Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[mark_a]

Case in point, I recall a few years ago seeing one of those news shows (20/20 or 60 minutes) where they featured a couple where the man had HIV and a girl knew about it but fell in love with him anyway. They got married. One time their condom broke. She didn’t get HIV but she got pregnant anyway.

I don’t get this at all.

Does HIV make a man sterile?

Is heterosexual sex as likely as infect a partner as gay sex?

 

[copperblade]

A couple does not need to have children in mind every time they engage in the marital act. The whole point of the Church’s teaching is simply that when they do, they have to be open to the possibility that life might ensue and that they will not do anything to stop that.

Hmmmm, that’s a good way to put it. This seems to be the central point. So I have three questions about it.

1. Why does the Church teach that each and every act of sex has to be open to life? (As opposed to being open to and planning for children within the context of the marriage as a whole.)
2. Why is it ok to use NFP? It seems to have the same purpose as any other form of contraception, and I don’t see how the motivations for using it are any different. It was already said before that NFP isn’t always ok, which seems to indicate that the reason and how you use it matters…
3. Is it wrong to abstain from sex in marriage in order not to have more children? I understand that this doesn’t categorize as a “misuse of sex” if you’re not using it, but it seems related.

 

[mark_a]

1. Why does the Church teach that each and every act of sex has to be open to life? (As opposed to being open to and planning for children within the context of the marriage as a whole.)

Because the Catholic Church has the best catch phrases in the business, including these:

Open to life.

Faith and works.

The eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is fully human and fully divine.

These phrases help average Joe sixpacks like myself grasp complex teachings. It’s awesome!

 

[ESMDHokie77]

copper, for your 2nd question: NFP utilizes the biology of the wife. The biology that God intended women to have.

Peace,
Phil

 

[benedictus2]

I dontl think the not being to afford anymore is a bogus reason at all! Plenty of people out there really can;t afford kids. Your family managed to pull through but not all would. I mean look at all the MILLIONS of starving families out there in the world today. Should these people keep having kids despite the fact that they can;t even feed the ones they have? After all apparently according to you…not being able to afford more kids is a bogus reason…

It is a bogus reason because once you give that reason you equate kids to expense rather than blessing.

God is asking you to trust that no matter how difficult life can and will be, the grace will be given when you need it.

When St Paul was asking to be relieved of his cross, Christ’s answer was “My grace is enough for you.”

The biggest problem of our day is the demand for certainty. We do not want the daily bread. We want the bread for the next ten years given all at once so that we can be confident that we will be provided for.

And what about all the prayers that donlt go answered?

All prayers, without exception are answered. Sometimes the answer is yes, other times no, other times wait. All times it is up to God who sees everything far more clearly than we can ever see.

In all these the lesson is “Trust Me” and a learning to subordinate one’s will to God’s will.

And chances are your aunt just got lucky.

Aaah that’s right things just happen out of luck. God has nothing to do with anything.

There is no such thing as luck.

but one thing that annoys me about the whole God will answer your prayers and provide for any kids you have argument…is I can look at all those starving families at least some of which I am sure are Christians who really aren;t pulling through and say what about them?

What about the fact that perhaps at that stage in their journey they are supposed to experience some difficulty. My family did for years and years. The whole point of the matter is that we leave to God those things that should be left to God.

Besides, if everything is so extremely and excruciatingly difficult for a person at that time, there is always NFP.

Your families faith in God I am sure helped the situation and helped them in a spiritual manner get through hardship.

And that is the whole point. Christianity is tied to the Cross. There is no Resurrection without the Cross. And the point of the cross is total abandonment to God’s will.

We buy too much into the prosperity gospel that we miss that very important point.

True following of Christ means to take up the cross. And that cross may be the larger than your desired size of family but if taken as a gift from the Father and offered up to the Father in thanksgiving, this is transformed.

Christ’s yoke is light but only to a life surrendered to Christ.

But their and your own hardwork I am sure had a big part in keeping your family from going under.

As the dictum goes :“Do the best and God will do the rest”. Doing the best must never be in opposition to God’s will.

 

[benedictus2]

copper, for your 2nd question: NFP utilizes the biology of the wife. The biology that God intended women to have.

Peace,
Phil

Simple, succinct and to the point!

 

[benedictus2]

1. Is it wrong to abstain from sex in marriage in order not to have more children? I understand that this doesn’t categorize as a “misuse of sex” if you’re not using it, but it seems related.

For a grave reason it is permissible.

Just so you can avoid children for selfish reasons? It is wrong.

 

[benedictus2]

1. Why does the Church teach that each and every act of sex has to be open to life? (As opposed to being open to and planning for children within the context of the marriage as a whole.)

Because that is the primary reason for sex. This is the most Biblical stand one can make if for no other reason that it conforms to the very first commandment: I am the Lord thy God. As God, He alone is the author of life and He alone has the right to determine who will and will not come into existence.

 

[benedictus2]

Either let the unitive purpose suffice, as they do with pregnant and infertile couples…or don’t - but enough already with these arbitrary rules!

And that my dear is one humongous arbitrary rule because the unitive purpose is NOT the primary reason for sex and therefore will never suffice.

That is a made up rule for those who wish to have their cake and eat it too.

Once you allow that rule, all sorts of sexual abominations become permissible.

So, stop creating your own arbitrary rules because you don’t have any right to make any rule at all with regards morality.

It really all boils down to a hegemony of the self.

 

[geebob]

It matters not if they are thinking about the possibility at the time. What matters is they have not taken any artifical means to try and prevent the possibility.

Excellent. But the problem here as I’ve articulated though is that if a couple is having sex for the purpose of bonding forsaking the other purpose, even preventing it, it is a denial that sex for that purpose has intrinsic value, that sex for this reason is good in and of itself regardless of procreation. That value is intrinsic, it remains the same and it does not change just because someone is preventing procreation. If you insisted it changes, then I don’t see how that intrinsic sacred value is respected.

Whether it is artificial or not, if there lies the sin, it’s not clear to me at all what is so sinful about using our natural faculties as intelligent technological creatures, as stewards to prevent pregnancy. I don’t buy that this distinction carries the weight of sin vs. permissable.

And no one has ever denied that part of the reason for sex is to confirm and fully express the love of and hsband and wife for one another.

I’m not going to comb through benedictus’ post again to see if I got the right impression but it seems to me that she virtually denied this.

But you are in denial of its intrinsic value. It’s not that you deny it. it’s the intrinsic value you deny, to say suggest sex for no other reasons of the unity of the couple is sinful. And again, maybe that’s not you. Good, if it isn’t.

Show where in the Bible it says everything must be in the Bible?

I don’t believe everything has to be found in the bible. But to call something a mortal sin and for it not to be found in scripture, I expect some profoundly good reasoning here and that it isn’t in scripture may not be a definitative and decisive problem, but it is a problem.

At this point, for you, the only reasoning I see here is that there is something wrong with artificial means, and I just find the distinction extremely poor.

It is a very rare occurance, so much so as we can safely say it doesn’t, but that does not change the fact that it has happened.

This all very moot. There is a point where it is impossible and my example remains. Sorry, A wife just isn’t going to get pregnant when she is days away from birth and a couple can have sex all the way up to the day of birth. And the impossibility no doubt extends many months away from that. There just is no openness to new life there.

 

[benedictus2]

That’s enough to make my point. People have sex for reasons not having to do with children. In other words, it has value, it is good apart from having children.

And no one said otherwise. But the raison d’etre so to speak of sex is pro-creation. That is primary reason for God creating sex.

God did not make sex for pleasure’s sake or for “bonding’s” sake.

If this reason is good with the possibility of children, I see no reason why it isn’t good without the possibility of children.

You are twisting that around. The “good” in your statement refers to good as in pleasurable. But just because something is good in that way does not mean that that is the main purpose why God created sex.

Just because you can use a pen to stab someone does not mean that the pen was createdfor stabbing.

And there remains no clear biblical indicator the preventing pregnancy is a sin. (accept when it is explicitely the purpose as with Onan and for the brother in-laws of widowed wives… so we aren’t talking about married couples).

The reason Onan was struck dead was not because he refused to give children to his brother. He was struck dead for spilling his seed.

There was already a punishment for “not giving children to you brother” in Leverite law and it was only a public shaming.

If that was all he was guilty of, then God would have left him to just be publicly shamed.

But no, God struck him dead.

The Bible is very clear. It was the thing he did (which was the spilling of his seed) and not for the thing he did not do (not giving children to his brother’s wife) that God struck him dead for.

Pregnancy is nine months. That does not happen through out the nine months and you better believe that pregnant couples have absolutely no expecation, no openness, no thought to the possibility of life months afterword when having sex when there is already a life on the way. And they are not sinners for it.

Aaah, but that lack of possiblity was not the couple’s fault. That lack of possibility was God designed.

No one ever said that one must have sex only when there is an expectation of a child. Rather, one must always be open to sex according to God’s design.

As I said before, the whole point of this is that one does not resort to artificial means to prevent conception.

All these arguments you are bringing up are just side issues which have nothing to do with the heart of the matter.

It is about letting God be God. When a pregnant couple engages in marital relations, the non-possibility of pregnancy is not their doing but rather God’s.

When infertile couples engage in marital relations, the lack of possibility of children is not their doing but rather God’s.

The point of openness to life is about being open to life, if and when you engaged in marital relations, and the God given possiblity of conception is there. In the case of pregnant women and infertile couples, the God given possibility is just not there.

 

[benedictus2]

At this point, for you, the only reasoning I see here is that there is something wrong with artificial means, and I just find the distinction extremely poor.

How is you preventing pregnancy by artificial means and God Himself preventing pregnancy according to His will a poor distinction?

Are you on equal footing with God?

Is His Will and your will equal in weight that there is no distinction at all.

Does God and you have equal prerogatives on who will and will not be conceived?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Excellent. But the problem here as I’ve articulated though is that if a couple is having sex for the purpose of bonding forsaking the other purpose, even preventing it, it is a denial that sex for that purpose has intrinsic value, that sex for this reason is good in and of itself regardless of procreation. That value is intrinsic, it remains the same and it does not change just because someone is preventing procreation. If you insisted it changes, then I don’t see how that intrinsic sacred value is respected.

Whether it is artificial or not, if there lies the sin, it’s not clear to me at all what is so sinful about using our natural faculties as intelligent technological creatures, as stewards to prevent pregnancy. I don’t buy that this distinction carries the weight of sin vs. permissable.

I’m not going to comb through benedictus’ post again to see if I got the right impression but it seems to me that she virtually denied this.

But you are in denial of its intrinsic value. It’s not that you deny it. it’s the intrinsic value you deny, to say suggest sex for no other reasons of the unity of the couple is sinful. And again, maybe that’s not you. Good, if it isn’t.

I don’t believe everything has to be found in the bible. But to call something a mortal sin and for it not to be found in scripture, I expect some profoundly good reasoning here and that it isn’t in scripture may not be a definitative and decisive problem, but it is a problem.

At this point, for you, the only reasoning I see here is that there is something wrong with artificial means, and I just find the distinction extremely poor.

This all very moot. There is a point where it is impossible and my example remains. Sorry, A wife just isn’t going to get pregnant when she is days away from birth and a couple can have sex all the way up to the day of birth. And the impossibility no doubt extends many months away from that. There just is no openness to new life there.

:banghead: I sometimes get the feeling that I speack in language that is not understandable to the Human mind. bark bark

 

[Calliso]

It is a bogus reason because once you give that reason you equate kids to expense rather than blessing.

God is asking you to trust that no matter how difficult life can and will be, the grace will be given when you need it.

When St Paul was asking to be relieved of his cross, Christ’s answer was “My grace is enough for you.”

The biggest problem of our day is the demand for certainty. We do not want the daily bread. We want the bread for the next ten years given all at once so that we can be confident that we will be provided for.

All prayers, without exception are answered. Sometimes the answer is yes, other times no, other times wait. All times it is up to God who sees everything far more clearly than we can ever see.

In all these the lesson is “Trust Me” and a learning to subordinate one’s will to God’s will.
Aaah that’s right things just happen out of luck. God has nothing to do with anything.

There is no such thing as luck.
What about the fact that perhaps at that stage in their journey they are supposed to experience some difficulty. My family did for years and years. The whole point of the matter is that we leave to God those things that should be left to God.

Besides, if everything is so extremely and excruciatingly difficult for a person at that time, there is always NFP.

And that is the whole point. Christianity is tied to the Cross. There is no Resurrection without the Cross. And the point of the cross is total abandonment to God’s will.

We buy too much into the prosperity gospel that we miss that very important point.

True following of Christ means to take up the cross. And that cross may be the larger than your desired size of family but if taken as a gift from the Father and offered up to the Father in thanksgiving, this is transformed.

Christ’s yoke is light but only to a life surrendered to Christ.

As the dictum goes :“Do the best and God will do the rest”. Doing the best must never be in opposition to God’s will.

God gave us a brain to use though. I donlt see how a family going ok we can;t or we can BARELY feed the family we have now we probably should not have any more kids until our situation gets better is the same as a family just going oh kids are just expenses! The fact of the matter is kids are money sinks it is not free to raise them. Even if you donlt buy any of the latest toys and clothes and what not. People talk about blessings…but ever hear of the saying too much of a good thing? Kids can be a good thing…too many though can cause a lot of trouble. And not just finicially. Emotionally and mentally as well. Some people have the money and emotional and mental capacity to handle lots of kids. Some people may have plenty of money and have more then enough finicial resources to handle however many kids they could end up having…but emotionally and mentally they might not be able to handle it. The point is everyone is different and for a lot of people a lot of kids would not be a blessing it would just be a curse.

Maybe your aunt did get her prayer answered by God. Personally I see no proof of it. I am not saying that God has nothing to do with anything. But I have a hard time believing that he micromanages our lives to that point. Besides am I suppose to believe that he routinely tells starving families “no” or sorry not right now obviously not in a literally way like he is actally speaking to these families but he answered your aunts prayer about only having one child…right.

Yes but isn;t NFP still preventing pregnancy? I thought preventing pregnancy was supposed to be a bad thing? Personally I think a couple should have their choice in what they want to use artifical contraception, NFP or heck even abstinence. Though trust me long term abstinence is really not good for a marriage. Its easy to not realize how important the bonding aspect of sex in a marriage is until you don;t have it anymore And NFP doesn;t work for everyone.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I don’t think Onan’s sin was spilling his seed, but in having sex with his brother’s wife KNOWING that she believed they were trying to make a baby, and then pulling out anyway. He lied to his brother’s wife and basically violated her.

 

[copperblade]

For a grave reason it is permissible.

Just so you can avoid children for selfish reasons? It is wrong.

What if the reason is just that neither of you feel driven to have sex? I think there’s an obligation to have children, but if you already have children… is there an obligation to continue having children?

 

[mark_a]

I don’t think Onan’s sin was spilling his seed, but in having sex with his brother’s wife KNOWING that she believed they were trying to make a baby, and then pulling out anyway. He lied to his brother’s wife and basically violated her.

Depending on the version one reads, Onan may have done this more than once.

If one reads the whole chapter, Onan’s sin seams pretty minor.

 

[Calliso]

I don’t think Onan’s sin was spilling his seed, but in having sex with his brother’s wife KNOWING that she believed they were trying to make a baby, and then pulling out anyway. He lied to his brother’s wife and basically violated her.

Yep and even if the sin was spilling his seed. How does spilling ones seed equal that all forms of contraception are wrong? Also we donlt require people today to marry their brother in law and have his kids if a womans husband dies or whatever.

 

[PJM]

=ScapularDude;7300108]The Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception (pill, condom, IUD, etc) is a mortal sin.

How are you able to accept condom use, etc? Do you not see it as the seed that led to a bad tree (sexual revolution, huge pornography industry, etc)???

I can not comprehend how Protestants have such varied views on artificial contraception. This might be because I have for most of my Christian life been a Catholic.

EXCUSE ME dear friend; But catholics ARE AS GUILTY in this regard as everyone else! More so because the CC has been Clear, Firm and articulate on the Grevious Sin! Shame on us!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[benedictus2]

God gave us a brain to use though. I donlt see how a family going ok we can;t or we can BARELY feed the family we have now we probably should not have any more kids until our situation gets better is the same as a family just going oh kids are just expenses!

I am not saying that one should just merrily have dozens of kids.

The situation you have outlined above can classify as grave matter so the couple should use NFP.

The fact of the matter is kids are money sinks it is not free to raise them. Even if you donlt buy any of the latest toys and clothes and what not.

That is true and if after a lot of prayer and discernment, you really feel that it is an uphill struggle financially, NFP is there.

What I have found though is that people who use artificial contraception are rarely in this position. What they want is a comfortable life. And there is nothing wrong with that if the comfortable life is not had in disobedience of God.

People talk about blessings…but ever hear of the saying too much of a good thing?

The saying applies to how we use and abuse things. In actual fact, this saying is applicable to sex. One can think sex so good that one can be addicted to it.

That is why NFP is good. It teaches couples self-control. I have read testimonies of people who have shared how abstinence has actually strengthened their bond because they have found ways (other than sex) to affirm and love each other.

You can call the abstinence times a time of mortification - a dying to self.

Kids can be a good thing…too many though can cause a lot of trouble.

Yes they do. But I think most of this has to do with this kind of newfangled parenting that pop-psychology has foisted on us.

How many Catholic parents teach their kids the faith. How many Catholic families set aside a time to really learn the faith so that their children will grow in love and faith of our Lord.

And not just finicially. Emotionally and mentally as well.

Tell me about it. Our home was not idyllic bliss. Far from it. But the one thing that was constant was that in spite of this chaos and pain, God is there with us in that pain and that hardship is meant to be the path of our salvation.

Some people have the money and emotional and mental capacity to handle lots of kids.

Please, you misunderstand me. I am not saying “have lots of kids!”. I am saying there are ways that are not contrary to God’s will if you want to space out the coming of children because of some grave reason. The problem is, people don’t like that way (NFP) because it entails sacrifice.

Some people may have plenty of money and have more then enough finicial resources to handle however many kids they could end up having…but emotionally and mentally they might not be able to handle it.

I think that if one is truly given over to God, the grace to handle them will be given. It will most likely be a day to day grace, just enough for you to see the day through. But God’s grace is like that. The grace for the present moment. The daily bread.

The point is everyone is different and for a lot of people a lot of kids would not be a blessing it would just be a curse.

The bad things that happen to us, they too are blessings. Were I writing this 30 years ago, at the height of the turmoil in our family, I probably would agree with you. But as I have grown, I now realize that everything is a blessing. Everything is grace.

But it is only with the eyes of faith, and with a grateful heart that we will see this.

Maybe your aunt did get her prayer answered by God. Personally I see no proof of it. I am not saying that God has nothing to do with anything. But I have a hard time believing that he micromanages our lives to that point.

I would suggest you meditate on Psalm 139

Besides am I suppose to believe that he routinely tells starving families “no” or sorry not right now obviously not in a literally way like he is actally speaking to these families but he answered your aunts prayer about only having one child…right.

No, I think the starving people is there for our salvation. The dispossessed, marginalized, abused are there that we may learn how to be Christ to others. That we may learn, to reach out.

Those with the wealth are there to reach out to the poor that the poor may see the munificence of God. The poor are there so that we may be put through the apprenticeship of compassion and thus be Transformed into the image of Christ.

Yes but isn;t NFP still preventing pregnancy? I thought preventing pregnancy was supposed to be a bad thing?

Then you’ve been misunderstanding me all along.

NFP is using God designed means to prevent pregnancy. God created these cycles in women. So in having martial intercourse during these times, it is not us who is stopping the pregnancy, it was God.