Contraceptives

[geocajun]

So, Does that basicaly mean that the Church requires a maried couple to have children under threat of mortal sin.

Along with what Michelle said, let me add that the Church does not "threaten" us with mortal sin.
The Church is here to safeguard the truth, and keep us on the path to holyness.
What the Church does is teach us what is offensive to God.

 

[Benedicta00]

Is Birth Control Via abstinance a mortal sin? It does render procreation impossible.

No, it does not render procreation impossible because you are doing nothing to alter procreation. ABC does render it impossible because you are taking God's creation and you are changing it to suit you.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

It is not debatable - see my points below.
[snip]

Geocajun:



Nice post. Really. Clear, Concise. Compact. Convincing. No condescension or condemnation. (No alluring alliteration either, but that’s alright)



I’ve seen so little of this kind of post on this subject. Thank you



I probably can’t put up as scholarly, or as objectively reasoned a post, but unfortunately, debatable points have good arguments all many sides. So you’ll have to forgive me if I decide to go down swinging. My points are not scholarly, they’re observational, therefore subjective. My contention is that Catholic couples, who live by the wits just like everyone else, have made the observations and made their decisions and no amount of scholarly teaching can change the minds.



Engaged couples are often told that artificial contraception is a mortal sin, even when it is obvious that there are thousands and thousands of Catholic couples using artificial contraception who evidence none of the consequences of mortal sin (destruction of the personality, alienation, lack of reverence, etc.).



Although Church teaching on artificial contraception is highly inflexible, the Church is just as adamant in insisting on the duty of people to act according to their conscience (see #1777-1802 of the The Catechism of the Catholic Church). You may not agree, and tell ABCers that they are deluding their conscience, or that they must comply with Church teaching anyway. I am sorry, but I’m willing to let them make their decision before God about how they should act in this area of their lives. And it is my contention that they’re going to do so anyway.



We have to assume the good-will and integrity of couples in all of this. There are no objective criteria for establishing what constitutes the unitive good in a couples' sexual relationship, and so only the couple can decide this for themselves. And lets remember unity is just as much a part of the reverence of conjugal relations a reproduction. This decision ought to be the outcome of prayer, discussion, reflection on experience, and, of course, reflection on the Church's teachings. But the decision should be the couples.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

Of course not, are you not reading?

The Church says you must be open to life at all times and when you take ABC, withdraw, or use a condom you are simply not being open to life.

NFP, can be abused the same way when the mentality is you WILL not have children, you WILL not allowed God into that aspect of your marriage.

ABC pills, with-drawl, condoms are all forbidden by the Church for other reasons besides a person not being open to life. NFP, is not a forbidden by God method to postpone a pregnancy if you really can not have a child THIS MONTH. One should never decide for long term that, we must always be open to God’s will.

NFP, is also God designed, engineered, not man made. If you have a valid reason not to have a child, then NFP is fine.

The mentality is what the sin is. It feeds to this culture of death.

I know I am beating this issue to death, but i am really tring to understand this.

Does this mean that every month a married couple must attempt to concieve, unless there are financial or health reasons for not doing so? And after the first child is born you must try to concieve as soon as healthfuly and financialy posible and repeat this process until either your health or finances no longer permit you to concieve any longer. And if you do not comply you will be commiting a mortal sin.

 

[Benedicta00]

I know I am beating this issue to death, but i am really tring to understand this.

Does this mean that every month a married couple must attempt to concieve, unless there are financial or health reasons for not doing so? And after the first child is born you must try to concieve as soon as healthfuly and financialy posible and repeat this process until either your health or finances no longer permit you to concieve any longer. And if you do not comply you will be commiting a mortal sin.

The mortal sin is wanting more money over a child, wanting a easier life over a child, the sin is being selfish and greedy, not being unable to have another child. Do you think that is being open to life? We must be open to life, not because the Church made it up but because God said, “Be fruitful and multiply.”

The way mortal humans imitate the trinity in our bodies is, we produce, between the love that we share together, another entity of ourselves. Just as the Spirit flows from the love that the father and the son have for each other. This is called “Life giving Love.” BTW, you should try to read that book written by the Hahn’s.

No one shouldn’t ever decided, even if they are sterile, that they won't, not can't, have a child. We are called by God to be open to creating life with him for we are made in his image and likeness. Our goal on this earth is not to make more money, etc, but to shares God’s life with him, that he shares with us and we share his life by being open to life.

Remember what Jesus said, he is the way the truth and the life.

 

[Benedicta00]

Engaged couples are often told that artificial contraception is a mortal sin, even when it is obvious that there are thousands and thousands of Catholic couples using artificial contraception who evidence none of the consequences of mortal sin (destruction of the personality, alienation, lack of reverence, etc.).

Well when they lose their soul, I think it will then be pretty evident to them then.

Is this really the criteria that you use to decide this?

Only God will be the judge, if a person or a couple knew better or if they were being a stumbling block unto themselves.

 

[marciadietrich]

The critera for the morality of an act are objective and are used in determining culpability of the person responsible for the act.

Hello geocajun

Sorry that my questions were confusing (in part because I was confused by your initial post), but think you hit on what I was asking here. thanks ...

Marcia

 

[geocajun]

Hello geocajun

Sorry that my questions were confusing (in part because I was confused by your initial post), but think you hit on what I was asking here. thanks ...

Marcia

great!

 

[marciadietrich]

I know I am beating this issue to death, but i am really tring to understand this.

Does this mean that every month a married couple must attempt to concieve, unless there are financial or health reasons for not doing so? And after the first child is born you must try to concieve as soon as healthfuly and financialy posible and repeat this process until either your health or finances no longer permit you to concieve any longer. And if you do not comply you will be commiting a mortal sin.

Replace "must attempt to conceive" with "must not purposely avoid conceiving" might be a better way to put it in terms of understanding. I think you could abstain still, but not doing it according to a methodically plotted out charting system. Most married couples don't have sex on a daily basis, have periods of physical seperation (business travel) so you wouldn't be having to "attempt to conceive" purposely, just not purposely avoid fertile times by NFP. If I understand the reasoning on that.

I can certainly understand your confusion, as I wonder if NFP couples really look at it the way you state: do they ask 'am I healthy' and 'can we afford a child right now?' Is that really the criteria being used, and is it being honestly and prayerfully applied on a monthly basis and are they consulting their priest on this? These things are so subjective, most couples might NEVER feel they are able to afford another child, or not even feel they can afford the first child! I can remember how worried we were about the finances each time I was pregnant although we wanted children and love the kids. If the couple has financial concerns do they honestly attempt to resolve the problems? Or do they buy a new car or other items and are perpetually on the edge (and I can't judge anyone on that, we have been doing that ourselves for too many years).

NFP seems to be offered as the licit alternative for spacing children in the face of serious concerns, but it seems that EVERYONE thinks that they have serious concerns. If the average American isn't able to afford to have children on God's timetable (no NFP and no birth control) then who on earth could afford to? It becomes an automatic assumption that too closely spaced births is a financial burden (which is the ABC'ers automatic assumption). And it becomes an automatic assumption that older women have increased health risks and risks of problems to the child. Automatic assumptions that going over a particular number of children is irresponsible.

It seems that you only have to be open to having some children, and open if you happen to get pregnant. Which vast majority of ABC users are open in that fashion as well. (And where does this idea that ABC absolutely "prevents" pregnancy but NFP doesn't come from? ... all three of my kids born while using contraceptives, many women on the pill have kids while on the pill.). I don't know if that being open to having some children is really enforced, I know a case where the couple was married Catholic but no intention of having children ... maybe they were never asked - I just know they were married in the Catholic church and the husband never ever intends to have children, and he has held that view as long as I have known him, since high school.

I find the issues involved very confusing myself ... so you're not alone on that.

Marcia

 

[geocajun]

Geocajun:

Nice post. Really. Clear, Concise. Compact. Convincing. No condescension or condemnation. (No alluring alliteration either, but that’s alright)

I’ve seen so little of this kind of post on this subject. Thank you

Thanks! Malachi, Rising Sun's and others already gave you the allure. I am just giving the dry stuff

My contention is that Catholic couples, who live by the wits just like everyone else, have made the observations and made their decisions and no amount of scholarly teaching can change the minds.

that is called being Obstinant - when someone holds to a certain opinion in spite of reason.

CCC-1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

Engaged couples are often told that artificial contraception is a mortal sin, even when it is obvious that there are thousands and thousands of Catholic couples using artificial contraception who evidence none of the consequences of mortal sin (destruction of the personality, alienation, lack of reverence, etc.).

This goes back to the requirements for a sin to be mortal. If they do not know any better then they are not guilty. Its when people do know better and still defy God's will that they will no doubt show the signs you mention.

Although Church teaching on artificial contraception is highly inflexible, the Church is just as adamant in insisting on the duty of people to act according to their conscience (see #1777-1802 of the The Catechism of the Catholic Church). You may not agree, and tell ABCers that they are deluding their conscience, or that they must comply with Church teaching anyway.

No doubt we will all be judged on how we follow our conscience - but we will also be judged on how we form our conscience.
Keep in mind that erroneous judgement does not always free us from the guilt of sin.

CCC-1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

CCC-1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

I am sorry, but I’m willing to let them make their decision before God about how they should act in this area of their lives. And it is my contention that they’re going to do so anyway.

And I will continue to tell the authentic teachings of the Church.
We can not deny anyone free will, but we aren't loving them if we are holding back the truth.

We have to assume the good-will and integrity of couples in all of this. There are no objective criteria for establishing what constitutes the unitive good in a couples' sexual relationship, and so only the couple can decide this for themselves.

again, regardless of intention or circumstance, contraception is always morally disordered.

CCC-2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

And lets remember unity is just as much a part of the reverence of conjugal relations a reproduction.

right, and they are inseperable.

This decision ought to be the outcome of prayer, discussion, reflection on experience, and, of course, reflection on the Church's teachings. But the decision should be the couples.

This is objective teaching - not a prudential judgement on the part of the Church and the couple.
As I stated before, this teaching is not simply the Church's opinion on the matter. This is objective and universal.

If anything I hope I have helped improve your understanding of the Church's teaching on this subject.

 

[Benedicta00]

Marcia,

I think you hit the nail a little bit. It is not that we must have babies every year but we can not be closed off to allowing God that option.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

Well, thanks everyone for your answers.

I guess I'll be making a trip to confession tommarow to talk to my priest about it.

 

[marciadietrich]

Marcia,

I think you hit the nail a little bit. It is not that we must have babies every year but we can not be closed off to allowing God that option.

Hi Michelle, glad I am hitting the nail somewhat, instead of always hitting my thumb!

Marcia

 

[Benedicta00]

Well, thanks everyone for your answers.

I guess I'll be making a trip to confession tommarow to talk to my priest about it.

That is the best thing you can do.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Thanks! Malachi, Rising Sun's and others already gave you the allure. I am just giving the dry stuff

Actually my handle is cosmic charile, but I'm offended or anything.

that is called being Obstinant - when someone holds to a certain opinion in spite of reason.

I'm gonna stop you right there since the majority of the rest of your post was on teaching and conscience.

I'm going to get nowhere with this post, I've tried it before and I am either not making my point or people are missing it. If your first inclination is to throw more cathecism at me, I've failed to communicate my feeling. Don't bother with the cathecism, because if you go that route I'll be leaving anyway. What the heck, in for a buck in a for bundle.

The Catholic Church has been teaching this for 30+ years. They've forciably quieted the Theological debate it caused, they stacked the deck on NFP by "hard selling" its usefulness to morality and married life (I don't mean that in a prejugative way, I just don't know how else to put it) and John Paul II just spent the last 25 years appointing bishops whose belief Humanae Vitae was unshakable. At what point does a teacher stop thinking that he is not getting his point across, that his students are obstanint, and start thinking that he has gotten this point across and a good number of his students rejects it ? The moral code is written on our souls, the intitutional church can teach what it likes, but if it is contray to the conscience of a large number of the faithful, the church as a whole needs come together to find out where we got off track.

Couples living in the sarcrement of marriage, having to operate a sexual relationship with a spouse every day, these are people who have knowledge and expertise on this subject, but they seem to be the only people the Church doesn't want to hear from. The most likely thing a couple is will hear from a a priest if the want to talk about any issues they have with NFP is: "you are just weak, you are not trying hard enough, ABC puts a barrier between you and God".

I don't know. You want to recite chapter and verse on my duty to follow the church's teachiing (Which is cool).

I still the on honest, open minded question about Humanae Vitae:

From a moral standpoint explain to me why timing conjugal relations is not a barrier to conception. (Don't start, I only asked the question so you'd know what it was)
Until I get an answer, I'm not buying the rest of the argurmentation pretaining the the immorality of ABC. (You ain't obstanint if no one ever gives you an on point, coherent line of reasoning and I haven't found one in 12 years of looking.)

And between where you are and where I am there are thousands and thousands of couples who haven't done the research I have but have a nagging feeling that their is something wrong with what they are taught on this subject.

You say they just need to taught more. I say they learned and what they were taught makes no sense to their conscience. The institutional church is entrenching itself on this. The faithful are rebeling by (and this is very unfortunate) ignoring most or all of the churchs sexual policies because they see this one being forced on them. The institutional church and the faithful each have some say in what is morality is and it is not. They form one body. This can't can't be good. And I am genunely fearful as to where where it will end.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Cat59]

[/font]




You say they just need to taught more. I say they learned and what they were taught makes no sense to their conscience. The institutional church is entrenching itself on this. The faithful are rebeling by (and this is very unfortunate) ignoring most or all of the churchs sexual policies because they see this one being forced on them. The institutional church and the faithful each have some say in what is morality is and it is not. They form one body. This can't can't be good. And I am genunely fearful as to where where it will end.

What do you think would be the consequences both adverse and favourable if the church was to change her position and say that barrier methods of contraception were OK?

 

[Benedicta00]

From a moral standpoint explain to me why timing conjugal relations is not a barrier to conception.

It is, who said here that it wasn't? What makes someone guilty of contraception is their mentality, not the means so much but there are some means that are just plain evil in it’s design and is a mortal sin to partake in if you know better.

But NFP is a morally acceptable because it does not change the biology of a female nor does it say, something physical during the act must change because of the way you are made. The sin is trying to alter the act or trying to change the biology of the female. If you abstain, you can alter a act that you do not partake in.

Please tell me you get that? Maybe because you are not a female, you don't see that barrier methods tell women just as ABC pills do that she must not be who she is and something has to be “done” to change her. Abstinence tells a women that she is not the one who has to change or that because of her, the act must change. She is respected.

Please tell me what I failed to comprehend, what is so wrong with just abstaining during the infertile times?

And I’ll tell you personally, condemns do not have a good enough effect rate and with drawl certainly don't, so why advocate it?

 

[Benedicta00]

What do you think would be the consequences both adverse and favourable if the church was to change her position and say that barrier methods of contraception were OK?

More pregnancies, because they do not work. Now if the Church’s plan was to really have Catholics, have babies until they couldn’t anymore then that would be the plan, let them contracept using barrier methods.

 

[MariaRegina]

More pregnancies, because they do not work. Now if the Church’s plan was to really have Catholics, have babies until they couldn’t anymore then that would be the plan, let them contracept using barrier methods.

How true Michelle!

Going back to barrier methods --

The problem with barrier methods is the use of spermicides which are often incorporated into the barriers. Couldn't the use of spermicides cause birth defects? How do we know the full impact of these chemicals? Even the barrier methods themselves are loaded with unnatural chemicals to make them and package them.

Why do we make war against God's plan for our salvation by using ABC's?

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

What do you think would be the consequences both adverse and favourable if the church was to change her position and say that barrier methods of contraception were OK?

The institutional church would have to admit to a mistake in the reasoning and interpretation of Natural Law in Humaniae Vitae, and this mistake cascaded through to all the church thinking on human sexuality since then. Since the major issues with Humanae Vitae relate specifically to the morallty of non-abortive artifical birth control methods vs. NFP the whole area of sexual chasity could remain in intact. But, the unity/procreative bond during every act of conjugal love would, likely, have to be modified. The princes of the church HATE doing this because it breaks the continuity of thinking and raises questions as to the chruch's authority.

The church could probably still push NFP, it has some objective advantages, but that faithful would then be free to make their own decision as to birth control within the frame work of some moral guidelines, rather than a strict set of rules.

Condom usage as a means of steming the spread of disease becames a less loaded debate.

I think the faithful would have to then take another look at the church stand of sexual relations in the new light of the churchs change on its stand of birth control. This is area the the faithful really should really consider again with a open heart. I think this is a good thing since as long as the faithful and the institutional church are deadlocked on this one issue, the rest the teachings are not going to be getting the attention they deserve.

If we stay this way, each side convinced they are right, we will fracture the church. The intitutional church will become frustrated with the faithful and the faithful will become alienated from Rome. This last time this happened Luther felt compelled to nail thesis' to a chruch door.

...And we all know how painful that can be.