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

[Thorolfr]

One big problem is that people seem to lose sight of what sex is. Sex from a biological standpoint is the body’s attempt to unit a sperm with an egg. Every time, whether married or not, two males, two females, masturbation etc., body is trying to unit a sperm with an egg. Even if there is no egg or sperm, the body’s actions are still to try and accomplish this. It can also be other things like bonding between spouses, however that clearly is not every time (e.g. no spouse to bond with during masturbation). Also, the bonding of spouses is also ordered towards the creation and support of the potential off-spring of the attempt of the bodies to create new life. This is not religious, it is just a fact. But if you keep this in mind as a foundation, the Church teachings are much easier to understand and make perfect sense. The problem is society in general ignores this biological fact.

Note no where did I say you have to try to create a child to have sex with your spouse.

You make it sound as if the body has a mind of its own mostly directed by instinct that is separate from the mind and will that is directing the whole body and is more than just our instincts. And human’s, as people on this forum so frequently like to remind us, are more than their animal-like instincts. As such, the purpose of sex can be more than just an animal-like instinct to procreate and propagate genes.

 

[pensmama87]

Honestly? This isn’t meant as a dig at the post or the Church; but trusting certain aspects of morality to men that have hidden and committed far worse things than contracepting with their spouse is a lot for some people to deal with.

Also, I’m sorry, but the Church, and most religions in general, have been anti sex since the dawn of time unless it is solely for procreative purposes. The opinions of, as another poster stated, these celibate men on such matters is not something most people are going to trust.

Lastly, and I posted this much much earlier, I’ve been told by my own priest and other religious numerous times over the years that non abortive contraceptive types within the confines of marriage are fine. Especially if you have been open to having children in the past. No, I am not saying this is Church teaching, but when you have clergy out there believing and saying these things, how do you expect the common lay person to think differently?

Are you familiar with the Song of Solomon?

 

[Rico_S]

One big problem is that people seem to lose sight of what sex is. Sex from a biological standpoint is the body’s attempt to unit a sperm with an egg. Every time, whether married or not, two males, two females, masturbation etc., body is trying to unit a sperm with an egg. Even if there is no egg or sperm, the body’s actions are still to try and accomplish this. It can also be other things like bonding between spouses, however that clearly is not every time (e.g. no spouse to bond with during masturbation). Also, the bonding of spouses is also ordered towards the creation and support of the potential off-spring of the attempt of the bodies to create new life. This is not religious, it is just a fact. But if you keep this in mind as a foundation, the Church teachings are much easier to understand and make perfect sense. The problem is society in general ignores this biological fact.

Note no where did I say you have to try to create a child to have sex with your spouse.

Are you arguing that the bonding of spouses that occurs with the act occurs only when the act is “ordered toward procreation”?

 

[rotlex]

This is the year of Mercy. Instruct the Ignorant! . Have you given your priest(s) who are so poorly formed reading to help teach them? We are all humans and subject to the fallen world. Seminaries have not always been the bastion of High Moral Catholic teaching. The seminaries are cleaning up their act, but sadly, many priests fell victim to poor theology along with the faithful. Those who are blessed with better formation have a duty to pass it on to others. Sometimes priests need loving guidance as well. Don’t beat them over the head but a dinner conversation with enlightening topics or the sharing of a good book are easy ways to open doors of faith to anyone.

Thanks for that, and for not beating me up due to my post. It’s hard to convey emotion sometimes when posting about these things.

Good points you have made, and I actually have discussed these things with my own parish priest at times. I think it is a fine line with them. They fully understand the Church teaching and everything behind it, but, being human themselves, can also see things from a different perspective and at times lean toward not wanting to offend anyone.

With that said, I myself STILL find it difficult to fully understand the teachings on this. I get it. I really do, but somehow deep down I still don’t see anything wrong with having sex simply for pleasure with your spouse and trying to avoid pregnancy. Again, especially if it does not involve any type of contraception that could harm a child already forming in the womb.

I also don’t buy the statement, not found in this thread, that it can cause harm to a marriage. My wife and I have been married for 26 years and have two wonderful children. We are as in love, if not more so, today, than even those 26 years ago.

 

[rotlex]

Are you familiar with the Song of Solomon?

Yes, I am.

 

[Rau]

…Lastly, and I posted this much much earlier, I’ve been told by my own priest and other religious numerous times over the years that non abortive contraceptive types within the confines of marriage are fine. Especially if you have been open to having children in the past. No, I am not saying this is Church teaching, but when you have clergy out there believing and saying these things, how do you expect the common lay person to think differently?

I skipped over your other personal attacks on priests and other religious, but I wonder if this is another one? If a priest told you contraception is ok to contracept, is he “faithful”?

 

[whm]

Are you arguing that the bonding of spouses that occurs with the act occurs only when the act is “ordered toward procreation”?

That is not what I was saying. I believe the parenthetical I included makes this clear. You can’t bind to a spouse that is not there.

I don’t know really know what you are asking when you say “bonding between spouses” when the act is not ordered toward procreation. I guess you will need to be more specific, if you want an answer from me.

 

[LongingSoul]

Are you arguing that the bonding of spouses that occurs with the act occurs only when the act is “ordered toward procreation”?

When Jesus raised marriage to a sacrament, it was a recognition that it had the capacity to express a supernatural truth about eternal life also. That rests in the total self giving of bride and groom to their union. Against that end, contraception takes the exchange of self in the act of sex, and deliberately eliminates the fertile aspects. Unlike abstinence, it strips an important marital ritual of divine meaning. While the bond experienced has a natural aspect, the doctored exchange voids sacramental unity.

 

[MomaMary8]

Thanks for that, and for not beating me up due to my post. It’s hard to convey emotion sometimes when posting about these things.

Good points you have made, and I actually have discussed these things with my own parish priest at times. I think it is a fine line with them. They fully understand the Church teaching and everything behind it, but, being human themselves, can also see things from a different perspective and at times lean toward not wanting to offend anyone.

With that said, I myself STILL find it difficult to fully understand the teachings on this. I get it. I really do, but somehow deep down I still don’t see anything wrong with having sex simply for pleasure with your spouse and trying to avoid pregnancy. Again, especially if it does not involve any type of contraception that could harm a child already forming in the womb.

I also don’t buy the statement, not found in this thread, that it can cause harm to a marriage. My wife and I have been married for 26 years and have two wonderful children. We are as in love, if not more so, today, than even those 26 years ago.

I guess I have experienced priests that didn’t quite understand the teaching. I think the ones I have run across have been caught up in feeling sorry for the couple in their struggles, but they didn’t fully realize that their role was not to change the teaching to make it easier, but rather to lead them to the sacraments so they may be strengthened through grace to handle the difficulties. Much like a teacher who encourages a student to study hard rather than just making the test easier. They are much more prepared for the next level if they have worked hard in the first.

We need to pray for our priests. They have such a difficult job, especially the parish priest. Our poor parish priest had to deal with me recently at the burial of our baby. here I am, a weeping woman hanging on by a thread, and there he was offering kindness and love. How many times does he do this? How hard that must be! Then the role of educator, manager, social director, etc. It’s not a surprise when they stumble. They need prayers!

 

[rotlex]

I skipped over your other personal attacks on priests and other religious, but I wonder if this is another one? If a priest told you contraception is ok to contracept, is he “faithful”?

I personally attacked no one. Get over it. So typical of this forum. Let me guess, you are perfect right? Follow all the rules. Know the Catechism by heart. Yeah, again, typical of this forum.

In regards to asking if he is “faithful”? Not sure what you mean by that, but yes, I always assume so. But then again, I don’t judge others.

 

[TMC]

I** guess I have experienced priests that didn’t quite understand the teaching.** I think the ones I have run across have been caught up in feeling sorry for the couple in their struggles, but they didn’t fully realize that their role was not to change the teaching to make it easier, but rather to lead them to the sacraments so they may be strengthened through grace to handle the difficulties. Much like a teacher who encourages a student to study hard rather than just making the test easier. They are much more prepared for the next level if they have worked hard in the first.

We need to pray for our priests. They have such a difficult job, especially the parish priest. Our poor parish priest had to deal with me recently at the burial of our baby. here I am, a weeping woman hanging on by a thread, and there he was offering kindness and love. How many times does he do this? How hard that must be! Then the role of educator, manager, social director, etc. It’s not a surprise when they stumble. They need prayers!

I constantly hear on this forum that those that disagree must not understand the teaching, or must lack strength or discipline or some other quality. I couldn’t disagree more. My experience is that those that disagree understand the teaching. They simply disagree with it.

 

[LongingSoul]

Lastly, and I posted this much much earlier, I’ve been told by my own priest and other religious numerous times over the years that non abortive contraceptive types within the confines of marriage are fine. Especially if you have been open to having children in the past. No, I am not saying this is Church teaching, but when you have clergy out there believing and saying these things, how do you expect the common lay person to think differently?

Can you expand on the settings and contexts this Priest and other religious have approved contraception?

Do they believe in principle that the Church teaching that it an intrinsic evil, is wrong?

Was the approval in the course of confession and in the context of acknowledging primacy of conscience?

How did they convey the approval to you?

 

[Rau]

I personally attacked no one. Get over it. So typical of this forum. Let me guess, you are perfect right? Follow all the rules. Know the Catechism by heart. Yeah, again, typical of this forum.

Your words in assessment of priests were:
*"men that have hidden and committed far worse things than contracepting with their spouse is a lot for some people to deal with.

Also, I’m sorry, but the Church, and most religions in general, have been anti sex since the dawn of time unless it is solely for procreative purposes. "*Sounds closer to an attack than an objective remark to me. And now your words in this post above appear to attack me and members of this forum at large…

In regards to asking if he is “faithful”? Not sure what you mean by that, but yes, I always assume so. But then again, I don’t judge others.

See posts #937 and #939. How can a priest be “faithful” while advocating contrary to Church teaching?

 

[Rico_S]

When Jesus raised marriage to a sacrament, it was a recognition that it had the capacity to express a supernatural truth about eternal life also. That rests in the total self giving of bride and groom to their union. Against that end, contraception takes the exchange of self in the act of sex, and deliberately eliminates the fertile aspects. Unlike abstinence, it strips an important marital ritual of divine meaning. While the bond experienced has a natural aspect, the doctored exchange voids sacramental unity.

A couple of thoughts…

1. If is is in the voiding of the sacramental unity that contraception is found evil, then fornicators aren’t compounding their sin by using contraception–since there is no sacramental unity to be voided. It’s interesting that most (if not all) church documents address the topic of contraception within the context of the marital union, but its sinfulness gets extrapolated to its use outside of marriage. Not sure this is the thread to go off on that tangent, but I think its relevant to the entire discussion.
2. While the church may teach that contraception “strips” the marital embrace “of divine meaning”, as another person up thread said, that really isn’t congruous with the human experience. And there in lies the answer as to why people ignore the churches teaching on contraception, imo.

 

[MomaMary8]

I constantly hear on this forum that those that disagree must not understand the teaching, or must lack strength or discipline or some other quality. I couldn’t disagree more. My experience is that those that disagree understand the teaching. They simply disagree with it.

But do they fully understand it with their heart and mind? This I doubt. Sometimes the understanding must come with a conversion of heart as well.

 

[TMC]

But do they fully understand it with their heart and mind? This I doubt. Sometimes the understanding must come with a conversion of heart as well.

Yes, that is my point. There is a certain hubris in claiming that anyone that disagrees must have some defect in mind, heart or understanding. Sometimes people understand fully and still disagree in good faith.

 

[LongingSoul]

A couple of thoughts…

1. If is is in the voiding of the sacramental unity that contraception is found evil, then fornicators aren’t compounding their sin by using contraception–since there is no sacramental unity to be voided. It’s interesting that most (if not all) church documents address the topic of contraception within the context of the marital union, but its sinfulness gets extrapolated to its use outside of marriage. Not sure this is the thread to go off on that tangent, but I think its relevant to the entire discussion.

The Church talks about contraception in relation to marriage because it is the Churchs job to guide and nurture our immortal souls. But of course divine law presupposing natural law, the consequences of sin impact on the wellbeing of society as well. What will be the effect of a collective mentality of disconnecting sexual pleasure from human fertility? It’s easy to see how sensitive our bodies are to ‘the group’ just by the fact that when women live together their cycles often synchronise with each other. Or in times of prolonged stress the body stops ovulating as was the case for women in concentration camps in WWII. How will the group mentality impact on genetics in generations to come?

1. While the church may teach that contraception “strips” the marital embrace “of divine meaning”, as another person up thread said, that really isn’t congruous with the human experience. And there in lies the answer as to why people ignore the churches teaching on contraception, imo.

I don’t know that I’d say ‘human experience’ as much as the ‘individuals experience’… because the culture of death is very obvious to those still sensitive to the wider experience of mankind. Modern westerners tend to measure all meaning in relation to how they themselves feel without having sensitivity to the effects of their choices and attitudes on those outside their immediate experience. There is especially little regard for the world we will leave the next generations. Even with the cursory concern for the environment and third world poverty, most people still choose personal comfort and security in their daily lives rather than live minimally and frugally for the greater good.

So the argument that most people use contraceptives and are happy in their sexual lives is not what the Church is addressing. It is the bigger picture that matters. Our relationship with the whole of mankind and with the God who created us

 

[jmjZelie]

The Church talks about contraception in relation to marriage because it is the Churchs job to guide and nurture our immortal souls. But of course divine law presupposing natural law, the consequences of sin impact on the wellbeing of society as well. What will be the effect of a collective mentality of disconnecting sexual pleasure from human fertility? It’s easy to see how sensitive our bodies are to ‘the group’ just by the fact that when women live together their cycles often synchronise with each other. Or in times of prolonged stress the body stops ovulating as was the case for women in concentration camps in WWII. How will the group mentality impact on genetics in generations to come?

I don’t know that I’d say ‘human experience’ as much as the ‘individuals experience’… because the culture of death is very obvious to those still sensitive to the wider experience of mankind. Modern westerners tend to measure all meaning in relation to how they themselves feel without having sensitivity to the effects of their choices and attitudes on those outside their immediate experience. There is especially little regard for the world we will leave the next generations. Even with the cursory concern for the environment and third world poverty, most people still choose personal comfort and security in their daily lives rather than live minimally and frugally for the greater good.

So the argument that most people use contraceptives and are happy in their sexual lives is not what the Church is addressing. It is the bigger picture that matters. Our relationship with the whole of mankind and with the God who created us

A very cogent argument. Thank you for taking the time to post this.

 

[Rico_S]

The Church talks about contraception in relation to marriage because it is the Churchs job to guide and nurture our immortal souls. But of course divine law presupposing natural law, the consequences of sin impact on the wellbeing of society as well. What will be the effect of a collective mentality of disconnecting sexual pleasure from human fertility?

I think most who disagree with the Church’s teaching will say you are barking up the wrong tree. It is not the disconnection of pleasure and fertility that is having the serious impact on society’s well being. In fact, its quite clear that the sexual union serves a dual function and the procreative aspect can be removed from the picture (e.g infertility or menapause) and yet marital relations still serve a key role in the married life. Removing fertility from the equation doesn’t render the bonding, intimacy building side of the act null and void.

The real problem is the disconnection of sex from marriage.

Modern westerners tend to measure all meaning in relation to how they themselves feel without having sensitivity to the effects of their choices and attitudes on those outside their immediate experience.

So you are saying that selfishness is the hallmark of the day? That previous generations and eras of human history have exhibited widespread selflessness and forethought to the welfare of the successive generations, but that modern times have devolved into some self indulgent moral quagmire?

Even with the cursory concern for the environment and third world poverty, most people still choose personal comfort and security in their daily lives rather than live minimally and frugally for the greater good.

Have there been other periods of time where the option to choose comfort and security was widely available and people decided to choose against both so as to make the earth a better place for all? I will go out on a limb and suggest that never has a society been more generous with resources for those in need than our current one. I think too many Catholics see sexual promiscuity as the only defining moral issue for society and are completely blinded to all the ways current society is vastly morally superior to past times.

 

[ALoveDivine]

I think too many Catholics see sexual promiscuity as the only defining moral issue for society and are completely blinded to all the ways current society is vastly morally superior to past times.

Right? For a long time infanticide was the most common method of family planning…