contraception

[vluvski]

stanley123:

With reference to the question of whether or not the teaching on contraception is generally accepted by Catholic lay people or by Catholic clergy, one can take a look at the following two articles, one from US Catholic magazine, and the other from America Magazine:
According to the following article in US Catholic

uscatholic.org/2005/09/featb0509.htm

“It is well-known that the overwhelming majority of U.S. Catholics do in fact use artificial contraception.”
“After much thought and prayer, they decided that contraception was the best solution for them. Freedom from fear of conception has had a very positive impact on their relationship and their family life as a whole.”

**". . . (Fr. Richard McCormick maintains that) there are many Jesuits who do not accept the thesis that every contraceptive act is morally wrong. I can vouch for the fact that very many bishops share the same conviction." **
****Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxilliary Bishop of Detroit, in America, November 20, 1993.

I’ve read various articles from both magazines. While they may very well be entirely accurate within their reader group, they specifically cater to dissenting, sometimes heretical people who wish for some reason to maintain their ties to the Catholic Church. Even if every single Catholic except the pope decided contraception was OK, it wouldn’t matter. The Church, praise God!, is not a democracy. As Catholics, we believe (or should believe) that the wisdom of Holy Mother Church far exceeds our own. Even if we cannot understand why, we are bound by the what. We also have an obligation to do our homework, form our consciences properly, and do everything in our power to understand the why. Once we understand the why, the what becomes much easier.
Every one of us could say the same thing in the quote for a sin we’ve committed. “I prayed and prayed about whether or not I should buy a car. I finally decided it would be best for me if I had a car so I could get to and from my job without walking. Since I didn’t have the self-discipline to walk so I could make money and licitly obtain a car, I stole one. Now I have a car, and everything is peachy.”

 

[felra]

stanley123:

With reference to the question of whether or not the teaching on contraception is generally accepted by Catholic lay people or by Catholic clergy, one can take a look at the following two articles, one from US Catholic magazine, and the other from America Magazine:
According to the following article in US Catholic

uscatholic.org/2005/09/featb0509.htm

“It is well-known that the overwhelming majority of U.S. Catholics do in fact use artificial contraception.”
“After much thought and prayer, they decided that contraception was the best solution for them. Freedom from fear of conception has had a very positive impact on their relationship and their family life as a whole.”

**". . . (Fr. Richard McCormick maintains that) there are many Jesuits who do not accept the thesis that every contraceptive act is morally wrong. I can vouch for the fact that very many bishops share the same conviction." **
Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxilliary Bishop of Detroit, in America, November 20, 1993.

In additional to the well articulated response by vluvski, I will add: If you read between the lines of your above citations, I see two obvious things, 1) lack of faith by those who chose contraception out of fear, and 2) Shepherds of the flock who have a sizable millstone around their necks.

 

[stanley123]

vluvski:

I’ve read various articles from both magazines. While they may very well be entirely accurate within their reader group, they specifically cater to dissenting, sometimes heretical people who wish for some reason to maintain their ties to the Catholic Church…"

The quote was from Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton. Are you saying that this Catholic bishop is a dissenter or a heretic?

 

[stanley123]

felra:

I see two obvious things, 1) lack of faith by those who chose contraception out of fear, and 2) Shepherds of the flock who have a sizable millstone around their necks.

Are you saying that the Catholic bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton has a sizable millstone around his neck?

 

[stanley123]

fix:

I think it should be another topic. I started an answer because I did not want your words to go unchallenged. Everything you wrote has been debated, and refuted, here many times.

Well, it is similar for you also. Anyone can say that everything you have said has been debated many times. So what it amounts to is this:
According to you, it is OK for you to raise the question about a change in Church policy in this thread, but it is not OK for someone to answer the question in this thread?
This is ridiculous and unfair in my opinion.

 

[vluvski]

stanley123:

The quote was from Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton. Are you saying that this Catholic bishop is a dissenter or a heretic?

He may be or he may not be- that is for God and/or the church to decide, not me. US Catholic can quote whomever they please, in whatever context is helpful to their agenda. He is stating a fact (or at least what he believes to be fact), not expressing an opinion. His words do suggest dissent, in that they use the “everyone’s doing it” peer pressure technique to somehow make it seem OK. However, his quote could have been taken completely out of context, so I cannot make that judgement, and should not make that judgement even if I had enough information to do so (even though I often do anyway ).

I am merely saying that people who would tend to enjoy the magazine(s) because they agree with what is says are necessarily out of sync with the Church because the articles encourage and wrongly justify thoughts and actions that are contrary to her teachings. Some of these wrong justifications are in fact heretical, and people who agree with these specific wrong justifications are most appropriately labelled heretics.

 

[felra]

stanley123:

Are you saying that the Catholic bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton has a sizable millstone around his neck?

Put it this way: No way in hell would I ever exchange my millstone with his.

 

[felra]

stanley123:

The quote was from Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton. Are you saying that this Catholic bishop is a dissenter or a heretic?

Here is a few sampling of CA threads regarding this Bishop for your pervue to decide for yourself:

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton and the homosexual agenda

Orthodox Priests in Detroit are “Under Siege”

Bishop Gumbleton Strikes Again

Archdiocese of Detroit - At It Again!!!

What if it’s a Bishop who’s watering down the Eucharist?

 

[vluvski]

felra:

Put it this way: No way in hell would I ever exchange my millstone with his.

Perhaps, then, you would consider exchanging your millstones in heaven, as an act of charity?

 

[manualman]

stanley, you make a valid point about rules of discussion. However, it was ME who made the general statement about historic consistancy of catholic teaching. It was NOT me that chided you about going off topic.

Thus, I get the blame for the digression, not stanley. But the others are right about staying on topic. They just dope-slapped the wrong guy! I shouldn’t have broadened the topic beyond the OP’s specific interest. Perhaps you’d like to start a separate thread?

 

[stanley123]

manualman:

Thus, I get the blame for the digression, not stanley.

Hi manualman:
You are too kind.
Anyway, I have found your answers to be quite enlightening, to the point, and enjoyable to read.
But here is a question. Do you think that it would be inconceivable that the RCC could ever change (or let say further develop) its position on ABC?
I mean who would have thought that the teaching on the primary end of marriage would have been changed (or expanded) ? I admit that it does not seem likely at this point in time that the teaching on ABC could or would be changed, but does that mean that it would be impossible at some future time?

 

[lydiabeeuk]

manualman:

NFP when used for avoiding pregnancy requires sacrifice on the part of both, good communication, encourages self-examination of the reason for avoiding, and fosters a giving approach to sex instead of a taking attitude.

thnx manualman , this is very helpful. all u married couple out there who use or have used NFP etc, do you completely agree with manualman’s staement, have you found this 2 b the case? Lydia

 

[manualman]

Good question. I’m sure there WILL be further growth in understanding the matter. But like the growth in understanding the unitive aspect, it will not repudiate established truths already articulated. The word “primary” may have once been used to describe the procreative aspect of marital sex. But the growth in understanding of the unitive role has not in any way repudiated previous understandings about the importance of the procreative role.

Similarly, I don’t believe the church can ever REVERSE its moral teachings on contraception, even if the teaching is widely ignored.

But beyond the intellectual discussions, I highly encourage folks currently using artificial birth control to look into NFP and try it out for two years. (Unfortunately, it took me this long to appreciate the benefits) Ask around among people who HAVE tried it for at least that long. Betcha you’ll find very few who have given it up and a whole LOT who found that they now ‘get’ and embrace church teaching on the subject! ABC REALLY does play a major role in our culture’s screwed up view of human sexuality!

 

[Ham1]

Your question of whether the Church or Pope would ever change the teaching on contraception reminded me of a great homily by my pastor…

Shortly after the election of Pope Benedict XVI, my pastor stated:

“This would never happen but…if, IF, Pope Benedict were to change the teaching on contraception, I would follow him and submit to the authority of the Church. It would be hard for me to do, but I know that the wisdom of the Holy Mother Church is far greater than my own. The question I have for all of you is: ‘if the Pope DOESN’T change the teaching on contraception, would you have the courage to follow him?’”

 

[stanley123]

manualman:

But like the growth in understanding the unitive aspect, it will not repudiate established truths already articulated. The word “primary” may have once been used to describe the procreative aspect of marital sex. But the growth in understanding of the unitive role has not in any way repudiated previous understandings about the importance of the procreative role.

I would have to disagree with you on that. I beleive by changing the teaching from one primary purpose of marriage (procreative) to two apparently coequal purposes of marriage, the Catholic theologians have laid the groundwork and the underpinning for the use of NFP to limit the number of children. This seems to be contrary to what was taught before:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, :
*“*Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

 

[fix]

stanley123:

Well, it is similar for you also. Anyone can say that everything you have said has been debated many times. So what it amounts to is this:
According to you, it is OK for you to raise the question about a change in Church policy in this thread, but it is not OK for someone to answer the question in this thread?
This is ridiculous and unfair in my opinion.

What is the big deal? Just start another thread. The issues you raise deserve to be discussed. It just gets to complicated when the thread veers off in too many directions.

 

[Ham1]

stanley123:

I would have to disagree with you on that. I beleive by changing the teaching from one primary purpose of marriage (procreative) to two apparently coequal purposes of marriage, the Catholic theologians have laid the groundwork and the underpinning for the use of NFP to limit the number of children. This seems to be contrary to what was taught before:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, :
*“*Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

I think you are misinterpreting the use of the word frustrate. NFP would not be seen as “frustrating” the natural powers and purpose. Pope Pius XI makes a distinction within Casti Connubii when he makes this statement:

“53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act.”

Clearly Pope Pius XI does NOT view “virtuous continence” as “frustrating the marriage act.” So, the current teaching really does not represent a departure from Casti Connubii.

 

[manualman]

Thanks Ham, I was too lazy to look that up.

But I indirectly said the same when I previously reminded Stanley that the more primitive rythm method which was based on similar principals as NFP was widely practiced by catholics at the time Castii Connubi was written. Had he meant to condemn rythm, he would have done so explicitly. Instead, he explicitly described it as NOT being a ‘frustration’ of the procreative nature of marital sex.

 

[abcdefg]

There’s only one artificial “contraception” Church allows: telephone. if you can’t avoid fornication when dating, then only use telephone to contact your gf/bf.

 

[stanley123]

Ham1:

NFP would not be seen as “frustrating” the natural powers and purpose…

This is what I don’t see.
The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children.
NFP, when used to prevent or limit the number of children, would be used against this primary purpose.
Is that not the definition of frustrate? to defeat the purpose, is this not the same as to frustrate the purpose. The purpose is to bring children into the world, and this is being defeated by using NFP for the purpose of limiting or preventing children from being born?