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

  • Thread starter Thread starter loumeland
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
anthrogirl #91
….the church is not the buildings, the books, the documents, the art, etc. The church is the people….
This is the unfortunate supreme error which assumes falsely that “the people” are supreme – which bolsters the dissent.

On the contrary, this “People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.” [Vatican II, *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 12].

Thus there is not an iota of truth in assuming falsely that anyone can faithfully follow Christ in His Church through contraception.
anthrogirl #94
God gave us a brain, a conscience, a soul and the guidance of the Holy Spirit for a reason.
Thus to reject knowingly the infallible teaching of the sole Church founded by God the Son is the epitome of error. The conscience of a Real Catholic has to formed and informed by dogma and doctrine so that the will may choose to freely follow Christ’s Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit does NOT lead into error but safeguards truth.

Post #102 by Saving Grace is outstandingly factual, and offers the great Catholic medical developments which are symptomatic of real Catholics.
 
Bob Crowley (#72) has chosen for years to be a cafeteria Catholic – picking and choosing, and still –
The problem now is the issue of “infallibility” means that the church can’t admit it’s made a mistake.
And for what in Catholic doctrine? Because a handful of Church fathers, in an age when they didn’t face these problems, disagreed with contraception?
It doesn’t impress me. I think Pope Paul VI made a huge mistake.
Here is the continued dissent – the imagined parallel magisterium.

Still mired in the myth of overpopulation, for in the thread *Contraception reconsidered?, *Abu #34 28/9/14, and again Abu #95 Apr 24, '15, in Which Church teachings do you struggle to accept?, Bob Crowley was informed that:
“Even in 1998, we have the Declaration by the Pontifical Council for the Family issued in Rome on February 27, 1998: On Decrease of Fertility in the World, L’Osservatore Romano, p 6-7, April 22, 1998:

“For 30 years, the rate of growth of the world’s population has continued to decline at a regular and significant rate. At this point, following an impressive drop in their fertility, 51 countries in the world (out of 185) are no longer able to replace their population. To be precise, these 51 countries represent 44 per cent of the population of the world. In other words, the total fertility rate (TFR) in these countries, that is to say, the number of children born of each woman, is lower than 2.1. This is the minimum level of fertility needed for the replacement of the population in a country which has the optimum public health conditions.

“This situation is found to be the same on almost every continent. There is below-replacement-level fertility in America (the United States, Canada, Cuba, and most of the Caribbean islands), in Asia (Georgia, Thailand, China, Japan and South Korea), in Oceania (Australia) and in almost all the countries of Europe. On this continent, the effect of aging on population leads to depopulation, with the number of deaths surpassing the number of births. This negative balance is occurring in 13 countries already, including Estonia, Latvia, Germany, Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Russia, Spain and Italy."

Dissent is banned by the Church and is practised only by the misinformed, malformed or those knowingly choosing to dissent. No one can faithfully follow Christ in His Church through contraception.

As iconoclast William James stated: “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
 
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.
This doesn’t make sense. The Church is made up of sinners, so of course there will be horrible things. But how does one wrong make another one ok?

Your last sentence is the prefect motto for moral relativism.
 
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
Sounds about right, Mark. Sad, isn’t it?
 
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
Just the same…Blessed Mother Teresa had some very strong words against contraception. (bolding mine)
“I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception."
“In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. **Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily."
“I also know that there are great problems in the world - that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. And this is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion.
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta**
Peace, Mark
 
People use contraception because they believe that they won’t get pregnant if they use it.

The President of Planned Parenthood either doesn’t know how to use artificial contraception to avoid pregnancy OR she became pregnant while using contraception. Cecile Richards discussed the circumstances of her abortion: she was married and had three children already when she became pregnant again. She aborted the child.
lifenews.com/2015/11/10/cecile-richards-defends-aborting-her-baby-we-had-three-kids-that-was-enough/

If the President of Planned Parenthood can’t even use contraception effectively enough to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, why would any woman trust it? Because secular society teaches us to trust something that’s not nearly as effective as they tell us it is.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, there’s lies, *&^% lies–and then there’s statistics. A 99% effectiveness rate of contraception means there’s a 1% chance of becoming pregnant each year of use. Each year, 1 woman in 100 will become pregnant while using a method avoiding pregnancy deemed “99% effective.” Each year, 30 women in 100 will become pregnant using a method called 70% effective.

If you add up all those years of use, that’s a lot of “unwanted pregnancies” associated with contraception, yet some people continue to trust artificial contraception instead of Church teachings. Why? Several reasons, but I think one of the biggest reason is that people don’t talk about when their artificial contraception fails like some talk about NFP. The “evidence” of failed contraception is often destroyed at abortion mills–most women who have abortions used contraception. Cecile Richards spoke about her abortion, but was she using another method of birth control besides abortion first that failed? Probably. Pregnancies that aren’t terminated usually result in very much loved and wanted children, whose parents may not want them to know the extent to which they were initially unwanted. In either situation, there’s a certain shame in admitting that one’s artificial contraception failed.

Women–Catholic or otherwise–who become pregnant while using contraception don’t feel very free to talk openly about when their methods of family planning fails, so people continue to think they can use contraception without becoming pregnant.
 
This doesn’t make sense. The Church is made up of sinners, so of course there will be horrible things. But how does one wrong make another one ok?

Your last sentence is the prefect motto for moral relativism.
It’s not moral relativism to believe that the Holy Spirit is present in everyone’s conscience.

What would you do when a pope says, in writing, that it’s perfectly permissible to enslave and subject natives who don’t convert to Christianity? (This has happened, by the way). Would you really be so quick to abandon you conscience because the pope said it was ok?

Facing a church teaching that goes against your conscience is a very difficult thing to figure out. For many people, birth control is a prime example. Is it better to follow the church’s teaching and answer to God why they did something against their conscience? Or is it better to follow one’s conscience and answer to God why they did something against the church teaching?

I don’t know the answer to this. But I do strongly believe that the Holy Spirit is alive in all of our consciences, rather than just being confined to the text of dogmatic proclamations. And this is certainly not moral relativism.
 
Okay, I’ve read every post.

My wife and I are old enough that this is no longer a problem, but did practice NFP for over twenty years. It was hard. It was artificial. It was a constant source of hurt feelings. We did it to be faithful to the Church.

It is so much better now.

Some random thoughts:

Why does a Catholic life have to be full of suffering that we should embrace, instead of full of joy?

Why is the Church’s sexual theology so focused on where the man’s seed ends up? Is it because of a mistaken medieval belief that it contained baby humans?

Why doesn’t the Church address what a couple is to do after they have reached their limit of children? If one is honest, 99.99% of couples reach their children limit before their fertility is over, and therefore, will abstain or use NFP forever after that until menopause.

Why did God make the sexual organs work alone if it is a mortal sin to cause them to work alone?
 
Okay, I’ve read every post.

*My wife and I are old enough that this is no longer a problem, *but did practice NFP for over twenty years. It was hard. It was artificial. It was a constant source of hurt feelings. We did it to be faithful to the Church.

It is so much better now.

Some random thoughts:…
My random thought in response to yours:
It’s sweet that you now find your relationship better with your wife now that she’s older. Fertility and the ability to get pregnant is one sign of youth in women. Many women worry that their husbands will no longer find them attractive as they age. Your wife is both lucky and blessed.
 
Okay, I’ve read every post.

My wife and I are old enough that this is no longer a problem, but did practice NFP for over twenty years. It was hard. It was artificial. It was a constant source of hurt feelings. We did it to be faithful to the Church.

It is so much better now.
Great post, which unfortunately seems to be a common theme for couples practicing NFP.
Why does a Catholic life have to be full of suffering that we should embrace, instead of full of joy?
This is something that I’ve always wondered. It’s one thing to embrace the suffering we have been given in life beyond our control (i.e., death of a loved one, illness, etc.). But it seems like quite another to create artificial and difficult rules and then chalk it up to “God wants you to sacrifice”.

Especially in light of Matthew 9:13, where Jesus says “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”.
 
It’s not moral relativism to believe that the Holy Spirit is present in everyone’s conscience.

What would you do when a pope says, in writing, that it’s perfectly permissible to enslave and subject natives who don’t convert to Christianity? (This has happened, by the way). Would you really be so quick to abandon you conscience because the pope said it was ok?

Facing a church teaching that goes against your conscience is a very difficult thing to figure out. For many people, birth control is a prime example. Is it better to follow the church’s teaching and answer to God why they did something against their conscience? Or is it better to follow one’s conscience and answer to God why they did something against the church teaching?

I don’t know the answer to this. But I do strongly believe that the Holy Spirit is alive in all of our consciences, rather than just being confined to the text of dogmatic proclamations. And this is certainly not moral relativism.
It’s moral relativism when you think your conscience is right and the Magesterium is wrong. The example you gave was NOT Church teaching. It was an errant pope. The teaching on birth control IS Church teaching. You will not find a single Church document to support choosing your conscience WHEN the Church has already declared something.
 
This is something that I’ve always wondered. It’s one thing to embrace the suffering we have been given in life beyond our control (i.e., death of a loved one, illness, etc.). But it seems like quite another to create artificial and difficult rules and then chalk it up to “God wants you to sacrifice”.

Especially in light of Matthew 9:13, where Jesus says “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”.
The purpose of rejecting contraception is not to sacrifice although any suffering experienced should be offered up as with any noble suffering. The purpose is to respect both the nuptial meaning of the body and to grow in grace and wisdom through your vocation. In fact to curse the abstinence as a burden to be endured rather than order your lives to make best advantage of the patterns … is to undermine peace and contentment in general.

I’ve found in talking with people about it that putting abstinence in a prominent place is like giving up television in your life but leaving the empty cabinet in the corner with all the chairs still ordered around it so that you sit there facing an empty space sighing. You have to rearrange your life to live prolife and fill the empty spaces with a different type of giving.

It seems that the people that find it most burdensome are those who set themselves up for continual falling by trying to be martyrs to secular ideologies of sexual freedom rather then become a connoisseur of nuptial meaning.
 
Great post, which unfortunately seems to be a common theme for couples practicing NFP.

This is something that I’ve always wondered. It’s one thing to embrace the suffering we have been given in life beyond our control (i.e., death of a loved one, illness, etc.). But it seems like quite another to create artificial and difficult rules and then chalk it up to “God wants you to sacrifice”.

Especially in light of Matthew 9:13, where Jesus says “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”.
Take up your cross daily?
Nah, he didn’t mean that, one can see your bending of theology to justify something instead of encouraging holiness. But I have to wonder how one can believe other teachings that might be hard if you reject this one. How can a logical mind believe the impossible. How can you accept the dead rising, that bread is flesh etc. why is it human nature to be myopic in our view of theology and history. “Daycare” and having more than two kids suddenly becomes more of a reason God would permit sinful selfish acts than war and disease? Nope… One can see through your bias.
 
Just because you enjoy something doesn’t mean it is right. Jesus did say in the Bible, “The carnal minded shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they shall be thrown into the Outer Darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Canon law states: a Catholic in disagreement with, disbelieving or acting against catholic doctrine (such as contraception) is in an automatic state of excommunication. In a state of mortal sin, each use and thought of using contraception is a mortal sin, and each confession they do not confess is the mortal sin of sacrilege, and each communion they receive while supporting contraception is a mortal sin of sacrilege also. Their buying of contraception is the mortal sin of scandal (because it encourages others to buy contraception also).
To die in a state of mortal sin means you end up in Hell for all eternity, and each mortal sin has an eternal punishment in hell.

Either the Roman Catholic Church is completely infallible on areas of doctrine, guided by the Holy Spirit, founded by Jesus Christ the Son of God 2,000 years ago,
Or it isn’t.

Either every catholic doctrine is infallible or it isn’t.
The church can’t be partially infallible and partially fallible. Jesus was not partially infallible and partially fallible.

Jesus said; “I am Truth. And all who hear the Truth listen to My voice.”

Let’s see what the Word of God, Jesus, God’s natural law, and the Holy Spirit through our Popes have said:

Sodomy within marriage or outside marriage is a mortal sin (look at the fire and brimstone God rained down on the town of Sodomy for this sin), because it is only carnal and prevents conception. The same as contraceptives prevent contraception.

Is onanism (the mortal sin of Onan in the Bible Old Testament) is a mortal sin, pulling out of the act of intercourse at the last minute to prevent his wife being pregnated, it is a mortal sin in God’s eyes because it, to prevents conception,

So God.the Father is clearly telling us it is a mortal sin to do any act in marriage that prevents conception.

Read the Near Death Experience of Gloria Polo “Struck by lightning standing before the judgment” (free online ebook),
When she was hit by lightning she was told her judgement was hell, one of the reasons why, was because she used contraception, God showed her that her womb was a slaughterhouse, not very unlike abortion clinics, because she killed the chance of a child being conceived in her womb, by using contraceptive.

The Bible, The Popes (speaking on the authority as Christ’s Vicar guided by the Holy Spirit), and recent near death experiences
Contraceptive is a mortal sin. And the reward is Eternal Damnation with the sodomists, and onanists.
 
Catholic church teaching on artificial birth control is beautiful and wise. The rules are not artificial they are lovely beyond measure…
👍
Especially in light of Matthew 9:13, where Jesus says “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”.
The complete verse is: "Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’* I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

Jesus was asked why he hung around with sinners and he was quoting from Hosea which says in 6:6 “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than holocausts.”

Extending mercy to sinners implies that the sinners commit sin. In Romans 6:1 St. Paul asks if we should sin more so that grace may abound? (He answers with an emphatic, “No!” in Romans 6:2.) Artificial contraception* is sinful*–but those who seek mercy and forgiveness for their sins can find it in Jesus and His Church. This is a year of Mercy for the Church are we are especially invited to reflect upon and to seek God and His mercy this year. On a personal note relating to this thread, it was around the time when those doors of mercy were thrown open in Rome that I came back to the Church and started following these teachings. I can personally attest to God’s mercy towards Catholics who have sinned and sought His mercy!

“They shall come with weeping: and I will bring them back in mercy: and I will bring them through the torrents of waters in a right way, and they shall not stumble in it:… I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them joyful after their sorrow.” (taken from Jeremiah 31)

I find great joy in the Church teachings! I didn’t always follow them, but like those laborers in the parable who came mid-day to work in the field, I eventually did. But not every Catholic couple is called to use NFP. If they finds NFP to be a* huge *sacrifice, they should discern if is God is really calling them to use NFP? Maybe His is, or He might be calling them to have more children, or He may be calling them to simply set aside NFP without fearing pregnancy.

God’s merciful and He’s good. He gave us a Church and He often extends His mercy to us through the Church and her teachings.
 
Take up your cross daily?
Nah, he didn’t mean that, one can see your bending of theology to justify something instead of encouraging holiness. But I have to wonder how one can believe other teachings that might be hard if you reject this one. How can a logical mind believe the impossible. How can you accept the dead rising, that bread is flesh etc. why is it human nature to be myopic in our view of theology and history. “Daycare” and having more than two kids suddenly becomes more of a reason God would permit sinful selfish acts than war and disease? Nope… One can see through your bias.
I find that it is essential to the faith to believe that the dead rise and that bread is turned into the body of Christ. It is central and part of the story.

However, when we get in to Tradition with a T, I wonder. Was God’s intention that we would have as many kids as we could until my wife died in childbirth? Was it His intention to give men a lifelong desire for sex and then make fullfillment (even within marriage) impossible after a certain number of children because abstinence was required? I’m talking about the teaching through the ages, not just in the 20th/21st centuries.
 
I find that it is essential to the faith to believe that the dead rise and that bread is turned into the body of Christ. It is central and part of the story.

However, when we get in to Tradition with a T, I wonder. Was God’s intention that we would have as many kids as we could until my wife died in childbirth? Was it His intention to give men a lifelong desire for sex and then make fullfillment (even within marriage) impossible after a certain number of children because abstinence was required? I’m talking about the teaching through the ages, not just in the 20th/21st centuries.
Obviously that was not his intention and framing the argument that way is silly.
 
This is a question that has been a source of distress for a long time, and I’m going to be straightforward about it.

Why have most Catholics (several sources say at least 80-90%) disregarded what is, as far as I know, the official church teaching on contraception, which is that every sexual act within the bounds of marriage must be ordered toward procreation?

This has to be separated from the infallible teaching that part of the very definition marriage is to be open to procreating new life. I do not believe this is an issue of contention. Also, I am strictly referring to non-abortifacent artificial contraception, as I know several people like to lump this issue with abortion.

However, Humanae Vitae exists. Would this encyclical, as prophetic as it might be, be considered a *misformulation *of true church doctrine? Is the fact that this single issue has created a huge gap between the ecclesia discens (those of us who are not ordained) and the ecclesia docens (the teaching ones) speak to the fact that this is an issue that needs to be re-formulated and possibly reconsidered in light of scientific knowledge, modern realities, and even environmental factors (ie. Laudato Si speaks to this)? Could this possibly be, as a Catholic editor of the America Magazine puts it, another “Galileo affair”?

I conclude my opening post with the words of Pope Paul VI: “May the lively debate aroused by our encyclical lead to a better knowledge of Gods will.”
Some people see teachings like these as prying into their personal lives. It is also never directly stated in the bible that contraception is wrong. People find it unrealistic to neglect contraception.
 
PaulinVA #110
Why is the Church’s sexual theology so focused on where the man’s seed ends up? Is it because of a mistaken medieval belief that it contained baby humans?
PelagiathePenit #121
It is also never directly stated in the bible that contraception is wrong.
Both are misconceptions, and in error.
The Bible clearly exposes the grave wrongness of contraception:

From Fr John A Hardon, S.J.
CONTRACEPTION.
Deliberate interference with marital intercourse in order to prevent conception. It is the performance of the marriage act with the positive frustration of conception. Also called conjugal onanism, from the sin of Onan, referred to in the Bible (Genesis 38:8-10);
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html
“That Onan’s unnatural act as such is condemned as sinful in Gen. 38: 9-10 was an interpretation held by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, by the Protestant Reformers, and by nearly all celibate and married theologians of all Christian denominations until the early years of this century, when some exegetes began to approach the text with preconceptions deriving from the sexual decadence of modern Western culture and its exaggerated concern for ‘over-population.’ ” [Pope Pius XI, *Encyclical on Christian Marriage, Casti Connubii (31 December 1930)].

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).

“In the fourth century St. Augustine wrote, “Relations with one’s wife when conception is deliberately prevented are as unlawful and impure as the conduct of Onan who was slain.” St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, taught clearly the constant doctrine of the Christian religion that birth-control is a grave sin. He writes, “Next to murder, by which an actually existent human being is destroyed, we rank this sin by which the generation of a human being is prevented.” Contra Gent., Bk. III., c. 122. It is not a new law by any means.”
radioreplies.info/radio-r…ol-1.php?t=111

In country after country and in every country, bishops and councils forbid ‘contraceptive portions,’ ‘herbs or other agents so you will not have children,’ ‘spilling the seed in coitus,’ ‘coitus interruptus,’ ‘poisons of sterility,’ ‘avoiding children by evil acts,’ ‘putting material things in the vagina,’ and ‘causing temporary or permanent sterility.’ These and similar statements occur in ecclesiastical documents before the end of the thirteenth century.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 370).

The obvious failures to answer the truths against contraception point to the need to return to truth and faith.
 
It’s moral relativism when you think your conscience is right and the Magesterium is wrong. The example you gave was NOT Church teaching. It was an errant pope. The teaching on birth control IS Church teaching.
The example I gave came from a Papal Bull. The birth control debate comes from a Papal Encylical. Who says that the former is fallible but the latter is infallible? You? Are you infallible now?
You will not find a single Church document to support choosing your conscience WHEN the Church has already declared something.
And yet the CCC says in 1800:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top