Is birth control really that "controversial" an issue for Catholics?

[JimG]

I believe in the teachings of the Protestant Reformers on this subject–the founders of the major Protestant denominations, such as Luther, Calvin, etc.

They, of course, all rejected artificial birth control as sinful, and their denominations all condemned it.

One might want to read the Mr. Charles D. Provan’s book on the subject. Mr. Provan is an Evangelical, and he makes the case for rejecting artificial birth control on a biblical basis.

Here’s a review of the book.

 

[1ke]

First of all, I really appreciate the numerous comments of support.

It has since occurred to me that my thinking on this problem was backwards. My real question should have been, “Is NOT using birth control really that controversial?”

When my family strolls into a modern Catholic church, especially one that we do not normally attend, heads turn. I’ve heard the whispers. As my wife is just starting to show our next blessing, number seven, I am anticipating similar reactions to the treatment we’ve received in the past.

We are not poor. We’re not rich either. I’m educated in a not very lucrative field. My wife is a stay-at-home-mom. Our oldest enters college next year; fortunately, he’s mostly covered by scholarships and subsidized loans. Mostly. I worry. I worry a lot. My wife, she’s more faith-filled than I am. As you can no-longer load a bunch of kids in a station wagon and our minivan is overcrowded, we could really use a 12-passenger van. We’ll have to wait until next year as the budget doesn’t allow it just yet. Raising a large family in 2010 has distinct challenges. Still, we’ll manage. We still have multiple cell-phones, high-speed internet, digital cable. We can cut back on these if necessary. We’ve had a few vacations, but nothing extravagant and years apart.

In short, we live NOTHING like my siblings and really a very different lifestyle from most of the people in the pews (and everyone in Canada, lol But, we have something that I think many of those people are really missing. Children really are a blessing.

This is something that I think most people just don’t get: By far the most difficult thing for me about raising a large family is the flack I get from various people. I get joking and occasionally quite rude comments at work. I get viscious comments from my non-Catholic mother and my wife’s non-Catholic relatives. But when I get sneers and jeers at the modern Catholic church, I find it frankly unacceptable.

I haven’t always thought, felt, or acted the way I do today. But, at least when I called myself a Catholic, I was open to the possibility that maybe the Church’s teaching was correct. I had enough grace to suspect that I just didn’t understand the Church’s teaching–yet. Frankly, I just don’t get why some people don’t just become Lutherans or Episcopaleans if that’s what they already believe. Instead, they hang around trying to make the Catholic church into something She never was and never will be, except perhaps in near ruins.

I have a number of friends with large families. I don’t know if they get rude comments or not.

Just think of what a wonderful example of virtue you are. God is using you in ways you may not even know. Not everyone is looking at you with disdain. Not everyone thinks you are crazy.

No, you should not expect the type of comments or looks you get at a Catholic Church. It merely demonstrates that our countires and society are soaked in the culture of death. So much so, people don’t even see if for what it is.

But, as scripture says-- there was this light, and darkeness could not overcome it.

YOU are a light in the darkness.

 

[m_crane]

In short, we live NOTHING like my siblings and really a very different lifestyle from most of the people in the pews (and everyone in Canada, lol But, we have something that I think many of those people are really missing. Children really are a blessing.

I haven’t always thought, felt, or acted the way I do today. But, at least when I called myself a Catholic, I was open to the possibility that maybe the Church’s teaching was correct. I had enough grace to suspect that I just didn’t understand the Church’s teaching–yet

You and your wife are an awesome example to the rest of us.
Due to a bad choice made early in my marriage before I began to practice my Catholic faith, I have only two children. I know I regret not having more children and my husband does too. I have even apologised to my children for not having more siblings for them. I know they would have enjoyed having more siblings too. I hope they go on to have large families for themselves learning from our mistakes.

 

[floresco]

I have a number of friends with large families. I don’t know if they get rude comments or not.

I think that every large family I know (starting around the fourth child ) receives rude comments about it. People think they have a right to rebuke you for your “irresponsibility”. And even Catholics do this. But you are doing the right thing, dad o six, even if you are in the minority.

 

[choose_to_love]

Paul1961, BillP,

How does your interpretation of the Onan account square with Deut. 25:7-10, wherein the penalty for not taking the widow to wife was a public humiliation - - the wife calls out the surviving brother in front of the elders, and denounces him for failing to uphold his responsibility under the law? It seems to me the difference is that Onan not only failed in this responsibility, but it was what he did - - the manner of his shirking - - that caused the penalty.

As I understand it, the orthodox Catholic interpretation is also the traditional Jewish interpretation.

Also, as jmcrae points out, what possible distinction of relevance can there be to say, well, the BCP can create a hostile endometrial lining, so that the new person cannot implant, but hey, that’s not an abortion, because the woman isn’t pregnant? Isn’t the point that by one’s action one is intentionally creating the condition which results in the death of the new person?

 

[The_Bucket]

I think that every large family I know (starting around the fourth child ) receives rude comments about it. People think they have a right to rebuke you for your “irresponsibility”. And even Catholics do this. But you are doing the right thing, dad o six, even if you are in the minority.

Someone gives you flak and you can politely reply that you’re doing what you can to stem the massive population problem that the West is facing. That’s right, not overpopulation, but shrinking population. Tell him that you’re actually pulling your weight in creating the next generation to support them when they get old and infirm and ask them, if they’re so worried about money, where they think economic growth will come from if the next generation is smaller than the current one.

 

[mommamaree]

YOU are a light in the darkness.

Well said, 1ke!

dad_o_six -
I really was delighted to hear your perspective on large families. As new Catholics, my husband and I are just beginning to understand what our family life might be like in the future. It was eye-opening and refreshing to have procreation once again linked to sexual intercourse, because even in the Protestant churches that we grew up in and the various denominations we ‘sampled’ in our 20s, just about EVERYONE was using some form of contraception. Now, recently confirmed and happily expecting baby #3, our conversations are turning to the reality of NFP for avoidance of pregnancy which we will need to first learn and then practice when my fertility returns. My husband and I are both in accord now that we must understand that sexual intercourse begets babies, and that any desire to avoid or postpone a pregnancy is secondary to acting within God’s will for our lives. I made it clear to my husband that unless he intends to practice the most conservative form of NFP that it is likely we will conceive again in the decade (or longer) until my fertility ends. Thankfully, he totally gets that and is fine with that. Our greatest concern is with spacing children adequately, not necessarily avoiding future pregnancies altogether. And I have developed quite a fascination with larger families like yours, and have a suspicion that our family will end up far larger than we ever could have imagined when we married (not in the Catholic Church) over 12 years ago.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

My feeling about those Catholics who misunderstand teachings about ABC is this:

I think they know that they are not supposed to, but I think very few understand the reasoning behind it. I know many people who are not well Catechized. They tend to think a lot of the “Rules” are sort of arbitrary. People don’t want to follow rules they don’t understand.

Ask some Catholics you know: Why do you think ABC is “not allowed?” You’ll get some interesting answers, I bet.

The most common things I hear are: Because you’re only “allowed” to have sex to make a baby, and

Because in the olden days when Catholics were a minority, they wanted to have lots of babies so we could be a majority.

I did hear once that it had something to do with King Henry VIII. Maybe that person was confusing ABC “Rules” with Divorce and Remarriage “Rules.”

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I will take advantage of this thread, to ask everyone to search out a pharmacy (like mine ) that refuses to sell OC’s and give them your pharmacy business.

I have refused to sell OC’s for over 16 years. Despite that, I have gained no RC business at all (yes, that I know of). My business has stayed static (which is good, even in this economy), but it certainly hasn’t grown much.

Anyway…

 

[dad_o_six]

Well said, 1ke!

dad_o_six -
I really was delighted to hear your perspective on large families. As new Catholics, my husband and I are just beginning to understand what our family life might be like in the future. It was eye-opening and refreshing to have procreation once again linked to sexual intercourse, because even in the Protestant churches that we grew up in and the various denominations we ‘sampled’ in our 20s, just about EVERYONE was using some form of contraception. Now, recently confirmed and happily expecting baby #3, our conversations are turning to the reality of NFP for avoidance of pregnancy which we will need to first learn and then practice when my fertility returns. My husband and I are both in accord now that we must understand that sexual intercourse begets babies, and that any desire to avoid or postpone a pregnancy is secondary to acting within God’s will for our lives. I made it clear to my husband that unless he intends to practice the most conservative form of NFP that it is likely we will conceive again in the decade (or longer) until my fertility ends. Thankfully, he totally gets that and is fine with that. Our greatest concern is with spacing children adequately, not necessarily avoiding future pregnancies altogether. And I have developed quite a fascination with larger families like yours, and have a suspicion that our family will end up far larger than we ever could have imagined when we married (not in the Catholic Church) over 12 years ago.

Thanks. I’ve been reading some of your other posts and you seem quite Grace-filled. I think you are on the right track in viewing NFP as a way of spacing babies. For that, it works well. But to see NFP as Catholic birth control is wrong factually, practically, and especially in terms of attitude. I suspect that much of the reason modern Catholics resist the church’s teaching on this topic is they focus on the technical aspects (really a minor aspect) and neglect to address the attitude (the main point). What I wouldn’t give for a modern priest to stand up and emphatically say that children are a blessing from God and to carry this insight to its logical conclusion!

 

[micahmike]

I will take advantage of this thread, to ask everyone to search out a pharmacy (like mine ) that refuses to sell OC’s and give them your pharmacy business.

I have refused to sell OC’s for over 16 years. Despite that, I have gained no RC business at all (yes, that I know of). My business has stayed static (which is good, even in this economy), but it certainly hasn’t grown much.

Anyway…

You mentioned OCs (which I take to mean “oral controceptives”) but I assume that you provide no means of contraception, correct?

Laos, thanks for your service! I bet that when people ask you to fill an Rx for the pill it gives you a great opportunity to share the faith!

 

[jmcrae]

I will take advantage of this thread, to ask everyone to search out a pharmacy (like mine ) that refuses to sell OC’s and give them your pharmacy business.

I have refused to sell OC’s for over 16 years. Despite that, I have gained no RC business at all (yes, that I know of). My business has stayed static (which is good, even in this economy), but it certainly hasn’t grown much.

Anyway…

Where would one start, to be able to know this? I’d love to divert my business to a pharmacy that doesn’t sell birth control pills, but how does one inquire? Is there a label to watch for?

 

[BillP]

Paul1961, BillP,

How does your interpretation of the Onan account square with Deut. 25:7-10,

Your reference provides the genral penalty. In Onan’s case he specifically refused a direct command from God (through Judah), a much worse situation.

Think of it this way. Your family has a rule requiring your kids to keep their room clean. The penalty for a disorderly room is being grounded for a week. You specifically order our child to clean his room and he defiantly refuses. Wouldn’t a penalty of more then a week-long grounding be justified? Thus it was with Onan.

Also, as jmcrae points out, what possible distinction of relevance can there be to say, well, the BCP can create a hostile endometrial lining, so that the new person cannot implant, but hey, that’s not an abortion, because the woman isn’t pregnant? Isn’t the point that by one’s action one is intentionally creating the condition which results in the death of the new person?

It is important because IMHO because there is no “new person” until some stage of development beyond a fertilized ovum. I’m not sure exactly when that is, but the fact that 40%+ of all fertilized ova fail to implant and progress to a bona fide pregnancy gives me a clue that its sometime subsequent to implantation.

Look at plants, what we call a “seed” is actually a fertilized ova, which holds all the genetic material of both “parent” plants but we don’t call acorns oak trees…

 

[choose_to_love]

BillP,

Thanks for expanding on your view. In response, however, it seems to me that under your way of understanding, the information on Onan’s seed-spilling is superfluous to the reason he was struck down; why is it included in the narrative if the reason for him being struck down was his refusal to obey his father? Right after the seed-spilling is disclosed in the account, and the purpose of the seed-spilling, is the point where we are told Onan had done a detestable thing, and he is then struck down. To me the connection seems clear: if the detestable thing was just refusing to raise children for the brother’s name, why is that not the penalty described in Deuteronomy? If the detestable thing was refusing to obey his father Juda, why is any of the detail about the seed-spilling relevant? There was enough to condemn him without that information under your scenario.

Is the term for “detestable thing” (D-R; “displeasing” in RSV, “greatly offended” in NAB, “offensive” in NJB) used to describe disobedience to a parent anywhere else in the OT or NT?

I notice that two translations clearly state a more than one-time occurrence for the seed-spilling (“every time he slept with his brother’s wife”, NJB, “whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow”, NAB), which you can also infer from the D-R and RSV (“when” could be once or more than once), so again, the striking occurs after multiple instances of the practice of coitus interruptus, i.e., contraception, not after his intial decision to disobey his father.

I submit that a much simpler and common-sense understanding is that the detestable thing that was displeasing and greatly offensive was the practice of withdrawal, not just the refusal to raise up children or the deliberate disobedience of his father’s command.

 

[mommamaree]

BillP,

Thanks for expanding on your view. In response, however, it seems to me that under your way of understanding, the information on Onan’s seed-spilling is superfluous to the reason he was struck down; why is it included in the narrative if the reason for him being struck down was his refusal to obey his father? Right after the seed-spilling is disclosed in the account, and the purpose of the seed-spilling, is the point where we are told Onan had done a detestable thing, and he is then struck down. To me the connection seems clear: if the detestable thing was just refusing to raise children for the brother’s name, why is that not the penalty described in Deuteronomy? If the detestable thing was refusing to obey his father Juda, why is any of the detail about the seed-spilling relevant? There was enough to condemn him without that information under your scenario.

Is the term for “detestable thing” (D-R; “displeasing” in RSV, “greatly offended” in NAB, “offensive” in NJB) used to describe disobedience to a parent anywhere else in the OT or NT?

I notice that two translations clearly state a more than one-time occurrence for the seed-spilling (“every time he slept with his brother’s wife”, NJB, “whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow”, NAB), which you can also infer from the D-R and RSV (“when” could be once or more than once), so again, the striking occurs after multiple instances of the practice of coitus interruptus, i.e., contraception, not after his intial decision to disobey his father.

I submit that a much simpler and common-sense understanding is that the detestable thing that was displeasing and greatly offensive was the practice of withdrawal, not just the refusal to raise up children or the deliberate disobedience of his father’s command.

I have asked this before in other threads and no one ever responds to my question. Hopefully someone will respond here…

Why, in all the discussion about the exact nature of Onan’s sin, does nobody mention the fact that when Onan was practicing coitus interruptus, he was actually sexually abusing his brother’s wife. Somehow I doubt that she was really gungho about being intimate with her BIL, but her security depended upon her having a child for the family. She needed Onan to assist her or else the Judaic culture at the time provided no safety net and his family would have had no obligation to provide for her. Onan violated her by withholding the very thing she so desperately needed (family seed) and he took pleasure out of sexual relations with her in the process. Why is her side of the story never told? Why do we always have to focus upon Onan, his father, and God, and never acknowledge the reality that she was being repeatedly violated?

 

[floresco]

It is important because IMHO because there is no “new person” until some stage of development beyond a fertilized ovum. I’m not sure exactly when that is, but the fact that 40%+ of all fertilized ova fail to implant and progress to a bona fide pregnancy gives me a clue that its sometime subsequent to implantation.
.

The Catholic teaching is that we do not know at what point in development ensoulment takes place, but, because there is a possibility that it happens at conception, we cannot deliberately kill anyone starting at that point.

Personally, I suspect that it takes place at implantation, but that makes no difference to the problems with BC methods that prevent implantation. They are still wrong according to Church teaching.