Confessor says contraception is o.k.?

[Guest Guest]

Today in cofession, I confessed that after a long period of abstinence (for serious reasons and because NFP does not work for us right now because I am breastfeeding) my husband I succumbed to using contraception twice. I expected the priest to say that I should persevere in prayer for the grace to do God's will, whether it be abstaining or not, and fight the temptation to use contraception. However, the priest remarked that although the Church condemns contraception, abstinence is a greater evil in a marriage so that contraception would be permissable in our case. He stated that our marriage is our highest calling and that we should do everything to protect it and that prolonged abstinence would seriously harm our marriage covenant. He then stated that the method of contraception is a private matter.

Now, I know that this is not true, but I was so shocked at that answer that I did not even respond. However, my husband, who believes that contraception is o.k. but follows the Church teachings, got the same spiel at his confession and now believes that we have Church approval to use ABC. When I told him the priest was wrong he stated that I was putting myself above the priest's authority. Ultimately I know that I am subject to what my husbands says we are to do. I think it would indeed damage our marriage if my husband insists on contraception instead of NFP or abstinence. Who is wrong here and how can I prove it?

[BLAZEr]

The Priest who told you this is wrong. I would find another priest to go to confession to, one who is faithful to the teachings of the Church. Take your husband with you and have this priest explain to you and your husband why the priest who gave you this sinful advice was wrong.

In the mean time, you can show your husband what the Catechism says:

[i]
[b]On Regulation of Births[/b]
[b]2368[/b] 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... When it is a question of harmonising 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.

[b]2370[/b] 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 favour 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 ends or 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.[/i]