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

[loumeland]

Coming onto a public message board for Catholics and proclaiming you dissent on the teaching regarding contraception, using the fact that a majority of others may agree (so what?) as support, in an effort to potentially sway others to your position of dissension most definitely is what most colloquially call being a Cafeteria Catholic.

Don’t try and stain others who support and obey what the Church says (even if they don’t “get it”) with your own dissent in an effort to make yourself feel better.

The discussion went from “why is a teaching ignored?” to “why I think the teaching and our Church is wrong.”

Incorrect. The point of this specific post is descriptive in nature. I want to find out what is the reality of 70-90% of the Church that ignores the official teaching about contraception as applied to each marital act per se.

If you read carefully, I have not promoted or discouraged the use of contraception, regardless of my personal views on the matter. I have simply pointed out the holes and inconsistency in several arguments in favor of it. Truth stands scrutiny.

After all, as St. Thomas Aquinas has showed us, faith and reason go hand by hand.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Incorrect. The point of this specific post is descriptive in nature. I want to find out what is the reality of 70-90% of the Church that ignores the official teaching about contraception as applied to each marital act per se. I have not promoted or discouraged the use of contraception, regardless of my personal views on the matter. I have simply pointed out the holes and inconsistency in several arguments in favor of it. Truth should stand scrutiny.

After all, as St. Thomas Aquinas has showed us, faith and reason go hand by hand.

Then there is no need to label everyone who sins a Cafeteria Catholic (though I tire of hearing the term).

That would of course imply, Popes Francis and Peter were cafeteria Catholics. They had no obstinante refusal to adhere to teachings, and yet they were sinners.

You’ll never get a cogent answer because of suh a large vareiety of people and reasons, and you’ll never get an accurate number. Have 90% of Catholic women contracepted? Perhaps. Do 90% of Catholic women contracept? Certainly not. The statistic takes into account the entirety of one’s life.

Heck, even ignoring to follow Church teaching is not at indicator of agreement or disagreement. I have never once disagreed with the Church’s teaching on anything. I swore fealty in confirmation as I view it, and allegiance is absolute.

That is very different from simply saying “I agree the Church is correct, but I am going to sin anyway.” In every case I broke with the Church on conduct, behavior, or attitutde, I knew the Church was correct. I simply didn’t care in the moment.

So how to account for those who agree with the Church, but simply are too weak in the moment to obey? I am sure I have stolen before, as an example. Does this imply I disagree with the Church’s teaching on theft? Of course not. I knew and agreed with what She teaches, I simply was too self-interested in the moment to care. I can honestly (and shamefully I suppose) admit there are very few times in life where I don’t know the moral, Church-centered thing to do. I cannot claim ignorance, only weakness and a sinful nature in the moment.

How you plan on parsing folks like this from folks who flat out think their sins are actually a correct to live I do not know, in terms of sheer statistics.

 

[Rau]

Cafeteria, schafeteria. We are all in the cafeteria, brother.

I have found that most people who ardently promote certain Catholic teachings have built their own makeshift fan club of Pope Pius (pick a number), Pope St. John Paul II, or Pope Benedict XVI. Now, when it comes to Pope Francis, the nicest thing I’ve heard from them is that he is “confusing.” I have heard the most incredible insults hurled at the Successor of Peter. And let’s talk about Laudato Si… it’s more like Laudato No for these folks. That’s where **dissent **really starts happening. And by the way, the Pope elevated ecological responsibility to the level of faith and moral, but these folks would have none of it.

So, welcome to the Cafeteria, Abu.

Laudato Si correctly teaches about man’s duty towards God’s creation. But much of the contents is “judgement”. If a person wishes to deny climate change or man’s role in it, there is no dissent.

 

[Rau]

Incorrect. The point of this specific post is descriptive in nature. I want to find out what is the reality of 70-90% of the Church that ignores the official teaching about contraception as applied to each marital act per se.

If you read carefully, I have not promoted or discouraged the use of contraception, regardless of my personal views on the matter. I have simply pointed out the holes and inconsistency in several arguments in favor of it. Truth stands scrutiny.

After all, as St. Thomas Aquinas has showed us, faith and reason go hand by hand.

I don’t believe you pointed out any holes or inconsistencies in Church teaching whatsoever. You may think you did.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Woah! This thing is still going?

How about starting a new thread…We’re past 1000 posts!

 

[Regina7]

Woah! This thing is still going?

How about starting a new thread…We’re past 1000 posts!

Nope…we need to break a thread record.

 

[TMC]

Laudato Si correctly teaches about man’s duty towards God’s creation. But much of the contents is “judgement”. If a person wishes to deny climate change or man’s role in it, there is no dissent.

Dissent is dissent. Of course each dissenter believes his dissent is justified, and that the judgment of the Church is wrong on that point. That is the nature of dissent. But that does not change the fact of dissent.

 

[Abu]

Dissenters were known to Christ from the early days.
For instance, in Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.

Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

So the gift of Jesus of Himself to us as God, which He promised and fulfilled just as He promised to build His Church on Peter and fulfilled, is a reality which we have to face up to and accept with that love and gratitude which such a tremendous fact asks of us – with the resolve to follow Him as He has asked of us.

The dissenters pick and choose whatever suits their fancy.

Thus, the Christ knows of the infidelity of the many at first hand as He preached His truths, even before he founded His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

This is how the faithful Catholic knows the great value of assent:
The “People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.” [Vatican II, *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 12].

 

[Rau]

Dissent is dissent. Of course each dissenter believes his dissent is justified, and that the judgment of the Church is wrong on that point. That is the nature of dissent. But that does not change the fact of dissent.

Nonsense. If the pope expresses a view about the Big Bang Theory - I do not “dissent” (in the sense of that word in the context of this discussion) by suggesting he is wrong. The pope’s statement on such an issue is not the kind where “dissent” is possible, for the Church no more teaches on cosmology than it does on environmental science.

 

[ALoveDivine]

The ultimate answer is that most Catholics understand the Church teaching on contraception they just choose to ignore it. It’s really that sample. The Church says “no” and we say “yes”. God will judge, that’s not the place of any of you.

Pregnancy is very serious. It can wreck a woman’s body and lead to not only potential death, but the real possibility of serious financial hardship and psychologically crippling stress. So before you all jump on the judgmental bandwagon and talk down about those who contracept, keep that in mind, and show some damn mercy.

We know the teaching, we disobey. That is that.

So instead of bashing those who use birth control, why don’t you all shut up and go help some poor and homeless people or something? Work out your own salvation, let us worry about ours.

 

[jmjZelie]

The ultimate answer is that most Catholics understand the Church teaching on contraception they just choose to ignore it. It’s really that sample. The Church says “no” and we say “yes”. God will judge, that’s not the place of any of you.

Pregnancy is very serious. It can wreck a woman’s body and lead to not only potential death, but the real possibility of serious financial hardship and psychologically crippling stress. So before you all jump on the judgmental bandwagon and talk down about those who contracept, keep that in mind, and show some damn mercy.

We know the teaching, we disobey. That is that.

So instead of bashing those who use birth control, why don’t you all shut up and go help some poor and homeless people or something? Work out your own salvation, let us worry about ours.

Cursing a holy attribute while at the same time telling Catholics to demonstrate that virtue? That is amazing.

Your post is summed up in two words: non serviam.

 

[ALoveDivine]

I swear this forum has got to be the most effective means on earth to push people away from Catholicism and into protestant arms.

 

[LongingSoul]

So before you all jump on the judgmental bandwagon and talk down about those who contracept, keep that in mind, and show some damn mercy.

We know the teaching, we disobey. That is that.

So instead of bashing those who use birth control, why don’t you all shut up and go help some poor and homeless people or something? Work out your own salvation, let us worry about ours.

I swear this forum has got to be the most effective means on earth to push people away from Catholicism and into protestant arms.

Sorry, I’m chuckling here. The only person attacking and accusing other posters… is you. Do you realise that you’re projecting?

 

[jmjZelie]

I swear this forum has got to be the most effective means on earth to push people away from Catholicism and into protestant arms.

People who pick and choose which teachings they will obey have already left the Church in spirit. They have already placed themselves outside of communion.

It is rather ironic that you make this complaint about the forum when your previous post was abusive, cursing God’s mercy and telling others to shut up.

 

[Thorolfr]

I was reading online and found an interesting blog by a Catholic woman who had some comments on artificial birth control:

But there are other cases that might make it impossible to practice non-contraceptive sex. I think a great case is a man who marries a woman who is not a believer (or who loses her faith) and refuses to use NFP. Or a couple where one member is HIV-positive.

catholicmoraltheology.com/im-using-birth-control-am-i-a-bad-catholic/

So what happens in cases like these? If a man marries a non-Catholic woman who refuses to use NFP and insists on using artificial birth control, should her Catholic husband then abstain from having sex with her? Or what about a case where one spouse is HIV positive, having been infected perhaps from a blood transfusion, etc. Should such a couple then remain abstinent or should the uninfected spouse risk getting infected by having unprotected sex?

 

[Abu]

Thorolfr #1035
If a man marries a non-Catholic woman who refuses to use NFP and insists on using artificial birth control, should her Catholic husband then abstain from having sex with her?

**Pope Pius XI CASTI CONNUBII 1930:
“59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Or what about a case where one spouse is HIV positive, having been infected perhaps from a blood transfusion, etc. Should such a couple then remain abstinent or should the uninfected spouse risk getting infected by having unprotected sex?

“Protected sex” through condoms is like Russian roulette.

Condoms destroy the unitive part of the marriage act as Christ has taught through His Church. Go condoms and you defy Christ.

NEW YORK, 24 SEPT. 2005 (ZENIT)
More Catholics, fewer infections Abundant data exist, however, to show the severe limitations of relying on condoms to solve the AIDS problem. A letter from Australian-based bioethicist Amin Abboud, published July 30 by the British Medical Journal, noted that any change in the Catholic Church’s position on condoms would be detrimental for Africa.

According to Abboud, a statistical analysis of the situation in the continent shows that the greater the percentage of Catholics in any country, the lower the level of HIV. “If the Catholic Church is promoting a message about HIV in those countries,” he added, “it seems to be working.”

Data from the World Health Organization puts the figure for HIV infection in Swaziland 42.6% of the population. Only 5% of the population is Catholic. And in Botswana, where 37% of the adult population is HIV infected, only 4% of the population is Catholic. In Uganda, however, where 43% of the population is Catholic, the proportion of HIV infected adults is 4%.

 

[Rau]

I was reading online and found an interesting blog by a Catholic woman who had some comments on artificial birth control:

catholicmoraltheology.com/im-using-birth-control-am-i-a-bad-catholic/

So what happens in cases like these? If a man marries a non-Catholic woman who refuses to use NFP and insists on using artificial birth control, should her Catholic husband then abstain from having sex with her? Or what about a case where one spouse is HIV positive, having been infected perhaps from a blood transfusion, etc. Should such a couple then remain abstinent or should the uninfected spouse risk getting infected by having unprotected sex?

I think you know the answers to these Thor - you’ve been around here long enough! In the former case, the ‘other’ spouse is not required to shun the spouse that contracepts. In the latter case, “stuff” happens. What happens when a man becomes impotent, say, due to prostate surgery? What happens when a wife is seriously ill, incapacitated for years. Do we then say the man can have his “needs” met elsewhere?

 

[Rico_S]

I swear this forum has got to be the most effective means on earth to push people away from Catholicism.

I’ve said this for years. The typical CAF poster is not your average catholic. And while some super devout and orthodox CAFers can be warm, welcoming and understanding that not everyone is at the same place in their faith journey as them, most just seem to enjoy being the defenders of the truth with the warmth of a steel rail. They are justified, for they have God and Truth on their side, and whoever shall question the church is questioning God himself, essentially begging to be tossed into the fires of hell.

 

[loumeland]

I’ve said this for years. The typical CAF poster is not your average catholic. And while some super devout and orthodox CAFers can be warm, welcoming and understanding that not everyone is at the same place in their faith journey as them, most just seem to enjoy being the defenders of the truth with the warmth of a steel rail. They are justified, for they have God and Truth on their side, and whoever shall question the church is questioning God himself, essentially begging to be tossed into the fires of hell.

You’ve summed the whole intent behind my post, despite the attempts of some to label me a Christ-denying, Cafeteria Catholic dissenter. I am simply wanting to find out what is the present truth, while still trying to be an advocate for your Average Joe Catholic.

And just for the record, I am a revert from Protestantism. Last year, I was a ministerial candidate for ordination in the Presbyterian church. Most people would expect me to be the overzealous, strict, judgmental kind of Catholic that abounds in the blogosphere, but I am simply not.

 

[TMC]

Nonsense. If the pope expresses a view about the Big Bang Theory - I do not “dissent” (in the sense of that word in the context of this discussion) by suggesting he is wrong. The pope’s statement on such an issue is not the kind where “dissent” is possible, for the Church no more teaches on cosmology than it does on environmental science.

The Pope was not merely opining on current environmental science, he was setting forth the Church’s teaching on care for this world. If you deny that he has the authority to do that, that is merely a different form of dissent.

I am not condemning anyone for disagreeing with the Church. I certainly disagree with the Church on a number of topics. But I admit that I dissent. I don’t try to twist the Church’s teaching or deny the Church’s authority to pretend I am in full agreement with the Church in every respect. Most Catholics disagree with the Church on at least one point. They should admit that instead of pretending otherwise.