Tough contraception questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thepeug
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thepeug

Guest
As a non-Catholic who’s been attending Mass for the past year, I REALLY want to accept all of the Church’s teachings. I’ve come to terms with many doctrines that I thought would be insurmountable. There are still a few teachings, however, with which I’m struggling. One is contraception. Until I began to explore the Catholic Church, I never thought twice about contraception. Far from an “intrinsic evil”, it seemed like a responsible thing for young people to use. After reading and praying about it, I’m beginning to see it in a different light, but I still have a few questions regarding its use:
  1. Unless a cure is found, contraception is one of the only ways at present to stop the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Having taken both a course on Africa and a course on AIDS and public policy, I’ve seen the extent to which the disease has ravaged an entire continent, leaving children orphaned and families destitute. Is the use of condoms in such a situation permitted by the Church? In some cultures in Afica, abstinence is not even considered. Is it better that people in such cultures die before using a condom? This seems a little extreme.
  2. I struggle with the prohibition of contraception in marriage. I understand that marriage is meant to be both unitive and procreative, but abstaining from sex limits the unitive aspect. Primarily, how is NFP any different than using a condom? If both methods are shown to be nearly 100 % effective when used properly, how is NFP any more “open to the possibility of conception” than a condom? In both instances, the couple is trying to DELIBERATELY avoid pregnancy, and both methods allow for the possibility, however slight, of conception.
These are questions that I definitely plan to ask once I start RCIA next semester, but they’ve been rolling around in my head for awhile, so I want to see what you guys think.

God bless,

Chris
 
In response to your first question, I’m not positive what the “official” Church position is on using condoms to combat AIDS. There may not be an official Church position on that. I do know, however, that Catholic Charities strongly promotes abstinence as the best way to prevent AIDS infection. As far as it being “worse” to have someone die from AIDS because the Church hypothetically denied them the use of a condom, you are looking at this in the wrong light. No one is making these people have sex. It sounds extreme to choose a life of abstinence, but good people around the world choose a life of abstinence every day.

Now, in response to your second question, the Church teaches that NFP can indeed become evil if it is used in the wrong way. NFP becomes evil when couples use it with the intent to remain childless for purely selfish reasons. NFP is a natural way to postpone having more children if, after prayer, a couple feels that they would not be able to provide (financially, emotionally, etc) for another child. The key word is postpone–the ultimate goal of marriage should always be to raise a family.

NFP is not immoral when used properly, but artificial contraception is always immoral. There are many reasons for this. For one, the “pill” has the ability to cause an abortion of an already-conceived embyro. While this is not the normal function of the pill, even the manufacturer of the pill will indeed tell you that it can sometimes cause an abortion. So I’d say that risk, even though it’s small, is still much too serious to even use the pill. Furthermore, the pill (and contraception in general) tend to make the woman into a sex object. She becomes something the man can get pleasure from whenever he wants–the focus is entirely on the sexual aspect of the marital act and not on the procreative. If God wanted sexual pleasure to be seperate from the possibility of having children, He would have made two separate acts. The fact is, however, that God wants the procreative act to go hand-in-hand with the pleasure and oneness a couple receives. NFP simply makes use of the natural means of spacing out births that God intended. Think about it: have you ever heard a couple say they’re “trying” to have a baby? That’s because it’s not a guarantee that sex will result in pregnancy–just as God wanted it. But we have to leave it up to God and respect His built-in “birth control” and let Him design our families. This is what NFP does. It also encourages an intimate relationship between the husband and wife, because the husband better understands and respects his wife’s tenderness when they practice NFP.

If you want more info, search for Couple to Couple League on the net. Also, go to www.vatican.va and search for Humanae Vitae–the document which explains why the Catholic Church does not accept birth control. It’s a very beautiful teaching and I’m confident that following it will bring you closer to God and closer to your wife.

God bless and continue your search for the Truth! May the Peace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
 
I’m confused as well about NFP. Isnt the intent the same as using a condom? The intent of course is to prevent pregnancy. I mean, the odds of preventing pregancy are about the same, when used correctly of course.

I can see either method turning women, or men for that matter, being used as sexual objects, though. I know, it’s forbidden, but I have a hard time seeing the different between condom use and NFP if both are used to prevent pregnancy and both partners dont see each other as mere sexual objects.

Then again, I’m 19, and the thought of being a father scares me sooo much.
 
Thepeug said:
2) I struggle with the prohibition of contraception in marriage. I understand that marriage is meant to be both unitive and procreative, but abstaining from sex limits the unitive aspect. Primarily, how is NFP any different than using a condom? If both methods are shown to be nearly 100 % effective when used properly, how is NFP any more “open to the possibility of conception” than a condom? In both instances, the couple is trying to DELIBERATELY avoid pregnancy, and both methods allow for the possibility, however slight, of conception.

These are questions that I definitely plan to ask once I start RCIA next semester, but they’ve been rolling around in my head for awhile, so I want to see what you guys think.

God bless,

Chris
Click to expand...

Chris -

Off the top of my head the best resources that helped me understand this are:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
(this is the text of a very popular cassette tape called - Contraception - Why not ? - I recommend the cassette because the speaker is quite is very good, you can order the tape from www.ccl.org - couple to couple league - it has lots of good articles)

Also the book “Good news about Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West is really good.

And This Rock Magazine Feb 2005 issue has just this kind of article - IS NFP a Heresy ? Call 619-387-7200 and they may just send you a complimentary issue.

Briefly - The Church does Teach that NFP used merely for contraceptive ways is sinful, unless for serious moral reasons.

With that said, Abstaining from Sex (where no “physical act” is done) is a world of difference than “purposely adding another act (the contraception) to a natural act”. I saved a good article on this that explaines this concept better. I will dig up if I can find it.

Some things that helped me along are:

An old jewish saying is the closest we come to God (not withstanding the Eucharist of course) is the act of conception.
God put a “design” into play and why should we thwart it. The Holy Spirit is the Giver of Life (from the creed we say).

All of the Bible, new and old testament, is just one Giant symbol of marriage at many different levels. The conjugal act is one of these. Christ gave himself, totally, holding nothing back for us.
Did Christ redeem everyone or did he hold back just a little ?
In Marriage it is the same.
The concept of Marriage is all over the place from Adam and Eve to the final Wedding Banquet at the end where the Bride and Bridegroom spend eternity.

The family unit is the most basic of all the family levels (family, parish, Church, Humanity) and where could Satan do the most damage - by getting into the closest bond there is between man and woman.

IN the NT somewhere, the Pharisees ask Jesus a hypothetical about the man who marries seven women (maybe I have this backwards) because each one dies and he marries again. The Pharisees ask Jesus, Once he is in heaven, which of the seven will be his Wife ? Jesus answers none ! In heaven there will be no earthly marriage as we knew it. I take this to mean that God wants us ( in marriage) on earth to create souls (as many as reasonably possible) for Him to be happy with forever in heaven. Contraception presents a problem with this.

I too went through RCIA and they never mentioned this topic. It was really Christian-lite and we were too naive to ask. Prior to that, I went through the pre-marriage classes with my catholic Wife and they never mentioned it either (hey, this is liberal Seattle where I live).

I did not plan it this way, but looking back, it was when I stopped with the Contraception that my faith began to grow and I learned so much about the faith, including understanding why the Chruch teaches so on Contraception, not to mention all the other doctrines that trouble protestants. Somewhere during that time I joined the Legion of Mary where we are work is lead by Mary and the Holy Spirit (her spouse no less).

Take the leap of “Faith” first, then the understanding will come. Within my family, friends (and even parish), I am totally surrounded by the contraceptive mentality.
 
Thanks for the thoughts, a lot of which helps shed light on the topic for me. I like the idea that NFP is the “natural” way to give couples much-needed space between pregnancies. I’ve also realized that NFP truly does demand more communication between couples concerning the wife’s body and whether or not she is fertile. Such communication undoubtedly fosters intimacy in ways that condom use could not.

That said, I have two more questions concerning contraception. The general idea is that “We should not limit the number of children we have” and “If God wants us to have children, we shouldn’t interfere with the process.” The same could be applied to medicine, however. One could say, “You shouldn’t take medicine. If God wants you to get sick, you shouldn’t interfere with this natural process.” Is taking medicine not attempting to thwart the natural means by which species populations remain in check? Of course, no one seriously makes the above argument, but can you see how the use of contraception and the use of medicine are in some ways analagous?

Secondly, in regards to AIDS and abstinence, there are cultural contexts which one must consider. Yes, there are good people who practice abstinence, but in some idigenous cultures, abstinence is a completely foreign concept. The fact that some cultures are more promiscuous than others doesn’t make them objectively “good” or “bad”; it simply means that one cannot realistically expect people of every cultural to abstain from sex before and during marriage. In such circumstances where abstinence is completely ineffective, SOMETHING must be done to stop the AIDS epidemic. If not contraception, then what?

I’m playing the devil’s advocate (no pun intended) because I really want to develop a firm conviction in regards to both issues. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

God bless,

Chris
 
condoms are not the only means of preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa or anyplace else. The only strategy that has demonstrated success is abstinence education from the top of the government on down, as in Uganda. Condoms do not provide a barrier agains viral forms of STD, for instance, and provide only 70% or less effectiveness (when used properly) against the spread of HIV. Suggesting that this form of Russian Roulette is a responsible public health policy is cruel and deceptive. Unfortunately, in Africa and elsewhere condom use has been the forefront of government policy against AIDS new cases are rising, not falling.
 
40.png
Thepeug:
  1. Unless a cure is found, contraception is one of the only ways at present to stop the AIDS epidemic in Africa…Is the use of condoms in such a situation permitted by the Church? In some cultures in Afica, abstinence is not even considered. Is it better that people in such cultures die before using a condom? This seems a little extreme.
  2. I struggle with the prohibition of contraception in marriage. I understand that marriage is meant to be both unitive and procreative, but abstaining from sex limits the unitive aspect. Primarily, how is NFP any different than using a condom?
    Chris
Click to expand...
  1. The Church is firstly and ultimately responsible to uphold the Truth and to bring others to the saving Truth that is Jesus Christ. Very easy and tempting to compromise the Truth in a “compassionate” response to human tragedy. However, this does not change what is right and most upholds the dignity of the person. A hard one to swallow in the midst of what modern technology dangles as a ready solution. It is “extreme” to sell people short of the Truth and their true dignity in Christ. The challenge and job of the Church is to present and field educate peoples of different cultures in the moral/behavior choices to avoid further tragedy.
  2. NFP and Aritficial Birth Control differ in introducing no barriers (unnatural) to the marital act and opennes to procreation. This requires thoughtfulness to family planning and ultimately faith and trust in God to determine family size.This emulates the holy Trinity as is our higher calling in Christ. Can you imagine the Persons of the holy Trinity putting in place artificial barriers to limit their exchange of pure love? Anything less is a fraudulent imitation of Christ.
 
40.png
Thepeug:
The general idea is that “We should not limit the number of children we have” and “If God wants us to have children, we shouldn’t interfere with the process.” The same could be applied to medicine, however. One could say, “You shouldn’t take medicine. If God wants you to get sick, you shouldn’t interfere with this natural process.” Is taking medicine not attempting to thwart the natural means by which species populations remain in check? Of course, no one seriously makes the above argument, but can you see how the use of contraception and the use of medicine are in some ways analagous?
Chris
Click to expand...
God gives man the rational abilities of intellect and will to arrive at good ends through moral means. Medicine to cure illness is moral means to a good end. NFP is a moral means to a good end (family planning based on the ability for the proper care and education of the children) arrived at through prayer and discernment (and an informed and well-formed understanding of what the Church teaches in this area of marriage).
 
40.png
Argh:
I’m confused as well about NFP. Isnt the intent the same as using a condom? The intent of course is to prevent pregnancy. I mean, the odds of preventing pregancy are about the same, when used correctly of course.
Click to expand...
Abstinence does not distort, block or contravene a natural human marital act.
I can see either method turning women, or men for that matter, being used as sexual objects, though. I know, it’s forbidden, but I have a hard time seeing the different between condom use and** NFP if both are used to prevent pregnancy** and both partners dont see each other as mere sexual objects.
Click to expand...
People who practice NFP testify that it is a great enhancement to their relationship and brings them closer together. NFP does not “prevent” pregnancy. It avoids pregnancy. The distinction may appear to be subtle but it is not.
Then again, I’m 19, and the thought of being a father scares me sooo much.
Click to expand...
If you’re 19 and unmarried, then you are not in a position to fear fatherhood because you are living chastely. Right? 🙂
 
I really can’t speak too much on NFP, but it seems like others are helping at that.

I am interested in your discussion regarding AIDS in African nations. I agree there is a problem, however I do not agree condoms are the answer. Remember, professors aren’t always the answer either (see Churchill speaking lately?!).

As you stated, abstinence may not be the answer either due to cultural aspects. In America we do have subcultures, also. Do we distribute bullet proof vests to gang members prevent their deaths? That would be silly.

What about teaching monogimous relationships? Teaching about how the disease is spread. Education is a cure. When people are starving, it is great to give them food and bottled water for the short-term, but to teach them how to to grow a garden and farm and dig a well is a much better long-term cure.
 
40.png
Thepeug:
That said, I have two more questions concerning contraception. The general idea is that “We should not limit the number of children we have” and “If God wants us to have children, we shouldn’t interfere with the process.” The same could be applied to medicine, however. One could say, “You shouldn’t take medicine. If God wants you to get sick, you shouldn’t interfere with this natural process.” Is taking medicine not attempting to thwart the natural means by which species populations remain in check? Of course, no one seriously makes the above argument, but can you see how the use of contraception and the use of medicine are in some ways analagous?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church teaches that it is acceptable for serious (serious) financial, psychological, or health reasons to limit the size of one’s family by working with the natural fertility cycle. There are those who completely abandon themselves to the providence of God and accept the blessing of children entirely on his terms. God bless 'em! But the Church does not hold everyone to that admirable standard.
Secondly, in regards to AIDS and abstinence, there are cultural contexts which one must consider. Yes, there are good people who practice abstinence, but in some idigenous cultures, abstinence is a completely foreign concept. The fact that some cultures are more promiscuous than others doesn’t make them objectively “good” or "bad"; it simply means that one cannot realistically expect people of every cultural to abstain from sex before and during marriage. In such circumstances where abstinence is completely ineffective, SOMETHING must be done to stop the AIDS epidemic. If not contraception, then what?
Click to expand...
Objectively good or bad? Why should we not judge a culture whose mores foster and promote the rampant spread of a fatal disease through sexual promiscuity as objectively less wholesome than a culture which offers a solution to this problem?
 
Here are some sites:

About condoms and AIDS

Kenyan Archbishop warns condoms will not prevent AIDS
www.cathnews.com/news/308/22.php

Kenyan bishops reaffirm opposition to condoms
www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=34799

Vaticans : condoms don’t stop aids
www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

Pope stresses responsibility, avoids mention of condoms to fight AIDS
www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0500427.htm

[If you’re 19 and unmarried, then you are not in a position to fear fatherhood because you are living chastely. Right?]

I totally agree with you.

Humanae Vitae (which talks about the family and the role of men and women)

www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm

I’ve used NFP for over 12 years. Condoms is still saying to God “we know better than you.” It goes against God’s plan for us and how our bodies work. God made our bodies wonderful. He didn’t make a mistake when it came to the reproductive cycle. Using anything in order to prevent shows that we don’t have repect for the body God has made. Abstinence until you are married is the right thing. Anything before marriage is fornification, a mortal sin. I know that it goes against what society thinks. But who are you going to follow, God or the world?

Peace,
Jen
 
Remember too, when practicing NFP, you hold nothing back. Using a barrier, like condom, is not total self-giving. How can you become one flesh when there is a barrier?
 
40.png
Thepeug:
That said, I have two more questions concerning contraception. The general idea is that “We should not limit the number of children we have” and “If God wants us to have children, we shouldn’t interfere with the process.” The same could be applied to medicine, however. One could say, “You shouldn’t take medicine. If God wants you to get sick, you shouldn’t interfere with this natural process.” Is taking medicine not attempting to thwart the natural means by which species populations remain in check? Of course, no one seriously makes the above argument, but can you see how the use of contraception and the use of medicine are in some ways analagous?
Click to expand...
Theologically,
Getting sick is ultimatley the result of “sin”. Taking Medicine is a cure for the Sickness (Sin). So you have “bad” getting fixed by “good” (God gave us the means to invent Medicine)

With Contraception you have the reverse: “good” (God’s design)
being undone by “bad” (contraception).

That was just off the top of my head.
 
40.png
Thepeug:
Secondly, in regards to AIDS and abstinence, there are cultural contexts which one must consider. Yes, there are good people who practice abstinence, but in some idigenous cultures, abstinence is a completely foreign concept. The fact that some cultures are more promiscuous than others doesn’t make them objectively “good” or “bad”; it simply means that one cannot realistically expect people of every cultural to abstain from sex before and during marriage. In such circumstances where abstinence is completely ineffective, SOMETHING must be done to stop the AIDS epidemic. If not contraception, then what?
Click to expand...
Uganda has been the only country to reduce the spread of Aids, quite sucessfully. The main factor was an Abstinence program.

There was a really good article in National Review on this a few years ago.

Also, being Promiscuous is also being un-responsible.
Condoms won’t work because an un-responsible person would not be responsible enough to use them.
In the US, the more that Condoms are intorduced, the more teenage pregnancies occur.

Not to mention, condoms offer no protection for some of the other STD’s that are small enough to get through the condom membrane.

Abstinence works every time its tried.
 
Condoms must be used with iron-clad consistency to have any effect in preventing AIDS (and even then it’s not a guarantee). In fact, it would take virtues like prudence, fortitude, temperance to use condoms this way. See where I’m going? If one can be trained to use condoms in that way, one can certainly be trained in chastity and since chastity is good and contraception is evil, the choice is obvious.

This is the great lie we have been fed by the boatloads-of-condoms-to-Africa people. For them the condom is a mere talisman against evil. Just throw a pinch of incense to the god of sex, wave this condom packet and you will be fine.

As much little use as I have for Josh McDowell, he did a good job putting it this way: If you learned the person you were about have sex with had AIDS, would you still do it even with the condom? Answer no to this and you can see that it is thoughoughly disgusting to tell Africans to just use condoms.

Scott
 
Scott Waddell:
As much little use as I have for Josh McDowell, he did a good job putting it this way: If you learned the person you were about have sex with had AIDS, would you still do it even with the condom? Answer no to this and you can see that it is thoughoughly disgusting to tell Africans to just use condoms.
Scott
Click to expand...
It’s called Russian Roulette, take your chances. The disgusting and unethical part is that not everyone is being told this.
 
If you’re 19 and unmarried, then you are not in a position to fear fatherhood because you are living chastely. Right? 🙂

Correct. I wasnt always a supporter of chastity, not being a good Catholic years ago, but then God sent me an agnostic girlfirend to keep me chaste…amusing and ironic dont you think?

Avoid vs Prevent, I’ll have to think more on that…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top