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

[Regina7]

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?

And yet the CCC says in 1800:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”

I don’t know what a Papal Bull is. Perhaps you or someone else can explain.

You are forgetting the part of conscience that says it must be well-formed. And a well-formed conscience obeys the Magesterium as that is from Christ. If conscience says to do something against God’s law, that is not well-formed. Let us not forget that Satan tries to convince us that evil is good.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

 

[PaulinVA]

Both are misconceptions, and in error.
The Bible clearly exposes the grave wrongness of contraception:

The obvious failures to answer the truths against contraception point to the need to return to truth and faith.

Onan refused to fulfill the law. It wasn’t about contraception., per se. But, frankly, your post does not address what I said at all.

I asked why the emphasis on where the seed ends up, and you simply cited sources that are preoccupied with where the seed ends up.

I’m just asking. As I said previously, I follow Church teaching. I just don’t understand it.

 

[Abu]

awke #109
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.

The Holy Spirit does not teach against His Church.

As St John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor #64 teaches: “The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

Christ teaches through His Catholic Church that consciences have to be properly formed before their owners can judge correctly.

Those may be saved who try to seek truth, do good and follow their consciences, being linked to His Church in some way, even pagans, through baptism of desire, implicit faith etc. But, “The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC1783).

CCC1785 teaches that the formation of conscience must be “guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church,” thus those without such clear guidance provided by Christ may feel they are right when they are wrong.

CCC1792 identifies “errors of judgment” precisely: “…assertion of a mistaken autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching…”
**
Only the Magisterium defines what is truth and what is error on which conscience can be formed correctly with certainty. Engaging conscience is an act of responsible moral judgment as to whether to do good or evil. Conscience has to be formed by truth, it is not independent nor an infallible whim. It is not a god.**

Thus is a “faithful Catholic” identified in the CCC:
CCC 837: "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’ " [My emphasis].

 

[awke]

I don’t know what a Papal Bull is. Perhaps you or someone else can explain.

I don’t pretend to be able to explain it myself.

You are forgetting the part of conscience that says it must be well-formed. And a well-formed conscience obeys the Magesterium as that is from Christ. If conscience says to do something against God’s law, that is not well-formed. Let us not forget that Satan tries to convince us that evil is good.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

No, I do get what you’re saying. My point is that when somebody is faced with a decision where their conscience and church doctrine conflict, they are left in a very tough predicament. I don’t know which is the right to follow, but I don’t blame people for the decision they make.

Moral relativism says that there is no morality and it’s all just a personal decision. I’m in no way saying that. I’m saying when there is a tough moral decision where somebody wants to do the right thing but doesn’t know what is the right thing is, who should they listen to? Doctrine or their conscience? It’s not an easy decision.

You may fall into the side of one definitely must listen to doctrine over conscience, and that’s fine. But I wouldn’t be so quick to downplay the Holy Spirit’s influence on one’s conscience. (And yes - even when somebody is well intentioned and well read on the church’s position on a topic, they can still run into this conflict).

 

[awke]

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.

What…? I really don’t understand what you’re asking me. What is my bias?

 

[gardenswithkids]

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.

Marriage is analogous to Christ, the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church. The longing of a husband for his wife is symbolic of Christ’s longing for us. The sexual libido of healthy men indicates that God’s desire for humanity is constant and never-ending. Christ longs to enter into His Bride and fill her with new life. He tries to do it at every Mass and just about every other time He can get His hands on us. God is always ready, always “fertile”. On the other hand, humanity (represented in the female) is not always ready. Our ability to receive new life comes and goes over time, and eventually comes to an end. New life won’t always take hold deep within us–the timing has to be just right for that to happen. And sometimes we humans are just simply “not in the mood” for being intimate with God. Imagine how God must feel! He loves us and wants us, yet we often don’t want Him.

As to your other question, if you really believe God intend for you and your wife to have as many children as you could until she died in childbirth, you wouldn’t have abstained from relations when your wife was fertile. Paul, you made it through your wife’s fertile years in obedience to the Church without really understanding this stuff? I applaud you for your obedience to the Church! :clapping:

I think one way of understanding why it’s important where the man’s seed ends up relates to back the analogy of Christ and His Church. God “sows His seeds” generously and while we may not always be fertile or willing to receive Him, but He puts Himself and His seeds of New Life deep within us in a place where they might grow if all the various circumstances are right.

 

[Regina7]

I don’t pretend to be able to explain it myself.

No, I do get what you’re saying. My point is that when somebody is faced with a decision where their conscience and church doctrine conflict, they are left in a very tough predicament. I don’t know which is the right to follow, but I don’t blame people for the decision they make.

Moral relativism says that there is no morality and it’s all just a personal decision. I’m in no way saying that. I’m saying when there is a tough moral decision where somebody wants to do the right thing but doesn’t know what is the right thing is, who should they listen to? Doctrine or their conscience? It’s not an easy decision.

You may fall into the side of one definitely must listen to doctrine over conscience, and that’s fine. But I wouldn’t be so quick to downplay the Holy Spirit’s influence on one’s conscience. (And yes - even when somebody is well intentioned and well read on the church’s position on a topic, they can still run into this conflict).

The Holy Spirit will never lead a person to go against the Magesterium. It doesn’t even make sense. The Magesterium is led by the Holy Spirit, so why would the Holy Spirit contradict himself?

Moral relativism is saying there is no absolute truth and truth is subjective to each person. That’s what this is. The Church is very clear about contraception. So those claiming otherwise are rejecting Truth and following their own morality.

 

[awke]

The Holy Spirit will never lead a person to go against the Magesterium. It doesn’t even make sense. The Magesterium is led by the Holy Spirit, so why would the Holy Spirit contradict himself?

Moral relativism is saying there is no absolute truth and truth is subjective to each person. That’s what this is. The Church is very clear about contraception. So those claiming otherwise are rejecting Truth and following their own morality.

Ok, I won’t debate this any further. I hope you don’t ever have a crisis of faith like a lot of people here have had. (And I mean that in all sincerity.)

 

[Regina7]

Ok, I won’t debate this any further. I hope you don’t ever have a crisis of faith like a lot of people here have had. (And I mean that in all sincerity.)

I have. Not to derail the thread, but I’ve lost 3 babies. Any future pregnancies will likely result in a loss. This is a hard Truth for me to accept because ITS HARD. I’d much rather contracept to avoid possibly losing another baby. So I get it. I really do. But its still not right. I have to trust that God’s plan for me, regardless of how hard it is, is what’s best for me. I just read this today. From St. Faustina’s diary:

Jesus complained to me in these words, Distrust on the part of souls is tearing at My insides. The distrust of a chosen soul causes Me even greater pain; despite My inexhaustible love for them they do not trust Me. Even My death is not enough for them. Woe to the soul that abuses these [gifts] (Diary, 50).

 

[awke]

I have. Not to derail the thread, but I’ve lost 3 babies. Any future pregnancies will likely result in a loss. This is a hard Truth for me to accept because ITS HARD. I’d much rather contracept to avoid possibly losing another baby. So I get it. I really do. But its still not right. I have to trust that God’s plan for me, regardless of how hard it is, is what’s best for me. I just read this today. From St. Faustina’s diary:

Jesus complained to me in these words, Distrust on the part of souls is tearing at My insides. The distrust of a chosen soul causes Me even greater pain; despite My inexhaustible love for them they do not trust Me. Even My death is not enough for them. Woe to the soul that abuses these [gifts] (Diary, 50).

Wow, I’m very sorry. I’ll say some prayers for you.

 

[PaulinVA]

As to your other question, if you really believe God intend for you and your wife to have as many children as you could until she died in childbirth, you wouldn’t have abstained from relations when your wife was fertile. Paul, you made it through your wife’s fertile years in obedience to the Church without really understanding this stuff? I applaud you for your obedience to the Church! :clapping:

Well, thank you. No, I don’t believe that God intended my wife to have as many children as she could until she died in childbirth. However, there are many in the Church that, if you take their theology to it’s conclusion, appear to believe that.

Now that the fertile years are over, I have the luxury of looking back and our obedience and just have to say, “Wait, what?”. As an example, there will be no more babies made in our marriage. However, we must strictly follow the rules as if we were fertile. Why? Nothing is being thwarted if the seed isn’t deposited in the right place. But, practically, if the Church doesn’t impose that rule on infertile couples such as my wife and I, then there is no underpinning against gay male sex.

 

[Abu]

PaulinVA #125
Onan refused to fulfill the law. It wasn’t about contraception., per se.

Here you choose to feel that the revered Fr John Hardon, S.J., is wrong in emphasising that Onan’s sin was “Deliberate interference with marital intercourse in order to prevent conception.”
Pope Pius XI, in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage, Casti Connubii (31 December 1930), as quoted, reiterates precisely that condemnation.

But, frankly, your post does not address what I said at all.
I asked why the emphasis on where the seed ends up, and you simply cited sources that are preoccupied with where the seed ends up.

The emphasis in the Catholic teaching is precisely that ejaculation is gravely sinful when deliberately caused and directed to wasting the sperm against God’s design.

 

[PaulinVA]

Here you choose to feel that the revered Fr John Hardon, S.J., is wrong in emphasising that Onan’s sin was “Deliberate interference with marital intercourse in order to prevent conception.”

Yes, But, NO. Onan’s sin was to not want to follow the law to provide a child that Jewish tradition would consider his brother’s son. He was totally against fulfilling the law that said he had to marry his sister-in-law and provide her a son. The withdrawal was contracepting, but that wasn’t the deal.

Pope Pius XI, in his Encyclical on Christian Marriage, Casti Connubii (31 December 1930), as quoted, reiterates precisely that condemnation.
The emphasis in the Catholic teaching is precisely that ejaculation is gravely sinful when deliberately caused and directed to wasting the sperm against God’s design.

So, nocturnal emissions are okay, but withdrawal is bad. Intent to complete intercourse but having an “accident” is okay. It’s all kinda silly. All three are the exact same physical thing.

 

[loumeland]

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?

Finally some honesty, coming from someone who has used the Church-approved method of birth control: “A life of suffering.”

 

[loumeland]

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”.

Life brings its own full course of troubles and difficulties- and we want to create even some more as some kind of “test of loyalty” to see who are the ones that walk the “small gate and narrow way”! Listen to what Pope Francis is saying! Do not put your trust in institutions, structures, or organizations- even Church organization!

Those who are recalcitrant in condemning married couples who use contraception are putting their trust in church structures (the letter) and not listening to the Holy Spirit. It is possible for a man to go through the motions and obey Canon Law- yet not have the Holy Spirit!

 

[Abu]

PaulinVA #136
So, nocturnal emissions are okay, but withdrawal is bad. Intent to complete intercourse but having an “accident” is okay. It’s all kinda silly. All three are the exact same physical thing.

False. The inability here to see the wood from the trees is unfortunate…

That God designed mankind with the function of involuntary “nocturnal emissions”, but to equate those with deliberately caused orgasm and withdrawal indicates a lack of reasoning ability.

 

[awke]

Life brings its own full course of troubles and difficulties- and we want to create even some more as some kind of “test of loyalty” to see who are the ones that walk the “small gate and narrow way”! Listen to what Pope Francis is saying! Do not put your trust in institutions, structures, or organizations- even Church organization!

Those who are recalcitrant in condemning married couples who use contraception are putting their trust in church structures (the letter) and not listening to the Holy Spirit. It is possible for a man to go through the motions and obey Canon Law- yet not have the Holy Spirit!

Agreed. Well said.

 

[loumeland]

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.

The Bible does not condemn contraception. Some point out the sin of Onan when he pulled away in order to not impregnate his brother’s wife. Read Genesis 38:8-10 and honestly tell me what was Onan’s sin. Was it the mere act of preventing conception?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

People are fooling themselves if they think the success rates of artiiicial contraception is better than NFP.

The Billings method devised by Catholic doctors, sanctioned by the Church and if used properly is 99% effective. It has a higher success rate than condoms and the pill.

It is also successful for couples who cannot become pregnant and are looking for other methods besides IVF.

It is being trialled by the World Health Organisation as a safe and natural method to prevent pregnancy.

Some people don’t know about Billings method or are too lazy to stick with it, they would rather just pop a pill or be slaves to their baser instinct instead of waiting and disciplining ourselves. We found Billings does take time to understand and use properly to begin with but now it’s just second nature. I am not polluting my body with chemicals and we are following doctrine.

billings.life/en/home.html

 

[Regina7]

Life brings its own full course of troubles and difficulties- and we want to create even some more as some kind of “test of loyalty” to see who are the ones that walk the “small gate and narrow way”! Listen to what Pope Francis is saying! Do not put your trust in institutions, structures, or organizations- even Church organization!

Those who are recalcitrant in condemning married couples who use contraception are putting their trust in church structures (the letter) and not listening to the Holy Spirit. It is possible for a man to go through the motions and obey Canon Law- yet not have the Holy Spirit!

Do not put your trust in the Church? Really?