Struggling with contraception etc teachings.. a lot

[Des]

It seems the view on here is that for a woman (or, to see the bigger picture, a family) faced with this it’s just…tough luck.

I would call it ‘tough love’ blue skies if a man’s wife was in danger of death if she were to get pregnant.
Because nothing is stopping them from abstaining permanently now if indeed it was that great a worry.

The procreative union between a man and a woman as was already mentioned in this thread is when both give themselves completely over to one another and the two become one flesh. You either give yourselves completely to each other or you don’t. God Wills it not other way.

The Sacrament of Marriage is such a great mystery that it’s related to Christ and His Church.
Couple’s denying or holding back a part of themselves to their spouse while making love would be like Christ holding back a part of Himself from us (His Church) at the Crucifixion. Impossible!

I agree with method 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.

That’s because many young Catholic couples do not have the passion for their faith or drive for the truth like those from yesteryear.

 

[ac_claire]

The Church says artificial birth control is intrinsically immoral and we are prohibited from practicing it. Our individual doubts and struggles don’t stand very tall in comparison. As Catholics, we have to trust the Church or we have no foundation, no anchor. Our own intellects are fallible, subject to emotional whims and poor judgement. Let’s trust the Church on this one and receive God’s blessing.

 

[AnotherChance]

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,

Your views are not pompous at all, and are in line with the teachings of the Church. It is good to see someone who has her priorities straight before marriage. So much pain is caused when one spouse realizes the truth about contraception after marriage, and the other one remains a slave to the culture of death. Don’t let people like the above respondent discourage you. They are obviously lashing out for their own personal reasons, as what you are saying is entirely reasonable.

The sad thing is that children have begun to be seen as a burden in our culture, rather than the blessing that they are. I see this in my husband’s family, where his sisters are afraid to tell their parents that they are pregnant again because the reaction is always negative. I wish EmBee the best in her marriage and may God bless you with many children!

 

[EmBee]

EmBee,

Your views are not pompous at all, and are in line with the teachings of the Church. It is good to see someone who has her priorities straight before marriage. So much pain is caused when one spouse realizes the truth about contraception after marriage, and the other one remains a slave to the culture of death. Don’t let people like the above respondent discourage you. They are obviously lashing out for their own personal reasons, as what you are saying is entirely reasonable.

I haven’t always had my priorities straight, so I appreciate your support and I will not be discouraged

The sad thing is that children have begun to be seen as a burden in our culture, rather than the blessing that they are. I see this in my husband’s family, where his sisters are afraid to tell their parents that they are pregnant again because the reaction is always negative. I wish EmBee the best in her marriage and may God bless you with many children!

Thanks for the good wishes - I certainly hope He blesses us with many children, too

–

 

[Calliso]

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?

To be honest while I hate barrier methods I think for me personally NFP would put perhaps a barrier that would be just as bad if not worse . It wouldn;t be a physical barrier but an emotional and mental one. The constant worry about getting pregnant, not being able to have marital relations when I am really in the mood in other words fertile Long story short the worry and stress it would put on me would be just too much to handle. When I was on the pill I didnl;t really have much of any of that. And I same just about this same argument as you posted posted about the birth control pill as well.

 

[LittleDeb]

The constant worry about getting pregnant, not being able to have marital relations when I am really in the mood in other words fertile

Your post is good and your concerns are legitimate. This section however, is the highlight of the problem.

The “constant worry about getting pregnant” is where our secular society goes off the tracks. Sex makes babies. That is what it is designed to do. That is why the Church has always taught that procreation is the primary purpose of the marital act. Unity is a secondary purpose.

Fertility causes higher libido, yes, it is a statement of fact. Men are constantly fertile, women are cyclically fertile. Our libidos match our fertility. Why did God design us that way, to be cruel? Of course not. He designed us that way because life is a good thing! Creating life is a good thing! He built into us a desire to create life.

I second the previous suggestion for John Martignoni’s talk, “Marriage and the Eucharist: The Two Shall Become One.” (Scroll down) It shows some absolutely amazing parallels.

Being afraid of creating life is where our society is broken. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, “Baby-making sex is absolutely the most fun sex you can possibly have!” God is good!

 

[blue_skies_1]

One thing that I’ve been thinking is that if you really follow your convictions, for instance professing the Christian faith, at certain times and in certain parts of the world that can put your life at risk. That’s why we have so many saints who became martyrs for the faith and who inspire us so much. I very much hope that I wouldn’t deny my faith even under pain of death so I also very much hope that in this case of contraception I wouldn’t ‘deny my faith’ through my actions in choosing to do something immoral.

Also I was thinking today that if God specifically made it known to me that he wanted me renounce the idea of ever having sexual relations, or something like that, then I think I actually could accept it & even live a happy life! It would be a lot harder in a marriage but even then I think I could abstain as long as my husband was loving & supportive. That’s not to say that I don’t feel a lot of sympathy for anyone in this situation, whatever they choose to do & think that it might perhaps be more excusable, even if still not right. But for me personally I would try to stick with the teachings, and also I understand why the Church has to be consistent with her teachings, if something is wrong then it is pretty much wrong no matter what.

That’s the conclusion I’ve come to anyway… this has been a very enlightening discussion so thank you… I have a tendency to go back & forth about things so apologies if I’ve caused any confusion! I really think I ‘get’ this one more now, though obviously it’s still one of those real ‘hard cases’.

 

[Little_Katie]

Hi Blue_skies.

Lemme tell ya, you are not alone in this question! There are myriads of us out there. Most, however are not outspoken about it.

Some (me included) will agree that this is a very harsh teaching, but you will also find that there is no leeway or relaxing of these rules, even if the prospective mother is staring certain death in the face. The best that you could hope for is that the mother’s death might be refered to as a martyr’s death…but that will probably not happen.

This may be hypothetical, but you hit the nail on the head. That is the logical outcome of following these laws, the possibility of death of the mother, or a massive strain on the marriage…both happened to us.

Yeah, I’m disillusioned, but I thought you have to know that there are people like us out there…

I pray that the answers you’ll get will make sense toyou and that you might understand this teaching, but I never could and still don’t.

Good luck in your quest!

PM

I’m in the same boat. I will pray for both of you as I pray for myself too.

I hope that God can lead us all to be patient with this and follow His teachings even when it doesn’t make sense to us.

 

[Little_Katie]

I struggle with understanding this teaching because the logic behind it doesn’t make sense to me.

I don’t see using contraceptives as getting in the way of God’s plan, because if THE ALMIGHTY God, who gave the Virgin Mary a child, wants someone to have a child they WILL have a child regardless of any contraceptive being used or even surgeries that may have been given.

 

[jmcrae]

I struggle with understanding this teaching because the logic behind it doesn’t make sense to me.

I don’t see using contraceptives as getting in the way of God’s plan, because if THE ALMIGHTY God, who gave the Virgin Mary a child, wants someone to have a child they WILL have a child regardless of any contraceptive being used or even surgeries that may have been given.

If so, then why deliberately attempt to frustrate God when He is creating someone? It seems like a waste of time and energy, not to mention money.

For what it’s worth, the “winging it” method (not really following anything in particular) has worked quite well for us, in our marriage - so far, God has never sent us any children that He didn’t mean for us to have.

 

[Usagi]

For as much as the Church has changed over the years, I think someday they will lift the ban & also someday there will be women ordained priests, or the catholic church is going down the tubes.

“Lifting the ban” on contraception was considered just before Humani Vitae was issued. As we know, Paul VI instead reaffirmed the ancient teaching. We likely differ on the question of whether the Holy Spirit led him to that decision.

Likewise, the question of ordaining women has been officially closed since 1994, with a proclamation that the Church has no power to do so. Even if a future Pope wanted to do so for some reason, I can’t easily see how they’d get around that.

There are things the Church can change, and things she can’t. The two issues you’ve raised would seem to fall in the area of those she can’t, by her own declaration.

Now, if we want to talk about the ordination of married men in the Latin Rite, or the promulgation of a new form of mass combining the current ordinary and extraordinary forms, those would be examples of the sorts of things that could someday be changed.

In your later example of the proliferation of annulment, canonical penalties like excommunication can be changed, and the general understanding of what constitutes “consent” can change, but the teaching that a valid sacramental marriage is indissoluble cannot change.

It is important to differentiate between these two categories when talking about the Church “changing things.”

Usagi

 

[Calliso]

Your post is good and your concerns are legitimate. This section however, is the highlight of the problem.

The “constant worry about getting pregnant” is where our secular society goes off the tracks. Sex makes babies. That is what it is designed to do. That is why the Church has always taught that procreation is the primary purpose of the marital act. Unity is a secondary purpose.

Fertility causes higher libido, yes, it is a statement of fact. Men are constantly fertile, women are cyclically fertile. Our libidos match our fertility. Why did God design us that way, to be cruel? Of course not. He designed us that way because life is a good thing! Creating life is a good thing! He built into us a desire to create life.

I second the previous suggestion for John Martignoni’s talk, “Marriage and the Eucharist: The Two Shall Become One.” (Scroll down) It shows some absolutely amazing parallels.

Being afraid of creating life is where our society is broken. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, “Baby-making sex is absolutely the most fun sex you can possibly have!” God is good!

Thanks I will take a look at that when I get a chance. Really though things would be so much easier though if I wanted kids you know? I wish I was good parenting material I also wish I was one of those people who could just trust God and have as many kids as he wants me to have. But I donlt think I am/can. And I do sometimes get the desire to have kids but it is purely selfish and I am afraid not only would that kid seriously mess up things for me and my husband I would also ruin the kids life.

 

[Tinajo]

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.

I completely agree with you that this is irrelevant to the morality of the act. However, since many couples do use hormonal contraception, it’s probably worth pointing out the risks, since from what I’ve gathered doctors don’t do a good job of that…

1. 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?

This (denying a child a chance at life) was not my understanding of what the Church teaches 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, 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?

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

This is exactly where I started… struggling with the logic behind it, but realising that if I accepted the Catholic Church to be the one true Church, set up by Christ, I needed to follow it anyway and keeping trying to understand better. Thankfully I have a much clearer idea now than I used to, but it’s taken a while!

To be honest while I hate barrier methods I think for me personally NFP would put perhaps a barrier that would be just as bad if not worse . It wouldn;t be a physical barrier but an emotional and mental one. The constant worry about getting pregnant, not being able to have marital relations when I am really in the mood in other words fertile Long story short the worry and stress it would put on me would be just too much to handle…

I know exactly what you mean - 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.

(Yes, it’s hard not being able to make love when my libido is highest, but it’s a sacrifice we make together because we know we can’t have children yet and so it brings us closer because it’s a difficulty we share and work through as a couple.)

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.

Sorry for the length of the post - it’s the first time I’ve ever actually put my thoughts on the matter into written words…

 

[UndertheRadar]

God created marriage, the unconditional love between a man and a woman, which serves as a symbol of God’s love for the human race. As I have said, this love should be unconditional, which means that spouses should love one another with or without sexual relations. For so many people, the need to have sex is driven by a selfish motive, to please oneself. I think this is part of the reason why our culture today is saying that the teachings of the church regarding contraception is harsh. We have a need for sex, and this is for selfish reasons, not unconditional love. I think the only reason why the teachings of the Church don’t make sense is because we have the wrong point of view. We cannot tell God that we are manifesting our love in a marriage through sex but then tell Him that we want it on conditions. If sexuality is to resemble His love for us then it must not be on certain conditions. And wouldn’t it make sense, since we believe God to be all-knowing, when we should or shouldn’t have a child? Are we presuming that God somehow doesn’t really understand our situation and that we know better?

**2363 **The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

 

[Calliso]

If so, then why deliberately attempt to frustrate God when He is creating someone? It seems like a waste of time and energy, not to mention money.

For what it’s worth, the “winging it” method (not really following anything in particular) has worked quite well for us, in our marriage - so far, God has never sent us any children that He didn’t mean for us to have. /QUOTE

Well most of the time lets say using the pill you can prevent a baby. I think what she is trying to say is hey I am sure God can get past a little pill or condom or whatever if he really really wants me to have a kid right now. But the facts are normally God isn;t going to purposely intervene like that. Also I am glad the winging it worked for you. But for many people it wouldn;t.

 

[Corki]

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.

Sorry, but her views are perfectly valid. Your profilesays you aren’t Catholic and this thread is about Church teaching.

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.

Good point. The Catechism does say that if you are starving, the sin of stealing food might be mitigated because you need the food to live. So, if you are in a position where you will die unless you have contraceptive sex, then you would have a good example of extreme necessity mitigating sin.

Gee, people. Sex is not the be all and end all of life, not even of married life! Yes, it is a good of marriage and quite enjoyable but it doesn’t rank up there with food and water!

 

[newbetx]

Gee, people. Sex is not the be all and end all of life, not even of married life! Yes, it is a good of marriage and quite enjoyable but it doesn’t rank up there with food and water!

Or, unconditional love for that matter!

 

[a_cermak]

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?

Well, yes. Fr. Andrew Greeley hypothesizes that the encyclical Humanae Vitae, led directly to people embracing Cafeteria Catholicism, because they didn’t believe it, they didn’t follow it and they started not following the Church on anything else it said either. I’m not sure if that is true or not, but it is his contention.

 

[Sure]

To the OP and Penitent Man…

It’s helpful to remember that NFP is difficult, not normal, and a gift all at the same time. It’s not the way we were designed. In a perfect world the man and woman come together when they are so moved and welcome children into the world about every 2-3 years. In this imprefect world, sometimes it is necessary, for grave reasons, to abstain in order to avoid having another child at a particular time. We shouldn’t think that such a thing would be fun, or rewarding, or feel good. It doesn’t. NFP is like getting up with your sick child in the middle of the night. You don’t do it because it thrills you; you do it because the circumstances demand it.

Don’t blame the Church for these difficulties, these are the difficulties of the fallen world. Embrace your cross, but realize (despite what many well-intentioned NFP advocates may say), it’s still very much a cross.

 

[ac_claire]

Cardinal Newman had some interesting things to say about struggles with Church teaching:

"At the time of the apostles a Christian was bound to take without doubting all that the Apostles declared to be revealed; if the Apostles spoke, he had to yield to an internal assent of his mind…immediate, implicit submission of the mind was the only necessary token of faith. No one could say, “I will choose my religion for myself, I will believe this, I will not believe that; I will pledge myself to nothing. I will believe just as long as I please and no longer; what I believe today I will reject tomorrow if I choose, I will believe what the Apostles have as yet said, but I will not believe what they say in the time to come.” No, either the apostles were from God or they were not, if they were, everything they preached was to believed…if they were not, there was nothing for their hearers to believe. To believe a little, or to believe more or less was impossible. It contradicted the very notion of believing.”