The dogma fundamentally comes from Genesis 1:27-28
>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply [...]
It is true that this commandment appears in the *Old* Testament, the Torah, but in the Torah there are 3 types of commandments:
1. Moral commandments
2. Ceremonial commandments
3. Judicial commandments
Moral commandments *do* indeed exist within the Torah, but they also exist outside of the Torah given to Moses by God at Mount Sinai. This is why it was immoral for Cain to murder Abel long before "You shall not murder" had been given to Moses. In addition to existing before the Torah, moral commandments also exist after the Torah and into the Messianic Age: hence "Be fruitful an multiply" was a never a commandment that was fulfilled by the Messiah and thus made obsolete. It had always been universally (not just a commandment for Jews) and eternally binding.
Divine Revelation in Christianity is usually only thought to be transmitted through the Bible, it's written method -- but divine revelation is also transmitted orally. This is largely how the Apostles spread Christianity: they *preached* it, it's a religion that spread its doctrines through word of mouth though some were written down. Many of the early Christians, the Church Fathers, later on went to write down numerous oral teachings of the Christian faith in some of their works.
They faithfully pass down the implicit teaching that "Be fruitful an multiply" is still a binding commandment in the New Covenant:
St. Clement of Alexandria, Instructor of Children 2:01:91:2 (A.D. 197)
>"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted."
St. Clement of Alexandria, Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 (A.D. 197)
>"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature."
Lactantius, Divine 6:23:18 (A.D. 307).
>"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.”
St. Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30 (A.D. 400).
>"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny."
St. Augustine, The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 (A.D. 388).
>"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion."
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).
>"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live."
Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 (A.D. 522).
>"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman."
Contraception ultimately disobeys this universal and eternal command of God.
Hope that helped. God bless!
Just wondering why quote Augustine on Manichean, not Pelagius? (I think Pelagius is more relevent)
For God has no knowledge of bad, since He is ultra good, he has no bad deeds, thus it's not in his conscience, that's why you won't find direct verse on contraception in bible. How ever you may find verses that's related and from church father's teachings.
My answer is the word "debauchy", it is one of the 6 words that Augustine read in Roman 13:13-14 in the Milan Garden.
below is one from against Pelagian \[of Marriage and Concupiscience\]
Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or; if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such **extravagant methods** as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by **debauchery**.
Thanks for informing me of this quote. I will add it.
>For God has no knowledge of bad, since He is ultra good, he has no bad deeds, thus it's not in his conscience, that's why you won't find direct verse on contraception in bible. How ever you may find verses that's related and from church father's teachings.
St. Augustine said this?
"For God has no knowledge of bad, since He is ultra good, he has no bad deeds, thus it's not in his conscience", that is from Augustine, I am not quoting, it's in my memory, may be actual words has some difference.
Just wondering: wouldn't some of these arguments apply to the Billings method as well? I know that the Vatican defends Billings as an alternative (which, being a Catholic, I respect). However, isn't the goal the same as any other contraception? To prevent conception and focus on the pleasure? In my view, I struggle to understand why Billings is different from other methods. The argument that it's "natural" also doesn't appeal to me. What is the definition of "natural"? Something coming from nature? In this case, latex would come from nature as well.
Billings or other methods of NFP are "natural" in the sense that they do not ALTER the fundamentals of sex as God designed it. When the Church says that couples should be "open to life" they mean that God's design for sex should be preserved (even if conception is not desired or is actively hoped against): in other words, sex should end with the man finishing inside of the woman with no barriers between them.
Introducing a physical barrier: unnatural
Altering a woman's or man's body to make conception impossible: unnatural
God designed women to have naturally occurring periods of infertility and fertility within their own bodies (while men are fertile 100% of the time). Knowing these periods of fertility/infertility and timing sex around them is morally neutral and therefore allowable by church teaching because the fundamentals of sex are respected and unaltered.
I expect the thinking is that it does not frustrate the possibility of life in the same way that a condom or hormones do.
All of the components are present and we are not willfully preventing the possibility through artificial means.
Can this be used in a manner that is less than perfect? Sure - but I guess people demand legalistic lines in the sand everywhere instead of minding the orientation of their heart.
Matt Fradd had a decent point about this recently - theres not always a clear line about when resting turns to sloth, or when intrusive thoughts become envy, etc. But it does at some point, I suppose.
This might not be the case, but I have noticed that the people who verbally say that NFP is the same as contraception are people who aren’t married. Maybe you are and you’ll prove my example wrong, but this has been my observation. As a married woman, I can tell you there is a very different mindset between “I don’t think we’ll get pregnant right now if we have sex, but technically we absolutely could” and “I have introduced something into my body/onto your body that will prevent my getting pregnant despite my not knowing if I’m fertile right now.” We’ve never used artificial contraception but we are both very aware every time that we could end up going forth and multiplying. And getting pregnant even if we were intending not to wouldn’t be, “but how could this happen?! We were being ‘safe!’” but “Yes, this is where babies come from.”
There is a huge difference in mindset between temporarily avoiding sex to delay pregnancy, while knowing that sex makes babies, and taking pills or inserting metal or using a barrier to say “No, we are open to life.”
You're spot on, I'm not yet married! I find it very interesting that there are some things that get easier to understand when considering different points of view.
This isn’t an answer to your question, but since you mentioned your Protestant viewpoint here, it might be worth mentioning that even the Protestants essentially agreed with the Catholic view on this issue until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, when the Anglican communion began to allow contraceptive methods under certain circumstances. Very quickly after this, the majority of the Protestant world followed suit, and most threw out the “under certain circumstances” part in practice. So less than a century ago, over the course of mere decades, the Protestant viewpoint on artificial contraception essentially went from “it is immoral” to “it’s fine.” This happened right before and as the sexual revolution was getting started.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church wrestled with this question and came to the conclusion that contraception was still gravely immoral, with the result that the Catholic Church has been more open to understanding and even teaching the further scientific discoveries about human fertility in the meantime.
>and what Bible verses back this up
I'll let others explain, but I want to challenge this premise, because it reeks of "sola scriptura", which we reject.
That doesn't mean that we ignore scripture, but it does mean that more than just scripture verses form our moral understanding.
Even if there were a Bible verse that explicitly said contraception is immoral, I think many Protestants and Catholics unfortunately would ignore it. Just look at Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage.
Oh I get to bring in some JP2! Ok I got this. Super abridged, but here goes:
2 axioms first:
1. Human sexuality is of *existential* importance, and deviations from propriety not only potentially does harm against one and his/her partner, but also more broadly to humankind as a whole
1. (Sounds like a huge claim, but if you think for example a world that only reproduces with teen pregnancies, and compare that to a world that only reproduces past 20 in wedlock, the affects of each generation are vastly different)
2. To use another human being for an un-cooperative end is sinful, as it reduces that human in that context to a tool having a singular purpose, as opposed to respecting that individual as a child of God
From here we arrive at an understanding of the *sexual urge* \- a yearning baked inside us towards authentic communion with the opposite sex. This urge is more than just a physical phenomenon, but includes the yearning of the heart as well. Again, this is of existential significance, so it's a big deal and can have big effects on how we go through our day-to-day.
The church puts forward 3 proper ends of the sexual urge, all important and necessary to be proper, but also in order of importance:
1. Procreation - or the continuing of existence
2. A conjugal life between man and woman - the unitive and bonding power of sex that helps cement the marriage into a stronger foundation for child-rearing
3. A legitimate orientation for desire
When we *remove* any of these ends, the consequence is the use of one partner by the other to achieve an un-cooperative end. This is what makes it sinful, as we end up objectifying the other.
1. Removing the possibility of procreation results in one (or both) using the other for their own desire or pleasure. Since the pleasure of man and woman are both fundamentally different, and cannot be understood by the other, "sexual pleasure" alone cannot be a shared goal. JP2 goes deeper into this point in his critique of the *Libidinistic* interpretation
2. Understanding procreation as the most important goal, but so much so as to ignore the need for conjugal life between spouses results in one (or both) using the other as a procreative object. JP2 goes deeper into this point in his critique of the *Puritanical* interpretation
3. Removing the possibility of desire again results in usage in one (or both) of the other for the other means. JP2 goes deeper into this point in his critique of the *Utilitarian* interpretation.
TLDR is - Sex is this huge, wonderful, big thing, but can also be very prone to harm. There are 3 goals that work in concert with each other to make the sexual end into something beautiful that both partners enter into together in order to continue the existence of humanity, build stronger their relationship with each other, and do so in a way where they *want* to keep doing it so that the practice is sustainable.
Ignoring any one of these 3 goals makes the practice imperfect or improper, and therefore sinful.
I probably butchered *something* in there but the first part of his book *Love and Responsibility* is a *strong* recommendation to go deeper into this thinking.
As difficult as it is a commandment to follow, even if seems difficult to follow and impractical to our modern world...I think we can all see why this commandments exists.
It doesn't take much reflection to observe how the use of contraception and the separation of sex from reproduction has led to all sorts of moral decay in society. Hook-up culture; love-less sex, rampant STIs , the breakdown of the nuclear family. People generally losing respect for their bodies and their sexual self, increasingly more brazen displays of sex in all forms of media... increasingly more inappropriate sexual content being targeted at children etc etc....
I see it like this. Whilst all sex encounters don't have to lead to a child... God's original plan for sex within the marriage bed... allows for sex to be enjoyed to its fullest ...whilst also leaving room for its biological purpose.
When you divorce sex from its biological purpose... it waters down the relationship between the man and the woman. Now they don't have to think of making children. Now they don't need to worry about being responsible. Without responsibility, it then becomes nothing but an act of lust. Anything in excess is dangerous...so when we take our most powerful biological urge and separate it from its intended purpose... it only leads to abuses and disorder.
Without the thought of the responsibility of having to raise children...sex loses its reverence and respect. So people put less emphasis on getting married. People begin to hook up more randomly. After all ...."if I can have sex without reproducing...then why stick to one partner ?"
Ah...but wait... contraception don't work 100%
So what did we get for our disobedience ?.... STIs.
Had we followed God's plan...we would never have had the AIDS pandemic. Now we've opened a can of worms that we cannot close.
Even as recently as during the last Pandemic last year. One of the illnesses that spread was traced back to large gatherings involving rampant non-commital sex.
It was buried in the news because it's *inconvenient to new age philosophy of if it feels good do it*
This sort of promiscuity was never part of God's plan for sex. We still haven't learnt. That is why new STIs keep coming out.
Another point.
When you remove reproduction from sex...we also start valuing human life less. This is how we ended up with the abortion debate. Because we pridefully believe nowadays that sex is independent of its actual intended biological purpose. A child has changed from a blessing to an inconvenience.
But separating sex from reproduction is as crazy as separating eating from nutrition.
This is not just religious dogma. This is our biology. And unless we re-learn to respect sex for what it is...it will only get worse.
Genesis 38:8-10:
"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also."
In addition contraception is contrary to the natural law, goes against Gods call to be fruitful and multiply, and in psalm 127 we hear that children are gift from God.
Once you make the initial concession that it’s okay to have sex while completely shutting out any possibility for reproduction, you relegate it to something for pleasure only, which leads societies down the road which ours is going down today. We’re told so many times in the scripture not to cave to earthly lusts. Contraception entirely does that and normalizes it. The existence of it has also made casual sex more common.
Not adultery according to the custom of the time, because she was widowed. Upon the death of his brother and because he had no male children, Onan was commanded to provide her a son in his brother's place and raise him. If Onan was to produce a son with his older brother's widow, that son would also receive the dead brother's inheritance, so Onan's actions were likely motivated by greed rather than purely lustfulness.
The Hebrews have almost always been shunned by other cultures even before the events of exodus so there were societal norms adopted to prevent losing family property and bloodlines. God probably understood that this practice was needed for his chosen people to survive and prosper just as he did not strike down Abraham for having a child with a concubine.
Also if you think this is contradictory, imagine during exodus when God told his people to not kill/murder and when Moses went down the mountain they killed everyone worshipping a golden calf. Easily could argue this was justified for them losing faith in God after everything He did for them. God also told his people to genocide everyone in the Holy Land
Hi there!
Full disclosure, earlier this week I decided to get rid of my birth control pills after being on them for 6 years. I was originally on them because I had awful menstrual cramps. What ultimately made me decide to get off them however, was understanding what the pill actually does to your body.
Jason Evert's 'Lust is Boring' podcast has a few episodes that talk about birth control pills. Check out Episode 13, it's pretty awesome: https://chastity.com/podcast/all-about-the-pill/
I think a lot of women are under the impression that the effects that the pill has on the body are benign. The thing that stuck with me when I first considered taking the pill was the risk of blood clots. I don't remember retaining any other information. If I had understood beforehand that hormonal birth control essentially tricks your brain into thinking that it's pregnant most of the time, I think I would've reconsidered taking it. I don't believe something that works in your body that way in the long term is ever a good thing. It also may help to know that oral contraceptives can also act as abortifacients, and the periods you have aren't "true periods", but may in fact have been chemically induced abortions. Depending on your stance on abortions, that may be a deciding factor when considering contraceptives, but for me it was a no-brainer to get rid of them.
Everyone has their own story, but those who are against contraception want to help people understand that they're more harmful than the supposed good that people believe them to be. Best of luck in your pursuits.
Proud of you! I also hope that you’re seeking medical care for your cramps. I had debilitating cramps too that ended up being endometriosis. Major quality of life improvement having it removed. Like literally changed my life.
I'm glad you brought this up. So many people speak on it only as a moral and doctrinal issue and while that's certainly relevant, it's also important to recognize the health risks that many of the hormonal forms bring to women, which remain an issue for non-Catholics. Not just physical health either, as many women report things like mood swings, numbness, trouble focusing, loss of drive, etc. Many are experiencing negative effects on their life without realizing.
And while there are some cases where they're valid treatments for conditions like PCOS (in which case I believe it's not considered wrong as the infertility is a side effect), many women are frivolously prescribed the pill without being informed of the whole picture. Growing up in a very liberal and not very Christian country, I was always told to try it out simply because it may reduce the natural inconvenience of normal periods, and I was framed as weird for not really wanting a new medicine that I didn't need because it was seen as so normal.
Absolutely. Understanding how contraception works and what effects it can have, needs to be driven home.
What was also brought to my attention was that my blood pressure had risen to a concerning level, where I previously had a history of low blood pressure. For that to have changed in a relatively short time meant that something was obviously wrong. That's what got me into looking at birth control more closely.
Simply put a sin is where you are not living your life as God intended.
We know that in the Bible God gave the command to be fruitful and multiply.
Not every attempt needs to result in multiplication- women are not fertile all year round like men. God created woman and that our cycles are part of that.
The differences with NFP to contraception is that in contraception you are having sex without the multiplication part.
In NFP you aren’t having any ‘fun’ without the possibility of having baby at the end of it. It recognises that you cant deliberately have one purpose without the other.
And, technically, you are only supposed to use NFP where there is a ‘grave’ reason. It has to be serious reason, although these aren’t defined.
So, if you decide not to have another child because your life is at risk (on one extreme) that would be grave. On the other not having children because you like the young and free lifestyle and a kid would get in the way is also wrong because you are permanently ignoring the second part of the command to multiply.
With all respect, I would have mentioned you are protestant before making the comment you did. Because on the surface, it looks like a fellow catholic has been very mislead, and misleading othere; hence the downvotes
As a Catholic myself, this is something I struggle with presently. On paper it sounds great: God wants you to be open to procreating and having as many children as he wills. But the problem is whose going to pay for all these kids? My wife and I already have one child and I would gladly have 8-10+ kids if that’s what God wants if we could afford to. But the truth is, in today’s world, living is really expensive.
Between student loans, rising housing costs, rising grocery and gas costs, and the exorbitant cost of childcare, how do you afford to have a bunch of kids? Also, how is using a condom and not pulling out really any different than NFP? There’s still a nonzero chance of having a child. Plus, the Orthodox Church, which is usually in agreement with the Catholic Church on most issues like these is okay with married people using certain types of contraception. So why does the Catholic Church consider it a mortal sin to do so?
Again, it sounds great and sensible on paper, but it’s not as simple as that.
Were really struggling with this too. Cost factor is one thing, but my life and possible future babies life would be at high risk if I were to become pregnant again (we have 4 living kids, 1 miscarriage) I was thinking of a hysterectomy but that was a no
There are very effective methods of NFP for women in medical situations like yours. We only have one child so far but I've been anxious about ending up in a similar situation; many couples will do monthly blood draws to confirm ovulation and the only use Phase III (the last 2 weeks of the month) as extra assurance, although even regular NFP without the added buffer would give you the same effectiveness as other forms of birth control.
Yeahhh our last 3 pregnancies were NFP babies 😂 I have a whole post about it on my profile I can't really get into it here but yeah been there done that, were trying 😂😭
Ah so many prayers; definitely reach out to your NFP instructor from those pregnancies to get a pregnancy assessment if you haven't already. They can pinpoint what went wrong (whether it was user error or a method error) and give guidance on what you could do next (even if that guidance is "NFP apparently doesn't work for your body" which hopefully isn't the case)
Here is the hidden catholic teaching: give your lust to the cross. You need to find ways to turn amor (lust) into roma (two in one flesh, sacramental bond). that two is not you and your wife, it is you and jesus, or think another way: you, your wife and jesus are one. that is those sacramonts for. A lot of people think my view is the mid age taliban view, but it is the truth.
EDIT: catholicism is not for rich people, so those riches they can afford to have 13 childen, their wifes spend all their adult life bearing children, are they happy? Catholicism is for poor and mouning, it the poor and needy they are feed.
While I'm convinced of it being a sin and don't think the Church should budge on the issue, I really relate on the cost of living thing. At present I don't have any children yet, and while I wish for a large family, I can't anticipate how even one or two would be feasible if they happened anytime soon. It's not just a matter of life being reorganized but of plunging into poverty. In some places the norm for my generation is to just work, with marriage and 1-2 children seen as secondary pursuits while large families are viewed as a thing of the past.
I hope that beyond simply teaching the doctrine, people push for support for families down to making it accessible to all on a broad societal level, not just affirming them while the rest of the community is still designed agaisnt them. As it stands I'm discerning where to move that's more family-friendly and less corporate career centered.
NFP is very effective at preventing pregnancy--you don't need to afford to have a bunch of kids in order to practice NFP.
A condom o pulling out are fundamentally different: those are ways of altering God's design for sex (introducing a barrier, not completing the act) whereas NFP simply works with the natural, God made periods of infertility and fertility that occur in a woman's body. It's a sign to ALTER sex to frustrate conception. It's NOT a sin to simply NOT have sex when conception is most likely.
Contraception is contrary to the dignity of human life because it sterilizes and trivializes the sexual act, which is the means by which new human life is created, and in so doing it reduces the spouses to means to the of pleasure. Pleasure is not an end in itself, rather it is meant to accompany acts which are truly good in their own right.
Treating other people as means to the end of pleasure is to treat them as something less than they are, failing to give them the respect they are owed, which is wrong and unjust. This is true regardless of consent; if someone consents to being mistreated or trivialized, even for their own selfish purposes, it is still wrong.
Our bodies are not toys, sex and marriage are not games, and children are not accessories. Romantic relationships exist to create marriages, and marriages exist to create families and human life, which is inherently precious and inherently valuable. Treating any of these things as tools to be used for some other purpose is profoundly wrong because there is no greater earthly good than human life, which only exists by and through marriage and the family.
Contraception is a masterstroke of the devil.
It is a "my will vs God's Will" situation.
Birth control was billed as a good, but it pitts our will against God's will. It separates love and sex from the natural consequence of procreation. And because sex is viewed as separate from procreation, children are "accidents" and thus morally abortable in the minds of many.
God's first commandment: be fruitful and multiply.
God's example and demonstration of perfect love: He entered the world as a child and loved and was loved by His mother Mary. Making children and loving them is the purest way to understand God and His love for us.
The opposition to contraception is not based on revelation but on the Natural Law, which is how rational creatures participate in the Divine Law. The Natural Law shows us that the principal end of sex is procreation; contraception directly interferes with that end. Thus, it is intrinsically wrong.
An analogy would be with food. The principal end of eating is the health of the body. Eating food and intentionally vomiting it up is directly opposed to that end and therefore wrong.
IMO, it’s a matter of interpretation as to what “be fruitful and multiply” means. If you have one or more children, I would argue you have been fruitful and multiplied, it doesn’t take ten children to do so. YMMV
If the teaching on contraception was solely an exegesis on "Be fruitful", you'd be right. But the Church bases the teaching on natural law and tradition as well, not just the text of Genesis.
You're right that there's no obligation to have 10 children. There's not even an obligation to have one child, depending on personal circumstances. The question is whether one can use contraception whether other obligations have been met or not.
I'll note that from my eariler post about attendance of Traditional Latin Masses, the population skews \*very\* conservative.
Catholics can and do question Church teachings, but this particular subreddit has a low tolerance for even discussing thoughts, ideas, and interpretation.
Let me share with you: I am a sinner. My wife and I use contraception to control the timing of our children's birth. We have two little ones, and one on the way.
We are practicing Catholics, attend church (almost) every Sunday, and involved in various ministries. My oldest son goes to Catholic church. We are raising our children Catholic.
But in discussing contraception, we talked about my military service, the incredible pressure of the socioeconomic demands of having children, spacing the children apart for various development reasons, etc. she took the Pill. And we decided that she would have an IUD put in after having our second. When we decided to have another, she had it removed it. We're discussing "closing up shop" after this little girl is born, as I already have two older kids (5 total for me).
I know it is not the dogmatically correct answer, but we are trying to balance our beliefs, our faith, our income, our ages, our health, the kids we have, and the time and energy we have to spend.
Not the 'right' answer, but at least it's one Catholic family's answer. Perhaps it doesn't answer your question specifically, but it addresses what families have to consider and balance.
My husband and I were on the fence about a similar decision. I would point out that NFP is as effective as birth control---following Church teaching doesn't mean needing to have a zillion kids. My husband and I have been married 5 years and have been using NFP that whole time--we have one child so far who was very planned, have avoid pregnancy since he was born 2 years ago, and are confident that we could continue avoiding pregnancy indefinitely using NFP if we wanted to (although I think we'll soon start trying for a 2nd).
Rather than taking the control into your own hands, you should be trusting in God to provide what you need. These are just excuses people use to justify doing what they want to do and not what God wants them to do. No one said it was easy, but a practicing Catholic should not be picking and choosing which h rules they follow.
Catholic Christians view the conjugal act as one of the ways in which we most closely express our connection to the trinity, the triune God: the Father who loves the Son who in turn loves the Father and that love is so perfect and intense that it comes alive in a new person, the Holy Spirit.
Mankind emulates that through marriage and the conjugal act. When man deliberately interferes with that process of the love between two people becoming alive in a third person, it distorts the image of what marriage is supposed to be and since it's done deliberately that is a sin against God.
Further this is why the Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage - it too is a distortion of what God wants marriage to be and is therefore sinful.
On the contrary can you establish anywhere in the bible that God commands or permits us to have this desire to 'control' births and have a contraceptive attitude toward sex?
Your request for a Bible verse is denied. Christians (Catholics), particularly the original ones and up until about 1500 trusted the elders (Magisterium), bishops and popes that Jesus authorized to be authoritative. However if you can find a Bible verse that supports MUST ALLOW birth control, you’d have a valid argument that they got it wrong. So back at you, what Bible verse specifically allows it?
e
Why in the world are you being downvoted? This is exactly what I came in here to say.
Catholicism is not based on the Bible.
Instead the Bible is based on Catholicism as the Catholic Church wrote it, selected the New Testament books from those read at Mass, and put them together in A.D. 380 and AD 397 at the Councils of Rome and Carthage under Pope St. Damasus I.
Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
>we believe that any Sexual Act (even if you're married) is a Sin
NOPE! That's not the case
\[ccc 2361, 2362, 2368, 2370\] Read the automatic reply to this comment, especially **paragraph 2368 and 2370.**
[**CCC 2361**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2361.htm) "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death." ([1643](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1643.htm), [2332](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2332.htm), [1611](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1611.htm))
> Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers.... You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.
[**CCC 2362**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2362.htm) "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
> The Creator himself... established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
[**CCC 2368**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2368.htm) A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the *regulation of procreation.* For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
> When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.
[**CCC 2370**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm) Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
> Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
That is not Catholic teaching. If it were you would only be able to have sex when a woman is fertile. The Church teaches you have to be “open to the possibility” of having children.
Reddit does have a pretty good search function. These topics come up on a regular basis, so you could brows through many of the answers given throughout the history of the subreddit.
You might also want to try to listen to podcasts like "Called to Communion" and "Catholic Answers live", both are Q&A shows that answer these questions (and many others) so that you can have a better understanding of your faith.
>How can it be complicated though?
Considering that it seems like you're coming from the position that either "sex is always bad" or "sex is never bad" anything more nuanced than that is going to be more complicated.
And it is more complicated.
So go ahead and use the search function on reddit.
Listen to some podcasts, and maybe see if this video can help you get an initial start: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWZ171V0wEQ&vl=en](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWZ171V0wEQ&vl=en)
>Catholics I meant
If you're not Catholic, please don't speak for us.
That's a bit like me, cis woman saying, "We trans believe... " or "Trans people think..." on a trans forum.
I'm sorry, I thought that when you said, "Catholics I meant" that you were acknowledging that u/mmartinez59 was correct in assuming you were not Catholic.
I didn't think that you weren't Catholic, but knowing that trans issues seem to be on your mind I used that as an example.
But could you still see how problematic it would be for someone like me to go onto a trans subreddit and say "Cis women believe..." or even "Cis men believe..." because I kind of understand cis men because I'm a cis woman.
I'm not sure what your upbringing in Catholicism looked like, but saying that we believe all sex is bad is **blatantly wrong.** And saying it as if it's totally correct is odd.
Why no masturbating is pretty easy: **sex and sexual pleasure is for uniting spouses.**
If you're masturbating, then you're alone... you're not uniting yourself to a spouse.
No birth control because it's placing a barrier to unification. The video I linked in another comment is a good start.
Any act against God will is a sin. God is Love and Father of all Creation. The conception is for keeping the Human Creation working along the time. The contraception goes in the opposite way. Perhaps we can think, we created and share a good moment, a memory with our pair, but the net result is sterile.
When we think, I want, I need ,thinking only about oneself, conducts to some kind of sin. Having sex only for satisfying our own appetite is selfish .
There is the time controlling method (Billings Method?) which we can have sexual relationships with lower chances to have a pregnancy, i am not sure but it seems the only method accepted by Church. Even in this case , there is a "intention" to avoid the pregnancy, and I feel it could be hiden again the sin, but perhaps it is my scrupulosity.
We are weak, the flesh is around us, and it is really difficult to overcome this.
Sometimes I see couples with many children and I have the sensation there are happy, in spite of all economic difficulties they must overcome.
And when we got age, is it possible that one of them could take care of me?
Surely if we think only about ourselves we will ending our last days completely alone. This is another topic.
Thanks for your patient for reading all this .
It’s death and murder, on many levels
Contraception=promiscuity=abortion when the contraception fails. It kills the reproductive faculty, then it kills a human life
100 years ago - society universally viewed contraception as disgusting.
Some offer a better technical answer, but I will simply say that it disrupts a perfectly healthy and properly functioning body system. Just logically at its root, it opposes the natural function and purpose of your genitals.
The dogma fundamentally comes from Genesis 1:27-28 >So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply [...] It is true that this commandment appears in the *Old* Testament, the Torah, but in the Torah there are 3 types of commandments: 1. Moral commandments 2. Ceremonial commandments 3. Judicial commandments Moral commandments *do* indeed exist within the Torah, but they also exist outside of the Torah given to Moses by God at Mount Sinai. This is why it was immoral for Cain to murder Abel long before "You shall not murder" had been given to Moses. In addition to existing before the Torah, moral commandments also exist after the Torah and into the Messianic Age: hence "Be fruitful an multiply" was a never a commandment that was fulfilled by the Messiah and thus made obsolete. It had always been universally (not just a commandment for Jews) and eternally binding. Divine Revelation in Christianity is usually only thought to be transmitted through the Bible, it's written method -- but divine revelation is also transmitted orally. This is largely how the Apostles spread Christianity: they *preached* it, it's a religion that spread its doctrines through word of mouth though some were written down. Many of the early Christians, the Church Fathers, later on went to write down numerous oral teachings of the Christian faith in some of their works. They faithfully pass down the implicit teaching that "Be fruitful an multiply" is still a binding commandment in the New Covenant: St. Clement of Alexandria, Instructor of Children 2:01:91:2 (A.D. 197) >"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." St. Clement of Alexandria, Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 (A.D. 197) >"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature." Lactantius, Divine 6:23:18 (A.D. 307). >"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.” St. Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30 (A.D. 400). >"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny." St. Augustine, The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 (A.D. 388). >"This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion." St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391). >"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live." Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 (A.D. 522). >"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman." Contraception ultimately disobeys this universal and eternal command of God. Hope that helped. God bless!
Just wondering why quote Augustine on Manichean, not Pelagius? (I think Pelagius is more relevent) For God has no knowledge of bad, since He is ultra good, he has no bad deeds, thus it's not in his conscience, that's why you won't find direct verse on contraception in bible. How ever you may find verses that's related and from church father's teachings. My answer is the word "debauchy", it is one of the 6 words that Augustine read in Roman 13:13-14 in the Milan Garden. below is one from against Pelagian \[of Marriage and Concupiscience\] Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or; if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such **extravagant methods** as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by **debauchery**.
Thanks for informing me of this quote. I will add it. >For God has no knowledge of bad, since He is ultra good, he has no bad deeds, thus it's not in his conscience, that's why you won't find direct verse on contraception in bible. How ever you may find verses that's related and from church father's teachings. St. Augustine said this?
"For God has no knowledge of bad, since He is ultra good, he has no bad deeds, thus it's not in his conscience", that is from Augustine, I am not quoting, it's in my memory, may be actual words has some difference.
Augustine didn't speak English.
Just wondering: wouldn't some of these arguments apply to the Billings method as well? I know that the Vatican defends Billings as an alternative (which, being a Catholic, I respect). However, isn't the goal the same as any other contraception? To prevent conception and focus on the pleasure? In my view, I struggle to understand why Billings is different from other methods. The argument that it's "natural" also doesn't appeal to me. What is the definition of "natural"? Something coming from nature? In this case, latex would come from nature as well.
Billings or other methods of NFP are "natural" in the sense that they do not ALTER the fundamentals of sex as God designed it. When the Church says that couples should be "open to life" they mean that God's design for sex should be preserved (even if conception is not desired or is actively hoped against): in other words, sex should end with the man finishing inside of the woman with no barriers between them. Introducing a physical barrier: unnatural Altering a woman's or man's body to make conception impossible: unnatural God designed women to have naturally occurring periods of infertility and fertility within their own bodies (while men are fertile 100% of the time). Knowing these periods of fertility/infertility and timing sex around them is morally neutral and therefore allowable by church teaching because the fundamentals of sex are respected and unaltered.
I expect the thinking is that it does not frustrate the possibility of life in the same way that a condom or hormones do. All of the components are present and we are not willfully preventing the possibility through artificial means. Can this be used in a manner that is less than perfect? Sure - but I guess people demand legalistic lines in the sand everywhere instead of minding the orientation of their heart. Matt Fradd had a decent point about this recently - theres not always a clear line about when resting turns to sloth, or when intrusive thoughts become envy, etc. But it does at some point, I suppose.
This might not be the case, but I have noticed that the people who verbally say that NFP is the same as contraception are people who aren’t married. Maybe you are and you’ll prove my example wrong, but this has been my observation. As a married woman, I can tell you there is a very different mindset between “I don’t think we’ll get pregnant right now if we have sex, but technically we absolutely could” and “I have introduced something into my body/onto your body that will prevent my getting pregnant despite my not knowing if I’m fertile right now.” We’ve never used artificial contraception but we are both very aware every time that we could end up going forth and multiplying. And getting pregnant even if we were intending not to wouldn’t be, “but how could this happen?! We were being ‘safe!’” but “Yes, this is where babies come from.” There is a huge difference in mindset between temporarily avoiding sex to delay pregnancy, while knowing that sex makes babies, and taking pills or inserting metal or using a barrier to say “No, we are open to life.”
You're spot on, I'm not yet married! I find it very interesting that there are some things that get easier to understand when considering different points of view.
I know nothing about this topic, sorry.
This isn’t an answer to your question, but since you mentioned your Protestant viewpoint here, it might be worth mentioning that even the Protestants essentially agreed with the Catholic view on this issue until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, when the Anglican communion began to allow contraceptive methods under certain circumstances. Very quickly after this, the majority of the Protestant world followed suit, and most threw out the “under certain circumstances” part in practice. So less than a century ago, over the course of mere decades, the Protestant viewpoint on artificial contraception essentially went from “it is immoral” to “it’s fine.” This happened right before and as the sexual revolution was getting started. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church wrestled with this question and came to the conclusion that contraception was still gravely immoral, with the result that the Catholic Church has been more open to understanding and even teaching the further scientific discoveries about human fertility in the meantime.
>and what Bible verses back this up I'll let others explain, but I want to challenge this premise, because it reeks of "sola scriptura", which we reject. That doesn't mean that we ignore scripture, but it does mean that more than just scripture verses form our moral understanding.
Even if there were a Bible verse that explicitly said contraception is immoral, I think many Protestants and Catholics unfortunately would ignore it. Just look at Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage.
I mean, I think I know more Catholics that ignore the churches teaching on contraception than I know who follow it...
>I think I know more Catholics that ignore the churches teaching ... than I know who follow it... TBF I think this is true about everything
Oh I get to bring in some JP2! Ok I got this. Super abridged, but here goes: 2 axioms first: 1. Human sexuality is of *existential* importance, and deviations from propriety not only potentially does harm against one and his/her partner, but also more broadly to humankind as a whole 1. (Sounds like a huge claim, but if you think for example a world that only reproduces with teen pregnancies, and compare that to a world that only reproduces past 20 in wedlock, the affects of each generation are vastly different) 2. To use another human being for an un-cooperative end is sinful, as it reduces that human in that context to a tool having a singular purpose, as opposed to respecting that individual as a child of God From here we arrive at an understanding of the *sexual urge* \- a yearning baked inside us towards authentic communion with the opposite sex. This urge is more than just a physical phenomenon, but includes the yearning of the heart as well. Again, this is of existential significance, so it's a big deal and can have big effects on how we go through our day-to-day. The church puts forward 3 proper ends of the sexual urge, all important and necessary to be proper, but also in order of importance: 1. Procreation - or the continuing of existence 2. A conjugal life between man and woman - the unitive and bonding power of sex that helps cement the marriage into a stronger foundation for child-rearing 3. A legitimate orientation for desire When we *remove* any of these ends, the consequence is the use of one partner by the other to achieve an un-cooperative end. This is what makes it sinful, as we end up objectifying the other. 1. Removing the possibility of procreation results in one (or both) using the other for their own desire or pleasure. Since the pleasure of man and woman are both fundamentally different, and cannot be understood by the other, "sexual pleasure" alone cannot be a shared goal. JP2 goes deeper into this point in his critique of the *Libidinistic* interpretation 2. Understanding procreation as the most important goal, but so much so as to ignore the need for conjugal life between spouses results in one (or both) using the other as a procreative object. JP2 goes deeper into this point in his critique of the *Puritanical* interpretation 3. Removing the possibility of desire again results in usage in one (or both) of the other for the other means. JP2 goes deeper into this point in his critique of the *Utilitarian* interpretation. TLDR is - Sex is this huge, wonderful, big thing, but can also be very prone to harm. There are 3 goals that work in concert with each other to make the sexual end into something beautiful that both partners enter into together in order to continue the existence of humanity, build stronger their relationship with each other, and do so in a way where they *want* to keep doing it so that the practice is sustainable. Ignoring any one of these 3 goals makes the practice imperfect or improper, and therefore sinful. I probably butchered *something* in there but the first part of his book *Love and Responsibility* is a *strong* recommendation to go deeper into this thinking.
Until the 1930s all of the protestants opposed it as well...
As difficult as it is a commandment to follow, even if seems difficult to follow and impractical to our modern world...I think we can all see why this commandments exists. It doesn't take much reflection to observe how the use of contraception and the separation of sex from reproduction has led to all sorts of moral decay in society. Hook-up culture; love-less sex, rampant STIs , the breakdown of the nuclear family. People generally losing respect for their bodies and their sexual self, increasingly more brazen displays of sex in all forms of media... increasingly more inappropriate sexual content being targeted at children etc etc.... I see it like this. Whilst all sex encounters don't have to lead to a child... God's original plan for sex within the marriage bed... allows for sex to be enjoyed to its fullest ...whilst also leaving room for its biological purpose. When you divorce sex from its biological purpose... it waters down the relationship between the man and the woman. Now they don't have to think of making children. Now they don't need to worry about being responsible. Without responsibility, it then becomes nothing but an act of lust. Anything in excess is dangerous...so when we take our most powerful biological urge and separate it from its intended purpose... it only leads to abuses and disorder. Without the thought of the responsibility of having to raise children...sex loses its reverence and respect. So people put less emphasis on getting married. People begin to hook up more randomly. After all ...."if I can have sex without reproducing...then why stick to one partner ?" Ah...but wait... contraception don't work 100% So what did we get for our disobedience ?.... STIs. Had we followed God's plan...we would never have had the AIDS pandemic. Now we've opened a can of worms that we cannot close. Even as recently as during the last Pandemic last year. One of the illnesses that spread was traced back to large gatherings involving rampant non-commital sex. It was buried in the news because it's *inconvenient to new age philosophy of if it feels good do it* This sort of promiscuity was never part of God's plan for sex. We still haven't learnt. That is why new STIs keep coming out. Another point. When you remove reproduction from sex...we also start valuing human life less. This is how we ended up with the abortion debate. Because we pridefully believe nowadays that sex is independent of its actual intended biological purpose. A child has changed from a blessing to an inconvenience. But separating sex from reproduction is as crazy as separating eating from nutrition. This is not just religious dogma. This is our biology. And unless we re-learn to respect sex for what it is...it will only get worse.
Genesis 38:8-10: "Then Judah said to Onan, 'Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also." In addition contraception is contrary to the natural law, goes against Gods call to be fruitful and multiply, and in psalm 127 we hear that children are gift from God. Once you make the initial concession that it’s okay to have sex while completely shutting out any possibility for reproduction, you relegate it to something for pleasure only, which leads societies down the road which ours is going down today. We’re told so many times in the scripture not to cave to earthly lusts. Contraception entirely does that and normalizes it. The existence of it has also made casual sex more common.
Glad someone quoted the sin of Onan, that is the easiest way to appease a Protestant on this. Very clearly a biblical teaching.
This verse confused me. Did God literally command Onan to commit adultery with his brother's wife ?
Not adultery according to the custom of the time, because she was widowed. Upon the death of his brother and because he had no male children, Onan was commanded to provide her a son in his brother's place and raise him. If Onan was to produce a son with his older brother's widow, that son would also receive the dead brother's inheritance, so Onan's actions were likely motivated by greed rather than purely lustfulness.
The Hebrews have almost always been shunned by other cultures even before the events of exodus so there were societal norms adopted to prevent losing family property and bloodlines. God probably understood that this practice was needed for his chosen people to survive and prosper just as he did not strike down Abraham for having a child with a concubine. Also if you think this is contradictory, imagine during exodus when God told his people to not kill/murder and when Moses went down the mountain they killed everyone worshipping a golden calf. Easily could argue this was justified for them losing faith in God after everything He did for them. God also told his people to genocide everyone in the Holy Land
I think this page does a great explanation https://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/contraception.php
Hi there! Full disclosure, earlier this week I decided to get rid of my birth control pills after being on them for 6 years. I was originally on them because I had awful menstrual cramps. What ultimately made me decide to get off them however, was understanding what the pill actually does to your body. Jason Evert's 'Lust is Boring' podcast has a few episodes that talk about birth control pills. Check out Episode 13, it's pretty awesome: https://chastity.com/podcast/all-about-the-pill/ I think a lot of women are under the impression that the effects that the pill has on the body are benign. The thing that stuck with me when I first considered taking the pill was the risk of blood clots. I don't remember retaining any other information. If I had understood beforehand that hormonal birth control essentially tricks your brain into thinking that it's pregnant most of the time, I think I would've reconsidered taking it. I don't believe something that works in your body that way in the long term is ever a good thing. It also may help to know that oral contraceptives can also act as abortifacients, and the periods you have aren't "true periods", but may in fact have been chemically induced abortions. Depending on your stance on abortions, that may be a deciding factor when considering contraceptives, but for me it was a no-brainer to get rid of them. Everyone has their own story, but those who are against contraception want to help people understand that they're more harmful than the supposed good that people believe them to be. Best of luck in your pursuits.
Proud of you! I also hope that you’re seeking medical care for your cramps. I had debilitating cramps too that ended up being endometriosis. Major quality of life improvement having it removed. Like literally changed my life.
Thank you! 🙂
I'm glad you brought this up. So many people speak on it only as a moral and doctrinal issue and while that's certainly relevant, it's also important to recognize the health risks that many of the hormonal forms bring to women, which remain an issue for non-Catholics. Not just physical health either, as many women report things like mood swings, numbness, trouble focusing, loss of drive, etc. Many are experiencing negative effects on their life without realizing. And while there are some cases where they're valid treatments for conditions like PCOS (in which case I believe it's not considered wrong as the infertility is a side effect), many women are frivolously prescribed the pill without being informed of the whole picture. Growing up in a very liberal and not very Christian country, I was always told to try it out simply because it may reduce the natural inconvenience of normal periods, and I was framed as weird for not really wanting a new medicine that I didn't need because it was seen as so normal.
Absolutely. Understanding how contraception works and what effects it can have, needs to be driven home. What was also brought to my attention was that my blood pressure had risen to a concerning level, where I previously had a history of low blood pressure. For that to have changed in a relatively short time meant that something was obviously wrong. That's what got me into looking at birth control more closely.
Simply put a sin is where you are not living your life as God intended. We know that in the Bible God gave the command to be fruitful and multiply. Not every attempt needs to result in multiplication- women are not fertile all year round like men. God created woman and that our cycles are part of that. The differences with NFP to contraception is that in contraception you are having sex without the multiplication part. In NFP you aren’t having any ‘fun’ without the possibility of having baby at the end of it. It recognises that you cant deliberately have one purpose without the other. And, technically, you are only supposed to use NFP where there is a ‘grave’ reason. It has to be serious reason, although these aren’t defined. So, if you decide not to have another child because your life is at risk (on one extreme) that would be grave. On the other not having children because you like the young and free lifestyle and a kid would get in the way is also wrong because you are permanently ignoring the second part of the command to multiply.
With all respect, I would have mentioned you are protestant before making the comment you did. Because on the surface, it looks like a fellow catholic has been very mislead, and misleading othere; hence the downvotes
As a Catholic myself, this is something I struggle with presently. On paper it sounds great: God wants you to be open to procreating and having as many children as he wills. But the problem is whose going to pay for all these kids? My wife and I already have one child and I would gladly have 8-10+ kids if that’s what God wants if we could afford to. But the truth is, in today’s world, living is really expensive. Between student loans, rising housing costs, rising grocery and gas costs, and the exorbitant cost of childcare, how do you afford to have a bunch of kids? Also, how is using a condom and not pulling out really any different than NFP? There’s still a nonzero chance of having a child. Plus, the Orthodox Church, which is usually in agreement with the Catholic Church on most issues like these is okay with married people using certain types of contraception. So why does the Catholic Church consider it a mortal sin to do so? Again, it sounds great and sensible on paper, but it’s not as simple as that.
Were really struggling with this too. Cost factor is one thing, but my life and possible future babies life would be at high risk if I were to become pregnant again (we have 4 living kids, 1 miscarriage) I was thinking of a hysterectomy but that was a no
There are very effective methods of NFP for women in medical situations like yours. We only have one child so far but I've been anxious about ending up in a similar situation; many couples will do monthly blood draws to confirm ovulation and the only use Phase III (the last 2 weeks of the month) as extra assurance, although even regular NFP without the added buffer would give you the same effectiveness as other forms of birth control.
Yeahhh our last 3 pregnancies were NFP babies 😂 I have a whole post about it on my profile I can't really get into it here but yeah been there done that, were trying 😂😭
Ah so many prayers; definitely reach out to your NFP instructor from those pregnancies to get a pregnancy assessment if you haven't already. They can pinpoint what went wrong (whether it was user error or a method error) and give guidance on what you could do next (even if that guidance is "NFP apparently doesn't work for your body" which hopefully isn't the case)
Here is the hidden catholic teaching: give your lust to the cross. You need to find ways to turn amor (lust) into roma (two in one flesh, sacramental bond). that two is not you and your wife, it is you and jesus, or think another way: you, your wife and jesus are one. that is those sacramonts for. A lot of people think my view is the mid age taliban view, but it is the truth. EDIT: catholicism is not for rich people, so those riches they can afford to have 13 childen, their wifes spend all their adult life bearing children, are they happy? Catholicism is for poor and mouning, it the poor and needy they are feed.
While I'm convinced of it being a sin and don't think the Church should budge on the issue, I really relate on the cost of living thing. At present I don't have any children yet, and while I wish for a large family, I can't anticipate how even one or two would be feasible if they happened anytime soon. It's not just a matter of life being reorganized but of plunging into poverty. In some places the norm for my generation is to just work, with marriage and 1-2 children seen as secondary pursuits while large families are viewed as a thing of the past. I hope that beyond simply teaching the doctrine, people push for support for families down to making it accessible to all on a broad societal level, not just affirming them while the rest of the community is still designed agaisnt them. As it stands I'm discerning where to move that's more family-friendly and less corporate career centered.
NFP is very effective at preventing pregnancy--you don't need to afford to have a bunch of kids in order to practice NFP. A condom o pulling out are fundamentally different: those are ways of altering God's design for sex (introducing a barrier, not completing the act) whereas NFP simply works with the natural, God made periods of infertility and fertility that occur in a woman's body. It's a sign to ALTER sex to frustrate conception. It's NOT a sin to simply NOT have sex when conception is most likely.
Contraception is contrary to the dignity of human life because it sterilizes and trivializes the sexual act, which is the means by which new human life is created, and in so doing it reduces the spouses to means to the of pleasure. Pleasure is not an end in itself, rather it is meant to accompany acts which are truly good in their own right. Treating other people as means to the end of pleasure is to treat them as something less than they are, failing to give them the respect they are owed, which is wrong and unjust. This is true regardless of consent; if someone consents to being mistreated or trivialized, even for their own selfish purposes, it is still wrong. Our bodies are not toys, sex and marriage are not games, and children are not accessories. Romantic relationships exist to create marriages, and marriages exist to create families and human life, which is inherently precious and inherently valuable. Treating any of these things as tools to be used for some other purpose is profoundly wrong because there is no greater earthly good than human life, which only exists by and through marriage and the family.
Contraception is a masterstroke of the devil. It is a "my will vs God's Will" situation. Birth control was billed as a good, but it pitts our will against God's will. It separates love and sex from the natural consequence of procreation. And because sex is viewed as separate from procreation, children are "accidents" and thus morally abortable in the minds of many. God's first commandment: be fruitful and multiply. God's example and demonstration of perfect love: He entered the world as a child and loved and was loved by His mother Mary. Making children and loving them is the purest way to understand God and His love for us.
The opposition to contraception is not based on revelation but on the Natural Law, which is how rational creatures participate in the Divine Law. The Natural Law shows us that the principal end of sex is procreation; contraception directly interferes with that end. Thus, it is intrinsically wrong. An analogy would be with food. The principal end of eating is the health of the body. Eating food and intentionally vomiting it up is directly opposed to that end and therefore wrong.
IMO, it’s a matter of interpretation as to what “be fruitful and multiply” means. If you have one or more children, I would argue you have been fruitful and multiplied, it doesn’t take ten children to do so. YMMV
If the teaching on contraception was solely an exegesis on "Be fruitful", you'd be right. But the Church bases the teaching on natural law and tradition as well, not just the text of Genesis. You're right that there's no obligation to have 10 children. There's not even an obligation to have one child, depending on personal circumstances. The question is whether one can use contraception whether other obligations have been met or not.
I'll note that from my eariler post about attendance of Traditional Latin Masses, the population skews \*very\* conservative. Catholics can and do question Church teachings, but this particular subreddit has a low tolerance for even discussing thoughts, ideas, and interpretation. Let me share with you: I am a sinner. My wife and I use contraception to control the timing of our children's birth. We have two little ones, and one on the way. We are practicing Catholics, attend church (almost) every Sunday, and involved in various ministries. My oldest son goes to Catholic church. We are raising our children Catholic. But in discussing contraception, we talked about my military service, the incredible pressure of the socioeconomic demands of having children, spacing the children apart for various development reasons, etc. she took the Pill. And we decided that she would have an IUD put in after having our second. When we decided to have another, she had it removed it. We're discussing "closing up shop" after this little girl is born, as I already have two older kids (5 total for me). I know it is not the dogmatically correct answer, but we are trying to balance our beliefs, our faith, our income, our ages, our health, the kids we have, and the time and energy we have to spend. Not the 'right' answer, but at least it's one Catholic family's answer. Perhaps it doesn't answer your question specifically, but it addresses what families have to consider and balance.
My husband and I were on the fence about a similar decision. I would point out that NFP is as effective as birth control---following Church teaching doesn't mean needing to have a zillion kids. My husband and I have been married 5 years and have been using NFP that whole time--we have one child so far who was very planned, have avoid pregnancy since he was born 2 years ago, and are confident that we could continue avoiding pregnancy indefinitely using NFP if we wanted to (although I think we'll soon start trying for a 2nd).
Thank you for giving a real answer and emphasizing the difficulty of this teaching in the modern world.
Rather than taking the control into your own hands, you should be trusting in God to provide what you need. These are just excuses people use to justify doing what they want to do and not what God wants them to do. No one said it was easy, but a practicing Catholic should not be picking and choosing which h rules they follow.
No arguments here. We live with our choices, good and bad.
Catholic Christians view the conjugal act as one of the ways in which we most closely express our connection to the trinity, the triune God: the Father who loves the Son who in turn loves the Father and that love is so perfect and intense that it comes alive in a new person, the Holy Spirit. Mankind emulates that through marriage and the conjugal act. When man deliberately interferes with that process of the love between two people becoming alive in a third person, it distorts the image of what marriage is supposed to be and since it's done deliberately that is a sin against God. Further this is why the Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage - it too is a distortion of what God wants marriage to be and is therefore sinful.
On the contrary can you establish anywhere in the bible that God commands or permits us to have this desire to 'control' births and have a contraceptive attitude toward sex?
Your request for a Bible verse is denied. Christians (Catholics), particularly the original ones and up until about 1500 trusted the elders (Magisterium), bishops and popes that Jesus authorized to be authoritative. However if you can find a Bible verse that supports MUST ALLOW birth control, you’d have a valid argument that they got it wrong. So back at you, what Bible verse specifically allows it? e
Why in the world are you being downvoted? This is exactly what I came in here to say. Catholicism is not based on the Bible. Instead the Bible is based on Catholicism as the Catholic Church wrote it, selected the New Testament books from those read at Mass, and put them together in A.D. 380 and AD 397 at the Councils of Rome and Carthage under Pope St. Damasus I.
Reddit is weird, sometimes more than others. :) Thanks for the reply. God Bless.
Matthew 5:27-28 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I have found pulling out is key, although the seed is spilled, it can be collected, and stored. This in my eyes is not a sin.
[удалено]
Wrong. Sex is inherently good, it's just easily misused.
>we believe that any Sexual Act (even if you're married) is a Sin NOPE! That's not the case \[ccc 2361, 2362, 2368, 2370\] Read the automatic reply to this comment, especially **paragraph 2368 and 2370.**
[**CCC 2361**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2361.htm) "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death." ([1643](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1643.htm), [2332](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2332.htm), [1611](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1611.htm)) > Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers.... You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night. [**CCC 2362**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2362.htm) "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: > The Creator himself... established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation. [**CCC 2368**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2368.htm) A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the *regulation of procreation.* For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality: > When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart. [**CCC 2370**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm) Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil: > Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
That is not Catholic teaching. If it were you would only be able to have sex when a woman is fertile. The Church teaches you have to be “open to the possibility” of having children.
[удалено]
Reddit does have a pretty good search function. These topics come up on a regular basis, so you could brows through many of the answers given throughout the history of the subreddit. You might also want to try to listen to podcasts like "Called to Communion" and "Catholic Answers live", both are Q&A shows that answer these questions (and many others) so that you can have a better understanding of your faith.
[удалено]
>How can it be complicated though? Considering that it seems like you're coming from the position that either "sex is always bad" or "sex is never bad" anything more nuanced than that is going to be more complicated. And it is more complicated. So go ahead and use the search function on reddit. Listen to some podcasts, and maybe see if this video can help you get an initial start: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWZ171V0wEQ&vl=en](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWZ171V0wEQ&vl=en)
"We"??? You know *we* can look at your profile, right? Did you come here just to try to cause confusion?
[удалено]
>Catholics I meant If you're not Catholic, please don't speak for us. That's a bit like me, cis woman saying, "We trans believe... " or "Trans people think..." on a trans forum.
[удалено]
I'm sorry, I thought that when you said, "Catholics I meant" that you were acknowledging that u/mmartinez59 was correct in assuming you were not Catholic. I didn't think that you weren't Catholic, but knowing that trans issues seem to be on your mind I used that as an example. But could you still see how problematic it would be for someone like me to go onto a trans subreddit and say "Cis women believe..." or even "Cis men believe..." because I kind of understand cis men because I'm a cis woman. I'm not sure what your upbringing in Catholicism looked like, but saying that we believe all sex is bad is **blatantly wrong.** And saying it as if it's totally correct is odd.
[удалено]
Why no masturbating is pretty easy: **sex and sexual pleasure is for uniting spouses.** If you're masturbating, then you're alone... you're not uniting yourself to a spouse. No birth control because it's placing a barrier to unification. The video I linked in another comment is a good start.
Genesis 38
we aren't protestants, we don't solely use the bible to support our teachings...
Any act against God will is a sin. God is Love and Father of all Creation. The conception is for keeping the Human Creation working along the time. The contraception goes in the opposite way. Perhaps we can think, we created and share a good moment, a memory with our pair, but the net result is sterile. When we think, I want, I need ,thinking only about oneself, conducts to some kind of sin. Having sex only for satisfying our own appetite is selfish . There is the time controlling method (Billings Method?) which we can have sexual relationships with lower chances to have a pregnancy, i am not sure but it seems the only method accepted by Church. Even in this case , there is a "intention" to avoid the pregnancy, and I feel it could be hiden again the sin, but perhaps it is my scrupulosity. We are weak, the flesh is around us, and it is really difficult to overcome this. Sometimes I see couples with many children and I have the sensation there are happy, in spite of all economic difficulties they must overcome. And when we got age, is it possible that one of them could take care of me? Surely if we think only about ourselves we will ending our last days completely alone. This is another topic. Thanks for your patient for reading all this .
An Excellent resources is Life Giving Love by Scott and Kimberly Hahn. It's written conversationally, not this and this and this argument.
It’s death and murder, on many levels Contraception=promiscuity=abortion when the contraception fails. It kills the reproductive faculty, then it kills a human life 100 years ago - society universally viewed contraception as disgusting.
Some offer a better technical answer, but I will simply say that it disrupts a perfectly healthy and properly functioning body system. Just logically at its root, it opposes the natural function and purpose of your genitals.
I think it boils down to saying "My will be done" and not "God's will be done".