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

[Rau]

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

Then you need to explain why God killed him, given the prescribed punishment under the law for refusing to give the woman a child was public humiliation, not death. The Bible states he was killed for “what he did”, not for his refusal.

 

[Kelfa28]

Not sure what your last sentence means - do you mean you are abstaining entirely?

Regarding trust in NFP, would you trust it to be able to help you choose one single day in the month when sex would/could not lead to pregnancy?

We were, and still are 100% abstaining. Until I’ve gone through a pack or two of pills I’ve recently been prescribed.

I will not go back to a method that got me pregnant. So, no. I will never use STM ever again. I do not trust it at all. I followed the rules and abstained until I was sure that we were safe. I still got pregnant.
Why should I assume that there is even one part of the month where I couldn’t get pregnant.

Why should I trust a method that is so convinced that if I just follow 7 simple steps to EBF my child, I am nearly 100% promised that I won’t get pregnant?

The anxiety and fear I had while charting every single month is just way too much for me to handle.
I was buying pregnancy tests every month because I didn’t trust it.

I think a lot of people here will call me irrational. But when you had such serious reasons to avoid pregnancy and were told by so many people…“hey, try this…it works so well! It will help your marriage, bring you closer to God and we promise you it’s like 98% effective.” And I still get pregnant? More then once?

Psychologically I would much, much rather abstain completely. Or use ABC.

Why? Because, like philomed, I used the pill for nearly a decade before I converted. It worked. I never got pregnant.

There is a failure method for everything. Psychologically…I couldn’t bring myself to chart again. I would be afraid every single month. I can’t live like that.

I have zero issue abstaining completely until menopause. I’m that serious about not getting pregnant. But I love my husband. He would have an unbelievably difficult time abstaining for the next 20 plus years. Our marriage would fail.

There are plenty of people who have used the pill and got pregnant while using it. They would never use that method ever again. There GYN would recommend they try something different.

Why should I be forced to use a method that I trusted to keep me from getting pregnant?

It would be psychologically damaging for me to be forced to go back to a method that failed.

I was promised that I would not get my cycles back for months and months if I followed the 7 rules for EBF.

I did that and got my cycles back within 5 weeks of having my baby. The same people who push for spacing pregnancies while breastfeeding, also push for NFP.

I don’t trust that at all.

 

[Rau]

I tried that, and the result is that I grow further from God with each pregnancy and with each screaming child.

Not everyone is brought closer to heaven this way.

Has this caused you to question then meaning of marriage? You do appear to,favour 1 husband and no kids. Is that the ideal for,you?

 

[Rau]

That is exactly my point. Very few marriages will survive 15 plus years of abstinence. We are already experiencimg a crisis in society in the area of marriage and the nuclear family is under attack. Do we really want to add to.the current crisis by just telling.people abstinence for.15 plus years and turn our.backs to.them? If what we want is to.save souls.and help.families we need to.provide more support and help to people that are struggling with info.

What would you propose to tell them?

 

[Rau]

I was introduced to NFP by a couple who volunteered to teach the marriage prep classes I took at a church on the east side of Baltimore. They were not medical professionals by any sense of the word. When medical professionals in highly rated national fertility programs are putting out statistical norms as truths, there is no hope for the layman teaching a class. NFP has a failure rate of 24% and that’s why the American Academy of Ob and Gyn has come out against the use of NFP by women who are at serious medical risk if they were to become pregnant.

Another source on failure rates:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

 

[PaulinVA]

Then you need to explain why God killed him, given the prescribed punishment under the law for refusing to give the woman a child was public humiliation, not death. The Bible states he was killed for “what he did”, not for his refusal.

Here’s what the USCCB says:

• [38:8] Preserve your brother’s line: lit., “raise up seed for your brother”: an allusion to the law of levirate, or “brother-in-law,” marriage; see notes on Dt 25:5; Ru 2:20. Onan’s violation of this law brought on him God’s punishment (vv. 9–10).

 

[Rau]

Here’s what the USCCB says:

• [38:8] Preserve your brother’s line: lit., “raise up seed for your brother”: an allusion to the law of levirate, or “brother-in-law,” marriage; see notes on Dt 25:5; Ru 2:20. Onan’s violation of this law brought on him God’s punishment (vv. 9–10).

That extract is too short for me to interpret. Catholic doctrine on contraception references the interpretation of Onan as I provided it.

God had no cause to kill a man for breaching a law when the law prescribed merely public humiliation. God punished him for “what he did” in violating the law.

 

[Rau]

We were, and still are 100% abstaining. Until I’ve gone through a pack or two of pills I’ve recently been prescribed.

I will not go back to a method that got me pregnant. So, no. I will never use STM ever again. I do not trust it at all. I followed the rules and abstained until I was sure that we were safe. I still got pregnant.
Why should I assume that there is even one part of the month where I couldn’t get pregnant.

Why should I trust a method that is so convinced that if I just follow 7 simple steps to EBF my child, I am nearly 100% promised that I won’t get pregnant?

The anxiety and fear I had while charting every single month is just way too much for me to handle.
I was buying pregnancy tests every month because I didn’t trust it.

I think a lot of people here will call me irrational. But when you had such serious reasons to avoid pregnancy and were told by so many people…“hey, try this…it works so well! It will help your marriage, bring you closer to God and we promise you it’s like 98% effective.” And I still get pregnant? More then once?

Psychologically I would much, much rather abstain completely. Or use ABC.

Why? Because, like philomed, I used the pill for nearly a decade before I converted. It worked. I never got pregnant.

There is a failure method for everything. Psychologically…I couldn’t bring myself to chart again. I would be afraid every single month. I can’t live like that.

I have zero issue abstaining completely until menopause. I’m that serious about not getting pregnant. But I love my husband. He would have an unbelievably difficult time abstaining for the next 20 plus years. Our marriage would fail.

There are plenty of people who have used the pill and got pregnant while using it. They would never use that method ever again. There GYN would recommend they try something different.

Why should I be forced to use a method that I trusted to keep me from getting pregnant?

It would be psychologically damaging for me to be forced to go back to a method that failed.

I was promised that I would not get my cycles back for months and months if I followed the 7 rules for EBF.

I did that and got my cycles back within 5 weeks of having my baby. The same people who push for spacing pregnancies while breastfeeding, also push for NFP.

I don’t trust that at all.

See post #867. If avoiding pregnancy is as critical as you say, I am surprised you’d trust the pill given its failure rate.

 

[Memaw]

Okay, I am officially done with this thread. Apparently no one can express personal experiences without getting misunderstood and jumped on. If they are misunderstood and then try to apologize and explain themselves, they are ignored and just keep getting chastised. I don’t get it. I’m afraid to say anything at all because I don’t know whom I might offend. :imsorry:

I’m just going to for a while and see where this goes. But posting is apparently inherently dangerous. :nunchuk:

It can be !! especially of your trying to speak the truth and they don’t want to hear it. The Church has experienced that for over 2,000 years. Surly we can take it for a few “moments”. God Bless, Memaw

 

[PaulinVA]

That extract is too short for me to interpret. Catholic doctrine on contraception references the interpretation of Onan as I provided it.

God had no cause to kill a man for breaching a law when the law prescribed merely public humiliation. God punished him for “what he did” in violating the law.

It’s amazing how one verse can mean so many things.

A plain reading of the USCCB notes says that violation of the levirate law brought about God’s condemnation. If you can’t believe the US Bishops…

Making this about contraception per se or mastrubation (kinda mutually exclusive, aren’t they?) is missing the point.

 

[Rau]

Here are 2 accounts making clear the relevance of the Onan story to contraception. The first carries the imprimatur of a US Bishop.

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2014/03/biblical-arguments-against.html

The levirite law was easily breached, eg. By refusal to marry, and the punishment is prescribed by the law as public humiliation. But Onan went beyond mere refusal of the law - it is “what he did” that earned him the far greater punishment meted out by God.

 

[Thorolfr]

Here are 2 accounts making clear the relevance of the Onan story to contraception. The first carries the imprimatur of a US Bishop.

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2014/03/biblical-arguments-against.html

The levirite law was easily breached, eg. By refusal to marry, and the punishment is prescribed by the law as public humiliation. But Onan went beyond mere refusal of the law - it is “what he did” that earned him the far greater punishment meted out by God.

There are no other stories in Scripture of people being punished by God for spilling their seed or masturbation. Surely, this would hardly have been an unusual occurrence. Young unmarried people do it all the time now and probably have always done it. It’s a little much to hang so much doctrine on a rather ambiguous and brief story in Genesis.

 

[Xantippe]

There are no other stories in Scripture of people being punished by God for spilling their seed or masturbation. Surely, this would hardly have been an unusual occurrence. Young unmarried people do it all the time now and probably have always done it. It’s a little much to hang so much doctrine on a rather ambiguous and brief story in Genesis.

It’s the combination of withdrawal and seeming to go through with levirate marriage but not really that makes it really bad.

Compare the story in the NT of the couple who seemed to be donating all of the proceeds from the sale of a property, but actually held a lot back and were both struck dead.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+5

In both cases, the good deed (the donation or the marriage) was optional, but the perpetrators sought to enjoy the appearance of having done the good deed, without actually doing it.

 

[Rau]

There are no other stories in Scripture of people being punished by God for spilling their seed or masturbation. Surely, this would hardly have been an unusual occurrence. Young unmarried people do it all the time now and probably have always done it. It’s a little much to hang so much doctrine on a rather ambiguous and brief story in Genesis.

Scripture should chronicle every instance of sinning, or multiple instances, replete with God’s punishment - just to make sure we take it seriously? Makes sense…

Please read the links.

 

[Thorolfr]

Scripture should chronicle every instance of sinning, or multiple instances, replete with God’s punishment - just to make sure we take it seriously? Makes sense…

Please read the links.

Genesis says that Onan spilled his seed, “lest he should give offspring to his brother” and that this “was displeasing in the sight of the Lord.” It doesn’t tell us any more. It doesn’t say in this story that God is against contraception or masturbation. If that was the intended meaning of this story, should’t God have been more explicit in saying this?

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #874
It’s a little much to hang so much doctrine on a rather ambiguous and brief story in Genesis.

There is nothing ambiguous about Onan’s action as realised by the Magisterium and the doyens of Catholicism.

“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

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)].
**
The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J. in* Modern Catholic Dictionary*:
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
[My emphases].

 

[Rau]

Genesis says that Onan spilled his seed, “lest he should give offspring to his brother” and that this “was displeasing in the sight of the Lord.” It doesn’t tell us any more. It doesn’t say in this story that God is against contraception or masturbation. If that was the intended meaning of this story, should’t God have been more explicit in saying this?

It tells us what he did, and why he did it. The law of the day prescribed a “spit in the face” (public humiliation) for refusing to raise a child for his brother (the “why”). So should we criticise God for his unwarranted and meaningless act of killing Onan? Or should we connect that punishment with the “what he did”? Open your eyes Thor!

 

[LongingSoul]

Genesis says that Onan spilled his seed, “lest he should give offspring to his brother” and that this “was displeasing in the sight of the Lord.” It doesn’t tell us any more. It doesn’t say in this story that God is against contraception or masturbation. If that was the intended meaning of this story, should’t God have been more explicit in saying this?

This is Martin Luthers interpretation from Luthers Works…

1. Contracepting as a violation of the natural law

“Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.”

 

[Thorolfr]

It tells us what he did, and why he did it. The law of the day prescribed a “spit in the face” (public humiliation) for refusing to raise a child for his brother (the “why”). So should we criticise God for his unwarranted and meaningless act of killing Onan? Or should we connect that punishment with the “what he did”? Open your eyes Thor!

Perhaps God killed Onan because he was in effect raping his brother’s wife with no intention of helping her father a child. But it seems difficult to me to find a blanket condemnation of contraception or masturbation in all circumstances from this particular story alone.

 

[Thorolfr]

This is Martin Luthers interpretation from Luthers Works…

1. Contracepting as a violation of the natural law

“Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.”

Martin Luther was born, raised and educated as a Catholic, so I’m not surprised that he would interpret this story in accordance with Catholic doctrine.