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

[loumeland]

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

Don’t let this forum push you away from Christ’s Church. If anything, it should encourage you to inquire more and know where the Church is headed.

 

[MomaMary8]

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.

Can you clarify what you mean by “present truth,” as you’ve bolded above? In the Catholic Faith, we teach that there is one Truth and that is unchanging. What are you referring to?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

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.

I disagree of course with doing that, but I for one appreciate the honesty.

I essentially said the same thing about any time I sin. I, in almost every case, know right from wrong. I simply choose to do otherwise.

Don’t let this forum push you away from Christ’s Church. If anything, it should encourage you to inquire more and know where the Church is headed.

Seriously, it is the internet for pete’s sake.

While I trust certain posters implicitly because of the knowledge they’ve displayed, and value the sage opinions of others on this board (for example), the Church is far greater than the sume of the parts of us posters. If Popes like Gregory VI and the Priest scandals didn’t drive you away, why let anonymous posters on the internet? It is the Church Christ founded. Keep praying, searching, and examining yor conscience.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Don’t let this forum push you away from Christ’s Church. If anything, it should encourage you to inquire more and know where the Church is headed.

Seriously, it is the internet for pete’s sake.

While I trust certain posters implicitly because of the knowledge they’ve displayed, and value the sage opinions of others on this board (for example), the Church is far greater than the sume of the parts of us posters. If Popes like Gregory VI and the Priest scandals didn’t drive you away, why let anonymous posters on the internet? It is the Church Christ founded. Keep praying, searching, and examining yor conscience.

 

[Thorolfr]

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?

Of course I’m not saying he should meet his needs elsewhere. But if his wife, for example was HIV positive, he could have protected sex with his wife.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…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.

Welcome back! :tiphat:

I was also away from the Church for a number of years. My husband was Protestant, I fell away from practicing my Catholic faith and attended Protestant services with my husband for numerous years. We used contraception, (barrier methods more specifically.) When I came back, I felt called to search further into the Church’s teachings, and so I did. I was scared that following the Church teachings would bring me out of my comfort zone in regards to family size. And it did. Breaking away from using contraception was quite difficult. Looking back at my family now, I wonder why I was so afraid of the children that I’ve come to know and love.

Someone asked about Bible verses beyond the story of Onan that relate to contraception. How about this one:** Be not afraid!**
(since you’re no longer Protestant, I’ll do the Catholic thing and just quote without providing book and verse number, especially as the Bible expresses those words over and over repeatedly.)

We live in a society that teaches us to fear the potential of having children. We fear that God is going to bless us with more children than we can handle. The funny thing is, most parents of even just one child find that God has blessed them with more than they can handle! Seriously, my husband and I struggled with just one–and we gave serious thought when he was two years old that that kid might an only child. Faithful Catholics who have no children due to infertility also frequently may fear that He’s given them something they can’t handle too. Guess what–God sometimes does give us more than we can handle alone. God sometimes asks us to “step out of the boat” of our comfort zone and trust Him.

I don’t want to debate with people who feel that they have serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy. But I will encourage you to look deeper into what the Church and the Bible teach about children being a blessing. It wasn’t any internet forums that convinced me to re-examine what I thought I knew about the Church teachings. I believe it prompting from the Holy Spirit–whom we call in the Creed “the Lord and Giver of Life.”

Again, welcome back to the Catholic Church. I expect that if you overcome your contraceptive issues, you may find that you are not so much judgmental of people who use contraception as you are sympathetic to them and their plight. I have lived in fear of getting pregnant and lived in fear that God was going to give me more children than I can handle. I’ve overcome that fear. I hope you do too.

 

[Rau]

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.

Read my post again! I said as much! The Church can teach with authority on the morality of caring for creation - it does not teach on the causes of climate changes (a question of environmental science, where the Church has no authority) though it may form judgements on the latter.

Disagreeing on the former is dissent, but on the latter is not “dissent”.

 

[Rau]

Of course I’m not saying he should meet his needs elsewhere. But if his wife, for example was HIV positive, he could have protected sex with his wife.

I assume “protected sex” is a euphemism for wearing a condom. That would not be the one flesh union that the Church teaches is required of each sexual Act.

Bad things happen Thor, and as difficult as circumstances may be, it is not possible to then allow all conceivable acts to (seemingly) overcome the situation.

 

[PaulinVA]

I assume “protected sex” is a euphemism for wearing a condom. That would not be the one flesh union that the Church teaches is required of each sexual Act.

Bad things happen Thor, and as difficult as circumstances may be, it is not possible to then allow all conceivable acts to (seemingly) overcome the situation.

Why doesn’t double effect work here? Just asking. To have sex and not kill your partner, you use a condom. The first effect is to prevent the HIV virus from infecting your spouse. The secondary effect is that the sperm is contained in the condom.

 

[Rau]

Why doesn’t double effect work here? Just asking. To have sex and not kill your partner, you use a condom. The first effect is to prevent the HIV virus from infecting your spouse. The secondary effect is that the sperm is contained in the condom.

Contraception is not the act in question. Each marital act is required to be a “one-flesh” union - that which consummates a marriage. Sex with condom is not that.

The act cannot be reduced to its intentions alone.

I should add that theologians have argued both sides of this, but I believe the predominantly held position is as I have put it.

 

[LongingSoul]

Why doesn’t double effect work here? Just asking. To have sex and not kill your partner, you use a condom. The first effect is to prevent the HIV virus from infecting your spouse. The secondary effect is that the sperm is contained in the condom.

This is one of the highly nuanced situations that actually reveal the true nature of contraception the sin.

The condom actually works by effecting contraception to deal with the disease rather than treating a disease directly with the unintended consequence of infertility. The pill or surgery is intended and done to directly treat a disease and the other unintended effect is infertility.

 

[PaulinVA]

This is one of the highly nuanced situations that actually reveal the true nature of contraception the sin.

The condom actually works by effecting contraception to deal with the disease rather than treating a disease directly with the unintended consequence of infertility. The pill or surgery is intended and done to directly treat a disease and the other unintended effect is infertility.

I believe you and Rau are correct - I just put that out there.

Interesting corollary - is it an additional sin to use a condom to prevent aids in gay sex?

 

[LongingSoul]

I believe you and Rau are correct - I just put that out there.

Interesting corollary - is it an additional sin to use a condom to prevent aids in gay sex?

‘Sex’ is a word that represents a lot of acts involving sex organs, but I’d start by using the word ‘intercourse’. That word implies dialogue involving the mouth to speak and the ear to listen. So sexual intercourse implies specific organs. One to give and one to receive.

Gay sex isn’t intercourse since natural ‘dialogue’ depends on specific organs representing specific functions. I suppose you could say that gay sex was intrinsically contraceptive because the organs are functioning but never in ‘fruitful dialogue’. It’s an intrinsically infertile chatter.

In that case a condom could even represent a good thing which is ironic. It limits the destructive effect of that intrinsically fertile chatter.

 

[Rico_S]

Interesting corollary - is it an additional sin to use a condom to prevent aids in gay sex?

Is it an additional sin to use a condom while fornicating? The flowery theology behind contraception being evil is rooted in its altering of the marital embrace, and that such an alteration shatters the meaning of the creative union. Once we take sex out of wedlock, the meaning is lost. Doesn’t matter if you put a condom on or not, the act’s meaning is already twisted–its not like performing without a condom makes the expression of unmarried sex any less sinful.

 

[TMC]

Contraception is not the act in question. Each marital act is required to be a “one-flesh” union - that which consummates a marriage. Sex with condom is not that.

The act cannot be reduced to its intentions alone.

I should add that theologians have argued both sides of this, but I believe the predominantly held position is as I have put it.

I think the Church’s position is as you put it. I do not believe that is the predominately held position among theologians.

 

[LongingSoul]

Is it an additional sin to use a condom while fornicating? The flowery theology behind contraception being evil is rooted in its altering of the marital embrace, and that such an alteration shatters the meaning of the creative union. Once we take sex out of wedlock, the meaning is lost. Doesn’t matter if you put a condom on or not, the act’s meaning is already twisted–its not like performing without a condom makes the expression of unmarried sex any less sinful.

No that’s not quite right. The Church talks about the ‘nuptial’ meaning of the body but that’s not speaking about the state of marriage itself. Everyones body has a nuptial meaning. That’s what they were made for. Fornication is one sin and then contraception is an added sin. Natural law dictates that the creative capacity of the body exists regardless of the marital status and that every child is a cause for rejoicing in and of itself regardless of the status of the parents. So despite fornication, contraception is another offense against God and nature.

 

[Rau]

I think the Church’s position is as you put it. I do not believe that is the predominately held position among theologians.

I can name one who has argued that use of condom might be licit in some cases. I’ve seen that case refuted and for the reasons I gave. Can you identify any other theologian arguing for condoms or advise their rationale? **

 

[TMC]

I can name one who has argued that use of condom might be licit in some cases. I’ve seen that case refuted and for the reasons I gave. Can you identify any other theologian arguing for condoms or advise their rationale? **

Not by name, but it is my general sense that most theologians question the current doctrine. (I realize that is weak authority, but its what I have.) Certainly many clergy do so privately. It has been difficult recently for those that disagree to do so publically. Forty-ish years ago there was plenty of public discussion of the topic. Maybe public discussion will be allowed again with the apparent new openness to such discussion. There are a couple of theologians that post here regularly, maybe they will be kind enough to give their perspective on the sense of their field.

 

[Thorolfr]

There’s an article on the “Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS” at Wikipedia. I found this statement kind of interesting: “In addition, various members of the Church hierarchy have pointed out that condoms have a non-zero risk of transmitting AIDS.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS

That’s like saying, “By wearing a seat belt, there is a non-zero risk of being killed in a car accident, so there’s no reason to wear a seat belt when your drive your car.”

Or how about, “If you brush your teeth, there is a non-zero risk of getting a cavity, so why brush your teeth?”

The above article also lists some cardinals and bishops who dissent from the church on the issue of condom use to prevent the spread of HIV.

 

[Rau]

There’s an article on the “Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS” at Wikipedia. I found this statement kind of interesting: “In addition, various members of the Church hierarchy have pointed out that condoms have a non-zero risk of transmitting AIDS.”.

Good Grief. Perhaps that advice might serve to counsel a person against a course of action that may yet see them suffer the very thing they thought they could avoid.

Not unlike the child that wants to eat lollies all day to excess but defends that course on the grounds that they brush their teeth daily. Is it not prudent to point out that brushing teeth does not guarantee one protection from tooth decay?