or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Catholic Church and Birth Control
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Catholic Church and Birth Control - Page 5

post #81 of 220
Bluegoat, I think you explained it well, although I did have to wrap my head around a few things. It ulitmately comes down to couples acknowledging and respecting abstinence, which is unheard of in popular culture. Am I correct?
post #82 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by xekomaya View Post
Also about allowable sex acts. The CC does not have that particular view of the purpose of marriage & sex as an outlet for sexual drive. I believe the Orthodox Church views this as one of 4 purposes of marriage, CC only has 3. We're all about chastity, even in marriage
True, the Orthodox Church does see sex within marriage as valuable in and of itself. We have periods of abstinence associated with fasting, but fewer restrictions on marital sex during non-fasting periods. This would explain a lot about the difference in outlook between those two churches.
post #83 of 220
However. in the OC, if we were to observe the fast strictly we would not have sex for a full half the year already. Also things like viagra are technically against church teaching (I forgot where io read that) but it said when that time comes your raltionship has changed and it is time to take it a new place. a place relationship natrually went years before but now seldom do. they do view abstinence as a blessing as it provides more time focused on prayer. So while it is valuble to the marriage (but I think this is tied into the spiritual emotional goodness of being willing to commit to concieving a child with your spouse) it is by no means allowed to rule it, nor is it ever completely seperated from propcreation since the official teaching is against ABC.
post #84 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyka View Post
However. in the OC, if we were to observe the fast strictly we would not have sex for a full half the year already. Also things like viagra are technically against church teaching (I forgot where io read that) but it said when that time comes your raltionship has changed and it is time to take it a new place. a place relationship natrually went years before but now seldom do. they do view abstinence as a blessing as it provides more time focused on prayer. So while it is valuble to the marriage (but I think this is tied into the spiritual emotional goodness of being willing to commit to concieving a child with your spouse) it is by no means allowed to rule it, nor is it ever completely seperated from propcreation since the official teaching is against ABC.
I suspect part of the difference between the CC and Orthodox views may relate to the view of where sex comes from. In both cases it is considered natural and a kind of good.

But generally, (and there is overlap) the CC tends to take the view that sexual reproduction was always part of the plan, even before the Fall. Whereas many of the Orthodox theologians have taken the POV that although their would have been marriage before the Fall, there would not have been sexual reproduction. (As I said, this isn't a perfect split and both views are represented by theologians on both sides, but this seems to be the tendency in my observation.)

What this means in the CC view is that sex is in a way a more integral part of marriage, and it is indeed tied very closely with procreation by it's very nature. But for the Orthodox, although it is true that that is the case for us in our current situation (which is significant) theoretically marriage and procreation are not tied quite as closely. This leaves both more room for the possibility of marriage without sex, and sex without procreation, if those things are seen to really and legitimately further the true nature of marriage, which is a primarily spiritual union. (THough in practice, it could easily turn out that ABC was never actually appropriate even from an Orthodox POV.)

However, that is just my thought about it the reason for the difference, I haven't actually read it anywhere, so I could be way off in left field.
post #85 of 220
OK, so I have heard in this post that having a vasectomy would be his sin, not mine. However, if you know he has had a vasectomy, the sex is no longer "open to procreation" wouldn't that also be considered illicit?
post #86 of 220
actually a vas is not 100%. As long as you are still open to the possiblity of life you would be just fine.

I had to really focus on the fact that it was at least possible.
post #87 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamabadger View Post

Can you (general you) see why this might seem odd? Married couples can only engage in sex which is likely to produce a pregnancy; but they may do so at times chosen to reduce the chance of pregnancy.

The very strict limitations on allowable sex acts also seems to contradict one of the purposes of marriage, which is to allow a legitimate sexual "outlet" - because it is "better to marry than to burn" and so forth - but I suppose that is a different topic.
I addressed this in my previous post, which I know was very long so perhaps you didn't see the points I made or just didn't find them convincing?

Here:

Quote:
When people compare NFP to artificial birth control they are missing the point of it all. NFP demands that couples be aware of the life bringing potential of sexual intercourse and if they cannot (for hopefully a grave reason) be open to welcoming a child then they just do not engage in sex together during the suspected fertile period. That is a very different thing from knowing you are fertile, not wanting to be responsible for the natural consequence of that fertility and just strapping on a condom and having fun anyway. It requires a lot of self control on the part of both partners, excellent communication and a willing heart.
I can clearly see a difference between NFP and artificial birth control. The Church does support a whole, pleasurable sexual relationship between a husband and wife - from what I understand procreation isn't more important than emotional unity and physical pleasure but they are all entwined as aspects that make sexual act a complete one and if any one of them is removed then the sex isn't as God intended it to be for humans.

Really, Theology of the Body is a great resource for those who want to understand the sexual theology of the human body from a CC stance better.
post #88 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by anj_rn View Post
OK, so I have heard in this post that having a vasectomy would be his sin, not mine. However, if you know he has had a vasectomy, the sex is no longer "open to procreation" wouldn't that also be considered illicit?
I did a general search on Catholic Answers in their Apologists forum for "vasectomy" and lots of threads with specific questions and answers popped up:

http://forums.catholic.com/search.php?searchid=5789166

and here is one for the search term "birth control":

http://forums.catholic.com/search.php?searchid=5789178

I am posting these links because different readers of this thread may have varying specific questions in regards to the CC and contraception. There is a good chance that their specific question will be addressed in one of these links.
post #89 of 220
I read an analogy for the difference between ABC and NFP recently by Christopher West in the most recent Family Foundations magazine. He asks what's the difference between using ABC and waiting until you are naturally infertile to have sex? The result is the same, since you have sex and you do not get pregnant. He compares that to the question, what's the difference between killing Grandma now and just waiting for her to die naturally? The result is the same, Grandma is dead.

Bluegoat, your explanation was beautiful. I just wanted to add that an important element is cooperating with the way that God created our bodies to be. Thus, TTA with NFP for less than selfless reasons is not a mortal sin. ABC in the same circumstances is.
post #90 of 220
I found this link on another thread and thought it might be interesting here.

http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/...l.asp?ID=39011
post #91 of 220
I just wanted to say that it is possible to be catholic and not follow every single believe of the church, I am Catholic is the religion I was born with, the church is my home, yet I'm pro-choice and use ABC. No one has kicked me out of the CC yet.
post #92 of 220
I think I should just wait for Bluegoat to makes posts in these types of threads before I reply. She always writes very clearly and succinctly. The best CC "apologist" at MDC is an Anglican, the irony is not lost on me.
post #93 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbeau View Post
I think I should just wait for Bluegoat to makes posts in these types of threads before I reply. She always writes very clearly and succinctly. The best CC "apologist" at MDC is an Anglican, the irony is not lost on me.


It's because I went to a good Anglican university.
post #94 of 220
Please forgive me if I am out of place here, my intentions are completely to understand. I am very interested in many things everyone is saying here. I am Episcopalian and I have considered the Catholic church at various periods in my life, but due to this "issue" I do not think I will ever become Catholic. I come from a very respectful place, though.

My question is about the OP's DH. If condom use is a mortal sin on your husband's part, does that mean condemnation? If DH is not Catholic, then is it part of the Catholic belief that you will still be with your husband in heaven when you both pass on? I am quite confused and would like some more information if anyone is willing to share. Again I mean no offense; I am only curious about the effects of these types of choices on the marriage.
post #95 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikelet View Post
Please forgive me if I am out of place here, my intentions are completely to understand. I am very interested in many things everyone is saying here. I am Episcopalian and I have considered the Catholic church at various periods in my life, but due to this "issue" I do not think I will ever become Catholic. I come from a very respectful place, though.

My question is about the OP's DH. If condom use is a mortal sin on your husband's part, does that mean condemnation? If DH is not Catholic, then is it part of the Catholic belief that you will still be with your husband in heaven when you both pass on? I am quite confused and would like some more information if anyone is willing to share. Again I mean no offense; I am only curious about the effects of these types of choices on the marriage.
Well, first of all, neither Catholics nor Episcopalians believe that marriage extends to Heaven, whether or not both spouses end up there.

About mortal sins. Sin always has both an objective and a subjective quality. Objectivly, Catholics consider artificial birth control to be a mortal sin, so if one died without having repented, it would be bad. However, in order to be a mortal sin in an individual case, several other things are factors. Did the person understand that it was a sin? Did the person really consent, or was he somehow unable to help himself? So it is often difficult to say in any individual case how the person stands in relation to his sins - it can even be hard at times to know how we stand in relation to our own sins. That's why God gets the final judgement.

Allowing one spouse to continue sexual relations with a contracepting spouse is not really a great situation, but it is allowed because the alternative is not really any better. It simply isn't possible to control what another person does completely, and we actually aren't supposed to do that anyway - God gives us each free will. But a marriage is something with a reality, value, and with rules of its own. Simply denying sex to the contracepting spouse is not likely to make the situation better, and could also be a betrayal of the marriage vows.

So, the CC asks that the Catholic or non-contracepting spouse inform the other partner about the "rules", indicate his or her own feelings and intentions, and not actually help or be involved with the actual use of the contraceptive. But they do not instruct the person to go against the marriage bond itself.
post #96 of 220
Springmama, it is apparent that you have been presented with and have accepted the truth that is taught by the Church, but you are having a very difficult time integrating it into your life. This difficulty has more to do with your husband’s hard heart than any deliberate obstinance on your part. This makes your challenge difficult and unfair, but it is your challenge and your eternal soul is at stake. You can not avoid this by choosing a different faith anymore than you could avoid illness by looking for a doctor who will tell you that you are healthy even if you are not. You will be judged on this and how you handle it and you will find strong allies in the Church. Complete RCIA and begin to receive the sacraments they will strengthen you. Don't give up!
post #97 of 220
I don't have anything of substance to add, I just wanted to say it's so nice to see people like cagnew and ofwait and teffer ect ( sorry if I missed anyone) posting consistantly the faithful teachings of the Church. Too often we see stuff along the lines of " you gotta do what's right for you " with regards to these issues.
post #98 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
I don't have anything of substance to add, I just wanted to say it's so nice to see people like cagnew and ofwait and teffer ect ( sorry if I missed anyone) posting consistantly the faithful teachings of the Church. Too often we see stuff along the lines of " you gotta do what's right for you " with regards to these issues.
Ah but that's the heart of being Catholic with a big C! There are rules and we follow them. It's like an athlete who wants to be in the Olympics. If you want to play in the games, you can follow the rules. If you cheat and get away with it, then it's your inner shame. If you cheat the rules and get caught, then it' a public humiliation (if the media cares enough to report, but even if not, everyone knows). Those who really want to compete play by the rules and do their best.
post #99 of 220
I appreciate this discussion ladies! I do realize that many of you are very well versed in the Church's official stance on human sexuality. I would like to respectfully state something though. Upon one's baptism, that person becomes a Catholic with all the graces associated. That person is then always a Catholic. Whether that individual chooses to comply with the Church's teachings or participate in the Church is just that: a choice.

Now that choice may certainly come with certain consequences, but the Church is clear on the issue of free will and that applies to choices about the practice of faith as well. But even Catholics departed from the faith are catholics. Once baptized, always baptized.

Of course that's not to say that those who have been baptized and have left the Church will always consider themselves that way, but if said person were to return to the Church, she would accept the individual as a lapsed Catholic, not a new convert.

I hope that makes sense to those who were wondering!
post #100 of 220
Yes, baptism leaves a permanant mark on the soul that can not be removed. That doesn't change the fact that you can excommunicate yourself from the Church by your own actions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Catholic Church and Birth Control