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

[kptrs]

Condoms from what I was told can help prevent some nasty things though.

That doesn’t make using them okay. The ends don’t justify the means.

 

[kptrs]

The Catholics that I know that don’t follow church teaching on contraception are greatly influenced by secular society.

Since contraception is so widespread, they think it is not possible that we really need to follow the teaching. They don’t give it another thought after that.

We always just want what we want. If something is too difficult, we don’t want to have to do it.

Infertility is a related but opposite problem of those trying to avoid pregnancy. Imagine if you told an infertile couple that all they had to do to achieve a pregnancy would be to remain celibate for a certain period of time. Most would do it in a heartbeat. Those wanting to avoid a pregnancy wouldn’t dream of it.

Yes, the contraceptive mentality goes both ways. If you don’t want to get pregnant, you shouldn’t have to get pregnant (but you should be able to continue having sex whenever you want and however often you want, all made possible by contraception). Likewise, if you do want to get pregnant, then you are just as entitled to do so by whatever means necessary (all made possible by in vitro fertilization or any of the other morally unacceptable methods of conceiving children that separate the self-giving and life-giving aspects of the marital act). The contraceptive mentality says, “I am entitled to whatever I want as far as reproduction goes.” The will of God, Who is the giver and taker of all life, and His plan don’t matter.

 

[Abu]

It is the cafeteria (pick and choose) so-called “Catholics”, who choose to set themselves up as a “parallel magisterium”, who mislead and enslave those who go along with them.

Jesus Himself mandated: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). How can the Christ mandate that you listen to the Church and mere fallible mortals “disagree” with Him?

A real Catholic is bound to give their assent to all of the doctrinal teaching of the Church.

Sections 25-31 covers “not irreformable” teaching even for theologians in the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, even for those who “feel” that they cannot give “intellectual assent,” they have “the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.” (31).

Donum Veritatis completely rules out all dissent:
“32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation *Paterna cum benevolentia *[1974], Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent”, which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.”

#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as St John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

To whom else did Jesus give that supreme authority?

The Real Catholic listens also to St Paul:
“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14). Further, “For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their lusts. And they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables.” (2 Tim 4:3).

Thus the Real Catholic knows the evils of contraception by listening to the Magisterium created by Christ.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

Why?

Because having children is incredibly hard.

It’s exhausting. Lack of energy, lack of patience, lack of sleep. Pregnancy can cause major health issues.
For me, it’s the increased risk of diabetes and the crippling Depression I’ve suffered from and have yet to recover from over the past 3 years.

I agree with the Church’s teachings but I’m maxed out. I tried using NFP and you can see my signature. I have 3 very young children and the idea of having another frightens me. I cannot go through with it again because I will break.

I don’t trust NFP. I’ve stopped charting and have zero intention to a) use NFP and b) have anymore children ever again.

I cannot take the anxiety, stress and depression both have caused.

There is still the marital debt to consider. Hubby and I are struggling with this big time.

My OB wants me on the pill now because my PCOS is worse and my cycles are so messed up and painful.

I haven’t started it yet…but next appointment I probably will.

Frankly, I’m at a point where I truly don’t blame people for disregarding this teaching.

In a way, I agree. Sometimes I do think it’s a little extreme, but you just don’t know. I would say in cases like yours, exceptions should be made. I can understand that a woman (who is a wife) might not want to worry that she will become pregnant every time she is intimate with her husband. It is hard to accept this teaching, I understand. And I do think there should be maybe some degree of exception. I think it’s rather unrealistic that a married couple only are intimate to procreate. I understand. And yes, at times I do think it’s a little annoying and unrealistic. But I am never for abortion.

Also, I feel the situation is different when we are talking about a married man and woman, and not just one-night stands.

 

[HouseArrest]

Yes, the contraceptive mentality goes both ways. If you don’t want to get pregnant, you shouldn’t have to get pregnant (but you should be able to continue having sex whenever you want and however often you want, all made possible by contraception). Likewise, if you do want to get pregnant, then you are just as entitled to do so by whatever means necessary (all made possible by in vitro fertilization or any of the other morally unacceptable methods of conceiving children that separate the self-giving and life-giving aspects of the marital act). The contraceptive mentality says, “I am entitled to whatever I want as far as reproduction goes.” The will of God, Who is the giver and taker of all life, and His plan don’t matter.

Yes, the infertile couples do have a temptation of their own. I find the infertile couples in a far more tragic set of circumstances than those that cannot or do not desire another baby. I cannot imagine longing for a child.

Like I said, at least those hoping to avoid have a way to be sure they get what they want or need. For some reason it’s just not enough for them. (And I definitely realize the difficulty.)

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

In a way, I agree. Sometimes I do think it’s a little extreme, but you just don’t know. I would say in cases like yours, exceptions should be made. I can understand that a woman (who is a wife) might not want to worry that she will become pregnant every time she is intimate with her husband. It is hard to accept this teaching, I understand. And I do think there should be maybe some degree of exception. I think it’s rather unrealistic that a married couple only are intimate to procreate. I understand. And yes, at times I do think it’s a little unrealistic. But I am never for abortion.

Also, I feel the situation is different when we are talking about a married man and woman, and not just one-night stands.

 

[Abu]

The better description for following the Church’s teaching is Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) by abstinence within marriage, for those who have a grave need. There is the availability of Natural Birth Regulation which uses the fact that women were designed so that almost 2/3rds of the time sex is inherently infertile. This fact shows that the unitive function of sex is just as important as the procreative aspect. At one time it was thought infertility was always an “abnormal” state. Now we find that infertility has been designed as a “normal” state a majority of the time in women.

Natural Family Planning Resources
These are several and include:
Creighton Model, Billings Ovulation Method
catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/tp/NFP_Resources.htm

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The better description for following the Church’s teaching is Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) by abstinence within marriage, for those who have a grave need. There is the availability of Natural Birth Regulation which uses the fact that women were designed so that almost 2/3rds of the time sex is inherently infertile. This fact shows that the unitive function of sex is just as important as the procreative aspect. At one time it was thought infertility was always an “abnormal” state. Now we find that infertility has been designed as a “normal” state a majority of the time in women.

Natural Family Planning Resources
These are several and include:
Creighton Model, Billings Ovulation Method
catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/tp/NFP_Resources.htm

Is the next marketing decision for the nfp folk to change the “p” to an “r” as if that was the problem all along? Is nfp being changed to nbr?

 

[anthrogirl]

False.
**
The only question which Pope Paul VI gave to be considered as legitimately debatable by the Theological Commission which he set up was the effect and use of the new chemical in the “Pill”, with no possibility of any change against Casti Connubii**. His Humanae Vitae then clearly reflected this grave error by the majority in the Theological Commission.

The reason for the Commission was only to examine the effects of the “Pill”.

“It is often said that Paul VI was himself in doubt about the doctrinal point at issue for some time and took a long while to make up his mind. However, Fr. Ermenigildo Lio, O.F.M., told the present writer that the Pope assured him personally, at around the time Humanae Vitae was issued, that he had never at any stage been in doubt about the intrinsic evil of contraception. The long time lapse was due only to the need to ponder carefully the precise manner in which this truth - which had already been authoritatively settled by Pius XI in *Casti Connubii *(1930) - could best be reaffirmed.

“In support of this private information given by Paul VI to Fr. Lio is the documented fact of his personal intervention at the conclusion of Vatican II, when Gaudium et Spes was in the process of being finalized. There was division and uncertainty amongst the Council Fathers, with the result that the drafting Commission wanted to leave the question open in this new magisterial statement. However, as Fr. Lio’s book documents, Paul VI responded to a request from Cardinal Ottaviani and Fr. Lio himself by intervening personally, against the previous wish of the majority of those drafting the document, to insist on the inclusion of a reference to the crucial passage of *Casti Connubii *in footnote 14 to Gaudium et Spes: 51. This is highly significant, because it shows that the Pope was insisting (and made the Council insist) that whatever future statements he might make about contraception, everyone could know in advance that there would be no going back on Pius XI’s firm decision against unnatural methods of birth control as intrinsically evil. So much for Paul VI’s ‘indecision.’ ”
Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., Humanae Vitae And Infallibity at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

Vatican II’s Gaudiem et Spes, 51, specifically rules out any possibility of changing the infallible doctrine against contraception in Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, 1930, by the footnote 14 reference to the crucial passage, and this on the personal intervention of the Pope himself.

The enormous significance of this is that there would be no contradiction of Pius XI’s definition against unnatural methods of regulating births as intrinsically evil.

From Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
'There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.” ’
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

The Commission included 16 theologians, 13 physicians, 5 women without medical credentials, and 16 bishops, including 7 cardinals without medical credentials. Wow. That’s a whole lot of brain power when it comes to understanding catholic church doctrine. Far more knowledgeable than you or I. Members of the Magesterium (who draw their authority from the apostles) and respected theologians (Vatican trusted experts in church doctrine) said that the pill was an extension of the cycle method. Because they were trumped by the Pope does not make their findings any less significant nor does it make their findings invalid. It just makes them trumped by their boss. We can all site examples when good analysis gets buried under popular thought. And you already know my opinion on Pius. So your argument there is not convincing (to me at least). Use of the pill does not change or defy doctrine. A lot of people have trouble understanding that concept.

Also, remember, the church is not the buildings, the books, the documents, the art, etc. The church is the people. Imagine if all things Catholic were destroyed. All the crucifixes, all the bibles, every encyclical, every cathecism book, every brick and pew in our churches just vanished. Our church would be alive and well because the church is not any of those things. Now imagine if every single Catholic person disappeared. Would there still be a church? The Church is its people. Remember Peter and the rock? Anyway, you, me and the other members of the church community are collectively the active body of Christ on Earth. It’s hard to think that the Commission and the majority of Christ’s earthly body have it wrong. Some things are so obvious that even the layman can see where the pope’s got it wrong.

Some can shake their heads at this assessment. That’s fine. I’m sure people are reciprocating. That’s what this forum is all about. If we agreed on everything, threads like this would be quite boring. Peace.

 

[Regina7]

The Commission included 16 theologians, 13 physicians, 5 women without medical credentials, and 16 bishops, including 7 cardinals without medical credentials. Wow. That’s a whole lot of brain power when it comes to understanding catholic church doctrine. Far more knowledgeable than you or I. Members of the Magesterium (who draw their authority from the apostles) and respected theologians (Vatican trusted experts in church doctrine) said that the pill was an extension of the cycle method. Because they were trumped by the Pope does not make their findings any less significant nor does it make their findings invalid. It just makes them trumped by their boss. We can all site examples when good analysis gets buried under popular thought. And you already know my opinion on Pius. So your argument there is not convincing (to me at least). Use of the pill does not change or defy doctrine. A lot of people have trouble understanding that concept.

Also, remember, the church is not the buildings, the books, the documents, the art, etc. The church is the people. Imagine if all things Catholic were destroyed. All the crucifixes, all the bibles, every encyclical, every cathecism book, every brick and pew in our churches just vanished. Our church would be alive and well because the church is not any of those things. Now imagine if every single Catholic person disappeared. Would there still be a church? The Church is its people. Remember Peter and the rock? Anyway, you, me and the other members of the church community are collectively the active body of Christ on Earth. It’s hard to think that the Commission and the majority of Christ’s earthly body have it wrong. Some things are so obvious that even the layman can see where the pope’s got it wrong.

Some can shake their heads at this assessment. That’s fine. I’m sure people are reciprocating. That’s what this forum is all about. If we agreed on everything, threads like this would be quite boring. Peace.

It doesn’t matter what a majority supposedly think. The Church is not a democracy. Also, the Bible says that the gate to heaven is quite narrow and the road to Hell quite wide…so maybe the majority supporting abc is just proof of this.

 

[anthrogirl]

Many forms of birth control actually are abortifacients. Basically they prevent a fertilized egg from attaching or staying attached to the uterine wall. In very simple terms artificial birth control is a very early abortion.

As far the OP - All I can say is I’m thankful I didn’t convert until the issue of birth control was moot point in my life. I certainly would have followed church teaching but it would have been difficult.

Just to round out what you are saying, there are also many forms of artificial birth control that are not abortifacients. They prevent egg and sperm from coming together. Examples include the estrogen/progesterone based pill, condoms and diaphragms. When used properly, they are highly effective.

 

[anthrogirl]

It doesn’t matter what a majority supposedly think. The Church is not a democracy. Also, the Bible says that the gate to heaven is quite narrow and the road to Hell quite wide…so maybe the majority supporting abc is just proof of this.

We’ve had popes cover up the rape our children by men ordained in her churches. We’ve had popes father illegitimate children. We’ve had popes sanctify crusades. We’ve had popes condone inquisitions. We’ve had popes sell bishop appointments. We had popes turn a blind eye to the abuses and deaths of millions. And we can’t forget the pope who raped a virgin and the pope who poisoned his predecessor. We’ve even had popes peddle indulgences. Let’s just say, God gave us a brain, a conscience, a soul and the guidance of the Holy Spirit for a reason.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The Commission included 16 theologians, 13 physicians, 5 women without medical credentials, and 16 bishops, including 7 cardinals without medical credentials. Wow. That’s a whole lot of brain power when it comes to understanding catholic church doctrine. Far more knowledgeable than you or I. Members of the Magesterium (who draw their authority from the apostles) and respected theologians (Vatican trusted experts in church doctrine) said that the pill was an extension of the cycle method. Because they were trumped by the Pope does not make their findings any less significant nor does it make their findings invalid. It just makes them trumped by their boss. We can all site examples when good analysis gets buried under popular thought. And you already know my opinion on Pius. So your argument there is not convincing (to me at least). Use of the pill does not change or defy doctrine. A lot of people have trouble understanding that concept.

Also, remember, the church is not the buildings, the books, the documents, the art, etc. The church is the people. Imagine if all things Catholic were destroyed. All the crucifixes, all the bibles, every encyclical, every cathecism book, every brick and pew in our churches just vanished. Our church would be alive and well because the church is not any of those things. Now imagine if every single Catholic person disappeared. Would there still be a church? The Church is its people. Remember Peter and the rock? Anyway, you, me and the other members of the church community are collectively the active body of Christ on Earth. It’s hard to think that the Commission and the majority of Christ’s earthly body have it wrong. Some things are so obvious that even the layman can see where the pope’s got it wrong.

Some can shake their heads at this assessment. That’s fine. I’m sure people are reciprocating. That’s what this forum is all about. If we agreed on everything, threads like this would be quite boring. Peace.

It astounds me how one can be informed on the issue as you are and take your position. Why is your agenda as it is? How does it encourage holiness and sacrifice? How does it populate heaven? How does it help your fellow siblings in Christ walk the narrow path.

In short how can one echo the biblical theme of those who walked away from Jesus saying " this is a hard teaching who can hear it?

Because this teaching is hard BUT those who have ears ought to hear…

 

[Mark121359]

It doesn’t matter what a majority supposedly think. The Church is not a democracy. Also, the Bible says that the gate to heaven is quite narrow and the road to Hell quite wide…so maybe the majority supporting abc is just proof of this.

Well now Regina 7, let me get this straight. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I guess they’re saying that Pope Paul VI got it wrong with his Encyclical Humanae Vitae. Then I suspect Mathew must have also got it wrong when in Chapter 7 verse 13 he quotes Christ as saying; *“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many." What he meant to say was;“for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, but don’t worry too much, hardly anyone finds it.” *

Peace, Mark

 

[TK421]

The prime reason I think is that you wouldn’t have a clue in the first place unless you were pro-active in learning about your faith. I had no idea the Church was against contraception until I discovered by accident in my 20s, granted my cultural background isn’t Catholic.

The Church has zeal when it comes to abortion. With contraception, it has fear.

 

[anthrogirl]

It astounds me how one can be informed on the issue as you are and take your position. Why is your agenda as it is? How does it encourage holiness and sacrifice? How does it populate heaven? How does it help your fellow siblings in Christ walk the narrow path.

In short how can one echo the biblical theme of those who walked away from Jesus saying " this is a hard teaching who can hear it?

Because this teaching is hard BUT those who have ears ought to hear…

I don’t think asking people to use NFP exclusively, given its high failure rate, is somehow aligned with the mission of Christ. I think effective family planning practices can enhance the faith by enabling families to direct finite resources where needed. In the US, most families need two incomes to survive. That’s hard to accomplish when using ineffective birth control. Daycare for many families is impossible due to cost. Reliance on shift work, kid swapping, latch key kids, etc. Is that what we want because that’s what we are forcing people to do. The psychological and economic stress on families is very real. And sometimes we have to let go of things that we’d rather not do without. Sometimes the sacrifice we make for our family is giving up church. I have a friend with 5 kids. She’s catholic and a single mom (divorced). She’s a nurse and makes a fairly good income, but she also works as a school cafeteria aide in order to keep the lights on. One of her kids is on the spectrum and one has learning disabilities. I noticed her son was not in the 8th grade religious ed program this year (I teach 8th grade in the program). He needs to be in the program to get confirmed in March. She just can’t do it all. Being Catholic and having kids is not a guarantee that we’ll populate heaven. Disregarding the real psychological and economic needs of parents and families can and does negatively impact the church. You asked how I could support the position I do. I ask you the same thing.

 

[roseofshannon]

Do you have a source for that saying, please?

Sometimes quotes are given of things Mother Teresa is supposed to have said which then turns out to be untrue.

Well you may be right. It was communicated to me as such, but according to the research I’ve done online it seems to be a topic argued by various theologians including Fr. Joseph Fessio:

Fr. Fessio continued - “it is a greater evil to deprive someone of existence than to deprive someone of temporal life." full article here

With regard to the plethora of ills, discomforts and evils which arise from “too many children” or “overpopulation of the planet”, the Catholic Church and hopefully no one here at this forum is unsympathetic. It’s a hotbed of terrible suffering for all to be sure and there are many anecdotal stories to give evidence of this. (I could share my own )

The question then is: What is the cure?

Is the cure contraception?

Or is the cure sacrificial love?

Humanae Vitae prophesized many evils that would be brought by inherent selfishness of “The Great Cure”, all of which have come to pass:

Divorce, objectifying of women, increase of abortions of inconvenient and “unwanted” children, increased acceptance of homosexual behavior, as well as the acceptance of evils unimaginable in the 1960’s such as the production of thousands of babies to be kept frozen until they are “wanted” and thawed for “use” because somehow God or “evolution” made a mistake when it made sex both unitive and procreative.

Surely someone like Mother Teresa, who saw first hand the real suffering of a starving overpopulated third world county would rather allow for contraception than perpetuate such suffering unnecessarily, wouldn’t she? No. She knew better.

She said the answer is sacrificial love.

Of course it can’t only be by the women who take a trip up Calvary Hill with every single pregnancy…(My mantra throughout each pregnancy was “The pain is temporary, the soul is eternal”–sometimes through gritted teeth!)

but also by the:

Husbands helping out more with the children, giving their wives much needed breaks and date nights, and dying to their own sexual needs for the greater good of the family.

Neighbors (such as described in this thread) who will help families who are overburdened

Parishes that are close-knit and have sign up lists for bringing food to new moms or families in crisis

First World Countries lowering their expectations for what makes a meaningful life and helping Third World Countries

The list goes on and on

It is a list of an act of sacrificial love, begetting another act of sacrificial love, begetting another…

(Not to mention the spiritual benefits to all by offering up these sufferings for our own sanctification and salvation of others.)

It is the exact opposite of the selfishness that Humanae Vitae prophesized would happen, destroying marriages, families, and communities.

It’s the sanctification of couples, families, neighborhoods, communities, nations…

It’s how God brings good out of suffering and sacrifice. That’s His speciality!

It’s how we become like Christ, laying our lives down for another.

 

[MaryHelp777]

Just to round out what you are saying, there are also many forms of artificial birth control that are not abortifacients. They prevent egg and sperm from coming together. Examples include the estrogen/progesterone based pill, condoms and diaphragms. When used properly, they are highly effective.

And also a mortal sin because the goal of marriage in God’s eyes is unitive and to always be open to life.
If it blocks life it is self gratification and carnal which is a mortal sin.

Sodomy and masturbation and onanism are mortal sins because they are not natural.
Using contraceptives is a mortal sin because it is not natural,
Also a mortal sin because the act of procreation must be open to creating new life in every act.

 

[MaryHelp777]

Single people and priests are to practice continence.
Married people are meant to abstain when needed.

God knows it won’t kill anyone to abstain from intercourse.
The human race are not animals.
The Holy Spirit gives the gift of self control.

True love can be exercised in service, words,…

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Hubby and I are on the Billings Method. Invented by practicing Catholic doctors and sanctioned by the Church. Can be used for those having difficulty getting pregnant and preventing pregnancy. Works for us. We have one small angel almost 2 years old.

**Pregnancy rates with perfect use of the Billings Ovulation Method™ have fallen close to zero as teaching methods have been refined and updated. Continuation rates are consistently high. The results make the Billings Ovulation Method™ as effective as the Pill, and more effective than IUDs, condoms and diaphragms.
**
The Billings Ovulation Method™ has been subjected to more scientific research than any other method of regulating fertility. It has been independently trialled by the World Health Organisation and other reputable bodies and found to be as successful for avoiding pregnancy as any method of family planning available today.

In one of the largest trials of the Billings Ovulation Method™, a 12-month multi-centre study in China, the method-related pregnancy rate was zero. The method-related rate is when couples correctly follow all the instructions for the method of birth control. The use-related pregnancy rate was 0.5%. The use-related rate includes couples who misunderstood or did not comply with all the instructions.

billings.life/en/