Why do most people ignore the Church's teaching on contraception?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I agree… I would be willing to bet that everyone, if their souls were exposed would have one or two things which might not be in full agreement with the church’s teaching… Plus if someone ‘sins’ … are they not then being a ‘cafeteria catholic’ too? Its not like Christ’s teachings or even the Church’s teachings are always understandable or easy to do. That takes grace from God… we can try and do something, but ultimately if we did something that was a grace from God.

If I’ve ever used that term here on CA I apologize profusely now for it.

Not really. One can disagree on say, the interpretation of genesis and be a faithful Catholic Catholic. One can believe in something the church no longer teachers and still be a faithful Catholic. (limbo) One can even disregard an approved revelation or apparition. (Your disbelief of Fatima has no bearing on your faithfulness as a Catholic)
Listen, perhaps it is because I was a bona fide convert who was educated about what the Church professes and CHOSE it for myself, but when I used ABC I have used condoms we have used pills, shots, sodomy etc. And never once did I think the Church was wrong. In fact in none of my sins do I reject the Church. None. That is why I confess and repent of my sins. Otherwise I would just say that I did not sin at all because the Church was wrong not me. Sometimes things are good to be “cafeteria about” I am a cafeteria republican. I take what I like and dismiss what I do not. I am a cafeteria sports fan. I take what I like and dismiss what I do not. But to be obedient, to be in the Grace of God, to be humble means to submit to the Church in matters you may not fully understand. To not do that is the sin of pride. It is dangerous and it is certainly not “Catholic” at all!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Finally, some honesty. We’re all exposed, and we’re all naked before God before whom night is as day.

But if we are exposed in front of God and we are found lacking then we are damned to hell. That is the problem here. It is one thing to say, we are all sinners we all have something we would change if “we were Pope”. But as long as the Church is proven true, as long as we believe in the Eucharist.(something completely illogical and odd.) As long as we believe the dead will live forever, we must believe that the Church is right.

If we are all sinners and not in a state of grace then we are lost, we are damned. And deservedly so. But God offered his Son. His Church to reconcile and save us. When we reject that Church, especially with sin, we reject that mercy.
If you do not feel like you could die right now and stand before God saved. Then get your rear to confession. Don’t go to your brother with his giant plank and ask him for help. Don’t argue over something as silly as you are betting your salvation that the Church will warp to your own genital’s needs…

Trust me, if ever there were a time I wished I was a Cafeteria Catholic it is now. But I submit. I keep my eyes on Christ even when I think the stormy seas in the Church are too much.
Christ Justifies us. When we reject the teaching of the Church we justify ourselves. That is not salvific. We can fall. But it is only when we submit that we are saved.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What the people of the Church (including clergy and even members of the Magisterium, ie. bishops) are saying is not that the Church has been wrong for 2000 years. The Church has always proclaimed that one of the foundations of marriage is openness to procreation- yet this does not presuppose openness to procreation in every act, or we would all be breeding like rabbits, something the Pope has judged as irresponsible (to the chagrin of some traditionalists!). Moreover, what the Church has called contraception throughout the centuries refers to permanent (read: snip) or abortifacent methods (eg. potions) of birth control. What is going on is that contraception as we know it (eg. barrier methods, hormonal regulating pills) is a new phenomenon and has not been properly studied and considered for what it’s worth, but rather, it has been lumped with abortion and summarily considered as a done deal.

Either this is true, or the Body of Christ (with the exception of 10-15% hardliners) will go to hell.

Your position is that the Church. nay God himself is unaware of the methods of sex and artificial Birth Control and therefore when properly educated, they will change!?

 

[CradleJourney]

Just my :twocents:

What tends to get lost in the discussion of family planning and all the various methods is that when it “doesn’t work”, one tends to end up with a baby. A glorious, adorable, expensive, exhausting, lifetime commitment, baby.

Modern American society (including the parishes I’ve attended) is no longer set up, nor supportive of, large families. From the nuisance stuff to real financial and physical hardship, having more than four kids is a special challenge. And we can post on here all about trying this, or changing to that, etc - but the truth as I see it is that only the parents involved can truly understand all the pressures they are facing - from family members, to trying to handle work commitments, to keeping their relationship healthy, to their economic circumstances.

I’ve lived through so many instances regarding this topic that I can’t even begin to share. I’ve been overly fertile and I’ve lost babies and I’ve been infertile for a time. I’ve been the parent with one child and the parent with 3 within 5 years of each other and the biological mom of six - and almost never has there been a moment when someone (friend, family member, fellow Catholic, stranger) really knew what was going on “inside” our family - but they sure had quite a bit to say about what we were “doing wrong” or else praising us for the exact thing (having more/not having more) that we were trying to do the opposite of at the time.

So my first thought is not so much about who’s going to hell, who’s picking and choosing, who’s what kind of Catholic or who’s tried the “right” method. My first thought is to pray that whatever is going on in each person’s life that makes it difficult, painful, or even impossible to embrace joyfully the teaching of the Church regarding procreation may be helped through the power of God and that they may be guided by the Holy Spirit.

And my second thought is to be as loving, supportive, and kind to those I meet and operate under the assumption that they are doing the best they can.

So my response to the OP’s question - because our culture/society has made it clear that somehow we are in charge of whether or not we conceive - which, except for complete abstinence or removal of body parts - is not as nearly under our control as they wish to believe. So while people may rally around a couple with their first extra “surprise”, by the 3rd or 4th - the only thing that couple is going to get is condemnation. And with all that pressure, can we be surprised that people choose what society (inc. Catholic family members and sometimes even a priest) is going to tell them is best?

 

[Abu]

Hoosier Daddy #484
One can believe in something the church no longer teachers and still be a faithful Catholic. (limbo)

I appreciate your contributions re the evil of contraception.

Re Limbo – the Catholic Church doesn’t “change” Her dogma nor doctrine which comprise Her “teaching”.

“Limbo was never a defined truth of faith.” The Ratzinger Report, p147].

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I appreciate your contributions re the evil of contraception.

Re Limbo – the Catholic Church doesn’t “change” Her dogma nor doctrine which comprise Her “teaching”.

“Limbo was never a defined truth of faith.” The Ratzinger Report, p147].

I never said it was/is only that people could have in the past or could now be free to hold or reject it.

 

[Abu]

Hoosier Daddy
Your statement “One can believe in something the church no longer teachers (sic) and still be a faithful Catholic. (limbo)” states that the Church taught once what She no longer teaches, which is incorrect.

For Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI precisely demolished that error with “Limbo was never a defined truth of faith.” The Ratzinger Report, p147].

 

[Xantippe]

My current struggle is listening to moms complain about sleepless nights. I know they are tired and understand the exhaustion, but I so wish God’s will would have been to let my child live a long life. Instead his body is cold and in the ground (stillborn.). What I wouldn’t give for those sleepless nights, but that is not my cross. We can never compare crosses. We take what our Lord gives us and hopefully see the beauty in His will for us. Which I see, thanks be to God.

I’m so sorry.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Hoosier Daddy
Your statement “One can believe in something the church no longer teachers (sic) and still be a faithful Catholic. (limbo)” states that the Church taught once what She no longer teaches, which is incorrect.

For Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI precisely demolished that error with “Limbo was never a defined truth of faith.” The Ratzinger Report, p147].

Point taken. Bad choice of words. You are correct the church never taught that.

 

[Usige]

What is going on is that contraception as we know it (eg. barrier methods, hormonal regulating pills) is a new phenomenon and has not been properly studied and considered for what it’s worth, but rather, it has been lumped with abortion and summarily considered as a done deal.

Sorry, but “new phenomenon” is only true if you consider 500 years as “new”. Condoms of one type or another were used since the 15th century in Europe (even longer in Asia). Things like vaginal sponges with spermicides were used in Egypt during the time of Christ. St Clement of Alexandria wrote about the sinfulness of wasting (condoms) or destroying (spermicides) a man’s seed in 191 AD. That is 1825 years ago so not sure I’d call it something new or unstudied.

It is simply revisionist history to pretend that barrier and spermicidal contraceptives just burst into the Church’s conscious in the last 100 years. Only hormonal contraceptives are new in the last 60 years and Blessed Pope Paul VI has spoken definitively to that issue 50 years ago and yet people keep trying to pretend that he was wrong and they and their conscious is right. It’s amazing how many times the Church and Saints condemn it, but so many are waiting to be vindicated by a single Yea to justify ignore 100s of decades of Nays.

None of us can say anyone is going to hell, but I certainly think that those knowingly flipping the Church the bird and using contraceptives will have a fairly uncomfortable conversation with Christ. It will be He that will decide if their arrogance merits purgation or damnation. I have enough damnable offenses that I really don’t want to be adding another one.

 

[Abu]

Also, from Post #122:
‘As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., affirms, medical papyri describe contraceptive methods from 2700 B.C. in China and from 1850 B/C. in Egypt. Ephesian gynecologist Soranos (A.D. 98-138) described no less than seventeen medically approved methods. These methods were referred to as “using magic” and “using drugs” and had nothing to do with fertile or infertile periods which were unknown. Soranos thought that it was safer “to prevent conception from taking place than to destroy the fetus” already conceived. (The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 367).’

 

[bitterhope]

Sorry, but “new phenomenon” is only true if you consider 500 years as “new”. Condoms of one type or another were used since the 15th century in Europe (even longer in Asia). Things like vaginal sponges with spermicides were used in Egypt during the time of Christ. St Clement of Alexandria wrote about the sinfulness of wasting (condoms) or destroying (spermicides) a man’s seed in 191 AD. That is 1825 years ago so not sure I’d call it something new or unstudied.

It is simply revisionist history to pretend that barrier and spermicidal contraceptives just burst into the Church’s conscious in the last 100 years. Only hormonal contraceptives are new in the last 60 years and Blessed Pope Paul VI has spoken definitively to that issue 50 years ago and yet people keep trying to pretend that he was wrong and they and their conscious is right. It’s amazing how many times the Church and Saints condemn it, but so many are waiting to be vindicated by a single Yea to justify ignore 100s of decades of Nays.

None of us can say anyone is going to hell, but I certainly think that those knowingly flipping the Church the bird and using contraceptives will have a fairly uncomfortable conversation with Christ. It will be He that will decide if their arrogance merits purgation or damnation. I have enough damnable offenses that I really don’t want to be adding another one.

Very true. It’s not new at all. All Protestant churches used to oppose contraception for any and all reasons. The new thing is that many churches are now allowing contraception use. It has been known since ancient times that withdrawal, condoms, herbal teas and vaginal douches, etc. can be used to prevent pregnancy but all churches voiced opposition. The Catholic Church has continued to hold tight to this truth as it should. Truth is unchanging. It cannot become outdated. It is not something that is open to many interpretations. That is why the Church cannot and will not allow God to be ignored in reproduction. He is the Creator, the Author of Life. We are blessed to be made in His image, as co creators of the human race.

 

[MarkInOregon]

My point is, it’s a lot easier for a man to be “open to life” than for a woman to be. After all I, as a man, don’t have to carry the child in my body and go through all that entails. There is a profound difference between the sexes in this regard, obviously. Given this, I don’t feel entitled to tell a woman how to handle her reproductive functions. That is between her and God and is her decision. I see nothing wrong with taking this position.

A husband and wife should be on the same page regarding these issues–after all we form one flesh–“for this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24) What you describe seems, to me at least, to be two people not becoming one.

If it came down to another pregnancy which would result in destitution, eviction, living on the streets and possibly death, verses getting on the pill, due to the couples lack of self-control, I think the pill would be the more moral option. And most sane rational people would agree with me.

Well there is always adoption and then of course there is abstinence–which is the moral option. A couples lack of self-control does not turn the pill into the more moral option and sane rational people know this. What is obvious is that we all want sex without the natural consequences of sex – we want to frustrate it’s natural purpose.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Also, from Post #122:
‘As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., affirms, medical papyri describe contraceptive methods from 2700 B.C. in China and from 1850 B/C. in Egypt. Ephesian gynecologist Soranos (A.D. 98-138) described no less than seventeen medically approved methods. These methods were referred to as “using magic” and “using drugs” and had nothing to do with fertile or infertile periods which were unknown. Soranos thought that it was safer “to prevent conception from taking place than to destroy the fetus” already conceived. (The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 367).’

Does the CCC say that infertile periods were unknown? Am I reading that wrong? Because fertile periods have been known for thousands of years.

 

[MomaMary8]

I’m so sorry.

Thank you.

 

[jlc2k2]

Thank you.

I’m so sorry for your loss as well.

 

[PaulinVA]

Hoosier Daddy
Your statement “One can believe in something the church no longer teachers (sic) and still be a faithful Catholic. (limbo)” states that the Church taught once what She no longer teaches, which is incorrect.

For Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI precisely demolished that error with “Limbo was never a defined truth of faith.” The Ratzinger Report, p147].

From THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Yeah, that nuance was certainly missing from what the nuns and priests were teaching in the sixties and seventies.

 

[Abu]

Hoosier Daddy #497
Does the CCC say that infertile periods were unknown? Am I reading that wrong? Because fertile periods have been known for thousands of years

THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION
Part 1: How Christians Came to Accept It
by John F. Kippley
While the laws of Leviticus forbade the marriage act during menses and for a week thereafter with great fertility for the Jewish people, this was not linked in any medical or scientific way to NFP until in the mid-nineteenth century French researchers dealing with domestic animals discovered a relationship between certain bodily discharges and fertility. Scientists and others quickly wondered whether this was likewise true in humans. They speculated that a woman was fertile during her menstrual flow and infertile thereafter.

The speculation raised a controversy about the moral use of periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy, a controversy that eventually reached the Sacred Penitentiary, the curial department of the Vatican that handles matters related to the Sacrament of Penance. A ruling in 1853 declared that such a use of periodic abstinence was not immoral.vi The question flared up again, and in 1880 the same ruling was repeated.vii Thus, even though the scientific speculation was just the opposite of the reality, it engendered a Vatican decision on a moral principle that allowed the use of chaste periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy.
Notes:
vi John T. Noonan, Jr. *Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists *(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965) 439.
vii Noonan, 441
file:///C:/Users/Workventures/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/330RDIBO/SEXUAL_REVOLUTION_Part_1.pdf

tinyurl.com/3hp4ne4
(Webster’s)
“It is not known exactly when it was first discovered that women have predictable periods of fertility and infertility.
“One book states that “[The rhythm method] had been recommended… by a few secular thinkers since the mid-nineteenth century”.[3]
[3. Yalom, Marilyn (2001). *A History of the Wife, First edition, New York: HarperCollins, pp. 297-8, 307].

The Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (1148-1241) summarise the Church’s legislation:
The decree on contraception “unambiguously identifies it with any action to prevent generation, conception, or birth; it distinguishes between taking a drug out of lust (instead of abstaining from intercourse) and taking a drug from hostile motives; and it calls all of these actions homicidal, in the technical sense of intending to destroy life at any stage of the vital process.” (V, 12, 5).
[See *The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 368-370].

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION
Part 1: How Christians Came to Accept It
by John F. Kippley
While the laws of Leviticus forbade the marriage act during menses and for a week thereafter with great fertility for the Jewish people, this was not linked in any medical or scientific way to NFP until in the mid-nineteenth century French researchers dealing with domestic animals discovered a relationship between certain bodily discharges and fertility. Scientists and others quickly wondered whether this was likewise true in humans. They speculated that a woman was fertile during her menstrual flow and infertile thereafter.

The speculation raised a controversy about the moral use of periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy, a controversy that eventually reached the Sacred Penitentiary, the curial department of the Vatican that handles matters related to the Sacrament of Penance. A ruling in 1853 declared that such a use of periodic abstinence was not immoral.vi The question flared up again, and in 1880 the same ruling was repeated.vii Thus, even though the scientific speculation was just the opposite of the reality, it engendered a Vatican decision on a moral principle that allowed the use of chaste periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy.
Notes:
vi John T. Noonan, Jr. *Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists *(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965) 439.
vii Noonan, 441
file:///C:/Users/Workventures/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/330RDIBO/SEXUAL_REVOLUTION_Part_1.pdf

tinyurl.com/3hp4ne4
(Webster’s)
“It is not known exactly when it was first discovered that women have predictable periods of fertility and infertility.
“One book states that “[The rhythm method] had been recommended… by a few secular thinkers since the mid-nineteenth century”.[3]
[3. Yalom, Marilyn (2001). *A History of the Wife

, First edition, New York: HarperCollins, pp. 297-8, 307].

The Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (1148-1241) summarise the Church’s legislation:
The decree on contraception “unambiguously identifies it with any action to prevent generation, conception, or birth; it distinguishes between taking a drug out of lust (instead of abstaining from intercourse) and taking a drug from hostile motives; and it calls all of these actions homicidal, in the technical sense of intending to destroy life at any stage of the vital process.” (V, 12, 5).
[See *The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 368-370].
Thank you for digging for that.

What a load of hooey! Any farmer or woman for that matter understood fertility cycles well before the 1800s. Please for the love of Pete tell me that is not in a the CCC as noted earlier…

 

[Little_Sheep]

Just my :twocents:

What tends to get lost in the discussion of family planning and all the various methods is that when it “doesn’t work”, one tends to end up with a baby. A glorious, adorable, expensive, exhausting, lifetime commitment, baby.

Modern American society (including the parishes I’ve attended) is no longer set up, nor supportive of, large families. From the nuisance stuff to real financial and physical hardship, having more than four kids is a special challenge. And we can post on here all about trying this, or changing to that, etc - but the truth as I see it is that only the parents involved can truly understand all the pressures they are facing - from family members, to trying to handle work commitments, to keeping their relationship healthy, to their economic circumstances.

I’ve lived through so many instances regarding this topic that I can’t even begin to share. I’ve been overly fertile and I’ve lost babies and I’ve been infertile for a time. I’ve been the parent with one child and the parent with 3 within 5 years of each other and the biological mom of six - and almost never has there been a moment when someone (friend, family member, fellow Catholic, stranger) really knew what was going on “inside” our family - but they sure had quite a bit to say about what we were “doing wrong” or else praising us for the exact thing (having more/not having more) that we were trying to do the opposite of at the time.

So my first thought is not so much about who’s going to hell, who’s picking and choosing, who’s what kind of Catholic or who’s tried the “right” method. My first thought is to pray that whatever is going on in each person’s life that makes it difficult, painful, or even impossible to embrace joyfully the teaching of the Church regarding procreation may be helped through the power of God and that they may be guided by the Holy Spirit.

And my second thought is to be as loving, supportive, and kind to those I meet and operate under the assumption that they are doing the best they can.

So my response to the OP’s question - because our culture/society has made it clear that somehow we are in charge of whether or not we conceive - which, except for complete abstinence or removal of body parts - is not as nearly under our control as they wish to believe. So while people may rally around a couple with their first extra “surprise”, by the 3rd or 4th - the only thing that couple is going to get is condemnation. And with all that pressure, can we be surprised that people choose what society (inc. Catholic family members and sometimes even a priest) is going to tell them is best?

So beautifully stated. Thank you for this witness.