Contraception

[Bryne]

I would imagine that most people who use NPF are Catholics who take their Church's teachings seriously...and therefore would be less likely to divorce...not necessarily because they use NPF, but because of the RCC's teachings on divorce.

 

[sunlover1]

I would imagine that most people who use NPF are Catholics who take their Church's teachings seriously...and therefore would be less likely to divorce...not necessarily because they use NPF, but because of the RCC's teachings on divorce.

Actually, most Christians believe divorce to be a sin.

 

[Bryne]

True...but most Christian churches are not as strict about it as the Catholic church.

 

[tadoflamb]

Just a note: the number of unwed mothers has risen considerably since the advent of the birth control pill.

 

[MKJ]

I don't have an absolute position on this. However, I think there are a few things I would note:

1) The most popular, hormonal methods shouldn't be acceptable to any Christian.

2) Up until the 20th century, all Christians said contraception was a no-no. And the change came at a time that a lot of other changes that were clearly questionable came about.

3) Not only the Catholics made predictions of problems that would follow widespread use of contraception, some Anglicans did, and I'm sure others too. And most of them have come to pass in the larger society. THis should give us pause. I think of anti-family policies, increased consumerism, abortion, inward looking marriages, divorce, attitudes to children and pregnancy, maternity care - it has a huge impact. I have heard it argued even that the idea homosexual marriage is in part a consequence of an idea of marriage that is separate from procreation, which I think is possibly true.

All of these things make me think that artificial contraception needs to be approached very very carefully. And history makes me think it is hard to control. When the Anglicans were the first to approve it, it was to be in special, hard-case type situations. It quickly became ubiquitous, just like divorce.

NFP - I think is in some ways less than ideal too, but it doesn't have a lot of the practical down-sides of artificial contraception for a variety of reasons.

Family life is a vocation just like monastic life is, and the widespread use of artificial contraception has pretty much undermined that. Rather like a monastery where poverty, obedience, and chastity are optional.

I think all these things ought to give us serious pause before we welcome ABC with open arms.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

if two means that can be used for the same end must be morally equivalent, then wouldn't that mean that robbing a bank and working as a plumber must be morally equivalent if one's goal is to make a living for one's family?

????


My point was that "contraception" by definition is what is done so that a child is not conceived. While I suppose absolute abstainence COULD be seen as a contraceptive method, typically contraception is seen in reference to sex: how to have sex but not conceive. "Birth CONTROL" is much the same: it's taking active measures to CONTROL the odds of conception and thus to control birth.

As I understand it from my Catholic teachers (and I'm discovering just how wrong they sometimes were), prior to the 1960's, the RCC was opposed to contraception and birth control: while never official, the common teaching was "just have sex - and let God do whatever God is going to do." The alternative was to have a sexless marriage (which generally was not encouraged). As I was told, this changed in the 1960's when the RCC became passionate supportive of contraception and began promoting and teaching birth control. Our parish actually had classes in church approve contraceptive birth control and couples that wanted to be married in the Church were required to take this class (I don't know if that is still a requirement).


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.





.

 

[VolRaider]

I had recently gave this subject much though.
I had a vasectomy after our second child. My wife was concerned about her age, reading about the increase of odds in a third child being disabled. I also do not rake in a lot of money - while there is steady income, there is also peaks and valleys with my other occupation. I opted to go through the procedure because, supposedly, it is less painful than a hysterectomy.

I kind of regret that decision. I know we should decide these things as a married couple, but I wish I had simply trusted God to provide everything we needed. If the child was disabled, God would have helped me deal with it. If I was losing more money, God would provide.

I urge everybody to listen to what might have been the biggest mistake in my life (notice I said "my" - my wife still feels we did the right thing, and I understand her position). I wish somehow that God would undo what we did and give us a third child. Protestant, Anglican, etc. churches really need to rethink their position. We should always encourage life.

 

[sunlover1]

True...but most Christian churches are not as strict about it as the Catholic church.

And most Christian churches cant/wont get annulment and act as they
were never married with children. So i guess it would even out after all..

 

[Bryne]

Yeah...instead, they just look the other way when people divorce and remarry. Nothing is required to continue to be a member of the church in good standing. They don't get an annulment and act as if they were never married...they just act as if they were never married.

Getting an annulment from the Catholic church is not an easy process...and I see absolutely nothing wrong having such a procedure in place.

 

[VolRaider]

If you break your marriage vows to God, then you better have a whale of a reason to do so.

 

[Vendetta]

it's also interesting that the Lerner scientific survey found a .2% divorce rate among NFP users, as well as more frequent sex

Catholics who are willing to choose NFP over artificial contraception are likely those who strictly follow all the teachings of the Church. Thus, the .2% divorce rate is likely not a causal effect of using NFP, but rather both are the causal effects of adhering strictly to the Church.

I would imagine that most people who use NPF are Catholics who take their Church's teachings seriously...and therefore would be less likely to divorce...not necessarily because they use NPF, but because of the RCC's teachings on divorce.

We think alike.

Actually, most Christians believe divorce to be a sin.

Source? Please note I'm not trying to say I disagree with you here. I'm just saying I'm curious to the actual number in a legitimate survey.

True...but most Christian churches are not as strict about it as the Catholic church.

Comparing annulments to divorce, this is likely accurate.

And most Christian churches cant/wont get annulment and act as they
were never married with children. So i guess it would even out after all..

Blatant anti-Catholic statement is blatantly anti-Catholic. Also, they were never married, so there's no acting involved.

 

[narnia59]

I had recently gave this subject much though.
I had a vasectomy after our second child. My wife was concerned about her age, reading about the increase of odds in a third child being disabled. I also do not rake in a lot of money - while there is steady income, there is also peaks and valleys with my other occupation. I opted to go through the procedure because, supposedly, it is less painful than a hysterectomy.

I kind of regret that decision. I know we should decide these things as a married couple, but I wish I had simply trusted God to provide everything we needed. If the child was disabled, God would have helped me deal with it. If I was losing more money, God would provide.

I urge everybody to listen to what might have been the biggest mistake in my life (notice I said "my" - my wife still feels we did the right thing, and I understand her position). I wish somehow that God would undo what we did and give us a third child. Protestant, Anglican, etc. churches really need to rethink their position. We should always encourage life.

Thanks for your willingness to share this. I too have many regrets in this area.

 

[narnia59]

And most Christian churches cant/wont get annulment and act as they
were never married with children. So i guess it would even out after all..

Sunlover, I know you view marriage as being more than a civil contract. But your view here seems to imply that is its focus.

Is it that hard to conceive of the idea that it requires two individuals with the right intentions to freely enter into a true marriage covenant in the eyes of God, and that sometimes despite all the 'trappings' of the world that call it a marriage, that's not what happened at all?

And having children together is not what defines a covenantal marriage, for quite obviously that often occurs outside any bounds of either civil or covenantal marriage. Nonetheless, God chooses the gift of life many times under circumstances that are obviously not his ideal. That should point us to the understanding of how much He values LIFE, and especially giving an individual the opportunity for eternal life with Him.

 

[sunlover1]

Sunlover, I know you view marriage as being more than a civil contract. But your view here seems to imply that is its focus.

Is it that hard to conceive of the idea that it requires two individuals with the right intentions to freely enter into a true marriage covenant in the eyes of God, and that sometimes despite all the 'trappings' of the world that call it a marriage, that's not what happened at all?

And having children together is not what defines a covenantal marriage, for quite obviously that often occurs outside any bounds of either civil or covenantal marriage. Nonetheless, God chooses the gift of life many times under circumstances that are obviously not his ideal. That should point us to the understanding of how much He values LIFE, and especially giving an individual the opportunity for eternal life with Him.

No, i see it as a "blood covenant" and something that no MAN can call "null".

 

[sunlover1]

Yeah...instead, they just look the other way when people divorce and remarry. Nothing is required to continue to be a member of the church in good standing. They don't get an annulment and act as if they were never married...they just act as if they were never married.

Getting an annulment from the Catholic church is not an easy process...and I see absolutely nothing wrong having such a procedure in place.

Born and bred RCC, still have an entire family full and not to mention most
of my closest friends... sure it's not easy.

 

[MrPolo]

Marriage is the figure of Christ the bridegroom and the Church, his bride. Contraception withholds part of the person (their fertility) during the expression of communion between bride and groom. Thus, the giving of self is incomplete in this sense. But anyone who wants to know how much of ourselves we should give during the communion expression need only to look at a crucifix and ask "did Christ give all of Himself for His bride?"

Plus, Scripture is consistent with the properness of fertility and the defectiveness of infertility:
Gn 38:9-10 God killed Onan for spilling seed [see next]
Dt 25:5-10 - penalty for defying Levirate law: not death
Gn 1:27-28 (Gn 9:1, 35:11) - be fruitful and multiply
Ps 127:3-5 - children gift from God, blessed is a full quiver
1Chr 25:5 - God gave 14 sons & 3 daughters to exalt him
1Chr 26:4-5 - God indeed blessed Obededom with 8 sons
Hos 9:10-17 - Israel is punished with childlessness
Ex 23:25-26 - blessings promised: no miscarrying, barrenness
Lv 21:17-20 - crushed testicles is called a defect & blemish
Dt 23:1 - no one castrated shall enter the assembly
Dt 25:11-12 - punishment for potential damage to genitals
Rom 1:25-27 - natural function of women = childbearing
1Tim 2:11-15 - women saved through the bearing of children
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias/Saphira slain - withholding part of gift
Gal 6:7 - God is not mocked-accepting pleasure, denying fruit
Mt 21:19, Mk 11:14 - Jesus cursed fruitless fig tree
Gal 5:20, Rv 9:21, 21:8 - Greek pharmakeia = abortifacient potions
1Cor 6:19-20 - body temple of the Holy Spirit, glorify God with body

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I think contraception is fine. I'm not particularly concerned that the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant reformers didn't like it though it is their right to hold that belief. The Cathar and Manichean Christians supported birth control so it wasn't unknown in the Christian tradition.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Solomon was the wisest of the Old Testament age .

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3

2Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
3Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.

so let's move on to the NT stuff .

 

[MrPolo]

IManichean Christians supported birth control so it wasn't unknown in the Christian tradition.

They were quite criticized even at that time by the East and West for their methods of self-mutilation..... Link

 

[sunlover1]

Marriage is the figure of Christ the bridegroom and the Church, his bride. Contraception withholds part of the person (their fertility) during the expression of communion between bride and groom. Thus, the giving of self is incomplete in this sense.

And with NFP it witholds ALL of oneself.. God said not to do dat.
And He has a good reason and I've seen the consequences of doing so!
Men (or women) driven to adultry or to divorce (annulment) or deep
debilitating lonliness (debilitating because being rejected gets right
down into your very being and affects each area of your life)

Hypocrisy gets my dander up I guess...
These threads have an air of "we're holier because we do it this way,
the REST of you mere mortals are SINNERS!!!" And as a RCC most
of my life, I know, as well as everyone else here that RCC's aint
even practicing what they preach...Dont take my word for it though:
RCC forums

God said that the marriage is for creating godly offspring.
ANYway you prevent that, is man taking it into His own hands.
Period.

imo