Protestant wants to understand Catholic position on Birth Control

[KathleenGee]

Statistics…coming from Catholic EWTN women programming state that those couple who use Natural Family Planning, not the rhythm method per se, have extremely low divorce rates.

Some forms of the Pill are carcinogens…especially the pill combined with estrogen and progesterone, and early abortion with young women.

In SE Italy, it used to have the lowest cancer rates. Men had the most…lung cancer from smoking but since they have cut back smoking, the lung cancer rate has fallen. However, breast cancer is exploding in the same region. Is this because of birth control???

 

[Randy_Carson]

My understanding is that Catholics are opposed to birth control but I am unaware of the reason. Forgive me because I don’t know many Catholics. Is it because it is artificially preventing conception and the timing of conception is for God to decide? Can someone summarize the Catholic position on it for me in layman’s terms?

My story:
My wife and I married right out of college at age 22. We decided to wait about 5 years to have kids because we wanted to establish ourselves in our careers, save up money to buy a house, do some traveling, and otherwise enjoy each other’s company for a few years before we settled down because we realized that having a family requires a lot of effort and dedication to the children.

My wife took birth control from age 22 until she was 27, then we started trying to have kids. At first, we couldn’t conceive right away. We were both tested and I was found to have a low sperm count. After what one buddy of mine called my “Roto-Rooter job”, we had our first child when my wife was 29 and our second at 33.

Did we sin for having taken birth control? If so, was it a serious sin? We didn’t mean any disrespect to God by doing so and we were unaware it was wrong.

On the other hand, we both have been against abortion all along because we feel it is the taking of an innocent life,

Did you sin? Yes.
Was it serious? Yes.
Was is a mortal sin? Probably not.

The reason your sin was probably not what Catholics call a “mortal” sin is because you probably did not have a properly formed conscience regarding this action.

So, if I were you, I’d repent to the Lord and enter RCIA as soon as possible so that you can go to confession as a Catholic!

Just sayin’.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Yep, you nailed it, Bob. That is exactly what I had – a variococle.

Then you may as well stop worrying if God was punishing you. You simply shared a medical condition with millions of other men around the world.

The following link gives some background on the papal commission, originally set up by John XXIII, the same man who also set up Vatican II. I’ve seen some conservatives even argue that was a mistake.

motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/catholic-church-vatican-bishops-birth-control

While it’s a blog, it does give a pretty accurate idea of what happened way back in 1968.

Mother Jones loses it a bit when she tries to argue for married priests, implying that the church is fearful that if there are married priests, they’ll have to approve the pill. Frankly I think she’s talking nonsense there, as the issue of celibate priests is an entirely different issue.

But most of the blog is accurate.

The Anglicans were the first Protestant group to permit contraception way back in 1930. Most other mainline Protestant groups followed shortly thereafter. Prior to that however, there had been a history of banning contraception by Protestants.

However the Protestants say they cannot find any direct Biblical reference to contraception, other than the “sin of Onan” who basically didn’t want to marry his brother’s widow, rather than just “spill his seed”.

The Catholic position is based on natural law, and church tradition, which tends to be regarded as “infallible” (and frankly, I don’t believe it is).

In the meantime, the world population keeps growing as per the following clock -

worldometers.info/world-population/

And not a word from the church on how we are supposed to cope with this burgeoning population growth.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

As an addendum to my post above, I went looking for the Orthodox stand on contraception, out of curiosity as much as anything else.

The link is from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. I’ve lifted on paragraph.

goarch.org/ourfaith/controversialissues

The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.

 

[Tommy999]

Thank you, Bob, and to everyone else for your comments and explanations. I agree, Bob, that God probably wasn’t punishing me by not allowing us to conceive right away after having used contraception for a few years. Sometimes I wonder, though, perhaps out of guilt after discovering the Catholic position on this forum.

I wonder what the success rate is of NFP. Is it pretty reliable?

Abortion was never an option for us because we are strongly pro-life. We just wanted to wait for a few years before having children. We love our two sons very much and they have grown into fine young Christian men who love God and treat others with dignity and respect. We are very proud of them.

 

[Allegra]

Thank you, Bob, and to everyone else for your comments and explanations. I agree, Bob, that God probably wasn’t punishing me by not allowing us to conceive right away after having used contraception for a few years. Sometimes I wonder, though, perhaps out of guilt after discovering the Catholic position on this forum.

I wonder what the success rate is of NFP. Is it pretty reliable?

Abortion was never an option for us because we are strongly pro-life. We just wanted to wait for a few years before having children. We love our two sons very much and they have grown into fine young Christian men who love God and treat others with dignity and respect. We are very proud of them.

Most sources say the success rate of NFP when it is used correctly is more or less the same as chemical contraceptives. However, as I said before, the challenge is that some couples don’t follow all the rules as far as charting and making observations or just decide to ignore the signs of ovulation because (let’s face it) sometimes abstinance can be hard.

 

[1ke]

I wonder what the success rate is of NFP. Is it pretty reliable?

There are 4 main methods of observation used for natural family planning. They are:

Sympto-Thermal
Billings Ovulation Method
Creighton Fertility Care
Marquette Method

Studies have been conducted and method and use rates are available. The effectiveness rates are quite high.

 

[KathleenGee]

You know what Tommy, and I am not implying sin at all…but I think you should go to a priest in the confessional.

Just talk to him about things…and receive a blessing from him.

It is quiet, reflective and most conducive…as you go along and see that it is non-threatening…to really open up your soul. You can tell him from the start that you are Protestant. I can most assure you he will be most delighted to converse with you.

Just a suggestion and I don’t mean this as any corrective measure…but to receive sacerdotal advice besides the excellent advice given you by many Catholics here.

I used NFP, Natural Family Planning, never used ‘The Pill’. We had some real hardships and it was really dicey using this and nursing as women have gotten pregnant while nursing.

But I really prayed to the Lord to be open to the number of children He wished for me and to not let me get pregnant if it would not be beneficial to anyone, and He heard my prayers and answered me…the Good God that He is.

 

[Aslan10]

That’s an excellent question. It really isn’t ideally healthy for a couple to abstain from all sex for the first five years of their marriage. Fortunately, that’s not required. Catholics space their children with periodic abstinance, which means that they use a NFP method to determine when the woman is fertile. A woman is fertile around two calander days a month and a man’s sperm can live up to five days in good cervical mucus. There idea is to avoid sexual relations on the days immediately prior and post ovulation. There has been a great deal of development in techniques and technology for determining when a woman is ovulating. It’s actually become quite easy to tell. There are distrinct physical signs which can be observed, as well as propes and strip tests that can be purchased for the more scientifically/technologically minded. What isn’t always easy is saying “no” on the baby days, which is why some people like to claim that “no one will use it”. However, lots of people DO use it and not just religious people. The pill has lots of negative physical effects on the woman, some of which are severe for some women. I have a couple of liberally-minded, modern women who have just recently discovered these natural methods for avoiding pregnancy and they go on line this has been a huge secret, kept only by especially hip mountain trolls, that only THEY know about. :doh2:

How is this any different than using a condom, from a moral standpoint?

 

[1ke]

How is this any different than using a condom, from a moral standpoint?

Having sex and *not having sex *are completely different.

When spouses choose to have relations, they are not free to *disorder *the act. Each act must be ordered to unity and procreation (i.e. unaltered in any way) They are free to *refrain *from the act.

Contraception disorders the act by attempting to engage in sex while sterilizing it. Abstinence does nothing to disorder the act. It respects the act, and therefore a couple not wishing to conceive at that time simply does not have sexual relations.

 

[Aslan10]

Having sex and *not having sex *are completely different.

When spouses choose to have relations, they are not free to *disorder *the act. Each act must be ordered to unity and procreation (i.e. unaltered in any way) They are free to *refrain *from the act.

Contraception disorders the act by attempting to engage in sex while sterilizing it. Abstinence does nothing to disorder the act. It respects the act, and therefore a couple not wishing to conceive at that time simply does not have sexual relations.

But they do have sexual relations–when the woman isn’t fertile. The motives are exactly the same, except that one couple abstains for a very short period and the other couple can choose to act whenever.

 

[1ke]

But they do have sexual relations–when the woman isn’t fertile.

And when they do so, they do not alter the act in any way.

The motives are exactly the same

As has already been stated, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with spacing children when necessary.

So, certainly the motive would be to avoid children at that time.

except that one couple abstains for a very short period

Or a long period of time depending on the person involved.

and the other couple can choose to act whenever.

And they profane that act by engaging in it and using contraception. They do not respect the order God gave the act of intercourse and they misuse their sexuality.

 

[Allegra]

How is this any different than using a condom, from a moral standpoint?

When you use a condom, you are being disrespectful to both the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. When you abstain for a few days a month, you don’t.

 

[Aslan10]

When you use a condom, you are being disrespectful to both the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. When you abstain for a few days a month, you don’t.

I agree that when you abstain you aren’t being disrespectful, only because I think it’s the exact same thing as using a condom. You are doing the exact same thing and that is avoiding the procreative aspect. This has zero affect on the unitive act. Just because someone doesn’t procreate during sex doesn’t make it any less unitive.

 

[Allegra]

I agree that when you abstain you aren’t being disrespectful, only because I think it’s the exact same thing as using a condom. You are doing the exact same thing and that is avoiding the procreative aspect. This has zero affect on the unitive act. Just because someone doesn’t procreate during sex doesn’t make it any less unitive.

How can you be doing “the exact same thing”. In one case you are having sex, in the other case you aren’t. You can’t “do the exact same thing” when you aren’t doing anything at all. The part that makes the act sinful isn’t the fact that the couple isn’t ready for another child. The part that makes it sinful is that. rather than make a sacrafice of waiting for a few days for the good of their family, they are attempting to circle around the natural law and are corrupting the marital act in order to get their pleasure without consequence. That is clearly not the same thing at all.

 

[Aslan10]

And when they do so, they do not alter the act in any way.

And they profane that act by engaging in it and using contraception. They do not respect the order God gave the act of intercourse and they misuse their sexuality.

Aren’t couples who knowingly wait, just so they don’t get pregnant, altering the act as well? I think so. They are waiting for the woman to not be fertile. So when they want to have sex but the woman is fertile, they wait, just so they don’t conceive. It’s doing the exact same thing as a condom.

I don’t think it’s wrong, I just think the logic of NFP, from a moral perspective, is twisting an idea in way that supports a moral principle but doesn’t compromise the past teaching of the church and yet, allows people to live in the same way as other couples that use condoms. It’s a way of justifying your belief, while committing the same acts as others.

 

[Aslan10]

How can you be doing “the exact same thing”. In one case you are having sex, in the other case you aren’t. You can’t “do the exact same thing” when you aren’t doing anything at all. The part that makes the act sinful isn’t the fact that the couple isn’t ready for another child. The part that makes it sinful is that. rather than make a sacrafice of waiting for a few days for the good of their family, they are attempting to circle around the natural law and are corrupting the marital act in order to get their pleasure without consequence. That is clearly not the same thing at all.

Waiting and having sex when a woman isn’t fertile is getting “their pleasure without consequence” as well. They don’t get pregnant but get to have sex. That is how it’s the exact same thing. It accomplish the same thing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Aren’t couples who knowingly wait, just so they don’t get pregnant, altering the act as well? I think so.

How exactly has the act been altered by the man or the woman? Be specific.

Just thinking out loud here, but isn’t it true that if God had wanted EVERY act of intercourse to result in pregnancy, He could have designed women so that they are perpetually fertile and simply waiting for the sperm to conceive?

Kinda makes me wonder why God bothered with infertile times at all…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Waiting and having sex when a woman isn’t fertile is getting “their pleasure without consequence” as well. They don’t get pregnant but get to have sex. That is how it’s the exact same thing. It accomplish the same thing.

It accomplishes the same thing, but the means used by and the attitudes of these two couples would be very different.

And BTW, if the couple practicing NFP is doing so for selfish reasons, then they are at fault before God, also.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree that when you abstain you aren’t being disrespectful, only because I think it’s the exact same thing as using a condom. You are doing the exact same thing and that is avoiding the procreative aspect. This has zero affect on the unitive act. Just because someone doesn’t procreate during sex doesn’t make it any less unitive.

Um…How is the man giving himself fully to his wife when he takes his little baggy full of “self” with him when he goes?