Should a preist use the term "birth control"

  • Thread starter Thread starter DVIN_CKS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DVIN_CKS

Guest
I know from experience on this forum that there is a distinction between natural forms of birth control (aka “NFP”) and artificial forms of birth control (aka "the pill, IUD, condoms, patch, diaphram). The folks who teach NFP work hard at distinguishing it from ABC when it is often said by the uninstructed, that NFP is basically the same thing as ABC since the end desire (to avoid a pregnancy) is the same.

I understand the distinction and am an NFP user and am in full communion with what the Church teaches. However, I’m frustrated that more Catholics don’t seem to understand this teaching (and all the complexities).

I don’t feel it helps to have a priest address a crowd by saying that “birth control is wrong”. Shouldn’t the more accurate approach be to say that “artificial birth control is wrong”? I know this may sound like I’m splitting hairs here, but when confusion abounds in the Church like it currently does on this issue, then I think getting the wording just right is vital.

Am I wrong to be so critical of this preist? I tried to charitably explain the difference to the group and priest, but the priest proceeded to use the terms interchangeably…making me look like I didn’t know what I was talking about. Or that the distinction I was trying to make was irrelevant.

I get frustrated at priests who are trying to teach the correct thing, but use the wrong vocabulary to do it. 😦

I think the CCC is very clear that as faithful Catholics we have the responsibility to space our children according to our individual states in life. Not all are called to have big families. As long as we are using natural methods to space our children and for the right reasons (not selfish ones), then we are in compliance with the teachings of the Church. It’s when we use artificial methods to space our children that we run into problems.

Have I been mislead to say that the church teaches birth control? I say this in the context that it teaches NATURAL birth control is acceptable.
 
Can’t our priests do anything correctly here? :rolleyes: No wonder we have a priest shortage, they certainly aren’t put up on a pedestal at these forums!
 
I would strongly encourage you to give Father a break on this one, even thank him for being one of the few priests who would dare speak publicly about the sinful nature of “birth control”. I’ll bet you knew all along, Father wasn’t directing his comments toward you, or any couple who practices NFP. I just can’t see how even the most uninformed could concur that Father was referring to anything but ABC.
 
cargopilot said:
I would strongly encourage you to give Father a break on this one, even thank him for being one of the few priests who would dare speak publicly about the sinful nature of “birth control”. I’ll bet you knew all along, Father wasn’t directing his comments toward you, or any couple who practices NFP. I just can’t see how even the most uninformed could concur that Father was referring to anything but ABC.
Click to expand...
except that there are overly traditional catholics who consider even NFP to be sinful.
 
I agree with other posters & think that possibly calling or e-mailing him to thank him for trying to touch on this teaching is a good idea. Or maybe the next time you see him you could mention it. He might not have used the exact terms you were hoping for, but he was trying to give the Church’s message that is rarely heard. In today’s world, & looking at most of today’s Catholics, it’s a courageous stance to take. I can’t tell you the last time I have heard most of our diocesan priests mention sin, contraception or abortion. I understand their fears, & I pray for them & thank them when they do take a stand.

Also, most people don’t remember or understand the teachings at all. I wouldn’t call NFP natural birth control. It’s not supposed to be used as birth control, & you don’t want to confuse people into thinking that the main thing that is wrong with contraceptives is that they are artificial.
 
mmm1 said:
I wouldn’t call NFP natural birth control. It’s not supposed to be used as birth control,
Click to expand...
What’s NFP supposed to be used for then if not for the spacing of children?

Birth control isn’t a dirty word. Only when you attach the word “artificial” to it does it take on an immoral meaning. Many Catholics don’t understand this. They think in absolutes…either something is allowed or it isn’t. If I say “birth control” is evil, some may assume that ALL forms of birth control (including NFP) is evil (as a previous poster pointed out). This is not what the CCC teaches. Many Catholics don’t take the time to distinguish the difference between NFP and ABC and why they are not the same thing. Many don’t read the Catechism or any other articles written on the topic. They don’t want this teaching to interfere with their current lifestyle or to have to be inconvenienced in anyway in order to follow the Church’s teaching on ABC.

I DID thank the priest and DO applaud him for speaking out. I agree that it is rare to find priests who have the courage to speak the truth. I’m only saying that in times of such confusion on this topic everyone – layity and priests – need to be careful what terms they are using and how their message is getting across. We don’t need to confuse folks more than they already are.

In our secular culture the term “birth control” is equated with "the pill, the diaphram, the condom, the patch, the IUD — all artificial forms. So yes, I was well aware of what the priest meant when he used the term “birth control”…he was obviously meaning all artifical forms of it and NOT NFP (he’s no Traditionalist). My point is that if Catholics are to ever be properly educated or recatechized in this teaching they need to learn the nuances of it. They need to know that the church doesn’t expect every couple to have 12 kids and that a means for spacing children exists that is very accurate, natural and isn’t what our grandmothers called “the rythm method”.

Many Catholics quickly dismiss NFP because they don’t think it works. Many Catholics dismiss it because they don’t see any difference in it (morally speaking) than using the pill or any other artificial means. They don’t understand the teaching!!! Getting the basic terms sorted out would seem like a pretty good place to start wouldn’t you think?
 
The term your priest should use is “contraception” not “birth control” and not “artificial birth control”.

Birth control, as you have pointed out, is not against church teaching, making it an imprecise term.

The “artificialness” of contraception is not what makes it wrong, therefore artificial birth control is also an imprecise term.
 
1ke said:
The term your priest should use is “contraception” not “birth control” and not “artificial birth control”.
Click to expand...
THANKS!! 👍 You’re right 1ke, the term “contraception” is much more exact. I’ll keep that in mind next time I’m in a discussion about the teachings of the Church on this topic.
 
I’d give your priest a break.😉 I’m sure he meant no harm but I do see your point. People will see what he said like they want anyways.
 
DVIN_CKS said:
I know from experience on this forum that there is a distinction between natural forms of birth control (aka “NFP”) and artificial forms of birth control (aka "the pill, IUD, condoms, patch, diaphram). The folks who teach NFP work hard at distinguishing it from ABC when it is often said by the uninstructed, that NFP is basically the same thing as ABC since the end desire (to avoid a pregnancy) is the same.

I understand the distinction and am an NFP user and am in full communion with what the Church teaches. However, I’m frustrated that more Catholics don’t seem to understand this teaching (and all the complexities).

I don’t feel it helps to have a priest address a crowd by saying that “birth control is wrong”. Shouldn’t the more accurate approach be to say that “artificial birth control is wrong”? I know this may sound like I’m splitting hairs here, but when confusion abounds in the Church like it currently does on this issue, then I think getting the wording just right is vital.

Am I wrong to be so critical of this preist? I tried to charitably explain the difference to the group and priest, but the priest proceeded to use the terms interchangeably…making me look like I didn’t know what I was talking about. Or that the distinction I was trying to make was irrelevant.

I get frustrated at priests who are trying to teach the correct thing, but use the wrong vocabulary to do it. 😦

I think the CCC is very clear that as faithful Catholics we have the responsibility to space our children according to our individual states in life. Not all are called to have big families. As long as we are using natural methods to space our children and for the right reasons (not selfish ones), then we are in compliance with the teachings of the Church. It’s when we use artificial methods to space our children that we run into problems.

Have I been mislead to say that the church teaches birth control? I say this in the context that it teaches NATURAL birth control is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Personally I think that “birth control” is misleading in it’s application either way. Even NFP, when used in expression with the teaching of the Church, should be seen that way (as family planning). The workd “conrtol” in the context of NFP bothers me because one of the biggenst problems with contraception is the attitude of “control” People do not seem to want to allow God to be in control, and want to be in control themselves, and too often, this seems to manifest itself as not being open to the opportunity of life.

On the other side, I think “birth control” is a bad word to use because the issue is better defined by the word “contraception”. It is going against conception that the church teaches against. I can see how both words can be used interchangeably, but I think contraception describes it better. Abortion, technically, is a form of birth control too, but it is not usually applied that way. Even planned parenthood teaches that they don’t use or recommend abortion as a means of birth control, but it clearly is.
 
I agree to cut the priest the slack. The term ‘birth control’ is such a misnomer anyway. It doesn’t mean what it says it means. I really try to avoid using the term at all except in cases like this to clarify it. The term was originally coined by Margaret Sanger’s predecessors and then made popular by her periodical, The Birth Control Review. Sanger’s purpose was to appeal to the lower educated into not procreating. She worked very hard to use terms that were easy to remember and hid her deeper agenda towards abortion.

I use the opportunity of the term to bring up its history. But every time it comes up is not always the best time to address it. The term is secular in nature and has only been a part of the vernacular for less that 100 years. Sanger’s two main catch-phrases were, “To develop a breed of thoroughbreds,” and, “More from the fit, less from the unfit.” That was how Sanger appealed to the higher educated. They were the so-called “fit.”

By secular definition NFP is “birth control.” But since the definition of “birth control” is so bad, celibacy is also defined as “birth control.” Sanger was actually irritated at religious celibates because she felt their higher education made them good candidates for helping create thoroughbreds. She felt that they should stop practicing, “birth control” through celibacy. Her lack of logic always make me laugh.

In short, oops too late, I use the term contraception to describe “artificial birth control.” Then it is easier show how the withdrawal method is contraception since it is often erroneously lumped in with natural methods. There is nothing natural about withdrawal. I use the term periodic abstinence to describe NFP. I avoid the term birth control when I can because it really makes no sense logically. It will take a lot to get people thinking logically about this subject. But, until then I support anyone who speaks the Truth on this matter, even when they use a confusing vocabulary.
 
Anybody who has read my posts, I’m pretty insistent on clarity and semantics as they are necessary for good communication. While taking a slightly different slant using some humor and some seriousness along the same lines of as the OP (with no intent to denigrate the seriousness of the issues), I have the following suggestions:

The use of pharmacueticals to regulate ovulations or conception or implantation: Pregnancy inhibitors.

The use of IUD’s and condoms: Physical barriers to unification

The use of abortion or other medical procedures to prevent the birth of a fetus: Pre-birth executions

NFP and other methods to discourage conception: Scheduled cuddle and kiss your spouse days. I say this because in our marriage sponsor couple discussion on this subject, we don’t talk about it from the negative but the positive. We talk about how it is a time for the couple to work on preparing for the post-honeymoon period (that we pray lasts decades for them 🙂 ) that they develop and practice other ways to show and express their love for each other.
 
Should a priest use the term “birth control”?
No, because quoting the late Archbishop Sheen, “it is neither about birth nor control”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top