Vatican stand on contraception

[RobbyS]

After rereading my post, it seems the retarded word comes on stronger than I intended but I was trying to relate to the person’s quote.

I can’t say for a fact that my example is within the church’s teaching. But I can tell you that one of the most orthodox priest within the Kansas City/St. Joe Diocese has said it was ok.

I am struggling right now with the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control. Not as someone who wants to limit the number of children I have so I can maintain my 7 handicap at golf or play poker with the guys once a month. I am the father of soon to be 8 kids who has abidded by the teachings of the church on birth control. I now have very little time but to work and am not nearly as active in the daily lives of my children as I should be. My wife who works harder than I do is going through the same struggles. Our friends say, “You know what causes all those babies don’t you?” Yes, a little bit of intimacy a couple times a month. And the suggestion that a couple should forget about having sex in their late 30’s is not only ridiculous but also unbiblical.

But I would not nor would my wife considering taking any abortifacient which allows for the possibility of killing a baby in its very ealieriest form of life. This teaching is clear based on the 10 commandments and the taking of life.

Peace in Christ

There is the saying that hard cases make bad law. No doubt that raising 8 kids in this time and place is pretty hard. Father is dead wrong on believing, however, if he says that he can exempt you from the “rule,” because it is not a “rule” that you are talking about but a principle. Obviously it is hard for you to live up to the principle because you and your wife are so fertile.
But in times past, and even today there are families that have even more children, and they “get along.” These days there seem to be support groups for every sort of person in difficulty. If Father really wants to help, he should not just throw up his hands but try to get you in contact with people who are able to cope and can give you advise, financial and otherwise. The Church has an obligation to help, just as it would be you were suddenly to die and leave your wife along to handle your affairs. Anyone who thinks your and your wife are “at fault”—and I am sure there are many who do, and many whose consciences are untroubled by their use of contraceptives-- is just flat wrong and hypocritical/cyncial on top of that.

 

[Biggie]

There is the saying that hard cases make bad law. No doubt that raising 8 kids in this time and place is pretty hard. Father is dead wrong on believing, however, if he says that he can exempt you from the “rule,” because it is not a “rule” that you are talking about but a principle. Obviously it is hard for you to live up to the principle because you and your wife are so fertile.
But in times past, and even today there are families that have even more children, and they “get along.” These days there seem to be support groups for every sort of person in difficulty. If Father really wants to help, he should not just throw up his hands but try to get you in contact with people who are able to cope and can give you advise, financial and otherwise. The Church has an obligation to help, just as it would be you were suddenly to die and leave your wife along to handle your affairs. Anyone who thinks your and your wife are “at fault”—and I am sure there are many who do, and many whose consciences are untroubled by their use of contraceptives-- is just flat wrong and hypocritical/cyncial on top of that.

A fine answer to a difficult question. I was pondering what the right answer would be ujnder his circumstances and of course you found it.

 

[thomfra]

if condoms really prevented HIV, which they do very poorly, there might be a basis for discussion here.

What do you base this on?

 

[Nothumbleenough]

I don’t know what you mean by “a different set of rules”. There is one set of rules: couples must be open to life and use of contraception is a sin. But the Church doesn’t hold people accountable for the sins of others. So a man whose wife uses contraception against his strong objections doesn’t sin - the wife does.

What I am trying to do is determine how the church is being consistant in its teaching for this scenario that must happen quite frequently considering the number of catholics who marry non-catholic but christian spouses. This person is a very holy man who says he was told by a very orthodox priest he could have relations with his wife eventhough she is not open to life and is therefore taking ABC. I can assure you he is having relations with his wife but I cannot remember the exact details to his marriage. Whether there was a disposition given considering she is a pretty serious Lutheran, (Well, about as serious a Lutheran I have ever met, but that isn’t really saying much) or were they married outside the church. I guess in both cases, I cannot understand how the man can have valid relations with his wife because the act is considered a unitive act but if one of the two participating is not open to life, the act doesnt reach the bar according to the churches teaching.

 

[Corki]

What I am trying to do is determine how the church is being consistant in its teaching for this scenario that must happen quite frequently considering the number of catholics who marry non-catholic but christian spouses. This person is a very holy man who says he was told by a very orthodox priest he could have relations with his wife eventhough she is not open to life and is therefore taking ABC. I can assure you he is having relations with his wife but I cannot remember the exact details to his marriage. Whether there was a disposition given considering she is a pretty serious Lutheran, (Well, about as serious a Lutheran I have ever met, but that isn’t really saying much) or were they married outside the church. I guess in both cases, I cannot understand how the man can have valid relations with his wife because the act is considered a unitive act but if one of the two participating is not open to life, the act doesnt reach the bar according to the churches teaching.

Because the husband is not held accountable for the wife’s sins. She is the one using ABC. He is having relations with his valid wife; there is no sin in that. What she is doing is another issue. The act would be perfectly holy absent the wife’s wrongful action and that’s not his fault.

It is like saying that if one spouse commits adultery, then the other spouse must forgo all marital relations because the spouse is not being faithful. While it is certainly allowed and might be prudent, it isn’t a requirement.

 

[prodigal-sun]

What do you base this on?

She basis’ on the fact that a condom is in no way a protection against aids. You are playing Russian Roulette, with a deadly disease.

 

[sanctamaria17]

To suggest that the Catholic stance againt contraception is fuel to the HIV epidemic is a cheap shot. Everybody knows that the Catholic Church is against extra-marital affairs. Are adulterers and fornicators avoiding contraception because of the Catholic Church? :nope:

That’s not the only reason people get HIV. Certainly not in the DRC right now! Many women there are getting HIV because they’ve been raped by soldiers! There are also girls who are forced into prostitution to support families in other places! Then some don’t even know until they get married and one spouse starts having signs.

I think people are talking about faithful married couples where they either didn’t know (because some people still believe you’re fine if you’ve never had symptoms, and they could have had a bad past and repented), or they had something terrible happen (rape by an infected person, blood transfusions, which can still happen, etc). People can say, well they should just abstain for the rest of their lives. Not to say that sex is the most important thing but if there were a way for them to preserve that aspect of the union without spreading the disease (and also was much more effective than a piece of latex), then I don’t see it as wrong to make use of it, because then it’s like using the pill for medical reasons. But I wouldn’t trust my life or health with a piece of latex. That’s like playing Russian roulette!

 

[thomfra]

a condom is in no way a protection against aids.

A source to back that statement up please!!?!??!?!?!

 

[fix]

Not to say that sex is the most important thing but if there were a way for them to preserve that aspect of the union without spreading the disease (and also was much more effective than a piece of latex), then I don’t see it as wrong to make use of it, because then it’s like using the pill for medical reasons.

IOW, the therapy would need to be licit. So far there is not one available.

 

[sanctamaria17]

I don’t know. Why is birth control licit for a married woman for medical reasons, as long as it’s not the intent to avoid children? Doesn’t this work for a man too? It’s to prevent a deadly STI, not another baby. It’s just that the temporary sterilization is a byproduct.

 

[Thinks4Himself]

What do you base this on?

Junk science, misinformation, etc. They absolutly protect from HIV (latex ones) and a host of other veneral disease. people who dont want people having extra martial sex will try and convince others that basically a condom is as useless as having unprotected sex and that is a major untruth

 

[Corki]

I don’t know. Why is birth control licit for a married woman for medical reasons, as long as it’s not the intent to avoid children? Doesn’t this work for a man too? It’s to prevent a deadly STI, not another baby. It’s just that the temporary sterilization is a byproduct.

Artificial Birth Control is never licit.

People often mistate (or misunderstand) this. Women can licitly take birth control pills but that is because the same drugs that can be used to prevent pregnancy can also be used to treat another medical condidition. So a woman with a hormone imbalance might be prescribed a pill **to treat that imbalance **that happens to be the same pill that can be prescribed for birth control. A woman **cannot **licitly take birth control pills for the primary purpose of preventing a pregnancy.

In the argument for condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS (or other STDs) the condom is not being used to treat the disease at all. This is why it is illicit. It is true that “temporary sterilization” is a by product to the actual purpose (to prevent the spread of the disease) but it does not treat the disease in any way.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Junk science, misinformation, etc. They absolutly protect from HIV (latex ones) and a host of other veneral disease. people who dont want people having extra martial sex will try and convince others that basically a condom is as useless as having unprotected sex and that is a major untruth

What are u serious! Have you never heard of a condom not working properly… breaking, leaking, etc. it certainly does happen on a regular basis that a couple becomes pregnant even after using a condom.
So if you can get preganant with one on you can certainly pass on any diseases.
That’s why I say it is like playing Russian rouleete. It may never happen or it may. you would be an idiot if you think a condom protects against aids 100%. I hope you never have to find out!

Peace!

 

[Thinks4Himself]

That is simply not true - wheres the stats on couples getting pregnant using condoms vs NOT. And when used properly latex condoms protect against HIV and VD

 

[prodigal-sun]

That is simply not true - wheres the stats on couples getting pregnant using condoms vs NOT. And when used properly latex condoms protect against HIV and VD

yep! right up to the point the condom breaks, leaks, over flows, is improberly used, etc. etc. etc. etc.

If an HIV infected man thinks he is going to protect his wife by using a condom, he is mistaken. He is placing his wife’s health and sometimes life in jeopardy. The only 100% protection from transmission is abstinence… period! You my friend are lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

Peace!

 

[prodigal-sun]

That is simply not true - wheres the stats on couples getting pregnant using condoms vs NOT. And when used properly latex condoms protect against HIV and VD

Where are the stats… I dunno! Nor am I comparing condoms vs NOT! I know of one person who presumably thought he wouldn’t get his girl friend pregnant if he used a condom. He used the best condoms in the proper fashion and hasn’t a clue how she got pregnant, yet she did.

Before you say anything derogatory I will just add that the child is his!

Peace!

 

[Thinks4Himself]

yep! right up to the point the condom breaks, leaks, over flows, is improberly used, etc. etc. etc. etc.

If an HIV infected man thinks he is going to protect his wife by using a condom, he is mistaken. He is placing his wife’s health and sometimes life in jeopardy. The only 100% protection from transmission is abstinence… period! You my friend are lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

Peace!

Too bad you assume wrongly this happens 99% of the time when the stats show the reverse.

 

[thomfra]

Where are the stats… I dunno!

**
From the World Health Organisation: **

“We are certain that condoms work, particularly among those who change partners often. Experience suggests that it is easier to make sexual contacts safer rather than stop the contacts occurring at all.”

who.int/director-general/…11_durban.html

But it’s just not realistic (IMHO) to preach “no sex”.

 

[fix]

I don’t know. Why is birth control licit for a married woman for medical reasons, as long as it’s not the intent to avoid children?

If you mean contraceptive actions they are never licit. If you mean some type of medication to treat a legitimate medical pathology which has unintended side effects that is licit.

Doesn’t this work for a man too? It’s to prevent a deadly STI, not another baby. It’s just that the temporary sterilization is a byproduct.

No, that is not that same. This may help:

the act for moral evaluation in the HIV case is ejaculation into a condom during spousal sexual intercourse. The proximate end of this act is the prevention of both insemination into the reproductive tract of the wife and direct genital contact, and may only be characterized as a direct thwarting of the procreative ordination of the conjugal act; as such this end is intrinsically disordered with respect to the procreative and unitive goods of the conjugal act. In the HIV case, the fact that the conjugal act is being attempted without ejaculation into the reproductive tract of the wife is what causes the sterility. This sterilization is inextricably bound up with the act of sexual intercourse. The sex act does not just happen to be sterile because of some condition independent of the act, as in the therapeutic anovulant case. Rather, the sex act is undertaken because it is disordered (by virtue of the absence of ejaculation into the reproductive tract of the wife)…

 

[mark_a]

But it’s just not realistic (IMHO) to preach “no sex”.

We are bombarded with society’s teachings about sex, aids, stds, homosexuality, gay marriage, swinging, polygamy, masterbation, beastiality, cohabitation, prostitution, lebianism, bisexuality, and any other sexual sin possible, not to mention contraception and abortion.

The information is everywhere for those who desire it.

It is not the Church’s job to teach people how to sin.