I am a bit puzzled about what happens in Christian marriages. Catholics are not supposed to use contraceptives, as a mark of respect to their bodies. Having been educated in a Catholic school, we were told that, it normally led to 'husband meeting wife', about 7/8 days of the month, after thw wife's periods that is. To my understanding, most Catholics, use conraceptives anyway, what happens then in a Catholic & Protestant marriage, and what does the church teach when Catholics go about this practice?

-- Ray (chumielobb@yahoo.com), December 20, 2000

Answers

Hi Ray,

It's more than "as a mark of respect to their bodies." It is also not wishing to control the creative power of God. We honor God when we respect that it was He who "Created them male and female" humen sexuality is a gift from God. Husband an wife can "meet" at anytime during the month and leave the creative issue to God. If a husband and wife wish to avoid conception for a good and proper reason then that is left to about 7 or 8 days. But then that is only to continue for a short period as necessary. In a Catholic protestant marriage the Catholic cannot and should not participate on acts in which conception is not possible.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), December 20, 2000.

After reading my answer the last part should say. That the Catholic should not participate in acts that are rendered unfruitful by artifical or intentional means.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), December 20, 2000.

hi ray

i dont really know what the answer is but i think, as an american, that contracteption is awful for apsolutely no reason

-- Mr Dave Hewat (davethechillipepper@hotmail.com), December 05, 2001.

The whole meaning of sexual intercourse is so that a child can be produced. Sexual intercourse is not just a way of "feeling good", so contraceptives serve no purpose. If you want a child, practice sexual intercourse. If you don't want a child, stay a virgin. It's cleaner and safer.

Prof. Justin Murray M.A., B.Sc.

-- Prof. Justin Murray M.A., B.Sc. (daberdz@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002.

> "To my understanding, most Catholics, use conraceptives anyway, what happens then in a Catholic & Protestant marriage, and what does the church teach when Catholics go about this practice?"

This is not a simple answer, and I find that a lot of people want a simple answer, or they will not accept it, as they have already made up their minds on the issue.

I think studies have shown that most Catholics do indeed use artificial contraception, and the Church teaches that the use of an artificial contraceptive is a mortal sin. Even though the Church says artificial contraception is a mortal sin, it's certainly not mentioned in the church's themselves, as I have been a life long Catholic, and I don't remember them ever talking about it. I have heard about it from Catholic pro-life groups though, who do an excellent job teaching this, but I also think it should be taught in the church's themselves. It maybe that in the marriage preparation courses that most church's (catholic) have now, it is taught, but I'm not sure.

The Church offers a very effective alternative to artificial contraception and that is Natural Family Planning (NFP). God gave an option for couples to space their births apart, for a woman is only fertile for about 3 days in a month.

Sex does exist in marriage for a couple to enjoy each other, for God himself made it pleasurable, but sex exists for pro-creation of the human species, and God commanded us to be fruitful. It is his plan for humanity. So we are co-creators with God, in his plan. The Church says that the primary function of getting pregnant has to exist when having sex.

A lot of people think that NFP is not effective, but it has been proven in a number of studies to be as effective, as the very best artificial contraceptives, but with the condition, that a few days in the month, you cannot have sex, if you are trying to avoid pregnancy. I used the word "avoiding" very losely, as you always have to be open to God's gift of pregnancy when having sex. NFP is constantly slandered against by organizations like Planned Parenthood, the liberal media (advertising money), and of course the drug companies that make millions from artificial contraception. All those organizations have a financial interest to promote artificial contraception and to downplay NFP. Free free to check NFP sites on the net, to see how effective it is. If you are interested in NFP, here is one site that has information: http://www.ccli.org/

A lot of people don't know that quite a few artificial contraceptives are also abortificients. That means they do not always work at preventing conception, which is the beginning of human growth. In other words, when the sperm meets the egg, the egg then starts it's growth cycle. An example of an abortificient is an IUD contraceptive device, which prevents the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the woman's uterus, and in no way prevents conception! Another example is "the pill", which can prevent conception, but conception can still take place sometimes, as it is not 100 percent effective at preventing that, and this also prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg, as it hardens the walls of the uterus. The "morning after" pill, which I have seen locally in the paper described as not causing an abortion, is also an abortificient. Conception can take place within 15 minutes after intercourse, so of course any pill taken after sex, cannot prevent what has already occurred, especially the morning after, and the "the morning after pill" is recommended for use up to 2 to 3 days after sex. There are other contraceptives that are abortificient besides these that I listed.

I have asked many protestants in the past, if their denomination supports artificial contraception, and every single one said yes. I then ask if their church is pro-life, and everyone I have talked to so far, has said yes to that also. I then ask if their denomination teaches them that some artificial contraceptives are abortificient, and every single time, they say no, and they usually don't even know at all what an abortificient is, even though they are pro-life.

The average person is strongly in favor of artificial contraception over NFP, because the amount of promotion of artificial contraception is a hundred times greater than NFP. When you see a doctor, it's in his financial interest to promote artificial contraception. Planned Parenthood, goes to many schools, and promotes "the pill", as they make millions off of it. Even in my high school (public), only artificial contraception was promoted in health class, and never a word was said that some are abortificient. I think 99 percent of the population is ignorant of this fact, and yet it is so unbelievable important to know this, especially if you respect human life.

The reason why NFP is morally correct and artificial contraception is wrong has everything to do with human psychology. A couple who uses NFP, is always open to a birth, as they understand even when trying to avoid a birth, there is still the fact that a birth can take place. They are open to God's will in the matter, or they would not even be practicing NFP. NFP is also used by couples to try and get pregnant, as it is designed to inform the couple when the woman is fertile, and thus more likely to get pregnant.

Artificial contraception on the other hand, is designed to do one thing only, and that is to prevent pregnancy. So when a woman gets pregnant when using artificial contraception, then the artificial contraception is seen to have failed. A lot of couples use artificial contraception for years, to prevent births, but they sometimes have to fix it, when it goes wrong, by having an abortion. In every society, the legalizaton of artificial contraception has always lead to abortion to fix it's mistakes. This is referred to as the "contraceptive mentality". Of course like all things related to human psychology, this is not something with definite boundaries. A protestant couple, who are open to God's gift, and use a condom for example, will most likely not turn to abortion to fix a mistake, as they believe in the sanctity of human life. It's too bad that many protestants are not informed that some artificial contraceptives are abortificient. They are killing their own children in ignorance! So are Catholics, who do not follow the teaching of the Church in this matter.

It's the use of artificial contraception, and the great lose of faith by most people, that has lead us to abortion. Faith and the respect for the sanctity of life go hand in hand togeather. I have never met an athiest who was pro-life, even though I am sure there must be some out there.

I hope this answers your questions, and I encourage you to read up as much as possible on the subject, as it is a very important.

Gordon

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 19, 2002.

Also should note, that those who want to find out more on the morality of using NFP over artificial contraception should check the morality section of The Couple to Couple League website, which I mentioned in my previous post. Here is a direct link to that section. Also for protestants who are interested in what the Bible has to say on the subject, check out the CCL's website section on that, which is located here.

-- G Vink (gordonvink@bigfoot.com), January 19, 2002.

i think sex is good no matter wat!

-- kirstie barnd (kirstie_barnd@hotmail.com), November 06, 2002.

All my problem issues with my faith are up tonight gays/marriage/sex LOL. This is my personal spin on the issue . The church realises that the position of "you can only have sex to make babies" was absurd, it is troubled by this as much as it is by the pain and misery it causes to families who had more children than they could afford. So theyre all stressing about how to respond and not seem like endorsing starving kids...Starving kids kind of beats on anyones conscience in the 20th century well maybe not capatilsim ;). Not that Im knocking big Catholics families Ive got 5 other siblings myself and big families are the greatest Blessing (a blessing that is as long as Dad earns more than 5 bucks a day and a squashed cockroach isnt considered a square meal)

The solution was this NFP ... seems like a crock to me. The intent is not to have children(for a variety of reasons economic being one) but have sex for enjoyment right? But strap on a condom for the same reason and and youre off to hell cause its unnatural. Bla forget it, NFP is as bloody unatural as it comes. Its like some church genius goes "whew...Ive found a clever exit strategy from this one...from now on in accordance to the bodily cycles of woman as lain down by God these days are decreed "sex for fun days"!!!!Its gobble gook nonsense to me. Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 07, 2002.

Actually, Kiwi, the way I understand it, is NFP is not to be used as a means not to have children UNLESS there is a valid reason. Money not being one of them.

Examples of valid reasons would be to space your children and if the health of the mother would be in jeapordy.

Also, it has been explained to me that NFP does not put an artificial barrier between God's plan. If God wills it, you can still be blessed with a child. However, when you use some form of contraception, it is placing an artificial barrier, which is wrong.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), November 07, 2002.

Glenn, I think economic rerasons are valid though someone will clear it up. If not then how can the church possibly condone money as a consideration for a spouse for mariage.If God wills it and you use a condom you can still have a child as well. I need a better reason than its just not natural. Ok I dont see other mammals using condoms but I dont think NFP is all that big outside homo sapiens. Ok Im being silly but it justs seems as though the priniple or sprit is the same but we are being condemned for a minor technical fault. Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 07, 2002.

excuse the spelling and grammar its v late must go to bed

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 07, 2002.

"Also, it has been explained to me that NFP does not put an artificial barrier between God's plan. If God wills it, you can still be blessed with a child. However, when you use some form of contraception, it is placing an artificial barrier, which is wrong."

Glenn,

You are absolutely right. I, being an engaged man, have done a bit of studing on contraception vs. NFP. It is clear to me that NFP uses "God's Plan" so to speak. God gave the woman her infertile / fertile cycles for a reason: He knew that she wouldn't be able to handle a baby every 9 months until menopause. Anyway, so God gave her this cycle, and by using this we are totally in collaboration with what God has given us - of course only to be used with good reason! With artificial birth control (abc) one attempts to take control of that God given Power, but without God's permission. It is a direct assault on God’s plan for unity and procreation within marriage!

For further info I would refer anyone who’s interested to Christopher West’s talk on the Pope’s Theology of the Body, and also Scott and Kimberly Hahn have some literature on the subject.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 07, 2002.

Kiwi,

I'd like to point you to a thread where I had the same questions that you do. I am not proud of much of what I had written there, but this thread was done at the beginning of my "conversion" from a cafeteria Catholic to one more orthodox. In fact, it was this thread that led me to realize that ALL Catholic teaching is true and must be followed. I only wish my wife and I would have "converted" many years ago. Perhaps then God could have blessed us with more children.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), November 07, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, folks.

Glenn, you were right to try to help Kiwi see that there is a huge difference between NFP and contraception -- that the first can be morally good, while the second is always intrinsically evil (and a mortal sin).
Contraception tries to prevent God from being God. NFP never does that.

But, Glenn, Kiwi was right to correct you when you wrote, "NFP is not to be used as a means not to have children UNLESS there is a valid reason. Money not being one of them." It is morally good to use NFP when a serious economic reason exists. We know this from the key document on NFP, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical, "Humanae vitae." Here is the key passage (with my emphasis added):

"10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.
-- With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person.
-- With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.
-- With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time."

Kiwi, you also need to set aside the anti-Catholic prejudice that you must have absorbed -- the false ideas that (1) the Church once taught that a couple must have endless babies and (2) that the Church recently discovered NFP and, greatly relieved, started promoting it to save credibility. That is ridiculous. Kiwi, you also need to be aware of the fact that ALL Christians rejected contraception as a great evil until 1930, when one denomination finally suffered a moral breakdown and permitted it for married couples in special circumstances. That was the camel's nose under the tent, which eventually led to the widespread use of contraceptives (with non-Catholic religious approval), even by the unmarried. Because of your unawareness of history, you have thought normal something that is actually a grave offense to God. So Jesus taught the Apostles, and so the Apostles and their successors have taught us. It is now up to you to make a choice to be fully Catholic or only half-heartedly one.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 09, 2002.

It is now up to you to make a choice to be fully Catholic or only half-heartedly one.

John thankyou for the information, and your measured reply, I know Im out on a limb on a few issues. Can you answer this question. If a Catholic married couple told their priest that they use artifical contraception (for one of the reasons specifed as vaild for NFP) is the Priest bound by the church law you mention to deny that Catholic couple sacraments? If that Catholic outright refuses to stop will they be thrown out of the church. Are laity ever excommunicated?

If Catholics who openly use artifical contraception are allowed to recieve communion how does that place this paticular piece of church doctrine? Sorry for the clunky way of wording that..my question boils down to the fact Ive read opinions prominent Catholics far more liberal in many areas than me yet they are still Catholics, at least in the eyes of the Church in NZ..what does a layperson have to do to be chucked out of the church?

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 10, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Kiwi. Good questions!

"If a Catholic married couple told their priest that they use artifical contraception (for one of the reasons specifed as valid for NFP) is the Priest bound by the church law you mention to deny that Catholic couple sacraments?"

I wish that I could give a one-word answer (yes or no), but I have to be much more wordy than that!
Keep in mind that a contraceptive act is "intrinsically immoral," and it can never be excused. A good end (responsible parenthood) does not justify an evil means (contraception).

(1) If the couple (each one alone, or together) have a conversation with the priest, but not in the confessional ... and if they admit to using contraception, the priest has an obligation to remind them that what they are doing is mortally sinful, that it must be stopped, and that they should not approach to receive Communion until they have confessed. [If the couple were really unaware of the sinfulness of their past acts, they are not required to confess them, because they bear no guilt.] However, the priest will not "police" the couple, making sure that they have confessed and/or making sure that they have stopped contracepting. They will be on the "honor system," knowing that God sees their every action. If they continue to contracept and then approach to receive Communion sacrilegiously, the priest will not be aware of this and will allow them to receive, because he is required to assume that they have repented and stopped contracepting.

(2) But what about the case of one of the spouses coming to the Sacrament of Reconciliation and mentioning his/her use of contraceptives. If the person is confessing this as a sin, he should elicit from the penitent a truthful promise to abandon the use of the contraceptive. [This "firm purpose of amendment" is one of the requisite elements of a valid Confession.] If the person will not firmly express his intent to stop sinning in this way, the priest must send him away without absolution, telling the person not to receive Holy Communion until he is ready to abandon contraception entirely. Note, however ... if the person approaches to receive Communion soon afterward (without returning to confess), the priest is required to assume that the person has confessed to a different priest and is now ready to receive worthily.

"If that Catholic outright refuses to stop will they be thrown out of the church. Are laity ever excommunicated?"

A layperson can be excommunicated (either automatically or by decree) for any of several reasons ... but the use of contraceptives is not one of them. Contracepting is mortally sinful, but it leaves a person in communion with the Church (but unable to receive sacraments). [If you need to know the grounds for excommunication, please ask.]

"If Catholics who openly use artifical contraception are allowed to receive communion how does that place this paticular piece of church doctrine?"

I think that it is very hard to find a case in which someone "openly" uses contraception. This is a private act. With one exception that I can think of, no one could possibly know that a person is approaching to receive Communion sacrilegiously. The exception would be so strange that it must only rarely, if ever, happen. I am thinking of a case in which a person tells a priest, before Mass, that he/she is contracepting and intends to continue. This would be a case of "openly us[ing] contraception," and I believe that the priest would be obliged to deny the person Communion. I believe that the priest should do this to avoid a desecration of the Lord's Body and Blood.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 10, 2002.

Catholic equals patricarchy. What is mitachrondria DNA. The human experience is matricarchiarcal. The catholic church is at an attempt to overcome the matricarchy (pagan...mary ....)Birth control is but another patricarcal device. Females are biologically progamed to feel sexual during their fertile times. During the rest of the month , sex is not priority. Catholic "birth control" states that a women can never enjoy sex unless open to conception. Males, on the other hand, can enjoy non productive sex while still practicing the Catholic "Rythm" birth control. Fair and just? No, but ok in an patriarchial regilion. The patriarchial delusion hasn't much time left. The more that comes out about mitacondircal DNA will once again establish our human roots women. s

-- william Harney (ssw@gwi.net), February 09, 2003.

William, women can feel sexy at any time. Maybe if "sex is not priority" to your wife at certain times, it is something to do with you? (joke). Catholic "birth control" teaching states that both men and women must remain "open to conception" in each and every act of sexual intercourse. My query is, if a person has been surgically sterilised and now realises it was sinful to do so, should he/she have surgery (which usually is unsuccessful) to try to restore fertility?

-- Gil (pgilf@doh.health.nsw.gov.au), February 12, 2003.

Dear Gil,

Such restorative surgery is not required in the case you describe. Some men seek it as a matter of personal conscience, or even from a desire to procreate. However, it is not mandatory from a moral perspective.

Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 12, 2003.

I know a huge reason not to use the pill is, excluding the typical catholic reasons, that it is downright unhealthy. Condoms are not intrinsicly unhealthy, they dont cause problems except for on a spiritual and emotional level. What i wonder is what about newlyweds.

Now, I am a firm believer in natural family planning; even planned parenthood says that it works, except you have to abstain from sex for 1 week + another week if you do not wish to have sex during menstration. Frankly, i would find it tremendously diffacult to know that God fully approves of your union if the woman is in her most fertile period onthe honeymoon. I realize that the conjugal act must be open to new life, but what about the new life of the married couples deeper relationship?

As far as this virgin can tell, Sex is biochemically vital to a relationship. As we are taught about all the sacraments, they are outward signs of our inner change, and i would guess that consumating our newly married life is part of our outward sign.

Ultimately the question is what is the most loving thing to do for your partner? What about the unfortunate situation of uneven periods where you could be fertile at any time and using NFP will simply not work. What about the unfortunate newly married couples who must have a sexless time together. Is it truely the most loving thing to have people who simply cannot control themselves those few weeks after marraige to instantly become parents despite most often frequent household instablility and not being ready?

Thank you for reading and making time to make a good response.

-- alan stout (alanstout@gmail.com), December 27, 2004.

" i think sex is good no matter wat!

-- kirstie barnd (kirstie_barnd@hotmail.com), November 06, 2002.

All my problem issues with my faith are up tonight gays/marriage/sex LOL. This is my personal spin on the issue . The church realises that the position of "you can only have sex to make babies" was absurd, it is troubled by this as much as it is by the pain and misery it causes to families who had more children than they could afford. So theyre all stressing about how to respond and not seem like endorsing starving kids...Starving kids kind of beats on anyones conscience in the 20th century well maybe not capatilsim ;). Not that Im knocking big Catholics families Ive got 5 other siblings myself and big families are the greatest Blessing (a blessing that is as long as Dad earns more than 5 bucks a day and a squashed cockroach isnt considered a square meal)

The solution was this NFP ... seems like a crock to me. The intent is not to have children(for a variety of reasons economic being one) but have sex for enjoyment right? But strap on a condom for the same reason and and youre off to hell cause its unnatural. Bla forget it, NFP is as bloody unatural as it comes. Its like some church genius goes "whew...Ive found a clever exit strategy from this one...from now on in accordance to the bodily cycles of woman as lain down by God these days are decreed "sex for fun days"!!!!Its gobble gook nonsense to me. Blessings "

I agree with you guys

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 27, 2004.

> "What about the unfortunate newly married couples who must have a sexless time together. Is it truely the most loving thing to have people who simply cannot control themselves those few weeks after marraige to instantly become parents despite most often frequent household instablility and not being ready?"

People who "simply cannot control themselves" are too immature for marriage. A newly married couple are not animals in heat. If they don't have the maturity to mutually refrain from intercourse for a few days a month out of love for each other, they shouldn't be married. In fact, if you talk to couples who use NFP they will tell you that the time during which they refrain from sexual relations does just as much to strengthen their relationship as having relations does. That shouldn't be a great surprise. Anyone can allow their feelings to rule them, and just do what they feel like doing whenever they feel like doing it. But working together toward a mutual goal which demands mutual sensitivity and support can deepen a relationship tremendously. And voluntary self-denial (of anything we enjoy, not just sexual relations) is a powerful means of spiritual growth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 27, 2004.

The solution was this NFP ... seems like a crock to me. The intent is not to have children(for a variety of reasons economic being one) but have sex for enjoyment right? But strap on a condom for the same reason and and youre off to hell cause its unnatural. Bla forget it, NFP is as bloody unatural as it comes. Its like some church genius goes "whew...Ive found a clever exit strategy from this one...from now on in accordance to the bodily cycles of woman as lain down by God these days are decreed "sex for fun days"!!!!Its gobble gook nonsense to me. Blessings " -sdqa

In Catholic teaching, sexual intercourse in marriage is both procreative and unitive. That is, it must be open to life and also unite the man in woman in a renewal of their marriage covenant. In God's plan, part of this is the physical enjoyment of sexual intercourse with one's spouse, but that is just part of it, not the ultimate goal.

NFP is as different from artificial contraception as abstaining from food is to binge eating and purging. NFP education stresses the importance of not abusing NFP to obtain the same end of avoiding God's will regarding children for the couple. If the couple is not truly open to life, the intent of using NFP could be the same as the use of artifical contraception. Part of NFP education is learning to avoid selfishnes with regards to having another child. The "sex for fun" (or contraceptive) mentality can be just as destructive within marriage as it is outside of marriage. Sexual intercourse is meant to be enjoyed, but also meant to be open to life.

For more info on NFP you can check out the Couple to Couple league. They also address your concern here.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 29, 2004.

sdqa,

I just realized that you reposted what Kiwi said earlier in the thread and simply agreed with it. Sorry for replying to an old posting when all you were doing was agreeing with it. The answers to Kiwi's reply by Glenn and J.F. Gecik are both valid and very good.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 29, 2004.

Yes, Alan NFP works better in some couples than in others. But “uneven periods” does NOT mean “you could be fertile at ANY time”. You’re confusing modern NFP with the old “rhythm” method which was abandoned 30-40 years ago. NFP uses temperature and symptom measurements to predict, with very good accuracy, when ovulation occurs and hence when the few fertile days are, WHENEVER they happen to occur. Just like when using any contraceptive “method”, there are occasionally babies conceived while the parents are using NFP. But if a couple are not ready to have children under ANY circumstances, they are not ready to get married.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 29, 2004.