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

  • Thread starter Thread starter loumeland
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I always wonder what would ‘Jesus’ think of modern contraception?

Would he say it has good points and bad points? Good being the helping against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies?

Its a minefield of thought!
 
I always wonder what would ‘Jesus’ think of modern contraception?

Would he say it has good points and bad points? Good being the helping against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies?

Its a minefield of thought!/

STDs are the consequence of sin (and no, not always that person’s sin but always someone’s). Why would Jesus then okay a bandaid?
 
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’ve never understood the concept of people saying “so and so tyold them it was okay.” Even if a Priest did say this, who cares? We have the truth of the matter on display for us in the Catechism. That is the ground truth. What does it matter if someone, even a Priest, says something different than that.

It’s like me telling a cop that I was told the speed limit was 65 mph, when in fact, the sign says it was 55 mph. Do you think it changes the truth of the fact that it was 55 mph? Now luckily for us, God is more merciful than your average police officer, but that presumes our ignorance. When we know for a fact what the Church says (the Catechism) but try to hide behind what someone said, do you think that is fooling God, or removing our culpability? If that is the case, I can always find someone to give me their blessing for what I want to do.
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.
By definition, one must have a defect of heart or mind when they disagree with Christ’s teachings. Anytime I disgaree with God (which I don’t really do), it is myself being misaligned, not God. Something is off with me. I sin all the time. I never think the Church is in error, however. My sins are done through my own faults and weaknesses.

Now one can argue the Church does not speak for Christ, but that is a separate argument.

And once a person argues the Church is wrong on a particular teaching, it becomes hard to condemn someone for believing the Church is wrong in other areas (all-male Oriesthood, abortion, or even more seemingly obvious issues like the prohbitions on murder and rape). Without absolute fealty and allegiance, you can pretty much subjectively argue for anything, and can’t really condemn anything either.

You can’t even really argue your point about the poster displaying hurbis or being incorrect, because who is to say she is not correct, without some absolutes?
 
My guess is that it comes down to a lack of proper teaching. People simply haven’t been told it’s wrong. Or if they have, if was probably just left at that, it’s wrong. They haven’t been taught about mortal sin so it doesn’t matter. They’ve probably also been taught that a loving God could never send anyone to hell anyway so no matter what they do, they’re going to heaven. In my Catholic high school, I was taught that abortion is only wrong if it’s against one’s conscience.
 
I’ve never understood the concept of people saying “so and so tyold them it was okay.” Even if a Priest did say this, who cares? We have the truth of the matter on display for us in the Catechism. That is the ground truth. What does it matter if someone, even a Priest, says something different than that.

It’s like me telling a cop that I was told the speed limit was 65 mph, when in fact, the sign says it was 55 mph. Do you think it changes the truth of the fact that it was 55 mph? Now luckily for us, God is more merciful than your average police officer, but that presumes our ignorance. When we know for a fact what the Church says (the Catechism) but try to hide behind what someone said, do you think that is fooling God, or removing our culpability? If that is the case, I can always find someone to give me their blessing for what I want to do.

By definition, one must have a defect of heart or mind when they disagree with Christ’s teachings. Anytime I disgaree with God (which I don’t really do), it is myself being misaligned, not God. Something is off with me. I sin all the time. I never think the Church is in error, however. My sins are done through my own faults and weaknesses.

Now one can argue the Church does not speak for Christ, but that is a separate argument.

And once a person argues the Church is wrong on a particular teaching, it becomes hard to condemn someone for believing the Church is wrong in other areas (all-male Oriesthood, abortion, or even more seemingly obvious issues like the prohbitions on murder and rape). Without absolute fealty and allegiance, you can pretty much subjectively argue for anything, and can’t really condemn anything either.

You can’t even really argue your point about the poster displaying hurbis or being incorrect, because who is to say she is not correct, without some absolutes?
Your post makes my point. You are assuming that your belief exactly matches God’s will, and that therefore anyone that disagrees with you is defective. For myself, I allow that God may still have more to teach me.
 
…In my Catholic high school, I was taught that abortion is only wrong if it’s against one’s conscience.
Perhaps what you were taught was that moral culpability requires you to know the wrongness of the act you choose?
 
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.
TMC - IMHO, your assessment is very similar to mine. That some on this forum really believe that 90% of Catholics do not understand the teaching on contraceptive usage is ridiculous. The point being that Catholics using ABC is just like any other set of people living in 2016, they certainly understand that it is far more accurate than NFP for planning family size and find that in their well formed consciences, it is not a venial sin, much less a mortal sin. Those who use NFP successfully and with no stress should be congratulated, but it is not the method that most adults choose to use. I understand that some adherents to NFP think they are not contracepting but semantics is semantics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, not a chicken. If you are truly following Church teaching on being fully open to conceiving with every act of love making, then why would you need charts and thermometers? Obviously you would not need to worry about any of that.🤷
 
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.
“the procreative aspect can be removed”… Procreation isn’t fertility. (The Latin, ‘pro’ meaning ‘for’. For Creation as a whole) It defines a belief/attitude of respect for the nature of the human body and the purpose of sex in the big picture. The defect of infertility and the natural end of ovulation both exist within the procreative mindset because as with all moral acts it must include intentionality on the part of the subject. The deliberate thwarting of the sexual exchange.

As Pope StJPII explains our bodies have nuptial meaning. We don’t have to be married to experience that great plan for ourselves.
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?
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.
Pope StJPII coined the phenomenon ‘the culture of death’. There is no doubt that Man having developed abortion expediency and chemical infertility, has successfully disguised the ugliness of death and violence to the womans body as something good. We cannot feel more moral than past cultures just for having put lipstick on the pig.

Pope Francis made the point in launching the Caritas campaign to feed the world, that there are over a billion people starving in the world. There is more than enough food for everyone. Modern transportation means that distribution of food is an easy logistic. But our collective mentality doesn’t extend to that conundrum. We simply don’t experience the massive disconnect as we scrape food in the bin and let food rot in our fridges. That’s the level of sensitivity the Church keeps prodding us to recognise and attend to.

The collective mentality that is pro contraception demonstrates the same disconnect hence the Church prods us to be aware that contraception advances the culture of death.

I invite all of the institutions of the world, the Church each of us, as one single human family, to give a voice to all of those who suffer silently from hunger, so that this voice becomes a roar which can shake the world."
Pope Francis
 
That is certainly the conclusion reached by the vast majority of Christians. The answer to the OP’s question is that people don’t ignore the Church’s teaching, they just don’t agree with it.
I agree. It really is that simple. Millions of people living out the vocation of sexuality within marriage disagree with the dictates handed to them by people who have never lived out the vocation of sexuality within marriage. Small wonder, really.
 
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.
Again, Amen. Human beings have Reason and are certainly able to understand what the Catholic Church’s position is on this issue…and the majority of married human beings have reasoned that this position is wrong.
 
Again, Amen. Human beings have Reason and are certainly able to understand what the Catholic Church’s position is on this issue…and the majority of married human beings have reasoned that this position is wrong.
Yep, just another example where humans think they know better than God. 😦
 
Again, Amen. Human beings have Reason and are certainly able to understand what the Catholic Church’s position is on this issue…and the majority of married human beings have reasoned that this position is wrong.
Those of us who believe the teachings of the Church, start with obedience based on the truth that the Church is infallible when she teaches on matters of faith and morals. Her divine gift to relay Gods will in these areas is the basis of the Catholic faith instituted by Christ.

And our faith is conformed to the Church as the bride of Christ the bridegroom who is the perfect example of total self giving in love to the point of sacrificing His life.

This is the Catholic position. Catechism 36 -38

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36
"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

*Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, **not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites *which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

**38 **This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error". 14

The easy observation is that men left to their own reason come to many and varied concepts of what the truth is.
 
Yep, just another example where humans think they know better than God. 😦
I think most humans understand that other humans can come to sincerely-believed wrong conclusions. Not everyone accepts that everything the human leaders of the Catholic Church hand down and pass on is the Truth of God. One does not have to look far to see that the men of the Church have stumbled in the past and will, most likely, stumble in the future. I understand that my sentiments may come across as blasphemous to some, but they are impossible to cogently refute. We must always allow for the beautiful mystery, the unexplainable. For any man to think they have the perfect explainable answer to these mysteries is nonsensical; it defies logic. That doesn’t mean we should not keep seeking and trying to know the heart of God.
 
…The point being that Catholics using ABC is just like any other set of people living in 2016, they certainly understand that it is far more accurate than NFP for planning family size…
Not really, according to research (as opposed to anecdotes).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods
… and find that in their well formed consciences, it is not a venial sin, much less a mortal sin.
How does a Catholic obtain a “well-formed” conscience that stands in complete opposition to the Catechism and the constant teaching of the Church since the beginning?
Those who use NFP successfully and with no stress should be congratulated,
Why - is there something good in their choice?
I understand that some adherents to NFP think they are not contracepting but semantics is semantics.
They are avoiding pregnancy, which is not contraception. There may be another moral flaw at work (or not), but it is not the wrong of contraception. The latter’s sinfulness is in its “means”, not the motivation, which may be quite identical to the motivation for adopting NFP. If you don’t know this, then count yourself among those that do not know what the Church teaches.
 
Again, Amen. Human beings have Reason and are certainly able to understand what the Catholic Church’s position is on this issue…and the majority of married human beings have reasoned that this position is wrong.
They’ve decided to act differently. That’s all you can say.
 
How does a Catholic obtain a “well-formed” conscience that stands in complete opposition to the Catechism and the constant teaching of the Church since the beginning?
So the Church has taught against birth control “since the beginning”? What did Jesus have to say on this subject in Scripture? What other passages in Scripture besides the three sentences in the story about Onan does the Church believe condemns artificial birth control? How many Church Father’s taught on this subject? I’ve read that St. Clement said something that is interpreted to condemn birth control as did St. Augustine, but not sure who else.
 
Church fathers and Old Testament here: catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization

More here: catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization

For what it’s worth for those with an open mind.

A reminder to all of us sinners, just because everybody’s always done it that way and everybody else is doing it, doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. The majority rule (in this case most people choosing ABC) is a poor argument for logic and I doubt it will get any of us out of trouble on judgement day.
 
So the Church has taught against birth control “since the beginning”? What did Jesus have to say on this subject in Scripture? What other passages in Scripture besides the three sentences in the story about Onan does the Church believe condemns artificial birth control? How many Church Father’s taught on this subject? I’ve read that St. Clement said something that is interpreted to condemn birth control as did St. Augustine, but not sure who else.
*The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” *(Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

Some history:
*Apostolic Tradition

The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.

In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).

Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies9:12).

Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).

The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, “If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy” (Canon 1).

Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).

The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to 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. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”

John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”

John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.” (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.) *catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Given you are also of the opinion that same sex sexual relationships can be morally good (waving away both the negative statements in Scripture, and the complete absence of any positive examples of such behaviour), it would seem that no evidence could ever convince you that contraception is wrong, notwithstanding the long held position of the Catholic Church (where it has been taught infallibly), and indeed your Lutheran Church and indeed all the Christian Churches for most of their history.
 
#979 – great post Rau.

Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices – iconoclast William James.
 
TMC - IMHO, your assessment is very similar to mine. That some on this forum really believe that 90% of Catholics do not understand the teaching on contraceptive usage is ridiculous. The point being that Catholics using ABC is just like any other set of people living in 2016, they certainly understand that it is far more accurate than NFP for planning family size and find that in their well formed consciences, it is not a venial sin, much less a mortal sin. Those who use NFP successfully and with no stress should be congratulated, but it is not the method that most adults choose to use. I understand that some adherents to NFP think they are not contracepting but semantics is semantics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, not a chicken. If you are truly following Church teaching on being fully open to conceiving with every act of love making, then why would you need charts and thermometers? Obviously you would not need to worry about any of that.🤷
Here is how I see it. Knowledge of fertility is not sinful nor is it virtuous. It is just knowledge. Choosing to have sex on a particular day is not sinful. Choosing not to have sex on a particular day is not sinful. Therefore NFP is not intrinsically sinful. I will not attempt to go into what circumstances might the use of NFP become sinful or selfish or whatever. The point I am making is a logical argument that NFP in and of itself is not sinful.

Now also by logic, it makes no sense to me to engage in activities where the bodies are attempting to create life when we believe it would be a disaster if that life were to be created. For a being who did not understand the physical and chemical based pleasure involved, they would think us all insane.

With those two logical points in mind. NFP would seem to make sense for couples who are happy to have a medium to large family, but want to space the babies out a bit (at least on average). Said couple would react with absolute joy anytime a baby is conceived. They could also use the info to greatly increase the chances to conceive, say if its been a couple of years and they would like to have another baby sooner rather than later.

I think it is insane to take a 5% chance on pregnancy if it would be life threatening or financially ruinous. The includes NFP and most if not all forms of ABC. I also think it ridiculous to mutilate your body to have sex (again biological attempt to create life), without creating life (not all sterilization methods are 100% either btw).

abc and intentional sterilization are also grave sins, however I am trying to make my last couple of points based on biology and logic. I personally find that most sins identified by the Church are biologically and/or logically consistent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top