Struggling with contraception etc teachings.. a lot

[LittleDeb]

Well, who’s to dictate whether the death was “needless” or not?

I struggled with the Church’s stance on contraception a lot before I became Catholic (converted last March!). Since then, I’ve done so much soul-searching it’s redunkulous Here are my top reasons for not using artificial birth control:

1a. ABC allows some younger people to pervert the meaning of sex. It is easier to be lackadaisical about who/when/why a person has sex because of the freedom from pregnancy granted by ABC. ABC negates the formula “sex makes babies” and turns it into “sex is fun”. Sex may very well be fun, but, especially for non-married people (myself included), the idea that sex is fun, while ignoring the “babies” part, may encourage the idea that sex is about using another person for personal pleasure.

1b: ABC allows some happily married & responsible people to pervert the meaning of sex. A couple trying to avoid (TTA) conception by using ABC may become pregnant anyway. They may welcome the surprise baby with open arms, or they may welcome it slightly begrudgingly, or they may abort the child.

1. Hormonal treatments that affect fertility are serious medicines. I took the pill for 7 years and once I stopped, I didn’t have a period for 6 months! The pill sped my natural 40 day cycle to a 28 day cycle. Medicines are also normally prescribed to fix a problem, but my fertility is not a problem that needs fixing. There are side-effects to the pill (higher risk of stroke/heart disease/etc), and there’s also talk of it being an abortifacient. I’ve seen studies that say it is and studies that say it isn’t. I haven’t had the time to really sort thru everything, but the possibility is a concern.
2. Not using ABC is a demonstration of my trust in God. I can train myself to listen to God and do what He calls me to do, but in the end I’m always interpreting Him and, ultimately, I have a chance of being wrong. Since God is involved in the making of every child, without ABC, I am trusting that God will not give me any more children than I can handle. Of course, discerning whether you should have sex or not is key, see #4.
3. Not using ABC opens dialog between husband & wife. If every time a couple has sex there is a possibility of have a child, there will be more discussion about when/why to have sex. I would also argue that being reminded that sex makes babies and that God is involved in the creation of every baby, would make sex more meaningful.
4. From an entirely Catholic perspective: there are two reasons for sex – union and procreation. Any sort of ABC severs the union between husband and wife because they are not able to give themselves fully to the other person. Sex takes two people and unites them as one, but only if there is a full giving of self between both people. By holding back fertility, the Church explains, you are holding back the most precious part of yourself – your ability to be instrumental in God’s ability to create life.

What do you think?

–

WOW!! I don’t even know you, but were we twins separated at birth? Except that I am a cradle Catholic who had to learn all of this the hard way, my view is the same.

WOW!! You’re pretty new here…Welcome! I hope you don’t mind, I may be PMing you to join some threads from time to time.

WOW!!

 

[Methodi]

A brief history lesson - Henry VIII contrary to popular opinion didn’t want a divorce from his first wife, he wanted an annulment, as he thought he had invalidly married his brother’s widow. If the widow’s cousin hadn’t at the time had the Pope of the day at his military mercy, the annulment quite possibly would’ve gone through.

This was nearly 500 years ago. Nearly 400 years before that, in the 1150s, a previous king of England, Henry II, married Eleanor of Aquitaine, who had had her first marriage to Louis VII of France annulled after having two daughters with him. Their son, King John, also had his first marriage annulled after falling in love with a twelve-year-old, which girl he proceeded to take as his second wife.

Annulments aren’t a new invention in the slightest, and in the past have been given (and possibly denied) on some pretty flimsy pretexts as well.

That was eons ago, why wasnt that choice given to modern day catholics, I am an older man & I knew many people who were excommunicated.

 

[LilyM]

That was eons ago, why wasnt that choice given to modern day catholics, I am an older man & I knew many people who were excommunicated.

What are you whinging about? Henry ended up NOT getting his annulment, remember? He had to break away from the Church (excommunicate himself) to marry Anne Boleyn - or has that bit of the story escaped your attention?

I was using his case and the others to point out that neither the granting of annulments nor problems due to failure to grant them are new things at all.

 

[Methodi]

What are you whinging about? Henry ended up NOT getting his annulment, remember? He had to break away from the Church (excommunicate himself) to marry Anne Boleyn - or has that bit of the story escaped your attention?

I was using his case and the others to point out that neither the granting of annulments nor problems due to failure to grant them are new things at all.

well I didnt study church history like u I suppose, just that I never heard of annullment in the church till about the late 60`s maybe, & a lot of catholics were up in arms about it

 

[Methodi]

well I didnt study church history like u I suppose, just that I never heard of annullment in the church till about the late 60`s maybe, & a lot of catholics were up in arms about it

& its just another name for divorce

 

[LilyM]

& its just another name for divorce

Not even close. As Henry VIII could’ve told you.

Even civil law recognises the very real difference between

a) an annulment - which is a declaration that a marriage was invalidly contracted and in point of fact never actually existed because of the invalidity. Which is what Britney Spears got after her 55-hour-long drug-and-alcohol-fuelled Vegas wedding, to which she obviously was incapable of properly consenting) and

b) a divorce - the dissolving of a marriage that in fact HAS been validly contracted, but which the law (civil, obviously - the church cannot dissolve a valid marriage). Which is what Britney spears got from the second guy she married, since she was sane and sober and fully consenting on the day of their wedding.

As for you ‘never hearing of them’ prior to the 60s - people before then just didn’t talk openly about their private lives to nearly the extent that they did afterwards. That applies for all sorts of issues - domestic violence, for example, or infertility and subsequent adoptions, which were often hushed up, teenage pregnancy likewise - many ‘older sisters’ of people such as the actor Jack Nicholson turned out in fact to be their mothers - and a million more - and not just annulments.

But annulments certainly existed, for people at all levels of society, and there is plenty of canon law and reports of annulment hearings, grantings and refusals obviously going back at least a good thousand years.

 

[Burdock]

I agree with methodi on this . You cant expect husbands and wives to abstain like that. Its obvious that most young married catholics use birth control its not just those who are catholic in name only as was suggested on an earlier post.

 

[EmBee]

Because its not practical in marriage, Husband & wife want to share, or why be married but everytime a man & woman have sex, they cant be expected to have one baby after another. We know most young married catholics are using ABC because they only have one or two kids & they will tell U straight out they arent having any more

It’s not practical to assume that whatever husband and wife “want” is what is required of them.

Not everyone is capable of having even one child, let alone one after another. It’s about trusting God.

To decide that you and your spouse aren’t having any more children (other than for grave reasons) is selfish and sad. I hope that once my FI and I get married we never get to the point where we don’t want our love to manifest itself in another child.

–

 

[EmBee]

WOW!! I don’t even know you, but were we twins separated at birth? Except that I am a cradle Catholic who had to learn all of this the hard way, my view is the same.

WOW!! You’re pretty new here…Welcome! I hope you don’t mind, I may be PMing you to join some threads from time to time.

WOW!!

Ha, family reunion! Hi, LittleDeb. Feel free to PM me to join a thread, I’ll probably already be lurking there

–

 

[Burdock]

To embee you are unbelievable it is not sad or selfish to decide how many children to have. you cant just keep having one child after another maybe when you are married you may well change your views wich at the moment are rather pompus.

 

[EmBee]

To embee you are unbelievable it is not sad or selfish to decide how many children to have. you cant just keep having one child after another maybe when you are married you may well change your views wich at the moment are rather pompus.

I know many married couples who are unable to conceive any children. I understand the fear of having one child after another, but it is not a reality for every woman.

–

 

[KenEOTE]

Hi,

I’m having a real struggle at the moment with what I perceive to be harsh teaching by the Church. I’d really appreciate some insights… I just want to say first that I’m not trying to pick holes in anything & I know my viewpoint may appear very ignorant and uncatholic to some on here, so please bear with me

Basically regarding the teaching that contraception is a sin…
I do understand the basic reasons taught by the Church (I think) but I still have a problem because, despite what everyone says about NFP & its effectiveness I know for a fact that you can be practising NFP carefully & have quite a few ‘surprises’. I’ve even read stories on here from people totally stressed by a pregnancy they can’t handle.
Now these ‘surprises’ may be wonderful blessings from God… they are, I know that. But some couples just are not in a position to have a child. I’m talking about if they are truly poor for instance & can’t afford another mouth to feed, if there are some mental issues that would make parenting a child near-impossible, or if the mother had severe health issues meaning that she would not survive pregnancy & birth.

These situations may be at the extreme end but they do happen & if it was me, I just don’t know what I would do… Risk maybe leaving children I already had without a mother? Abstain from sex pretty much all the time & put a massive strain on my marriage? This is all hypothetical but it worries me a lot because I want to believe the Church’s teachings are perfect & that God is loving but I can’t reconcile this.

I mean, why does the church teach that using condoms for instance is a MORTAL sin? It’s not abortifacient in any way. And why is it ok to be sterilised (e.g. hysterectomy) if your organs are actually diseased but not if becoming pregnant would put your life severely at risk?

Thanks for your help.

Well this site I am giving you a link to has a lot of information of the health risks of oral contraceptives as well as the patch. All of them are linked to Breast, Cervical and other cancers. So besides the churches teaching, you have health risks involved in using them.

www.abortionbreastcancer.com

Yes it talks about abortion as well and the increase risk to breast cancer that occurs when a woman has an abortion, but as I said so do the other contraceptives such as the pill.

 

[LittleDeb]

To embee you are unbelievable it is not sad or selfish to decide how many children to have. you cant just keep having one child after another maybe when you are married you may well change your views wich at the moment are rather pompus.

Actually, yes it is “sad and selfish” to decide your number of children. This mentality leads to procured abortion.

NFP helps us to discern, with God, the number of children He wants us to have. Just because a couple is married is not free license to use each other. Sometimes the most loving thing a couple can do is abstinence. Military families find the discipline of NFP helps their marriage. When there has been an accident or injury (or God forbid, childbirth!) abstinence is necessary. If a couple doesn’t already know how to do it then that puts undue strain on a marriage!

NFP has existed since the dawn of time. Man has always known that we can abstain to prevent pregnancy. We know all couples can abstain, what many lack is the capacity. And yes, I am married, six years. And yes, my parents agree, and they have been married 44 years, all of us very happily.

What is pompous is to presume that people have to have sex all the time.

 

[jmcrae]

To embee you are unbelievable it is not sad or selfish to decide how many children to have. you cant just keep having one child after another maybe when you are married you may well change your views wich at the moment are rather pompus.

They would have to be astoundingly fertile in order for that to happen. Even before there was such a thing as birth control, a typical family had maybe 8 -10 kids, if they were out in the country, or 3-4 if they lived in the city.

 

[newbetx]

To embee you are unbelievable it is not sad or selfish to decide how many children to have. you cant just keep having one child after another maybe when you are married you may well change your views wich at the moment are rather pompus.

The Church does not require a couple to have one child after another. It only requires them to decern as a couple if they wish to postpone pregnancy and periodically abstain from sex to avoid conception. It’s really not as big a deal as some make it out to be.

 

[TweetyBird]

You’re not the only one (struggling, that is)…

A couple of comments (re the thread in general, not directed to anyone in particular):

1. Hormones are not the only form of ABC. Objecting to ABC on the basis of the risks of hormones is really a peripheral issue. Barrier methods have no side effects and are not abortifacent.
2. Human life exists at the moment of conception, not before. This stuff about how ABC is immoral because it denies a child a chance at life is purely speculative. It’s also against Church teaching, since by that logic NFP or even abstinence also deny a child a chance to live, and the Church certainly permits (and even lauds) NFP or total abstinence. The argument is specious unless you think married folks ought to have as many children as the limits of their fertility will allow. Whether conception doesn’t occur in a given cycle because of ABC, NFP or no sex, the same theoretical (specious) “potential” child fails to exist, no?

Bottom line on ABC: the Church says it so we have to believe it. The arguments, IMO, aren’t convincing.

 

[Seatuck]

It seems to me the deeper discussion is being eliminated. We need to delve into the meaning of the marital act and it’s relationship to the Trinity and Eucharist.

Theology of the Body has the answers to the question. It would help to study it. Christopher West and others have been unpacking and explaining it for several years now to make it easier on us. Those who are looking for answers should consider that.
Here’s some articles to get you started.

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0112.html

John Martignoni has an audio download-

biblechristiansociety.com/download

You can also go to the Catholic Answers Radio programs and find plenty of shows explaining the meaning of the marital act, meaning of marriage etc which explains the church’s understanding and why it cannot change.

Christopher West Audio CD’s

catholicity.com/cds/west.html

giftfoundation.org/naked_without_shame.htm
This one is a 10CD set and is a good overview of the whole conversation about the meaning of our bodies and meaning of marriage. Plus it’s really cheap.

 

[KenEOTE]

Another thing to think about is that when you use a birth control method such as condoms or a different barrier method you are saying I love you but wait one second while I make sure we aren’t truly one.

The idea of Birth control to me seems to state that the sex act is the be all in marriage. Yes you can plan your family, but if you use NFP you can still be intimate with out any form of sexual act, with the idea of using a Barrier Method, you are telling your partner hey I want to use you right now to my gratification. NFP is not putting a barrier between you and your spouse. I just think Barrier methods cheapen the whole act that God has ordained and made beautiful.

This is just my personal opinion. However I see some saying that they think the Church got this wrong and just because they say it doesn’t make it is right. That of course opens a whole door of wild monkeys that I don’t think you want to open. Either the Church is right on this or it is wrong on this. If you say it is wrong… what else is it wrong about?

 

[blue_skies_1]

I understand the Catholic theology on why contraception is a bad thing… but what about what you might call ‘mitigating circumstances’ like the kind of thing I mentioned in my first post, e.g. if a pregnancy would likely kill the woman. It’s like the Church teaches stealing is wrong (and presumably, a mortal sin), but that it would be justified if it was in the case of extreme necessity. This would also be a case of extreme necessity.

I just think it’s ridiculous to say that a couple in this position has to either not have sex, ever, for years OR take that risk of the pregnancy OR I guess, they go to hell. SURELY some account is taken of the personal circumstances facing that couple?

 

[KenEOTE]

I understand the Catholic theology on why contraception is a bad thing… but what about what you might call ‘mitigating circumstances’ like the kind of thing I mentioned in my first post, e.g. if a pregnancy would likely kill the woman. It’s like the Church teaches stealing is wrong (and presumably, a mortal sin), but that it would be justified if it was in the case of extreme necessity. This would also be a case of extreme necessity.

I just think it’s ridiculous to say that a couple in this position has to either not have sex, ever, for years OR take that risk of the pregnancy OR I guess, they go to hell. SURELY some account is taken of the personal circumstances facing that couple?

Well I have met a woman who was told that if she got pregnant she and her baby would die. She had the baby and guess what they are both alive and healthy.

My wife and I watched her cycles we knew when she could get pregnant and when she couldn’t. It takes diligence, patience and love on both sides to do it. We knew each time one of our children was conceived and we were never surprised.

Once again though it sounds like sex is the be all end all in a loving relationship. There are other ways to being intimate and caring and showing love besides the act of sex.

Even barrier methods are not 100 percent. What would you tell the woman if they used one of those methods and then suddenly found it did not work? (I’ve met a few people that has happened too) She is now pregnant and could die, at least that is what the experts say. What should she do then?