Skip to comments.Religious Faux Pas? Most Catholics Use Contraception
Posted on 04/14/2011 8:18:23 AM PDT by Grunthor
Catholic women overwhelmingly use birth control, despite an official ban by the church, a new study finds......
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
News like this is nothing more than stick with which to beat religious people -- "You're all hypocrites!".
I can look at anyone on the planet (definitely including myself) and say, "You really should be a better person. Why do you do the things which you know are wrong?" This is our lot in life. We try and we fail. The failure does not irrevocably condemn us. There can still be salvation.
The ban on that stuff needs to be read weekly, from every pulpit. It needs to be made clear to people that using that stuff IS a sin, and they WILL stop if they are to be good Catholics. That they need to toe the line, follow the rules, or keep the heck out of Church until they change their minds and hit the confessional.
“Rumor has it that we are all sinners”
Not sure what using a condom in and of itself has to do with sinning. Pretty sure that contraception isn’t even mentioned in the Bible.
The Church is not a cafeteria. Many are called, few are chosen.
Some increased education on how to use natural family planning methods would really help. They are far more effective than the old methods. If correctly instructed, Catholic couples would also see a wonderful improvement in their communication skills. It’s a win, win!
Such training should be a required part of marriage preparation.
Nothing unless it is used in conjunction with sex.
How are they going to hear it if they keep out of church? They just have to stop receiving. When Steve & I were doing fertility treatments, I looked for a Hispanic OB/GYN, figuring she'd be Catholic and have some respect for my faith. I did find one, who wondered why I wanted Hispanic (she was actually Filipina) till I explained. She practiced in a group of doctors, some of whom prescribed contraception, but she personally did not, and told me that she knew she could not receive if she did prescribe contraception.
It is in the Arlington Diocese.
Pretty sure you're wrong. Check up on the meaning of the word pharmakeia, often translated as "sorcery". It involved the mixing of potions, almost always for one of two purposes: either as a aphrodisiac or as a contraceptive. Pharmakeia is directly condemned in the NT.
See also Genesis 38. Notice what is specified about Onan's behavior as "wicked in God's sight".
There are good, Biblical reasons why every Christian group rejected contraception prior to 1930.
'Amazing Grace for Those Who Suffer'
Natural and Unnatural (father of 5 shocks mother of 1)
NFP It Aint Your Mommas Rhythm
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part Two [Open]
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part One [Open]
Contraception v. Natural Family Planning Part 5 of 6 [Open]
Journey to the Truth (Natural Family Planning) [Open]
Enslaving Women One Pill at a Time (Birth Control Pills and Natural Family Planning)
New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More Effective Than Contraception
Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning
Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning
Clerical Contraception (Important Read! By Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer)
(Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning
Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 25, 2004
IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)
Thanks Doc: More (and Younger) Doctors Support Natural Family Planning
Couple say Natural Family Planning strengthens marriage
Reflections: Natural family planning vs sexism
British Medical Journal: Natural Family Planning= Effective Birth Control Supported by Catholic Chrch
Natural Family Planning
“Not sure what using a condom in and of itself has to do with sinning”.
The bible says, “Be fruitful and multiply”. However, it never said to try to multiply the planet by yourself. In my Mother’s and Father’s day, the Church said to restrict the conception of children in ANY form was against the church. The bottom line is to have a lot of children, a family has to be wealthy OR live in poverty. Every single one of my Catholic women friends use some form of birth control (usually condoms) or sterilization after they had their limit.
Thats what I meant. I typed out a brain fart.
OK, that was kinda clever.
The problem with contraception is it isn’t just contracepting. The pill is an abortifacient. If the egg is fertilized, the pill prevents it from implanting and the light bleeding that is seen is the fertilized egg being aborted. The IUD does the same thing.
And other forms of BC just aren’t that effective. The Church encourages large famillies, but try enrolling a bunch of children in Catholic schools. The tuitions are exorbitant. The only options for large Catholic families that have small means is to send their children to public schools or to home school.
Did God change, or did sin?
Did God change, or did sin?
the Church is not a club, political party nor are they running some kind of popularity contest, which must have ideological purity and group consensus.
The Church is simply pointing out God’s Law as it relates to humans. We have free will. Ignore them if you wish, just know that at some point, there will be consequences.
I’d wager that 90% of Catholics use some form of artificial birth control.
The bottom line is to have a lot of children, a family has to be wealthy OR live in poverty.
What nonsense! My mother gave birth to 11 children. We were neither wealthy nor poor. (Mom didn’t work)
Campion, bless you.
You are the first person —in many years-—who I have heard refer to “pharmakeia”. Yes, it was not only an ancient contraceptive potion, but also acted as an abortifacient.
At this moment, I can’t recall where it occurs in the Epistles of Paul, but he does make a negative referral to pharmakeia.
You are right:every Christian group did reject contraception until the Lambeth Conference took place in 1930.
“See also Genesis 38. Notice what is specified about Onan’s behavior as “wicked in God’s sight”.
But we all sin every day. How many of us follow Christ’s advice to the rich man to give away all his wealth and follow him.
The great majority of Americans are wealthy is worldly terms, how many of us have given our wealth away to follow Christ?
Are we all sinning when we don’t?
Just a question.
A Doctor is free to prescribe any medication for any medical reason, which in all good conscience and within his professional judgment, is appropriate to any condition.
E.G., a woman may have irregular menstrual cycles that prevent reliable use of the "Rhythm Method." The hormonal medication's primary purpose therefore is not to prevent conception, but to regularize the cycle. The prevention of pregnancy is an undesired effect.
The hormones in these medications often help skin conditions, arthritis, even diabetes. In each case, the primary purpose stated, would not be the prevention of conception, but the treatment of the condition for which these hormonal medications might be found useful.
This is generally called
The "secondary, or officially undesired effect, i.e., "Birth Control," unfortunately has a tertiary undesired effect. I.E., Western Christian Civilization will be overwhelmed by Muslims, many with 4 wives at a time and literally dozens (that's sets of 12) or more children.
Google the "Principle of Double Effect" and discuss amongst yourselves.
Sorry to disagree with you. I am not talking about living in luxury either. I am talking bottom line: feeding, housing, clothing of children. It is very expensive. I knew a family when I was in Catholic school that had 12 children. The children were unbelievably skinny and when not in hand me down uniforms, wore clothes that were torn, ripped, faded and ill fitted. I remember handing Rita my snack at lunch and many times sneaking in an extra sandwich. I guess this is just my life experience... I asked her once why she was so thin and she said that there wasn’t a lot of food with 12 children. My point is to behave responsibly toward society (i.e. not going on WIC, welfare, etc) then have the number of children that YOU can feed, clothe, educate etc...
The Church needs priests who will preach and teach the Catholic faith without apology. The rebellion by so many priests against Humanae Vitae set the stage for the crisis the Church is undergoing today. The idea that one can be Catholic and reject the teachings of the Church.
Richmond too, I think.
I don’t know how you can disagree with a fact. My friends in Catholic school also were from large families of at least 7 children. None of us were on the dole and none of us were starving.
What’s wrong with hand me down clothes?
True we had only 1 phone (I mean phone,not phone line) 1 TV and didn’t get cable until 1980. But we also lived in a house my parents owned with a large yard in suburban NJ. We took vacations (in shifts!) every year, went out to eat, went to the movies etc.
I guess it depends on what your priorities are.
I have no problem with your assertion that people should limit their family size based on their ability to support them.
But to say you must be wealthy or on the dole to have a large family is demonstrably false.
Well, you know, God could see how things were back in the thirties. Everyone was so poor they couldn't even afford color. Look at all those old photos everyone says are B&W. They're not, they were taken with color film but everyone was so poor they just had to go without color. God knew people would spend all of what little cash they had on contraceptives and then be hungry, so in His infinite mercy and wisdom, He just said that for the time being it was wrong.
Now, He knows things are better and everyone is more educated as well as more sophisticated due to how easy it is to be informed, so sure, God changed. But He didn't really change, H just waited until we were better off and had the free time to really enjoy contraception then opened the eyes of all those people who interpret the Word for themselves and showed them that contraception is just fine.
The study was done by the abortion lackey Guttmacher.
The only reason that the girl I knew went to a Catholic school was (in those days ) Catholic schools stopped charging tuition after a number of children attended. If memory serves me, the family paid three tuitions and the other 9 went free. That being said, nothing is wrong with hand me down. Something is wrong, however, with wearing rags. Nothing is wrong with being thin, however, something is wrong with not being able to afford food for a brood. It all comes down to what you make, if you want both parents to work, if you want to educate your children (private school or college), and what type of life you want for them. However, I do have an issue with some people saying that limiting a family size is equated with sin.
My great-aunt heard this story and told my MIL that it was "easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission". My great-aunt simply used birth control and asked for forgiveness when she went to confession.
I applaud your MIL. However, it seems that many front row Catholics would throw the first stone at her. IMHO.
Those “contraceptive” potions were really abortion potions. Clearly a wrong. When did effective barrier methods/surgical sterilization become viable? Sometime around 1930? I don’t have a problem with barrier method contraception - after all I worship a God who isn’t stopped by things like condoms. But anything that deliberately kills a child as its operation method is not ok.
Medical knowledge changed in that we now know that Fathers are not the generators of life, as was the understanding until the mid-1800’s. Contraception does not necessarily kill. Sterilization and barrier methods destroy no more lives than celibacy or NFP.
I do have an issue with some people saying that limiting a family size is equated with sin
I have the same issue! I don’t agree with the church’s BC position.
I was just saying if you have your priorities straight there is no reason you can’t have a large family without being rich or on the dole.
Some were and some weren't.
I worship a God who isnt stopped by things like condoms.
Whether he's "stopped" by them or not isn't relevant to the issue of whether they're morally permissible. He's omnipotent; he's not ultimately stopped by anything unless he chooses to be.
Birthrates of 1.3 children per woman destroy entire cultures over time.
Which is not the position of the Catholic church, unless the "limit" in question is "zero".
It was really meant as a rhetorical question. The sin is in dismembering God’s gift of sex into two separate parts of unity & procreation. I’m not any kind of a theologian; there are far better ones right here on FR (and I’m pinging one) so I understand things as analogies (the simpler the better). If someone gives you an Armani suit, you don’t say, keep the pants, I just want the jacket.
That’s why IVF is as sinful as contraception, and why I was so concerned to find a Catholic OB/GYN who would at least understand my position, even if she didn’t agree with it.
I know I’m backtracking, but you’ve got a damn fine shovel there. Big one, too.
“Not sure what using a condom in and of itself has to do with sinning.”
Nothing, although supporting a condom company by buying one may be. Also, nothing wrong with using a condom while swimming the Amazon.
If I’m understanding correctly what you mean when you post that, then I’m glad you posted that.
See, it’s one thing to recognize that we are all sinners. It’s another thing to no longer call a sin a sin.
It’s one of the few areas were conservative Protestants and liberal Catholics can usually agree.
The "wrong" of contraception is that the good gift of maritalsexual union is deliberately twisted apart or altered in order to contradict or deny one of the two God-given "ends" of marital sexual union, these two ends being Love and Life. Any act that intentionally undermines or destroys one of those ends, is by definition perverted.
That's why it is wrong to engage, even in marriage, in any act that is deliberately degrading, un-loving, perverted, or intentionally closed-off to the transmission of life. If you try to split off Life from Love or Love from Life, you are dismembering an act which was created, by God's design, to graciously revere and respect both.
It's like taking to that Armani suit with a scissors, and cutting out the butt of the pants. It would not only harm the design, it would insult the designer. Or, in the case of married love, the (capital D) Designer.
If you have an extra few minutes to read something which may make more sense of this, I invite you to try This Article (Link).
Blessings on uou!
To the point:
Any act that intentionally undermines or destroys one of those ends, ...
How is it that NFP does not fit that bill? It certainly does intentionally undermine the chance of producing life.
By your argument I shouldn’t take fertility medicine to try to conceive, either. Yet I have a feeling that a lot of people who have your point of view would look at me now, with only one child in 5 years of marriage, and assume that I’m contracepting.
NFP is periodic abstinence. It is not a sexual act altered in order to undermine procreation. A sexual act thwarting procreation, is a sexually perverse act, as in the sin of Onan. Abstinence is not a sex act at all: far less is it a sexually perverse act.
The difference betwen contraception and abstinence, is like the difference between destructive speech, and silence. A person who says something against you, is engaging in destructive speech. A person who says nothing, is simply exercising self-control in order--- in this analogy --- to avoid the wrong kind of speech.
What I like about NFP is that when you have sex, you engage in it "wholly," and when you abstain, you abstain "wholly." Both the intercourse and the abstinence are respectful of the "wholeness" and "holiness" of the act. Scripture says there is a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
And since women are designed to be periodically fertile/infertile, using the periodic ebb and flow with intelligence and grace, is respecting (not overriding) the design.
I think the patterns of women's fertility are providential, something you try to harmonize with, not somthing you try to chemically or mechanically smack down. I thank the Designer of women for the way we are designed.
There's an exciting new approach in fertility health called Napro Technology (Link) which aims for a much more profound understanding of optimal male/female health, in order to rebuild or strengthen the natural procreative function. I hope you might find this interesting,and helpful.