Where did the Church's contraceptives stance come from?

[TCEL]

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?

First, I am sorry for your situation. It is out of my arena to speak directly to you about that. I will pray tonight for your situation.

Second, for myself, one of the strongest arguments against contraception is from the Bible, even though the canon of the Bible itself wasn’t settled when evidence of Christian teaching forbidding contraception and abortion already existed. Biblically, when St. Paul says for husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, that naturally leads to the realization that Christ completely emptied himself, and gave his entire body for her, on the cross. If marriage is an icon of that love, it’s difficult for me to see Jesus contracepting, or deliberately withholding a fundamental part of Himself, from His bride. I know this is largely an aesthetic argument, but for myself, it’s one of the strongest.

 

[Rau]

Please explain your logical conclusion as it compares to mine.

I thought it was clear enough? If we accept that there is a moral course, and if one cannot pursue the moral course, then one is left with only immoral courses. This may not be pleasant news, but it is logical.

Have you read some of the material I provided to you?

 

[SusanneT]

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).

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

My point is that the Church actively promotes NFP as an alternative not to abstinence but to contraception, because it wants to offer couples who might otherwise simply choose to contracept an alternative to simply disregarding Church teaching totally. Witness for example the assumption that newly wed couple should use NFP and delay, so that they can get to know each other, finish study etc. There is nothing wrong with NFP but I don’t think anyone thinks it should be promoted as an alternative to contraception.

I’m not suggesting the Church ‘name and shame’ sinners, but nor should it simply accept that a sizable part of the congregation is practising contraception and is therefore in sin, without questioning it and without preaching that couples should question their actions. How often do you hear that ??

 

[Rau]

My point is that the Church actively promotes NFP as an alternative not to abstinence but to contraception,

It is a moral means of avoiding children for a while. Contraception is a means (immoral) to that same end. Complete abstinence is another (moral) means.

it wants to offer couples who might otherwise simply choose to contracept an alternative to simply disregarding Church teaching totally.

Seems a good course of action.

Witness for example the assumption that newly wed couple should use NFP and delay, so that they can get to know each other, finish study etc.

The church makes no such assumption. Many couples do, and I can understand motivations - such as financial, to that end.

There is nothing wrong with NFP but I don’t think anyone thinks it should be promoted as an alternative to contraception.

It is, and it is ‘promoted’ as, a moral means to defer children. If not - what it is?

I’m not suggesting the Church ‘name and shame’ sinners, but nor should it simply accept that a sizable part of the congregation is practising contraception and is therefore in sin, without questioning it and without preaching that couples should question their actions. How often do you hear that ??

Preaching in mass is largely directed to discussion of the scriptures. Regrettably, programs of education at the high school or parish level in catholic moral theology are few and far between.

 

[Constantin]

Why is it that so many threads deal with this topic?
Considering the numbers, it would seem that this is a main concept
within church teaching which is obviously not true.
Imho a certain voyeurism is at the core of this: Everyone feels entitled
to a private opinion on this and obliged to share it, discuss
and get glimpses at the private life of other persons in the process.
I consider this highly precarious: What kind of impression would an unbiased
person get, coming to this forum and seeing at all the threads in a
“family” forum revolving around sex?

 

[TruthSkr]

I thought it was clear enough? If we accept that there is a moral course, and if one cannot pursue the moral course, then one is left with only immoral courses. This may not be pleasant news, but it is logical.

Have you read some of the material I provided to you?

I have read some, not all, of the material you provided, enough to understand the principles involved here.

Your logical conclusion is that the act I described should not be pursued because it is immoral. My logical conclusion was that the act is not immoral for the following reasons:

A) The Church teaches that all marital acts must be open to new life
B) In my situation the creation of new life is impossible, therefore
C) I cannot act immorally in this instance if it is impossible to deliberately violate the Church’s teaching.

I have done much reading on this subject over the past several years and almost everything I read came from Catholic sources. In an attempt to gain a fair and balanced opinion on this subject I began to look for opposing points of view. Just recently I came across a website called the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research. The website, which supports my point of view in great detail can be seen at: catholicsandcontraception.com/catholic-scholar-statement-ethics-contraceptives-2016/. This website was created using information and debate by a group of 170 Catholic scholars from around the world. Please read it over and see what you think.

 

[Rau]

I have read some, not all, of the material you provided, enough to understand the principles involved here.

Your logical conclusion is that the act I described should not be pursued because it is immoral. My logical conclusion was that the act is not immoral for the following reasons:

A) The Church teaches that all marital acts must be open to new life
B) In my situation the creation of new life is impossible, therefore
C) I cannot act immorally in this instance if it is impossible to deliberately violate the Church’s teaching.

So this logic would say that mutual masturbation is a bad act prior to menopause and a good act after menopause? Points (b and c) misunderstands entirely what the Church teaches. An act is not “procreative” because it is capable of producing a child. Such interpretation would mean that no marital act of the sterile, or after menopause, could be “Procreative”, and yet the church teaches all marital acts must be “unitive” and “procreative”.

“Open to life” is but one expression of what the church teaches. The Church teaches that each marital act must be “ordered” to procreation - that is the meaning of “procreative” - and this applies equally to the sterile as to others.

So to be clear - the assumption in (c) that acts such as mutual masturbation of the sterile or the impudent (or others not capable of a marital act) do not violate what the church teaches - is wrong.

I have done much reading on this subject over the past several years and almost everything I read came from Catholic sources. In an attempt to gain a fair and balanced opinion on this subject I began to look for opposing points of view. Just recently I came across a website called the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research. The website, which supports my point of view in great detail can be seen at: catholicsandcontraception.com/catholic-scholar-statement-ethics-contraceptives-2016/. This website was created using information and debate by a group of 170 Catholic scholars from around the world. Please read it over and see what you think.

I think we should be honest here and note that your position is not one of interpreting applicability of teaching to your circumstance, but of rejecting church teaching, as explained above. The “scholars” associated with the website you reference simply hold that the church is wrong (as they have done for decades, even prior to HV.). They are not a “catholic” source since they reject the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[TruthSkr]

So this logic would say that mutual masturbation is a bad act prior to menopause and a good act after menopause? Points (b and c) misunderstands entirely what the Church teaches. An act is not “procreative” because it is capable of producing a child. Such interpretation would mean that no marital act of the sterile, or after menopause, could be “Procreative”, and yet the church teaches all marital acts must be “unitive” and “procreative”.

“Open to life” is but one expression of what the church teaches. The Church teaches that each marital act must be “ordered” to procreation - that is the meaning of “procreative” - and this applies equally to the sterile as to others.

So to be clear - the assumption in (c) that acts such as mutual masturbation of the sterile or the impudent (or others not capable of a marital act) do not violate what the church teaches - is wrong.

I think we should be honest here and note that your position is not one of interpreting applicability of teaching to your circumstance, but of rejecting church teaching, as explained above. The “scholars” associated with the website you reference simply hold that the church is wrong (as they have done for decades, even prior to HV.). They are not a “catholic” source since they reject the teaching authority of the Church.

I understand your explanation of the term “ordered to procreation” and therefore your rejection of my conclusion. The website I referenced, however, goes on the explain what the authors believe to be reasons for marital sex over and above “unitive and procreative” that they feel are legitimate. And although the authors do not represent the Catholic Church, neither do they appear to reject the authority of the Church. They just believe it is in error. Honestly, I am trying to apply the discussion to my situation due to the similarities between it and the various issues associated with contraception. I may be wrong in my conclusion, but just have trouble understanding what harm there could be from an older couple trying to keep what little intimacy we have left at this point in our lives.

 

[Gorgias]

The website I referenced, however, goes on the explain what the authors believe to be reasons for marital sex over and above “unitive and procreative” that they feel are legitimate. And although the authors do not represent the Catholic Church, neither do they appear to reject the authority of the Church. They just believe it is in error.

Right. So, if you felt a secular law was in error, would you break it with impunity, or would you attempt to get it reversed? If the former, then you’d be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

I get it that you feel that the Church’s position is wrong. However, that ‘feeling’ doesn’t give us the right to do as we please, does it? Or, more to the point: it doesn’t absolve us of the acts we commit, even if we think they’re ‘right’, does it?

To the point at hand, there’s another facet to the discussion: the authority of the Church and the responsibility of Catholics to follow Church teaching. Your argument doesn’t address this facet at all – in fact, it seems to say “if I’m right, then the Church has no authority and I have no responsibility to listen to the teaching.” That just doesn’t hold up. If you want – as the folks who put up the web site you cite want – to see the Church change its teaching, then have at it! Just don’t think that the effort to change the teaching implies that we can act as if it were already changed.

Honestly, I… just have trouble understanding what harm there could be from an older couple trying to keep what little intimacy we have left at this point in our lives.

Here’s a thought experiment for you: take any other sin out there and make the assertion that committing that sin will help the intimacy of your relationship. Then, would you make the same argument that “maintaining intimacy” trumps “not sinning”? That’s the argument you’re making here, right? That “intimacy” makes committing sin OK? That’s “the end justifies the means” logic… and that’s logic that the Church firmly rejects in its moral theology.

 

[Gorgias]

My logical conclusion was that the act is not immoral for the following reasons:

Mind if I address your logic?

A) The Church teaches that all marital acts must be open to new life
B) In my situation the creation of new life is impossible, therefore
C) I cannot act immorally in this instance if it is impossible to deliberately violate the Church’s teaching.

“Open to new life” doesn’t mean “will create new life”, it means “acting in a way that enables new life if conception should occur”. Another way to say it might be “doesn’t take any actions which thwart the possibility of new life proceeding from the act being performed.”

Therefore, your statement “A” doesn’t have anything to do with whether “creation of new life” is possible or not. Rather, it only has to do with the act itself and whether it creates an environment in which (if all goes properly) the creation of new life might occur. This holds as validly in circumstances in which the creation of new life is impossible or extremely unlikely (e.g., hysterectomy, tubal ligation, vasectomy) as it does in circumstances in which the creation of new life is unlikely (low sperm motility, intercourse while the woman isn’t fertile) as it does in circumstances where everything is aligned toward conception. The issue isn’t “will it happen” or “can it happen” or “is it impossible to happen” – the issue is “am I doing this in a way that’s ordered toward procreation or am I doing this in a way that’s ordered against procreation?”

Therefore, your step “B” is immaterial. It just doesn’t come into play. As a result, your step “C” isn’t a logical conclusion. The Church’s teaching isn’t asking “will conception result?”; it’s asking “do your (sexual) actions – in and of themselves – either deliberately prevent conception or which are ordered against conception?” If you are… then you’re violating Church teaching and acting immorally.

 

[Ormond]

Does anyone know the details on how the Catholic church became so opposed to birth control of any kind?

2,000 years of celibate men forming Church policy.

 

[Rau]

2,000 years of celibate men forming Church policy.

When did celibacy become a requirement actually?

 

[TruthSkr]

Right. So, if you felt a secular law was in error, would you break it with impunity, or would you attempt to get it reversed? If the former, then you’d be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

I get it that you feel that the Church’s position is wrong. However, that ‘feeling’ doesn’t give us the right to do as we please, does it? Or, more to the point: it doesn’t absolve us of the acts we commit, even if we think they’re ‘right’, does it?

To the point at hand, there’s another facet to the discussion: the authority of the Church and the responsibility of Catholics to follow Church teaching. Your argument doesn’t address this facet at all – in fact, it seems to say “if I’m right, then the Church has no authority and I have no responsibility to listen to the teaching.” That just doesn’t hold up. If you want – as the folks who put up the web site you cite want – to see the Church change its teaching, then have at it! Just don’t think that the effort to change the teaching implies that we can act as if it were already changed.

Here’s a thought experiment for you: take any other sin out there and make the assertion that committing that sin will help the intimacy of your relationship. Then, would you make the same argument that “maintaining intimacy” trumps “not sinning”? That’s the argument you’re making here, right? That “intimacy” makes committing sin OK? That’s “the end justifies the means” logic… and that’s logic that the Church firmly rejects in its moral theology.

Thank you for taking the time for your very thoughtful response. So here is my comment. One of the points made by the website I referenced was that Pope Francis supposedly said that the final determination of moral choice is one’s conscience. According to the writers, Pope Francis said that one has a responsibility to examine all the facts pertinent to the issue as honestly as one can and to then decide what they believe to be correct. To my knowledge, most, if not all, non Catholic Christian faiths have accepted contraception as a moral choice. I know that this all changed after 1930, but this is what they now believe. If the Catholic Church has final moral authority over all mankind then all Protestants who practice birth control are doomed to eternal damnation. I don’t think anyone believes that, do you? The only alternative would be that the Church has authority only over Catholics. Somehow that seems discriminatory.

 

[TruthSkr]

Mind if I address your logic?

“Open to new life” doesn’t mean “will create new life”, it means “acting in a way that enables new life if conception should occur”. Another way to say it might be “doesn’t take any actions which thwart the possibility of new life proceeding from the act being performed.”

Therefore, your statement “A” doesn’t have anything to do with whether “creation of new life” is possible or not. Rather, it only has to do with the act itself and whether it creates an environment in which (if all goes properly) the creation of new life might occur. This holds as validly in circumstances in which the creation of new life is impossible or extremely unlikely (e.g., hysterectomy, tubal ligation, vasectomy) as it does in circumstances in which the creation of new life is unlikely (low sperm motility, intercourse while the woman isn’t fertile) as it does in circumstances where everything is aligned toward conception. The issue isn’t “will it happen” or “can it happen” or “is it impossible to happen” – the issue is “am I doing this in a way that’s ordered toward procreation or am I doing this in a way that’s ordered against procreation?”

Therefore, your step “B” is immaterial. It just doesn’t come into play. As a result, your step “C” isn’t a logical conclusion. The Church’s teaching isn’t asking “will conception result?”; it’s asking “do your (sexual) actions – in and of themselves – either deliberately prevent conception or which are ordered against conception?” If you are… then you’re violating Church teaching and acting immorally.

You have done an excellent job of examining the facts and presenting a good argument. But you know what? My wife and I were both born and raised Catholic. She stopped practicing the faith many years ago and is very hostile to the Church. Her feeling, justified or not, is that the Church operates on fear, fear of going to Hell for committing a mortal sin. So she will say to me “It’s simple, just follow the Golden Rule - do unto others…”. For me to attempt to present this very complicated argument to her would be a disaster. She would not even want to listen. She would say that the Church makes life much more complicated than it needs to be. Just be a good person and treat others well. It’s tough to argue against that.

 

[Ormond]

When did celibacy become a requirement actually?

That’s a good question, I don’t know, but would like to. Very relevant to this conversation, imho. Perhaps someone will educate us about that.

 

[kc456]

OP, it is difficult. So what do I do?
I have 7 kids close in age and now for the first time have an IUD.
DH will not abstain. My body is…not up for another pregnancy. I go to Communion. I would probably want to go confession but I am not getting rid of the IUD at this point in my life (and always we use condoms too). I see myself as complying with the teaching in a few decades, yes. I am not judging anyone. I understand the teaching. I am not following it. It does cause me some confusion. What do other Catholics do? In our catholic church everyone has 1 or 2 kids, and people stare when we walk in and we’re not the norm with 7 kids. But yes, I have an IUD and if it were ME only I wouldn’t. But marriage is 2 people. What does one do? I don’t know. And I am trying to follow the church teachings, and yet, I struggle here.