Contraception?

[jasev]

I’m fairly certain I’ve been aware of Catholic’s distaste for contraception for as long as I can remember. I don’t think I ever really gave it much thought. As a fairly devout protestant and Bible student, I don’t remember ever having any qualms about it in the past. It just never really entered my mind. Certainly I don’t think I ever cared to debate it.

In any case, I get the impression, reading through posts here, that you guys probably get a lot of grief from protestants over this contraception business on a regular basis. Either that or you give protestants a lot of grief and get a bunch of flak back for it. Well I still don’t think I care to debate it, but now I’m curious as to why this is such a hot button issue for you guys.

Also, out of sheer curiosity, I’m interested in your take on this: My wife had seriously complicated pregnancies with both of our children. We thank God they are more than fine today. After our second child was born, the doctor strongly advised we have no more children. Would loved to have had a much larger family, but didn’t want to risk losing my wife… so I was the lucky one to “get fixed.” So, from a Catholic perspective was this just a huge tragic nasty awful sin? If so, why??

Peace.

 

[Just_Lurking]

So, from a Catholic perspective was this just a huge tragic nasty awful sin?

Yes. Definitely grave matter; quite possibly a mortal sin.

If so, why??

Now, every time you share the marital embrace with your wife, you aren’t loving her completely with your whole self. By deliberately sterilizing yourself, you are holding back on true intimacy.

 

[jasev]

Yes. Definitely grave matter; quite possibly a mortal sin.

Now, every time you share the marital embrace with your wife, you aren’t loving her completely with your whole self. By deliberately sterilizing yourself, you are holding back on true intimacy.

Out of respect I’ve deleted my first reaction to this and reminded myself I’m not here to debate… just learn what this church actually teaches. So, that being said, is this seriously the teaching of the Catholic church? Can you point me to something official?

 

[Julian0404]

Go to www.salvationhistory.com and get Scott Hahn’s conversion CD. He describes how when both he and his wife were attending the seminary for Masters in Theology, she began a study on contraception and he explains what she discovered to be the truth, and how she almost died in childbirth as well.

Hearing it from a man who was asked to become the youngest DEAN ever over a protestant seminary, I think will have more impact on your decision not to debate.

 

[Erin_Anne]

In any case, I get the impression, reading through posts here, that you guys probably get a lot of grief from protestants over this contraception business on a regular basis. Either that or you give protestants a lot of grief and get a bunch of flak back for it. Well I still don’t think I care to debate it, but now I’m curious as to why this is such a hot button issue for you guys.

We get grief from some people, and many others simply leave us be about it. I’ve never personally known a Catholic who pushed the contraception issue on anyone else out of nowhere - maybe others have…

It’s an issue for us because its a sin to artificially impede pregnancy. When we marry, we must remain open to God’s will involving having children. Many of us use Natural Family Planning, which is basically not being intimate during the woman’s fertile time - this is ok when the there is good reason (i.e.: financial, psychological, etc.). Others are open to as many children as God is willing to give them as long as they can financially, spiritually, and emotionally support them (The Duggars for example, though they aren’t Catholic).

Also, out of sheer curiosity, I’m interested in your take on this: My wife had seriously complicated pregnancies with both of our children. We thank God they are more than fine today. After our second child was born, the doctor strongly advised we have no more children. Would loved to have had a much larger family, but didn’t want to risk losing my wife… so I was the lucky one to “get fixed.” So, from a Catholic perspective was this just a huge tragic nasty awful sin? If so, why??.

Sterilization is immoral from a Catholic perspective. The problem is not the intention of doing it in order to spare your spouse from complications, but the vasectomy itself. This would be one of those cases where Natural Family Planning would be used to avoid future pregnancies (and yes, it does work).

E.A.

 

[jasev]

Thanks for the replies.

Erin, you said, “Sterilization is immoral from a Catholic perspective.” Why is this? Is it because, as “Just Lurking” said, “every time you share the marital embrace with your wife, you aren’t loving her completely with your whole self. By deliberately sterilizing yourself, you are holding back on true intimacy.” ? Is that really the official teaching of the church? Is this in the catechism somewhere?

Jesus remarked, “For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.” Mt 19:12 DRB. Not only that, but the early church apparently took Jesus up on this teaching quite literally. I just recently read through Justin Martyr’s works and in his First Apology he states “one of our number a short time ago presented to Felix the governor in Alexandria a petition, craving that permission might be given to a surgeon to make him an eunuch. For the surgeons there said that they were forbidden to do this without the permission of the governor.” The man was being praised for this!

Obviously I did not become a eunuch. Nor did I have a vasectomy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, but to prevent the potential situation of putting my wife’s life in danger. All of that fully granted. However, I can’t see how Catholics believe sterilization to be “immoral” in light of this.

I assumed the Catholic issue of contraception had something to do with not getting in the way of God’s will. Never would have imagined it was believed this got in the way of loving your spouse with your whole self and prevented “true intimacy.” Really, I want to say that’s about the craziest thing I’ve ever heard… but I won’t until I can see if there is really some kind of scriptural support and logic behind it.

So, Erin, point taken regarding Natural Family Planning. What do you tell Catholic people for whom that is not an option any longer (i.e. people in my condition of being only capable of loving our spouses only partially with false intimacy)?

 

[Erin_Anne]

Erin, you said, “Sterilization is immoral from a Catholic perspective.” Why is this? Is it because, as “Just Lurking” said, “every time you share the marital embrace with your wife, you aren’t loving her completely with your whole self. By deliberately sterilizing yourself, you are holding back on true intimacy.” ? Is that really the official teaching of the church? Is this in the catechism somewhere?

Here are a couple citations from Catechism that will help clarify a bit:

*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.[157] 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:[158] 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.[159] *

2399 “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)

Obviously I did not become a eunuch. Nor did I have a vasectomy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, but to prevent the potential situation of putting my wife’s life in danger. All of that fully granted. However, I can’t see how Catholics believe sterilization to be “immoral” in light of this.

It can be a hard pill to swallow, and for Catholics included because the intention is good; but as you read in Catechism above, the ends don’t justify the means. Of course its been long since I’ve poured through Catechism in depth, so I may be missing a passage regarding danger to the life of a mother - but someone will correct me if I am.

So, Erin, point taken regarding Natural Family Planning. What do you tell Catholic people for whom that is not an option any longer (i.e. people in my condition of being only capable of loving our spouses only partially with false intimacy)?

Well, a practicing Catholic who is in this situation would first need to seek absolution for the sin - that is to say they are sorry that it was done, confess, and do penance. Then receive Spiritual direction from their Priest, who can give much, much better guidance and advice than a lay person ever could regarding how the situation impacts their love and intimacy.

E.A.

 

[archistrage]

The biggest problem is that, sex is for procreation. That’s its purpose. Even if you don’t believe in God, 300 million years of evolution has shown us that sex is for the continuation of our species.

The Church teaches that people who have sex should always have their hearts opened to having children, but specifically to allowing God to decide whether or not a child should be conceived or born. Once again, even if you don’t believe in God, you should let evolution decide whether or not this child should be here. The Church does not deny that sex brings a couple closer together, through the pleasure shared in each others’ intimacy. But sex purely for pleasure alone, without any thought to a child is sinful and disgusting.

Sex is a part of any marriage. It is by no means, however, the only part. First off, a relationship built on sex is doomed to fail. Likewise, a relationship in which arguments are solved through sex is a really ****** relationship. The intimacy that is shared in the relationship between a husband and wife is not built on sexual relations. Sex is not ‘making love’, it is expressing it, and if you need to have sex in order to experience that intimate feeling, then you are not getting the most out of your marriage, and you need to work harder at it.

Last thing, intimacy, is not the ‘sexual’ relationship our culture today views it. It is about knowing someone to the very core of their being. It is the same kind of relationship God has with his creation, and that Christ has with his bride, the Church. God, who knows our hearts and our ways, who know every molecule, every atom, “every hair on our head which is counted,” knows us in this way. THAT is intimacy. And it is on this that the Covenant is built. That God, who knows us in this way, still loves us, because in us he sees our desire for love, no matter how twisted and how corrupted we are. And yet he still came and gave himself to us anyway, in the Sacrifice on the Cross.

Archistrage

 

[KBernadette]

Your wife could die if she gets pregnant so you sterilized yourself. I’ve heard of a few cases of a vasectomy healing itself. Truly, the only way to ensure her life is not put at risk is to abstain.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Humanae Vitae (see here) contains the prohibition against sterilization:

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

 

[Just_Lurking]

An explanation of the “holding back” theory can be found here (National Catholic Bioethics Center webpage).

 

[Cashue]

Yes. Definitely grave matter; quite possibly a mortal sin.

Now, every time you share the marital embrace with your wife, you aren’t loving her completely with your whole self. By deliberately sterilizing yourself, you are holding back on true intimacy.

I agree, you must either abstain completely from sex or you must put your wives life in the hands of the Lord. You must not violate the word of God, it says not to use contraceptive in the bible and this must be obeyed.

 

[jasev]

I agree, you must either abstain completely from sex or you must put your wives life in the hands of the Lord. You must not violate the word of God, it says not to use contraceptive in the bible and this must be obeyed.

Where is this found in the Bible?

 

[jasev]

Thank you for the reference Just Lurking.

Two questions:

1. Is this considered part of the Infallible teaching of the church, and if so to what degree of certitude? (Hopefully I’m using the right terms. On other threads on this forum I’m trying to understand exactly how Catholics understand what is required for belief vs. what is optional).
2. I’m having a really hard time understanding how the following quote is compatible with the practice of “Natural Family Planning.” “Natural Family Planning” is explicitly intended to “prevent procreation” “at the moment of… intercourse.” Right?

. . . .
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)
. . . .

 

[thistle]

I’m fairly certain I’ve been aware of Catholic’s distaste for contraception for as long as I can remember. I don’t think I ever really gave it much thought. As a fairly devout protestant and Bible student, I don’t remember ever having any qualms about it in the past. It just never really entered my mind. Certainly I don’t think I ever cared to debate it.

In any case, I get the impression, reading through posts here, that you guys probably get a lot of grief from protestants over this contraception business on a regular basis. Either that or you give protestants a lot of grief and get a bunch of flak back for it. Well I still don’t think I care to debate it, but now I’m curious as to why this is such a hot button issue for you guys.

Also, out of sheer curiosity, I’m interested in your take on this: My wife had seriously complicated pregnancies with both of our children. We thank God they are more than fine today. After our second child was born, the doctor strongly advised we have no more children. Would loved to have had a much larger family, but didn’t want to risk losing my wife… so I was the lucky one to “get fixed.” So, from a Catholic perspective was this just a huge tragic nasty awful sin? If so, why??

Peace.

I see the other posters have given good answers.
I just want to mention that, unlike Protestant teachings, Catholic teachings on contraception have been consistent always.
Protestants can’t seem to make their minds up. Prior to 1930 all Protestant churches opposed contraception. What happened? Did the Holy Spirit, who Protestants claim guides them, have a change of mind??

 

[jasev]

I see the other posters have given good answers.
I just want to mention that, unlike Protestant teachings, Catholic teachings on contraception have been consistent always.
Protestants can’t seem to make their minds up. Prior to 1930 all Protestant churches opposed contraception. What happened? Did the Holy Spirit, who Protestants claim guides them, have a change of mind??

Thistle, not to harp on you directly or independently… but my short time has revealed on this board a constant, “I have no idea how to really answer this, so I’ll just fall back on 'The church has always been right and still is, it’s never changed! The Catholic Church is The Truth! Peter! Apostolic Succession! 30,000 different denominations! Catholics rule, Protestants drool! bah!” Thankfully this isn’t from all members and I’m greatly appreciative to those who take time to provide thoughtful answers, on this thread and elsewhere.

Seriously folks, truth can stand on its own. I know your theology of the church doesn’t allow for you to recognize any inconsistencies or errors ever. So, if it is not an error just explain the answers logically or provide references for further study. Again, I’m thankful to those on here who do this. If it weren’t for you I probably would have already written the Catholic church off as the largest manipulative cult on the planet based on what I’ve seen by some members here.

 

[jasev]

Thank you for the reference Just Lurking.

Two questions:

1. Is this considered part of the Infallible teaching of the church, and if so to what degree of certitude? (Hopefully I’m using the right terms. On other threads on this forum I’m trying to understand exactly how Catholics understand what is required for belief vs. what is optional).
2. I’m having a really hard time understanding how the following quote is compatible with the practice of “Natural Family Planning.” “Natural Family Planning” is explicitly intended to “prevent procreation” “at the moment of… intercourse.” Right?

“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)”

Since the thread has gone to a second page, I’m reposting the last questions on this so that they’re not missed.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m fairly certain I’ve been aware of Catholic’s distaste for contraception for as long as I can remember. I don’t think I ever really gave it much thought. As a fairly devout protestant and Bible student, I don’t remember ever having any qualms about it in the past. It just never really entered my mind. Certainly I don’t think I ever cared to debate it.

In any case, I get the impression, reading through posts here, that you guys probably get a lot of grief from protestants over this contraception business on a regular basis. Either that or you give protestants a lot of grief and get a bunch of flak back for it. Well I still don’t think I care to debate it, but now I’m curious as to why this is such a hot button issue for you guys.

Also, out of sheer curiosity, I’m interested in your take on this: My wife had seriously complicated pregnancies with both of our children. We thank God they are more than fine today. After our second child was born, the doctor strongly advised we have no more children. Would loved to have had a much larger family, but didn’t want to risk losing my wife… so I was the lucky one to “get fixed.” So, from a Catholic perspective was this just a huge tragic nasty awful sin? If so, why??

Peace.

It is certainly grave matter, some here say Mortal sin but this isn’t accurate as there are 3 conditions which must be met in order for a sin to be mortal:

A distinction is made between mortal and venial sin. +]
395. When does one commit a mortal sin? +]
1855-1861 +]
1874 +]
One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.

Sorry for the + sign’s this was taken out of Faith Database, great program but it has some weaknesses. Anyway from what you can see here

1. you need grave matter, what you did qualifies
2. full knowlege - this is questionable in your case. You know how we Catholics feel, and while you should perhaps have considered it more closely, I don’t know if one could say you had full knowlege. Your faith tradition errored in regards to sterilization and contraception in the 30’s.
3. deliberate consent, that is to say you had to know full well it was grave matter and specifically decide to thumb your nose at God. If you fully understood why God abhors contracpetion and steralization, would you have done this with out great out side pressure?

With regards to contraception, remember Gods love is a procreative love, and the marital embrase is the closest thing humans get to Gods love. It should be procreative, or at a minimun it should always fully embrase the possiblity of life. Now since you’re a Protestant, I have a scripture passage for you. And I want you to consider this question,

“What is the detestable thing, what is the object of the sin, when did the sin occur, why is this even in the bible since it (otherwise) seems to be neither here nor there”.

Gen 38:6 And Juda took a wife for Her, his first born, whose name was Thamar.
Gen 38:7 And Her, the first born of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him.
Gen 38:8 Juda, therefore, said to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother.
Gen 38:9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
Gen 38:10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing:

 

[jasev]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply with source material crazzeto.

Not germane to the discussion, but I’ll mention in passing - I’m not intimately concerned about my situation here. My questioning isn’t a concern over my alleged guilt or anything like that… really, I’m just trying to understand what Catholicism teaches and more importantly how Catholics reason and think. I’m not losing sleep over what I did many, many years ago.

Further, I highly doubt the “faith tradition” I was a part of when I did this held to such a notion before the 1930’s, but if they did it doesn’t really matter. I’m no longer part of that “tradition” and I have no “tradition” to defend.

In any case, on to the meat of the discussion:

I think anyone without a pre-conceived doctrine to defend can tell that this passage in Genesis 38 is not about contraception. God slew Onan because he did not “go in to [his] brother’s wife, and fulfil to her the brother-in-law’s duty” as his father instructed him to do. Really, if this passage is the basis for a divine condemnation on contraception then the Catholic church of logical necessity must mandate that the devout Catholic of a deceased brother must take the deceased brother’s wife and impregnate her. You guys, don’t teach that too, do you?

Remaining questions:

1. Is this Gen 38 passage the only proof text used to support this?
2. How is “Natural Family Planning” not condemned with this statement, “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)”?

 

[crazzeto]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply with source material crazzeto.

Not germane to the discussion, but I’ll mention in passing - I’m not intimately concerned about my situation here. My questioning isn’t a concern over my alleged guilt or anything like that… really, I’m just trying to understand what Catholicism teaches and more importantly how Catholics reason and think. I’m not losing sleep over what I did many, many years ago.

Further, I highly doubt the “faith tradition” I was a part of when I did this held to such a notion before the 1930’s, but if they did it doesn’t really matter. I’m no longer part of that “tradition” and I have no “tradition” to defend.

In any case, on to the meat of the discussion:

I think anyone without a pre-conceived doctrine to defend can tell that this passage in Genesis 38 is not about contraception. God slew Onan because he did not “go in to [his] brother’s wife, and fulfil to her the brother-in-law’s duty” as his father instructed him to do. Really, if this passage is the basis for a divine condemnation on contraception then the Catholic church of logical necessity must mandate that the devout Catholic of a deceased brother must take the deceased brother’s wife and impregnate her. You guys, don’t teach that too, do you?

Remaining questions:

1. Is this Gen 38 passage the only proof text used to support this?
2. How is “Natural Family Planning” not condemned with this statement, “Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)”?

This interpretation contradict Deuteronomy:

Deu 25:5 When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother:
Deu 25:6 And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel.
Deu 25:7 But if he will not take his brother’s wife, who by law belongeth to him, the woman shall go to the gate of the city, and call upon the ancients, and say: My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up his brother’s name in Israel: and will not take me to wife.
Deu 25:8 And they shall cause him to be sent for forthwith, and shall ask him. If he answer: I will not take her to wife:
Deu 25:9 The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother’s house:
Deu 25:10 And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.

God’s perscribed punishment for the sin you have identified is public shaming, not death. God wouldn’t have put someone to death in Genisis for a sin which only demanded publish shaming under the much stricter conditions of reveled levitical laws.

Edit
BTW, I suggest you read “children of the refermation”, written by a Lutheran and attached as a PDF to this message.