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

[LongingSoul]

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.

ewtn.com.au/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb30.htm

In this 1980 audience of Pope StJPII, he most clearly explains the original nuptial meaning of marital communion. He says by the first sin Adam and Eve somehow thwarted original innocence and the experiences of lust and shame came into the communion by way of desire.

Before that the communion of the man and woman was an expression of original innocence. Between the two of them in self giving love and living for the other, they experienced the wholeness of heaven. Before desire came into the act, it was a ritual act of communion. A lived experience of the presence of God.

So when concupiscence entered this realm, man and woman were required to make a conscious choice to honour the nuptial meaning of the union to prevent the distortions of sex into an ungodly act diminishing the whole relationship. That involves acknowledging the strong human penchant to serve the desire first at the expense of the spiritual meaning because whatever comes out of a distorted expression of the union, erodes the true godly relationship.

The lust of the flesh directs these desires, however, to satisfaction of the body, often at the cost of a real and full communion of persons. In this sense, attention should be paid to the way in which semantic accentuations are distributed in the verses of Genesis 3. Although there are few of them, they reveal interior consistency. The man seems to feel ashamed of his own body with particular intensity: “I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself” (Gn 3:10). These words emphasize the metaphysical character of shame. At the same time, for the man, shame united with lust will become an impulse to “dominate” the woman. (“he shall rule over you.”)

Subsequently, the experience of this domination is manifested more directly in the woman as the insatiable desire for a different union. From the moment when the man “dominates” her, the communion of persons—made of the full spiritual union of the two subjects giving themselves to each other—is followed by a different mutual relationship. This is the relationship of possession of the other as the object of one’s own desire. If this impulse prevails on the part of the man, the instincts that the woman directs to him, according to the expression of Genesis 3:16, can—and do—assume a similar character. Sometimes, perhaps, they precede the man’s “desire,” or even aim at arousing it and giving it impetus.

St JPII explains how because the meaning of conjugal relations is more spiritually significant than just sexual satisfaction and reproduction, the way we indulge it determines our attitude towards each other and the relationship.

When, in this vast context, we speak of lust as a limitation, infraction or even distortion of the nuptial meaning of the body, we are referring above all to the preceding analyses regarding the state of original innocence, that is, the theological prehistory of man. At the same time, we have in mind the measure that historical man, with his “heart,” applies to his own body in relation to male/female sexuality. This measure is not something exclusively conceptual. It determines the attitudes and decides in general the way of living the body.

So when people make the choice to thwart the donation of the whole self in the act and dedicate it solely to the purpose of mutual self satisfaction, they confirm a distorted attitude towards their relationship and celebrate original sin. The meaning is in the selflessness of each spouse whether they have a little or a lot to give. (Remember the Lords esteem of the old woman who had nothing to give to charity but gave everything she had. The spiritual virtue is in the generosity of the giver not in the quality of the gift.)

 

[LongingSoul]

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!

The sacramentality of marriage is a reflection of Gods unconditional love for man and Christs unconditional love for His Bride. Imposing out own conditions about what we will and will not give in conjugal relations is to recreate original sin by the act. Nothing good can come of it in the end.

 

[PaulinVA]

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.

As insulting as your post is, I will respond to it politely.

You haven’t answered anything. You have simply made an ad hominen attack. All three spill the seed, but only one is wrong. So, why do people say that spilling the seed is wrong?

 

[Regina7]

As insulting as your post is, I will respond to it politely.

You haven’t answered anything. You have simply made an ad hominen attack. All three spill the seed, but only one is wrong. So, why do people say that spilling the seed is wrong?

It’s all about intent, isn’t it? A man, from what I understand, can’t always help it, like in case of nightly emissions. If a man intentionally “pulls out” or ejaculates without intending sex, like in masterbation, his intent is quite different.

 

[Usige]

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.

Yes it is. In Galatians 5:19-21 pharmakeia is listed as on of the sins of the flesh along with fornication, impurity, and licentiousness as things that would bar one from obtaining heaven. It is again listed with murder and sexual immorality in Revelations 9:20-21. In many translations the word is translated as sorcery so we need to see how contemporaries used the same Greek word.

The Greek word pharmakeia is used by the second_century physician, Soranos of Ephesus, in reference to potions used for contraception and abortion. The third-century theologian, Hippolytus, condemns women who use *pharmakeia *for producing sterility.

So here we have contemporaries of the Biblical authors using the same word, pharmakeia, in reference to contraceptives. The same word used in scripture in passages that also condemn sexual immorality and murder.

So yes, scripture, does speak against the sinfulness of contraception.

 

[loumeland]

It’s worth noting that it is only in the Catholic Church where it’s taught that every marital act must be open to procreation- not even the Orthodox would go that far. The Protestant communities have reached the opposite conclusion. And yet we consider them our brethren in Christ, albeit separated.

Only one of the two is true- either the issue of contraception is the dividing line between the saved or the unsaved (small and narrow gate argument), or the Catholic Church needs to re-examine and re-formulate how the doctrine of marriage affects believers in the day-to-day.

It’s also worth noting that those who most fervently condemn contraception are either not married themselves, or have always wanted lots of children in order to have a sense of fulfillment. Certainly not the majority.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

It’s worth noting that it is only in the Catholic Church where it’s taught that every marital act must be open to procreation- not even the Orthodox would go that far. The Protestant communities have reached the opposite conclusion. And yet we consider them our brethren in Christ, albeit separated.

Only one of the two is true- either the issue of contraception is the dividing line between the saved or the unsaved (small and narrow gate argument), or the Catholic Church needs to re-examine and re-formulate how the doctrine of marriage affects believers in the day-to-day.

It’s also worth noting that those who most fervently condemn contraception are either not married themselves, or have always wanted lots of children in order to have a sense of fulfillment. Certainly not the majority.

I’m a mid-twenties married woman with one 2yo child. We plan on having 3 children.

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 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. People want a quick fix, it’s the instant self-gratification world of today.

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/

 

[gardenswithkids]

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

People who use contraception in defiance of Church usually believe they won’t get pregnant if they use it. Quite frequently they eventually discover that they were wrong and find themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy in spite of having used artificial contraception.

Here’s an article from the New York Times on the likelihood of becoming pregnant while using various methods of birth control over the course of ten years of typical use. nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html?_r=1 (It lumps all “fertility awareness” methods together without distinguishing the different types.) When looking at “typical use” a huge number of women who use artificial contraception become pregnant within ten years of using it, and since women can be fertile for thirty years, the number of people who become pregnant while using contraception over the course of their lifetimes is even greater. According to the New York Time even female sterilization sometimes results in unwanted pregnancy–over ten years five women who were sterilized become pregnant!

Still, somehow many Catholics fail to trust the Church teachings and instead trust that they won’t get pregnant if they use contraception.

 

[Abu]

The attempts to justify what Christ and his Church have condemned show, unfortunately, a lack of knowledge or a determination to reject doctrine proclaimed by the Magisterium. The fact that God has provided the long infertile period, and the developments that have made its use so applicable, even in the more difficult cases, belie the misguided attempts to ridicule Christ who declared “He that hears you hears Me.”

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), therefore from the Christ Himself, and St Peter was infallible in the exercise of his office.

I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

Post #122 is replete with evidence of the Church’s early condemnation.

In Casti Connubii, Pius XI, declared “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” Casti Connubii, 56, 1930].

Pius XI in Casti Connubii, refers to the “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

Furthermore, it is infallible because of the “universality of the present” — because Vatican II declared unequivocally that “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” Gaudium et Spes, 51; footnote 14 refers to “Casti Connubii” and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI]. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching.

Pope St John Paul II also firmly stated that the ban on contraception “cannot be questioned by the Catholic theologian,” much to the consternation of Father Charles Curran and his dissenting brethren.[14]
[14] “Pope Warns Theologians not to Question Ban on Contraception.” The Wanderer, November 24, 1988, Page 1.

How could St John Paul II laud Fr Lio’s *Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità *as he did, if he disagreed with his main conclusion that Humanae Vitae contains an ex cathedra definition?

The requirement to demonstrate infallibility on faith or morals is in “a definitive act” by the Supreme Pontiff. Can. 749 §1.].
See Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità (Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986) by Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M.
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

St John Paul II recognised the immense contribution of Fr Lio by rewarding his immense scholarship specifically for Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità as Fr Harrison records:
“….in a very uncommon gesture of warm personal commendation given to an individual theologian for a particular work, the Holy Father John Paul II had a message drafted in fine calligraphy and sent to Fr. Lio with his own handwritten signature. Fr. Lio kindly gave me a photocopy of this document, which reads (in translation from the Italian original):

“To the Rev. Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., with deep thanks for the presentation of your volume Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità, and with warm appreciation for the sentiments of sincere adherence to the Magisterium of the Church which have always guided your activity of research and teaching: I impart to you from my heart a special Apostolic Blessing, a pledge of continuing heavenly assistance towards a fervent perseverance in the love of Truth and the service of souls.” [My emphasis]
From the Vatican, 31 July 1986.
(Signed) John Paul PP. II.

 

[PhiloMed]

People who use contraception in defiance of Church usually believe they won’t get pregnant if they use it. Quite frequently they eventually discover that they were wrong and find themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy in spite of having used artificial contraception.

Here’s an article from the New York Times on the likelihood of becoming pregnant while using various methods of birth control over the course of ten years of typical use. nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html?_r=1 (It lumps all “fertility awareness” methods together without distinguishing the different types.) When looking at “typical use” a huge number of women who use artificial contraception become pregnant within ten years of using it, and since women can be fertile for thirty years, the number of people who become pregnant while using contraception over the course of their lifetimes is even greater. According to the New York Time even female sterilization sometimes results in unwanted pregnancy–over ten years five women who were sterilized become pregnant!

Still, somehow many Catholics fail to trust the Church teachings and instead trust that they won’t get pregnant if they use contraception.

This argument never works. Along with the one that says that NFP makes your marriage better or that it is somehow worse with ABC.

In ten years of ABC I had 0 pregnancies.

In three years of using NFP I have had 2 while trying to have 0.

My marriage was better when we were using ABC. Less stress. Less arguments. Less tears.

I’ll also add that it’s very convenient how those who espouse the wonders of NFP are those who have 0 children either by choice or by biology, or have several and genuinely don’t mind more.

There doesn’t seem to be a place for those of us in that grey zone. Just totally physically and emotionally maxed out on all fronts and done with the whole business of it.

 

[HungerNThirst4R]

I’m well aware of those studies and they do not pertain to my situation in the least.

I’ve said my piece.

It’s a medical issue and I trust my OB.

No one will change my mind on it at all. No, I’m not going through anyone else but my OB.

So do me a favor everyone. Lay off me. I’ve struggled enough. I’m at peace with it and I’m done here.

The pill does not cure PCOS, it may in some cases lesson it but once you stop taking it your condition can worsen. I know because I PCOS and am infertile because of it, which makes it odd that you would need the pill for contraception as well? The pill as well as the shot are artificial hormones, and many have abortive properties. Also there are other options for dealing with PCOS such as changing your diet. Ive also done some research on metformin as well as several other medications.

 

[Thorolfr]

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.

What makes something “Church teaching” as opposed to the opinion of an errant pope? For example, the papal bull, Dum Diversas, which was issued by Pope Nicholas V in 1452, gave permission to the Portuguese to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to “perpetual servitude”. How would any Catholic back in 1452 have known that this was just the opinion of an “errant pope” and not Church teaching?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What makes something “Church teaching” as opposed to the opinion of an errant pope? For example, the papal bull, Dum Diversas, which was issued by Pope Nicholas V in 1452, gave permission to the Portuguese to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to “perpetual servitude”. How would any Catholic back in 1452 have known that this was just the opinion of an “errant pope” and not Church teaching?

Then why have faith in the church at all?

 

[gardenswithkids]

This argument never works. Along with the one that says that NFP makes your marriage better or that it is somehow worse with ABC. …I’ll also add that it’s very convenient how those who espouse the wonders of NFP are those who have 0 children either by choice or by biology, or have several and genuinely don’t mind more.

There doesn’t seem to be a place for those of us in that grey zone. Just totally physically and emotionally maxed out on all fronts and done with the whole business of it.

Your experience does not match with the experience of many women who became pregnant while using contraception. I shared a link on pregnancy rates while using contraception from the New York Times, which is hardly a propaganda source for the Catholic Church and her teachings.

Please do not presume to know my motives and experiences, and please don’t put words into my mouth. I don’t “espouse the wonders of NFP”. The Church allows NFP but doesn’t require Catholic couples to use it. And I didn’t always follow Church teachings either, but eventually I came to desire to follow them and later still learned to love them. Following the Church teachings took me through some struggles too. It’s a struggle that I found worth enduring.

The comments by you and some posters on this thread towards those who try to follow Church teachings seem to stereo-type us a bit and read things into our posts that we haven’t written. I’ve always liked children, but it took a real change of heart and God’s grace for us to become more willing to expand our family size. I’m grateful to God for changing my heart. I discovered a secret that I’m going to share with you–one way I’ve discovered to avoid unwanted pregnancy is to simply decide that I *want *whatever pregnancy may happen to occur.

You now have two very young children. Even if you had carefully planned those pregnancies, you might find this stage of life difficult. You can get through it. It won’t always be this hard. ((((hugs)))) There is a place for those of you in that “gray zone” (as you phrased it.) The place is in the Church, next to the rest of us who are striving to do God’s will. Sometimes the place in the Church is standing next to us in line in the Confessional.

 

[PhiloMed]

Your experience does not match with the experience of many women who became pregnant while using contraception. I shared a link on pregnancy rates while using contraception from the New York Times, which is hardly a propaganda source for the Catholic Church and her teachings.

Please do not presume to know my motives and experiences, and please don’t put words into my mouth. I don’t “espouse the wonders of NFP”. The Church allows NFP but doesn’t require Catholic couples to use it. And I didn’t always follow Church teachings either, but eventually I came to desire to follow them and later still learned to love them. Following the Church teachings took me through some struggles too. It’s a struggle that I found worth enduring.

The comments by you and some posters on this thread towards those who try to follow Church teachings seem to stereo-type us a bit and read things into our posts that we haven’t written. I’ve always liked children, but it took a real change of heart and God’s grace for us to become more willing to expand our family size. I’m grateful to God for changing my heart. I discovered a secret that I’m going to share with you–one way I’ve discovered to avoid unwanted pregnancy is to simply decide that I *want *whatever pregnancy may happen to occur.

You now have two very young children. Even if you had carefully planned those pregnancies, you might find this stage of life difficult. You can get through it. It won’t always be this hard. ((((hugs)))) There is a place for those of you in that “gray zone” (as you phrased it.) The place is in the Church, next to the rest of us who are striving to do God’s will. Sometimes the place in the Church is standing next to us in line in the Confessional.

I’m about to have three very young children. Three under 3 1/2. Our property taxes increased so our monthly mortgage payment will be going up by $1200/month. Car died so we need a new vehicle and therefore a payment. Childcare cost will increase.

Is the church going to cough up the additional $2000/month our expenses are about to increase?

Until they do, they can have their NFP.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m about to have three very young children. Three under 3 1/2. Our property taxes increased so our monthly mortgage payment will be going up by $1200/month. Car died so we need a new vehicle and therefore a payment. Childcare cost will increase.

Is the church going to cough up the additional $2000/month our expenses are about to increase?

Until they do, they can have their NFP.

Americans crying poverty for children… Meanwhile in Africa perhaps a future Saint is being born right now. Shame on those parents right?

 

[PhiloMed]

Americans crying poverty for children… Meanwhile in Africa perhaps a future Saint is being born right now. Shame on those parents right?

Are you going to pay my bills? No. Oh well then you know where you can put your opinion.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Are you going to pay my bills? No. Oh well then you know where you can put your opinion.

1 income 5 kids. We have our own bills. And our own fidelity to the church set up by Jesus.

 

[PhiloMed]

1 income 5 kids. We have our own bills. And our own fidelity to the church set up by Jesus.

Exactly. You have your lifestyle that works for you. It makes you happy. What about the rest of us who don’t want to live that way? What about those of us who don’t want five kids and one income? What of those of us who are stretched on two incomes?

 

[PhiloMed]

We’re all getting sidetracked with our personal agendas and problems.

The answer to the OPs question, in my opinion, is that some people do not have the financial or emotional bandwidth to unsuccessfully practice NFP. For those for whom it has always worked, it’s a non-issue. It works. For those who never tried, maybe it’s fear. But for those who tried and it failed it’s much more than that. Its survival.

there are many happy families with very little means who have far above the national average number of children. They welcome each one with excitement. I think it is difficult or maybe impossible for them to understand that there are some of us who don’t view another child with such excitement. It’s more than financial ability, it’s a physical and emotional ability. The church provides little in terms of practical help for those people.

Likewise, little practical support is provided for those families financially strapped other than a temporary band-aid that may not solve their problem. A family down the street just lost their house prior to thanksgiving after being unable to pay the mortgage. They have 8 children ranging from 22 to 8. I kept wishing I could help them. Not just like the St Vincent DePaul society with an electric bill. Really help them. Pay off their mortgage and give the father a job. I don’t want to be Warren Buffet rich. I’d settle for Jimmy Buffet.