I accept Birth Control, and that's not gonna change!

[mike182d]

NFP is contraception. Tell yourself whatever you must, it’s contraception. You are having relations with your wife in a period where you know she will not get pregnant for the intent of not allowing her to get pregnant.

Look, you can keep telling yourself that and it is quite apparent that no logic in the world will convince you because emotions drive the debate over human sexuality more than the mind. That’s why its a problem in the first place. If our mind had control over our bodies, contraception would not exist at all.

But what you cannot explain is how Catholic couples who contracept have a 50% divorce rate and couple who use NFP have a less than 2% divorce rate. Why is NFP *good *for marriages but contraception not?

 

[carol_marie]

First, I would share with him the many reasons why sex outside of marriage is wrong. It is wrong in that it is disordered.

I would ask him to very seriously consider how the person is offending God by continuing in this action, and whether one can honestly share in the table with the Lamb while holding against Him an offence tantamount to denying Him.

If that person could honestly look at what I have said, and the reasons I have given, and still believe that they should accept communion, I do not see that their acceptance is itself mortal sin, since they already would not meet all the requirements for having committed mortal sin in the first place.

I would also state that he should wait until he is baptized (confirmed) before recieving communion, and should wait until the end of the program to do so. I would say this with much excitement, remembering my Baptism and First Communion with great joy.

As someone who went through RCIA last year, I’m totally not understanding you. When I was a Protestant I did just what you are saying… read the Bible, listened to my Pastor, but decided for myself what was sin & what wasn’t. There was no CCC to tell me… it was all my private interpretation.

I thought the Catholic Church was different. I thought the rules were black & white & regardless of what our personal beliefs were? Is sin relative?

 

[fix]

Because I do not believe that the Church’s teaching on contraception is a matter of faith and morals. I believe it to be a matter of discipline.

OK, but how do you arrive at that understanding when the Church has that such an act is intrinsically wrong? How may something intrinsically evil ever become not evil?

 

[Mommyof02green]

We aren’t under the jewish law am I incorrect? This is absurdly scrupulous.

Christ came to fulfill the law not change it!

Christianity was born out of the Jewish Faith. The first Christians were Jews. Christ himself was a Jew.

There were many things that we do not need to do now because of Christ’s fulfillment of the law.

However, we as Christians are still bound to the 10 commandments, we are told to do acts of charity, we as Christians have “moral standards” to up hold.

Sometimes it’s better to understand why people have certain views if you understand the “history” behind them.

Sometime it’s necessary to understand how the Jews saw things and understands things, because that is where we Christians came from. It’s apart of OUR Christian history and heritage.

 

[fix]

As for NFP, I see it as contraception using a “technology of abstinence”. If I came to accept that contraception were wrong, I would have to accept NFP as wrong as well.

Do you understand that moral acts have an intention, a means, and an end? None of those may be evil if one is then the act is evil.

The act of contraception separates the two aspects of the marital act. NFP, which is simply abstaining, does not separate those two dimensions so how can it be contraception?

The end, not conceiving, is the same, but the means differ.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In the interests of clarity, I just opened up a new thread, “Addressing FilltheVoid’s concerns on NFP”- so that Fill and others could go there from this thread. Hope to see you there later.

 

[Scottgun]

Time to break this out again. I’ve done it so many times I’ve saved it to a word Doc:

The NFP=ABC baloney examined

The NFP=ABC agrument comes up so often, it bears looking at basic moral reasoning again. (I’m paraphrasing CCC 1749-176, btw)
The goodness or badness of an act must be evaluated according to 3 criteria:

1. The objective–this is the rightness or wrongness (or indifference) of an act in and of itself. (Examples: murder is objectively bad, almsgiving is objectively good.)
2. Subjective–this is the intent of the one doing the act (called the agent). Note that a good intention does not make an objectively evil act good, and that an evil intent can render a good act evil. (Such as giving alms in order to get people to think you are pious).
3. Relative–this is all the surrounding circumstances and the actual result of the act or the end achieved. These do not change the objective goodness or badness of the act in and of themselves.

Plugging the above in it becomes abundantly clear that NFP is NOT morally equivalent to ABC and that the Church’s teaching is entirely consistent.

NFP is not really an act, it’s information. Having marital relations is the act. So:

1. Objective–Abstaining from sex is in and of itself morally indifferent. Putting barriers between couples in the marital act or rendering the womb hostile to life with chemicals is objectively wrong. NFP passes gate #1. ABC does not, so it goes down right out of the chute. NFP passes, but is not quite out of the woods yet 'till we get to:
2. The subjective–as stated above, good intentions do not make objectively evil acts good. Here we can see that with an NFP-practicing couple, there is a possibility of evil intent which would render abstinence evil, but obviously it is hard for outsiders to say, because ta-da! it is subjective. (We can have a giant debate about what constitutes bad intent, but here I’m just dismantling the NFP=ABC canard.) Big red note: The intention to not have children in a particular fertile cycle by itself is not immoral.
3. The relative–and here is the cause of much the trouble regarding this teaching. We are living in the age of a widespread mental illness that denies the existence of #1 (objective right and wrongs), that everything is #2 and #3, and says the ends justify the means (consequentialism). So people look at the ends: ABC=no pregnancy, NFP=no pregnancy, and wrongly conclude they are morally equivalent. As shown above, they ain’t.

So while one can find all kinds of complaints against this teaching, logical inconsistency should not be one of them.

 

[lizaanne]

But I will live, currently, as though contraception is morally acceptable, becuase I believe that it is. Honestly, if my children were to ask me why I live in a different way than I teach, I would not have a good answer for them. This is one of the reasons I am searching for people’s reasons as to whether I should continue to call myself Catholic.

My question to you: is this enough of a difference to set myself qualitatively apart from Martin Luther? If not, I certainly should consider myself (if I am honest with myself) as a protestant who attends mass.

So - the decision is between:

I leave the Church because I don’t agree

-or-

I continue to stay with the Church, but do not live the Faith according to her teachings

No where in here do I see an option for just changing your practice of contracepting. Is it that important to you, so important in fact, that you would consider leaving the One True Faith for what ever reason you have for this activity? Where are your priorities on this? This is not asked as a slam, it’s a legitimate question.

And I have to wonder - where is your wife in all this? In a marriage, this is not something that one spouse should decide alone. Is your wife Catholic? And how do you feel about including her in activity that is contrary to the teaching of the Church?

The role of husband and wife in a marriage is to get their spouse to heaven. You do not help your wife get to heaven by asking her to participate in contraception.

This has indeed been an incredibly sane discussion - I’m so very pleased to see this. Another Catholic site I’ve belonged to would have blown you into hell by now! I’m just glad we can talk about this without getting nasty.

I will keep you in my prayers that you are able to discern and accept God’s will in this.

~Liza

 

[maryalene]

Because I do not believe that the Church’s teaching on contraception is a matter of faith and morals. I believe it to be a matter of discipline.

I don’t agree, but I can respect why you believe that. However, aren’t we called to be obedient? The Church has been given the authority to bind and loose sins on earth. So if the Church has bound us not to use abc, aren’t we obligated to follow that teaching if for no other reason than that the Church, acting as God’s agent on earth, has made that requirement?

 

[noma]

And I have to wonder - where is your wife in all this? In a marriage, this is not something that one spouse should decide alone. Is your wife Catholic? And how do you feel about including her in activity that is contrary to the teaching of the Church?

My wife is a protestant. She sees nothing wrong with using birth control in the manner we are. About this I agree with her.

 

[mercygate]

Because I do not believe that the Church’s teaching on contraception is a matter of faith and morals. I believe it to be a matter of discipline.

Oops. I’m sure you will get an avalanche of responses to this statement.

It certainly is a matter of morals. Looking at the CCC we find clear language that relates to moral and not disciplinary issues. Comparing with the discipline of clerical celibacy, marriage – even for clergy – cannot be described as “evil.” So a discipline governs something by way of regulating for the higher good.

This is what the CCC has to say (as if you don’t know the book by heart anyway – sorry if this is old news) – pointing out that contraception is intrinsically evil. As a catechist, you know that the term “intrinsically evil” defines an act that is grave matter and one of the 3 requisites for mortal sin (bold type added):

**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. 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:

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.

 

[Mommyof02green]

My wife is a protestant. She sees nothing wrong with using birth control in the manner we are. About this I agree with her.

Maybe the question you should be asking is:
How does God see it?

Personally, there are many things in this world that I may or may not do. Some things I do because it’s what God wants. Some things I don’t do because that is what God wants. Some things I do, but later realize that this is NOT what God wanted: So I’m sorry that I did do it. Some things I do not do, but later realize that I should of done it: So I’m sorry that I didn’t do it. It’s about doing God’s will and what God wants.

Sure sometimes it’s easier to do it the way we want. I won’t deny that. The question is: Does the way I want to do it meet God’s standards, is that how HE wanted it done?

I’m reminded of school, I had one teacher that would give out these assignments where if you did 1 and 2 you got a “C”. However if you did 1, 2, and 3 you got a “B”, and if you did 1, 2, 3, and 4 you got an A.

Did we have to do 1, 2, 3, and 4? NO we didn’t have to do it, but it was needed to get an “A” from the teacher. We could give her something that only had 1 and 2 done, but then there would be no hope for an “A”.

How does that story about school relate? I have no clue…I just thought of it so I typed it. It’s just in my head and I was compelled to share. God Bless

 

[crusader4life]

Why would the Church support contraception and stopping the possibility of life? Life is her mission for us and for all! (The way to eternal life is what she provides for.) So wouldn’t be ironic for the Church to support contraception if she’s for life?

If the case is that the Church supports contraception. I can imagine that can almost lead up to that, the Church then would have the choice who’s worthy to save or bring to life. She loves going through the processes or activity of saving souls and converting hearts, but doesn’t feel up to responsibility of taking care or looking out for that member of Christ’s body if they do convert to God.

This is why I can’t really see the Church ever supporting artificial contraception to prevent pregnancies.

 

[cmom]

Disobeying a teaching of the Church does not stop you from being a catholic, it just means you need to go to confession after you form your conscience WITH church teaching, not it spite of it.

Who gave you the authority to decide if something is authoritative or not? You are saying to Christ I follow you in all things unless I disagree with you.

 

[Scottgun]

Disobeying a teaching of the Church does not stop you from being a catholic, it just means you need to go to confession after you form your conscience WITH church teaching, not it spite of it.

Who gave you the authority to decide if something is authoritative or not? You are saying to Christ I follow you in all things unless I disagree with you.

Right. Our faith must be:

1. Universal–meaning believing all the teachings of the Church whether formally defined by ex cathedra infallibility or infallible by the ordinary magisterium (which the contraception teaching is).
2. Firm–believed without serious doubt.
3. Living–meaning we act in accordance to what we believe, so none of that absurd, “I’m personally opposed but…” stuff.
4. Constant–meaning believed and acted upon even in the face of difficulty and trial. (which obviously includes being personally inconvenienced, which, sad to say, seems to be the modern motivator)

 

[mercygate]

Disobeying a teaching of the Church does not stop you from being a catholic, it just means you need to go to confession after you form your conscience WITH church teaching, not it spite of it.

Who gave you the authority to decide if something is authoritative or not? You are saying to Christ I follow you in all things unless I disagree with you.

If noma were truculent about this he would not have come to this forum to hash it out. A LOT of people struggle with this teaching – people with deeply faithful hearts.

Obedience in this case is a response to what we understand. This is a beautiful teaching and worthy of all acceptance on its own merit. We don’t need to play the obedience card as if that were the only reason to toe the mark.

 

[CRW]

I wonder how many of the strict rigorist doctrinaires in the forum are off the hook as far as contraception goes because they don’t have to worry about it anymore. It’s easy to be a doctrinaire if the tubes are already tied or the vasectomy already done, or one of the spouses is past reproduction age.

You point may be true to a point; however, Church teachings are for sinners, as well as those that follow the law or have repented from braking the law. Have we not all committed sin and in our own mids, justified the sin. As we grow in our spiritual life and the teachings of the Church, reconciliation commits many to instill reason and knowledge concerning the truth. But for the grace of God go I.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

To all:

After serious consideration into the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, I find that the only consistent position to accept is that the Church would support artificial contraception for the purposes of regulating pregnancies, even though certain papal documents, etc., declare other matters of discipline.

But to the final point: I do not, nor can I reasonably accept that artificial contraception for the sake of regulating marriages is intrinsically sinful.

I consider myself a Roman Catholic. Should I?

Ypu are at least being honest. Most Catholics in the West quietly use contraception, and the current situation of turning a blind eye to defiance of teachings is quite unsustainable.

However when you say you cannot reasonably accept that artifical contraception is intrinsically sinful, it suggests to me that though you might have considered the matter at some length, you haven’t done so very deeply.
For instnace, something happened since the 1930s which pushed up divorce rates to unprecedented levels. There are lots of factors, but one of the big changes at that time was that contraception became socially acceptable. When we look at the divorce rates of Catholics who neither lived together before marraige nor use contraceptives, we find they are virtually zero. Admittedly this doesn’t tell us that contraception causes divorce, but it should give cause for thought.

Also look at the social consequences of contraception. In Britain it takes two salaries to buy a house. Why? Because contracpetion means that childless couples are competing for a limited stock of buildings. The result is a falling white birthrate, and experiments with fertility treatment for women in their fifties.

You will see that contraception is far from being an unproblematic mechanical fix to a technical problem. Even if ultimately you decide still to use it, the issue is quite complex.

 

[Denise_Shae]

Well, you’re definitely not in full communion with the Church any more. Contraception is not a matter of discipline but doctrine, so it cannot change. Do you know the history of the modern contraceptive movement? Did you know that ALL Christian churches condemned contraception until 1930, when the Anglican church broke with 1,900 years of Christian teaching and approved contraception for married couples in difficult circumstances. That opened contraception to an ever-widening circle of acceptance so that today the Catholic Church remains the only Christian church to maintain historic Christian teaching. I would highly recommend you read George Grant’s book (who is not Catholic, by the way), Grand Illusions: the Legacy of Planned Parenthood, that gives a documented history of the original founders and their philosophies of the modern contraceptive movement. It was enough to convince me, then a Protestant, of the immorality of contraceptives. I would also recommend *Theology of the Body for Beginners *by Christopher West, which beautifully explains the Church’s teaching on sexuality – to borrow an analogy from Christopher West – when you see the banquet you won’t want to eat out of the dumpster any more

Hi Veritas,

I’m glad you brought up the part I bolded, above.
I was wonding, would “Latæ Sententiæ” be applied here? (No longer in full communion with the Church?)
Or is my understanding of “Latæ Sententiæ” a bit off?

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[Scottgun]

Hi Veritas,

I’m glad you brought up the part I bolded, above.
I was wonding, would “Latæ Sententiæ” be applied here? (No longer in full communion with the Church?)
Or is my understanding of “Latæ Sententiæ” a bit off?

Thanks and God Bless!

I think you might be off. As I understand it, Latæ Sententiæ is a canonical penalty, which can change. It means you are excommunicated just for commiting the act and the Church does not have to go through the formality of excommunicating you. The Church as far is I know does not attach LS to contracepting.

On a somewhat related note: this is something to watch out for when a pro-abortionist brings up Pope Gregory vs Sixtus. All they were arguing about was what ecclesiastical crime was a person who aborted guilty of. They in no way said or even suggested abortion was a morally acceptable act.