I really agree with this!

[ohyah007]

gotquestions.org/birth-control.html

read it!

and why did the former pope’s team on researching birth control see it as not intrinsically evil between married people?

and can you still be open to life and procreation but use birth control for a time? if not then wouldn’t nfp be a sin because it is not open to life and procreation? even though both ways you are still planning on having children in the future?

and could humane vitae be changed in the future (do you think)?

 

[teachccd]

gotquestions.org/birth-control.html

read it!

and why did the former pope’s team on researching birth control see it as not intrinsically evil between married people?

and can you still be open to life and procreation but use birth control for a time? if not then wouldn’t nfp be a sin because it is not open to life and procreation? even though both ways you are still planning on having children in the future?

and could humane vitae be changed in the future (do you think)?

It’s funny how NO Christian denomination agreed to the usage of birth control up until 1930 when the Anglican Church accepted its use. It never ceases to amaze me how Christians will spend ample amounts of time researching Scripture in order to conform it to their ideals. Artificial birth control is condemned by the Catholic Church which is the same Church that acknowledged the Scripture that you are trying to misinterpret.

I’m sorry that you really agree with that article. It comes from one of the 33,000 divisions of Christianity. I could imagine with that kind of disunity we might find some sect that will agree with just about any disordered idea we can come up with. It’s sad, really.

The Bible doesn’t have the term Trinity in it either. If you agree with that then you can become a Jehovah’s Witness. There’s something for everyone…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

%between%
and why did the former pope’s team on researching birth control see it as not intrinsically evil between married people?

Can you document your statement?

 

[teachccd]

and can you still be open to life and procreation but use birth control for a time? if not then wouldn’t nfp be a sin because it is not open to life and procreation? even though both ways you are still planning on having children in the future?

NFP does not use artificial barriers so that the sexual union canNOT result in a pregnancy. Artificial birth control makes procreation next to impossible while still engaging in the marital embrace. There is a huge difference…

 

[rpp]

Oh brother. Here we go again. Another “see-Pope-John-Paul-and-Pope-Paul-when-they-infallibly-taught-that-artificial-birth-control-is-intrinsically-evil-they-really-meant-that-it-is-really-cool” thread. Combined with with “since-NFP-is-based-on-self-control-and-ABC-is-not-NFP-is-just-as-sinful” all in one thread.

The OP even managed to throw in “since-it-is-impossible-to-change-teaching-on-faith-and-morals-how-long-till-the-Church-says-ABC-is-cool?” statement.

The link goes to an article on a site that is blatantly anti-Catholic.

The member’s profile says Catholic. Well, okay then.

 

[teachccd]

Unfortunately, the OP is trying to justify the use of birth control and is grasping at straws. He will do one of three things. Either understand Church teachings and follow them, know Church teachings and ignore them or go to another Christian sect were another gospel is preached. I’ve seen this more than once whereby one asserts their own agenda into Scripture and then finds the “church” that agrees with them.

Just look at the title of this post: “I really agree with this!” It is so sad, really. We must pray for him and all of those who stray from the truth…teachccd

 

[Texas_Roofer]

gotquestions.org/birth-control.html

read it!

and why did the former pope’s team on researching birth control see it as not intrinsically evil between married people?

The answer depends on your definition of “it”. Catholics are allowed birth control just not by any or all means

and can you still be open to life and procreation but use birth control for a time?

Yes that is inside the church teaching (using nfp)

if not then wouldn’t nfp be a sin because it is not open to life and procreation?

nfp is open to life and procreation when catholic definitions are used

even though both ways you are still planning on having children in the future?

yes the church teachs the means are important

and could humane vitae be changed in the future (do you think)?

It will not need a change

hope that helps

 

[1ke]

gotquestions.org/birth-control.html

read it!

Non-Catholic websites hold no weight regarding Catholic teaching. Non-Catholics have been led astray by their denominations’ teachings on this subject.

The Catholic Church is infallible when teaching on faith and morals. She is the sure norm by which to form your conscience.

and why did the former pope’s team on researching birth control see it as not intrinsically evil between married people?

You have been misinformed. They did no such thing.

The “commission” was to study whether or not the birth control **pill **was a contraceptive, not whether “birth control” was intrinsically evil-- Church teaching already held that it was so.

The “pill” was brand new and so the Vatican undertook to study it, how it worked, etc, and apply the teaching of the Church to its use. This is no different from the Church studying the issue of stem cell research, cloning, or any other new medical technology as it becomes a reality.

They sought to understand how this “pill” worked, having had nothing like it before, and to determine if it contravened the moral law or not.

These people sent their findings to the Pope, he read them, and then he reiterated the constant teaching of the Church on contraception. The pill was deemed to be contraception.

and can you still be open to life and procreation but use birth control for a time?

No. The Church does not teach that one must be “open to life.” The Church doesn’t teach “openness to life” in some vague or general way.

if not then wouldn’t nfp be a sin because it is not open to life and procreation?

The Church doesn’t teach that one must be “open to life” in the way you are meaning it. What the Church actually teaches is that **EACH **act of marital intercourse must be unitive and procreative-- objectively (that’s what it means when the Church says “ordered per se” to procreation). It must be an unaltered act of intercourse. One may not engage in intercourse and attempt to render it infertile.

NFP is information. One may use the information to decide whether or not to have intercourse (depending on whether one is trying to get pregnant or avoid pregnancy). But, if the couple engages in intercourse it is unaltered and complete-- it is unitive and procreative.

Contraception does not meet this moral criteria as one engages in the act of intercourse and simultaneously alters that act.

even though both ways you are still planning on having children in the future?

This is called proportionality and it was rejected by the Magesterium as a false understanding of the requirements of marital love.

Again, each act of intercourse must be both unitive and procreative, objectively. Not just “some” acts of intercourse throughout the marriage.

and could humane vitae be changed in the future (do you think)?

The Church’s teaching on contraception is part of the moral law. It cannot change.

 

[gardenswithkids]

gotquestions.org/birth-control.html

read it!

Okay, I read it. This caught my eye.

(from article linked in original post)

It is important to view children as God sees them, not as the world tells us we should. Having said that, the Bible does not forbid contraception. Contraception, by its definition, is the opposite of conception. It is not the act of contraception itself that determines whether it is wrong or right. As we learned from Onan, it is the motivation behind the contraception that determines if it is right or wrong.

I agree with the author that it is important to view children as God sees them, not as the world tell us. Having said that, we should view pregnancy and children as God sees them and not so quickly embrace what the world tells us about pregnancy and children, twisting and interpreting scripture based on a worldly view of sexuality.

The Bible does not tell us that God was only displeased with Onan’s motivation. Genesis does *not *say “what motivated him greatly offended God.” Genesis 38:10 says, “What he did greatly offended God.”

The author of the article you linked misses an important point in the story of Onan because contraception is so entrenched in our culture. Our culture does not view children the way the Bible views children. Children are blessings! The Bible and the Catholic Church are clear on that. Are you?

 

[TLM08]

If I was the Pope I would make exceptions for married people who have already brought a number of children into the world. But there again, I am NOT the Pope.

BTW… I can see both perspectives of Onan’s “crime”.

Unrestricted birth control almost always results in promiscuity run amok!

 

[1ke]

If I was the Pope I would make exceptions for married people who have already brought a number of children into the world. But there again, I am NOT the Pope.

As Pope you would not be able to do any such thing. The Pope cannot “allow” what the Divine Law forbids. You’d be asking for a lightening bolt, that’s for sure.

The infallibility of the Pope is a negative charism-- he cannot teach error.

 

[teachccd]

If I was the Pope I would make exceptions for married people who have already brought a number of children into the world. But there again, I am NOT the Pope.

And what would your magical cut-off number be?

 

[06convert]

gotquestions.org/birth-control.html

read it!

and why did the former pope’s team on researching birth control see it as not intrinsically evil between married people?

and can you still be open to life and procreation but use birth control for a time? if not then wouldn’t nfp be a sin because it is not open to life and procreation? even though both ways you are still planning on having children in the future?

and could humane vitae be changed in the future (do you think)?

As Catholics we adhere to not only The Bible, but also Sacred Tradition and the doctrine of the Church which teaches that birth control is wrong.

Why is it intrinsically evil between married people? It interferes with the free giving of oneself. It’s subconsciously saying to your spouse that I give myself to you, except… or you can have me in everyway except… Subconsciously this creates a barrier in the relationship one that can lead to seperation and divorce, let alone many arguments. Maybe it’s a strange coincidence that the percentage of couples that use birth control is around 50% which is roughly the same as the number of marriages that end in divorce.

NFP is not an artificial method. It’s not interfering with your fertility. That’s the difference. There is a difference between popping a pill to make your self infertile and simply abstaining from sex when you are fertile. NFP can also be used to achieve pregnancy too, not just to avoid. People that us NFP are required to be open to pregnancy just as the Church teaches.

Lastly, church doctrine can never change. Church discipline can change. Doctrine is what is in the CCC. Discipline you will not find in the CCC.

Disciplines are practices like limbo, annulment policies, interest on loans, the readings at mass. As the Church goes through time and comes into better understanding of God’s teaching these things can change.

Doctrine such as the sanctity of life, is written in stone, never to be changed.

 

[TLM08]

And what would your magical cut-off number be?

One of the main purposes of marriage being to bring forth children, my cut-off number would be as many the parents feel they can reasonably care and provide for. It would have to be a matter of conscience.

 

[Seatuck]

ohyah007

You need to do some study into the meaning of marriage and the marital act. Contraception has been declared to be intrisically evil and that is not going to change. The Church has taught always and everywhere from the first documents that we may not use contraception.

I’m sure you have seen Theology of the Body, Christopher West and Greg Popcak’s name mentioned. Do some research.

 

[Janet_S]

Actually this guy (or woman) makes a pretty good case to prove that the Bible does teach against contraception. His own little caveat–that it is the person’s selfish motivate, not the act of contraception, that is judged wrong by God–is simply his interpretation. Scripture doesn’t say this.

Will *Humanae Vitae *change? No, I don’t think so. With each passing year we are coming to realize more and more that Pope Paul VI was right–even though to many Catholics he seemed like a crazy man back in 1968.

The fact that the Church issued this very unpopular encyclical (against the better judgment of the whole world) and the fact that Church warned us what would happen (and was right) all helped to convince me that the Catholic Church is the true Church.

 

[PaulinVA]

There seem to be two reasons that couples want to practice artificial birth control. One is that they already have enough children and want to keep having sex, and the second, related reasons is that they can not control themselves, and therefore do not want to practice NFP.

These are almost opposite views, even though they are related. One says that the couple wants to be in total control of reproduction, and the other says that the couple has not control over their sexual urges, or don’t want to learn to control them.

Isn’t our march towards holiness a journey of self awareness (of our sin) and self control (over our sin)? We recognize sin in our lives, and attempt to address it. Given that, doesn’t the Church teaching of mastery over our sexual desires by using NFP seem to fit with our overall journey towards self control and holiness?

 

[Janet_S]

You mentioned the commission (set up by Pope John XIII) to study artificial contraception, namely the hormonal birth control pill. The commission did recommend that use of the pill be allowed within marriage. The Pope did not agree with this decision. The Pope briefly discusses the commission and how he made his final decision:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.

The Magisterium’s Reply

1. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.

Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions. *Humanae Vitae *

I can’t personally recommend these books yet, since I never read them, but they may help you understand *Humanae Vitae * and the controversy that surrounds it:

amazon.com/Humanae-Vitae-Generation-Janet-Smith/dp/0813207401

Janet E Smith Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later

amazon.com/Christian-Values-Virtues-Pope-Paul/dp/0824524500

Christian Values and Virtues by Pope Paul VI (Karl Schultz editor)

Also you can read or listen to Janet Smith’s talk “Contraception, Why Not?” on this site:

janetsmith.excerptsofinri.com/

 

[teachccd]

One of the main purposes of marriage being to bring forth children, my cut-off number would be as many the parents feel they can reasonably care and provide for. It would have to be a matter of conscience.

The Catholic Church teaches that children are a gift from God and not a right. So then, you propose that parents should decide when to quit accepting these precious gifts? Very interesting… teachccd

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The Catholic Church teaches that children are a gift from God and not a right. So then, you propose that parents should decide when to quit accepting these precious gifts? Very interesting… teachccd

Given the way children come it would seem it is not the gift they desire? But the …