Is the Catholic Church too strict in its teaching on artificial birth control?

[Joan1969]

I have to agree. I submit to Church teaching because the Church accepts NFP, and to dislike it is to disagree with God. But there is definitely a contraceptive mentality behind it. If people use NFP because pregnancy is dangerous or something like that, I’m OK with it… but mostly, it’s just an attempt at finding a loophole in the rules against ABC. Do they really think they can fool God?

It used to be Catholics who had the big families; now our families are average-sized. When Muslims and Mormons, who don’t have the fullness of Truth like we do, have more kids even though they don’t have rules against ABC, something is wrong.

Of course, we can’t say it’s ABC’s fault. I heard someone say that blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O’Donnell being fat. Well, I think blaming ABC for small families is the same. It’s the contraceptive mentality that needs to change.

Google “population implosion” to see what happens when the contraceptive mentality goes too far.

Hi Mathematoons,

I have not seen this pattern. When I read the NFP magazine, the typical family size is about five or six; sometimes if less that’s only because it’s still growing!

Most Catholic families are small because most Catholics are just using ABC. It’s not NFP overuse in most cases.

A couple of questions for those opposed to NFP, or those who believe in it only in life and death circumstances:

• Why did God give us the ability to measure the woman’s fertility if He had no plans for that?
• If God’s Church only intended for periodic continence to be used in life and death circumstances, then why was the marginally effective Rhythym method ever advocated? It might be okay for spacing, but nobody in minimal prudence would stake their life on it.

God Bless,
Joan

p.s. I would agree that couples should realize that NFP is not to be used for self-serving or worldly motives. What sorts of motives would qualify is definitely a discussion of its own!!

 

[1ke]

Is the Catholic Church too strict in its teaching on artificial birth control?

Robert, I don’t think you understand.

The Church cannot change her teaching. She can only teach what is True. Contraception is intrinsically evil. The Church cannot teach anything but the truth of the matter.

 

[tlimon]

Those opposed to the teachings of the Church today, both inside and out, are those who abort their babies, refuse to have babies, encourage barren homosexual relationships, and encourage euthanasia. If we stick to our guns on birth control, orthodox Catholicism will be young because it is fertile, wise because it is elderly, chaste because it has self control, as well as scientifically, artistically, and most of all spiritually vibrant because it will be many. This will happen out of love and fidelity to magisterial teachings.

 

[St_Francis]

Does anyone care to remember what the Papal Commission on ABC recommended in the 1960’s? I think some of you might be surprised! Yes Ed, the average # of kids in the 50’s was 2 - quite obviously our parents were using NFP (rhythm method) as contraception, once again, not a surprise.

No, the average number of children in the fifties ranged from 3.3 to 3.8.

I remember growing up in the 60s, I knew a lot of large families, with 5 to 13 children. But what I later realized is that in those families, the youngest was my age or a little younger. In families where the oldest child was my age or just a bit older, the family size was much smaller. I was born in the late 1950s.

And for some reason, people think there was no abc before the Pill. In fact, the first Christian acceptance of abc occurred in the 1930 Lambeth Conference.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I’ve read the thread. I didn’t see this fact mentioned. Perhaps I overlooked it? This should be stated loudly and often:

Every Christian Church or ecclesial community taught that the use of artificial contraception was intrinsically evil and was a serious sin until the Lambeth Conference of 1930. That year, the Anglicans/Episcopalians voted to approve ABC in certain limited cases. It wasn’t long until the ABC dam had burst and the Anglicans/Episcopalians decided it could be used any time. All non-Catholic entities followed suit. Subsequently, the Anglicans/Episcopalians have brought us women priests, homosexual clergy, and abortion on demand. And many non-Catholic entities (but not all) have followed suit. Voting to approve sin is an interesting way to decide moral questions.

Today the only Church that has continued to teach that each use of ABC (except as a medical treatment in some cases) is a serious sin is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The teaching is as old as the Church herself. Even the Orthodox have caved in to the social pressure and now permit artificial contraceptives, which is a reversal of centuries of teaching that ABC should never be used.

Is the teaching on ABC too strict? Only the One True Church has the courage to teach this unpopular truth!

***Flip-flop, flip-flop, ABC used to be a sin but now it’s not. Flip-flop. ***

Can we change sin to un-sin by majority vote? Protestants think so. And the Orthodox hierarchy simply changed their mind. Did God change His? Uh uh.

Jim Dandy

 

[manualman]

As far as I am aware, Jesus never spoke about artificial birth control.

Ah, so you have no problems with the practice in some cultures of “female circumcision?” After all, Jesus said nothing about it, right?

Or are there moral principles Jesus put forth that rational humans can apply to certain circumstances to discern right from wrong, even when the issue isn’t explicitly laid out in revelation? And maybe the Holy Spirit even guides the Church somehow in matters that would otherwise remain mired in confusion and dispute?

Food for thought.

As for the OP, Too strict? Seriously? Have you been questioned by the religious police lately? Heard a homily on the topic? Been interrogated before communion? Questioned in confession? No on all counts, I’d bet my hat.

Rather, the church proclaims the truth (rather quietly in my experience) and mostly leaves it to us to obey or not (except in some cases of clear public scandal, of which contraception generally isn’t one).

 

[edwest2]

Does anyone care to remember what the Papal Commission on ABC recommended in the 1960’s? I think some of you might be surprised! Yes Ed, the average # of kids in the 50’s was 2 - quite obviously our parents were using NFP (rhythm method) as contraception, once again, not a surprise.

Natural Family Planning is licit, ABC is not. Pope Paul VI made it quite clear in Humanae Vitae published in 1968. However, the Sexual Revolution drowned it out.

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

Peace,
Ed

 

[PJM]

=jsaldar;8072155]Does the bible say anything about contraception?

Genesis 4:1 The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. ‘I have acquired a man with the help of Yahweh,’ she said.

John.1 Verses 12 to 14: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. “

*Gen. 38: 7-10 "But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then 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. ***[10] **And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also. **

This Genesis passages speaks Directly about human-birth-contol and how God feels about it. Now the DEATH is real BUT Spiritual unto hell!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[mathematoons]

I have not seen this pattern. When I read the NFP magazine, the typical family size is about five or six; sometimes if less that’s only because it’s still growing!

Most Catholic families are small because most Catholics are just using ABC. It’s not NFP overuse in most cases.

OK, that makes sense. But if the ABC couples switched to NFP, would their families be that much bigger?

Why did God give us the ability to measure the woman’s fertility if He had no plans for that?

Well, now we’re getting into the problem of why God allows things He doesn’t like. Why does God create people He knows will end up in Hell? Why does God allow suffering on the level of the Holocaust? Those are the questions that scare off unbelievers (I know because I used to be one) and give believers trouble.

If God’s Church only intended for periodic continence to be used in life and death circumstances, then why was the marginally effective Rhythym method ever advocated? It might be okay for spacing, but nobody in minimal prudence would stake their life on it.

I don’t know that one either.

I’ve read the thread. I didn’t see this fact mentioned. Perhaps I overlooked it? This should be stated loudly and often:

Every Christian Church or ecclesial community taught that the use of artificial contraception was intrinsically evil and was a serious sin until the Lambeth Conference of 1930. That year, the Anglicans/Episcopalians voted to approve ABC in certain limited cases. It wasn’t long until the ABC dam had burst and the Anglicans/Episcopalians decided it could be used any time. All non-Catholic entities followed suit. Subsequently, the Anglicans/Episcopalians have brought us women priests, homosexual clergy, and abortion on demand. And many non-Catholic entities (but not all) have followed suit.

Thank you!! Bringing this up was going to be my next step as soon as someone answered my questions about NFP, but you said it better than I could have.

Voting to approve sin is an interesting way to decide moral questions

Yeah, wasn’t Hitler elected in a democratic election?

Today the only Church that has continued to teach that each use of ABC (except as a medical treatment in some cases) is a serious sin is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The teaching is as old as the Church herself. Even the Orthodox have caved in to the social pressure and now permit artificial contraceptives, which is a reversal of centuries of teaching that ABC should never be used.

Is the teaching on ABC too strict? Only the One True Church has the courage to teach this unpopular truth!

Amen to that!! This is why I could never be Protestant. Not just ABC, but other similar issues. I can just see it:

Me: The Bible says X, but no one here seems to believe it.
Protestant: Well, X is not true anymore. It was written when people thought [some ancient idea].
Me: So how can I trust anything the Bible says?
Protestant: 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed.”
Me: Even X?
Protestant: No.

That’s the problem with sola scriptura. It puts too much power in the hands of us sinful humans. Protestant denominations work to the degree that they resemble the Catholic Church.

***Flip-flop, flip-flop, ABC used to be a sin but now it’s not. Flip-flop. ***

Can we change sin to un-sin by majority vote? Protestants think so. And the Orthodox hierarchy simply changed their mind. Did God change His? Uh uh.

This is a question that deserves its own thread. (Maybe I’ll start one.) If a denomination decides that X is no longer a sin, does that mean God changed His mind? That implies limited omniscience. Does it mean God his the truth from His loyal followers for 2,000 years? That implies limited goodness (because that would make God into a liar). Does it mean people get to vote on morality? That implies limited omnipotence and contradicts the doctrine of our sinful nature.

Some say it’s just a human-made tradition. Leaving aside the fact that Christianity is not a human-made religion, the prohibition against ABC works so well and is so strongly against human nature, I don’t see how anyone but God could have thought it up!

 

[PJM]

=TrueLight;8070926]Is this the crux of it?

I never understood why anyone, Catholic or Protestant would use that verse as a reason to have tons of children.

Of course God told Adam and Even to be fruitful and multiply. They were the first humans and they needed to propagate the species.

How does that necessarily apply to now?

Please note I am faithful to what the Magesterium says about ABC, but I just don’t understand how that verse can be used as justification.

OK

Then why did God give the same Command to Noah, Abraham and Jacob?

God Bless you!,

Pat

 

[Joan1969]

…but if the ABC couples switched to NFP, would their families be that much bigger?

Well, now we’re getting into the problem of why God allows things He doesn’t like…

In answer to your first question, it is true that ABC couples may need a deeper conversion, not just a switch of methods. They need to change their heart to a desire to do God’s will in all areas of their lives. If they do this, then the attitude will very often lead to more children.

 

[mathematoons]

In answer to your first question, it is true that ABC couples may need a deeper conversion, not just a switch of methods. They need to change their heart to a desire to do God’s will in all areas of their lives. If they do this, then the attitude will very often lead to more children.

Right. This is why we shouldn’t encourage any “family planning” except in grave circumstances.

To answer the second: the fertility signals of a woman are a part of God’s nature to which any woman has access, and which can be used with practicality (and even ease in some cases) to regulate birth. It’s the opposite of homosexuality, which our bodily nature is screaming is not part of God’s plan. Yes, we can do that (homosexual acts), but it’s clearly not written in the book of our natural makeup. We can regulate births precisely because of our natural makeup.

I’m sorry. I’m really having trouble seeing the distinction. Just because NFP (I think “natural” family planning is a contradiction in terms, but this is how everyone knows it) is part of how God made humans doesn’t mean it’s OK to use in most circumstances. Sex is part of how God made us, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK outside of marriage.

I can see the use of NFP when pregnancy is dangerous, but that’s it. Any other use smacks of the contraceptive mentality.

 

[1ke]

I’m sorry. I’m really having trouble seeing the distinction. Just because NFP (I think “natural” family planning is a contradiction in terms, but this is how everyone knows it) is part of how God made humans doesn’t mean it’s OK to use in most circumstances. Sex is part of how God made us, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK outside of marriage.

I can see the use of NFP when pregnancy is dangerous, but that’s it. Any other use smacks of the contraceptive mentality.

Well, the Magesterium sees it differently. It is the Magesterium that forms our consciences. I suggest reading Humanae Vitae and Gaudium Et Spes chapter 1.

 

[mathematoons]

Well, the Magesterium sees it differently. It is the Magesterium that forms our consciences. I suggest reading Humanae Vitae and Gaudium Et Spes chapter 1.

I know that much–that’s why I’m trying to understand it. I don’t want to be a “cafeteria Catholic.”

 

[Joan1969]

Right. This is why we shouldn’t encourage any “family planning” except in grave circumstances.

I’m sorry. I’m really having trouble seeing the distinction. Just because NFP (I think “natural” family planning is a contradiction in terms, but this is how everyone knows it) is part of how God made humans doesn’t mean it’s OK to use in most circumstances. Sex is part of how God made us, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK outside of marriage.

I can see the use of NFP when pregnancy is dangerous, but that’s it. Any other use smacks of the contraceptive mentality.

Hi Mathematoons,

I am currently raising four and expecting number five, and all I can say is that I disagree with your rather severe standards. A better standard is to look at the total well-being of the family, including the living children, and balance that against the good achieved by welcoming another child. That has to be done with an eye to prayer, attention to God’s will, and a non-materialistic attitude. I disagree with parents who would, for instance, avoid pregnancy so as to afford to underwrite college. But not all families would thrive with eight or ten children, and that needs to be admitted and accomodated.

Your sex analogy actually works, but I think it supports my position. I don’t think NFP can be used for selfish or godless reasons, but it is open to use at some point by most couples, just as the sexual act is licit for most people once they put themselves in the right circumstances (marriage). Only a minority are called to complete celibacy through life.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[edwest2]

I invite everyone to read the following:

theologyofthebody.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70&Itemid=50

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I invite everyone to read the following:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Here is A REASON:

France has a reproduction rate that is lower than there death rate. What does that fortell:thumbsup:

Pat

The rest of the Western world is not far behind. That’s why France and the UK and other countries will soon be Muslim. The U.S. is not far behind. “Christians” contracept and abort their babies when contraception fails. Western society is anti-child.

I can hardly stand the thought that the great Cathedrals of Europe will be turned into mosques. But it’s inevitable, even here, considering the Muslim birth rate.

Jim Dandy

 

[mathematoons]

The rest of the Western world is not far behind. That’s why France and the UK and other countries will soon be Muslim. The U.S. is not far behind. “Christians” contracept and abort their babies when contraception fails. Western society is anti-child.

I can hardly stand the thought that the great Cathedrals of Europe will be turned into mosques. But it’s inevitable, even here, considering the Muslim birth rate.

Well, in Europe, sure, but in the United States, we have other high-fertility groups like Hispanics and Mormons. Fertility isn’t exactly uniform here. The average Republican has 2.1 kids (replacement rate), while the average Democrat has 1.5 kids. When you factor in the importance of religion in one’s life, the difference increases even more. Plus, hopefully our culture will reverse its course upon seeing the demise of Europe–or the Second Coming will happen before then.

But yeah, I hate the idea of cathedrals turning into mosques and European languages going extinct.

Joan: I’m really having trouble seeing the difference between what you’re saying and the contraceptive mentality. Aren’t they only different in degree? If I were called to marriage, I would only marry a conservative Catholic who would agree to have as many kids as God would give us, using only NFP, and even then, only in grave circumstances.

 

[edwest2]

The rest of the Western world is not far behind. That’s why France and the UK and other countries will soon be Muslim. The U.S. is not far behind. “Christians” contracept and abort their babies when contraception fails. Western society is anti-child.

I can hardly stand the thought that the great Cathedrals of Europe will be turned into mosques. But it’s inevitable, even here, considering the Muslim birth rate.

Jim Dandy

Hi Jim,

I don’t agree that it’s inevitable. First, I’m seeing a slight increase in the number of Catholics globally and Jesus will protect His bride.

Peace,
Ed