Why is artificial birth control usage so wrong?

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. Why is the usage of artificial birth control considered to be so wrong? A friend of mine claims that by using artificial birth control, you are distrusting God. But the fact is, God can overcome any method of birth control if He wants to. And isn’t using natural family planning in a sense being distrustful of God as well?

The only valid reason I can see to not use artificial birth control is because hormonal forms of it can be abortifacient. That and I can also see how perhaps it may cause disunity in the marriage somehow. But what about the above objection?

 

[thistle]

Hey everyone. Why is the usage of artificial birth control considered to be so wrong? A friend of mine claims that by using artificial birth control, you are distrusting God. But the fact is, God can overcome any method of birth control if He wants to. And isn’t using natural family planning in a sense being distrustful of God as well?

The only valid reason I can see to not use artificial birth control is because hormonal forms of it can be abortifacient. That and I can also see how perhaps it may cause disunity in the marriage somehow. But what about the above objection?

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Humanae%20Vitae
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

 

[casey_zia]

“Distrusting God.” Interesting concept. The argument against contraception is more about respecting fertility (as a gift) and not doing something that destroys the procreative and unitive aspect of the conjugal act. It’s about natural law. It’s about human dignity. It’s about mastering our passions.

Couples who practice NFP are respecting the natural cycles in a woman’s body that include periods of infertility and other periods of possible fertility. This allows for the spacing of children’s births, or delaying pregnancy, as the couple works together (and in consultation with God!) in understanding the fertile cycle and accepting the required abstinence. This is much different from the abortifacient effects and the contracepting effects of artificial birth control.

 

[ironband]

Hey everyone. Why is the usage of artificial birth control considered to be so wrong? A friend of mine claims that by using artificial birth control, you are distrusting God. But the fact is, God can overcome any method of birth control if He wants to. And isn’t using natural family planning in a sense being distrustful of God as well?

The only valid reason I can see to not use artificial birth control is because hormonal forms of it can be abortifacient. That and I can also see how perhaps it may cause disunity in the marriage somehow. But what about the above objection?

I think the links to Humane Vitae and the Library give good context. Consider also Theology of the Body.

It is more than just distrusting God. But first consider the following applications of that logic, that “God can overcome any method of birth control he wants to.”

I can stab you with a knife, and if God doesn’t want you to die, he can ensure the wound isn’t mortal, or perhaps miraculously keep you fron injury.

I can step out in front of a Bus, but if God doesn’t want me to be crushed, he can make the bus pass through me without injuring me.

I can refuse treatment for a diagnosed, treatable form of cancer, because if God wants me to survive he will heal me.

You get the point.

I consider this one of those Luke 4:12 (AKA Deuteronomy 6:16) - “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test”

It is true that God CAN do whatever He pleases. But that doesn’t excuse us from following His laws.

As to the argument that NFP is just another way of distrusting God:

Our bodies are made (beautifully and wonderfully made!) a certain way. They operate a certain way. When we work with our bodies to allow them to function as intended, we honor that creation. When we try to alter our bodies to prevent them from functioning as intended, we do not honor that creation. We say "Hey, God…you made us wrong. We don’t want to be fertile even though that is how you made us. And even though we could wait until we are naturally infertile to complete this action (because maybe we do have a good reason to delay pregnancy at this moment in time), we want it NOW! See,you made a mistake, so we’re going to fix it! (by using a barrier…by using hormonal drugs, by using spermicides, etc.)

God, in his wisdom created woman with a natural cycle of fertility. It is not suggested anywhere that we are obligated to complete the marital act every time a woman ovulates, nor is it suggested that we should avoid the marital act when we know we are not fertile. We can choose when to celebrate that renewal of our vows, so long as WE do nothing to render the act closed to life. The marital act is a good in the context of marriage. Doing something to that act to render it infertile detracts from that good. In using NFP properly, however, the act is not rendered infertile by the actions of the husband and wife. It simply does not bring forth new life as a result of the natural timing of the action, but the timing of the act doesn’t change its goodness.

This is not to say that NFP can’t be used selfishly and sinfully. It can be, and we must always check our own motives to ensure that our actions are morally good.

But also consider that the use of NFP helps to build us in our virtues of patience, temperance, self-mastery, and chastity. It helps us to remember that there are other ways within the marriage to show affection to one another, and helps to keep us from viewing each other as an object to use for our own gratification. The fruit of faithful use of NFP certainly is a good indicator that it is good and certainly better than artificial means. The Church finishes the thought for us with Her wisdom.

 

[Holly3278]

I think the links to Humane Vitae and the Library give good context. Consider also Theology of the Body.

It is more than just distrusting God. But first consider the following applications of that logic, that “God can overcome any method of birth control he wants to.”

I can stab you with a knife, and if God doesn’t want you to die, he can ensure the wound isn’t mortal, or perhaps miraculously keep you fron injury.

I can step out in front of a Bus, but if God doesn’t want me to be crushed, he can make the bus pass through me without injuring me.

I can refuse treatment for a diagnosed, treatable form of cancer, because if God wants me to survive he will heal me.

You get the point.

I consider this one of those Luke 4:12 (AKA Deuteronomy 6:16) - “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test”

It is true that God CAN do whatever He pleases. But that doesn’t excuse us from following His laws.

As to the argument that NFP is just another way of distrusting God:

Our bodies are made (beautifully and wonderfully made!) a certain way. They operate a certain way. When we work with our bodies to allow them to function as intended, we honor that creation. When we try to alter our bodies to prevent them from functioning as intended, we do not honor that creation. We say "Hey, God…you made us wrong. We don’t want to be fertile even though that is how you made us. And even though we could wait until we are naturally infertile to complete this action (because maybe we do have a good reason to delay pregnancy at this moment in time), we want it NOW! See,you made a mistake, so we’re going to fix it! (by using a barrier…by using hormonal drugs, by using spermicides, etc.)

God, in his wisdom created woman with a natural cycle of fertility. It is not suggested anywhere that we are obligated to complete the marital act every time a woman ovulates, nor is it suggested that we should avoid the marital act when we know we are not fertile. We can choose when to celebrate that renewal of our vows, so long as WE do nothing to render the act closed to life. The marital act is a good in the context of marriage. Doing something to that act to render it infertile detracts from that good. In using NFP properly, however, the act is not rendered infertile by the actions of the husband and wife. It simply does not bring forth new life as a result of the natural timing of the action, but the timing of the act doesn’t change its goodness.

This is not to say that NFP can’t be used selfishly and sinfully. It can be, and we must always check our own motives to ensure that our actions are morally good.

But also consider that the use of NFP helps to build us in our virtues of patience, temperance, self-mastery, and chastity. It helps us to remember that there are other ways within the marriage to show affection to one another, and helps to keep us from viewing each other as an object to use for our own gratification. The fruit of faithful use of NFP certainly is a good indicator that it is good and certainly better than artificial means. The Church finishes the thought for us with Her wisdom.

Ah okay. This makes sense! Thanks!

But what can a person do if they don’t have regular cycles? See, I don’t have regular cycles and haven’t had regular cycles for years. I don’t expect to have regular cycles in the future either at least not without using a birth control pill which I am currently taking in an attempt to regulate them. If I get married in the future, would it be a sin for me to stay on the birth control pill and engage in the marital act with my husband knowing that it would closing the marital act to the possibility of life?

 

[Holly3278]

Hey, I was just reading the following Question and Answer from This Rock magazine online at Catholic.com:

Q:“
I have heard that it is acceptable to use NFP for avoiding pregnancy if the reason is serious. Could you please tell me what reasons justify avoiding pregnancy?
”

   			 				A: 			
  	The *Catechism of the Catholic Church* explains, "A  particular.aspect of [the fecundity of marriage] concerns the regulation  of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births  of their children" (CCC 2368). But the *Catechism* does not  explicitly define what constitutes "just reasons." Instead, proper  determination is left up to the couple: "It is their duty to make  certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in  conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood"  (CCC 2368).

However, the language used in Church documents may be somewhat helpful. For example, Gaudium et Spes states,
[C]ertain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and . . . they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. (GS 51) Humanae Vitae says that a couple may morally space births if there are well-grounded reasons “arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances” (HV 16).

Ultimately, each couple must determine for themselves whether “just reasons” truly exist. Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life explains, “Certainly it is a duty of married couples—who, for that matter, should seek appropriate counsel—to deliberate deeply and in a spirit of faith about the size of their family, and to decide the concrete mode of realizing it, with respect for the moral criteria of conjugal life” (2.3).
Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfill their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. (GS 50)

Bold and underline is mine.

I was wondering, does the bold part apply to me since I have borderline personality disorder and major depression with occasional psychotic features? Would I be allowed to continuously use Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy for this reason?

 

[ironband]

Ah okay. This makes sense! Thanks!

But what can a person do if they don’t have regular cycles? See, I don’t have regular cycles and haven’t had regular cycles for years. I don’t expect to have regular cycles in the future either at least not without using a birth control pill which I am currently taking in an attempt to regulate them. If I get married in the future, would it be a sin for me to stay on the birth control pill and engage in the marital act with my husband knowing that it would closing the marital act to the possibility of life?

First off, irregular cycles are no longer an impediment to NFP techniques available. In fact, I think I remember hearing on Catholic Answers Live that through the advent of NaPro (Natural Procreative) technology, NFP techniques may even be used to help diagnose the reason for your irregular cycles and treat them in a way that deals with the cause of them rather than just brute forcing them into compliance with artificial hormones. Check out the Pope Paul VI Institute at www.popepaulvi.com and www.naprotechnology.com for some more info.

The Creighton model certainly works with irregular cycles, as do other modern methods of NFP, which assume that no woman is 100% regular. There are always at least small variations at play. In short, this is not our grandparents’ “rhythm method”

I was wondering, does the bold part apply to me since I have borderline personality disorder and major depression with occasional psychotic features? Would I be allowed to continuously use Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy for this reason?

That’s a good question. I think that more information and context would be needed to determine whether such would be licit, and would recommend that you discuss this with your confessor or spiritual advisor.

 

[Newbie2]

Hey, I was just reading the following Question and Answer from This Rock magazine online at Catholic.com:

Bold and underline is mine.

I was wondering, does the bold part apply to me since I have borderline personality disorder and major depression with occasional psychotic features? Would I be allowed to continuously use Natural Family Planning to avoid pregnancy for this reason?

It applies to every Catholic. What that part is saying is that couples are not obligated to have one child after another after another after another i.e become baby machines. We can space births. We are not all expected to all be able to handle having three kids under the age of 5 in the house at one time. It’s the method of spacing births that’s the moral issue with ABC.

“Continuously” meaning forever and never having kids, no. “Continuously” meaning for years in order to space kids apart in a manner in which you can mentally handle, yes, even if it’s for a period of many years.

We as Catholics when we get married accept children willingly from God. We are not mandated as to how many or when we have them, and can take advantage of the woman’s cycle to assist in determining these things.

Remember, contra=against. Contraception=against conception. We are to take no deliberate act against conception. Morally speaking, ABC for the purposes of contraception is sinful. Abstenance during certain times of a woman’s cycle is not seen as taking a direct action against conception.

Taking homones for medical purposes other than contraception, even if contraception is an unintended side effect, is morally acceptable.

 

[casey_zia]

Women who are experiencing irregular cycles should not be prescribed the birth control pill to “regulate” them–there is never a medical reason to use the Pill. The Pill acts to suppress ovulation; failing that, it leaves the uterus too thin to accept an embryo should conception take place. Once the hormones are withdrawn (as they are in the 28-day package of BCP), the women experiences a bleed. This is a regular and predictable bleed, but has no effect on regulating the woman’s own hormones, and may mask an underlying condition that should be investigated. And all of us women experience irregularity at some point in our lives, and some of us are simply regularly irregular; many times the Pill is prescribed for something that is totally normal!

I would recommend finding an NFP instructor (I prefer the Billings Method–it is easy to learn and has a very high efficacy rate) and/or a doctor who promotes NFP and is willing to investigate hormonal irregularities for clients who are experiencing difficulties in their menstrual cycles.

And, Natural Family Planning is a lifestyle, really. It IS continuous, and a very healthy way to live out married life. It works through all of a woman’s reproductive life, from menarche through achieving/avoiding pregnancy, breastfeeding, and pre-menopause, and in times of illness and stress cycles. It is natural, has no side effects, is very inexpensive, and builds the marriage bond. This is all good news!

 

[Newbie2]

Women who are experiencing irregular cycles should not be prescribed the birth control pill to “regulate” them–there is never a medical reason to use the Pill.

Um…yes, there are medical reasons to use hormonal treatments i.e. in some cases “the pill”.

In general, you are correct that it’s overprescribed for simply helping to regulate irregular cycles.

 

[casey_zia]

Um…yes, there are medical reasons to use hormonal treatments i.e. in some cases “the pill”.

Yes, there are medical reasons to use hormonal treatments. For example, NFP physicians will prescribe natural progesterone for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome.

But if a woman presents with irregular cycles, pain, infertility, etc., she deserves a diagnosis. The reproductive problems are symptoms of some underlying disorder, and though the Pill can bring some relief (for instance, it thins the lining of the uterus so that the monthly bleeds are lighter), the cause of these symptoms goes uninvestigated and untreated if she’s simply given oral contraceptives.

Morally, “the Pill” as a contraceptive has no place in our Catholic family life, as has been discussed here in this forum. Medically, its use also needs to be challenged, for side effects, its abortifacient qualities, and as a treatment for reproductive symptoms.

 

[Catholic_Wife]

First off, irregular cycles are no longer an impediment to NFP techniques available. In fact, I think I remember hearing on Catholic Answers Live that through the advent of NaPro (Natural Procreative) technology, NFP techniques may even be used to help diagnose the reason for your irregular cycles and treat them in a way that deals with the cause of them rather than just brute forcing them into compliance with artificial hormones. Check out the Pope Paul VI Institute at www.popepaulvi.com

and www.naprotechnology.com for some more info.
I’m sure NaPro technology is great and wonderful, but do you realize how much it costs??? Not everyone has the monetary means to go to Nebraska for treatment, nor do they have insurance that will pay for local treatment – if they can even find a local doctor who knows about NaPro technology. The closest such doctor to me is more than 150 miles / 3 hours away.

A friend of mine claims that by using artificial birth control, you are distrusting God. But the fact is, God can overcome any method of birth control if He wants to. And isn’t using natural family planning in a sense being distrustful of God as well?

Using ABC is basically distrusting God. Some will say that by accepting the fact that no form of birth control is 100% effective (except 100% abstinence), they are putting their trust in God, but are they really??? NFP can be just as ‘distrustful of God’ depending on the couple’s attitude in using it.

 

[Ohiomom]

I’m sure NaPro technology is great and wonderful, but do you realize how much it costs??? Not everyone has the monetary means to go to Nebraska for treatment, nor do they have insurance that will pay for local treatment – if they can even find a local doctor who knows about NaPro technology. The closest such doctor to me is more than 150 miles / 3 hours away.

Ummm, you don’t have to go to Nebraska as there are consultants for NaPro or Creighton in many states. Per their website, these are the people in Texas.

fertilitycare.org/texas-medical-consultants/

Now I do know that Texas is really, really, really big, so none of those doctors may be close to you. My guess is that the doctors do have some provision for working with people remotely if needed and they probably have ways of working with people who don’t have insurance. For those with insurance, the only issue may be in or out of network, but that is a different conversation.

 

[uncannyman]

NaPro technology is also not the only form of NFP that is effective with irregular cycles. The Billings method, Family of the Americas foundation, Creighton Model are all effective with irregular cycles. Learning these methods is not expensive. In fact you generally only have two or three appointments with an educator which does not have to be a doctor. You are taught the method and how it is used to both achieve and avoid pregnancy and then the follow ups are to make sure you are comfortable observing your signs of fertility. After that the only cost is buying charts, if you want you can use a computer program then there is no other cost. (Just think of how much ABC costs every year) If you are using the creighton method for charting this can be given to a NaPro Dr. if you think there is an underlying problem that needs diagnosed.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]

I think the links to Humane Vitae and the Library give good context. Consider also Theology of the Body.

When we try to alter our bodies to prevent them from functioning as intended, we do not honor that creation.[/SIGN]

I’m sorry, but I received a notice of subjects being discussed on this fourm. I had to return and answer.

Nowhere does the Bible give orders to leave the sexual act “open
to give life”… or that every action designed to impede procreation “is intrinsically evil.”

TRUE God considers the life of a child to be precious, even in the very earliest stages of development. King David of Israel wrote under inspiration: “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother…* Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” *(Psalm 139:13,*16) A new life begins at conception, and the Mosaic Law indicates that a person could be called to account for injuring an unborn child. In fact, Exodus 21:22, 23 specifies that if a pregnant woman or her unborn child suffered a fatal accident as a result of a struggle between two men, the matter had to be brought before the appointed judges. They were to weigh the circumstances and the degree of deliberateness, but the penalty could be “soul for soul,” or life for life.

Also true, some methods of birth control appear to be abortive. These methods of contraception are not in harmony with the divine principle of respect for life. Most contraceptives, though, are not abortive.

Nowhere does the Bible command Christians to procreate. God told the first human couple and Noah’s family: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” But this command was not repeated to Christians.

Hence, married couples may decide for themselves whether they will raise a family, how many children they will have, and when they will have them. The Scriptures, likewise, do not condemn birth control. From a Biblical point of view, then, whether a husband and wife choose to use some nonabortive method of contraception is really a personal decision.

*** g 9/07 p. 11 Is Contraception Morally Wrong? ***
*Catholic sources explain that it was in the second century C.E. that professed Christians first adopted a Stoic rule according to which the sole lawful purpose for marital intercourse was procreation. The reasoning behind this position was thus philosophical rather than Biblical. It was based, not on divine wisdom, but on human wisdom. This philosophy persisted down through the centuries and was elaborated on by various Catholic theologians. **( It was only in the 13th century that Gregory IX enacted what the New Catholic Encyclopedia calls “the first universal legislation by a pope against contraception.”)***The logical outgrowth of this teaching, however, was the idea that sexual pleasure as an end in itself is sinful and, consequently, that sexual relations that exclude the possibility of procreation are immoral. But this is not what the Scriptures teach.

Using poetic language, the Bible book of Proverbs describes the joy that can result from appropriate sexual intimacies between husband and wife: “Drink water out of your own cistern, and tricklings out of the midst of your own well. . . . Let your water source prove to be blessed, and rejoice with the wife of your youth, a lovable hind and a charming mountain goat. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly.”—Proverbs 5:15, 18, 19…NO MENTION OF NEED TO “GIVE LIFE”

Sexual relations between husband and wife are a God-given gift. But procreation is not their sole purpose. Sexual relations also allow a married couple to express tenderness and affection for each another. So if a couple should decide to exclude the possibility of a pregnancy by using some form of contraception, that is their choice to make, and no one should judge them.—Romans 14:4, 10-13.

…Some have said that safe birth control will hinder the projected income of the Church… Would you say that the average Catholic probably gives at least $5000 to $ 20,000 per there lifetime to to church? Including money given as small " gifts" to the priest for Baptisms? First Communions; ( First Communion Gifts are our specialty at CatholicCompany.com. We have the largest inventory of in stock first communion gifts online).–taken from google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS340US340&q=First+Communions

Marriages (Remember the Law is it MUST be inside a church–another reason for money!)
All while the ‘compelling’ plate is passed every mass. ( Compare 2Co 9:7)
Oh, and don’t forget furnerals
$$$ made kiplinger.com/basics/archives/2007/09/funeralcost.html

Then EVEN if cremated–must be place in a crypt…more $$$ notice: Crypt prices vary by specific location with inside chapel spaces the most expensive. Inside corridor and outside garden, mall or patio crypts are each lesser. Beyond the general location, crypt spaces are priced according to tier — A-level crypts are at ground level, then upward to B-level (“at the heart”), then C-level (“at the head”) and so on. Generally, lower-level crypts are more expensive than higher-level crypts. cemeteries.org/burialoptions0006.asp

Imagine what 100,000,000 or MORE births could do for the church’s income?..PER YEAR!

Really, think of the poor couples that can’t afford to have children in so many parts of the world…SADLY, your church teaching is causing a great many unwanted pregnancies earthwide by those that think they must obey the church over the Bible…your church teaching forbids them to have great joy with and sexual intamcy WHEN THEY WANT!!-- this is what comes truly FREE as God’s precious gift.

 

[Alindawyl]

I have to ask, dj dave. Is your post a statement of official Jehovah’s Witness teaching or just a barrage of anti-Catholic commentary riddled with assumptions and fallacies? It sure reads a lot more like the latter to me, especially with the insinuation that Catholic teaching on contraception is based on making money for the Church rather than having moral or logical reasons.

 

[Vezelay]

I don’t know why people don’t pay better attention to our bishops. Simply google “US Bishops tackle contraception and communion” and you will find something like 15,000 articles, most dealing with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in Nov 2006 in Baltimore at which the bishops voted 148-75 that using contraceptives was no reason for catholics to refrain from receiving communion. The bishops’ report indicated that 96% of catholics use the same birth control methods as the rest of the population. Only 4% use the so called natural method. Those of us using the usual contraceptives are in the state of grace and are receiving communion. This has been true for many catholics ever since the mid '60’s when the Vatican II Bishops Study Committee voted 57 to 3 that there was no doctrinal or theological reason not to lift the ban on contraception. The pope did not agree but it was too late. The majority of catholics went with the bishops.

It’s time to stop this silliness of thinking there is something wrong with birth control. Hasn’t anyone noticed that catholic families are pretty much the same size as those of the rest of the population?

 

[davidv]

I don’t know why people don’t pay better attention to our bishops. Simply google “US Bishops tackle contraception and communion” and you will find something like 15,000 articles, most dealing with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in Nov 2006 in Baltimore at which the bishops voted 148-75 that using contraceptives was no reason for catholics to refrain from receiving communion. The bishops’ report indicated that 96% of catholics use the same birth control methods as the rest of the population. Only 4% use the so called natural method. Those of us using the usual contraceptives are in the state of grace and are receiving communion. This has been true for many catholics ever since the mid '60’s when the Vatican II Bishops Study Committee voted 57 to 3 that there was no doctrinal or theological reason not to lift the ban on contraception. The pope did not agree but it was too late. The majority of catholics went with the bishops.

It’s time to stop this silliness of thinking there is something wrong with birth control.

Prove that it is silliness.

Hasn’t anyone noticed that catholic families are pretty much the same size as those of the rest of the population?

Irrelevant to the topic.

 

[rhmom]

I don’t know why people don’t pay better attention to our bishops. Simply google “US Bishops tackle contraception and communion” and you will find something like 15,000 articles, most dealing with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in Nov 2006 in Baltimore at which the bishops voted 148-75 that using contraceptives was no reason for catholics to refrain from receiving communion. The bishops’ report indicated that 96% of catholics use the same birth control methods as the rest of the population. Only 4% use the so called natural method. Those of us using the usual contraceptives are in the state of grace and are receiving communion. This has been true for many catholics ever since the mid '60’s when the Vatican II Bishops Study Committee voted 57 to 3 that there was no doctrinal or theological reason not to lift the ban on contraception. The pope did not agree but it was too late. The majority of catholics went with the bishops.

It’s time to stop this silliness of thinking there is something wrong with birth control. Hasn’t anyone noticed that catholic families are pretty much the same size as those of the rest of the population?

Since when do bishops get to vote on church teaching? Thier votes and teachings mean nothing unless they are in union with the pope.

 

[uncannyman]

dj dave, I am some what confused on what you feel the purpose of sex is? The catholic church bases its belief on natural law, ie what God created and how He created it as well as the word of God given through revelation in the Bible and tradition. But nothing can be a valid interpretation that is contradictory to the fundemental natural law.

So back to the question, what is the purpose of sex? Why was it created? Why was the human body created as it is? Why is a woman’s body created the way it is with periods of time that are fertile and infertile?

Sex as is blatantly obvious is for the creation of new life and the continuation of humanity through future generation. The not quite as obvious but no less significast purpose is the union of the spouses which you touched on.

Many people seem to feel that pleasure is also a purpose, but it is not. It is an added bonus, a sensation, an emotional and physical response. Just as eating food is pleasureable but that is not it’s purpose which is nurishment.

Now if God created sex as a gift between spouses in which they can unite themselves in love and as a means for bringing forth new life, how would contraception not run counter to this natural order that God himself created?

Barrier Method Contraception creates a physical barrier between the spouses, it does not unite them at all. It limits the sharing of the spouses and rejects the God given gift of fertility of the other person. It allows spouses to use each other for sexual gratification. This does not mean that all couples that use ABC use each other, but it can foster this.

Other forms also reject the full unity of the spouses AND have the potential to destroy new life that is created.

While it is true that couples should have (name removed by moderator)ut into their family size and spacing of children, it is not true that any means to do so are licit. In God’s design of the human body, there are natural periods of time that are fertile and infertile. Knowledge of God’s creation can be utilized to allow couples to plan their family in a way that is in conjuction with God’s creation and not counter to it. It allows spouses to fully give themselves to each other holding nothing back. It allows sex to completely unite the spouses without compromising. It allows couples to communicate openly and honestly about their reasons to postpone having a child.

Vezelay, While it is true different bishops run counter to what is being posted, it does not change the fact that truth is not governed by democracy. Just because a large number of bishops in the US (only 2/3 as you stated) disagree on whether or not communion should be withheld, so you claim ( I disagree on that interpretation). It does not change Catholic doctrine on the immorallity of artificial contraception. Just because the Catholic laity in the 60s jumped the gun on accepting contraception does not mean the pope and the Vatican need to fall in line, it is quite the contrary.