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

[ALoveDivine]

Is it any wonder that the ranks of protestant churches are swelling up? The Catholic Church seems to think it a horrible thing for anyone to ever think for themselves. Its quite exhausting being told that my God-given reason means nothing if I happen to disagree with a minority celibate male hierarchy.

Threads like this, ladies and gentlemen, is why loads of people are leaving the church.

 

[whm]

Is it any wonder that the ranks of protestant churches are swelling up? The Catholic Church seems to think it a horrible thing for anyone to ever think for themselves. Its quite exhausting being told that my God-given reason means nothing if I happen to disagree with a minority celibate male hierarchy.

Threads like this, ladies and gentlemen, is why loads of people are leaving the church.

Men don’t have the ability to make or change this type of teaching within the Church, even if they wanted to.

 

[Thorolfr]

*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… *

You say, “the biblical teaching that birth control is wrong” and still have provided no biblical teaching besides the rather ambiguous story about Onan from Genesis. Surely, such an important teaching which is the subject of countless threads here in CAF and is an area of major disagreement between millions of Catholics and the Church would have merited some mention somewhere in the books of the New Testament in a straightforward manner. And then in early church teaching before Augustine, there are only a handful of equally obscure passages including one by Barnabas about the wickedness of weasels. It’s not a very impressive demonstration of clear, widespread and constant Church teaching on this supposedly important issue.
​

​

 

[whm]

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.

I am pretty sure that it was a given in jewish society that birth control was wrong. Even very liberal sites acknowledge this. No real reason to discuss it in the gospels.

Have you tried researching what Martin Luther thought of birth control? Just curious, because most of the protestant denominations that have roots from him take a different position than he did.

 

[whm]

You say, “the biblical teaching that birth control is wrong” and still have provided no biblical teaching besides the rather ambiguous story about Onan from Genesis. Surely, such an important teaching which is the subject of countless threads here in CAF and is an area of major disagreement between millions of Catholics and the Church would have merited some mention somewhere in the books of the New Testament in a straightforward manner. And then in early church teaching before Augustine, there are only a handful of equally obscure passages including one by Barnabas about the wickedness of weasels. It’s not a very impressive demonstration of clear, widespread and constant Church teaching on this supposedly important issue.

Pretty simple there has not been widespread effective birth control methods until later in the Church history. Also there aren’t many if any challenging the widely accepted belief, there is not going to be much commentary on it.

 

[Thorolfr]

I am pretty sure that it was a given in jewish society that birth control was wrong. Even very liberal sites acknowledge this. No real reason to discuss it in the gospels.

Have you tried researching what Martin Luther thought of birth control? Just curious, because most of the protestant denominations that have roots from him take a different position than he did.

There are a lot of things that I like and admire about Martin Luther, but many people here in CAF seem to assume that he was the equivalent of a Lutheran pope and that Lutherans and Protestants respect and follow everything he wrote and did. But we don’t. He was also a terrible anti-Semite, for example, who called for the burning of synagogues and wrote, “We are at fault in not slaying them (i.e. Jews)”. Luther, having been born and raised Catholic, was also very Catholic in many of his beliefs as were many others of the early leaders of the Reformation, so it’s not surprising that they still adhered to Catholic teachings in many respects.

 

[whm]

There are a lot of things that I like and admire about Martin Luther, but many people here in CAF seem to assume that he was the equivalent of a Lutheran pope and that Lutherans and Protestants respect and follow everything he wrote and did. But we don’t. He was also a terrible anti-Semite, for example, who called for the burning of synagogues and wrote, “We are at fault in not slaying them (i.e. Jews)”. Luther, having been born and raised Catholic, was also very Catholic in many of his beliefs as were many others of the early leaders of the Reformation, so it’s not surprising that they still adhered to Catholic teachings in many respects.

But it does show that it was a widely if not universally held christian belief in Luther’s time. As it was for each century before it and after until recent times. I don’t think pretending that it wasn’t is a strong argument for abc. There is a clear belief shift in the last 100 years.

 

[Thorolfr]

But it does show that it was a widely if not universally held christian belief in Luther’s time. As it was for each century before it and after until recent times. I don’t think pretending that it wasn’t is a strong argument for abc. There is a clear belief shift in the last 100 years.

I think that it is a mistake to make assumptions about what took place in the past and how important certain issues were believed to be. Take the issue of marriage for example. The Catholic Church now requires that couples get married in the Church by a priest and with witnesses, but for most of Christian history, the Church paid little attention to marriage.

Matrimony, for most of Church history had been celebrated (as in traditions such as the Roman and Judaic) without clergy and was done according to local customs. The first available written detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates only from the 9th century and appears to be identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome…

Thus, with few local exceptions, until in some cases long after the Council of Trent, marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[47][48] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.[49] This promise was known as the “verbum.” If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., “I marry you”), it was unquestionably binding;[47] if made in the future tense (“I will marry you”), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts. During the Middle Ages marriages were arranged, sometimes as early as birth, and these early pledges to marry were often used to ensure treaties between different royal families, nobles, and heirs of fiefdoms. The church resisted these imposed unions, and increased the number of causes for nullification of these arrangements.[50] As Christianity spread during the Roman period and the Middle Ages, the idea of free choice in selecting marriage partners increased and spread with it.[50]

The validity of such marriages even if celebrated under a tree or in a tavern or in a bed was upheld even against that of a later marriage in a church.[51] Even after the Council of Trent made the presence of the parish priest or his delegate and of at least two more witnesses a condition for validity, the previous situation continued in the many countries where its decree was not promulgated. It ended only in 1908, with the coming into force of the Ne Temere decree.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Catholic_Church)

 

[whm]

Threads like this, ladies and gentlemen, is why loads of people are leaving the church.

I think a very small minority of people read threads like this. I think it is simpler than your statement above, people who leave the church (over abc or remarriage) do so because the church won’t change its doctrine.

 

[whm]

I think that it is a mistake to make assumptions about what took place in the past and how important certain issues were believed to be. Take the issue of marriage for example. The Catholic Church now requires that couples get married in the Church by a priest and with witnesses, but for most of Christian history, the Church paid little attention to marriage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Catholic_Church)

It is church law that catholics must marry in the church. It is a law that could be changed and nobody disputes that. Catholics get dispensations all the time to get married outside the church. Converts who enter the church (married before entering the church) are usually considered valid as well.

Also deacons can do marriages as well.

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #989
The Catholic Church now requires that couples get married in the Church by a priest and with witnesses, but for most of Christian history, the Church paid little attention to marriage.

This sort of supposition, with a further reliance on Wikipedia for “facts”, helps to explain the errors generated endlessly.

St Paul describes marriage as a great sacrament (Eph 5 23-32).

At the end of the first century, St Ignatius of Antioch testifies to the sacred character of marriage: “It is right for men and women who marry to be united with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may be according to the Lord and not according to lust.” [Pol. 5].
Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised Fr Peter Joseph, p 596, 2001, St Austin Press].

Tertullian c. 200-206 writes to his wife, “How shall we be able to describe the happiness of that marriage which the Church performs, the sacrifice ratifies, the blessing seals, the angels declare and the Heavenly Father recognises?” [Ad uxorem, (2,8) 2,9].
{Ref: as above].

 

[Thorolfr]

This sort of supposition, with a further reliance on Wikipedia for “facts”, helps to explain the errors generated endlessly.

St Paul describes marriage as a great sacrament (Eph 5 23-32).

Ephesians 5:23- describes a great sacrament?

23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

So it’s a sacrament in the Catholic Church that wives be subordinated to their husbands?

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #993
So it’s a sacrament in the Catholic Church that wives be subordinated to their husbands?

No wonder you have so misled yourself – you cannot see the wood for the trees.

For St Paul teaches right there:
Eph 5:25: “Husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it.”

Eph 5:28: “So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.”

Instead of concocting the feeling that “the Church paid little attention to marriage”, try to follow Her teaching.

 

[Rau]

You say, “the biblical teaching that birth control is wrong” and still have provided no biblical teaching besides the rather ambiguous story about Onan from Genesis. Surely, such an important teaching which is the subject of countless threads here in CAF and is an area of major disagreement between millions of Catholics and the Church would have merited some mention somewhere in the books of the New Testament in a straightforward manner. And then in early church teaching before Augustine, there are only a handful of equally obscure passages including one by Barnabas about the wickedness of weasels. It’s not a very impressive demonstration of clear, widespread and constant Church teaching on this supposedly important issue.

We are told (somewhat graphically) what “Onan did”, and then we are told that “God killed him for what he did”. It is only ambiguous when one has a need to view it as such. For the best part of 2000 years, Christianity in the main accepted this teaching and did not find it ambiguous.

 

[Rau]

Is it any wonder that the ranks of protestant churches are swelling up? The Catholic Church seems to think it a horrible thing for anyone to ever think for themselves. Its quite exhausting being told that my God-given reason means nothing if I happen to disagree with a minority celibate male hierarchy.

Have you outlined your God-given theological reasoning that concludes that the Church has taught in error? In light of the Scriptural promises to St Peter, have you reasoned how it is that the Church could teach in error? And have you done that without preserving to yourself a right to discard all inconvenient elements of Scripture?

 

[Thorolfr]

We are told (somewhat graphically) what “Onan did”, and then we are told that “God killed him for what he did”. It is only ambiguous when one has a need to view it as such. For the best part of 2000 years, Christianity in the main accepted this teaching and did not find it ambiguous.

We know what Onan did. He deprived his brother and his brother’s wife of offspring that would carry their name. The verse in Genesis says that what he did was “to keep from providing offspring for his brother.” Why look for another reason that God would kill him besides the one stated in the text?

 

[Rau]

We know what Onan did. He deprived his brother and his brother’s wife of offspring that would carry their name.

No - that was the motivation for the thing he did! He could have achieved what you describe in other ways.

If I murder a child, the moral act - what I did - is murder. The motivation may be various - perhaps to avoid splitting an inheritance. What I did is “murder”, not “maximise my inheritance”.

In all discussions about morality, distinguishing the “means” (with its moral content) from “ends” is crucial.

 

[Thorolfr]

No - that was the motivation for the thing he did! He could have achieved what you describe in other ways.

If I murder a child, the moral act - what I did - is murder. The motivation may be various - perhaps to avoid splitting an inheritance. What I did is “murder”, not “maximise my inheritance”.

In all discussions about morality, distinguishing the “means” (with its moral content) from “ends” is crucial.

Unfortunately, the verse in Genesis does not state whether God killed Onan for spilling his seed or for depriving his brother of offspring. And you can’t really disprove one option by pointing to other punishments for refusing a levirate marriage. The Bible is hardly an internally consistent document. The context of Onan’s action could also have had other aspects that displeased God besides simply spilling his seed.

 

[Rau]

Unfortunately, the verse in Genesis does not state whether God killed Onan for spilling his seed or for depriving his brother of offspring. And you can’t really disprove one option by pointing to other punishments for refusing a levirate marriage. The Bible is hardly an internally consistent document. The context of Onan’s action could also have had other aspects that displeased God besides simply spilling his seed.

It says “for what he did”, not for why he did it.

I also cannot prove that components of the Bible were not fraudulently written.

You apply here the same argument you use to say that same sex sexual acts can be good… “Oh, that only applies to such and such a scenario.” “Nowhere does it say it’s still wrong if the 2 persons are in a relationship”… You take a position that it is nearly infinitely flexible.

 

[Thorolfr]

It says “for what he did”, not for why he did it.

I also cannot prove that components of the Bible were not fraudulently written.

You apply here the same argument you use to say that same sex sexual acts can be good… “Oh, that only applies to such and such a scenario.” “Nowhere does it say it’s still wrong if the 2 persons are in a relationship”… You take a position that it is nearly infinitely flexible.

What I find amazing sometimes it that such an important doctrine can be built from such a slender twig of a story that is so bereft of detail. And why make a doctrine from this story and not, for example, from the verses that say it’s acceptable to own slaves? Or what about the story which says that Abraham married his half-sister Sarah? Should this be used to build a doctrine that incest is acceptable?