Contraception and Communion

[JimG]

Contraception will often be mutually preferred, and reflects no loss of trust in the other - but rather a commonly shared anxiety about future circumstances, deemed best avoided.

The quote from the wedding you provide - and its reference to “faith in each other” seems to stand without reading in an interpretation connected with contraception. I suspect the quote simply assumes that the coming of children “will happen” (like heath, sickness, joy, etc) and thus you accept that unknown future. It’s silent on whether you can influence your future.

It comes from the “Exhortation before Marriage,” that used to be given by the priest just before the exchange of vows. Yes, it says nothing about contraception or influencing the future. But it goes without saying that the teaching on contraception was the same then as it is now. The exhortation just expanded a little on the for better, for worse, for richer, for ;poorer. There was not a specific expectation that children would certainly come, except perhaps on the part of the bride or groom’s parents. The gist of it is that we have to deal with whatever comes; and it promises God’s help in whatever trials we have. The “Exhortation” can be found here.

 

[edlinked]

Contraception will often be mutually preferred, and reflects no loss of trust in the other - but rather a commonly shared anxiety about future circumstances, deemed best avoided.

The quote from the wedding you provide - and its reference to “faith in each other” seems to stand without reading in an interpretation connected with contraception. I suspect the quote simply assumes that the coming of children “will happen” (like heath, sickness, joy, etc) and thus you accept that unknown future. It’s silent on whether you can influence your future.

I wanted to add something as I see it from another perspective.

Isn’t that the problem though, or one of the things that makes contraception a problem. The feeling of something not being that bad, as both spouses are in the same page (in the case they both consent of course), a kind of false security that relies on each other, which helps move away from the teachings of the church. Doesn’t this acceptance helps us think that contraception might not be a bad thing, or mitigates to some sense the wrong we are doing. I would say that this “trust in each other” relies in what the spouses think might be a good, but in reality is not a good. Like you wrote, fear takes a part in the equation therefore the spouses should always have clear that this consent introduces sin. In the means we see this clearly we will not dare to think contraception is good, and although we might incur in it, we will know that it is because of our weaknesses, and that we will need cleansing after, by confession (1 John 4, 16-19). Therefore we will be clear that we cannot go to communion, as we did something wrong. We need to be clear of our impurity to look for our purification. This is why some might not have a problem and go to communion without thinking they need to go to confession first. Trust is a difficult word, because it implies positive traits, but a trust that is pure will rely in the faith (in Gods traits). This for me is a tainted trust that will not get you walking in the path of God, if one stays in the thinking that this trust (consent) is viable. Exactly this is the problem when we see part of goodness as total goodness. Goodness can’t do evil, love can’t do evil, if it introduces it and doesn’t call it evil, then we are starting to detach from Gods way. That’s why we need to be careful, as something that has some good doesn’t necessarily means that it is good (as it will not keep you in The Way).

The faith in the spouse in marriage takes firstly the consideration that all good can only be obtain through God, that’s why we get married. The sacrament of marriage (this faith that this union is a sacrament) justifies the union between man and woman, therefore this sacrament sanctifies the couple in as much as they follow the faith (and therefore love, as faith is acted through love). The faith in the spouse relies firstly that we will follow the first commandment above everything, as it is the first. This is because trust relies in the protection between the spouses, in the looking out for the welfare of the other (an attribute of love). But the welfare relies in what we personally see as good, but as we know it, only God is good, therefore, in the means we don’t trust God, this trust between us will be tainted, and even if it can have some positive traits, doesn’t mean it will take you in the path of God, or that God wants. This is why even if the consent “doesn’t reflects” a lack of trust in one another, it doesn’t state that the trust is following The Way, which is very important (for our holiness and spirituality), that’s why, we need to see goodness through God (as scripture lets us know).

We know we have weaknesses, but these weaknesses cannot make this situation a way, because The Way is already the one we need to follow, any other way would be part of our original sin or part of our free will deciding not to follow The Way.
There is a scripture I really liked, because it was one that really spoke to me, and told me that morality cannot be followed correctly when we don’t establish where good lies. Mark 10, 17-31 and Matthew 19, 16-30.

Only when good is seen in the “level” of God we will act the goodness that we need to act, the same way as love. That is why it is important that we understand that only God is good, for if not, we can think that good is anything that “appears” to be good. Therefore we will be confused and not see what we need to see. I know that a lot of people know this, but I thought it was important to put it here, just to remind ourselves, that we come from goodness and that’s why we always have some good or can have good “parts” in us and act those partly good traits. But those traits will not make you walk in the good path (Gods path) necessarily, because they can choose not to follow the Principle (God) that makes those good traits actually good.

One that is “rich” (has many “treasures”) should be wary were he puts his security, his trust, his faith, for if he is wrong on that choice, it can cost him a great price. To be able to leave everything is a leap of faith, faith on what we believe matters most.
The beauty of all, is that only in trusting God we will love the way we deserve to be loved, only through God we will give the dignity we deserve. Because only through God we elevate what’s good and what’s love, to true goodness, to true love, but for us to do this we need to surrender and be grateful, to trust that God is the true good, that His way is in fact The Way.

In my case the root of all evil is not trusting God. In not trusting God we decide what is best.

 

[on_the_hill]

It enabled fornication, adultery, same sex marriage, abortion, fatherless children, motherless children, destruction of families and society. Mary Eberstadt’s article provides more details, as does her book “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”

I’ll have to look at the book. Did peer reviewed scientific research prove this?

 

[Kanade]

It is often said that many Catholics practice artificial contraception while having no qualms about continuing to receive communion. I have no way of knowing whether or to what extent such reports may be true. But this writer puts the matter in a different perspective.

Contraception and Communion

This article is seriously lacking in any evidence to back up the writer’s assumptions.

It is puzzling: why do many Catholics receive the Eucharist, the source of all grace and the sign of being in communion with the Catholic Church, and yet support and practice contraception, abortion, and unnatural relationships such as homosexual “marriage,” all of which are in direct contradiction to the Church’s teachings? How can there be such a gulf? One would think that in time something would get through.

“Many Catholics” … what is that? Ten? One million? How does the author know this? How does he conflate birth control within a stable marriage with homosexual marriage (difficult to practice both of those together) and everything else he lists?

Why are we only supposed to take the “gamble”, as he says, in this area of life? Isn’t looking both ways before we cross the road also failing to trust in God?

I can’t help noticing the author’s gender - I guess it’s much easier to be pious about contraception when you’re not the one facing the pain, the serious complications that can come with pregnancy and birth, and even the possibility of losing your life…

 

[on_the_hill]

I’d really like to see some proof that contraception caused these problems. They coincide not only with artificial birth control, but also with: booming economies, huge increases in home ownership, huge increases in automobile ownership, huge increases in number of people attending college, a baby boom, large migrations from urban to suburban areas, massive increases in illegal/illicit drug use, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, huge increases in the middle class’ standard of living, massive paradigm shifts in healthcare, shifts in culture and the arts, shifts in immigration from Europe to other parts of the world . . . all of these contributed to the culture we have today.

I simply can’t accept that artificial birth control is the root of our problems without proof.

 

[Kanade]

I’d really like to see some proof that contraception caused these problems. They coincide not only with artificial birth control, but also with: booming economies, huge increases in home ownership, huge increases in automobile ownership, huge increases in number of people attending college, a baby boom, large migrations from urban to suburban areas, massive increases in illegal/illicit drug use, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, huge increases in the middle class’ standard of living, massive paradigm shifts in healthcare, shifts in culture and the arts, shifts in immigration from Europe to other parts of the world . . . all of these contributed to the culture we have today.

I simply can’t accept that artificial birth control is the root of our problems without proof.

 

[JimG]

For anyone who has lived through the sexual revolution, the societal results seem as obvious as a slap in the face. One might as well have lived through the fall of the Roman Empire without noticing that anything had happened. Pope Paul VI predicted such results in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, but the actual results surpassed the predictions with a vengeance. Mary Eberstadt examines some results of the sexual revolution not only in her book but in this article, an excerpt of which is here:

"This brings us to Myth No. 4, which is perhaps the most interesting one of all:*The sexual revolution has made women happier.

Granted, happiness is a personal, imponderable thing. But if the sexual revolution has really made women as happy as feminists say, a few elementary questions beg to be answered.

Why do the pages of our tonier magazines brim with mournful titles like “The Case for Settling” and “The End of Men”? Why do websites run by and for women focus so much on men who won’t grow up, and ooze such despair about relations between the sexes?

Why do so many accomplished women simply give up these days and decide to have children on their own, sometimes using anonymous sperm donors, thus creating the world’s first purposely fatherless children? What of the fact, widely reported, that over a quarter of American women are on some kind of mental-health medication for anxiety and depression and related problems?

Or how about what’s known in sociology as “the paradox of declining female happiness”? Using 35 years of data from the General Social Survey, two Wharton School economists, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, made the case in 2009 that women’s happiness appeared to be declining over time despite their advances in the work force and education. This was true not only in the United States, but across Western societies, they documented."

• See more at: home.isi.org/has-sexual-revolution-been-good-women#sthash.UVGtWQ2b.dpuf

 

[Kanade]

For anyone who has lived through the sexual revolution, the societal results seem as obvious as a slap in the face. One might as well have lived through the fall of the Roman Empire without noticing that anything had happened. Pope Paul VI predicted such results in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, but the actual results surpassed the predictions with a vengeance. Mary Eberstadt examines some results of the sexual revolution not only in her book but in this article, an excerpt of which is here:

"This brings us to Myth No. 4, which is perhaps the most interesting one of all:*The sexual revolution has made women happier.

Granted, happiness is a personal, imponderable thing. But if the sexual revolution has really made women as happy as feminists say, a few elementary questions beg to be answered.

Why do the pages of our tonier magazines brim with mournful titles like “The Case for Settling” and “The End of Men”? Why do websites run by and for women focus so much on men who won’t grow up, and ooze such despair about relations between the sexes?

Why do so many accomplished women simply give up these days and decide to have children on their own, sometimes using anonymous sperm donors, thus creating the world’s first purposely fatherless children? What of the fact, widely reported, that over a quarter of American women are on some kind of mental-health medication for anxiety and depression and related problems?

Or how about what’s known in sociology as “the paradox of declining female happiness”? Using 35 years of data from the General Social Survey, two Wharton School economists, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, made the case in 2009 that women’s happiness appeared to be declining over time despite their advances in the work force and education. This was true not only in the United States, but across Western societies, they documented."

• See more at: home.isi.org/has-sexual-revolution-been-good-women#sthash.UVGtWQ2b.dpuf

The sexual revolution and contraception are not the same thing. As on_the_hill said, there are many more variables in play.

In severing sex from procreation, humankind set into motion forces that have by now shaped and reshaped almost every aspect of life in the Western world.

Men have always tried to separate sex from reproduction, unless calling prostitution the ‘oldest profession’ is wrong. This article seems to imply this didn’t ever happen before the 1930s. Contraception in some form dates back to the ancient world. This is nothing new.

I’m confused as to how women’s happiness in the workplace in your quote relates to contraception.

 

[Rau]

The sexual revolution and contraception are not the same thing. As on_the_hill said, there are many more variables in play.

Men have always tried to separate sex from reproduction, unless calling prostitution the ‘oldest profession’ is wrong. This article seems to imply this didn’t ever happen before the 1930s. Contraception in some form dates back to the ancient world. This is nothing new.

I’m confused as to how women’s happiness in the workplace in your quote relates to contraception.

The following is a statement about “the sexual revolution”. It is difficult not to see contraception as the key enabler.

The Sexual Revolution, also known as a time of Sexual Liberation, was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the Western world from the 1960s to the 1980s.[1] Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage).[2] The normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality and alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution

 

[Kanade]

The following is a statement about “the sexual revolution”. It is difficult not to see contraception as the key enabler.

The Sexual Revolution, also known as a time of Sexual Liberation, was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the Western world from the 1960s to the 1980s.[1] Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage).[2] The normalization of contraception and the pill, public nudity, pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality and alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_revolution

The internet is the biggest enabler of pornograohy in the modern world. Should we ban the responsible use of that, too, because people abuse it?

I also still do not see how contraception is the key enabler of homosexuality, as homosexuals have little need for birth control. The pill is a product of the sexual revolution, not the other way around - condoms and contraceptive methods have been around for centuries.

 

[JimG]

Before 1930, artificial contraception was universally condemned by all Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. Protestant pastors were even expected to have large famlies. The 1930 turnabout on doctrine by the Anglicans enabled a change in doctrine by other denominations as well. Then the pill became available and enabled the widespread use of contraception. That, in turn, enabled the full range of the sexual revolution. Cohabitation and fornication were enabled because children had become de-linked from the marital act. Now, contraception is so normalized that it is seen as an inaleinable right under the HHS mandate. With marriage and children effectively unlinked, same sex marriage became thinkable, for marriage had lost its natural link to children. Children were always the biggest losers in the sexual revolution.

 

[on_the_hill]

It’s a big leap to say that the decline in sexual morality among straight people led to gay marriage. Gay people don’t use contraception. Whether or not a woman gets pregnant is of no consequence to their lives.

My theory is that the emergence of AIDS prompted gay people to seek a more stable and legitimized lifestyle.

 

[Kanade]

Before 1930, artificial contraception was universally condemned by all Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. Protestant pastors were even expected to have large famlies. The 1930 turnabout on doctrine by the Anglicans enabled a change in doctrine by other denominations as well. Then the pill became available and enabled the widespread use of contraception. That, in turn, enabled the full range of the sexual revolution. Cohabitation and fornication were enabled because children had become de-linked from the marital act. Now, contraception is so normalized that it is seen as an inaleinable right under the HHS mandate. With marriage and children effectively unlinked, same sex marriage became thinkable, for marriage had lost its natural link to children. Children were always the biggest losers in the sexual revolution.

Correlation does not imply causation. Nobody in the 1930s used birth control? Everybody had huge families? The post war economic crash had nothing to do with detering people from having lots of kids? Why does the Bible warn against fornication and prostitution if it didn’t exist until the 20th century?

The pill wasn’t available on the NHS in the U.K. until the 1960s, by which time the opinion of the churches held increasingly less sway among younger people. I think you’re giving the Anglicans too much credit in influencing Western sexual behaviour.

Contraception has nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality was illegal until 1967 (and even then was only legal for over 21s) - 37 years after the Anglican turnabout. Condom usage wasn’t even on the radar until AIDS appeared in the 80s. It’s a false equivalency.

I think children who are the result of unwanted pregnancies are the biggest losers, or those who are born into families already too big to support them. There is a huge difference in using birth control responsibly within a committed marriage and using it to be promiscuous (although men have always been able to be promiscuous without bearing the consequences).

Saying that sex always has to be open to the chance of procreation puts an almost impossible burden on poorer women in a modern society.

 

[Rau]

The pill is a product of the sexual revolution, not the other way around - condoms and contraceptive methods have been around for centuries.

The desire for “sexual freedom” gave rise to the pill, which made possible the fulfillment of those desires on a massively enlarged scale.

 

[Rau]

It’s a big leap to say that the decline in sexual morality among straight people led to gay marriage.

It leads to its wider acceptability, which was a prerequisite to redefine marriage. These days, its “understood” that sex is good and natural between persons who “love each other”. And more recently, that marriage is for people who “love” each other.

 

[Kanade]

The desire for “sexual freedom” gave rise to the pill, which made possible the fulfillment of those desires on a massively enlarged scale.

That’s what I said

Contraception did not cause the moral collapse of society. Morals collapsed (because the church and her teachings were becoming irrelevant) and widespread promiscuity that utilised contraception followed. It’s a false argument to blame contraception for everything and say it can never be used responsibly because some people have misused it - just as you didn’t answer my question about banning the internet because it enables porn. .

 

[Kanade]

It leads to its wider acceptability, which was a prerequisite to redefine marriage. These days, its “understood” that sex is good and natural between persons who “love each other”. And more recently, that marriage is for people who “love” each other.

Marriage was redefined when people started going to registry offices instead of churches and it became a civil celebration instead of a sacrament. Again, this was down to the irrelevancy of the church, not the introduction of contraception. I know plenty of people who’ve had non church weddings and still see having children as part of marriage.

Do you not believe that sex is good and natural in its own right between (married) people who love each other?

 

[Rau]

Marriage was redefined when people started going to registry offices instead of churches and it became a civil celebration instead of a sacrament. Again, this was down to the irrelevancy of the church, not the introduction of contraception. I know plenty of people who’ve had non church weddings and still see having children as part of marriage.

Do you not believe that sex is good and natural in its own right between (married) people who love each other?

No that’s entirely off course. Religious factors don’t bear on the nature of marriage. Marriage is a natural institution, arising from the nature of man and woman, and precedes the Churches. It is inherently a sexual institution, and in this context it is good.

 

[Rau]

That’s what I said

Contraception did not cause the moral collapse of society. Morals collapsed (because the church and her teachings were becoming irrelevant) and widespread promiscuity that utilised contraception followed. It’s a false argument to blame contraception for everything and say it can never be used responsibly because some people have misused it - just as you didn’t answer my question about banning the internet because it enables porn. .

I didn’t propose banning anything. Hence I didn’t waste time responding to what seemed to be a silly question.

Desire for sexual freedom, and it’s widespread implementation - to the point of presenting sleeping around as “normal” and good on our TV screens, are very different things. Do you see how the latter propels sexual immorality to an entirely new level?

 

[Kanade]

No that’s entirely off course. Religious factors don’t bear on the nature of marriage. Marriage is a natural institution, arising from the nature of man and woman, and precedes the Churches. It is inherently a sexual institution, and in this context it is good.

If religion has no bearing on marriage how does the Church have the right to teach on it?

I didn’t propose banning anything. Hence I didn’t waste time responding to what seemed to be a silly question.

Thank you for your mature and charitable response to my question regarding use vs abuse.

Desire for sexual freedom, and it’s widespread implementation - to the point of presenting sleeping around as “normal” and good on our TV screens, are very different things. Do you see how the latter propels sexual immorality to an entirely new level?

Men have always been able to sleep around more or less consequence free. Harems and polygamy were encouraged in the ancient world. Women were spoils of war. Modern society allows the larger scale perpetuation of an ancient vice. To paint this as a modern development is intellectually disingenuous.

Do you see a difference in using birth control to be promiscuous (although a lot of guys still don’t even bother with that judging by teen pregnancy rates) and using birth control within a marriage to make sure you’re not bringing a child into the world that you can’t support?