How do people who use contraception go to confession?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because almost no one can really pay for a kid. Taxpayers almost always use more resources than they pay. You do.
 
IdaCatholic said:
Of course it is permissible to avoid in that case. I would never say it wasn’t. But you begging another poster to not have more kids because of a c section is rude, and you should recognize that and apologize.
Click to expand...
I am very sorry if this was received as offensive, but my concern was for the woman’s health and bodily integrity. Nothing more. And it was “because of” five C-sections, not just one.

It couldn’t be good for anybody to have repeated incisions in the same area of the body — wouldn’t that ruin certain muscle structures, as well as the integrity of the uterus itself? I have to think any doctor would be deeply concerned about this.

A case could be made that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that we have a duty to steward that temple well. Do repeated, invasive incisions in the same area constitute good stewardship? Or is it a case of saying that the begetting of children is more important than the health of one’s body?

Nobody can make that decision but the mother herself, but I have to think that a doctor could raise the concern. I would be very interested to hear what an OB/GYN would have to say about it.

No condemnation, just concern. Please understand that.
 
Last edited:
You are not her doctor. Or her spiritual superior, or her husband, or her sexual scheduler.
Period.
 
IdaCatholic is correct, taxpayers use more resources than they pay for unless they are very wealthy, though I don’t consider it relevant. Moreover, it isn’t relevant whether they ‘should’. Because those resources are available, they cannot be ignored as a means of sustaining a family. And, of course, the voters have ‘chosen’ to make them available. If they ‘choose’ not to in the future then those resources may no longer be called upon, but that isn’t the case presently.

You might as well ask why taxpayers pay welfare at all, or for schools or anything else for that matter. Because they do. Assuming one believes democracy is real, the voters chose to do so. Assuming one believes it’s a hoax, because those in charge chose to do so. Either way, things are the way they are and we adapt to the situation as best we can and we don’t ignore resources that are available. It doesn’t really make a difference if the king taxes people and makes those taxes available to those in need or if representatives in a republic do so or if the voters in a true democracy do so.
 
I dont understand how people call it heroic to choose to have more kids. Do so if you would like , but either way choosing to have kids or not have kids is going to be somewhat selfish and having kids or more kids is not the Pinnacle of heroism and generosity. Having many kids is not for everyone even those with lots of money and for now the human population is doing fine even if it may not be growing as much in some places … The human race can adapt and life will continue.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I am very sorry if this was received as offensive, but my concern was for the woman’s health and bodily integrity. Nothing more. And it was “because of” five C-sections, not just one.

It couldn’t be good for anybody to have repeated incisions in the same area of the body — wouldn’t that ruin certain muscle structures, as well as the integrity of the uterus itself? I have to think any doctor would be deeply concerned about this.

A case could be made that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that we have a duty to steward that temple well. Do repeated, invasive incisions in the same area constitute good stewardship? Or is it a case of saying that the begetting of children is more important than the health of one’s body?

Nobody can make that decision but the mother herself, but I have to think that a doctor could raise the concern. I would be very interested to hear what an OB/GYN would have to say about it.

No condemnation, just concern. Please understand that.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry, I did not take offense.

Rest assured, I sought medical advice. The truth is, doctors can assess risk, but they cannot tell you what is going to happen. Ever. I have a friend, a father of two young children, who had surgery a few months ago. The surgery was technically elective, but he was in a lot of pain and he elected to have the surgery. He ended up suffering an anoxic brain injury and cannot walk or see. We just are not in control.

Do you have any idea what pregnancy and childbirth can do to a woman’s body in the normal course of events? The reality is that repeated pregnancy and birth is hard and has consequences for a woman’s body, health, and sometimes her life.
HomeschoolDad said:
I think choosing to have no children at all, if having a child could kill the mother, would be entirely permissible — not resorting to ABC or sterilization, but using NFP or abstaining entirely.
Click to expand...
Childbirth is always risky and we would do well to remember that in our society. Through modern medicine, we have found ways to mitigate that risk, thanks be to God, and we continue to do so. Again, it becomes a matter of reasonable assessment of the risk and prudential judgement.

You seem to struggle with the shades of gray that make up most of real life. It seems to me you would be much more comfortable in a world of clear-cut, black and white choices, where one choice is good and one choice is evil and there is moral clarity all the time. I wish that life would like that, too, but it’s not. We are called to make prudential judgments based on incomplete or downright bad information all the time.
 
babochka said:
Childbirth is always risky and we would do well to remember that in our society. Through modern medicine, we have found ways to mitigate that risk, thanks be to God, and we continue to do so. Again, it becomes a matter of reasonable assessment of the risk and prudential judgement.
Click to expand...
So true. As a friend once told me - before the last century women prepared for childbirth the way men prepared for war: neither knew if they would come out alive. The risk today is mitigated but not gone. I have many friends who almost died in childbirth due to hemorrhages, clots, and infection. I even have a friend who died during childbirth and was brought back through CPR. Blessedly modern medicine can save these moms. But this is not the case everywhere. The ability to easily have many children without feeling considerable risk to the mother’s life + the ability to watch all your children live past infancy and early childhood are modern luxuries we shouldn’t take for granted!
 
Last edited:
babochka said:
Childbirth is always risky and we would do well to remember that in our society.
Click to expand...
I am well aware of that. I helped deliver our son. I saw it all. However, I must concede that I did not do the “heavy lifting”, so to speak. No father does.
babochka said:
You seem to struggle with the shades of gray that make up most of real life. It seems to me you would be much more comfortable in a world of clear-cut, black and white choices, where one choice is good and one choice is evil and there is moral clarity all the time. I wish that life would like that, too, but it’s not. We are called to make prudential judgments based on incomplete or downright bad information all the time.
Click to expand...
I take the world as it is, and I well understand “shades of gray”. A black-and-white world would be much simpler, but that’s not reality. But where I can make black-and-white choices, I do.

I don’t have a problem with the “trolley dilemma”, for instance — redirecting a trolley is a neutral act, and the death of one man versus the death of five men isn’t something directly willed. If I could take the one man off the train tracks before I redirect the trolley, I would, but I can’t. Would it be different if I saw a box of heavy equipment falling from a very tall shelf in a hardware store, and I were to deflect it out of the way to keep from hitting the five people beneath it, but the deflection would make the box hit the one person in its redirected path?
 
I could be completely wrong, but this is the way I see it. We’re all imperfect. Reconciliation is a way Christ gave us to work towards perfection. When I first started going to confession I confessed the sins I knew about, the ones that caused guilt.

The more I went, the more I came to know & understand my guilt. Yes, there was a time or two when I came across a teaching I did not agree with or understand.

By the grace of God I came to know, understand, confess, & make great strides in spiritual growth.

So I think if a person goes to confession great. If they go regularly, even better. If they don’t recognize their own sins, they will.

If they’re not going regularly, we’re complaining about the wrong thing.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
OK, here’s what I’ve gathered:
  • “How contraception is handled in confession” is pretty much a “don’t ask, don’t tell” situation.
  • The priests don’t ask and the people don’t tell (those who are using ABC, that is).
  • People either don’t use ABC and it’s not an issue for them, or they do use ABC and they don’t want it brought up to them.
I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.

And there is one other factor I’m not sure anyone has considered:

I have found that some non-Catholics are intensely curious about “what we do and why we do it”. A lot of them don’t even particularly like Catholicism, and they are eager to “poke holes in it” to try to prove it wrong. Some are just curious about a faith that differs from what they’re used to.

I think it’s a pretty fair bet that some of them are eventually going to ask “hey, that birth control thing, I hear some of you Catholics don’t agree with your church on that, how does that work when people go to confession?”. Perfectly legitimate question.

I’ve said pretty much everything I can say about it.
Click to expand...
It is a perfectly legitimate question and the answer I have discerned from following this thread is to find a priest who will give you what you want to hear, whether you want orthodox answers or modern.
 
Last edited:
Jesus said there would be tares among the wheat (Matthew 13)

We also read that some disciples who actually knew Him while He walked this earth, walked away after He said that He is the Bread of Life, Whose Flesh and Blood we have to eat or drink in order to have life in us. (John 6; 1 Corinthians 11)

So then we shouldn’t be surprised that some don’t keep His commandments, however we should keep praying that they do! (John 15)
 
Last edited:
Wannano said:
the answer I have discerned from following this thread is to find a priest who will give you what you want to hear, whether you want orthodox answers or modern.
Click to expand...
No. The answer is for each individual to take responsibility for developing his or her own conscience in order to know when they personally are guilty of and responsible for sin. Someone who goes “priest-shopping” looking for the desired answer is likely culpable for presumption.

A person who genuinely tried to arrive at a decision in good conscience relying on the counsel of their trusted local priest, without going forum shopping, is in a different position - but he would not be going around trying to find a priest, or an Internet forum, to tell him what he wanted to hear.

Also, while the priest can provide spiritual counseling or try to answer questions, it is not his job to examine each person’s conscience and tell them what their sins are. We are each individually responsible for learning to do that and doing it.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I thought I was reading that some had gone to confession looking for absolution to clear their record and conscience and were told by the priest that they did not need to feel guilt for those particular sins. The comment left was that they would not go back to that priest for confession because he did not uphold majesterial teaching. I am guessing that a liberal priest like that would become known favorably to those that like his approach.
 
Last edited:
Wannano said:
Ok, I thought I was reading that some had gone to confession looking for absolution to clear their record and conscience and were told by the priest that they did not need to feel guilt for those particular sins. The comment left was that they would not go back to that priest for confession because he did not uphold majesterial teaching. I am guessing that a liberal priest like that would become known favorably to those that like his approach.
Click to expand...
That was one comment in a thread of 200 posts and that is your take-away?
 
Last edited:
No, not that simply, the theme runs throughout the thread. I was responding to what was posed as a "legitimate question. "
 
sainteriksrose said:
Jesus said there would be tares among the wheat (Matthew 13)
Click to expand...
I have been hearing “wheat and tares” for almost 45 years now, ever since I crossed over from the non-Catholic world into the Catholic world. And keep in mind that Our Lord said there would be wheat and tares, not that there should be wheat and tares. Big difference. This is a little bit of “religious culture shock”, for lack of a better way to put it, for someone who comes from a cultural background where Christians make an adult commitment and pledge themselves to a life of virtue. I was not raised to believe this per se, but the culture I come from was evangelical/fundamentalist Christian, so it was “all around me”. Unless I am having a false memory, I know I heard one famous televangelist say “Christians don’t sin”, and I have seen bumper stickers that say the same thing. Yeah, sure… preachers caught up in sex scandals, humiliated on nationwide television… I won’t name names.

Just calling it like it is, the Catholic Church is a big place, typically infants are baptized into it, they don’t make the decision, the decision is made for them, and when they grow up, some of them don’t take it that seriously, maybe not seriously at all. Some take it seriously enough, but want to hang onto their “little white rabbit” and not have to give up something that makes their life easier, more enjoyable, and happier (in an earthly sense). Sex on demand and without consequences is some people’s “little white rabbit”. Human nature inclines towards it. Am I right?
Wannano said:
It is a perfectly legitimate question and the answer I have discerned from following this thread is to find a priest who will give you what you want to hear, whether you want orthodox answers or modern.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a perfectly legitimate question. And sad to say, not all priests agree with the magisterium on all things. Even sadder to say, sometimes it is not terribly difficult to find a priest who will tell you what you want to hear. But even if someone does that, they are not fooling Almighty God. There will come a day when the priest will have to answer for this, and the penitent will have to answer for this. I am not “judging” — God will take care of that part.
 
I agree with what you said here. I think the very sad part is that many Catholics will believe anything a priest tells them just because he is a priest. Often here on the forum people give others the advice " see a priest asap" and I often wonder…if you don’t know the priest, do you just trust him?
 
I always trust them to give the right answer(s) to my questions, each in their own way.
 
Because solidarity is one of the goal of any human society.
Because we are Christians and believed in helping our neighboors and families who raised children.
Because the children are the future of society, the future workers, the future taxpayers, the future mothers.
Bceause we should not left behind people who cannot provide enough for themselves or have incapacities.

Because nobody grow and raise a child in the bubble and we are all dependant of society and taxpayers for pregnancy, childbirth, daycare costs, school health and so more. The paxpayers pay for many things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top