Having trouble following the church on birth control

[Pedro_1987]

Been having an issue with the Church of late, mostly just the part about birth control. I used to agree with the Church until it came time to walk the walk. How can it be moral to bring so many people into this world with little to no regard for finances? Why must every act of marital sex be open to procreation? It comes off as superstitious; it creates a human being so it must be special even though it is a biological function like any other. Nowhere else is a piece of technology shunned for being “unnatural”. Every modern convenience is “unnatural”. And NFP just feels like loophole abuse anyway - not technically using artificial birth control but we all know the intention when you only have sex on non-ovulating days.

The Church also seems to be very anti-sex in general. We have Mary and Joseph, raised as the perfect picture of marriage, and they supposedly never even had sex!

As much as it may not sound like it, I want to follow the Church. I really do. But right now I’m really struggling with faith and trying to reconcile my beliefs.

 

[Rau]

Been having an issue with the Church of late, mostly just the part about birth control. I used to agree with the Church until it came time to walk the walk.

I think you mean “walk the talk”

How can it be moral to bring so many people into this world with little to no regard for finances?

It would lack responsibility to bring children into one’s life if we were unable to look after them reasonably. Better to exercise “responsible parenthood”.

Why must every act of marital sex be open to procreation? It comes off as superstitious; it creates a human being so it must be special even though it is a biological function like any other. Nowhere else is a piece of technology shunned for being “unnatural”. Every modern convenience is “unnatural”.

The technology is not unnatural, it is the purpose to which it is put that the Church objects to - dividing what God bound together in the nature of conjugal relations.
catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

And NFP just feels like loophole abuse anyway - not technically using artificial birth control but we all know the intention when you only have sex on non-ovulating days.

The intention when adopting NFP is (often) to avoid pregnancy. That can be a perfectly fine motivation - for example - in the interests of “responsible parenthood”. Given your wish to follow the Church, I would think you would be pleased to adopt NFP should the time not be right for a child.

 

[edlinked]

It’s interesting because some people have found that the position of the Catholic Church regarding that matter is what brought them to the Church.

I would say that pray, pray harder, wisdom doesn’t come with the feeling good from pleasure, it comes with the fear of the Lord. Pleasure is a gift, but most of the times we put it as north so that it states what’s right. So be careful, because Truth and Goodness are not that easy to follow, like scripture states:

“13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. 14 How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.” Matthew 7, 13-14

With this I am just trying to say, that sometimes the “easy way”, is not the way, and it becomes worse when we follow the feeling good way, because the feeling good way, is about bodily pleasures (as north) because those are the easy ones to feel. Let’s try to follow the spiritual way, referring to the way that we decide for the ways that fortify the spirit and soul (by accepting the guidance of the Holy Spirit). Remember that we see that Jesus, our Lord, our God, died a death at the cross, why if He was God? We love because He first loved us, so let’s try to learn about Gods love.

“16 We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. 17 In this is love brought to perfection among us, that we have confidence on the day of judgment because as he is, so are we in this world.18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love. 19 We love because he first loved us.” 1 John 4, 16-19

You see that for me you talk as if love is satisfaction from pleasure, you need to know what is love first, and how love acts, then you will see it differently.

Love does no harm, it is about caring, not like man, but like God. Love cannot be defined on “mans terms”, because it is not of man but of God. So for you to truly love, is not by your terms, because we probably would get lost in our “senses” (our bodies and end there), but we are more than that (we are made in His image), so our responsibility is more than only that. Also remember that we need to deny ourselves and carry the cross to get to God, there is no other way (because the way to love is like Jesus loves).

A good book to start to learn the approach is “Love and Responsibility” by Karol Wojtyla.

 

[Duane1966]

1.) The argument about financial hardship is a red herring. Who is the judge in deciding that one cannot afford a child? Anyone, of any economic background (below poverty to billionaires), can argue that they cannot afford a child.

2.) Can a couple truly say they fully trust in God and practice contraception? The only way to reasonably say yes, is, if they think God has nothing to do with the marital act. Because, if a couple practices contraception, they certainly do not trust God on when He decides to send them a child.

3.) To me, the difference between contraception and abortion, is almost indistinguishable. Let’s say that a couple does the marital act in which God intended a baby (we will call her Susie) to be the end result.

 A.)  The couple does not practice contraception, and Susie is born.

 B.)  The couple practices contraception and Susie does not come into existence.

 C.)  The couple becomes pregnant, but Susie is killed by an abortion.

 In all three of the above scenarios, Susie **should** have come into existence.  In two of them she doesn't.

 

[Deus_tecum]

Well look at it this way Pedro. A young man could focus on pleasing himself with his wife as often as he wants, but if a child is brought into the world when finances are not right for it, the whole family has hardship. In the self discipline of denying oneself sexual pleasure, energy can be directed into improving family finances, so that a baby becomes affordable.

 

[Scottgun]

We have Mary and Joseph, raised as the perfect picture of marriage, and they supposedly never even had sex

Not supposedly, but what we call de fide meaning in the “Deposit of Faith” meaning Catholics are obliged to assent to it. Sourced by this poster: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6812154&postcount=2

As far as contraception, the main reason it causes people trouble is that modern society is steeped in the falsehoods of moral relativism.

 

[Pedro_1987]

1.) The argument about financial hardship is a red herring. Who is the judge in deciding that one cannot afford a child? Anyone, of any economic background (below poverty to billionaires), can argue that they cannot afford a child.

There are levels of preparedness though. To say everybody should have kids right away is ludicrous and can in fact ruin people’s futures.

2.) Can a couple truly say they fully trust in God and practice contraception? The only way to reasonably say yes, is, if they think God has nothing to do with the marital act. Because, if a couple practices contraception, they certainly do not trust God on when He decides to send them a child.

This is incredibly reckless and this kind of logic would never apply to anything else. For example, you might as well ask if a driver trusts God enough to save him in an accident; therefore seatbelts are proof one doesn’t trust in God. By this logic you should also never receive medical attention of any kind, but instead to trust in God to save you.

3.) To me, the difference between contraception and abortion, is almost indistinguishable. Let’s say that a couple does the marital act in which God intended a baby (we will call her Susie) to be the end result.

 A.)  The couple does not practice contraception, and Susie is born.

 B.)  The couple practices contraception and Susie does not come into existence.

 C.)  The couple becomes pregnant, but Susie is killed by an abortion.

 In all three of the above scenarios, Susie **should** have come into existence.  In two of them she doesn't.

This is not he Christian God I was taught about. The god you described is incredibly weak. Nothing any human does can interfere with the Christian God’s plan. To say otherwise is to elevate man above God.

 

[TomFromMD]

A.) The couple does not practice contraception, and Susie is born.

 B.)  The couple practices contraception and Susie does not come into existence.

 C.)  The couple becomes pregnant, but Susie is killed by an abortion.

 In all three of the above scenarios, Susie **should** have come into existence.  In two of them she doesn't.

No. In C, Susie did come into existence, and was killed.

You can argue that Susie should have come into existence in B. Someone else could argue that she should have come into existence on a certain day, but that the NFP couple decided not to have sex that day solely to prevent her from coming into existence. One can draw distinctions, but the distinction between these two cases are much smaller than the distinction between B and C.

 

[TomFromMD]

I think you mean “walk the talk”

I’ve always heard it as “walk the walk”. Google shows about twice as many hits (11 million) for “walk the walk” as “walk the talk” (5.7) It could be that there are regional differences in the idiom.

 

[Pedro_1987]

Well look at it this way Pedro. A young man could focus on pleasing himself with his wife as often as he wants, but if a child is brought into the world when finances are not right for it, the whole family has hardship. In the self discipline of denying oneself sexual pleasure, energy can be directed into improving family finances, so that a baby becomes affordable.

There’d be no need to do either if one simply uses a condom or other birth control method.

The technology is not unnatural, it is the purpose to which it is put that the Church objects to - dividing what God bound together in the nature of conjugal relations.
catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

How is NFP any different than what is described there? Having sex when you know the wife isn’t ovulating is just as contraceptive as a condom. Like I said, it feels like nothing but loop hole abuse.

 

[TCEL]

There are definitely times it is difficult. It makes me feel very respected as a woman though.

The elephant in the room is that contraception offers a false sense of security, as there are plenty of people born despite contraception. My thought is this; if it is truly dire not to have a child, the obvious answer is abstinence. Keep busy with other things like friends, family, work, and prayer. Without Jesus and prayer, you’re stacking the cards against yourselves.

Contraception isn’t unnatural like airplanes and such, it’s unnatural like binging and purging is after eating. I don’t mean to upset people with that specific example, but that’s one thing that helped me make sense of the distinction.

 

[TCEL]

There’d be no need to do either if one simply uses a condom or other birth control method.

How is NFP any different than what is described there? Having sex when you know the wife isn’t ovulating is just as contraceptive as a condom. Like I said, it feels like nothing but loop hole abuse.

Then, if it’s the same, what’s the problem in using it?

 

[Pedro_1987]

Then, if it’s the same, what’s the problem in using it?

There’s no logical reason to abstain from sex for a week every month?

Not just that, but NFP just seems like a legalistic loop hole that doesn’t really jive with anything else in its teachings.

 

[TCEL]

There’s no logical reason to abstain from sex for a week every month?

If it means being in alignment with the Church that Christ founded, even if you don’t understand at first, it makes a lot of sense. Are there other issues you distrust the Church about? I’m not saying that to be inflammatory, but the marital issues deeply relate to the sacrament of the Eucharist, Holy Orders, and Christ’s love for the Church.

 

[TCEL]

I might further add that no one is stopping you from being completely abstinent. That too is very possible to do as a married couple.

 

[TCEL]

As an afterthought, there are appropriate times to fast, but never is there an appropriate time to go to the vomitorium.

 

[Pedro_1987]

I might further add that no one is stopping you from being completely abstinent. That too is very possible to do as a married couple.

A sexless marriage is a terrible marriage to live in.

 

[TCEL]

A sexless marriage is a terrible marriage to live in.

My husband is a saintly man and respects me as much as ever, and I respect him more for it. There are sometimes health reasons for abstinence. The options are abstinence, NFP, or come what may.

So, it sounds like you do think NFP is different from other methods because it requires abstinence sometimes?

 

[pensmama87]

As an afterthought, there are appropriate times to fast, but never is there an appropriate time to go to the vomitorium.

Right.

It’s a sin to misuse food and drink as well as sex. That doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy them, but when it becomes all about the pursuit of the fun of it, we’re not approaching it with the right mindset.

If you can’t accept the natural end of sex (children), you abstain. If you can, you don’t.

It can be very difficult to practice, sure. It can also be very hard for some people to say no to a drink or a dessert even if they really should. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have to practice temperance and chastity.

 

[TCEL]

Right.
It can be very difficult to practice, sure. It can also be very hard for some people to say no to a drink or a dessert even if they really should. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have to practice temperance and chastity.

I have to restate that I’m really not trying to be flippant about it at all. Sometimes following this teaching involves wailing and gnashing of teeth, . The blunt point about eating helped drive the point home for myself, because I had the same questions. Abortion is wrong? Easy to get. Contraception? What’s wrong with that?