Contraception and Communion

[Rau]

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

You need to quote accurately. What I said was: “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.”

This reality does not require any religious faith to observe, but nor does it place marriage outside the scope of religious teaching.

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?

Evidently, the circumstances are different, and the greater moral wrongs are evident in the promiscuous. Why do you reference only “guys”? Are men solely responsible for promiscuous sexual acts?

 

[on_the_hill]

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.

I still don’t buy it. You could just as easily say that the Civil Rights Era led to wider acceptability of homosexuality.

The argument seems to be: The Pill allowed straight people to have sex as much as they wanted to, and this led them to believe that homosexuals should have as much sex as they wanted to, and as homosexual activities became more accepted, homosexuals were allowed to get married.

But I submit that social acceptance of homosexual lifestyles is a very new phenomenon. When I was in college in the 80s it was still very much taboo. “Gay” was used as an insult. Youngsters,teens, and adults **openly **talked about wanting to physically attack gay people–although I never personally knew it to happen.

Gay people who were “out” in the early 90s were very much in the minority.

No one ever mentioned gay marriage until a few years ago. It was a concept that didn’t exist.

 

[Rau]

I still don’t buy it. You could just as easily say that the Civil Rights Era led to wider acceptability of homosexuality.

The argument seems to be: The Pill allowed straight people to have sex as much as they wanted to, and this led them to believe that homosexuals should have as much sex as they wanted to, and as homosexual activities became more accepted, homosexuals were allowed to get married.

But I submit that social acceptance of homosexual lifestyles is a very new phenomenon. When I was in college in the 80s it was still very much taboo. “Gay” was used as an insult. Youngsters,teens, and adults **openly **talked about wanting to physically attack gay people–although I never personally knew it to happen.

Gay people who were “out” in the early 90s were very much in the minority.

No one ever mentioned gay marriage until a few years ago. It was a concept that didn’t exist.

Rome was not built in a day.

 

[edlinked]

I would say that contraception is a consequence of breaching principles (moral principles specially religious ones). This in my understanding is kind of a chain reaction. Many factors can add to it of course, but at the end of the day contraception opens more doors in the wrong direction. The root of the problem might not be contraception per se (because the root of the principles that are being breached go deeper), in the sense that sexual problems have always been there. But in this era and culture, contraception opened a mayor door because it combined many things and augmented the problems. Also we can say that people also are not caring for Christian principles as they did before, and as we are talking about catholics and Christianity in this case, both things are related to the decadence of morality in this era. The point that people don’t care for Christianity as much as they did, or want to change their beliefs depending on what they want to do adds to the problem and are included in what contraception brought as consequence, but contraception is also part of that consequence. So contraception is a consequence but also helps as a chain reaction for more problems (things can’t happen all at the same time).

For example, contraception breaches the first end of marriage which is procreation (the second end is the unity and true tenderness between the couple, and the third is the proper concupiscence that can only come with chastity and self mastery (all have to be there but that’s the order)). This breaching of that principle not just attacks procreation as the end of the drive, but attacks where love lies, and therefore attacks marriage and the family. Love “gives life”, therefore love is also attacked, because it wants to center love to bodily pleasure. Love is not property of the body, it is property of the soul and spirit (see the Holy Family).

In my case contraception gives the false statement that the pleasure of intercourse is the centerfold of love, which is not true. In the means we catholics don’t call contraception a wrong, we are implying that bodily pleasure is the way of love (a north for love) or can be a way that ends in love. In my case I believe the body only acts what you have inside, that’s why the approach of intercourse is love, not pleasure. Love doesn’t “move” on pleasure, because pleasures end is just a certain satisfaction, while loves “end” is to affirm the value of the person, two very different things.

Homosexuality breaches the same principles, that love lies in bodily pleasures. Love as scripture tells us, lies in self denial, in losing our life for God, in carrying the cross (Matthew 16, 23-26). Love is not about seeking the sum of all pleasures. Homosexuality is on the rise because religious beliefs are not seen as important, or religion is being changed to what we want it to be (we decide what is good). The principles being attacked can include the same ones and can include others. In my opinion, it has become very important that heterosexuals are starting to play that game, changing their religion depending on what we want. Things have to change in a sequence, things can’t change everything at the same time, but as time keeps passing we see that the Church is even been persecuted in some areas. Contraception has helped in this because that’s what we are saying, when “we” (some Christians) imply that contraception is good, or not saying that it is bad, following what the Church tells us. We change our “course” depending on what gives more bodily satisfaction (we see worldly pleasures as north), instead of following the formula of self denial, to love. That’s why it is important that catholics and Christians are obedient to the faith, and to start deepening the faith so that we see where Good lies (only in God).

 

[Kanade]

You need to quote accurately. What I said was: “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.”

This reality does not require any religious faith to observe, but nor does it place marriage outside the scope of religious teaching.

The reality of what? Monogamous, lifelong marriage is not the natural norm (see the OT, tribal norms, Islamic scripture). This is entirely a religious matter.

Evidently, the circumstances are different, and the greater moral wrongs are evident in the promiscuous. Why do you reference only “guys”? Are men solely responsible for promiscuous sexual acts?

I didn’t say that, you need to quote me accurately. I said that men have less to lose by not using contraception and are more likely not to, even though it is easier for them to do so. I’m sure there aren’t many girls pushing their boyfriends for unprotected sex.

And my point still stands that you cannot act like this is a modern issue and there were never any homosexuals or promiscuous people before 1930. Women have always been used as breeding machines or taken as the spoils of war. Sex has always been divorced from love and reproduction.

 

[Rau]

The reality of what? Monogamous, lifelong marriage is not the natural norm (see the OT, tribal norms, Islamic scripture). This is entirely a religious matter.

I have raised neither monogamy nor lifelong marriage. The reality is that sexual relations are plainly the province of man + woman. Our bodies make this plain. Unless you see meaning in the exchange of sperm between two men?

I didn’t say that, you need to quote me accurately. I said that men have less to lose by not using contraception and are more likely not to, even though it is easier for them to do so. I’m sure there aren’t many girls pushing their boyfriends for unprotected sex.

I quoted you verbatim - the site provides the tools to do so. Women are responsible for their promiscuous acts, just as men are for theirs.

And my point still stands that you cannot act like this is a modern issue and there were never any homosexuals or promiscuous people before 1930.

Not something I’ve argued.

Sex has always been divorced from love and reproduction.

Today we have this in industrial strength, normalised on our TV screens, and widely marketed.

 

[Kanade]

I have raised neither monogamy nor lifelong marriage. The reality is that sexual relations are plainly the province of man + woman. Unless you see meaning in the exchange of sperm between two men?

You said that marriage was a natural institution, not a religious one did you not? You said it was plain to see from nature. I argued that sexual relations in nature look nothing like the sacrament of marriage that the church prescribes. Now you’re reducing marriage to sex and the exchange of sperm? That’s a low bar.

I quoted you verbatim - the site provides the tools to do so. Women are responsible for their promiscuous acts, just as men are for theirs.

Again, not what I said. Stop straw (wo)manning my argument.

Not something I’ve argued.

Today we have this in industrial strength, normalised on our TV screens, and widely marketed.

This whole thread portrays contraception as the boogeyman that’s caused the moral downfall of western society. I don’t agree with promiscuity and have no problem agreeing that contraception has made it easier, but its not the cause. That’s a fallacious argument. I guess it’s easier to blame contraception than to admit the church has lost her moral influence.

Demonising contraception (as the OP article does) simply places an unrealistic burden on poorer women trying to live faithfully.

 

[Rau]

You said that marriage was a natural institution, not a religious one did you not? You said it was plain to see from nature. I argued that sexual relations in nature look nothing like the sacrament of marriage that the church prescribes. Now you’re reducing marriage to sex and the exchange of sperm? That’s a low bar.

You are conflating multiple issues. I’ve not spoken about any sacrament. I’ve not said we can see anything “from nature”. I have no idea what you are trying to express.

This whole thread portrays contraception as the boogeyman that’s caused the moral downfall of western society. I don’t agree with promiscuity and have no problem agreeing that contraception has made it easier, but its not the cause. That’s a fallacious argument. I guess it’s easier to blame contraception than to admit the church has lost her moral influence.

Contraception has been the turbo charger - it’s not the source of evil - for that is within us all.

I don’t understand your last statement - are you suggesting there is an option to blame the Church for promiscuity?

 

[Qoeleth]

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

Contraception is a very serious SIN. It one is repentant, and resolved not to do it again, one may go to confession, and, having been absolved, then receive the most Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Qoeleth]

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.

None of these arguments matter. Here’s how God and nature intends: Man and woman fall in love, get married, have sex, have as many children as God gives them.

The only legitimate ‘contraception’ is abstinence.

Sex without love and marriage is a pure animal, sinful and inhuman act. But perhaps this is uncharitable to animals- most of them act in accordance with nature, and take proper responsibility for their offspring…

 

[Kanade]

You are conflating multiple issues. I’ve not spoken about any sacrament. I’ve not said we can see anything “from nature”. I have no idea what you are trying to express.

You said:

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.

And:

This reality does not require any religious faith to observe, but nor does it place marriage outside the scope of religious teaching.

I am confused as to what you are trying to express. It seems to relate to neither sacramental marriage nor natural sexual expression.

I don’t understand your last statement - are you suggesting there is an option to blame the Church for promiscuity?

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. I am saying that morality declined because people turned their back on the churches, because the churches failed to connect with people or meet them where they are. It’s much easier to sit around and tut at people for using contraception than to offer any realistic alternative for struggling families.

 

[Kanade]

None of these arguments matter. Here’s how God and nature intends: Man and woman fall in love, get married, have sex, have as many children as God gives them.

And who pays for these children? Or is it more moral to raise children in poverty? Or on the streets?

The only legitimate ‘contraception’ is abstinence.

St. Paul begs to differ.

Do not deprive each other except perhaps 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. 1 Corinthians 7:5

Sex without love and marriage is a pure animal, sinful and inhuman act. But perhaps this is uncharitable to animals- most of them act in accordance with nature, and take proper responsibility for their offspring…

I wasn’t arguing in favour of promiscuity or extra marital sex. Please read what I posted before you strawman me.

 

[Qoeleth]

And who pays for these children? Or is it more moral to raise children in poverty? Or on the streets?

St. Paul begs to differ.

Do not deprive each other except perhaps 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. 1 Corinthians 7:5

I wasn’t arguing in favour of promiscuity or extra marital sex. Please read what I posted before you strawman me.

Well- it used to be the case the people would wait until they had what they considered an tolerable degree of material security before they got married and started a family. Unless a person is ‘ready’ to have a family (psychologically, materially, socially), they should not get married (and therefore not have sex). This does not mean they have to be affluent, or even comfortable- but if a person has literally zero means of supporting and accommodating children, they are not at the stage of life to consider marriage.

I’m sure St. Paul would have assumed this- in most ancient societies (including those of St Paul), marriages took place under quite well controlled social conditions, an included considerations of the capacity to support a family.

It is possible for a person to be single and celibate, if circumstances impose it upon them. No one has yet died from not having sex.

 

[Kanade]

Well- it used to be the case the people would wait until they had what they considered an tolerable degree of material security before they got married and started a family. Unless a person is ‘ready’ to have a family (psychologically, materially, socially), they should not get married (and therefore not have sex). This does not mean they have to be affluent, or even comfortable- but if a person has literally zero means of supporting and accommodating children, they are not at the stage of life to consider marriage.

I think restricting marriage to those affluent enough to accommodate a possibly large amount of children is very sad. What about the married couple who lose their income? Or perhaps the first child is unwell and places an all consuming demand on the family finance. Are they to stop having sex for an indefinite period? If contraception divorces sex from love, doesnt this do the same by placing sex in the context of only for possible procreation in a financially stable household?

I’m sure St. Paul would have assumed this- in most ancient societies (including those of St Paul), marriages took place under quite well controlled social conditions, an included considerations of the capacity to support a family.

Yes, but things have changed. The support of the extended family is no longer widely available, for example. Mine live in another country. Even with a good income, many people simply cannot afford to keep having children.

It is possible for a person to be single and celibate, if circumstances impose it upon them. No one has yet died from not having sex.

I’m aware of that; I don’t believe in casual sex and I haven’t advocated for it.

To reiterate, my two points in this thread have been that I think saying that contraception leads to homosexual marriage and other social ills is unsubstantiated and a slippery slope fallacy, and that prohibiting contraception within a stable a monogamous marriage imposes unrealistic burdens on people, responding to the OP’s article about otherwise faithful Catholics using birth control.

 

[Rau]

You said:

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.

And: This reality does not require any religious faith to observe, but nor does it place marriage outside the scope of religious teaching.

I am confused as to what you are trying to express. It seems to relate to neither sacramental marriage nor natural sexual expression.

There is no need to be confused. This line of discussions stemmed from your assertion: “Marriage was redefined when people started going to registry offices instead of churches and it became a civil celebration instead of a sacrament”. At the time, the “redefinition” spoken about was that which declared two men can marry. I have made the point that marriage - as a sexual relationship - arises from the nature of man and woman. Sacrament vs. Registry office is not relevant.

Do you agree that marriage is the exclusive preserve of “man + woman”?

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

Read you own words. Again, you seek to attribute immorality to a failure of the Church:

I am saying that morality declined because people turned their back on the churches, because the churches failed to connect with people or meet them where they are. It’s much easier to sit around and tut at people for using contraception than to offer any realistic alternative for struggling families.

Are you now saying that if Church had supported contraception, we’d have less immorality? I don’t think that pans out as many churches are OK with contraception, and promiscuity is not less prevalent among their numbers as a result. Or do you have in mind some other “failing” of the Church?

 

[Rau]

…I think saying that contraception leads to homosexual marriage … is unsubstantiated

The connection is not direct. But it was a plank in the road. It supports wider engagement in sexual relations outside marriage, which leads to wider acceptability of the idea that love is enough to justify sexual relations, which was a prerequisite to redefine marriage. And we hear this from the pro-SSM advocates routinely - “shouldn’t a person have the right to marry the person they love”? Man+Woman? No longer relevant (apparently). Sex has nothing to do with Children (apparently). The acceptance of contraception helps to buttress that view.

 

[edlinked]

Kanade,
I hope we don’t seem to be attacking, but I believe we just want to clear up some things, that at least I get you don’t “like” about the Church.

So I ask, what are you trying to say, to be clear on what we are talking about, as it seems to me you are implying that contraception shouldn’t be bad (that’s what you are kind of implying in my opinion). We are not demonizing contraception, the Church states it is wrong, it is not the good path, if it is not the path of God, then in what path does it lie? Are you saying that the Church doesn’t understand circumstances, situations, and scripture. You understand that the Corinthians scripture is about some ascetics. This becomes interesting because ascetics are trying to do good, but are going too far with self denial (intercourse cannot be an intrinsic evil, but it can become sinful if it doesn’t follow The Way), that’s why St Paul has to clarify. In our case we are going the opposite way, we are not trying to do good by self denial, we are falling short, so the Church clarifies just as St Paul did. In that Corinthians verse, in my opinion it is talking more about the union between spouses, not specifically the physical union (intercourse) as you can’t be by the side of the spouse all of the time, therefore you need self mastery you need to chastity, as you need to work for virtues, if not it means you have not worked for them. You see that even in marriage we need chastity temperance and self mastery, if not we will not be loving (but this is another discussion).

Like I wrote before, contraception is something that the Church states as wrong, therefore it is sinful, goes against the path of God. We can be weak, but that doesn’t mean you can do it and be ok with doing it, you need purification, and therefore you can’t go to communion.

And just for clarity, anyone that doesn’t state that contraception is wrong and that it is good, is going against the Church, we can agree to disagree with the Church, but be clear you are going against the Church. You will be therefore not following the faith. Obedience also is about humility, it is about faith in the ones that Jesus took as “givers” of the faith. We follow them to follow the tradition. That’s the problem of trying to justify actions through “some” verses of scriptures, the scripture needs to be a whole and Tradition should be included when trying to understand it, so that the whole Truth is there to be taken in consideration in our discernment, we believe the Church has that complete discernment because it has the Holy Spirit and follow the will of the Father. The faith will not be easy to follow sometimes (the cross is something difficult), but that’s why we need to choose what we follow, and assess what we are following, what principles we are following. Are we following pleasures (worldly passing pleasures) or are we following the Truth, the Way the Life that will never cease to be.

You need to read “Love and Responsibility” by Karol Wojtyla, you should see also in EWTN “the sacrament through the ages” program, there are two episodes about marriage, that can be found on the audio library in the ewtn site, and I am forgetful with my history but I believe there is a Pope that talks about the evils that some things (including contraception) would bring, because they are breaching moral principles.

And nature is not just biological, the natural order includes the unhidden and the hidden, but all comes from the Alpha and the Omega.

 

[Kanade]

There is no need to be confused. This line of discussions stemmed from your assertion: “Marriage was redefined when people started going to registry offices instead of churches and it became a civil celebration instead of a sacrament”. At the time, the “redefinition” spoken about was that which declared two men can marry. I have made the point that marriage - as a sexual relationship - arises from the nature of man and woman. Sacrament vs. Registry office is not relevant.

That was my response to you, the conversation didn’t start there. I am saying that society redefined marriage when people started viewing it as a civil ceremony. This is what opened the door to gay marriage because marriage then became viewed as something that exists outside of religious or moral teaching.

Do you agree that marriage is the exclusive preserve of “man + woman”?

Yes. I haven’t said otherwise.

Read you own words. Again, you seek to attribute immorality to a failure of the Church:

No I’m not. You’re reading your own agenda into it. Or do you think that the widespread decline in churchgoing and moral laxity are unrelated? This is not a causal argument, which is where you keep misunderstanding me.

Are you now saying that if Church had supported contraception, we’d have less immorality? I don’t think that pans out as many churches are OK with contraception, and promiscuity is not less prevalent among their numbers as a result. Or do you have in mind some other “failing” of the Church?

This is so far from what I’ve said that I don’t even know how to respond.

 

[Kanade]

Kanade,
I hope we don’t seem to be attacking, but I believe we just want to clear up some things, that at least I get you don’t “like” about the Church.

I don’t dislike the Church. I’m a convert, I willingly made the choice. What I do dislike is faulty logic, such as the slippery slope arguments in this thread.

So I ask, what are you trying to say, to be clear on what we are talking about, as it seems to me you are implying that contraception shouldn’t be bad (that’s what you are kind of implying in my opinion).

I’m not saying that contraception is either good or bad. The OP contained an article deriding Catholics using contraception. This turned into a debate over whether contraception was responsible for homosexual marriage etc etc. I believe that is a fallacious argument and cannot be substantiated. Again, this makes no value judgment on contraception - I am simply stating that the argument is faulty logic.

We are not demonizing contraception, the Church states it is wrong, it is not the good path, if it is not the path of God, then in what path does it lie? Are you saying that the Church doesn’t understand circumstances, situations, and scripture.

No. The Church has taught this but, as the OP article notes, this teaching is one of the most widely ignored. Why? This board is (as the title suggests) a place to discuss moral theology. I believe it is because this teaching places a huge burden on families. For example, as it stands if I were to get married I would be unable to afford to get pregnant. Thus, marriage is not open to me because I haven’t chosen to chase after a well paid career or a well paid man. Similarly, what do couples do if they lose an income? Stop having sex for years?

Contraception within marriage (OP article) is different to using contraception to sleep around, but discussion of the practical implications of this teaching seems to be off limits. Incidentally, given the number of unwanted pregnancies and STDs it would seem that contraception isn’t being as widely used in these casual encounters anyway. I would personally rather see people using contraception than having abortions or spreading AIDS.

In that Corinthians verse, in my opinion it is talking more about the union between spouses, not specifically the physical union (intercourse) as you can’t be by the side of the spouse all of the time, therefore you need self mastery you need to chastity, as you need to work for virtues, if not it means you have not worked for them. You see that even in marriage we need chastity temperance and self mastery, if not we will not be loving (but this is another discussion).

The previous verse talks about spouses giving their bodies to each other, so I wouldn’t agree that it’s not talking about sexual union.

Like I wrote before, contraception is something that the Church states as wrong, therefore it is sinful, goes against the path of God. We can be weak, but that doesn’t mean you can do it and be ok with doing it, you need purification, and therefore you can’t go to communion.

And just for clarity, anyone that doesn’t state that contraception is wrong and that it is good, is going against the Church, we can agree to disagree with the Church, but be clear you are going against the Church. You will be therefore not following the faith. Obedience also is about humility, it is about faith in the ones that Jesus took as “givers” of the faith. We follow them to follow the tradition. That’s the problem of trying to justify actions through “some” verses of scriptures, the scripture needs to be a whole and Tradition should be included when trying to understand it, so that the whole Truth is there to be taken in consideration in our discernment, we believe the Church has that complete discernment because it has the Holy Spirit and follow the will of the Father. The faith will not be easy to follow sometimes (the cross is something difficult), but that’s why we need to choose what we follow, and assess what we are following, what principles we are following. Are we following pleasures (worldly passing pleasures) or are we following the Truth, the Way the Life that will never cease to be.

You need to read “Love and Responsibility” by Karol Wojtyla, you should see also in EWTN “the sacrament through the ages” program, there are two episodes about marriage, that can be found on the audio library in the ewtn site, and I am forgetful with my history but I believe there is a Pope that talks about the evils that some things (including contraception) would bring, because they are breaching moral principles.

And nature is not just biological, the natural order includes the unhidden and the hidden, but all comes from the Alpha and the Omega.

I understand that it’s a church teaching, but we need to be able to discuss the implications that teaching has on people’s lives. These boards are full of people doing so. For example, if someone finds the obligation to go to Sunday Mass difficult because of work or children or whatever, this can be freely discussed and advice given. If someone finds contraception difficult, the response seems to be general condemnation and fingers in ears. ‘Just because’ isn’t an answer. If we can’t discuss how to live with these teachings, how can we hope to explain them to non Catholics who see it as an example of celibate men telling married women what to do with their bodies? This issue has huge implications and it seems from the arguments here that only the rich can get married.

 

[edlinked]

Kanade,
In my opinion I am seeing that we will not be able to agree, because I believe you are not still ok with contraception being wrong. If you are a convert you know that we (Catholics) can’t decide to optionally discard or not things in the teachings (because we can’t see what we need to as our spirituality is still not where it needs to), in the sense that the Church is the one that gives the teachings, we may not understand them at first, but we need to abide to them. And of course, we need to try to understand them, but we don’t only need knowledge or intelligence, we need wisdom which includes faith, because there are things that only in time will come to be understood by us.

We are somewhat deviating from the Ops point though, as now we are getting into on why the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, and why we are not onboard with it.
I will write more or less some of my understandings:

You see that for me we see intercourse as a right of marriage. Intercourse in my understanding is not a right. Marriage opens the possibility to it, but (in my opinion) it should always be seen as a gift (intercourse has to be about love, it shouldn’t be about pleasure). That’s the problem, people believe they can’t live without it. I have another approach, that’s why self denial, the cross is the formula, it is not about following pleasures to find happiness. Where do we see that in Jesus (The Way)?

“23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. “ Matthew 16, 23-25

The ability of detachment states what you can lose or not lose for God. We should be able to give our life, but we see that we can’t even give up some pleasures, or even act them the way that the Church states. Here we can see the power of pleasure and why we need the ability of detachment.

You can be against the article, but with what you are writing, the problem is not the article, it is the teaching of the Church. At the end of the day the point we need to follow is that if we are contracepting we need purification, then we can’t go to communion as we need confession. You don’t need to agree with the article, but you have to agree with confessing things we shouldn’t do, as the Church states its wrong. And this teaching has not just been stated by one Pope, so you are seeing that the teaching is still standing strongly, no matter if we are the ones that don’t want it.

We can have a different “theology” (understanding because we don’t begin with the proper principles) with the issue of contraception. You put economy first on your argument, you see that the Church puts how this breaches moral religious principles, how it breaches love. For you contraception helps in love, you see how different your views and the views of the Church are. And we believe that the problem is that the Church can’t see our problems, instead of us thinking, we can’t see beyond our problems and that some things will bring more problems. These problems are spiritual and therefore of great danger, as they will affect gravely our closeness with God. This issue is about faith, to have faith in what we “can’t see”.

The Corinthians scripture is not just talking about intercourse, for me that’s the point. It talks about the union of the spouses, not just the physical one (in love the more important one is the spiritual one because it corrects and guides the physical union. Love is something “spiritual” (of God)), the problem is that we just want to see the physical aspect of it (we see firstly what we care about, convenience, what gives us benefits). I will ask you something, try to join this Corinthians scripture and the way you understand it, with the Holy Family, I would say you will not be able to do it, but let me know?

To see what is good we have to take in consideration that we will try that things go “our way”, because we always want things to benefit us. That’s why we need objectivity on issues, I like this scripture:

“30 "I cannot do anything on my own; I judge as I hear, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the one who sent me.” John 5

I don’t understand your last paragraph, you see that you know you need to go to mass, so you will have to find a way. In contraception, there is no option in using contraception. You can practice nfp, but even nfp, you need to work with it without a contraceptive mentality (we need to be open to life, readiness to parenthood). Therefore you cannot talk about contraception as an option in Catholicism, that is the clarity of the situation. If you incur in it, ok, but it should never be seen as a way, and we need confession. We need to see this as a clear teaching of the Church, we cannot do it period. People that don’t believe that celibate men are the one telling them the faith, will not care if they have no faith, or they don’t want to have faith. You always hear that the Church discriminates woman because they cannot become priests. We believe as faithful followers, that Jesus appointed them (the apostles), and they appointed others, we follow that Tradition, which God wanted us to follow. That is part of the faith, some will abide, some will not care. We cannot change things so that people join, or find it more appealing, because then we are taking the Truth out of it, and putting our “truth” in it.