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

[Xantippe]

Yes, they are. Your questions for reflection are good questions–but I think they are a subset of questions that are embedded in the larger question I asked regarding my wife and I: “were we as open to life as we should have been or did we hold back for less than serious reasons?” To answer the larger question I asked requires asking many smaller questions such as the questions you pose and others–and those questions will be different for each of us depending on our experience and where we are in life. I guess I see it as when we ask the larger question–then we are better able to ask all the appropriate smaller questions that will help us answer that larger question–otherwise answering the smaller questions might not lead us anywhere or may lead us somewhere we didn’t want to go.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I disagree.

I think that those questions are not a subset of the “openness to life” questions but are of equal importance.

They would still be worth thinking about, even if further children were physically impossible, which I think demonstrates that they don’t just fall under the “openness to life” category.

 

[Xantippe]

M I’m no longer moved by appearances and personal testimonies. We should never compare ourselves to others to either feel less or more. There is far too much that isn’t available to us about their experience and lives to make such analysis.

Yes.

How many times have we admired the seemingly perfect family at church that later turned out to have been on the brink of divorce?

Pretty much all the divorces I’ve been downwind of have involved seemingly perfect families. Meanwhile, the visibly imperfect families keep chugging on.

 

[Xantippe]

If you really do feel guilty about not having enough children to satisfy your Catholic duty, I would recommend taking that to confession. I think it would really benefit you to have a Priest (name removed by moderator)ut into this issue.

I have to say that there is often a very strong odor of scrupulosity/OCD around these discussions about whether people are being open enough to life.

It’s a sort of hamster wheel that spins faster and faster the more people worry about it. And whatever they do, it’s never good enough.

As with scrupulosity generally, I think the objection to letting one’s mind spin and spin endlessly around the subject of whether one has enough children is that it leads one to be blind to one’s actual moral failings or failures to perform actual moral duties. The mind becomes captive to thinking about only ONE duty.

 

[MarkInOregon]

My experience of conscience examination is that it is an honest dialogue with oneself in the presence of God. I’m moved by homilies and spiritual reading and the witness of the Saints. Perhaps when I was younger I did tend to put a greater emphasis on the look of other lives or on their testimonies about themselves… but these days having been privy to the lives of others when they are at their most vulnerable and broken… I’m no longer moved by appearances and personal testimonies. We should never compare ourselves to others to either feel less or more. There is far too much that isn’t available to us about their experience and lives to make such analysis. As you develop in holiness, you become more sensitive to what is holy and what is base or a lie and feel less of the urge to promote yourself and condemn others. That’s when “as you judge, so ye shall be judged” begins to excerpt its graveness for you.

Longing Soul,

I’m not the one who’s been comparing myself to others and feeling less or more, I’m not here condemning others or promoting myself. Take a look at your post–it would be easy to read it in the way you insist on reading many others posts. For example:

1. you say: “Perhaps when I was younger”…implying others are too young - basically dismissing their experience in favor of yours,
2. you say: “As you develop in holiness”… implying you’ve developed a holiness superior to others and that it is you who is “more sensitive to what is holy and what is base or a lie” than others.

It is possible to read you post as simply dripping with how superior and holy you are. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt–something that I feel you have been unwilling to extend to others.

It is possible for one to find others stories inspiring and thought provoking and still be moved by spiritual reading, the witness of the saints, and a good homily. It is possible to use all these things to have an honest dialogue with oneself and God. It’s not like anyone is advocating excluding those things you mention. I don’t know who God puts in my path or why, but I am open finding out if he did indeed put someone in my path and if there is a reason.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

They would still be worth thinking about, even if further children were physically impossible, which I think demonstrates that they don’t just fall under the “openness to life” category.

I can buy that. “Don’t just”.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[LongingSoul]

Longing Soul,

I’m not the one who’s been comparing myself to others and feeling less or more, I’m not here condemning others or promoting myself. Take a look at your post–it would be easy to read it in the way you insist on reading many others posts. For example:

1. you say: “Perhaps when I was younger”…implying others are too young - basically dismissing their experience in favor of yours,
2. you say: “As you develop in holiness”… implying you’ve developed a holiness superior to others and that it is you who is “more sensitive to what is holy and what is base or a lie” than others.

It is possible to read you post as simply dripping with how superior and holy you are. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt–something that I feel you have been unwilling to extend to others.

It is possible for one to find others stories inspiring and thought provoking and still be moved by spiritual reading, the witness of the saints, and a good homily. It is possible to use all these things to have an honest dialogue with oneself and God. It’s not like anyone is advocating excluding those things you mention. I don’t know who God puts in my path or why, but I am open finding out if he did indeed put someone in my path and if there is a reason.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Whether you agree or not, there is a force of ‘anti NFP’ ideology at work in a niche culture of the Catholic Church. That’s my target. It’s almost a mission I never expected to be needed within the Church but I know that it is an important mission to win for the sake of the future generations of young marrieds faced with temptation to contracept.

I would say to you again… if you genuinely feel that you have failed your duty by not producing more children, take that to a Priest or as a general topic to a Catholic theologian if you know one. Guilt at not being ‘open to life’ while faithfully adhering to Church teaching and periodic continence is most likely going to rest in some other sin or as Xantippe suggested scrupulosity/OCD. It’s like feeling guilt for laziness when you are fully employed and diligent. The guilt has another genesis that’s manifesting as failure of work ethic.

 

[kptrs]

Longing Soul,

I’m not the one who’s been comparing myself to others and feeling less or more, I’m not here condemning others or promoting myself. Take a look at your post–it would be easy to read it in the way you insist on reading many others posts. For example:

1. you say: “Perhaps when I was younger”…implying others are too young - basically dismissing their experience in favor of yours,
2. you say: “As you develop in holiness”… implying you’ve developed a holiness superior to others and that it is you who is “more sensitive to what is holy and what is base or a lie” than others.

It is possible to read you post as simply dripping with how superior and holy you are. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt–something that I feel you have been unwilling to extend to others.

It is possible for one to find others stories inspiring and thought provoking and still be moved by spiritual reading, the witness of the saints, and a good homily. It is possible to use all these things to have an honest dialogue with oneself and God. It’s not like anyone is advocating excluding those things you mention. I don’t know who God puts in my path or why, but I am open finding out if he did indeed put someone in my path and if there is a reason.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Agreed.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Earlier today I looked back through the thread to see where the tide changed from arguments against contraception to arguments against all family planning. I believe it was #533 .

There’s always a point where someone introduces the lie that NFP can be done with a ‘contraceptive’ mentality. That tends to align the pro contraceptives and the anti NFPers as a quasi united front against people that do NFP. From there it turns into ‘the default is not to plan your family’ and the ideological standard that bigger families means more Catholic.

I don’t think that person was talking about NFP and contraceptive mentality, it seemed like they were suggesting contraceptives can be used with or without contraceptive mentality(?).

(Non abortifacent, artificial) Contraceptives are not holy or unholy themselves- they are a tool. It could be used with a contraceptive mindset, which would be wrong. But one could argue that it can be used for the holy purpose of intelligent and responsible family planning and parenting. Receiving that child with open arms when both parents are emotionally, financially, psychologically, and physically ready to do their very best to raise him/her in the fear and admonition of the Lord. This would be holy.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t think that person was talking about NFP and contraceptive mentality, it seemed like they were suggesting contraceptives can be used with or without contraceptive mentality(?).

I’ll just post the string which is summed up astutely by PaulinVA in #585…

#533

(Non abortifacent, artificial) Contraceptives are not holy or unholy themselves- they are a tool. It could be used with a contraceptive mindset, which would be wrong. But one could argue that it can be used for the holy purpose of intelligent and responsible family planning and parenting. Receiving that child with open arms when both parents are emotionally, financially, psychologically, and physically ready to do their very best to raise him/her in the fear and admonition of the Lord. This would be holy.

#538

How can they be used with anything other than a contraceptive mindset? A contraceptive mindset is one that separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the union. A contraceptive mindset is one that separates sex from babies. A contraceptive mindset is one that says I am entitled to the pleasures of sex without the natural potential outcome of the act–and that’s where we are today. By their very use one adopts a contraceptive mindset and we shouldn’t fool ourselves about that.

I’d be a liar if I said I hadn’t struggled with this over the years, but I find that the relative difficulty of my struggle depends on my focus–on where my thoughts are directed and this can be greatly affected by what I watch, and who I associate with.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

#540

I agree with everything you’ve said here. But, just to make a fair argument, isn’t it possible to use NFP with the same “I want to have sex and not get pregnant” mentality - a mentality that is going to view an unplanned baby as a burden?

#544

I suppose that it is–at least I am told that it is–but the act, even at a supposed infertile time–is by the absence of ABC, open to life in a way that you are not when using ABC. Boy I didn’t say that very well. I will say that while not using ABC for the majority of our marriage neither were we great users of NFP–in the sense of charting and all that–it’s a lot of work when both spouses are working. So we were down to kind of guessing and shooting from the hip–so in the back of our minds–we knew there was always a risk of pregnancy. I guess that’s the difference in my mind. It might have been unplanned in the sense that we weren’t actively trying to have a child, but not unplanned in the way a pregnancy while using abc would have been–when in your mind you’re sure the act won’t lead to pregnancy. I guess when we were willing to engage --we were willing to bear the risk of pregnancy–I guess that’s the difference I see, and there are enough stories on here from people getting pregnant when they thought that they were in their infertile period–that one should realize that they always run the risk of pregnancy–which should leave one better disposed to pregnancy–than if they were using ABC. Of course I could be wrong or very wrong about that and it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong about something.

#546

I think you’re right. There are exceptions to what you are saying, but I think you hit the nail on the head as far as the general idea.

#549

Selfishness is a separate issue and confuses the teaching against contraception when it is used by those wishing to restrict the practice of periodic abstinence in marriage and promote sexual freedom which is not part of Catholic teaching either. Christopher West in his counselling capacity noted that selfishness can also feature in ‘quiverfull’ types.

On this point, there is another more subtle and little discussed form of selfishness that conflicts with responsible parenthood. I once counseled a couple that had several children very close together. The parents rightly recognized each child as a divine blessing and did all they could to love and care for them. However, the mother, emotionally drained since the third child, had been desiring a larger space between babies ever since. It came to light that the reason they didn’t space their children was because the husband selfishly wouldn’t (or couldn’t) abstain.

Here, what on the surface might pass as a generous response to Church teaching, when looked at more closely, actually demonstrates a failure to live Church teaching. The point is that in order for parenthood to be “responsible,” the decision to avoid sexual union during the fertile time or the decision to engage in sexual union during the fertile time must not be motivated by selfishness. – Christopher West TOB

The goal in Catholic teaching is not just about following rules blindly, but reorienting ones whole life so that following the rules leads to greater holiness in general. Taking a responsible approach to the make up of a family by periodic abstinence promotes the virtue of continence at the same time being the antidote to concupiscence thereby aiding the overall growth off chaste living.

…cont’d

 

[LongingSoul]

#550

could you explain to me, then, whether it is a sin or not for a married couple to use nfp to limit their family to one or two kids because “kids drive us nuts”, and “we don’t like going to soccer practice every friday night, we’d rather be out partying” and that kind of thing?

#554

the first thing is that nobody else can judge another persons soul or motives. Basing your moral judgements on what a person says is wreckless and sinful in itself.

People can certainly be selfish in the way they order their lives but that is across the board and not based on the number of children one has or the financial and material appearance of their status. Pope pius xii wrote in 1951

"serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

medical, eugenic, economic and social indications. There are many and varied factors to be considered and assessed by a couple and they are the only ones who can ultimately decide. No one should be coerced by the judgement of others or ideologies, to reproduce. That goes beyond what nature and god designed.

#585

the thread has turned to an interesting point, an interesting reason why people might not want to follow the church’s teaching on contraception. There might be a fear, besides the normal reasons, that one is also agreeing to have a lot of kids, either by accident or on purpose.

There is an undercurrent swirling along contraception discussions in the church that couples should be having a lot of kids. Whether true or not, that is part of the nfp “thing”.

Even though the church seems to be totally subjective as to reasons to avoid, avoidance is characterized as a “bad thing” you have to have “just reasons” for. You should be out there having babies, babies, babies. Whether official or unofficial, that’s the church vibe.

It’s easier for people not to deal with those issues and just use abc.

 

[MJDorry]

People will come up with a myriad of reasons as to why that may seem justified in light of the fact that those who practice NFP still end up as parents of more children than they planned for. But what they are doing is prioritizing the sexual act itself over its intended gift. In their mind, sex is essential to the strength of the relationship (it is, but not in the way we often perceive it to be), and the act of orgasming with your spouse is to be desired in itself. But truly understood as the excessive bodily joy of procreating, orgasm cannot thus be abused. An orgasm without the goal of having a child is an utter bodily and spiritual lie. Sex is a bonding experience precisely because a family is to be gotten out of it, and if one cannot conceive of maintaining a loving and passionate relationship without copious non-procreative sex is also selling their relationship incredibly short, if not poisoning one’s own spirit and the spirit of their spouse in the process.

 

[Rau]

…An orgasm without the goal of having a child is an utter bodily and spiritual lie.

That is entirely a personal opinion and not found in any Catholic theology.

Sex is a bonding experience precisely because a family is to be gotten out of it, and if one cannot conceive of maintaining a loving and passionate relationship without copious non-procreative sex is also selling their relationship incredibly short, if not poisoning one’s own spirit and the spirit of their spouse in the process.

You misuse the word “procreative”. It appears you also reject the idea of sex after menopause?

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Earlier today I looked back through the thread to see where the tide changed from arguments against contraception to arguments against all family planning. I believe it was #533 .

**There’s always a point where someone introduces the lie that NFP can be done with a ‘contraceptive’ mentality. ** That tends to align the pro contraceptives and the anti NFPers as a quasi united front against people that do NFP. From there it turns into ‘the default is not to plan your family’ and the ideological standard that bigger families means more Catholic.

I was just looking for what you meant by this (bolded by me).

 

[gardenswithkids]

I don’t think that person was talking about NFP and contraceptive mentality, it seemed like they were suggesting contraceptives can be used with or without contraceptive mentality(?).

I think you’re right, Lifeisbeautiful. That’s how I’ve read Loumeland’s posts too. Several of his/her post state outright the he/she views some forms of artificial contraception as okay, starting way back with post #1.

Here we are at 916 and counting…
–Ooops. I’d better clarify what I mean by “916 and counting” . That refers to the number of posts so far on this thread. It’s not a brag about anyone’s family size, and I hope the comment won’t be taken as insult anyone with fewer than 916 children.

Back to my popcorn.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m limited in addressing the post that introduced the bad seed into the thread, but asking a person what is ‘holy’ about ABC leading them of course to speak about family planning… which is an entirely legitimate and responsible reason for avoiding pregnancy… you’ve introduced the lie that family planning is intrinsically evil (with the Protestant type adjunct ‘except for dire reasons’.) It’s the same trajectory into NFP bashing nearly every time. Contraception is the deliberate frustration of the act of intercourse to render it infertile. That is not abstinence. It is more closely related to the practice of periodic onanism which was the temptation of some prior to the advent of modern fertility awareness methods.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Many of us just don’t honestly see anything particularly wrong with contraceptive options that do not result in the termination of an embryo. A medication that delays ovulation, or even withdrawl, harm no one at all. Spouses are not supposed to abstain for long periods of time, but to enjoy their sexuality together lovingly. St Paul does not encourage frequent and prolonged marital abstinence, he actually discourages it.

I think the church is wrong on this. Sorry, that’s how I feel. The Orthodox Church has the more reasonable position. Me and my fiance will likely use contraception, like the majority of other Catholic couples in the world. It is what it is. If it really is some intrinsically terrible thing, that hopefully God will be merciful.

 

[Rau]

(Non abortifacent, artificial) Contraceptives are not holy or unholy themselves- they are a tool.

Well, fine. We might remark on the merits of a sharp knife in similar terms…

It could be used with a contraceptive mindset, which would be wrong. But one could argue that it can be used for the holy purpose of intelligent and responsible family planning and parenting.

Means and Ends need to be distinguished to make sense of these remarks and contrast them with Catholic teaching. It can be a very good “End” to apply some “family planning” in one’s marital relations. The arrival of children on a random basis may be quite irresponsible. But accepting that - it does not logically (or according to Catholic theology) follow that all means to that End are morally good. Clearly some (eg. abortion) are evil. The Church teaches that use of any means to disrupt the natural course of the marital act is wrong.

You introduce the notion of “contraceptive” mindset. This may not mean the same thing to everyone - I take it do mean a fixed attitude wherein “we don’t want children” becomes a permanent position, displacing any preparedness to review that position from time to time in light of circumstances.

Now a given instance of the use of a contraceptive to prevent a pregnancy (in a given month) is taught as morally wrong by the Church (“contraception”) whereas not having sex in a particular month (NFP) in order to avoid pregnancy is certainly not the wrong of contraception.

One may have adopted the “contraceptive mindset”, whether or not one has committed the wrong of contraception. But they are certainly distinct.

Receiving that child with open arms when both parents are emotionally, financially, psychologically, and physically ready to do their very best to raise him/her in the fear and admonition of the Lord. This would be holy.

That’s all good, and speaks to the merits of family planning. But it does not address the “Means”, which as know, are not justified by the Ends.

 

[Rau]

…Spouses are not supposed to abstain for long periods of time, but to enjoy their sexuality together lovingly. St Paul does not encourage frequent and prolonged marital abstinence, he actually discourages it.

How prolonged would you think would be a serious risk?

I think the church is wrong on this. Sorry, that’s how I feel. The Orthodox Church has the more reasonable position.

“Reasonable” can be a rather self-serving description - reasonableness being judged from a biased perspective.

 

[Abu]

ALoveDivine #918
A medication that delays ovulation, or even withdrawl, harm no one at all.
I think the church is wrong on this.

The fact of Onan being killed by God for spilling his seed puts paid to such gross error.
Declaring that the only Church which Christ formed for our acceptance, the Catholic Church is in error, rejects Christ Himself through His Divine Love, throwing Him aside selfishly for personal error.

Real Catholics follow Christ’s Church as She teaches:
“if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

The Christ then emphasises: “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 18:18).

Such a brazen disregard for Christ produces numerous errors and needs reparation.

The Church can NEVER, and has NEVER, been wrong in that teaching which is contained only in doctrine and dogma on faith or morals for the whole Church.

 

[MomaMary8]

Many of us just don’t honestly see anything particularly wrong with contraceptive options that do not result in the termination of an embryo. A medication that delays ovulation, or even withdrawl, harm no one at all. Spouses are not supposed to abstain for long periods of time, but to enjoy their sexuality together lovingly. St Paul does not encourage frequent and prolonged marital abstinence, he actually discourages it.

I think the church is wrong on this. Sorry, that’s how I feel. The Orthodox Church has the more reasonable position. Me and my fiance will likely use contraception, like the majority of other Catholic couples in the world. It is what it is. If it really is some intrinsically terrible thing, that hopefully God will be merciful.

Well at least you are now being honest and not blaming your fiancé for being the one to embrace artificial contraception. Make sure you discuss the prolonged absence dilemma with your fiancé.