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

[Sullibe]

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.

Yes, but just to cliche it up… God helps those who help themselves. Therefore, “just reasons” and “grave circumstances” could be any number of things for different couples, and that’s a conversation only they, the couple, can have with God. So practicing NFP, after having prayerfully discerned that that is what God is asking you to do, each month (and I really believe this is a conversation to be had each time you engage in sex), is legit.

Like Joan () I have 4 children, with #5 due in Sept. My oldest turned 10, yesterday. There are other, equally faithful Catholics who, for various reasons, would struggle emotionally, physically, and even financially trying to raise 5 children. 5 is nothing physically or emotionally to me, I used to work in child care with 20 three-year olds. But we will be practicing NFP after this next one is born, because we currently live in an 80 year old 3 bedroom/1full bath house. There will be three boys in one room (the largest room) and my daughter and new baby in the 2nd room. We currently can’t afford to fix the place up enough to resell it, all 15 windows need to be replaced, and so does the flooring throughout the whole house (not including the basement). Hopefully we will reach a point where we can sell, and get something with more bedrooms, but until then, we simply don’t have the room. Now if God, decides he has other plans for us, then we’ll welcome another baby, and another set of bunkbeds. But we won’t be as unintentional, or nonchalant about the possibility of getting pregnant as we have been in the past. Instead we will be using the signs of my fertility, which God put in place, and prayerfully discern with each and every act, what is God’s will.

 

[Joan1969]

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.

Hi Mathmatoons,

I get the idea that you’re a pretty young man. Correct me if I got it wrong. If that’s so, I’d keep an open mind at this point in your life, and definitely be alert to all the needs of any spouse you have (plus yourself and the kids). Core principles, of course, must be followed even through hardship. But our Mother the Church gives us the principles we need; our personal opinions about when NFP is justified and when it should be set aside should defer to human circumstances.

I’d say the same about any other issue that is left open by the Church to human judgement- modesty, egalitarian vs. gender-traditional roles, which type of Mass to attend- anything.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[mathematoons]

I get the idea that you’re a pretty young man. Correct me if I got it wrong.

No, you got it right; I’m 27.

If that’s so, I’d keep an open mind at this point in your life, and definitely be alert to all the needs of any spouse you have (plus yourself and the kids).

Actually, I decided on celibacy long before I converted, for lots of different personal reasons I don’t feel comfortable going into here. I’m still discerning my vocation–I don’t feel called to the priesthood or religious life either.

Core principles, of course, must be followed even through hardship. But our Mother the Church gives us the principles we need; our personal opinions about when NFP is justified and when it should be set aside should defer to human circumstances.

I guess that’s where I’m having difficulty. “Human circumstances” translates far too often to “I know more than God”–not that you sound like the kind of person who would think that.

I’d say the same about any other issue that is left open by the Church to human judgement- modesty, egalitarian vs. gender-traditional roles, which type of Mass to attend- anything.

I have a problem with leaving those things to human judgment, too, because people will do whatever they can get away with. I’ve seen some “Catholic” women baring everything the law will allow in public; traditional gender roles are spelled out in the Bible (e.g. Ephesians 5:22-33–I read that those words used to be spoken at every Christian wedding–and let’s just say that if you knew me, you would be surprised at the idea of me being in favor of traditional gender roles); and I really wish the Church were more explicit on types of Mass.

 

[Joan1969]

…“Human circumstances” translates far too often to “I know more than God”–not that you sound like the kind of person who would think that.

I have a problem with leaving those things to human judgment, too, because people will do whatever they can get away with. I’ve seen some “Catholic” women baring everything the law will allow in public; traditional gender roles are spelled out in the Bible (e.g. Ephesians 5:22-33–I read that those words used to be spoken at every Christian wedding–and let’s just say that if you knew me, you would be surprised at the idea of me being in favor of traditional gender roles); and I really wish the Church were more explicit on types of Mass.

Hi Mathematoons,

You might be surprised at how traditional I am in many ways. Still, I have come to believe that one of the more important parts of life is figuring out where a person can compromise with the other people they share life with, and where they really need to stand tough. I don’t pretend to have huge amounts of wisdom or strength with respect to this, but I recognize a difference between matters of judgment and the known will of God. This is what the Church’s moral law is for; it spells out clearly what is prohibited to everyone as objectively evil (abortion for instance).

Some people may do what they can get away with, and yet individual judgment may need to prevail even so because that’s just the nature of things. The Church may say that employers need to treat their workers with justice, but the employers still set the rules of their particular offices. And married couples need to work out child spacing with their own best judgment, using NFP when that seems necessary to them. The Church has unambiguously permitted that, and not only for medical reasons.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Your last sentence says what the Church says, to use NFP to avoid pregnancy only for grave reasons. For example, a husband may be out of work and the family jnable to afford a baby right then.

The other thing to consider is that the Church is universal, these teachings are for all the world, all the time. A rural family in the Third world may need to put off havinv another child because their village has been destroyed by a hurricane, for example (no FEMA trailers there!).

And the reason it’s called natural is that there’s nothing artifical about it: NFP uses the natural rythym of a woman’s body to either avoid or to encourage pregnancy (some cpuples have trouble conceiving and use NFP for that).

I was just wondering if you have run across those people who think all married couples should track what’s happening and pray every month about what to do, which I fpund a little … unnerving, possibly because the first time I read about that, the writer was very adamant and kinda made you think you were sinning if you didn’t do that.

 

[Muze]

Having children is what human sex is supposed to do in the first place. If you don’t want children, don’t have sex. I don’t see what’s so hard about that. Why must we use condoms and pump are bodies full of caustic chemicals as if something is wrong with us by having children?

Well, I think you’ve identified the problem: In the past, ABC entailed real risks of significant harm to (generally) the woman because of the methods employed. But, rather than saying that using ABC that is harmful is sin, the Church adopted the eternal position that ALL ABC is sin, and now the Church is stuck defending that doctrine, even though it isn’t defensible from Scripture, and many forms of ABC entail no significant risks to the health of the woman or the man.

And the RCC is left saying the things it does today, and looking rather foolish in doing it.

The RCC had the opportunities in this century to say that when the doctrine of ABC was established that all forms of ABC were harmful, but that there are forms today which don’t entail risk, and could have easily (and without admitting any error) said that harmful ABC is sinful, where as ABC that doesn’t entail significant risk is not.

But it dug in its heels, reared its sin of pride (again), and is stuck on the wrong side.

 

[Siochan_Leat]

I have a question…

WHO is to decide whether things are grave enough to justify avoiding?

I have high risk pregnancies (we’re talking HIGH risk–bed rest, the works) and I have four kids. Each of my children has special needs. I have no support system and we are financially struggling with my husband working TWO jobs (one full-time and one almost full-time). I’m home because a job would mean spending more on childcare than I would get paid.

For some out there, they would suggest that I make MORE financial cuts (To what–my kids’ medications?) and have more children. (YES, this actually happened to me). To others, I have a valid reason to avoid.

One must walk a mile in another’s shoes to understand the meaning of “grave.”

 

[Sullibe]

Well, I think you’ve identified the problem: In the past, ABC entailed real risks of significant harm to (generally) the woman because of the methods employed. But, rather than saying that using ABC that is harmful is sin, the Church adopted the eternal position that ALL ABC is sin, and now the Church is stuck defending that doctrine, even though it isn’t defensible from Scripture, and many forms of ABC entail no significant risks to the health of the woman or the man.

And the RCC is left saying the things it does today, and looking rather foolish in doing it.

The RCC had the opportunities in this century to say that when the doctrine of ABC was established that all forms of ABC were harmful, but that there are forms today which don’t entail risk, and could have easily (and without admitting any error) said that harmful ABC is sinful, where as ABC that doesn’t entail significant risk is not.

But it dug in its heels, reared its sin of pride (again), and is stuck on the wrong side.

Have you ever read Humanae Vitae?

I would suggest it, before you begin criticizing a Church you obviously don’t know anything about.
ABC is sinful, not because it’s harmful. ABC, in all it’s forms, is sinful because it purposefully, and pridefully, functions in direct opposition to God’s will.

 

[Muze]

Have you ever read Humanae Vitae?

That was exactly my point. They had a chance to acknowledge that some ABC had changed.

I would suggest it, before you begin criticizing a Church you obviously don’t know anything about.

Obviously? Based upon what?

ABC is sinful, not because it’s harmful. ABC, in all it’s forms, is sinful because it purposefully, and pridefully, functions in direct opposition to God’s will.

Well, that’s the rationalle the RCC gave for outlawing all ABC back when ABC was actually harmful.

And, agian, this is how the RCC paints itself into a corner, using absolute doctrinal authority rather than proper education.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

The Church has made it clear its stance on ABC! So why argue? Its an infallible teaching so what the point? This is why the Church is a mess!! Too many people thinking they know more than the Church!

 

[Joan1969]

I have a question…

WHO is to decide whether things are grave enough to justify avoiding?

I have high risk pregnancies (we’re talking HIGH risk–bed rest, the works) and I have four kids. Each of my children has special needs. I have no support system and we are financially struggling with my husband working TWO jobs…

Hi Siochan,

It is my belief that you are totally justified in avoiding pregnancy right now.

The reality is, even aside from more difficult cases like yours, it is harder to raise a large family now than it used to be. People are going to object to that, and point out all the hardships of the past, but my evidence lies in human behavior- people in traditional economies, even though much poorer, have much larger families. Modern economies lead to smaller families. That’s not a fluke; it’s due the fact that children are no longer a financial asset (but on the contrary can be very expensive), and are logistically difficult to care for since the expectations for safety, health, education etc. are so very high. Also, relatives are distant and unavailable and the cost of human services has gone up by orders of magnitude. Even modern medicine, which is such a blessing in so many ways, takes not only a lot of money but also time.

We need to respect that, while some families may have 8 or more children and thrive, that this is not going to be true for everyone. The Church has respected this, and makes provision for it. We can accept what God’s Church has said and be at peace about that. Expecting women to bear the same number of children as they did two hunderd years ago is not realistic, and can be very insensitive as Siochan can attest.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[maryjk]

I have a question…

WHO is to decide whether things are grave enough to justify avoiding?

You and your spouse after praying. No one else can tell you. Even the Church doesn’t list reasons.

There are many that will tell you that you should have as many children as possible. But this ISN"T Church teaching.

 

[Siochan_Leat]

You and your spouse after praying. No one else can tell you. Even the Church doesn’t list reasons.

There are many that will tell you that you should have as many children as possible. But this ISN"T Church teaching.

Thank you. :hug1:

 

[centurionguard]

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

Excellent.

I not particularly blaming the Church…and maybe somebody more knowledgeable than I am can give better explanation, and correct me if I’m wrong but; it just seems that Self-Sacrifice, Self-Giving and the practice of Chasity are (“not”) emphasized and taught enough in the Church. Of course I’m accentuating Married Life here without diminishing the same virtues above that should be expressed and practiced amongst those who live Single Life in the Church.

Is the practice of Chasity itself an integral part in today’s Catholic Marriages between spouses?

Peace
Chris

 

[LemonAndLime]

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.

What was that about the demise of Europe? I heard that your birth rate was the same as ours? Wasn’t there a thread last week about the USA’s birthrate in the negative as well?

So it’s certain then that we’re nearing our demise? Ah, oh dear. Thanks for the heads-up!

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

Muslims are included in the birth rate statistics. You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re going to be extinct or we’re gonna be Islamic. Unless you’re suggesting that my Muslim neighbour who’s family have lived and worked here for generations is not European?

 

[Robert_Sock]

I believe the Church is correct in its teachings on ABC. Sex isn’t that great! Imagine a thousand orgasms and your still nowhere near what good spirituality brings! People, lift yourself upward and seek the greater things in life!

 

[Personanongrata]

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

I don’t think the Church is strict at all. Most Catholic women use some form of artificial birth control. They may not talk about it but they use it. It’s a very private matter for most married couples.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, I think you’ve identified the problem: In the past, ABC entailed real risks of significant harm to (generally) the woman because of the methods employed. But, rather than saying that using ABC that is harmful is sin, the Church adopted the eternal position that ALL ABC is sin, and now the Church is stuck defending that doctrine, even though it isn’t defensible from Scripture, and many forms of ABC entail no significant risks to the health of the woman or the man.

The problem is that the Catholic Church does notmcondemn abc because it is physically harmful but because it is spiritually harmful andd against God’s will for us.

Did you notice earlier in this thread the comment about how all Christian denominations taught that abc was wrong. It wasn’t until 1930 when the Anglicans changed their teaching that this changed.

And the RCC is left saying the things it does today, and looking rather foolish in doing it.

Foolish in the eyes of whom? Because if we are following God’s will, it doesn’t matter that others think the Church is foolish, does it? Does it bother you that atheists think you are foolish for believing in God?

The RCC had the opportunities in this century to say that when the doctrine of ABC was established that all forms of ABC were harmful, but that there are forms today which don’t entail risk, and could have easily (and without admitting any error) said that harmful ABC is sinful, where as ABC that doesn’t entail significant risk is not.

But it dug in its heels, reared its sin of pride (again), and is stuck on the wrong side.

The early Christians taught that abc was wrong. The Protestant denominations all taught is was wrong until after 1930. The Catholic Church still teaches it is wrong.

So in your eyes, how does this work? First abc is condemned, but then in 1930 it suddenly becomes all right? And you think the Catholic Church looks foolish and prideful?

 

[Debora123]

NFP is something I continue to have philosophical problems with as being acceptable. In the end, the couples whom practice it absolutely have a contraceptive mentality, and we all know it I think. They clearly are hoping to avoid pregnancy, just as are those who use ABC. I’ve read the explanations for why it’s moral and other methods aren’t, I’ve also read that those who practice NFP with the contraceptive mentality are sinning for so doing, and neither the explanations for its morality or the explanations for why it is intrinsically different from other methods really hold water. This is the singular area with which I can conclude this about the Church’s teachings. I still think alot of this has to do with the idea of homunculi and the sperm being little people, so any averting method to avoid pregnancy was like murder.

I continue to pray about this, but I think that there is a good reason that Humanae Vitae has not been officially declared infallible dogma…all I can say is in the end, couples practicing NFP have a contraceptive method in nearly every case, or they wouldn’t be going to such extremes to ascertain when it was least likely to conceive, and therefore most likely to be “safe” to have sex.

Well said, this is EXACTLY how I feel…