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

[Transformer]

I went to see a priest sometime after his surgery, because I felt so guilty about the whole thing, and was told that he wasn’t catholic so don’t worry about it. I’m not sure how to feel about that advice, but I went to confession with a sorrowful heart in good faith so I have given the matter over to God. I know what church teaching on BC is so there’s no point in arguing over it. Somehow I just have trouble accepting that God would rather see a woman’s life endangered, and her children grow up motherless.

I can see that you absolutely mean to do God’s will. The answer to this objection to Church teaching on contraception is perhaps the hardest part of Christianity. The simple fact is, Christ showed us the consequences of being a disciple of his and doing what’s right when he suffered and died. No one ever made a secret of the fact that doing what’s right (in this case, refusing to contracept an act of sex) can and probably will result in intense suffering. That truth about Christianity has been reiterated in the martyrdoms of Christians, and the suffering of saints like Maximilian Kolbe for the entire history of the Church.

After hearing (truthfully) for so long that God loves us more intensely than we are capable of grasping, it is very easy to fall into the (suprisingly common) view that Christianity is an “easy” religion, that discipleship leads to comfort and happiness universally. Christianity is no “easy” religion, it is clearly the hardest religion of all. Absolutely nothing less than total surrender to Christ is asked of a Christian, even to the point of a mother dying and leaving her children behind to do what she knows is right. That is how difficult the religion you and I signed up for is, and Christ made no secret of it.

I can see from your refusal to use contraception yourself that you truly do understand the Church’s teaching on contraception, so your final objection is the only thing left for me to respond to. Is it ever God’s will that a child grows up motherless? Of course not. But what if the only way to prevent that was by cutting sex off from the creation of life, and destroying the ability of sex to image God’s love? Would Jesus go with the “lesser of two evils” point of view? I think he wouldn’t. We are called to do nothing less than establish God’s Kingdom on earth. We cannot merely be concerned with choosing a lesser evil, we must work towards destroying all evil. That simply won’t ever happen as long as we use evil means to acchieve good ends.

I know all of the NFP stuff about sacrifice and giving of self to your spouse, and about how it is open to the possibility of life, but if NFP works as good as the advocates say it does, then when you have relations during non fertile period, you are saying “we will have relations now, because there is no way that it can lead to pregnancy.” For me personally, I can never reconcile this thinking with the forbidden use of barrier methods such as the condom.

The difference between NFP and contraception is not necessarily a matter of intention, but a matter of ends and means. Certainly, both lead to the same end: no babies. The difference comes in the way they acchieve that end. Contraception does it by cutting off a specific act of sex from life. NFP does it by conforming to the way God designed the human body. The sin of contraception comes in cutting off specific acts of sex from the creation of life. When a couple who are not using NFP has sex on an infertile day, what prevents pregnancy? The way God designed women. And when a a couple who are using NFP have sex on an infertile day, what prevents pregnancy? The way God designed women! So it is not something the couple did specifically that prevents conception from that particular act of sex, but God’s design that did.

Now, beyond not merely contracepting sex (IE: cutting off specific acts of sex from procreation), you’re right: A couple has an obligation to be open to children in general. That’s why NFP should not be used lightly, only when the couple has a serious reason to postpone having children for a while. Either way, the couple would not be guilty of contraception with NFP, eveb if they were guilty of being closed to children in general.

I hope all of this helps; God bless!

 

[spanky]

I think he was trying to point out that even if it is a church discipline, it is still a serious thing, and can still be a sin.

Basically showing the holes in the OP’s logic

A lone Raven

Yes. Thank you. And as you and someone else stated in previous posts, disobedience is a major factor here.

 

[rayne89]

By the way all of my children were conceived using NFP. I am known as “fertile mertle”

I have to ask this because I’ve used NFP for 10 years without pregnancy. I have no problems with fertility. I got pregnant the first month we tried. Did you stick with guidelines of NFP? Did you use the most conservative guide lines? An egg can only live 24 hours. There are only so many days you can get pregnant.

Whenever I’ve had discussions about those who say they got pregnant using NFP they eventually admit either they never took a class and tried to teach themselves, they didn’t follow the guide lines and took a risk on a day where they more likely to be fertile, their signs of fertility were not totally clear and they took a risk, or their record keeping was not consistant. Any of those things are human error not a fault of the method. If one is on the pill and forgets to take one and gets pregnant then the pill didn’t fail.

I understand you and your husband’s fears. Another pregnancy barring a miracle would be fatal for me. If there is any doubt with my fertilty signs we don’t risk it. If I have any kind of illness I don’t trust my temps because I can’t risk it. I know you husband did what he did out of fear for your safety and it’s done now, so all this is water under the bridge.

People often freak when they find out we use NFP, they can’t understand how we could risk another pregnancy. It is scary at times. I’m probably one of the few women in the world that is happy to see her period every month. But I believe the Catholic Church was the church Jesus founded. And I have to trust in what His church teaches. If I get pregnant anyway even after following NFP the way I should, then God’s will be done. It’s his plan not mine. He put me here on this earth and he get’s to decide when I leave it.

God Bless.

 

[Sheeniac]

Noma,

I am a revert after 25 yrs of atheism. I consider myself truly a Catholic. Do I believe and agree with the Church on all important issues? Truth be told, I don’t. However, I have had the experience of being completely wrong before, so I am very open to that fact that I will be wrong again.

I consider my “issues” to be between God and me. I believe that I must change my views because I can’t expect my 2000 year old Church started by Jesus to change for my sake. So, I ponder things, and try my best to accept, although I cannot yet understand. Do I sin in these areas of issue? Unfortunately, yes. With God’s grace, I know that someday I will be totally in line with the Church’s teachings. What I mean by accepting is somewhat similar to what you are doing while teaching RCIA - you aren’t causing scandal by trumpeting your own views as truth.

Back in the day when I knew that God was a mere figment of people’s imagination and irrational thoughts, I too knew that I would never change.

Pax tecum!

 

[jmcrae]

Again, I open it up to you, as I would like to hear more. Should I continue with RCIA, do you think?

How can you explain to the RCIA candidates why contraception is evil, if you don’t understand it correctly yourself?

This also affects other areas of teaching as well, such as our Catholic belief that God is our Creator.

Most people who use birth control consider it “responsible” because, fundamentally (and unquestioningly), they believe that life comes about at random, accidentally - they believe that it is possible for a child to be conceived without God first willing that child to exist.

So, how could they convey the concept of God the Creator to RCIA candidates, and the Catholic doctrine that every human being is created uniquely and purposefully by God?

Should I continue to consider myself, and to call myself, Catholic?

Yes - you’re not a good Catholic, but you are a Catholic, and like all Catholics, you are on a journey towards God, however stumbling or far behind you may be. I would encourage you to stay the course, and be open to learning new things.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

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.

Others have and will say more articulately, but no, it is not contraception as there is no conception to prevent.

We are not animals, we don’t have relations simply for pro creation. God did not mean it to be that way, it’s to be something more than that. Something special between a man and a woman. Regardless of whether or not you’re making a baby or not.

We have control over our bodies and God intended for us to have control over certain aspects of ourselves. That is why we are not robots like animals.

This is being overly scrupulous and should be something between a couple.

If someone is going to tell me that having relations with my WIFE is a sin for any reason whatsoever I am going to object.

You are right we are not like animals. We have self-control (even if we don’t always excersize it.) What is your source that "God did not mean it to be that way" ? Having read your posts I am quite confident you do not understand the Catholic churches teaching on this. We’re not scrupulous; your understanding is warped.

I would not treat my wife like an animal or an object because I respect her. I see no problem at all with having pleasurable relations with someone I care about deeply. Regardless of whether she wants to get pregant or not.

I will choose when I want to have a child for the CHILDS SAKE I WILL CHOOSE WHEN AND WHEN I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A CHILD.

Not quite. There are a lot of couples who are infertile so it really is not as easy as that. And the church and NFP does allow a couple to try to achieve pregnancy or avoid it (kind of like your "I will choose when I want to have a child for the CHILDS SAKE I WILL CHOOSE WHEN AND WHEN I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A CHILD" only working with God’s gift of fertility (and without the yelling.)

You say that you “would not treat my wife like an animal or an object because I respect her”. I would hope not. Have you read Humanae Vitae? It cautioned about the slippery slope from the use of contraception to the

the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards

. Since contraception became legal there had been a significant increase in divorce, abortion, marital infidelty, use of pornography and just the general accptance of these things. Women can be almost perpetually sexually available now because of contraception and abortion. Her fertility (which is natural and healthy) is no longer a gift, it’s a trap or a disease. And a man can behave like a cad with impunity. He can walk away from a sexual encounter, married or not, and wash his hands of the responcibilty. Her fertility and her body no longer point to commitment to her and responsibilty to her. Before contraception both men and women realized that there was something significant going on with sex.

 

[dosdog]

NFP is *not *contraception. Contraception, by definition, is to be “against conception.”

By what authority are *we *to decide how to use it?

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
The Historic Christian Teaching
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful.

Nature
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

Scripture
Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C.,

The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

Apostolic Tradition
The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

christendom-awake.org/pages/may/contraception.htm
CONTRACEPTION, GATEWAY TO THE CULTURE OF DEATH

These texts should suffice to show that a long Christian tradition regarded contraception as an anti-life kind of act, comparable to homicide and intentional abortion. This tradition was retrieved and developed at length in a 1988 essay by Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and myself. [9] The argument developed by us is well summarized by Alicia Mosier in an article in First Things. Commenting on Pope Paul’s description of contraception in Humanae vitae, no. 14,

While Planned Parenthood’s current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925), “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), and many others.
blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/historical/eugenics/2-origins.cfm
Health Sciences Library PO Box 800722 Charlottesville, VA 22908
Intro
Origins
Buck v. Bell
Influence
eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay6text.html
eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essaystextonly.html

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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?

Am I really Catholic anymore?

Soma the confused

You do not have to agree or understand it, you are just required to follow the teaching in your actions and your public expression.
As long as you follow the moral teaching, and it’s a moral doctrine not a discipline, then you are a RC with access to the Sacraments. If you chose to reject the teaching and not live them out in your life then you would be a Catholic, but would not have access to the Sacraments. If you intentionally taught others the error or publicly expressed your rejection, you would be a heretic and have removed yourself from union with the Catholic Church.

 

[rayne89]

I will choose when I want to have a child for the CHILDS SAKE I WILL CHOOSE WHEN AND WHEN I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE A CHILD.

36. he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Take this cup away from me, but not what I will but what you will."
Mark 14:36

 

[Mannyfit75]

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’m going to break this down for you with a questionaire session.

1. Do you believe that God, the Father gave his Son, Jesus authority?
2. Do you believe that Jesus gave his Apostles authority to teach matters concerning faith and morals?
3. Do you believe Jesus when he said this to his apostles, “He who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you, rejects the one who sent me?”
4. Jesus said to his apostles, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bind in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven?

The Magisterium of the Church in a number of synod councils, and the writing of the Popes condemned the use of contraception. You reject the teaching that contraception is a mortal sin. So you are rejecting Jesus Christ.

You are lying to yourself. You have serious put yourself in a erroneous error by proclaiming that ABC is not mortal. It is and it is not a matter of discipline.

You just rejected Jesus by claiming that contraception is not a mortal sin, and the Church teaches that ABC is a deadly sin.

 

[tequilamac]

Absolutely not. On the contrary, I teach, in line with the current teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that contraception is a grave matter, and if done with knowledge of its gravity, and of one’s own free will, it constitutes mortal sin, and that someone in mortal sin should not take part in communion until they have confessed this sin to a Priest.

Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying that you direct an RCIA group of new and incoming converts while not a Catholic in good standing and committing a sin serious in nature? If you are trying to set an example to your converts of how seriously you take the commandments of the Church, wouldn’t it be better to a. not direct the converts, or b. reconcile? I think you may be giving the wrong message to your candidates.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

OH, so, now we get to decide what is moral teaching, and what is disciplinary? Do we also get to decide what is doctrinal, too?

Does this apply to things outside of religion, as well? Because I have a few changes I want to make in the world - for example, this month, I would like the $1,000.00 I have in the bank to be able to spend $3,000.00 without going $2,000.00 into debt. I will go to my bank manager in the morning and say, “Numbers aren’t fixed entities; they are changeable. When I take $1,000.00 and spend $3,000.00, I’m not really in debt, because I changed the rules, just last night - it’s not arithmetic; it’s - um - a discipline!!”

Think he’ll buy it? (Me, neither. )

 

[marci]

QUOTE] NFP does it by conforming to the way God designed the human body. The sin of contraception comes in cutting off specific acts of sex from the creation of life. When a couple who are not using NFP has sex on an infertile day, what prevents pregnancy? The way God designed women. And when a a couple who are using NFP have sex on an infertile day, what prevents pregnancy? The way God designed women! So it is not something the couple did specifically that prevents conception from that particular act of sex, but God’s design that did.

I agree, but doesn’t church teaching allow for science to intervien in medical situations in which life is at risk? Are heart transplants part of God’s natural design?

 

[jmcrae]

I agree, but doesn’t church teaching allow for science to intervien in medical situations in which life is at risk? Are heart transplants part of God’s natural design?

Medicine that saves lives is good. “Medicine” that is actually poison is evil, though, and it can’t even really be called “medicine” because doctors are supposed to take an oath that says they will do no harm.

Making yourself or another person infertile is certainly harmful, and most of the time, we recognize this - for example, if a certain identifiable section of the population gets targeted for sterilization procedures, we all go crazy and start arresting people, suing, and blockading sterilization clinics - and rightly so.

Why do we permit to be done to ourselves what we would never in a million years permit to be done to the poor and to minority races?

 

[marci]

I understand there is “bad medicine”, but with the condom we are not talking about medicine at all. I am also not talking about the mass sterilization of peoples either. We are all not aware of circumstances in each individual family, not all marriages are good and loving. People do the best that they can with what they have, even though they may have chosen their current situation, or circumstances have chosen it for them. For example, in Africa it has been perposed that the church ok condoms to fight AIDS in that country. Now one could argue all day long about the evil of sex outside marriage (which I agree is evil), or if a spouse does have AIDS then he/she should obstain from the marrital act altogether. In a perfect world this would solve the crisis. But, women in African culture are subserviant to men. She cannot withhold relations from her husband. So what is to be done? I don’t know the answer. I, personally, remain faithful to church teaching on this matter (eventhough I may not understand it). I just think that we should be careful not to be to harsh toward others when we don’t know their personal situation. Believe me, I am not one to hold back opinion on church teaching to enlighten a fellow christian, but I always hold out for God’s Mercy for individual souls. The church is bound by God’s Law, but God is not bound by the church.

 

[Transformer]

I agree, but doesn’t church teaching allow for science to intervien in medical situations in which life is at risk? Are heart transplants part of God’s natural design?

I don’t completely understand your question; are you asking why contraception is not right for the same reason a heart transplant is right when life may be at stake? If so, I think the answer is in the distinction the Church makes between “theraputic” and “non-theraputic” acts and medicine.

Theraputic acts conform to God intended way of doing things, and do not do anything specifically morally wrong. God does not ultimately intend for anyone to die of heart disease, and a heart transplant does not in any bypass, replace, or undermine God’s intention. Non-theraputic acts undermine and bypass God’s intended way of doing things. Contraception is non-theraputic; it undermines God’s intention for sex to be open to the creation of life and to image his love for us. So, it isn’t moral.

God bless.

 

[marci]

I agree. I only ment that to say something is wrong simply because it does not utilize the natural functions of the body is not the complete arguement.

CCC The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)

My contention is that NFP is contraception. It is just another means to an end. It used to be that church teaching only allowed NFP in extreme circumstances (such as severe medical issues), but that once the circumstance has passed, one could not continue using NFP.

PS One of the things that NFP teachers will tell you is how successful it is. That it is even more effective than a condom. I just think you can’t have it both ways.

 

[noma]

I would like to thank you all for your questions and discussion.

I am not prepared to change my personal beliefs about contraception, nor would any discussion in this forum cause me, nor could it cause me, to change these beliefs. The main reason for this is due to the fact that I am not willing, within the forum, to place my ideas out for the scrutiny of others. If I am to change my beliefs about contraception, it would be in private, between me and my pastor, my religious mentor, or a between me and a strong Catholic one on one.

But I will say that I have heard all the reasons you have presented and more, and remain unconvinced that contraception is intrinsically wrong.

I will also say that I may, based on one argument, revise my and my partner’s practice concerning contraception, or how I would approach it (my wife would not be open to removing contraception, though I would try), not because I think contraception is wrong, but simply out of respect for the Church, that I should respect it even when it teaches something that is not correct. It may in the end do me little harm to cease contraception, compared to the rewards of obeying the Church no matter what (as one would a father, even when sometimes he is wrong).

As for RCIA, I will finish up this year (as I am also a sponsor to one of the initiates), but may not return until I have resolved this dilemma.

As for considering myself Catholic, if one would answer that contracepting makes me non-Catholic, then that person would be wrong, to the point where whatever else they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

I am Catholic, and will be until the day I die. I also feel justified in calling myself Catholic. If someone asks me about contraception, I will kindly say “the Church teaches…” and if they ask what I personally believe, I will kindly state “I do not wish to say at this time what I believe concerning contraception.”

Thank you for the discussion. I opened this up because I wanted more perspectives to bring up with my friends and Priest. And after talking with a good Catholic mentor (my RCIA sponsor) I think I know what to do.

But I still do accept that contraception is morally neutral. And I don’t see changing my mind about it at this time or in the near future.

Again thank you all, the majority who were very respectful, and even the minority who were not as kind, but still, I am sure, had very good intentions in what they have said.

I will wander this post to reply to any further questions as they come, so long as they do not deal directly with the reasons I believe that contracepting is morally neutral.

With love in Christ.

 

[St.Eric]

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?

Am I really Catholic anymore?

Soma the confused

The only historically consitent position on contraceptives is the Roman Catholic Church’s position. It wasn’t until the Lambeth Council of 1930 in the Anglican Church that ANY denomination accepted contraceptives as anything other thatn intrinsic evil. In 1930 the Anglicans opened the door. Satan took quick adavantage of that open door and moved in. check it out. It is a modern notion that contraceptives are OK. A modern notion that the true church will not give into. A modern notion that is akin to Divorce= OK, homosexuality= OK, female pastors= OK. No, the truth does not change. In a paraphrase of Benedict XVI: “An adult faith does not sway or change depending on modern notions.”

 

[St.Eric]

I agree. I only ment that to say something is wrong simply because it does not utilize the natural functions of the body is not the complete arguement.

CCC The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)

My contention is that NFP is contraception. It is just another means to an end. It used to be that church teaching only allowed NFP in extreme circumstances (such as severe medical issues), but that once the circumstance has passed, one could not continue using NFP.

PS One of the things that NFP teachers will tell you is how successful it is. That it is even more effective than a condom. I just think you can’t have it both ways.

Your post contains much untruth. NFP is not contraception. It is abstinece in the fetile periods. A BIG difference. Church teaching does not say or ever has said NFP is only acceptible in “extreme” circumstances. It says that the natural cycles of a womans body may be used to space children for serious reasons. Again, a BIG difference. NFP IS very reliable if the couple can temper their desires and only engage in the marital embrace during the non-fertile times of the cycle. In fact, if used properly, NFP is more effective than ABC. And NFP does not have any chance of aborting a fertilized egg, which is abortion. And remember, we have an obligation to form our consciences’. The road to Hell is paved with “good intentions.”