Confused about God's message concerning Birthcontrol

[Amandak249]

I’m just entering in to those years when I will be getting married and having children. I want children desperately, and I’m a little confused.

Anyway, I was always under the assumption that birthcontrol was against the Catholic way of life because it hindered conception. Simple as that. In my childhood, I was taught very simply by my mother that "God wanted to put someone else on this earth, and who am I to get in his way? "

But I’ve heard recently about all types of birthcontrol that is acceptable in our faith. NFP , Thermal, etc.

My question is, what makes these different from other forms ? I understand that most forms of BC on the market today are chemical, artificial, or literal plastic, and that the ones discussed on the forums are natural, and focus on avoidance of sex during our fertile days, but are we not still hindering God’s plans? Can we really choose to engage in sexual relations, and do so only on some days with the specific intention of avoiding pregnancy? Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Perhaps it lies in the fact that with artificial BC even on our fertile days we are having sex and not getting pregnant, and that THIS is against God’s teaching? Hmm…

Any light that can be shed on this issue would be very helpful for me. I mean no offense in asking this, I am truly just curious.

 

[kage_ar]

Begin in the CCC at this link. The footnotes will direct you to documents you can read at Vatican.va

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm

**2370 **Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil: Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

 

[Jennifer_J]

We are not called to have every child conceivable possible. Total abstinence is a form of regulating or controling births that is licit. Periodic abstinence is also a licit form of regulating births. NFP is not contraception–but it does control births. Guess what? The Church isn’t against this. What the Church is against is the means that we regulate births. It’s important that each and every act be both unitive AND open to procreation. This opennes to procreation does not equal being fertile–as we know women aren’t fertile all the time. Being open to procreation means the act is done in the manner it was created…a baby would result if all the conditions are right.

And, agreeing with kage_ar, read the Catechism on this AND the documents it links to.

 

[newbetx]

I’m just entering in to those years when I will be getting married and having children. I want children desperately, and I’m a little confused.

Anyway, I was always under the assumption that birthcontrol was against the Catholic way of life because it hindered conception. Simple as that. In my childhood, I was taught very simply by my mother that "God wanted to put someone else on this earth, and who am I to get in his way? "

But I’ve heard recently about all types of birthcontrol that is acceptable in our faith. NFP , Thermal, etc.

My question is, what makes these different from other forms ? I understand that most forms of BC on the market today are chemical, artificial, or literal plastic, and that the ones discussed on the forums are natural, and focus on avoidance of sex during our fertile days, but are we not still hindering God’s plans? Can we really choose to engage in sexual relations, and do so only on some days with the specific intention of avoiding pregnancy? Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Perhaps it lies in the fact that with artificial BC even on our fertile days we are having sex and not getting pregnant, and that THIS is against God’s teaching? Hmm…

Any light that can be shed on this issue would be very helpful for me. I mean no offense in asking this, I am truly just curious.

You actually almost have it. The big deal about ABC is that, in many cases, it eventually creates division rather than unity. Some here may argue but stats hold pretty well that NFP couples have a stronger relationship over ABC couples. There are several books on this subject and all are related to Theology of the Body. PM me if you want some recommendations.

TOB is about the spousal relationship. There isn’t a quick and easy answer to this question but a larger view of the relationship with your spouse and how God meant it to be. I highly recommend you read about it and discuss it thoroughly with your fiance. If you accept this view, your marriage will be blest.

 

[LilyM]

Choosing to limit the number of children you have and plan (as far as is possible) when you will have them is not in and of itself an evil.

Certainly it can be wrong, but only if the couple is genuinely able to financially and emotionally support extra children and choose not to have them for selfish reasons related to a better lifestyle or what have you.

This is because God naturally makes women infertile for the majority of their adult lives - three-odd weeks out of every month, not to mention the postmenopausal decades. Human sexuality is in direct contrast to that of every other animal, in that every other animal species is either continually fertile (capable of childbearing) or else will only be capable or interested in mating during the female’s fertile times.

Making use of these God-given breaks in our fertility is thus not necessarily a sinful thing. Artificial contraception, on the other hand, is just that - artificial, not as God intended. Therefore it’s wrong and contrary to His plans for our fertility, simple as that.

The means we employ to achieve certain ends, even legitimate ones, does matter. For example, it’s legitimate to seek to make money to support oneself, but certain means of doing so (robbing banks, prostitution or drug dealing) of achieving that legitimate end are impermissible. Artificial contraception is similarly a case of using an impermissible means to achieve an end that is not necessarily a bad one.

 

[mepriaulx]

Hi,

I struggled with the Church’s teaching on this for several years. Over the years, I have come to accept it and really see the beauty in the Church’s teaching. Here are the notes that I have gathered along the way.

They are too long for a single post so I will do it in two parts:
-Part 1: Arguments against hormonal birth control (the pill, the patch, etc).
-Part 2: Arguments against barriers (condoms, etc).

PART 1

-Contraception was not invented to prevent pregnancy. We already had a 100% effective method of that (abstinence). It was invented by men because they didn’t want to abstain. Which led to men who couldn’t abstain. And then what did that make the women?

-When the pill was being developed, they made a male version and a female version. With the male pill, a few men developed a rash, and they canceled the whole drug development. However, while developing the female pill three women died.

-Injectable and non-injectable birth control hormones (i.e. “the pill”) are both contraceptives and abortifacient. Basically, they have several actions- some actions are contraceptive, and one is abortifacient. The estrogen and progestins present in these types of birth control “fool” the pituitary gland into believing that there is sufficient stimulation of the ovaries, so it produces less FSH and LH (hormones). This situation in turn leads to the suppression of ovulation in most cycles (however, breakthrough ovulation can still occur occasionally). Additionally, the hormones may cause the mucus to thicken, making it more difficult for sperm to travel up through the cervix, or they slow tubal motility, which affects sperm and egg movement through the Fallopian tube. The third action of the injectibles and non-injectibles is that they thin the endometrium (inner lining of the uterus) by depleting it of an important sugar, called glycogen. This in turn decreases the thickness of the endometrium, thus reducing its blood supply. In the event of conception occurring due to breakthrough ovulation, the blastocyst may be prevented from implanting in the uterus (as a result of these changes in the endometrium), thus causing an early abortion.

-Here is another source testifying to the abortifacient nature of hormonal birth control, signed by 26 obstetricians:
epm.org/articles/26doctor.html

-Since some women do still get pregnant while on the pill, it is clear that breakthrough ovulation (and conception) is indeed occurring.

-Considering that a woman is fertile for ~40 years of her life, this is an exceptionally long time to be on any form of medication.

-Medicine should be taken when something is wrong. Fertility is not a disease that needs to be cured.

-There are many possible side effects of the pill: weight gain, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, headaches, depression, vaginal infections, high blood pressure, loss of libido, blood clots in legs, lungs, heart or brain, stroke, possibly cervical cancer, bone density loss, enlarged ovarian follicles, ectopic pregnancy, certain cancers.

-Some women have been unable regain their fertility after quitting the pill.

-Hormonal BC’s are not 100% effective (no contraceptive is, short of surgical procedures).

-It is important to note the terminology for the medical definition of pregnancy. In the 1970s, the medical definition of pregnancy was changed. Instead of pregnancy beginning at conception, it was redefined as beginning once a blastocyst (a new life) has implanted in the uterus. With this arbitrary definition of pregnancy encompassing only the time between implantation and the birth of a child, many individuals and organizations now justify various immoral behaviors up to the point of implantation (like in vitro fertilization). Furthermore, many pharmaceutical companies that sell birth control use this definition of pregnancy as an excuse to advertise that their products “do not terminate a pregnancy”. While consistent with the medical definition, it is certainly misleading because people naturally assume that life begins at pregnancy which is not true, medically speaking.

 

[mepriaulx]

PART 2- Arguments against barriers (condoms, etc)

-Intimacy: putting a barrier between a husband and wife during their most intimate moments is not very romantic. “It’s like kissing through a screen door.”

-NFP may be more effective than barriers. See BBC article:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6375261.stm

-NFP encourages fasting. 1 Cor. 7 verses 2-5:
“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

-Occasional abstinence creates a “seasonal effect”, reducing the potential for intercourse to become mundane or routine. As Christopher West puts it: If you can’t say no, your yes means nothing.

-Prior to 1930 *every *church was opposed to contraception (including Luther and Calvin.)

-Many of the early Christians taught that contraception was a sin. Here is an article with many interesting quotations from Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Augustine, the Council of Nicea, John Chrysostom, and Jerome (some of them are quite harsh): catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

-God’s first command to us was to “be fruitful and multiply”. Although this does not necessarily support NFP, it does contradict with contraceptives.

-There are two natural purposes for sex: unity and procreation. Many philosophers argue that separating these two purposes contradicts natural law. It’s like eating food and vomiting it back up (eating for pleasure alone and refusing to take responsibility for any nutritional effects of that eating). A similar way to explain this is to distinguish the fact that NFP is a form of birth control, but it is not a contraceptive. There is a large difference between abstaining from sex and altering sex.

-NFP encourages communication. During the abstaining period of NFP, a husband and wife are motivated to question just why they are abstaining. With contraceptives, there is no need to abstain and no natural motivation for discussion about this.

-Sex within marriage is more than just a physical act; it is symbolic of a total self giving. Marriage mirrors God’s complete self-gift to us in Christ (see Eph 5). So sex should communicate: “I give myself to you completely, forever. Take all that I am.” Sex with barriers communicates something less than a total gift; a holding back.

-It may seem that whenever the Catholic Church is asked about a sexual act, the answer is a definitive “No”. A couple may ask, can we contracept? “No.” Can we have in vitro fertilization? “No.” The Church always seems to be saying “No.” But the “No” of the Church is not even half the story. What the Church means is that human persons are called in marriage to become a reflection of God Himself. The “No” is to those things unworthy of human persons. In effect, the Church is saying to us: “Do not look down. Do not settle for what is unworthy of you and is in effect a degradation of human dignity. Look to the vision, to the stars, to see what God has intended human persons to be and what God has intended for all spouses.” The “Yes” of the Church to the vision of marriage and family life is far more important than the “No.”

-Fertility is a blessing from God. Genesis 28 verse 3: “May God Almighty bless you and make you fertile, multiply you that you may become an assembly of peoples.” Contraceptives reject this gift.

-Contraceptives reflect a claim that we own our bodies. In this view, our bodies become an object. However, we received our bodies from God and they are part of the gift of life.

-Of course, God did not intend that every act of sexual intercourse should result in a new human person. There are only a few days in a woman’s cycle when a pregnancy is possible. Further, God gave us a mind and a will so that we could make decisions regarding the creation of a new human person. The choice to postpone a pregnancy by abstaining from sexual relations during the fertile phase is very different from the choice to alter the husband’s or the wife’s body (either chemically or physically) in order to obtain the same goal. Fr. Hogan explains the reasoning behind this important distinction:
“Some people think that a decision by a couple to time their acts of love in order to space children using NFP is the same as the decision by a couple to avoid pregnancy through contraception. This is a confusion of purposes and means. The purpose may be the same, but the means are different. The NFP couple, while engaging in non-procreative intercourse by making use of the infertile times, give themselves to each other totally and completely as they are at that moment. The contraception couple withholds their fertility from each other in an anti-procreative act and do not give themselves totally. Remember, love is defined as a total self-gift…Further, the contracepting couple alters either both their bodies or one of them and in doing so they violate the integrity of their own bodies.”

-We are made for greatness, not pleasure. Morality, sobriety, and chastity are prerequisites for excellence. Pleasure is a good thing, but it is a gift from God, and not a purpose. NFP strives for excellence by allowing us to fully be who we were created to be. As St. Irenaeus says, the glory of God is man fully alive!