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

[Abu]

PaulinVA (#274)
There is no mistaking Christ’s teaching.
In reality, some make their own trouble, and seem to deserve Christ’s admonition to His Apostles. Until and unless dissenters listen to Christ through His Church they may be in the same boat as His Apostles in earlier days – to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18). Further, having commissioned Peter as His first Vicar, on whom He founded His Church, Jesus instructed the eleven and proclaimed: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” (Mt 28:18-20).

Thus, from the first, the faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42).

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).

“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).

Thus the Christ did not establish or encourage the welter of opinions that individuals have conjured up to suit their own feelings, accepting and/or promoting, error.

 

[Abu]

LongingSoul #
Dissent from the Latin translates as differing in sentiment. Sentiment translating as sensation based in considering the merits of something. That would be like an conscientious objector.

The Church respects dissension as part of the search for truth. An example of that would be prior to HV being written, dissension contributed to the deeper explication of the goods of NFP when some were saying that it had the same quality as contraception

.
Incorrect.

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.”

Catholic dissenters from doctrine on faith or morals have rejected the teaching of the Catholic Church on a grave matter of their choice – for real Catholics are bound to give assent to all of the teaching of the Church:
For them, Sections 25-31 cover “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).

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].

[See post #85].

 

[SAVINGRACE]

“A recent 20-year German study asked 900 women to track their fertility every day by monitoring their body temperature and cervical mucus, and use that information to avoid pregnancy. The study’s researchers found this to be 98.2 percent effective—comparable with the pill, and a far cry from the 82 percent effectiveness rate of the withdrawal method.”

20 years seems a long time to do a study like this. I know there are different studies out the with different results regarding failure rates but there are definitely multiple studies that show very low failure rates.

There are medical professionals with a lot of knowledge about NFP, who are GYN’S.

The World Health Organisation is trialling the Billings Method in Africa as a safe and reliable method of NFP.

It has a 99% success rate if used properly. More reliable than the condom and artificial birth control. I don’t know people drink the kool aid that ABC is more effective. It isn’t and studies have proved it.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

So for those Catholics that hold their conscience as having greater weight than Church teaching, why do you think Christ left us the Church? If we are each to look at the evidence and say “that does not apply to my reality” then why did He leave a Church at all?

If you believe that Christ left the Church to guide mankind to holiness, then why do you think it’s right on so many things, but simply think that it suddenly got this part wrong?

This is an honest question. Many answers I have seen here seem to echo our Protestant brethren that there is not a single truth, but rather a truth that applies to me. There is but one truth in Christ and our personal realities do not dictate that truth.

When I converted I had to make a profession of faith that said “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.” No where in there is there a capitulation that says “I believe what makes sense to me and reject anything that is inconvenient”.

We all have “free will” and need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I trust the Church 100% in ALL of it’s doctrines and adhere to them to the best of my ability.

If I couldn’t abide by this or any other doctrine I would find a church that teaches what I like. That’s where I was before I converted. I won’t join a Church and then attempt to change it’s doctrines, that’s intellectually and spiritually dishonest on my part.

I don’t live in lala land, my hubby and I are young educated parents living in the real world. NFP works for us because we are using it properly. It is more reliable than condoms and the pill and I don’t want to pollute my body with chemicals when I can get the same result using natural methods.

We know the Church doctrine on this. Whether we choose to follow it or not is up to each individual.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

We all have “free will” and need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I trust the Church 100% in ALL of it’s doctrines and adhere to them to the best of my ability.

If I couldn’t abide by this or any other doctrine I would find a church that teaches what I like. That’s where I was before I converted. I won’t join a Church and then attempt to change it’s doctrines, that’s intellectually and spiritually dishonest on my part.

I don’t live in lala land, my hubby and I are young educated parents living in the real world. NFP works for us because we are using it properly. It is more reliable than condoms and the pill and I don’t want to pollute my body with chemicals when I can get the same result using natural methods.

We know the Church doctrine on this. Whether we choose to follow it or not is up to each individual.

Ex. Act. Ly !!!

 

[LongingSoul]

.
Incorrect.

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.”

Catholic dissenters from doctrine on faith or morals have rejected the teaching of the Catholic Church on a grave matter of their choice – for real Catholics are bound to give assent to all of the teaching of the Church:
For them, Sections 25-31 cover “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).

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].

[See post #85].

You are addressing dissension in terms of the quality of a ‘good Catholic’ and in relation to reception of sacraments. I was addressing the Church teaching that we are obliged to follow our conscience, even if it is an erroneous conscience as a necessary part of the search for Truth. The Church doesn’t punish that anymore. It is entrusted to Gods final judgement. The Church recognises how genuine dissent from a teaching according to ones conscience, has a part in the search for Truth.

 

[Thorolfr]

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)

Matthew 16: 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

John 21: 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.

Matthew 28: 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

1 Timothy 3: 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

What do any of these Bible verses have to do with papal infallibility?

 

[MarkInOregon]

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?

It is only hard and a source of suffering when we don’t align our will with Gods. When we place our desire over Gods desire for us. When we view this as some rule designed to stop us from having fun and getting what we want. Not saying that I didn’t struggle with this–I am after all a very sinful human being–but that I struggled with it because my primary concern was often my want/my desire (notice I didn’t say need) without considering what God might want or even what my wife might want/desire after a long day on her feet. Heck, now as she goes through menopause–there is often a disconnect on what we both desire–I have to remember that it is my job to put her needs above mine–and that I should find joy in that–and I will say that I am thankful that I am not the one going through menopause! I guess my point is that if I was focused on what I wanted–then sure this would be hard, but if I am focused on what my wife needs–well then it’s not so hard because I’m not thinking about what I want. I think it is largely a problem of focus and of desire–a focus and desire largely influence by the secular Wests portrait of how we are supposed to live, of what we need to be happy and I think it is our adoption of this vision, this portrait of life–that leads to much of our dissatisfaction and depression, that convinces us that we have reached our limit–that leads mothers and fathers to abandon their families in search of finding themselves or to leading lives of quiet desperation—we have forgotten that we must lose our lives in order to find them.

You can find stories of Catholic couples who found that giving up contraception made things much better for them rather than worse–in the total giving of self rather than in the holding something back. Perhaps it’s all in how we view things, in our perception?

I think an authentically lived Catholic life is filled with joy even in the midst of suffering.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[PaulinVA]

It is only hard and a source of suffering when we don’t align our will with Gods. When we place our desire over Gods desire for us. When we view this as some rule designed to stop us from having fun and getting what we want.

This sounds great, but is not true. Suffering is suffering.

One the one hand, through the fall, or how we were created, or whatever, we have sexual urges. On the other hand, fulfillment of those sexual urges can result in babies. A couple can only handle so many babies, and they reach their limit usually before the fertility is over.

It is like we are set up to fail. We have a human nature, and we spend our lives denying it or asking to be forgiven for it.

 

[LongingSoul]

This sounds great, but is not true. Suffering is suffering.

Not really, Paul. For instance, if you ask me, going to the gym is hellish suffering but to my daughter who goes everyday of her life… it’s meaningful and satisfying to put yourself through that. She obviously appreciates the benefits and goals in a way that my lazy self can’t be bothered.

And elite athletes, live such limited and disciplined lives compared to the rest of us. I call that suffering to not have fish and chips on Friday night and creamy risottos at the cafe when I’m too lazy to cook. People do things that are hard because of the higher good and the ultimate goal. One attitude sees is as meaningless suffering in contrast to another that aspires to greatness by it.

 

[WillyAL]

This sounds great, but is not true. Suffering is suffering.

One the one hand, through the fall, or how we were created, or whatever, we have sexual urges. On the other hand, fulfillment of those sexual urges can result in babies. A couple can only handle so many babies, and they reach their limit usually before the fertility is over.

It is like we are set up to fail. We have a human nature, and we spend our lives denying it or asking to be forgiven for it.

Geezzz…It took 293 posts, but someone finally got to the heart of the matter.

 

[MomaMary8]

This sounds great, but is not true. Suffering is suffering.

One the one hand, through the fall, or how we were created, or whatever, we have sexual urges. On the other hand, fulfillment of those sexual urges can result in babies. A couple can only handle so many babies, and they reach their limit usually before the fertility is over.

It is like we are set up to fail. We have a human nature, and we spend our lives denying it or asking to be forgiven for it.

No. I disagree. I buried my child this week. I suffered inconsolably, until I United it to the cross. Now it is a bitter sweet suffering. I know it is efficacious. Earthly suffering is terrible, but that is why we were given the example of our Blessed Mother to teach us how to make it supernatural. Her soul was pierced, and may it be with me.

You had it right the first time, it was through the fall…

 

[1ke]

It is like we are set up to fail. We have a human nature, and we spend our lives denying it or asking to be forgiven for it.

We were not created with our will and our bodies at odds. Yes, Original Sin does impact us, but sanctifying grace makes it possible to overcome that. To live chastely is not to deny our nature but to fulfill it.

 

[LongingSoul]

This sounds great, but is not true. Suffering is suffering.

One the one hand, through the fall, or how we were created, or whatever, we have sexual urges. On the other hand, fulfillment of those sexual urges can result in babies. A couple can only handle so many babies, and they reach their limit usually before the fertility is over.

It is like we are set up to fail. We have a human nature, and we spend our lives denying it or asking to be forgiven for it.

Paul, out of curiousity, has your resentment of nfp come about recently? Did something trigger it? Or have you felt that resentment all through your marriage?

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #290
What do any of these Bible verses have to do with papal infallibility?

The teaching is from Christ implicit for St Peter and his successors

Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

**In Mt 28:19-20, after His Resurrection Jesus commands Peter and the Apostles to preach the good news and promised the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all truth.” [Jn 16:13].
**
In 1Tim 3:15, Christ’s Church is named as “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Thus it is quite clear that Christ has given St Peter, in His Church, full power to bind and loose with the power and protection of the Holy Spirit to guide the Teaching Authority, created by Him – His Magisterium, without error.

As in the dogma of the Assumption, dogmas and doctrines are defined when the Church sees that the time has come. Thus papal infallibility was defined as a dogma when challenged by Gallicanism.

Disregarding the Christ leads to the errors we have today.

 

[PaulinVA]

Paul, out of curiousity, has your resentment of nfp come about recently? Did something trigger it? Or have you felt that resentment all through your marriage?

It’s not NFP, per se. I don’t know. We certainly wanted to be faithful during the decades that we used it. It was really the only option - the Church said no to ABC, so okay, it’s no.

My resentment is why the “narrow gate” for married couples involves something that is impossible for so many of them.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It’s not NFP, per se. I don’t know. We certainly wanted to be faithful during the decades that we used it. It was really the only option - the Church said no to ABC, so okay, it’s no.

My resentment is why the “narrow gate” for married couples involves something that is impossible for so many of them.

That could be a question for all of humanity. Not just married couples. Why is it that humanity seems to suspend logic and theology when genital stimulation is involved. It has always been a problem. Probably always will be.

 

[Thorolfr]

The teaching is from Christ implicit for St Peter and his successors

Why was the Bible implicit about all this and not explicit? Wouldn’t there have been a lot less disagreement among Christians if all this had been explicit instead of implicit. Also, where does the Bible say that all these verses apply to Peter’s successors or is that implicit, too, instead of explicit?

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #301
Why was the Bible implicit about all this and not explicit? Wouldn’t there have been a lot less disagreement among Christians if all this had been explicit instead of implicit. Also, where does the Bible say that all these verses apply to Peter’s successors or is that implicit, too, instead of explicit?

Why on earth would anyone feel that the Christ who built His own Church on St Peter, against which the gates of hell would not prevail, with the keys to the Kingdom of heaven, with His authority to bind and loose for the purpose of strengthening and feeding Christ’s followers – would allow all of His mandated authority and protection of belief and morality to cease, be disregarded and discarded after Peter’s death?

Christ didn’t give us the Bible but protected it from error in faith and morals as His Catholic Church gave us the Bible, which writings were proclaimed by His Church – from which seven books were plundered by those who revolted against His authority in His Church, resulting in the errors we see today

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why was the Bible implicit about all this and not explicit? Wouldn’t there have been a lot less disagreement among Christians if all this had been explicit instead of implicit. Also, where does the Bible say that all these verses apply to Peter’s successors or is that implicit, too, instead of explicit?

Why did Christ use parables? If only he had given an explanation of why things need to be implicit and if only he gave us some sort of authority to help with that?