Why Contraception is wrong?

[naprous]

Yes, I guess I should have realized that John Rock wouldn’t seem devout to THIS crowd! Ah well.

Personally, I found my year or so of practicing NFP unbelievably frustrating, in every possible way. It definitely drove a wall between my husband and me. I’m sure it works for some people, but it is not for everyone.

Naprous

 

[Amie]

Beaver:

Real men protect their seed and will not plant it in unfertile ground. I find I can not accept women because I can not trust them with my seed. This is just the opposite of what you are saying.I think the problem is we do not trust God
Yes, this sound like a solution but can one trust the womans words… Again I think all thing start with trust in God.

Hmm… it sounds like you have a problem with trusting women, not God here. I think this issue goes deeper for you than contraception. If you were truly open to hearing about NFP, and God’s design for sexuality, I don’t think you would have written this. It sounds like you are really afraid of sharing yourself with a woman, and for that I will pray for you.

God bless,
-Amy

 

[Amie]

naprous:

Personally, I found my year or so of practicing NFP unbelievably frustrating, in every possible way. It definitely drove a wall between my husband and me. I’m sure it works for some people, but it is not for everyone.

Naprous

Whew! I’ve been there… two children later, I’m still getting the hang of NFP (Every time we start to “practice” we’ve taken a chance and gotten pregnant!). But, I must say, it was because we knowingly took chances that our children’s conceptions occurred, and we are truly blessed to have them! I disagree with you on it not working for everyone though. I truly believe that what happens is that NFP takes extra work, and if one or the other person is not committed to doing the “work” part of NFP (taking temps, checking the cervix and mucus signs, etc.), then it falls apart. For instance, what often happens is that the onus of the work falls to the woman… taking the temps, writing them down, checking the fertility signs, etc., and the man, like in contraception, does none of the work, then the woman feels alone, again, in her fertility. It’s “her fault” if they got pregnant. I think that what is hard is when the other person isn’t committed to NFP, then it becomes frustrating, and inevitably, the “wall” you speak of will occur. So, if it doesn’t work, it’s probably because of these things. The more difficult aspect for you, then, is to search your conscience, and to find a different solution that will satisfy God, and His church on earth. Because it’s not what we think, but what the church says on this, and contraception is just wrong. When we go to Heaven, will our excuses hold up to Jesus loving eyes? I ask God daily to give me courage in this area of our marriage.

God bless, and good luck,
-Amie

 

[naprous]

Amy,

Yes, I guess I’m just not that interested in having children, so the one “not committed” to NFP was definitely me! And, of course, I was doing all the work, too. Ironically, we’re more or less trying to conceive at the moment, but frankly, my heart isn’t quite in it. IF it happens, it happens, and if it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

I’ll be happy to square my conscience with God, without bringing Humanae Vitae into it! If contraception was good enough for Patty Crowley, then it’s good enough for me…

Naprous

 

[Beaver]

It looks like none of you are intersted in creating worlds, stars, plants and animals. Is the wait to long?

Your instant gadification, that is all that counts.

 

[johnnyjoe]

naprous:

Amy,

Yes, I guess I’m just not that interested in having children, so the one “not committed” to NFP was definitely me! And, of course, I was doing all the work, too. Ironically, we’re more or less trying to conceive at the moment, but frankly, my heart isn’t quite in it. IF it happens, it happens, and if it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

I’ll be happy to square my conscience with God, without bringing Humanae Vitae into it! If contraception was good enough for Patty Crowley, then it’s good enough for me…

Naprous

Patty Crowley and her husband brought skewed satisfaction surveys on the Rythm method to Pope Paul VI’s Papal Commission on birth control, and when they could tell they weren’t going to get their way, they “went public” with their skewed results and started the dissent movement against Humanae Vitae way before it was even released. Patty Crowley took bits of incomplete information and created a propoganda campaign that set back the acceptance of modern NFP for decades. This is not the kind of catholic we should be emulating.

For all her good works with the homeless, it is the thousands, perhaps millions of children who never saw the light of day because of her influence that will be her greatest legacy.

I would respectfully request you need to examine the reality of the American Catholic Church politics with regard to Humanae Vitae, both before and after its publication, before you write it off for forming your conscience. God will expect that you would have fully used the faculties he gave you to form your conscience, and that includes questioning the cultural party line on contraception. There are many who pre-judged the Pope’s prophetic words, and who are strangely silent about the great social strife that the legacy of contraception has borne.

 

[Beaver]

Amie:

Hmm… it sounds like you have a problem with trusting women, not God here. I think this issue goes deeper for you than contraception. If you were truly open to hearing about NFP, and God’s design for sexuality, I don’t think you would have written this. It sounds like you are really afraid of sharing yourself with a woman, and for that I will pray for you.

God bless,
-Amy

It is not myself I worry about, it is my seed.

I think you must look at yourself, and ask why do you hate men and thier seed, for to hate my seed is to hate me. You can not seperate me from my seed, we are one.

Besides, I did not create the problem women did. This is not my problem it is yours.

Adam and Eve found out that once they stop trusting God, they could no longer trust themselves. So in order to restore the order of sexuality you must first trust God. Trust in God will retore trust in spouse.

 

[SDA2RC]

johnnyjoe:

Brandon, You and Shibboleth suffer from the same fallacy…that since NFP is as effective at POSTPONING pregnancy, it must be “contraceptive”. .

Actually, I do not believe it is contraception because it is “as effective at postponing pregnancy.” Not at all. I believe it is contraception because it meets the definition of contraception. I am not at all suffering from any fallacy. Sorry!

johnnyjoe:

By your definition, a couple cannot have sexual relations UNLESS they can produce a child…

Hardly! By my definition, I do not see scripturally that there is a sin if one has sex when there is no possibility of Children. I merely pointed out the inconsistency and seemingly hypocritical position of saying that it is sinful to have have sex using ABC because it lowers the chance of impregnation, (which btw you must be if you use ABC since there is a rather high failure rate in actual practice), yet it is not sinful to just not have sex so that you will certainly not have conception. Why is it more sinful to take a chance at a new life using ABC (barrier or other non abortive method), but it seems ok to so many to just shut out the possiblity all together and not have sex. It is clear, that those who continue to have sex while the woman is fertile, knowing the failure rate of ABC are more open to conception, that those who just dont have sex so they can avoid the remote possiblity of conception.

johnnyjoe:

The key difference between NFP and artificial contraception (whether it be chemical, barrier, or surgery), is that the information gathered from the practive of NFP only results in a NON-Action. The use of contraception requires an ACTION, fully intending to allow an action (sexual relations) without regard to it’s natural consequence (the possible pregnancy). …

Who says that if I have relations with my wife using ABC that I am “without regard to it’s natural consequences”? Is that you passing that judgement? I would say that I am fully aware of the possibility of life and the risk and failure rates of ABC. In addition, the act of purposely abstaining(verb) from something is an action not a “Non-action”. Futhermore, if you are truly open to life, why try to “non-action” it to control or postpone it? Why not let God decide when you get pregnant, instead of trying to control it by so called “non-action”? It seems to me that it is those who abstain who are actually no open to the possiblity of Children???

johnnyjoe:

You cannot call a NON-Action (abstinence) as equal to an illicit Action (contraception)…

Abstinence for the purpose of controlling or postponing pregnancy, which is what NFP does, is contraception. Therefore, they are equal, because they are both contraception, just different forms.

johnnyjoe:

If you do, then the non-action of temptation could be called equal to the action of sin.)…

This is a false comparison… One is tempted, one is not abstained. To be tempted is something that happens to you… to abstain is something that you choose to do. Temptation is a noun, a thing, abstinence is an action, a verb.

johnnyjoe:

Temptation requires the exercise of self-control, sin is the very definition of lack of self-control. NFP requires the excercise of self-control, whereby contraception substitutes self-mastery with an illicit action.

Actually, temptation does not require self control, resisting temptation does. Temptation happens with our without self control. Futhermore, you have yet to show why having sex while open to possiblity of Children via the failure rate of ABC is illicit?

I realize that these are blunt questions, but I still do not see the logical or scriptural basis for this doctrine. To my knowledge this has not been declared infallibly… if it has, i would be interested in learning about that… anyone? Thanks all!

Peace to all…
Brandon

 

[Beaver]

Amy

A true man protects see Genisis. Adam was to guard and to plant seed. Women think they can protect themselves. This is not God’s plan, it is not true. If I do not protect my seed I will not protect my wife or my children, and the family is lost.

God Bless

 

[Shibboleth]

What part of NFP in non-action. The taking of the temp, the charting, the checking of the mucus –seems to me that there is a lot of action taking place to insure that one does not produce a child. When someone goes in for a Depo-Provera shot – it seems like that is a lot less action.

 

[johnnyjoe]

Shibboleth:

What part of NFP in non-action. The taking of the temp, the charting, the checking of the mucus –seems to me that there is a lot of action taking place to insure that one does not produce a child. When someone goes in for a Depo-Provera shot – it seems like that is a lot less action.

The NOT HAVING SEX part is the non-action. That DISCIPLINE is the proof of sexual self-mastery. The use of chemicals, barriers, or surgeries as a substitute for sexual self-mastery is the very definition of contra-ception.

Indeed, the other practices of NFP that entail observing and recording fertility signs are actions, but are actions ordered toward making a decision. Contraception practices are actions ordered toward having sex that has been made infertile by some third agent - a chemical, a barrier, or a surgery. You might make the case that the information collected by a couple is a “third agent”, but the information is not an acting agent, only a source of information.

 

[Shoshana]

Boy! This is a lot of reading. Contraception…such a debate. It was also mine when I married 30 years ago. I did not see how the Church could stick their noses in my bedroom and tell me what to do! We are supposed to make our husband happy (my husband is not Catholic) and yet we must abstain!?! It came to a point that he wouldn’t touch me because of me nursing my oldest and I had to opt for the IUD :crying: . I have since repented of this…

One day, after so much reflection on this burden over my head, the Lord cleared this whole problem for me. I did not read this on any of the posts here or anywhere else. What He cleared for me was this : BIRTH CONTROL= CONTROL THE BIRTH! The Church in Her ultimate wisdom knew prophetically that if you started to play with conception, you would also play with life. So, abortion is rampant and on demand. There is even partial-birth abortion! We torture the unborn with tearing them apart, burning them with saline water, etc etc. And some, even after that are still living!!! We have euthanisia. I need not continue as this is distressing to me. Why? Well, because I was so disobedient and I also realize that my generation of using birth control have contributed to the control the birth-life of this generation. :tsktsk:

I have to trust in the Mercy of God again and again… :bowdown:

Blessings,

Shoshana

 

[Wormwood]

To even entertain this notion is profoundly ignorant. Contraception was not widely used or known about 2000+ years ago. Jesus was not anti-condom, this rule, like celebacy was church inspired. And church inspired means tainted with the foulability man. To argue that a man’s judgement or decree is infoulable seems to border heresy. People, despite what they might tell you, do make mistakes and misjudgements. Going back to celebacy, I am sure an apostle recommended this practice and that can be sited, but it wasn’t until the church started losing land due to inheretances of the preist’s children, that the practice of celebacy was inforced. Even the notion of celebacy in itself is a contraception, much like homosexuality, no possibility of childbirth is present. To lose sight of the big picture, and focus on obscure or trivial passages to try and achieve some sort of peity is ridiculous. If you would like to focus on one particular passage how about a church is not made of wood and stone, think about that the next time you visit your local cathedral and all of it’s excess. This kind of hypocracy is why so many people have become disillusioned with religion. The message of every major religion is the same… be good to your neighbor, don’t steal or kill … but people spend so much time focusing on the little trivial passages that they miss the big picture. Do you honestly think an all knowing all powerfull being cares if someone uses contraceptives, yet makes no mention of it save a coin analogy that is a bit of a stretch to fit this context? I think if you spent less time trying to condemn people for having different values, you could embrace the fact that we are all here on some common ground and everyone is just doing what they think is right. Regaurdless of your view, which is no better or worse than their’s ( since in all honesty no one KNOWS what awaits us, or what our deity wants from us ) they are people, and it is not our place to judge them. If you need to focus on one detail of the bible fables ( which many bible stories are; a fictional story with a moral) then focus on a point in which you are wrong, not in which you are right. Focus on your own shortcomings, and not how everyone else is wrong… this is the true source of peity, constant struggle to better one’s self, and internal reflection, not condeming the shortcomings and personal choices of others. So before you excommunicate anyone ( I realize this is a dated practice) just remember, judge not, lest ye be judged.

 

[davidv]

Shibboleth:

If it is done for contraceptive purposes then it is contraception.

Contraception is intrinsicly wrong. Not engaging in the conjugal act is not. That doesn’t mean you don’t sin if you do so for the wrong reason. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, your statement would be better said: (If NFP is done for the wrong reason it may be a sin.)

 

[Philthy]

Man this is a hot issue! I tried teeing this up on “Ask an Apologist” and I got no bites! It goes without saying that although much can be reasoned via intellect on the intrinsic evil of various forms of contraception, accepting the Church’s full teaching requires faith in the teaching authority of the Church. For those who do not see the difference between NFP and forms of contraception you must remember this: The END (avoiding pregnancy) does not justify the MEANS of achieving it. Even if 2 couples have the same objective (ie end) the way they go about achieving it (ie means) makes a difference!
Rather than continue to belabor points already made I’d like to add a twist to the debate. In the Humanae Vitae encyclical (I think) the following statement is made regarding contraception: “Any act during or in anticipation of the conjugal act which renders procreation impossible (is sinful)” Given this criteria, how do we apply it to people who already have children (ie have already procreated)? It would seem that they are exempt since they cannot “render procreation impossible” - because they already have children!

One thing is clear: We are a corrupt, sinful bunch. God’s gift of salvation through Christ’s sacrifice is truly glorious - pray that we may be made worthy of it.

Philthy

 

[Christi]

I do not believe in using NFP, but my husband thinks it is o.k. He does not want anymore children. We have four. He says he is too tired. This is not a serious or grave reason! Our priest told me my husband has the final say in this matter. I am hurting, as I would like to remain open to having more. So, for now I am just going along with practicing something I detest.

Please advise me .

 

[johnnyjoe]

Christi:

I do not believe in using NFP, but my husband thinks it is o.k. He does not want anymore children. We have four. He says he is too tired. This is not a serious or grave reason! Our priest told me my husband has the final say in this matter. I am hurting, as I would like to remain open to having more. So, for now I am just going along with practicing something I detest.

Please advise me .

Well, Christi, if the situation you have described were reversed, no one would consider forcing you to get pregnant if you were too tired. Is your spouse really any different? It doesn’t sound very charitable for you to decide that “too tired” is not a serious or grave reason. With what little you have shared, the first thing I would observe is that you don’t really know all the reasons for why your husband is not open to another life right now.

The Church clearly supports “serious” reason to be particular to the couple, and their TOTAL situation…spiritual, physical, emotional, financial. The decision to have another child is a decision that weighs Prudence for providing for the children you have, with Openness to the gift of new life.

I can hear the hurt you are sharing, and I hope you take the risk to share that with your husband. Conversely, I hope you take the risk to find out the deeper reasons for your husband’s reluctance to have another child right now. Sometimes we Catholics see a “full quiver” as a mark of our faithfullness to God, and are anxious to have as many children as God will provide as soon as possible. I am not accusing you of that, but rather are trying to point out that having another child is a larger decision after four children than it was after the first two.

As far as the practice of NFP is concerned, if you “detest” the practice, you won’t be very good at it; and risk having an unplanned pregnancy that could give rise to resentment and suspicion. I suppose that the practice of NFP is very much a cross for you now, but I would ask that you carry the cross well so that you and your husband can have a high degree in confidence in the information the NFP process gives you. Whatever NFP method you are using, stay close to your instructor(s), and lean on them for advice. As an NFP teacher myself, I have had many different students share their frustrations with the NFP process, and your situation is not unique. Many NFP instructors deal with spouses being at different places with the need and rigor of the practice, so they are accustomed to helping their students deal with these kind of frustrations.

I will pray that your husband take the opportunity to let this natural tension in your relationship draw you closer to each other, and as a couple, closer to God’s Will for your family.

Pax Christi,
John

 

[johnnyjoe]

Wormwood,

Ummm, does “foulability” mean you can’t hit a baseball straight?

Do you have a point to make?

 

[johnnyjoe]

Not at all. I believe it is contraception because it meets the definition of contraception.

It fits your’s or Webster’s definition - it doesn’t fit the Church’s definition, who is the Authority that counts on this matter.

Hardly! By my definition, I do not see scripturally that there is a sin if one has sex when there is no possibility of Children. I merely pointed out the inconsistency and seemingly hypocritical position of saying that it is sinful to have have sex using ABC because it lowers the chance of impregnation, (which btw you must be if you use ABC since there is a rather high failure rate in actual practice), yet it is not sinful to just not have sex so that you will certainly not have conception. Why is it more sinful to take a chance at a new life using ABC (barrier or other non abortive method), but it seems ok to so many to just shut out the possiblity all together and not have sex. It is clear, that those who continue to have sex while the woman is fertile, knowing the failure rate of ABC are more open to conception, that those who just dont have sex so they can avoid the remote possiblity of conception.

First, all methods of contraception (ABC, as use call it, for ARTIFICAL birth control) have a “perfect use” failure rate, and an “imperfect use” failure rate. The “perfect use” failure rate for the Birth Control Pill is 99%, the “imperfect use” failure rate is quoted as low as 97%, and as high as 92%. Barrier methods have “perfect use” failure rates that start at 97%, and “imperfect use” rates that fall as low as 75%.

Your conclusion seems to be that those people who use Artifical birth control are more open to life because the failure rate is higher than abstinence. The logic of this argument is so twisted that I hate to honor it by addressing it. Those who have relations while practicing ABC have NO INTENTION of concieving a new life, and have frustrated God’s design for that conception to take place. Whether that practice is effective or not is irrelevant. They desired to have sex without the natural consequences of the act. The intention is sinful, and the means is sinful. In a couple who choses to be closed to life for non-serious reasons, that sin stands alone and is un-connected to a dis-ordered act of sexual intercourse.

.

 

[johnnyjoe]

Who says that if I have relations with my wife using ABC that I am “without regard to it’s natural consequences”? Is that you passing that judgement? I would say that I am fully aware of the possibility of life and the risk and failure rates of ABC. In addition, the act of purposely abstaining(verb) from something is an action not a “Non-action”. Futhermore, if you are truly open to life, why try to “non-action” it to control or postpone it? Why not let God decide when you get pregnant, instead of trying to control it by so called “non-action”? It seems to me that it is those who abstain who are actually no open to the possiblity of Children???

Again you mix your intentions and actions. Contraception - the use of a chemical, barrier, or surgery to render the natural fecundity of the marital act infertile - is ALWAYS a grave sin. The disordered intention, and subsequent abstinence, that a couple may practice MAY a sin, but it is a sin of a different order and degree. It requires a different examination of conscience, and is dependent upon the degree of proper spiritual formation before one can impune culpability of sin upon their actions.

It is patently absurd to claim that a couple NOT HAVING SEX is “contracepting”, for to do so is to damn billions of married couples every night. It is a fallicious and specious argument that is based not on logic, but on a twisting of the obvious dynamics of the practice of contraception. You are trying to re-define the sexual act by its consequences, and not by its intrinsic meaning. The Church sees the “one flesh union” as imbued with deep and important spiritual meaning, and contraception dissassembles that meaning, twisting it into a practice of “taking” rather than “giving”.

Abstinence for the purpose of controlling or postponing pregnancy, which is what NFP does, is contraception. Therefore, they are equal, because they are both contraception, just different forms.

Now this is just foolish. Abstinence is just not having sex. The consequence is obviously not having children, but by this definition, Father Murphy down the street is practicing contraception.

This is a false comparison… One is tempted, one is not abstained. To be tempted is something that happens to you… to abstain is something that you choose to do. Temptation is a noun, a thing, abstinence is an action, a verb.

Actually, temptation does not require self control, resisting temptation does. Temptation happens with our without self control. Futhermore, you have yet to show why having sex while open to possiblity of Children via the failure rate of ABC is illicit?

Then you can’t read too well. ABC is ALWAYS objectively sinful because it separates the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. If you can’t get your understanding around this simple concept, further discussion will be very difficult. The ACT of contraception seeks to frustrate the natural fecundity of the marital act by inserting either a chemical, barrier, or surgery into the physical union of the couple. Any practice, NFP or otherwise, that limits how many times or when a couple has sex leaves the natural fecundity of the marital act intact. You may claim that a couple have intentions that are not “open to life”, but just because they can be successful in carrying out those intentions does not make that practice “contraceptive”. Their sin, if it can be deemed one, is different than “contraception”.