S
stepahnie52706
Guest
can someone explain to me why birth control and other contraception methods are considered to be a mortal sin? also, does anyone know of any books addressing the matter?
- Status
K
kaymart
Guest
Most forms of birth control actually have an “abortion effect” such as an IUD and the Pill. In the simplest terms possible…all forms do not open a couple to life. Which is against the Teachings of The Catholic Church and is a Grave Sin.
S
StratusRose
Guest
This topic has been discussed many many many many many many times. If you run a search you can see what others have said about it. Or, check out the catholic.com homepage.
S
stepahnie52706
Guest
kaymart,
i’ve heard soemthing about the pill having an abortion effect as sort of a ‘back up plan’. i think that is a probable explanation, however no one that i have heard it from has had an authority in the area of medicine and no one has been able to give me the medical explanination of why it is so. again, i’m not saying that it doesnt have an abortion effect, i would just like to know if it is medically proven or if that statement has slipped through the wires like in childhood game of ‘telephone’
i’ve heard soemthing about the pill having an abortion effect as sort of a ‘back up plan’. i think that is a probable explanation, however no one that i have heard it from has had an authority in the area of medicine and no one has been able to give me the medical explanination of why it is so. again, i’m not saying that it doesnt have an abortion effect, i would just like to know if it is medically proven or if that statement has slipped through the wires like in childhood game of ‘telephone’
S
StratusRose
Guest
A
awalt
Guest
Read John Paul IIs explanation of it - this is a wonderful document
A
astegallrnc
Guest
The StratusRose provides an excellent explanation of the word games used. I’ll add a just a bit more. Oral contraceptive pills, the patch, ring, and injections list the following mechanisms of action on the package literature (arhp.org/healthcareproviders/resources/contraceptionresources/productprov.cfmf )1) suppress ovulation; 2) thicken cervical mucus; 3) alter the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation. It is possible to conceive but because of the altered uterine lining, the pregnancy ends resulting in an early abortion.
HTH!
Autumn
M
mercygate
Guest
Christopher West: *Good News about Sex and Marriage. *Buy it. READ it. All you need to know in layman’s terms.
C
cmgeo
Guest
Is ‘coitus interruptus’ a sin?
What if some one does not want
use any contraceptives but still
want to have planned family due
to various considerations?
Not very comfortable with NFP
because of irregularity of periods etc.
What are the other options left?
What if some one does not want
use any contraceptives but still
want to have planned family due
to various considerations?
Not very comfortable with NFP
because of irregularity of periods etc.
What are the other options left?
1
1ke
Guest
Yes, coitus interruptus is contraception, and therefore a disordered act, if done with full knowledge and free will yes also a sin.
If someone is not comfortable with NFP then they should better educate themselves on the topic and then they would know that so-called “irregular pierods” are not an impediment to using NFP. www.ccli.org and www.creightonmodel.com for more information on two prominent methods of NFP.
There is really one choice when there is a serious reason to avoid or space pregnancy-- abstinence. NFP merely helps couples by providing them information that might allow them to have something less than total abstinence-- days of infertility.
1
1ke
Guest
To properly use the sexuality that God gave us, each sex act must be unitive and procreative. Therefore no action may be taken before, during, or after the sex act that purposely renders it infertile.
Contraception is an act before, during, or after the sex act that purposely renders it infertile, therefore it is disordered and outside God’s plan for sexuality.
C
cmgeo
Guest
Is not sexual act between husband and wife an ultimate expression of love?
If that is the case how can some one say
you need to abstain?
I guess it also goes with the age.
If you are past 50s that may be alright
(I believe a lot of people on this forum are)
If some one who is young and already have kids
and have issues with periods and there fore can not opt for
NFP to plan for family want to express love, are u saying
you have to abstain?
Is that not totally ridiculous?
How hypocritical is NFP any way?
You are not achieving anything by NFP
To me it seems like making a statement as follows:
"I AM OPEN TO LIFE
BUT I HAVE SEX ONLY AT THE TIME
THAT I AM 100% SURE THAT I WONT
CONCEIVE…
This is like fooling the system
IF THIS IS THE CASE WHERE IS OPENNESS TO LIFE
TO BEGIN WITH?"
This is as much of hypocrisy as Contraception
Any one here agrees?
(Mind you the church has changed its standard
several times on morality and doctrine)
There fore some where down the line i believe the
church will change it’s stand on this as well
1ke:
If that is the case how can some one say
you need to abstain?
I guess it also goes with the age.
If you are past 50s that may be alright
(I believe a lot of people on this forum are)
If some one who is young and already have kids
and have issues with periods and there fore can not opt for
NFP to plan for family want to express love, are u saying
you have to abstain?
Is that not totally ridiculous?
How hypocritical is NFP any way?
You are not achieving anything by NFP
To me it seems like making a statement as follows:
"I AM OPEN TO LIFE
BUT I HAVE SEX ONLY AT THE TIME
THAT I AM 100% SURE THAT I WONT
CONCEIVE…
This is like fooling the system
IF THIS IS THE CASE WHERE IS OPENNESS TO LIFE
TO BEGIN WITH?"
This is as much of hypocrisy as Contraception
Any one here agrees?
(Mind you the church has changed its standard
several times on morality and doctrine)
There fore some where down the line i believe the
church will change it’s stand on this as well
S
stepahnie52706
Guest
What about those that are unable to have children because of medical conditions, does that mean that they are not aloud to express their love for one another in the ultimate way that God designed? Are they sinning every time they engage in sex because they know they cannot procreate? Are they sinning because they are using sexuality “improperly”?
If a man sins when he does not use his repoductive cells to produce a child (as some state this was Onan’s sin), does that mean that women sin when they do not use theirs to produce a child (ex: a woman does not have a child every time she ovulates)
God cannot make us sin, correct? It is against His very nature to do so. That being said, if not reproducing is a sin, then what of those that God has created infertile? Did He create that sin in them? Impossilble.
Read Song of Solomon lately? It is an expression of love between a husband and wife. It is an erotic, descriptive, CELEBRATION of the sexual act between husband and wife. Sex is a gift from God. It is the ultimate expression of love. To my knowledge, no where in Song of Solomon does it even hint at the thought that the sole purpose of sex is to procreate. Obviously that is ONE of the purposes. However, didn’t God also give us the gift of Sex to enjoy one another, to enjoy the sexuality He gave us, in the safe environment of the covenant of marriage?
S
stepahnie52706
Guest
additionally… Does God’s Word tell us how to “properly” use our sexuallity? There are references against homosexuality, incest, and beastiality, all of which would be considered “improper use”. We are given counter examples, but are we given an example, a command, anything that tells us what the “proper” use is, aside from it occuring within the confines of marriage
M
manualman
Guest
No cmgeo, the church has NOT even changed a doctrine or moral teaching. Discliplines, yes. Morals, no. Won’t happen. We can talk about examples if you’d like to raise some.
It IS really hard to figure out. But this is the most compelling explanation I’ve heard:
Marital sex is always supposed to be mutually giving, never mutual taking. We live in culture that sees sex as mostly about taking. BOTH the unitive and procreative aspects of sex are inherently GIVING. It is a love so great, so reflective of God’s own love for us that it has the potential to create a whole new life in the same way that Gods love created the world.
When a couple decides to have sex, but uses a condom, a pill or such to purposely ensure that no such new life comes of their sex act, it is inherently wrong because it subtly introduces an aspect of selfishness into the act. In fact, it tends to snowball over time because repeated use of the contraceptive tends to make the participants more and more selfish. Contraceptive use contains NO mechanism to direct the couple back towards the reconsideration of life and children and the live-giving aspect of their marital love. NFP CAN also allow this to creep in. But it is less likely to since EVERY MONTH the couple (especially the man) reflects quite strongly about just why it is that it wouldn’t be good to have more kids right now! Those several days of required abstinance go a long ways towards refocusing the couple and preventing creeping selfishness in their sex life.
P.S. I’m 35yr old man, married, have two kids under 4 and strongly believe church teaching on this matter. It took time. For almost two years I obeyed grudgingly before I started to ‘get it.’ The effort to throw off our sick cultural conditioning is WORTH IT! Believe me.
As noted, Christopher West’s ‘Good News About Sex & Marriage’ is a great intro.
It IS really hard to figure out. But this is the most compelling explanation I’ve heard:
Marital sex is always supposed to be mutually giving, never mutual taking. We live in culture that sees sex as mostly about taking. BOTH the unitive and procreative aspects of sex are inherently GIVING. It is a love so great, so reflective of God’s own love for us that it has the potential to create a whole new life in the same way that Gods love created the world.
When a couple decides to have sex, but uses a condom, a pill or such to purposely ensure that no such new life comes of their sex act, it is inherently wrong because it subtly introduces an aspect of selfishness into the act. In fact, it tends to snowball over time because repeated use of the contraceptive tends to make the participants more and more selfish. Contraceptive use contains NO mechanism to direct the couple back towards the reconsideration of life and children and the live-giving aspect of their marital love. NFP CAN also allow this to creep in. But it is less likely to since EVERY MONTH the couple (especially the man) reflects quite strongly about just why it is that it wouldn’t be good to have more kids right now! Those several days of required abstinance go a long ways towards refocusing the couple and preventing creeping selfishness in their sex life.
P.S. I’m 35yr old man, married, have two kids under 4 and strongly believe church teaching on this matter. It took time. For almost two years I obeyed grudgingly before I started to ‘get it.’ The effort to throw off our sick cultural conditioning is WORTH IT! Believe me.
As noted, Christopher West’s ‘Good News About Sex & Marriage’ is a great intro.
S
stepahnie52706
Guest
sorry, one more thought…1 Corinthians 7:1-7 addresses the sexual act between husband and wife. Husband and wife are to fulfil their ‘marital duty’ to one another. Check a few commentaries and dictionaries…the concensus… marital duty = sexual intercourse. Any mention of procreating?
Addressing the same passage, in regards to NFP. It is my understanding that NFP involves abstaining from sex during the wife’s fertile time. 1 Cor 7:5 states
“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.”
Yes, it speaks of abstaining from the sexual act, but for what reasons? is it because it is the woman’s fetile period? Or is it for the purpose of devoting oneself to prayer, to deepening one’s relationship with the Lord? I’m in no way saying that NFP is unbiblical. but according to this passage, we are only to abstain from fullfilling our marital duties in order to spend time with God.
Addressing the same passage, in regards to NFP. It is my understanding that NFP involves abstaining from sex during the wife’s fertile time. 1 Cor 7:5 states
“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.”
Yes, it speaks of abstaining from the sexual act, but for what reasons? is it because it is the woman’s fetile period? Or is it for the purpose of devoting oneself to prayer, to deepening one’s relationship with the Lord? I’m in no way saying that NFP is unbiblical. but according to this passage, we are only to abstain from fullfilling our marital duties in order to spend time with God.
M
manualman
Guest
stephanie,
That passage basically tells couples that it is NOT permissible for one spouse to withhold sex from the other against that other’s will. It is silent about mutually agreed to abstinance for the purpose of postponing another pregnancy. It does not amount to a command to go at it constantly like bunnies!
Believe me, if there were such a passage, I’d know about it!
That passage basically tells couples that it is NOT permissible for one spouse to withhold sex from the other against that other’s will. It is silent about mutually agreed to abstinance for the purpose of postponing another pregnancy. It does not amount to a command to go at it constantly like bunnies!
Believe me, if there were such a passage, I’d know about it!
C
cmgeo
Guest
Thanks for responding
All I am saying is; Both NFP and CONTRACEPTIVES are meant for achieving the same ULTIMATE objective
and how can any one prove NFP is more “OPEN to LIFE”
than contraceptive while both are meant to prevent
pregnancy (or life)?
EITHER SAY U NEED TO TRY TO MAKE LIFE WITH EVERY
SEXUAL ACT or SAY U CAN HAVE PLANNED FAMILY
USING ANY NON ABORTIVE MEANS PROVIDED
THAT IT IS WITH IN MARRIAGE
manualman:
All I am saying is; Both NFP and CONTRACEPTIVES are meant for achieving the same ULTIMATE objective
and how can any one prove NFP is more “OPEN to LIFE”
than contraceptive while both are meant to prevent
pregnancy (or life)?
EITHER SAY U NEED TO TRY TO MAKE LIFE WITH EVERY
SEXUAL ACT or SAY U CAN HAVE PLANNED FAMILY
USING ANY NON ABORTIVE MEANS PROVIDED
THAT IT IS WITH IN MARRIAGE
J
Jabronie
Guest
I’ve got one question to add. How do we define “open to life”? No birth control method is 100% effective, so technically intercourse with contraception is still open to life.
1
1ke
Guest
In a word, no.
If a person is sterile, the sex act is still objectively procreative because the couple has taken no action that alters it. It is naturally infertile, just as post-menopausal women are naturally infertile.
Onan’s sin was that he engaged in the sex act and contracepted that sex act.
No one said that “not reproducing” is a sin. Contraception is a sin.
Um, yes, I have read Song of Solomon.
I did not say that the sole reason of the sex act is procreation and the Church does not either. I stated that each act must be unitive and procreative which is precisely the Church’s teacing. Please reread my post more carefully.
- Status