Speaking out against contraceptives

[otjm]

How do you speak out against contraception other than just saying that it is a mortal sin. Most people (catholics) who I speak to on this subject are very ambivalent about it.

Specifically, I would like to know what blessings (other than children ) a married couple would have if they do not use contraceptives in their marriage and what disadvantages they would have to suffer in their marriage if they do use contraceptives.

Get Janet Smith’s recording “Contraception - Why Not?” from One More Soul. It is fantastic, and should get you focused on the why not.

 

[wanner47]

Get Janet Smith’s recording “Contraception - Why Not?” from One More Soul. It is fantastic, and should get you focused on the why not.

You can also read it here.

 

[Biggie]

This makes no sense to me. The difference between NFP and other forms of contraception is what I find to be semantic. When a couple tracks temperatures and mucous production, and does whatever else is part of modern NFP, and boasts a 95%+ confidence level that they can have sex without pregnancy, how is that different from taking other steps to have sex without getting pregnant? How can it be “accepting” of a child when so much effort is put into avoiding having one?

If the “confidence level” in NFP is on a par with prophylactics, why is there so much dissaffection for it?

To the contrary, there is an element left to faith of what ever percent, which translates into a willingness to accept pregnancy as God’s will.

 

[Burdock]

Most catholics do use birth control i cannot see whats wrong with using condoms. i dont want lots of replies saying they could break i realise that but it happens rarely. its unrealistic to be open to the possibility of a baby everytime you have sex.

 

[wanner47]

Most catholics do use birth control

So? Truth is not determined by majority vote.

Moreover, I’ll bet if you polled the “Catholics” who say they use birth control, you’d find that they seldom attend Mass and approve of gay marriage. In my experience, most “Catholics” who claim they use birth control are CINOs - Catholic in Name Only. They are people who were baptized and/or raised Catholic but do not practice or live their faith.

I’d love to see a poll about birth control that differentiates between Catholics who live their faith and Catholics who don’t. I’d bet the numbers would be a lot different.

i cannot see whats wrong with using condoms. i dont want lots of replies saying they could break i realise that but it happens rarely.

It’s not the fact that they can break that’s the problem. The problem is that they frustrate the unitive end of the marital act.

its unrealistic to be open to the possibility of a baby everytime you have sex.

Why? That’s how our bodies are designed.

 

[Calliso]

So? Truth is not determined by majority vote.

Moreover, I’ll bet if you polled the “Catholics” who say they use birth control, you’d find that they seldom attend Mass and approve of gay marriage. In my experience, most “Catholics” who claim they use birth control are CINOs - Catholic in Name Only. They are people who were baptized and/or raised Catholic but do not practice or live their faith.

I’d love to see a poll about birth control that differentiates between Catholics who live their faith and Catholics who don’t. I’d bet the numbers would be a lot different.

It’s not the fact that they can break that’s the problem. The problem is that they frustrate the unitive end of the marital act.

Why? That’s how our bodies are designed.

Actually I wouldn;t say we have a possiblity every time we have sex. The human body is not fertile 24/7.

 

[otjm]

Actually I wouldn;t say we have a possiblity every time we have sex. The human body is not fertile 24/7.

Whether the body is fertile 24/7 or not misses the point. One is either open to the possiblity of creating a new life or one isn’t.

NFP users can be either open to creating life in the sexual act, or they can be not open to creating life. It goes to intent overall, not the specific intent at that exact moment.

Those who use some form of ABC are clearly not open to creating life as they are using means to frustrate that creation. NFP users are not frustrating the natural end of sexual congress; they are not using a means of preventing the sexual act from being fruitful. However, “not doing something to frustrate the end of the natural act” is not the sum total of thei ssue.

 

[M0nkey]

Ok, I have a question. I was talking to a friend about this once and he said he read a report that contraceptives cause abortions. I said that yes, some birth control pills do. He then proceeded to tell me that ALL contraceptives (spermicide, condoms, birth control pills, etc.) cause abortions. I told him I had never heard of a condom causing an abortion and he said he read somewhere in Church teaching that contraceptives do indeed cause abortions and that I should do my research. So here I am! Is this really true? I can’t imagine that an official Church document would say something like this, as it doesn’t even seem physically possible. If someone could help me out I would sure appreciate it!

 

[otjm]

Ok, I have a question. I was talking to a friend about this once and he said he read a report that contraceptives cause abortions. I said that yes, some birth control pills do. He then proceeded to tell me that ALL contraceptives (spermicide, condoms, birth control pills, etc.) cause abortions. I told him I had never heard of a condom causing an abortion and he said he read somewhere in Church teaching that contraceptives do indeed cause abortions and that I should do my research. So here I am! Is this really true? I can’t imagine that an official Church document would say something like this, as it doesn’t even seem physically possible. If someone could help me out I would sure appreciate it!

the short answer would be to tell your friend to show you the statement. It doesn’t exist. They may have misread it, or misunderstood it, but condoms don’t cause abortions directly. The use of a condom which is ineffective could lead to a pregnancy, which could lead to an abortion, but the condom did not cause (as in, induce) the abortion.

 

[newbetx]

Most catholics do use birth control i cannot see whats wrong with using condoms. i dont want lots of replies saying they could break i realise that but it happens rarely. its unrealistic to be open to the possibility of a baby everytime you have sex.

’

Why is it impossible? There is a big difference in being “open” and trying to have a baby. I think you are missing a big piece of the picture. It’s impossible to communicate in a single post so I’ll try to point you to a place you can get the answer.

OK, so a majority of American Catholics use ABC. And guess what? Their divorce rate is on par with the general population. About 50%.

Those using NFP to avoid conception have a divorce rate of about 4% as I recall. Many aren’t Catholic by the way.

Why is that? Well most point out quickly that these couples are PROBABLY more religious than those using ABC… Maybe. But when the stats come out about who goes to Mass weekly, pray together and such, the divorce rate is a whopping 0.09 percent. Yep, the very religious will be staying together. Or is it something other than religion?

What do these couples know that the others seem to be missing? I’ll tell you. It’s the true value of sex.

One, they have to communicate about their financial and emotional status. They have to understand where they are as a couple. They have to be willing to sacrafice themselves for the act. It’s not an act of sex anymore. It’s an act of unrestricted love. They can talk about technique all they want, but nothing beats a true act of love.

When a couple uses ABC, sex loses its value because its available all the time. Humans are prone to being lazy (easier to take a pill or put on a condom than to track a fertility cycle.) And now we are used to getting immediate gratification. Wait 6 days to have sex? To hear some folks tell it, they’d “explode” in that amount of time.

Maybe moving your relationship to a higher level isn’t for you. Some don’t “buy it.” Many people are just fine where they are. Theology of the Body explains a whole different perspective about why we are what we are and what it is that we can become. If you are not religious, it may not make much sense but it’s worth a read, anyway to understand where us “anti-contraception bigots” are coming from. But really, one is free to accept it or reject it. What do you have to loose?

I’ve done both NFP and ABC. With ABC our marriage almost died. I wish I had understood TOB ten years ago. It would have saved me a ton of grief.

Peace to you.

 

[pilgrim83]

I think it is also important to note that NFP cannot be used just as a “Catholic contraceptive” according to Church teaching. The couple is supposed to have “grave reason” when they avoid becoming pregnant. The teaching is that marriage brings with it the blessing and responsibility of children, should God choose to bless the couple with them. And that is the big point - HE is the Author of life, and it is for Him to give children as He wills. So, the sexual act, as mentioned before, should be unitive and procreative, according to Church teaching. Whether you agree with this is another point.

Whether one agrees doesn’t make it right or true or good or bad. It’s the way it is, and the Church has always taught it. I also recommend Janet Smith’s “Contraception: Why Not” CD. It is available for free at omsoul.com.

My hope is that any who read this will better educate themselves on the Church teaching regarding contraception. Read the Catechism, Humanae Vitae and Church Fathers.

I think it is also interesting to note that ALL Christian religions condemned contraception up until the 1930’s.

 

[Burdock]

All christian denominations disapproved of any birth control someone mentioed in an earlier post until the 1930s thank goodness they came to their senses. its time the catholic church did.

 

[wanner47]

All christian denominations disapproved of any birth control someone mentioed in an earlier post until the 1930s thank goodness they came to their senses. its time the catholic church did.

So your opinion is that Truth can change?

Here is my question: if contraception was evil in 1920, but perfectly moral in 1930, did God change or did our opinions change? And if it’s the latter, who are we to go against God? If it’s the former, how do we know?

 

[Tinajo]

This makes no sense to me. The difference between NFP and other forms of contraception is what I find to be semantic. When a couple tracks temperatures and mucous production, and does whatever else is part of modern NFP, and boasts a 95%+ confidence level that they can have sex without pregnancy, how is that different from taking other steps to have sex without getting pregnant? How can it be “accepting” of a child when so much effort is put into avoiding having one?

I posted the below on the other thread that’s going at the moment about contraception - I think this is quite a good way of approaching it (not that I’ve had the opportunity to talk to my friends about it yet) and I hope it addresses what TMC wrote above in some way:

The key idea I’ve gleaned from various bits of reading is that, viewed objectively, having sex does two things: allows a baby to come into being, and bonds the couple (i.e. “babies and bonding” as I’ve seen it written) and since God set things up to be that way (you could just say ‘since that’s how it is’), therefore it’s wrong for a couple to actively do anything to remove one of those elements - hence any contraceptive practice is wrong (removing the possibility of babies), and using the other for sexual relief alone is also wrong (removing the possibility of true bonding).

I tend to find that using this simple approach seems to address most issues raised - can someone tell me if I’ve missed something out?

When I first realised that the Church is very clear that all forms of contraception are wrong, the first thing that struck me was that I’d grown up assuming I (and my husband) would be mostly in control of when we had children. Since my mother was very fertile and never had difficulty getting pregnant, I was terrified that I would be pregnant within a month of getting married. So when I looked into NFP and realised that, properly applied, the methods are at least as reliable as commercial contraceptives (hormonal and barrier) I was quite relieved - I thought I could follow Church teaching and still have control over when to have children.

More recently, however, I’ve come to realise that’s not really what it’s about either - that if we’re in a situation where we’d be able to welcome a child into the world then we should be open to doing just that because otherwise we’re really being selfish. So my original ‘life plan’ (developed in my teens! ) of having my first child 2-3 years after getting married, and probably only having 3 at most… has now developed into stopping using NFP to avoid as soon as we can, and then just seeing how it goes. Maybe I’ll have 2 or 3 kids, maybe 6 or more, maybe none at all (I pray not, but am open to the possibility) - the important thing is that I’m open to God’s will in the matter, and while that’s hard, I’m really working on it.

 

[Burdock]

contraception is not evil and never has been this is becoming ridiculous.

 

[st_lucy]

contraception is not evil and never has been this is becoming ridiculous.

So answer the question what made it not evil in 1930? We know that bible says it is evil, and all Christian churches said it was evil, what in the world changed to make it not evil?

 

[wanner47]

contraception is not evil and never has been this is becoming ridiculous.

How do you know that contraception is not evil, and why should I accept your opinion over that of the Catholic Church’s?

 

[M0nkey]

I ran into this article on contraception. I hope it opens some eyes that see and ears that hear:

The Anniversary of Humanae Vitae
By Joseph Bottum
Friday, July 25, 2008, 6:15 AM

You know the story. Forty years ago on July 25, 1968 a tired, grumpy, and celibate old man in Rome issued an encyclical called Humanae Vitae, solemnly declaring that birth control is bad, and half the world responded with a shrug.

The other half responded with a sneer. Its hard to imagine a worse moment for Pope Paul VI to denounce contraception. The Second Vatican Council had finished its great shake-up of Catholicism only three years before, and even the most serious Catholics were still picking themselves up off the ground and trying to figure out what had happened. As for non-Catholics, well, in the summer of 1968, across the civilized world, aroused young people were declaring their freedom from all the senseless old restrictions and chastities. Even if Paul VI was right, there was no one ready to listen to him.

But, of course, the pope wasn’t right. We all know that. Humanae Vitae was treated as a joke because it was a joke, wasnt it? Vatican roulette, rhythm-method babies: The official Catholic view of sex was a gift to stand-up comedians around the world. A gift to politicians and public figures, for that matter. Want an easy stick with which to whack around, say, the Catholic Churchs opposition to abortion? Point out that those nutty Catholics are against birth control, too.

Whenever public Catholics need a quick way to ingratiate themselves with non-Catholics, they announce their dissent on the Churchs teaching about birth control. And why not? It costs nothing, and it lets them pose themselves as rebels and independent thinkers, under no ones ecclesial thumb.

It’s hard to remember all the joys we were told that contraception would bring, back in the day. For generations, from Victoria Woodhull all the way down to Margaret Sanger, birth-control activists had insisted that abortion would cease if we allowed access to contraception. In the 1965 decision Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court placed decisions about birth control at the center of the marriage bond. The smutty theaters, the back-room racks of pornography, the venereal diseases, the crushing down of young women into a life of timidity, the out-of-wedlock births, the masturbatory shame all the sicknesses of a repressed culture would be swept away in the free love that contraception allows.

Free love forty years on, the phrase has a marvelously musty sound to it, like the fragile violets of a Victorian spinsters girlhood, pressed in the fading pages of her remembrance book. Things didnt work out quite the way we were promised. In fact, the results were pretty much what the pope had said they would be. A funny thing happened on the way to the orgy, and as Mary Eberstadt notes in her superb essay in the current issue of First Things if there’s a joke buried in Humanae Vitae, the joke is on us.

Simply as a piece of argumentative prose, the 1968 encyclical was badly constructed. It lacked the romantic elements that Pope John Paul II would later put in his far more persuasive Theology of the Body, and it appealed to the authority of Christian tradition at a moment in which hardly anyone was willing to listen to authority. Still, along the way, Paul VI issued four general prophecies in Humanae Vitae, and on about all four of them, he seems to have been right.

He said, for instance, that universal acceptance of contraception would have the social consequence of creating men who had lost all respect for women. No longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, men will come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion. In any great social movement, what’s cause and what’s effect is always hard to figure out, but, at the very least, all you have to do is sign on to the Internet to see that this much is true: Widespread access to birth control certainly didn’t bring us the end of pornography and the objectification of womens bodies.

Paul VI predicted, as well, that the institution of marriage would have trouble surviving the conjugal infidelity that contraception makes easy. Far from strengthening marriage as the Supreme Court seems to have imagined, the advent of birth control left marriage in tatters, as the sexual revolution roared through town. If many more people use contraception today than they used to and do so certainly with less shame then why have divorce, abortion, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal disease done nothing but increase since 1968?

Humanae Vitae added that *the general acceptance of contraception would put a dangerous weapon in the hands of those public authorities *who take no heed of moral exigencies. And, from forced abortions in China to involuntary sterilizations in Peru, non-democratic governments have seen that there aren’t many steps between allowing people to limit birth and forcing them to.

Finally, the pope warned that contraception would lead people to picture their bodies as somehow possessions, rather than as their actual being. If a woman can paint her house, then why shouldnt she get her nose bobbed and her breasts blown up with silicon to the size of beachballs? Its what men seem to like, after all, and the body is just a thing, isnt it? Well, no, the body isn’t just a thing. The universal acceptance of contraception changed not just our behavior but the way that we think. It created a chasm between sex and procreation, and into that chasm fell social good after social good. You can’t say Paul VI didn’t warn us.

Joseph Bottum is editor of First Things. References “The Vindication of Humanae Vitae” by Mary Eberstadt (First Things, August/September 2008) Posted in Uncategorized

 

[newbetx]

contraception is not evil and never has been this is becoming ridiculous.

Have you read the suggested material yet?

 

[newbetx]

i dont think any amount of studying will alter my beliefs on birth control.

contraception is not evil and never has been this is becoming ridiculous.

So, did you pick up any of that suggested reading yet? Or is this still a case of “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!”?