Church teaching, even if the *practice *of adhering to it is difficult.

 

[mommamaree]

Hi, there.

I’d be happy to answer your question on why contraception is morally wrong in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

The fact is that the Church is against all forms of *artificial *contraception, which either places a physical barrier, changes hormonal chemistry of a woman, or outright destroys a conceived embryo in the womb. To use artificial means to control pregnancy is to bypass God’s natural design in creating children, and therefore challenge the will of God.

That said, the Church understands the need for *natural *contraception in married life in order to space out children, say for financial reasons or when a pregnancy could be a dangerous event for a woman due to medical reasons or age. That’s why the Church encourages the use of Natural Family Planning, or NFP, which allows couples to enjoy the marital act by recognizing the natural patterns of infertility in a woman’s menstrual cycle. It is safe, requires no drugs and is as effective (if not more so) than artificial means.

You can read more about this at this web site.

Catholic.com (the parent site of this forum) also has a commentary on the issue with Scriptural support and teachings from the Magisterium on the matter.

I hope that helps!

I need to suggest one change to the wording you used here. The Church is opposed to any form of contraception, but not birth control which requires periodic abstinence. The term ‘contraception’ literally means *‘against conception’ *and is referring to whatever measures that a couple or individual might take to be able to engage in the marital act while rendering it sterile. Natural family planning is NOT contraception. Nothing is done to render the marital act sterile, i.e. to prevent conception. Rather, when the couple is aware that the woman is in a fertile time, they may choose to abstain, in other words, the marital act does not happen. There is a difference between engaging in sex while rendering it sterile and simply making a prudent decision to wait a few days until the fertile time has passed before resuming sexual relations. The first instance requires no self control, the second instance does require self control, as well as agreement between the husband and wife that they actually have significant reasons for postponing pregnancy.
So we need to be careful not to accidentally fall into the habit of referring to NFP as natural contraception, when in fact, it is not contraception at all, but rather a natural form of *birth control *(or birth spacing), one which requires self-discipline.

BTW, Spencerian, I hail from Indy as well. I grew up there and all my family still lives there, although my husband and I and our children now live in SC.

 

[Spencerian]

I need to suggest one change to the wording you used here. The Church is opposed to any form of contraception, but not birth control which requires periodic abstinence. The term ‘contraception’ literally means *‘against conception’ *and is referring to whatever measures that a couple or individual might take to be able to engage in the marital act while rendering it sterile. Natural family planning is NOT contraception. Nothing is done to render the marital act sterile, i.e. to prevent conception. Rather, when the couple is aware that the woman is in a fertile time, they may choose to abstain, in other words, the marital act does not happen. There is a difference between engaging in sex while rendering it sterile and simply making a prudent decision to wait a few days until the fertile time has passed before resuming sexual relations. The first instance requires no self control, the second instance does require self control, as well as agreement between the husband and wife that they actually have significant reasons for postponing pregnancy.
So we need to be careful not to accidentally fall into the habit of referring to NFP as natural contraception, when in fact, it is not contraception at all, but rather a natural form of *birth control *(or birth spacing), one which requires self-discipline.

BTW, Spencerian, I hail from Indy as well. I grew up there and all my family still lives there, although my husband and I and our children now live in SC.

A good clarification. Thanks!

 

[Sherry_G]

I liked Spencarian’s analogy about a small child who likes candy, and cannot understand why the parent refuses to allow him to have all he would like at the moment he would like it. Awakening to the truth and beauty of the one true Church of Jesus Christ is a process just like the human growth process from babyhood in the womb, childhood, teenaged rebellion, adulthood and acceptance that one cannot possibly and instinctively know everything about everything.

Holy Mother Church has been leading us on matters of faith and morals into it’s 21st century of existence after Christ first established it and the Holy Spirit endowed it with infallible teaching. So, it is perfectly normal and understandable that anyone could have disagreements and doubts when first making a decision to learn and follow Her teachings.

The more you learn, the less doubt and disagreement you will experience. Have faith, pray always, study diligently. Congratulations in making this choice and listening to the Lord speaking to your heart.:yyeess:

 

[fhkjds]

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

It’s not a matter of me liking candy, though. It’s not a matter of “but I want it now!” It is a matter of intellectual disagreement. When I disagree, I am uncomfortable about disagreeing and read many things on the official Catholic position, hoping one will truly convince me and help me see the truth of the teaching. If I don’t find that, though, I am uncomfortable but I refuse to become MORE uncomfortable by lying to myself and God and pretending to believe something.

God knows the church has made mistakes in history. It is divine, but also human, like Jesus. Sometimes well-intentioned people make mistakes in the name of God.

I think the idea of being against artificial contraception doesn’t make sense (and yes I am very uncomfortable saying that and disagreeing with the church). Why abstain from sex or use NFP if you’re not financially ready for a child? Just go ahead and have sex and if God wants you to have a baby, you’ll have a baby, and if not, you won’t. NFP is not foolproof and is an attempt to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. Likewise condoms aren’t foolproof and are an attempt to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. When I am married, if I use a condom I am not for a second under the false impression that I can stop God from giving us a child if he wants to. I am just using my BRAIN, a great gift from God, just like people who use NFP are using their BRAIN to try to use sex to come closer together even when they aren’t ready for a child.

If I sound angry or emphatic it is just because this is just because I really have come to love the church and am uncomfortable disagreeing with a teaching, and I wish somebody could show me exactly why the teaching is right. So far I do not see the truth of the teaching.

Thanks again for your thoughtful replies.

 

[Sherry_G]

I could be wrong, but I think you are looking for guidance on one particular issue having to do with huamn sexuality. Pope John Paul II wrote extensively on this issue in Humanae Vitae. Clearly, all human persons have sexuality which is, in and of itself, a perfect demonstration of God’s love for each of us. Developing in our understanding of what a great gift we have been given and understanding God’s will for us in this regard is an effort that will reap huge rewards for you, especially if you are considering marriage which is the only correct means of expression of our human sexuality in a manner that is pleasing to God.

Please consider reading or viewing some Catholic teaching videos on this subject and you will gain some valuable insights. Try “Natural Family Planning:Embracing the Marital Gift” which you can purchase online at EWTN’s Religious Catalog in the MultiMedia section. Jason and Crystalina Evert have some great materials out there too. They are a young married couple with a vast amount of knowledge and teaching materials to impart. May God Bless you in your search for truth.

 

[Chatter163]

Nicely put put, but remember that it was Paul VI who wrote Humanae Vitae, rather than JP2, who wrote Familiaris Consortio… Another fine encyclical that asserts the same teaching is Casti Connubii by Pius XI.

 

[Sherry_G]

Thank you Chatter163! That explains why I could not find it when searching earlier today! Learn, learn, learn!

 

[mommamaree]

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

It’s not a matter of me liking candy, though. It’s not a matter of “but I want it now!” It is a matter of intellectual disagreement. When I disagree, I am uncomfortable about disagreeing and read many things on the official Catholic position, hoping one will truly convince me and help me see the truth of the teaching. If I don’t find that, though, I am uncomfortable but I refuse to become MORE uncomfortable by lying to myself and God and pretending to believe something.

God knows the church has made mistakes in history. It is divine, but also human, like Jesus. Sometimes well-intentioned people make mistakes in the name of God.

I think the idea of being against artificial contraception doesn’t make sense (and yes I am very uncomfortable saying that and disagreeing with the church). Why abstain from sex or use NFP if you’re not financially ready for a child? Just go ahead and have sex and if God wants you to have a baby, you’ll have a baby, and if not, you won’t. NFP is not foolproof and is an attempt to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. Likewise condoms aren’t foolproof and are an attempt to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. When I am married, if I use a condom I am not for a second under the false impression that I can stop God from giving us a child if he wants to. I am just using my BRAIN, a great gift from God, just like people who use NFP are using their BRAIN to try to use sex to come closer together even when they aren’t ready for a child.

If I sound angry or emphatic it is just because this is just because I really have come to love the church and am uncomfortable disagreeing with a teaching, and I wish somebody could show me exactly why the teaching is right. So far I do not see the truth of the teaching.

Thanks again for your thoughtful replies.

So many of us here at CAF are converts, so we really can understand where you are coming from. With regards to intellectual disagreement, especially, since Protestant faiths really stress intellectual assent, we converts from Protestantism often get stuck at this point. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the Catholic faith is a bit different; intellectual understanding may come in time with spiritual maturation, but in the meantime, we are called to trust and act in faith. This level of trust is built up over time, through meeting actual Catholics, visits with priests, attending RCIA when you are ready, and of course, regular Mass attendance. If you cannot yet assent to a teaching, but are genuinely open to more learning and discussion, then I think you have come to the right place. The NFP vs. contraception debate is a constant topic in ‘Family Life’ and ‘Moral Theology’ forums here. Try searching the forums for old threads that can help illuminate the distinction between the two forms of birth control, and also the purpose of marriage and sex. Also, enrolling in RCIA at your local parish may help you to further discern if you feel called to the Catholic Church, despite your present disagreements and doubts.
If you would like, I can continue discussing this topic with you here in the thread. I am a recent convert myself, so all of this is still very fresh in my mind, and very relevant to me. The Church’s teachings on marriage, sexuality, and natural family planning were what drew me to the Church in the first place. I was curious, but doubtful, but began reading and reading, and because of that, my husband and I came to a place in our relationship where we were not only ready to have another child (we have two already, and now one on the way), but also were ready to join the Church and learn all about how to practice NFP. My perspective was completely changed once I really learned not only the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ but ‘WHY’. I can try to share that with you here if you are interested, but I do not want to push my choices or beliefs on you!

 

[TheDoctor]

I am confused, so please help me…but just about the feelings I’m having about disagreeing with the church.

Hey Howdy Hi. I think I understand what you are asking. Let me answer first with a little scripture from John 6:54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him…
… Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?..But there are some of you who do not believe…
… As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Here we have Jesus instituting a “church teaching” that some of his disciples could not agree with so they went away. How about the ones who stayed though? Do you think they understood what the new teaching was or did they just accept it on faith that Jesus knew better than they did and remain?

I have been where you are and still am, and I dare say many of us are. In fact, there are a couple of church teachings that I do not fully agree with, due to my inability to fully understand why the church teaches that. But, even though I don’t fully understand I trust in faith that the Catholic Church is the one true church and that her Pope and theologians are much smarter than I, so I will obey and follow.

Therefore, unlike the disciples in John who left because they could not or did not understand, we are called to stay the course, believe and follow both the things we agree with and understand and those we do not.

It is kinda clear in my head, hope it comes out in type the same way.

 

[fhkjds]

I think it’s dangerous, though, to just say “I don’t get it but the church must be right.” The church has done bad things in history (because it is run by humans) and I think for the laity at that time to say “the church must be right” would have been wrong-headed.

What if it’s not a matter of “I don’t understand why the church teaches that,” but “I have explored fully why the church teaches that, and I disagree” ?

Both positions are uncomfortable. It’s uncomfortable for me to say “I’m sure I’ll come to understand this teaching even though the reasons seem flat wrong to me,” but it’s also uncomfortable to disagree with the church. They are both uncomfortable but there’s only one I can assert honestly.

 

[fhkjds]

Also, yes, many disciples left after he said they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. But it’s wrong just to go “Ugh!” and walk away like they did. That’s not what I’m doing. I’m doing what those disciples should have done–I asking Jesus to help me understand and to guide me to truth and to help me see as fully and clearly as I can.

 

[Onegin]

I think a lot of the confusion with most Catholics (and Protestants) today is that most Catholics think that the Church “encourages” the use of NFP as an alternative to contraception. This is not an correct characterisation of Church teaching on contraception or NFP.

Here’s a few points which I think bear mentioning on this forum:

1. NFP is no more of a “Catholic birth control” than an annulment is a “Catholic divorce.” The two may be treated as such today, but that doesn’t make it right or proper.
2. The intentional use of contraceptives is a mortal sin. It is a sin not because of it’s potential consequences (inhibiting the birth of a child and/or aborting a child) but because of it’s inherent nature. Consequences can be used as an argument for why one shouldn’t contracept, yet they are not the reason that the act itself is inherently wrong.
3. NFP used to avoid conception is only to be resorted to in grave circumstances. Most Catholics today resort to NFP as a default, making it a “Catholic birth control” as I noted above. The exception has once again swallowed the rule.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM

1. Understandably, many Protestants today are confused by the modern, Catholic attitude towards contraception, which is that contraception is wrong, but NFP is fine! Any Protestant with their wits about them can understand that this argument is silly. Though it may not be “artificial”, NFP is being used for the same purpose as the other contraceptives, to avoid a child when no grave reason for doing so is present. When this happens, the use of NFP also becomes a grave wrong.

 

[mommamaree]

I’m doing what those disciples should have done–I asking Jesus to help me understand and to guide me to truth and to help me see as fully and clearly as I can.

If this is how you would describe your situation, then perhaps it is less a matter of outright disagreement, and more a matter of doubt or distrust of the truth of a teaching.
Just as a conversation starter, here is a question for you to ponder. I would like to hear your thoughts in response.

Do you see any actual difference between abstaining during a fertile time in order to postpone pregnancy and engaging in sexual relations while contracepting? I am not asking which you would choose, or which you think is better for the sake of the marriage, just merely, Do you see any actual difference in the two choices?

Depending upon your answer, then we can see how to further explore this topic.

 

[Chatter163]

I think it’s dangerous, though, to just say “I don’t get it but the church must be right.” The church has done bad things in history (because it is run by humans) and I think for the laity at that time to say “the church must be right” would have been wrong-headed.

There are many legitimate examples of wrong-headedness on the part of the Church (more commonly with specific members), but the Church is never wrong in its positions on fand and morals. That was Our Lord’s own promise. In this a Catholic may legimiately say, “I know that this is correct because the Church teaches it.” Most of what occurs in churches is not subject to this, but matters of faith and morals are.

BTW, thank you, mommaree, for a lovely little treatise on the faith and intellectual assent of converts. It was concise, accurate and quite beautiful to read. :tiphat:

 

[mommamaree]

I think a lot of the confusion with most Catholics (and Protestants) today is that most Catholics think that the Church “encourages” the use of NFP as an alternative to contraception. This is not an correct characterisation of Church teaching on contraception or NFP.

Here’s a few points which I think bear mentioning on this forum:

1. NFP is no more of a “Catholic birth control” than an annulment is a “Catholic divorce.” The two may be treated as such today, but that doesn’t make it right or proper.
2. The intentional use of contraceptives is a mortal sin. It is a sin not because of it’s potential consequences (inhibiting the birth of a child and/or aborting a child) but because of it’s inherent nature. Consequences can be used as an argument for why one shouldn’t contracept, yet they are not the reason that the act itself is inherently wrong.
3. NFP used to avoid conception is only to be resorted to in grave circumstances. Most Catholics today resort to NFP as a default, making it a “Catholic birth control” as I noted above. The exception has once again swallowed the rule.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM

1. Understandably, many Protestants today are confused by the modern, Catholic attitude towards contraception, which is that contraception is wrong, but NFP is fine! Any Protestant with their wits about them can understand that this argument is silly. Though it may not be “artificial”, NFP is being used for the same purpose as the other contraceptives, to avoid a child when no grave reason for doing so is present. When this happens, the use of NFP also becomes a grave wrong.

I’d like to respond to your very good post here just to mention that NFP, as in Natural Family Planning, is merely a way of monitoring a woman’s fertility, so that the husband and wife can make informed decisions regarding their sexual behavior and having children. NFP can just as easily be used to help a woman become pregnant, and can help reveal fertility issues or health problems. It can help a couple to space out their children so that the woman is at full strength and the children they already have will have passed from infancy to older toddlerhood. I just mention this because your post very adequately describes what I have heard about regarding a ‘contraceptive mentality’ but NFP can be used as a holistic method for truly planning one’s family, not just preventing pregnancy. I don’t want that benefit of NFP to get lost in this discussion, because it is so important.

 

[fhkjds]

--------Do you see any actual difference between abstaining during a fertile time in order to postpone pregnancy and engaging in sexual relations while contracepting? I am not asking which you would choose, or which you think is better for the sake of the marriage, just merely, Do you see any actual difference in the two choices?-------

I think that the pill is wrong, I maybe should have mentioned earlier, because it can keep a fertilized egg from realizing its potential and implanting. So I think that’s wrong. But as for condom use–I do not think every woman’s egg or ever man’s sperm has a right to life. So I see no reason to say that having sex with a condom is any morally worse than abstaining from sex or having a wet dream.

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies, I’m also meeting with a friend tonight who is a priest and I’ll ask him for guidance.

 

[mommamaree]

--------Do you see any actual difference between abstaining during a fertile time in order to postpone pregnancy and engaging in sexual relations while contracepting? I am not asking which you would choose, or which you think is better for the sake of the marriage, just merely, Do you see any actual difference in the two choices?-------

I think that the pill is wrong, I maybe should have mentioned earlier, because it can keep a fertilized egg from realizing its potential and implanting. So I think that’s wrong. But as for condom use–I do not think every woman’s egg or ever man’s sperm has a right to life. So I see no reason to say that having sex with a condom is any morally worse than abstaining from sex or having a wet dream.

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies, I’m also meeting with a friend tonight who is a priest and I’ll ask him for guidance.

Okay, this helps me understand what your position is, and actually, up until last year, I would have agreed with you! Now, however, I have a new perspective as a result of learning more about the two-fold purpose of the marital act - unitive and procreative. Obviously, we can both agree that hormonal contraceptive remove the procreative aspect, and for that reason as well as other personal reasons we may have, we see the wrongness of using those. So let’s look at condom use. It allows for completion of the marital act (i.e. coitus) without as high a chance of conception occuring. However, condom use involves a withholding in two ways: first, it removes the procreative aspect because the husband is withholding the seminal fluid released during orgasm (obviously, right? ), and second, it removes the unitive aspect in a subtle but serious way. The biblical teaching of ‘two shall become one flesh’ cannot occur if the most intimate organs involved are actually prevented from coming into contact. True, the rest of the bodies do touch, and the value of that connection should not be dismissed or overlooked. However, using a condom is like saying “I want you, but I do not want your most intimate organ to touch my most intimate organ, because I feel afraid of having a child.” It is not really the mutual self-giving that we Christians are called to within marriage. So, a condom actually removes both the procreative aspect and the unitive aspect. True, condoms do fail, and if the woman is fertile, it is highly likely that failure at that time would lead to conception. But do we really want to be saying to God “If You want us to have a child, then we insist it must be as a result of a mistake or accident, because we will not be giving ourselves completely to each other in the marital embrace.”
Natural family planning is inherently different because instead of indulging in a pleasurable act without acknowledging its proper context and purpose, the husband and wife are using their intellect and self-discipline to work within God’s plan. I remember reading in one of Paul’s epistles (sorry can’t remember which one), that we are called to put the bridle of love upon our passions. Within the context of sexual expression within marriage, this means that sex is not about seeking pleasure, although the experience of the pleasure is undeniably wonderful. Rather, we are meant to give ourselves completely to our spouse, and lovemaking should really be about giving, in love, the gift of ourself. This cannot happen when a couple is fearful of getting pregnant or when either the unitive or procreative aspect, or both, are removed. It is far better for us to pray to be able to trust in God’s providence, and for us to learn about the God-given cycle of fertility of the woman’s body, and to work together as a couple to prayerfully plan our families. Then, we may enjoy the joy of sexual expression within marriage the way that God intended and Jesus taught.
Hope this helps to continue the conversation a bit. I wanted to address your response to my initial question, but also talk a bit about what sexual expression within marriage is meant for, as taught by the Catholic Church. I look forward to continuing our discussion as you are ready. And I am very glad to hear that you have a priest-friend who can help you understand the ins and outs of this topic. That should make for a very interesting conversation, I would think! Hope you enjoy it.