The Catholic Position On Birth Control

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='amarkich' date='May 18 2004, 05:30 PM'] I have to make a correction on a previous statement. Spacing pregnancies is not a valid reason to use Natural Family Planning. Natural Family Planning was approved for very strict cases (I believe there were six that we listed as acceptable). This has turned into another girl Altar Boy fiasco. The difference is that even the conditions which were given for girl Altar Boys were erroneous. The reasons for girl Altar Boys were at Convents and girls schools where there were no men to serve. Since its inception there has been such an abuse that only two Dioceses in the United States do not allow girls to serve at regular Masses! This is the future of Natural Family Planning because 1) people are uninformed to the fact that there are very specific cases when it can be used and 2) people are unwilling to submit to authority (even though the few couples that practice NFP are generally the best Catholics). God bless. [/quote]
Sources???


Church teaching on Artificial contraception from the CCC:

[quote]2370
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.158 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.[/quote]

Church teaching on NFP:

Ironmonk (not that he speaks FOR the Church, but he makes a good point)

[quote]NFP is not "Birth Control".

NFP is "not having sex", for something to be "birth control" it needs to stop pregnancy from happening during sex. Sex must take place for it to be birth control.

Point being, NFP is totally acceptable in the eyes of the Church.[/quote]

Marielapin (again not speaking FOR the Church, but also good points)

[quote]My best advice is to find a good priest to be a spiritual advisor, and ask him for his counsel. We ran our plan through our priest before we even got married, to make sure that we weren't misinterpreting the teachings about the use of NFP.

As far as amt of money, etc, there aren't any rules that I know of. Depending on where you live you can get by on much less than in other places. I know where I live now the median family income is around $20,000, but in other big cities, that number probably means you are considered in the poverty level, and we don't have any projects or dire poverty here like is seen in the big cities.

And yes, the whole purpose behind NFP is to have a natural, Church approved method to space your children, and in DIRE medical and financial conditions, to avoid having children - again, I would refer to a priest on this for his discretion.
[/quote]

The official stuff

[quote]Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI)

10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of "responsible parenthood," which today is rightly much insisted upon, and which also must be exactly understood. Consequently it is to be considered under different aspects which are legitimate and connected with one another.

In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions, human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person.(9)

In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.

In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values.

In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.(10)

16. If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier."(20)


Gaudium et Spes (Second Vatican Council)

50.2 Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfill their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church's teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice,(12) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfill their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family.(13)

Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.



John Paul II, 14 Dec. 1990:

Through this sense of responsibility for love and life, God the Creator invites the spouses not to be passive operators, but rather "cooperators or almost interpreters" of His plan (Gaudium et Spes, no.50). In fact, they are called out of respect for the objective moral order established by God, to an obligatory discernment of the indications of God’s will concerning their family. Thus in relationship to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood will be able to be expressed "either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a large family, or by the decision, made for serious moral reasons and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for and indeterminate period, another birth" (Humanae Vitae, n. 10).



John Paul II, 17 July 1994:

Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood on this point [about "responsible parenthood], as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so (italics in original).

Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God’s co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child.

Therefore when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.



Gospel of Life; (John Paul II)

97. The work of educating in the service of life involves the training of married couples in responsible procreation. In its true meaning, responsible procreation requires couples to be obedient to the Lord’s call and to act as faithful interpreters of his plan. This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely. The moral law obliges them in every case to control the impulse of instinct and passion, and to respect the biological laws inscribed in their person. It is precisely this respect which makes legitimate, at the service of responsible procreation, the use of natural methods of regulating fertility. From the scientific point of view, these methods are becoming more and more accurate and make it possible in practice to make choices in harmony with moral values. An honest appraisal of their effectiveness should dispel certain prejudices which are still widely held, and should convince married couples, as well as health-care and social workers, of the importance of proper training in this area. The Church is grateful to those who, with personal sacrifice and often unacknowledged dedication, devote themselves to the study and spread of these methods, as well to the promotion of education in the moral values which they presuppose.


Catechism of the Catholic Church

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births . 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 behaviour 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 behaviour 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 practised with sincerity of heart.<155>

Footnote:

155. GS 51 § 3.

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."<156>

Footnote:

156. Cf. HV 12.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, are in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.<157> These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them and favour the education of an authentic freedom.[/quote]

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

Good post, Katie...may I add, that anyone who would go against and contradict what the church teaches isn't in communion with the church.

NFP is allowed by the Catholic church. What the Catholic church doesn't allow is for two people, wanting to get married, to marry if they don't want children. If you marry, you must be open to having children. Not right away exactly, but in their marriage, they must have the desire to have children.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I can't take credit for all the sources, they were provided on another thread by Marielapin, I thought they would be appropriate here since NFP was brought up.

NOW, about artificial birth control/contraception. This would include the pill, condoms, spermicides, patches, shots, implants, withdrawing, and whatever the heck else they have out there. These are sinful, wrong, bad (whatever word you want to use...) because they interfere with the marital act, they prevent it from completing. Condoms STOP the sex act from coming to its ultimate end, as does withdrawing. Chemical substances (patches, pills, etc.) disrupt the way a womans body functions, and if she were to conceive while using these things (the pill in particular) in most cases the child would be aborted by the pill before she ever even realized she was pregnant.

Sex is such a beautiful thing, why would you want to interfere with condoms, etc.? Pills and patches carry other adverse side effects as well, I just don't see how using them is worth the risk just because you don't want a child. (Even if it weren't a sin, which of course it IS, I'm not arguing that, I just don't get WHY women do that to themselves.)

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

:cheer: Props to MarieLapin! :cheer:

[marielapin]

Thanks for posting all of that for me, Katie. As soon as I saw that post by amar. I thought I needed to dig that all up again. There is a specific quote by the Pope about spacing children that goes directly against what he said. I love kids and I want lots of them, but the plain simple truth is that some women's bodies or minds (or both) are not able to support having baby after baby after baby without spacing them a bit. God blesses our fertility but does not wish for us to die because of it. The Church has never taught that you are to keep having babies year after year until you die or become infertile. To say such a thing is to be ignorant of the true meaning of women's and most importantly the family's health.

[marielapin]

[quote name='amarkich' date='May 18 2004, 05:30 PM']Spacing pregnancies is not a valid reason to use Natural Family Planning. Natural Family Planning was approved for very strict cases (I believe there were six that we listed as acceptable). [/quote]
The Pope and the Church say otherwise.


I greatly stress the point where the Pope says that the Church does not or [u]has never [/u]supported an ideology of fertility at all costs - which is basically what you say the Church teaches. To say such a thing is to be ignorant of what NFP is, which is regulated abstinance. How would this be any different if a spouse was sent off to war, or if they simply didn't "feel" like having sex every day? To use NFP [b]is[/b] to be open to God's Will.

John Paul II, 17 July 1994:

[b][u]Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood on this point [about "responsible parenthood], as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future.[/u][/b] But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so (italics in original).

Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God’s co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. [b]In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child.[/b]

[b]Therefore when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.[/b]