Why is artificial birth control usage so wrong?

[ironband]

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.

Be careful here. We really need to read the whole article rather than picking out the part that supports the way we want to live. The same article (which I’ll cite, since you didn’t: post-gazette.com/pg/06319/738380-84.stm ) says:

On another sexual issue, the bishops voted 220-11 without debate to approve a brochure for engaged couples that explains church teaching against artificial contraception and urges them to use natural family planning based on the woman’s fertility cycle. But contraception figured heavily into a debate over a document on reception of communion, with the bishops rejecting an effort to name contraception as a reason to refrain from receiving communion.

Note that there is no debate among the bishops that contraception is objectively wrong, but rather debate over whether that issue should be singled out as a reason not to receive communion:

Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., said that the drafters did not include contraception because it was not intended to be a comprehensive list of sins and there was a concern that this “particularly difficult pastoral problem” would distract from everything else in the document. Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, auxiliary of San Diego, argued that not mentioning it would draw even more attention.

“If we are silent on this issue, perhaps people won’t go so far as to say we are winking at it, but at least we would easily create the misperception that this is not an issue involving grave matter.” “Grave matter,” along with informed reflection and willful intent, constitutes mortal sin.

It would seem that there is something to what Bishop Cordileone is saying, since you seem to believe this is not grave matter.

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.

“Everyone does it” doesn’t make it right. You may be in a state of grace and receiving communion, but that would only be due to ignorance on the topic and Church teaching. The Magesterium teaches that contraception objectively evil.

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?

Again, “Everyone does it” doesn’t make it right. And no one is saying you have to have a as many kids as possible…just that the marital act must remain open to life. I would recommend Patrick Coffin’s book “Sex Au Natural - what it is and why it is good for your marriage.”

 

[Alindawyl]

Note that there is no debate among the bishops that contraception is objectively wrong, but rather debate over whether that issue should be singled out as a reason not to receive communion

Nice catch.

By the way, the publication in question is Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist. Anyone who thinks that it permits contraception in the absence of a statement explicitly singling out that sin should read it. It rather clearly states that those who are in a state of mortal sin should not receive Communion. It doesn’t contain a comprehensive list of mortal sins, but it shouldn’t because that isn’t the purpose of the document.

I would recommend Patrick Coffin’s book “Sex Au Natural - what it is and why it is good for your marriage.”

An excellent book and so easy to read. You don’t need a PhD or extensive background in theology to understand what Coffin says, which for me is a good thing

 

[GrandeChartreus]

Note that there is no debate among the bishops that contraception is objectively wrong, but rather debate over whether that issue should be singled out as a reason not to receive communion:"

What about the Winnipeg statement (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement)??) It’s not like humane Vitae created harmony after it’s release. There was a lot of criticism coming from several countries.

Not being a theologian, but respecting the work of several Bishop’s and theologian, my humble opinion would be that this shows that the whole contraception debate is a matter of opinions and that both views and beliefs can be explained, respected, used while remaining in harmony with God’s will.

 

[murphjos]

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.”.

Catholic teaching on this mater is not biblical but based on natural moral law. Now before you tell me how I am following in My Church (which is The Church founded by Jesus Christ by the way) over the bible I ask you this; Where in the bible does it say this?

"sexual intamcy WHEN THEY WANT!!-- this is what comes truly FREE as God’s precious gift.

Who is your teaching authority on this? What moral philosophy is that statement based on?

 

[murphjos]

What about the Winnipeg statement (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement)??) It’s not like humane Vitae created harmony after it’s release. There was a lot of criticism coming from several countries.

Not being a theologian, but respecting the work of several Bishop’s and theologian, my humble opinion would be that this shows that the whole contraception debate is a matter of opinions and that both views and beliefs can be explained, respected, used while remaining in harmony with God’s will.

The intrinsic evil of contraception is NOT a mater of mater of opinion. This is long standing Church teaching which was authoritatively affirmed by a Pope in Humane Vitae. The laities opinions or even those of dissident bishops do not change that nor does the fact that the teaching does not promote harmony. The Woodstock festival was perfectly harmonious. Does that mean that marijuana an LSD induced threesomes in a tent are moral? Harmony is irrelevant.

 

[GrandeChartreus]

The intrinsic evil of contraception is NOT a mater of mater of opinion. This is long standing Church teaching which was authoritatively affirmed by a Pope in Humane Vitae. The laities opinions or even those of dissident bishops do not change that nor does the fact that the teaching does not promote harmony. The Woodstock festival was perfectly harmonious. Does that mean that marijuana an LSD induced threesomes in a tent are moral? Harmony is irrelevant.

I don’t seriously know what to response so I will rabble a little bit trying to explain the issues and the never ending debate on contraception.

Contraception is not evil per se and it is tolerated by our Church for your women who needs it for medical reasons. The word Evil is then flawed in this discussion and only brings emotional response to a moral theology problem.

The crisis that created Humane Vitae will not be solved here. There are several books written on the topic and the international community reaction to the Encyclical was very diverse (such as the Winnipeg Statement). These opinions are important in the church and they have their weight when it’s time to press upon the pope certain policy.

The Church has groups, views and vision about the church that are very divergent and different. It doesn’t mean that their opinion cannot be heard or respected.

In this I trust that the Priest, Bishop’s and Cardinals who opposed certain views expressed in Humane Vitae were doing it in the respect of Christ words.

If there were no divergence and everyone agreed would make this debate about artificial birth control a no issue. Since there are diversions, contradictions, historical discrepancies the debate will rage on until a ‘‘real’’ consensus that will carefully examine the values our god gave us and understand the new realities of our modern society (let’s face it modern birth control didn’t exist in biblical days … although to play devils advocate condoms did … If this was so important to God why didn’t he leave more clear instructions on the issue ? )

Peace to you all my friends. Sorry for the long diatribe.

I am confident that God loves everyone of us even if you end up taking a birth control pill.

 

[markxcool]

I love this topic (ABC vs. NFP) since it is amazing to me how passionate people get.

As for my $0.02, there is nothing “so wrong” about ABC. There may be many things wrong with the imperfect methods but the funny thing is that even if there existed a “perfect” method that was 100% healthy for the wife and zero risk of harm to a baby if conceived, the Church would still say NO to it… Why “no”? Well, there are a few long-winded, symbolic-grounded, theological and physiological documents that try to explain why… If you want to live your life based on subjective symbolic considerations of theology, you might well feel your only option is NFP.

As for those who want to give write litanies on the short-comings of medicine, chilax! Its beside the point!

The point is that our Catholic Church has weak and scared leadership, riddled with political infighting and painfully slow bureaucracy… several popes passed the buck (e.g.: John 23) and then one made a wrong call (i.e.: Paul VI) against the conclusions of the very commission the Church created to study the issue (which started with a loaded deck against ABC but who came to their senses) and pretty much ever since then we see the mass of Catholic faithful doing as they see fit as a handful of staunch holier than thou conservatives bicker and wag their finger reminding us how the suddenly “perennial” teachings of the Church are so important.

NFP (aka “Vatican Roulette”) is grossly irresponsible and misrepresented. ABC has a long way to go to be safe and reliable. It takes our personal wit and analysis of the facts and our unique situations to decide what we should to do as couples.

God bless us all.

 

[markxcool]

The intrinsic evil of contraception is NOT a mater of mater of opinion. This is long standing Church teaching which was authoritatively affirmed by a Pope in Humane Vitae. The laities opinions or even those of dissident bishops do not change that nor does the fact that the teaching does not promote harmony. The Woodstock festival was perfectly harmonious. Does that mean that marijuana an LSD induced threesomes in a tent are moral? Harmony is irrelevant.

Intrinsic evil is definately not a matter of opinion, thank God! This is a great relief since we can rest assured that Pope Paul VI’s opinion in Humanae Vitae (HV) did not automatically make ABC intrinsically evil.

Saying that the HV represents “long standing” Church teaching is laughable, despite the seriousness of this subject. Why? Just consider the overwhelming consensus in favour of ABC that was the conclusion of the Papal Comission on Birth Control… which, in short, said that there was nothing in Scripture, Natural Law or Church Tradition that would go against accepting ABC. Interesting, eh?

And no, HV was not authoritatively affirmed insofar as infallibility is a concern. The evident lack of Sensus Fidelium indicates so.

Please realize that a “…because I said so!” does not cut it for Church faithful in our modern age: we need, logic, fact and clarity - little of which we have gotten no matter how poetically written, symbolically appreciative and lengthly Humanae Vitae, Casti Conubi, Familiaris Consortio, etc, are.

 

[Abu]

**Face Reality **
What a frightful lot of rubbish from some-- a JW who hasn’t a clue and some “Catholics” who don’t know that Jesus gave His authority to Peter and his successors with the Keys of the Kingdom to bind and to loose. Some great posts from faithful Catholics.

1. One fatal error is to think that we, laity, can accept or reject definitive doctrine, which cannot be true unless we do!
2. Both Ecumenical Councils, Vatican I and Vatican II, clearly infallibly taught the infallibility of definitive papal definitions on faith and morals
3. It is vital to realize that the doctrinal teaching against contraception in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) and *Humanae Vitae *(Paul VI, 1968) are infallible definitions. Contraception is intrinsically gravely wrong. NBR is extremely effective when properly practised, encourages self-control, and has no harmful effects on health.
4. Face reality: One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.” (Fr Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

It’s quite remarkable how so many people make their own trouble as these errors resurface interminably. Perhaps they should listen also to William James who said that many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.

 

[Abu]

markxcool
And no, HV was not authoritatively affirmed insofar as infallibility is a concern. The evident lack of Sensus Fidelium indicates so.

A quite fatal and arrogant error. Catholics will continue to fall into such a morass until they take the time and trouble to read and to get to know what Christ teaches through His Church.
It’s not rocket science; just the obedience of faith as St Paul teaches.

Vatican II: “By this appreciation, of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium), and obeying it, receive not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith delivered once for all to the saints (cf. Jude 3).” Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 12, *Lumen Gentium *(LG) Vatican II, my emphasis]

As Fr John A Hardon, S.J., writes: The universitas fidelium (the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12 [Fr John A Hardon, *The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 225-227] constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.” (Fr Hardon). Those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium.

 

[bingbang]

Again, “Everyone does it” doesn’t make it right. And no one is saying you have to have a as many kids as possible…just that the marital act must remain open to life. I would recommend Patrick Coffin’s book “Sex Au Natural - what it is and why it is good for your marriage.”

I don’t know how many times I have read on here that NFP works better for birth control than condoms…so wouldn’t using condoms be more open to life than NFP?

 

[bingbang]

NFP (aka “Vatican Roulette”) is grossly irresponsible and misrepresented. ABC has a long way to go to be safe and reliable. It takes our personal wit and analysis of the facts and our unique situations to decide what we should to do as couples.

God bless us all.

lol @ vatican roulette. Anyway, my child conceived despite my wife being on the pill is right in front of me…he is proof that if God wants you to have a child some man made birth control isn’t going to stop Him.

 

[jilly4ski]

I don’t know how many times I have read on here that NFP works better for birth control than condoms…so wouldn’t using condoms be more open to life than NFP?

Sigh, I wish people would stop using “open to life” because it is confusing to those who don’t know the teachings. Rather this phrase refers to to actual marital act and that we do not sterilize each act. During a woman’s infertile period the marital act is still “open to life” because the couple is not doing anything to sterilize the act. But when one intentionally places a barrier on ones fertility through barrier, hormonal, etc. means, the are no longer “open to life” during that particular marital act. If the couple isn’t engaging in the martial act there is no act to sterilize. (Otherwise we would all not be “open to life” every minute we don’t have sex).

To the OP, ABC is wrong because it denies God’s purpose for our bodies. If divorces the purposes of marriage from the marital act. (abortifacants are worse, because the also can kill any children that are created (the pill, IUDs, etc).

 

[mark_a]

Why is the usage of artificial birth control considered to be so wrong?

Years ago, I found that this link explains the Jewish roots of the traditional Christian teaching very well. rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

And this one explains how the Protestant Churches jumped the tracks: touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f

 

[mark_a]

I don’t know how many times I have read on here that NFP works better for birth control than condoms…so wouldn’t using condoms be more open to life than NFP?

Although lots of folks here don’t want anyone to know, nfp can also be used to increase chances of getting pregnant.

 

[jawgee]

I don’t know a lot of the theological teaching on ABC, but what I have learned from studying the issue is that the marital embrace is supposed to be a renewal of a couple’s wedding vows:

1. I am coming to you freely
2. I commit to you forever
3. I agree to accept children

When a couple uses NFP (as my DH and I do), we may be choosing to postpone pregnancy, but we do understand and accept that a child could still be conceived through our union.

Anyone who truly questions the dangers of ABC (to a marriage, to children, and to society in general) should listen to Janet Smith’s talk “Contraception: Why Not”. It’s compelling.

 

[Abu]

bigband
I don’t know how many times I have read on here that NFP works better for birth control than condoms…so wouldn’t using condoms be more open to life than NFP?

In that case how come you didn’t also note the vital fact that NBR uses God-given infertile periods without any interference with His natural moral law; that used for serious reasons, this would foster family life?

 

[vkjordan]

DJ Dave posted: "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."

This then would mean that IVF is wrong, not to mention dozens of other medical procedures.

 

[tjm190]

DJ Dave posted: "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."

This then would mean that IVF is wrong, not to mention dozens of other medical procedures.

The Church does say IVF is wrong.

 

[ironband]

This then would mean that IVF is wrong, not to mention dozens of other medical procedures.

Patrck Coffin is fond of saying that chemical birth control is one of the few medications which is intended to render a perfectly good organ non-functional (or something to that effect).

Yes, IVF is wrong. It separates the unitive and creative aspects in an opposite fashion to birth control (creative without unitive, as opposed to unitive without creative). But that discussion belongs under another thread.

Most medical procedures and medicines have as their intended use to restore or improve function of the organ or system of concern, or to preserve the life of the patient. Contrast this with surgical sterilization (which renders a working system non-functional) and chemical birth control (same).