The Pope's Encyclical

[InItToWinIt]

The "socialist tree hugger" pope (your words) certainly is on the right course. Can approval of birth-control be far away? I think not.

 

By the Vatican? Will not happen. Period.

[Twotoplace]

By the Vatican? Will not happen. Period.

Given the overwhelming number of Catholic women who use non-natural methods to avoid getting pregnant, it's almost a moot point.

[InItToWinIt]

Given the overwhelming number of Catholic women who use non-natural methods to avoid getting pregnant, it's almost a moot point.

 

There is an overwhelming number of Catholics who get divorced - and the Church has not deemed that okay.

 

Up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit.

 

The Catholic Church will not be swayed by social pressure. Contraception is an attempt to suppress fertility and implies that we alone control creation, when in reality it is by God's will that we are able to reproduce.

[rjs4470]

There is an overwhelming number of Catholics who get divorced - and the Church has not deemed that okay.

 

Up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit.

 

The Catholic Church will not be swayed by social pressure. Contraception is an attempt to suppress fertility and implies that we alone control creation, when in reality it is by God's will that we are able to reproduce.

 

I'm not Catholic, so forgive me for asking this question. If the bolded is correct, then why are natural forms of contraception acceptable?? Those forms of contraception are still an attempt for us to control creation.

[nkypete]

I'm not Catholic, so forgive me for asking this question. If the bolded is correct, then why are natural forms of contraception acceptable?? Those forms of contraception are still an attempt for us to control creation.

 

Commpendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

 

496. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

 

2362-2367

 

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

 

497. When is it moral to regulate births?

 

2368-2369

2399

 

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

 

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

 

2370-2372

 

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

[rjs4470]

Commpendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

 

496. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

 

2362-2367

 

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

 

497. When is it moral to regulate births?

 

2368-2369

2399

 

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

 

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

 

2370-2372

 

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

Logically, I guess I just don't see the difference between natural and "unnatural" methods. If both are done with the intent of preventing conception, I don't understand why one would be a sin and the other not. And if regulation of birth is morally acceptable, why some forms of regulation aren't. And let me say, that I get how sterilization could be considered a grave sin, as you would be interfering with and desacrating the reproductive system that God created.

 

Not trying to start an argument or debate, it just seems like the Church in some ways are talking out of both sides of it's mouth on the issue of contraception.

[InItToWinIt]

Logically, I guess I just don't see the difference between natural and "unnatural" methods. If both are done with the intent of preventing conception, I don't understand why one would be a sin and the other not. And if regulation of birth is morally acceptable, why some forms of regulation aren't. And let me say, that I get how sterilization could be considered a grave sin, as you would be interfering with and desacrating the reproductive system that God created.

 

Not trying to start an argument or debate, it just seems like the Church in some ways are talking out of both sides of it's mouth on the issue of contraception.

 

I'm nowhere near an expert on Canon Law, but I believe, according to the Church, intercourse is supposed to always be open to life. Using natural birth control (having sex at times depending upon a women's fertility cycle) and still becoming pregnant is statistically rare, but it can happen according to God's will.

 

With artificial birth control, it is suppressing the gifts of fertility with chemicals (or whatever it is, I really do not know) and essentially rejecting the gifts (of fertility knowledge, etc) of which God gave to us.

 

As I said, I am no Canon lawyer. I think this is a decent summary of the teaching.

[nkypete]

Logically, I guess I just don't see the difference between natural and "unnatural" methods. If both are done with the intent of preventing conception, I don't understand why one would be a sin and the other not. And if regulation of birth is morally acceptable, why some forms of regulation aren't. And let me say, that I get how sterilization could be considered a grave sin, as you would be interfering with and desacrating the reproductive system that God created.

 

Not trying to start an argument or debate, it just seems like the Church in some ways are talking out of both sides of it's mouth on the issue of contraception.

 

There is a big difference. I was merely stating the Church position as documented. Many years ago, my wife and I successfully used Natural Family Planning (the official program of the Catholic Church that teaches the approved methods) to BECOME pregnant. It is not just a program to avoid pregnancy.

[UKMustangFan]

I believe women should be allowed to be priests, birth control should be acceptable, and I completely support gay marriage. If that makes me a bad Catholic, I'm fine with that label. :idunno:

[InItToWinIt]

Who You?re Using When She?s Using the Pill | Those Catholic Men

[UKMustangFan]

That was awful. Talk about a slanted article, my goodness.

[InItToWinIt]

That was awful. Talk about a slanted article, my goodness.

 

The site is called "Those Catholic Men" and a facebook friend of mine had shared it. I thought it was relevant in the above discussions with rjs4470.

 

While I think the overall message is correct, I'll admit the part about "What the Church says" vs "What society says" is pretty exagerrated.

[UKMustangFan]

The site is called "Those Catholic Men" and a facebook friend of mine had shared it. I thought it was relevant in the above discussions with rjs4470.

 

While I think the overall message is correct, I'll admit the part about "What the Church says" vs "What society says" is pretty exagerrated.

 

That's the part I was mainly talking about. I don't necessarily agree with the rest of it, but I get where it's coming from (except the part about the guy using the woman).

[rjs4470]

I'm nowhere near an expert on Canon Law, but I believe, according to the Church, intercourse is supposed to always be open to life. Using natural birth control (having sex at times depending upon a women's fertility cycle) and still becoming pregnant is statistically rare, but it can happen according to God's will.

 

With artificial birth control, it is suppressing the gifts of fertility with chemicals (or whatever it is, I really do not know) and essentially rejecting the gifts (of fertility knowledge, etc) of which God gave to us.

 

As I said, I am no Canon lawyer. I think this is a decent summary of the teaching.

 

I guess that makes sense, but NO form of birth control is 100% effective (my youngest son is living proof ). The only foolproof way is sterilization, and as such I can not only understand, but accept the arguments the church would have against sterilization. So would a pregnancy that occurs while using "unnatural" methods, not be God's will??

[InItToWinIt]

I guess that makes sense, but NO form of birth control is 100% effective (my youngest son is living proof ). The only foolproof way is sterilization, and as such I can not only understand, but accept the arguments the church would have against sterilization. So would a pregnancy that occurs while using "unnatural" methods, not be God's will??

 

While I cannot say for sure, I would say that the bolded is incorrect; meaning it is still God's will. Just the whole idea of attempting to suppress one's fertility is the sin. I am 90% sure that is what the Church teaches.