Where did the Church's contraceptives stance come from?

[Anglewannabe]

I had thought that this online forum was supposed to be a place to work through questions like that.

If your definition of ‘work through’ is to learn the truth, this forum is doing just that, Teaching you the truth that wording things like ‘where did this come from’ is not correct and it is being pointed out

If your definition of ‘work through’ is to try and change God’s teachings, then devout Catholics will disagree

Are you interested in people who are curious about the Catholic faith converting or remaining on the OUTSIDE?

I believe God will lead those He calls to the faith. And I am a strong believer in honesty and letting people know what they are getting into and being upfront about the teachings of the church to the best of my ability. If someone chooses to remain on the outside since they don’t like the teachings, I respect their free will.

And personnally, I have always been of the mindset, if a person is not going to do their best to embrace the faith and every day become more holy, then yes, I would prefer they remain on the outside

I’ve heard about “the new evangelism” that is supposedly going through the Catholic church right now. Perhaps I could be a part of that, you really don’t know.

Again, I don’t water down the faith just to increase membership

 

[Vico]

And what about people like me who were never called to be a nun nor marriage? Being single is a totally acceptable option

St. Paul recommended that people not marry.

 

[Mintaka]

I have mentioned this before on the forums –

Fasting from sex at certain times and certain days of the week (during marriage) was always part of Judaism and Christianity. Eastern Catholics and Orthodox folks are still taught to do this. Roman rite Catholics had this requirement relaxed during early modern times.

Just as with fasting from food, it is not about something being “bad,” but rather about temporarily sacrificing something good. With sex, it is also about gaining time for married couples’ prayer, as St. Paul says.

NFP follows in this tradition.

 

[Memaw]

Respectfully, no, it really cannot. Not like a marriage with a healthy sex life. And, no, maintaining a sex free marriage is not somehow “better” because of all of the spiritual “benefits” you get from living sex free, even within a marriage. If one’s vocation was to be sex free, they should have been called to the priesthood or to be a nun. If they are married, they were not so called. Telling people to basically “get over it” by turning to Jesus and noticing how selfish it is to want to have sex does not really address the heartbreak of living, in this area, as a widow/er while having a living spouse. There is a rigidity and lack of compassion in that view, and it can become a real barrier to those seeking God.

My current takeaway based on what I’ve learned the past two years to include this forum’s (name removed by moderator)ut: There is, at its base, an assumption that sex is often selfish and bad, and the way to defeat that fundamental badness is all mind over matter. On the one hand, this great, life giving gift from God is presented, then when it doesn’t work out exactly like it’s supposed to we can pray for God to take away this significant part of our personhood through the purifying struggles of abstinence regardless of the emotional impact this has on a marriage. It is this general picture that I will continue to look into.

You totally miss the point ! Sometimes life brings its sacrifices. What happens when one spouse is seriously ill and cannot take part in the marriage act, say even for years or even ever again. My husband had very serious heart problems for 15 years of our 18 year marriage. The last 5 years was total abstinence. He was 47 when he died. I am 80 years old now and have never married again. Sex is NOT all there is to a healthy and fulfilling life. I stayed busy raising my kids and enjoying my grandkids and having a full, contented life doing just that. My Catholic Faith is the most important part of my life and I wouldn’t risk that for anything or anyone! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Gorgias]

Respectfully, no, it really cannot. Not like a marriage with a healthy sex life. And, no, maintaining a sex free marriage is not somehow “better” because of all of the spiritual “benefits” you get from living sex free

But, hold on – I’m not suggesting “a responsibility to be free from sex”, but rather, saying only that “sex free from responsibility” isn’t what marital relations are about at all! Contraceptives say “I want the fun without the responsibility”; and that – not the marital act itself – is what is at issue here.

There is, at its base, an assumption that sex is often selfish and bad

Nope: sex itself isn’t “selfish and bad” – but that doesn’t mean that people can’t use it in a selfish way.

we can pray for God to take away this significant part of our personhood through the purifying struggles of abstinence

Huh? Who’s suggesting that “don’t use contraceptives” means “don’t ever have sex again”? Are you sure you understand NFP? 'Cause “periodic abstinence” doesn’t mean “never have sex” in precisely the same way “dieting” doesn’t mean “starve yourself to death”…

 

[LundyLund]

My question: I understand this is a question that can be answered speculatively and has limitations. Please do not be mean in answering. I’m looking to get a Catholic perspective on what I’ve seen from outside, not trying to get at anyone. So, if God made up the strict rejection of all forms of birth control and having large families is a blessing/favorable, etc., why is it that many faithful and practicing Catholics who love God and their Church find it to not be so? If they did, they would do it.

I only speak for myself, here, as no one is qualified to speak for the entire Catholic population. My wife and I used artificial birth control for the first nine years of our marriage. We did so because we wanted to have “control” over when we had children. And, frankly, we were selfish in that we wanted to be able to have sex without “consequences.” Ultimately, we didn’t “agree” with the Church’s teaching because we didn’t want to.

About two years ago, we finally started getting serious about our faith. And, as we came to mature in our faith, we re-examined our views about birth control. We now use NFP. It helped that several of our friends (we are 35 and 33) also practice NFP. God put us in a place to be receptive to His teaching. And, you know what? Our relationship is way better now than it ever has been. And so is our sex life. It’s almost like He knew what he was doing

Finally, just because we don’t use artificial birth control doesn’t mean we feel we have to have a bunch of children. We have two, and feel that is all we are called to have. But, we are now fully open to life every time we have sex. So, that’s probably the biggest difference for us.

I think you ask fair questions that hit what can be major stumbling blocks for Catholics and non-Catholics alike. For me, it was finally learning to put God ahead of myself.

 

[LundyLund]

Also, I would add, we didn’t really understand *why *the Church taught that artificial birth control is wrong. We had only been told that was the “rule”. We didn’t even explore why until we got serious about our faith. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if this is a common reason why others use artificial birth control.

 

[Wampa]

Absolutely - and at the time when Anglicans accepted it there were warnings that it would lead to the range of sins (promiscuity, abortion, family breakdown, sexualisation of society and women in particular, etc) which have undoubtedly resulted from the reduction of sex to a recreational activity supposedly without moral content.

I would like to emphasize this point. The introduction of commonly available birth control has played a massive role in creating a society where (mostly) men see (mostly) women as objects for their sexual gratification. I recently read in the news about something that I think perfectly illustrates a logical endpoint of this change in our society.

Many have heard about the accusations of 10-20 men (mostly football players) having non-consensual sex with a female University of Minnesota student. There is much debate about what was consensual and what was not, but for the purposes of this post, I will give the men the full benefit of the doubt and assume it was entirely consensual. Here is the woman’s testimony as to how the room looked at the end of the interactions.

This is taken directly from the University’s EEOC report. I find myself thinking, when sex used to bring the potential consequence of pregnancy, would 10-20 students have treated a fellow student this way?

WARNING: EXPLICIT (well, not sexually explicit, but very gross - stop reading here if you don’t want this yucky scene in your mind).

“[Accused man] then sat up or kneeled in the bed with a look of shock on his face. At this point, the bedroom light was on. [Woman] watched [accused man]'s face as he looked around the room. He began swearing under his breath as he looked at the mess in [other accused man’s] bedroom. The approximately two·foot strip of floor between the bed and television stand was covered with yellow/gold condom wrappers and used condoms. There was a pile of around 12 used condoms on top of a white plastic set of drawers next to the television stand. Semen was dripping down the drawers.”

 

[twf]

I have to say, I am ashamed of how some of my fellow Catholics are treating the OP. We will utterly fail at evangelization if we start with the assumption that the truth of our faith is self-evident to all. On this and many other threads a sense of “you either accept it or don’t” seems to prevail. Yet what has our holy father been constantly emphasizing? Meeting people where they’re at…accompanying them in their struggles. The truth doesn’t change, but it can be presented in different ways. Of course some people IMMENSELY suffer in their marriages because contraception isn’t an option, and it doesn’t help to downplay that fact. Human beings are weak. Not everyone is immediately, right out of the gate, a Saint ready to embrace every aspect of the faith, with the sacrifice that goes with that, without difficulty. People are and will be turned off from Catholicism because of the sorts of attitudes displayed on this thread. We as Catholics, as part of the new evangelization, are bound to show infinite patience and forebearance with those who are searching for the faith.

 

[ArielRussu]

I have to say, I am ashamed of how some of my fellow Catholics are treating the OP. **We will utterly fail at evangelization if we start with the assumption that the truth of our faith is self-evident to all. On this and many other threads a sense of “you either accept it or don’t” seems to prevail. **Yet what has our holy father been constantly emphasizing? Meeting people where they’re at…accompanying them in their struggles. The truth doesn’t change, but it can be presented in different ways. Of course some people IMMENSELY suffer in their marriages because contraception isn’t an option, and it doesn’t help to downplay that fact. Human beings are weak. Not everyone is immediately, right out of the gate, a Saint ready to embrace every aspect of the faith, with the sacrifice that goes with that, without difficulty. People are and will be turned off from Catholicism because of the sorts of attitudes displayed on this thread. We as Catholics, as part of the new evangelization, are bound to show infinite patience and forebearance with those who are searching for the faith.

And Catholics wonder why people keep leaving the faith or want absolutely nothing to do with it. The treatments no better in the real world, than it is here on CAF. The Christian church I attend now once got called a heathens Church and an absolute shame and disgrace cause we took over a previous Catholic Church that got closed. Yeah ok, and that’s before our church even opened! It was a heathens church apparent just because its not a Catholic one. Yeah such heathens and disgraces and terrible people, the old pastor and his family left our church to start a missionary in Haiti where they’ve spread the Gospel and love of Jesus in the heart of a city where vudo and human sacrifice was once common only 10 years ago, but now has a growing Christian population. If I ever saw that person again, I’d tell them that the crowd there is more friendly and God centered than I ever met in a Catholic Church!
I mean no offense too you, just emphasizing a point.

 

[WilliamE]

I will also share that the worldly view of sexuality and contraception was well ingrained in me as a 25 year old woman…

Oh 1ke…you saucy minx.

 

[Rau]

Does anyone know the details on how the Catholic church became so opposed to birth control of any kind? I’ve heard the general explanation but would like to know how the Church got there. I have noticed that the Catholic church is very, very rigid on its stance, and that families that are the most faithful to the Church in this regard are often put in terrible moral positions. Faithful women are most hurt by it in particular. I feel really bad for women who get into bad health situations (mental with PPD or the many physical conditions) because of this who are met with very textbook “NFP or abstain” responses. Sure, there are women who have had good experiences with it, and I myself use NFP because I don’t want to go on hormones/my husband has a very low drive. I can see this being a serious source of heartache in marriages, even if the two parties get all the “mystical rewards” that are supposed to come with the Catholic life. Makes me sad.

So I want to know specifically where it came from.

The better question to ask would be: “Why did the Protestant and many other churches abandon opposition to contraception?”

 

[TruthSkr]

Extreme circumstances that preclude sexual intimacy happen in marriages. From the scenario you’ve described to cancer, deployment, and family crises. If they are very serious, continence is appropriate while in other cases periodic continence suffices. BUT… They are not forever. The idea that chastity in marriage is never called for is not compatible with the dignity of the spouses or the sixth commandment. Chastity is a fundamental virtue in ALL states of life.

You say that in some cases continence or periodic continence is appropriate, but are not forever. I currently find myself in a situation where my wife and I are are physically no longer able to have intercourse and there is no medical remedy that is acceptable to my wife. This means that we are looking at spending the rest of our lives without any type of sexual intimacy. There is no way this will not place serious strain on our marriage. How can this be a good thing?

 

[Rau]

You say that in some cases continence or periodic continence is appropriate, but are not forever. I currently find myself in a situation where my wife and I are **are physically no longer able to have intercourse **and there is no medical remedy that is acceptable to my wife. This means that we are looking at spending the rest of our lives without any type of sexual intimacy. There is no way this will not place serious strain on our marriage. How can this be a good thing?

It’s not clear what nature of circumstance you are experiencing, or whether contraception is at all relevant to it. You say you are “physically no longer able…”.

I am sure that this circumstance - whatever it is - will be a source of difficulty.

But who has suggested that what has befallen you and your wife is a good thing? Who has said that that a married couple unable to engage in a sexual relationship is a good thing? All that happens in the world is not in itself good.

 

[Rau]

The Catholic Church has in fact also weakened its opposition by endorsing and now very much encouraging NFP…

That’s a strange statement. NFP does not compromise the basis upon which the Church rejects contraception (though the contrary belief seems to underpin your statement).

…and frankly turning a blind eye to widespread contraceptive use among members.

Turning a blind eye? What would you propose that “the Church” do about the ‘sinners’ in its midst? Name and shame?

 

[TruthSkr]

It’s not clear what nature of circumstance you are experiencing, or whether contraception is at all relevant to it. You say you are “physically no longer able…”.

I am sure that this circumstance - whatever it is - will be a source of difficulty.

But who has suggested that what has befallen you and your wife is a good thing? Who has said that that a married couple unable to engage in a sexual relationship is a good thing? All that happens in the world is not in itself good.

Sorry for not better explaining my question. Of course, not being able to have intercourse is a very unfortunate thing. What I was referring to is not being able to be sexually intimate which is still very possible outside of intercourse. And the reason this is forbidden is because of the Church’s teaching that marital sex must always conclude with “the man finishing inside the woman” which is part of the issue with contraception. Many years ago my wife had a hysterectomy and so it would be impossible for her to conceive a child no matter how we had sex. So now that we are no longer able to have intercourse it does not make sense that we should live out the rest of our lives with no sexual intimacy in order to avoid having sex that is not “open to life” when new life is impossible.

Another question I have pertains to the original topic of this thread “Where did the Church’s contraceptive stance come from?” I believe that what really matters here is knowing the will of God. There were many comments here about the origin of the Church’s prohibition of contraception, but from what I recall everything was related to tradition. I have not seen a single thing taken directly from the Bible on this subject. And so how does tradition alone prove God’s intent?

 

[chevalier]

The whole contraceptive mentality though is an attempt to ‘ret-con’ history. ZPG types aside, the family unit, and plenty of children, seen as a gift from God, was the norm of true civilization and protected most by Catholic Christians (who have kept this up even now after the slide of their Protestant brothers).

Yes, and quite possibly intentionally designed that way. Somebody benefits from contraception sales, and somebody benefits from keeping populations smaller, and obviously somebody benefits from diluting nation states and cohesive constituencies.

Instead of bewailing the mothers ‘punished with a baby’ (and yes, the stories are heartbreaking), how about going after the society-sanctioned hedonism and the tangled policies of economics that make this possible? How about giving men and women real incentives to marry, instead of making it cheaper NOT to keep her by penalizing taxes, welfare that doesn’t work,

That’s actually what countries such as Turkey do. Or Hungary recently.

and the adversarial “Women don’t need men” brainwashing fed our daughters along with the "they don’t need us, so ‘screw em’’ attitude brainwashing fed to our sons in return.

Problem: that would take the wind out of liberal sails (I wrote ‘sales’ first; figures).

How about encouraging living wages so that families can actually stay together

How illiberal! To even suggest that even considering not divorcing is an option! Gasp!

and work together, instead of having all mom’s "need to fulfill myself’ salary (which 90% of the time turns into a “single mom because he dumped me since I could take care of myself” salary) go to paying underpaid, overworked, burnt out child care workers and legal fees for fat cat lawyers who feed on getting ‘the most’ (for them) out of divorce cases?

Women going to work (not that they shouldn’t have the option) has only benefitted employers. Where a man’s wage was supposed to pay for the upkeep and generally reasonable living of also his wife and children, now that figure has been divided by 2.

Thank GOD the Catholic Church is still fighting for true marriage and all it entails, and for the true dignity of men and women, and the gifts of children. And that includes, in marriage, being open to the uniative AND procreative aspects of one of the greatest gifts, sex.

Ultimately, I wonder if liberalism isn’t perhaps directly aimed against God. It does seem to have scarcely any programme of its own, just simply negation of Christian positions and extermination or neutralization of Christianity. As well as self-destruction of Europe and America.

 

[Memaw]

Also, I would add, we didn’t really understand *why *the Church taught that artificial birth control is wrong. We had only been told that was the “rule”. We didn’t even explore why until we got serious about our faith. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if this is a common reason why others use artificial birth control.

The Church taught it but you just didn’t take time to learn it. ALL Christian denominations taught it also, until 1930. Then the door to Pandora’s box opened. and here we are today!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Rau]

Sorry for not better explaining my question. Of course, not being able to have intercourse is a very unfortunate thing. What I was referring to is not being able to be sexually intimate which is still very possible outside of intercourse. And the reason this is forbidden is because of the Church’s teaching that marital sex must always conclude with “the man finishing inside the woman” which is part of the issue with contraception. Many years ago my wife had a hysterectomy and so it would be impossible for her to conceive a child no matter how we had sex. So now that we are no longer able to have intercourse it does not make sense that we should live out the rest of our lives with no sexual intimacy in order to avoid having sex that is not “open to life” when new life is impossible.

If medical remedies exist, are they such that to decline them is reasonable?

If there is a “morally proper” means to engage sexually, and you cannot do that, then what you say “doesn’t make sense” actually follows logically in your situation.

Another question I have pertains to the original topic of this thread “Where did the Church’s contraceptive stance come from?” I believe that what really matters here is knowing the will of God. There were many comments here about the origin of the Church’s prohibition of contraception, but from what I recall everything was related to tradition. I have not seen a single thing taken directly from the Bible on this subject. And so how does tradition alone prove God’s intent?

A biblical figure, Onan, practiced “withdrawal”, spilling “the seed”. God punished him (with death) for this act.

The Churches more recent teaching rests in large part on its interpretation of natural law, which reflect’s God’s Will. You can read the reasoning here - the context here is contraception and regulation of births.
w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

A greater biblical focus will be found in Casti Connubii by Pope Pius XI.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

Some author’s criticise Paul VI for not including much biblical reference in support of his teaching. You can see a discussion of that in the following, together with identification of relevant biblical passsges.

hprweb.com/2013/07/humanae-vitae-and-sacred-scripture-a-missed-opportunity/

 

[TruthSkr]

If medical remedies exist, are they such that to decline them is reasonable?

I already had two surgeries to remedy the problem, both of which failed over time. It therefore appears the chance of benefit is outweighed by risks of a third surgery.

If there is a “morally proper” means to engage sexually, and you cannot do that, then what you say “doesn’t make sense” actually follows logically in your situation.

Please explain your logical conclusion as it compares to mine.