Thoughts on contraception

[RobbyS]

I liked this article a lot better, but it makes me wonder, “What’s the use?” Okay, we know that birth control changed America for the worse. We ate the apple, and now we’re paying for it. But the apple is not going back on the tree, and the Church should know this especially if it’s going to continue in the “sex is good” vein that it’s been dragged into by the world. Instead of telling its members, “No ABC,” it should open up the option of ABC to them and say, “But do you know that NFP is physically, psychologically, and spiritually better for you than ABC?” I think many young couples who are taught that NFP is the better option for spacing births would be more inclined to use it (or at least try it) than those who are told that NFP is the only option they have for spacing births. I myself have never been married, but I would seriously consider trying NFP even though I’m not Catholic and am under no religious obligation to abstain from ABC.

I just think it’s ridiculous to keep preaching about what a mistake letting birth control into society was when the fact is it’s never going to leave and the only option now is to deal with it as best we can, and one way to do that is to recognize that (1) most people simply don’t see a difference between natural and artificial birth control (largely because the intent is the same), and (2) the more productive avenue for the Church to take would be to show all the ways that NFP has better results and better effects than ABC. Telling people, “NFP is the better option,” might garner more positive response than continuing to tell people, “NFP is the only option.”

Plus, if the Catholic Church were to fall in line with the rest of Christendom, then all of Christendom would be preaching the same message, which is, “Sex is only for marriage,” which is a much easier message to preach than, “Sex is only for marriage, and NFP is the only moral form of birth control.” Heck, maybe Planned Parenthood would be willing to teach NFP if the Church weren’t so insistent about taking every form of ABC off the market!

Anyway, my point is, I think the Church is fighting not a losing battle but a lost battle, and sometimes the best thing to do in war is retreat to a better-fortified position and just try to hold your ground.

–Mike

It took the Church fifteen hundred years to get western society to accept, on general terms, the principle of monogamous marriage. It took Christians untilk the19th Cwntury to abolish slavery. Today, neither is so well-established that society might not choose to reject it. Indeed, we might say that this is what the acceptance of homosexuality really means. One, man one woman is right there embedded in the law, but all it has taken is thirty years of propoganda to pry it out of the law. Abortion, adultery, wife-beating, child-murder, abandonment, bestiality–all of these crimes have been a constant feature of “Christian” society. Vincent DePaul found it hard to get his followers to take care of orphans abandoned by their unwide mothers, which drove the mothers to throw them into the river.

 

[Janet_S]

Well, I do want to say that I respect people who use NFP. I will hopefully look into using it myself one day, because that would be nicer to be all natural and ‘within the law of the Church’.

However, right now, I just simply cannot get pregnant until probably 5 years from now. I will be honest with you, I am all for doing the “right” thing, I am not totally convinced that NFP is the only way to do this, but the thing is, I cant even try it because if it fails, then it would be disaster, you cant just play around with stuff like this. As you all say all the time, this is LIFE.

We live in a day and an age when you absolutely must be prepared for having children, they arent an economical benefit for the household and farming like they were in Jesus’ time, they are a huge responsibility and if youre not prepared, then your poor child’s life can suffer greatly. I just cant take that chance right now.

This kind of stuff scares me, I would like to come back to the Catholic church, but with these kind of extreme measures that just seems to defy reason, I just dont know if I am meant to be in the Church. I disagree respectfully, but I know thats just not enough for the Church.

It sounds like you are open to the fact that the Church might be right. And if you have that attitude, at least you have an edge over most Catholics who reject it outright. Just keep an open mind and prayerfully consider it. You should read Humanae Vitae; its easy to read and only about 30 pages. I hope you don’t get discouraged. We all face teachings of the Church that are hard to accept, and those issues change with the seasons of our lives. Now for you, it is birth control, but before you know it, you will be dealing with aging parents and end of life issues. The world will tell you one thing while the Church tells you another. That is the challenge of being Catholic; we are the true rebels of the world.

I can understand how you feel. I didn’t agree with the Church on this issue either when I re-verted 10 years ago, but over time I came to understand it and see the wisdom of it now. I know this teaching seems like foolishness to the rest of the world, but the fact that the Church teaches this in the face of opposition by nearly everyone is a sign to me that we are the true Church. The widespread and easy access to birth control has not just caused personal problems for a few individuals here and there; it has caused major problems for all of society.

 

[Newbie2]

:tsktsk:
This is absolutely not true. Many many many happy productive poor people have great kids with great lives everyday. (Hi nice to meet you I am one)Yes it is nice and actually responsible if you are prepared but if you are not then you have to make it work out. This is about gifts, and lives that God infuses with a soul. Be very careful about putting a families status before the status of human lives being brought into this world. God has to be trusted, not the lie of materialism.

Exactomundo.

I dont doubt you work very hard to give your children good lives. Youre being a good person and I respect you.

But, just as you said, I want to be “nice and responsible” and be prepared, if I am not, then yeah, I will deal with it. But, the matter is, I can be responsible, I can try to be prepared, I can have that choice, and I am going to do everything in my power to be in a situation that will be good for my children when I have them.

I am not saying there there is no chance a surprise pregnancy can happen, and if it does, I will take it as a blessing and love my child, but the thing is, right now, I have the choice to take every measure to be responsible.

This isnt about a family’s status, this is about simple things like being able to pay to feed, clothe, and shelter the child, and save for their college fund. Its not about the nice things, its about the essentials here, and I dont have the means for that, so I am not going to be taking any chances.

If you don’t want to be taking “any chances”, abstain. Otherwise, it sounds like you trust in your plans more than what the Lord may have planned for you.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I was talking about the intent though, the intent is the same, and isnt that what the “evil” part is? With both methods youre still “separating love from life” and working your own will.

“Spacing pregnancies” is just a euphemistic term for saying “I want to have sex without getting pregnant.” They are both the same.

You yourself said that the pill is more effective, so of course I would opt for that. If I were to use NFP, I am obviously that dedicated enough that obviously I cannot have kids right now, why not just be safe…the whole goal - the entire intent - is to NOT have kids.

And if youre so worried about the pill canceling implantation, then use a condom. Then nothing gets anywhere.

I am just saying, the intent is still the same, so technically, everyone who isnt just having babies all the time or isn’t celibate in their marriage because they cant afford to have a/another child is as you said “intrinsically evil”: it basically says that they’re working their will, not God’s.

The Church doesn’t teach that a couple must have all children possible, but that to space pregnancies, they must have a just/serious/grave reason. Couples have always been able to abstain to reduce pregnancies and the Church is fine with that. The Church has approved NFP–periodic abstinence, because NFP allows the act to remain unaltered (ordered to procreation). The intent really doesn’t come into play here. It’s the way you reach that intent that is the problem, through total/periodic abstience or via contracpetion. NFP respects fertility, requires self control, and is Church approved. Spacing pregnancies means that you respect the marital embrace for what it means, not just how it feels. Couples have recourse to use the entire fertility cycle, there is no rule about when to have sex–therefore using either the fertile or infertile periods is licit.

 

[Matt33]

I dont doubt you work very hard to give your children good lives. Youre being a good person and I respect you.

But, just as you said, I want to be “nice and responsible” and be prepared, if I am not, then yeah, I will deal with it. But, the matter is, I can be responsible, I can try to be prepared, I can have that choice, and I am going to do everything in my power to be in a situation that will be good for my children when I have them.

I am not saying there there is no chance a surprise pregnancy can happen, and if it does, I will take it as a blessing and love my child, but the thing is, right now, I have the choice to take every measure to be responsible.

This isnt about a family’s status, this is about simple things like being able to pay to feed, clothe, and shelter the child, and save for their college fund. Its not about the nice things, its about the essentials here, and I dont have the means for that, so I am not going to be taking any chances.

I do think that you are thinking through this and that is good. But I want to pick on a point here… College education savings is NOT a valid reason to not be open to life. This is exactly what I am talking about when I reference the lie of materialism. I assume you are an american, with internet access so the idea of not feeding and clothing your child is not a rational one either.
My wife and I both have private college degrees, not trust funds here… just hard work, that is the best gift parents can give, ethics… I doubt you are poor in those.

 

[mpartyka]

The Church doesn’t teach that a couple must have all children possible, but that to space pregnancies, they must have a just/serious/grave reason.

I’m afraid you’re still trying to have it both ways.

Let’s say an NFP couple gets frisky and decides they want to have sex. They check the chart, and the woman is fertile. They now have a choice – either have sex or don’t have sex.

Now, if it were true that “the Church doesn’t teach that a couple must have all children possible,” the couple could say right then and there, “Well, we don’t want a baby right now,” and abstain from having sex. However, the Church teaches that the couple “must have a just/serious/grave reason” to not want a baby right now. So now the couple is obligated to take their personal reasons for not having a kid and bump them up against whatever the Church thinks are “just/serious/grave” reasons not to have a kid, and see if their personal reasons measure up. If their personal reasons don’t measure up to the Church’s standard of “just/serious/grave,” then the couple would now actually be sinning were they to opt out of having sex right now, because according to the Church, one of the express purposes of being married is having kids, and the couple are now choosing not to “do their job,” so to speak.

So, yes, the Church does teach that a couple must have all children possible – “possible” being mitigated solely by the Church’s, not the couple’s, determination of whether their present situation warrants avoiding sex or not. The irony is that NFP actually compels the couple to achieve this goal of having as many children as possible because the couple always knows when the woman becomes fertile, and this knowledge itself raises the question, “Should we have another child now?” each and every month.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

College education savings is NOT a valid reason to not be open to life. This is exactly what I am talking about when I reference the lie of materialism. I assume you are an american, with internet access so the idea of not feeding and clothing your child is not a rational one either. My wife and I both have private college degrees, not trust funds here… just hard work, that is the best gift parents can give, ethics… I doubt you are poor in those.

Thanks for giving us all a perfect example of what I was talking about in my last post.

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

I’m afraid you’re still trying to have it both ways.

Let’s say an NFP couple gets frisky and decides they want to have sex. They check the chart, and the woman is fertile. They now have a choice – either have sex or don’t have sex.

Now, if it were true that “the Church doesn’t teach that a couple must have all children possible,” the couple could say right then and there, “Well, we don’t want a baby right now,” and abstain from having sex. However, the Church teaches that the couple “must have a just/serious/grave reason” to not want a baby right now. So now the couple is obligated to take their personal reasons for not having a kid and bump them up against whatever the Church thinks are “just/serious/grave” reasons not to have a kid, and see if their personal reasons measure up. If their personal reasons don’t measure up to the Church’s standard of “just/serious/grave,” then the couple would now actually be sinning were they to opt out of having sex right now, because according to the Church, one of the express purposes of being married is having kids, and the couple are now choosing not to “do their job,” so to speak.

So, yes, the Church does teach that a couple must have all children possible – “possible” being mitigated solely by the Church’s, not the couple’s, determination of whether their present situation warrants avoiding sex or not. The irony is that NFP actually compels the couple to achieve this goal of having as many children as possible because the couple always knows when the woman becomes fertile, and this knowledge itself raises the question, “Should we have another child now?” each and every month.

–Mike

It’s a decision made by the couple, hopefully through prayer. They can choose to have sex or not. Not having sex is NOT a sin, ever (otherwise total abstinence would be a sin and you better be having sex right now! that’s simply ridiculous). Having sex and contracepting is a sin every time. Choosing to not have sex is NOT contraception, it may be the sin of selfishness, MAYBE, depending on the why behind not having sex. What NFP does do is open you to the idea that having more children isn’t necessarily the burden that society paints it. Again, not having sex is never a sin, even if both couples desire sex. The couple isn’t called by the Church to having every child possible–otherwise the Church would mandate a couple have sex ONLY the 14th day of the cycle or ONLY when she’s ovulating. That’s not the case. The Church says that marital sex is ordered toward procreation–that’s the norm. To override that norm with contraception is the sin. To not have sex is not a sin. I can’t be clearer. I don’t know how. Maybe step away from this thread and try praying about this–for understanding? I don’t know, because no progress is being made here and I weary of repeating myself.

some more links about Catholic sexual ethics…
wf-f.org/CatholicSexEdResources.html

 

[lostandconfused]

I do think that you are thinking through this and that is good. But I want to pick on a point here… College education savings is NOT a valid reason to not be open to life. This is exactly what I am talking about when I reference the lie of materialism. I assume you are an american, with internet access so the idea of not feeding and clothing your child is not a rational one either.
My wife and I both have private college degrees, not trust funds here… just hard work, that is the best gift parents can give, ethics… I doubt you are poor in those.

Okay, I get your point about materialism.

I also though, am slightly annoyed by this method of saying “Look, I had kids and I was poor…you arent that poor, stop your complaining.” What kind of argument is that really?

Look, you are right, I dont know you, I didnt realize that you and another poster had kids when you werent financially stable. I didnt realize that you worked your way through college. I am happy for you, thats very noble and you are very strong, but on the same token, you have absolutely no idea about what situation I am in either.

This conversation has exhausted itself. Thank you for your help.

 

[Jennifer_J]

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT
Posted this on another thread, thought it fit perfectly here, too. A good read for everyone.

 

[Matt33]

Okay, I get your point about materialism.

I also though, am slightly annoyed by this method of saying “Look, I had kids and I was poor…you arent that poor, stop your complaining.” What kind of argument is that really?
Regardless of what argument that is… I think you and I will probably agree that it is going to be more and more common to have kids in a day and age that is not as finacially prosperous as we grew up in. A hard but perhaps good lesson is about to be learned in this world. Come to think of it we should have as many future tax payers as possible!!
Look, you are right, I dont know you, I didnt realize that you and another poster had kids when you werent financially stable. I didnt realize that you worked your way through college. I am happy for you, thats very noble and you are very strong, but on the same token, you have absolutely no idea about what situation I am in either. True, that is the reality of the internet… we all don’t really know. But we do know what we choose to share. I am not strong, God is strong and He is with me.

This conversation has exhausted itself. Thank you for your help.

 

[mpartyka]

Choosing to not have sex is NOT contraception, it may be the sin of selfishness, MAYBE, depending on the why behind not having sex.

Which was my point. “Choosing to not have sex…may be the sin of selfishness” if the Church says, “Your reasons for not having a new baby aren’t good enough” (just like the earlier poster said point-blank).

Again, not having sex is never a sin, even if both couples desire sex.

You just contradicted yourself. Choosing not to have sex because of the sin of selfishness is itself sin because “whatever is not of faith is sin,” remember?

The couple isn’t called by the Church to having every child possible–otherwise the Church would mandate a couple have sex ONLY the 14th day of the cycle or ONLY when she’s ovulating.

Nonsense. “Having every child possible” does not in any way mean “restrict yourself to having sex only on fertile days.” Quit setting up straw men. “Having every child possible” means not restraining one’s desire for sex on fertile days if according to Church standards you could handle another child. If you simply don’t desire sex on a fertile day, fine – nobody’s pushing you to have sex in that case. But if you do desire sex on a fertile day, and you deliberately abstain because, according to Church standards, you’re too selfish to bring another child into the world, then that’s a sin.

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

Which was my point. “Choosing to not have sex…may be the sin of selfishness” if the Church says, “Your reasons for not having a new baby aren’t good enough” (just like the earlier poster said point-blank).

You just contradicted yourself. Choosing not to have sex because of the sin of selfishness is itself sin because “whatever is not of faith is sin,” remember?

Nonsense. “Having every child possible” does not in any way mean “restrict yourself to having sex only on fertile days.” Quit setting up straw men. “Having every child possible” means not restraining one’s desire for sex on fertile days if according to Church standards you could handle another child. If you simply don’t desire sex on a fertile day, fine – nobody’s pushing you to have sex in that case. But if you do desire sex on a fertile day, and you deliberately abstain because, according to Church standards, you’re too selfish to bring another child into the world, then that’s a sin.

–Mike

Sorry, I was unclear. The sin of not having sex is not a sin of contracepetion. It may be a lesser sin, of selfishness, maybe, and that’s a big maybe. Because the couple has the right to decide when to engage in the act.

My point about having every child possible is that it isn’t a teaching of the Church. It’s not a straw man arguement at all. Controlling births is not sinful, the way we go about it can be. The desire to have sex and then not having sex is not objectivly sinful.

 

[mpartyka]

My point about having every child possible is that it isn’t a teaching of the Church.

But according to the article you just cited, it is!

…may a married couple restrict intercourse to [infertile] periods? The answer is affirmative, with two qualifications. First, there must be no desire of evading an obligation to have children, when such exists; in other words, the reasons against pregnancy at that time must be valid…Considering, therefore, the biological nature of sex and the divine command of fruitfulness, there is a general obligation on married people to have as many children as they reasonably can. Few married couples will want to deny themselves the blessing of children when they are in a position to have them, except for what they will admit to be unworthy or selfish reasons.

Please understand that I am not saying that the Church teaches, “Whenever a married woman is fertile, and there is no valid reason in the Church’s sight why she should not conceive a child, she and her husband are then obligated to have sex.” I’m saying that the Church teaches, “Whenever a married couple desires sex during the woman’s fertile period, and there is no valid reason in the Church’s sight why the couple should not conceive a child, then for the couple to abstain at that time is to commit a sin because their decision to abstain is motivated by selfishness.”

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

But according to the article you just cited, it is!

may a married couple restrict intercourse to [infertile] periods? The answer is affirmative,

I’ve highlighted in RED the parts you ignored…which means you look at your ability to be a responsible parent and then decide whether to use the fertile AND infertile periods or just the infertile periods (or just abstain). And I don’t think I disagree with your basic statement except to say that you need to add “MAY be motivated by selfishness” this s called discernment. Additionally, I’ll add, this is why NFP should not be the default of marriage, accepting children lovingly is, however, that’s not always possible and the Church realizes this. So, I’m not even sure what we’re argueing about anymore…

 

[mpartyka]

I’ve highlighted in RED the parts you ignored…which means you look at your ability to be a responsible parent and then decide whether to use the fertile AND infertile periods or just the infertile periods (or just abstain). And I don’t think I disagree with your basic statement except to say that you need to add “MAY be motivated by selfishness” this is called discernment. Additionally, I’ll add, this is why NFP should not be the default of marriage, accepting children lovingly is, however, that’s not always possible and the Church realizes this. So, I’m not even sure what we’re arguing about anymore…

I wasn’t “ignoring” anything. The article says, “There is a general obligation on married people to have as many children as they reasonably can.” I don’t read this to mean anything different from, “There is a general obligation on married people to have as many children as possible,” with the word “possible” including the consideration of whatever circumstances the Church thinks are reasonable for the couple to claim as impediments – what the Church thinks is reasonable, not what the couple thinks is reasonable. And so we have people making blanket statements about other people’s lives, such as:

College education savings is NOT a valid reason to not be open to life…I assume you are an American with internet access, so the idea of not feeding and clothing your child is not a rational one either.

Really? So, if it comes down between getting your existing kids into a good college or having another kid, the “right” answer is always that you should have another kid? Or if it comes down between having internet access, cable TV, two cars rather than one, etc., and having another kid, the “right” answer is always that you should have another kid? Or if it comes down between risking your life and health and whether your existing kids get to have their mother in their lives when they get older, etc., and having another kid, the “right” answer is always that you should have another kid?

Here’s a thought: How about we all let the couple decide for themselves whether to try having another kid or not?

–Mike

 

[Jennifer_J]

I wasn’t “ignoring” anything. The article says, “There is a general obligation on married people to have as many children as they reasonably can.” I don’t read this to mean anything different from, “There is a general obligation on married people to have as many children as possible,” with the word “possible” including the consideration of whatever circumstances the Church thinks are reasonable for the couple to claim as impediments – what the Church thinks is reasonable, not what the couple thinks is reasonable. And so we have people making blanket statements about other people’s lives, such as:
–Mike

Reasonable and possible are to very different ideas. “All children possible” means you must actively try to get pregnant at any and every opportunity. “All the children they reasonably can” leaves it up to the discernment of the couple–via the ideals of the Church, instituted by Christ. Reasonable means that we use our reason. Objectivly, avoiding children to take that expensive cruise every year is not reasonable. Objectivly, avoiding children because there is no way to feed them is reasonable. It’s such a clear distinction. There are general guidelines of what are reasonable/just/grave/serious reasons–financial, psycological, health, etc set forth by the Church (no hard and fast list), but the couple must determine whether their actions or inactions are reasonable and for various couples, their level of reasonable may differ from mine to some extent. College may be a very important consideration for some families, other find that health reasons are the main consideration. Couples DO decide for themselves , but they do it in light of the Church’s teachings on marriage and family. The gist is, don’t be selfish.

I don’t like people making generalizations, either, however, this society is downright hostile to the larger family–ask me, I know. Society says children are too hard, too expensive, too noisy, bothersome, annoying…Society says, don’t have any if you can, if not then only have one, maybe 2 then stop and contracept–that’s responsible. The Church says NO WAY. Children are a blessing, they are the natural result of marriage. The family is the domestic church, the first place we learn about God and how to live in society. Those of us who have opened our lives to a larger family, want others to know that society is full of c*ap and that the Church IS right. Children are a blessing. It CAN be done. It’s not impossible to raise a large family today and have them attend college and be all around good citizens. So they tend to project and over generalize in response to this. Sending children to college may or may not be a just reason to limit family size–depends on the family and their situation. Discernment…

 

[Matt33]

Really? So, if it comes down between getting your existing kids into a good college or having another kid, the “right” answer is always that you should have another kid? Or if it comes down between having internet access, cable TV, two cars rather than one, etc., and having another kid, the “right” answer is always that you should have another kid? Or if it comes down between risking your life and health and whether your existing kids get to have their mother in their lives when they get older, etc., and having another kid, the “right” answer is always that you should have another kid?

–Mike

Mike, I disagree with the entire premise of this. So my answer to all your questions is YES! Boy, as a society we sure have our priorities skewed. By the way, If you are acedemically motivated… EVERYONE can go to college. even if you have to go into debt, but the answer is "SI SE PUEDE! To use your examples only devalues people’s lives who arent as fortunate as some in our society, and that my friend is anti Christ. I just can’t see Jesus telling people they can’t or should’nt have kids because the Roman tax is coming up. God, said “Go forth and multiply.” You my friend have been watching too much star trek. “live long and prosper”

 

[mpartyka]

Mike, I disagree with the entire premise of this.

My premise is simply that people have the right to decide for themselves how they intend to live. Yes, there are some things that are flat-out wrong – murder, theft, abortion, adultery, etc. – but for the most part, life consists of all sorts of varieties of choices, and there’s no institution that has the right to come into your life and say, “This is what’s right for you.”

–Mike

 

[Matt33]

My premise is simply that people have the right to decide for themselves how they intend to live. Yes, there are some things that are flat-out wrong – murder, theft, abortion, adultery, etc. – but for the most part, life consists of all sorts of varieties of choices, and there’s no institution that has the right to come into your life and say, “This is what’s right for you.”

–Mike

This is why I’m Catholic and you are protestant I guess. In my view, people are less than honest with themselves and in moral situations too often, the body, or “selfishness” wins over the Holiness. Just look at what happens when millions of people interpret the word of God to themselves. See, we live in an age which provides us with so much information so quickly that we have yet to figure out how to process it. We all seem to know a little about everything but not not everything about anything. That is why, we have, the Church. In her thousands of years of existance She is guided by History, knowlege, but most importantly, God Himself. That is why the Church can teach to this subject. In reality, She knows humans better than we do. But it is very common in this world of enlightenment to “find our own way” and let jimeny cricket be our guide. By your standards we need no direction exept our own will. Imagine the world if we ran, religion, families and especially governments like this.