Struggle accepting Church’s teaching on Contraception, Homosexuality, and Priest Chastity

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrsK0224
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NFP and contraception are both methods of spacing/avoiding children. They are not the same thing. NFP is not contraception.

NFP is information.

A couple can abstain or engage in intercourse depending on their desired outcome. Abstaining is not contrary to Church teaching.
 
No that is not correct.

Contraception is intrinsically disordered. All contraception. See the Catechism, sixth commandment for definition of contraception or Humanae Vitae.

NFP is not contraception.

NFP and contraception are both forms of birth control. One moral and one immoral.
 
Your issue is in the word “contraception.” I don’t really want to keep arguing semantics, so let me rephrase from my original post:

I struggle to see the theological basis for the acceptance of NFP and the rejection of other forms of birth control.

No form of birth control, either natural or artificial, is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. Using any form of natural or artificial birth control may still result in a pregnancy, which I believe Catholic couples should remain open to. Certainly, short of complete removal of your organs, there is no form of birth control (natural or artificial) that can prevent God from intervening in your life and bringing a new child to the world if it is His will.

From what I understand, the difference that informs the Church’s opposition is the belief that artificial birth control may lead to a reduction of the respect that spouses hold for each other. Not that it necessarily will, but that it might.
 
MrsK0224 said:
From what I understand, the difference that informs the Church’s opposition is the belief that artificial birth control may lead to a reduction of the respect that spouses hold for each other. Not that it necessarily will , but that it might .
Click to expand...
The Church opposes contraception because it disorders the marital act. Observing signs of fertility does nothing to disorder the act.

Those who wax poetic about respect for each other are usually trying to get you to buy their book 🙂
 
There is a fundamental difference between contraception and natural methods of “family planning”.

For the first, there is a manipulation. Either a suppression of natural fertility or implantation of an embryo. Or either you manipulate the sexual act to make it sterile in using a barrier or a modification of the act (coitus interruptus : the act does not conclude naturally).

For NFP, you just observed the signs of natural fertility of a woman in order to use (or not) this information to have more chances of differ or further a pregnancy. The act is still perfectly natural, and the natural fertility of the couple is still preserved. There is nothing artificial, nothing new as doctrinal statement (I mean before the knwoledge of fertility was so much developped).

The way children can be spaced with NFP is continence. It is not a device, not a technic. Continence is a virtue. And periodically a couple who think he has justified and good reasons can practiced it periodically. When they do it, they partially made the same thing as celibate people.
Continence is not a sin. And it can be practiced in a marriage for some time, just as Saint Paul state in the Bible.

I will add also, even if it is perhaps less true in secular world today with the development of highly effective of NFP used by people who have no objection of abortion.
When you use NFP, the possibilty of children is really still present. In almost each act (if you chart badly, for eg) and as a consequence in the couple mind. Or at least in the woman’s conscience. You cannot just made your life without having the possibilty of children excluded. You accept that, and as a consequence are somewhat prepared to welcome them.
And when you use nfp because you want children, you often learn that their welcoming is not a guarantee. it is up to God. You have to become humble, even if it is difficult, and accept that is plan is greater than yours.

With NFP, a talk about the consequence of sex can be before each sexual act. No dissociation as like in contraception.
 
Last edited:
Got it. I don’t think there’s anything more that can be said on this that hasn’t already been said.

I reject the claim that NFP is not a technique/method. It’s even defined as a method by USCCB. I don’t think there are many people that just casually collect their basal body temps without the specific purpose of using that information in their family planning. NFP is not just some information. It is a practice requiring a thermometer, daily attention, charting, and focus.

Artificial birth control does not render conception impossible. I believe that pretty much everyone who uses birth control (whether NFP or artificial) is generally aware that pregnancy is still possible if there has been sexual activity. No birth control is 100%.
 
MrsK0224 said:
I don’t think there are many people that just casually collect their basal body temps without the specific purpose of using that information in their family planning.
Click to expand...
You might be wrong.
You have perhaps this impression because you are surrounded by the secular world/people and this knowledge is very diffused.
But there are women who chart even without the intention to use their information for family planning. Myself included. I start since 19 years old, for years. To know me better,to know where I am on my fertility, to anticipate periods. It can a routine thing. Yes, it was not done perfectly, because there was no hard goal.
MrsK0224 said:
Artificial birth control does not render conception impossible.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but yes, it is the goal of contraception. Contraception can be failed of course, but it is not its goal, it is a failure. And failure as seen as a bad think by the doctors, all society and the couple.
MrsK0224 said:
. I believe that pretty much everyone who uses birth control (whether NFP or artificial) is generally aware that pregnancy is still possible if there has been sexual activity.
Click to expand...
They more or less known it, but still execpt hat it work 100% (with the exception of someone pressure for a partner to not have children for eg…). They don’t think often or daily that it can failed and don’t plan their life on the possible failure.
If there is pregnancy, abortion is an option in most cases, for most couples. rates just depend on the countries, and people situation, and minds.

There is nothing open to life or oriented toward procreation in contraception. To said the other is untrue.
 
Last edited:
You can’t know if contraception failure is seen as a bad thing for the couple. There are plenty of cases where the couple is excited, even if it was a surprise. Just because a couple was using contraception does not mean they are necessarily going to choose abortion - those are separate issues.

Conversely, it is vastly unfair to imply that NFP is never used with the goal of preventing pregnancy. There are plenty of cases where a couple is (at least temporarily) disappointed at the news of a pregnancy when they were actively trying to prevent one using NFP.
 
MrsK0224 said:
You can’t know if contraception failure is seen as a bad thing for the couple. There are plenty of cases where the couple is excited, even if it was a surprise. Just because a couple was using contraception does not mean they are necessarily going to choose abortion - those are separate issues.
Click to expand...
Of course, some couple are delighted with the news.
But the statistics tend to the same. The more contraception is used in a society, the less “unplanned” pregnancies are tolerated by the general society. And the more, the rates of abortions are high in that society in case of contraception failure.Because people does not put themselves in a position to welcome a baby for many reasons.
Yes abortion is a separate issue of contraception, and of different gravity morally, but laws on abortion/and abortion request followed in almost societies the diffusion of contraception.
MrsK0224 said:
it is vastly unfair to imply that NFP is never used with the goal of preventing pregnancy. There are plenty of cases where a couple is (at least temporarily) disappointed at the news of a pregnancy
Click to expand...
yes, nfp can be used with this goal, but nobody here deny it, (so I don’t understand why you said it again).
Disappointment can be the case, at first, but a non-contracepting couple, at least religious one, accept the child. A couple using contraception is less prepared psychologically to this possibity, and tend to have more struggle.
Temporary disapointment is not the real problem. Acceptance of offspring is.
 
Last edited:
MrsK0224 said:
I struggle to see the theological basis for the acceptance of NFP and the rejection of other forms of birth control .
Click to expand...
I put it as the only moral way to not have a baby is not having sex.

I also see that NFP uses the way God has designed the body while artificial birth control breaks a system that is working as designed.
 
  1. NFP is not a method of contraception. It’s a method of not having sex or of having sex. Not having sex does not constitute artificial contraception. Information obtained by the use of NFP can be used to enhance the chances of pregnancy or to reduce the chance of pregnancy. But just not having sex is not contraception.
  2. Every person is called to a life of chastity. Why would homosexuals get a pass on this?
  3. Priests, like everyone else, are called to a life of chastity. They may also be called to celibacy, but that is a discipline, ot a doctrine. If you wish to advocate for a married priesthood, fine.
  4. Of course the pope can make a mistake. But he is protected from teaching error in matters of faith or morals when speaking ex cathedra.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your response.

I mistyped - I meant “celibacy”, not “chastity.” I corrected myself in an earlier comment, but just went back and edited the original post to reflect my error. Sorry for the confusion.
 
MrsK0224 said:
The Church tells us that the primary purpose of marriage is offspring
Click to expand...
Yes, it was said that the “primary end” of marriage is the procreation/education of offspring (although the ranking of “ends” is no longer part of Church teaching). In other words, marriage is “primarily ordered” to procreation.

Whether or not a couple has children makes no difference: marriage in general and their marriage in particular has that ordination and their consent cannot exclude this “end.” Actual procreation, indeed, is not something the couple can control at will. What can be controlled, and what is part of marriage, is procreativity (the conjugal act–the act that is, in itself, apt for the generation of offspring). Two men or two women can’t perform this act.

So, what is sometimes called the “bonum prolis” has two aspects: procreation as an end (which may or may not be achieved) and procreativity as a property of marriage itself (and the procreative act is something the couple must be capable of engaging in).

Dan
 
I feel I’ve come to an understanding about these Church teachings that helps me to be at peace with them. I wanted to share my thoughts in case it helps anyone else grappling with this.

The Catholic Church is in the business of shepherding people through this life so that they might reach the gates of Heaven. In doing so, they must set forth guidelines for people to live their lives by. It is necessary for these guidelines to err on the conservative side so that we can be assured that following these guidelines will lead us to Heaven with certainty.

BUT Christ is not bound by these guidelines. He can accept anyone He chooses to into Heaven. It is possible that some of the Church’s guidelines are more strict than necessary in some cases, and in fact they should be more strict. It’s better to err on the conservative side than let the flock wander into sin while leading them to believe they’re safe.

I believe the Church would recommend celibacy as a path to God for all people if they could, but since this is not practical for all people (there’d be no Church left if there were no children), they condone sex for married heterosexual people only. It makes more sense for me to understand that the reason homosexual people cannot marry in the Church is less about excluding them from a sacrament because of their “disorder,” but more about encouraging their opportunity to grow closer to God through celibacy since procreation is not possible.

Do I think it’s possible/reasonable to expect all homosexual people to be willing or able to live a celibate life? No, I don’t. But I do think some can. If even one homosexual person grows in a deeper relationship with God as a result of the Church’s teaching on celibacy, then the rule can’t be made more lenient. (Though it’s a balancing act because being too strict in itself may also turn people away.)

For the issue of birth control, it is possible to use NFP in a way that goes against Church teaching (not actually being “open to life” in your heart and thinking that’s fine because you’re using a natural method). It has to do with intention. I believe there are some couples for which NFP does not work (very irregular cycles or other sorts of constraints).

I also believe it is possible for some people to live a life pleasing to God, be open to life, and also use artificial birth control (example: making a choice every time about whether to use the condom and understanding that no birth control is 100% effective). That being said, if even one couple is led off course by using artificial birth control (which I do agree can and does happen) then the Church cannot begin accepting it. If they did, some sheep would fall through the cracks.

I think it is too easy for some Catholics to judge other people on the basis of how closely they are able to stick to the Church’s guidelines. It is important for us to remember not to become self-righteous. It’s not our job to pass judgment — it’s God’s job alone. Ultimately, God can admit anyone He chooses into Heaven and it doesn’t matter what our opinion is about that. The only thing we are called to do is to love Jesus and one another.
 
Last edited:
Regarding priest celibacy — I do still believe we should allow priests to marry. I think they’d be more effective leaders if they could empathize with lay people a bit more. But this is just more of an administrative problem.

Thank you for setting me straight on the issue of papal infallibility, and for taking the time to try to correct my thinking on the other issues.
 
  1. The Church doesn’t teach that sex is wrong in and of itself, or desire that all people should be celibate. Sex is a good thing when used properly. It was created by God to demonstrate the oneness and the manyness of Himself. It is the vehicle through which children are created and the extension of the spiritual life is possible. Sex between two people of the same sex is wrong because it is a perversion of this design. Their bodies cannot produce new life because they are not designed to be able to do so. A heterosexual couple who is naturally sterile cannot produce children because of a problem with how their bodies work. The sex is still ordered towards procreation, it just is sterile because of a problem with the body itself.
  2. Sex between two people of the same sex is contrary to natural law and can NEVER be condoned. EVER. Not even God can change or dispense from that law. People with same sex attraction were not designed that way. It’s a problem with the way their bodies and minds work. It is intrinsically disordered, but not sinful in and of itself. Such people can offer up their cross and live a chaste life while engaging in platonic friendships.
  3. It is indeed possible to use NFP in a way that contradicts God’s plan. Pope Paul VI said in Humanae Vitae that when deciding whether or not to be open to another child, a couple must consider the welfare of themselves, the children they already have, and any future children, and that they must only use NFP for a grave reason. If you’re using it just because you don’t want to give up your current lifestyle, or because you simply don’t want to have children because you don’t like children or something, that’s a problem.
  4. NFP can be used even by couples who have irregular cycles. It would be extremely rare for there to be a couple who could never use NFP successfully. If they recognized that they have a grave reason not to have a child and NFP has not been working, they can prayerfully decide to abstain from intercourse until the end of their reproductive years.
 
Actually some eastern rites DO have married priests and some priests who have been previously ordained in other churches and have become Catholic have been ordained to the Catholic priesthood even if they were married. My parents’ pastor is a former Anglican priest who is married and has two adult children. His wife is very active with my mom in the Catholic Women’s League.

Permanent deacons can also be married.

The only requirement is that a man must have been married before he becomes a priest (if he is in a rite that allows married priests) or becomes a deacon. If his wife passes away, or if he was not married before his ordination, he may not marry subsequently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top