Contraception

[CV75]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

If the policy constitutes their official position (which it does), then it has changed.  They are not simply acknowledging that members are going to do whatever they want, they are actually changing their recommendations.  

Yes, that would be a change in the Church's policy position, but the underlying doctrines remain the same. These would be the definition, covenant and responsibilities of marriage as the Lord instituted it, the spiritual origins and purposes of mortal life, and the work and glory of God (Moses 1:39). The reasons for changes are varied and sometimes complex, and often have a secular component (e.g. social mores, scientific advancements, etc.), but through the council approach these decisions are inspired. And policies like these are more to offer counsel for people with the gift of the Holy Ghost to govern themselves than requirements for membership.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, that would be a change in the Church's policy position, but the underlying doctrines remain the same. These would be the definition, covenant and responsibilities of marriage as the Lord instituted it, the spiritual origins and purposes of mortal life, and the work and glory of God (Moses 1:39). The reasons for changes are varied and sometimes complex, and often have a secular component (e.g. social mores, scientific advancements, etc.), but through the council approach these decisions are inspired. And policies like these are more to offer counsel for people with the gift of the Holy Ghost to govern themselves than requirements for membership.

So which policy is more in line with the doctrine, the old or new one?

While the doctrine may not change, the church’s understanding/interpretation of it can - resulting in revised policies.   I would hope that is the case in this regard. It would be a pity for members to violate the doctrine based on a policy change.   That would be like saying that yes, you can do it, we don’t discourage it anymore, but you should feel guilt for not being more in line with the core doctrine if you do decide to go through with it.  It would lead members to second guess policy and wonder if they should feel guilt despite being in line with policy, but where they may be out of line with doctrine.

One would hope that policy, and changes to it, are guided by the leaders understanding of the doctrine.  Otherwise, the church is leading us astray.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

So which policy is more in line with the doctrine, the old or new one?

While the doctrine may not change, the church’s understanding/interpretation of it can - resulting in revised policies.   I would hope that is the case in this regard. It would be a pity for members to violate the doctrine based on a policy change.   That would be like saying that yes, you can do it, we don’t discourage it anymore, but you should feel guilt for not being more in line with the core doctrine if you do decide to go through with it.  It would lead members to second guess policy and wonder if they should feel guilt despite being in line with policy, but where they may be out of line with doctrine.

One would hope that policy, and changes to it, are guided by the leaders understanding of the doctrine.  Otherwise, the church is leading us astray.

I think both policies are equally in line with doctrine. A correct understanding of doctrine is both an individual and group experience, and does change over time, which does not equate to going astray (it actually shows getting more on course for the needs of the day). Given the inspired nature of council governance, I’m not sure how going astray would occur – there would have to be a precipitating apostatizing event among the governing councils.

The Church does not have policies about how people are to govern their conscience, so their sense of guilt is their responsibility, as is their understanding of doctrine. And counsel is often framed similarly as the Lord instructed Adam and Eve pre-Fall (“thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee”), except now, given the many dispensations since then, we have the gift of the Holy Ghost among us. And despite that, people tend to react to policy according to their bias anyway.

I am not seeing how this policy is written as, “we don’t discourage it anymore.”

[3DOP]

On 3/3/2022 at 9:30 AM, bluebell said:

It's not the only reason, but one reason that I have heard Catholics explain why birth control is so bad is because with hormonal birth control it's still possible for an egg to be fertilized, the hormones just keep it from implanting.

So technically hormonal birth control like the pill or an IED can cause an abortion.

Hey bluebell. The main reason for the "upvote", is for your saying, "It's not the only reason." Obviously, we are anti-abortion as are you. It is important to note that the Catholic Church is also against artificial contraception, any deliberate, artificial interference with the conception of a human child. Natural Family Planning, or NFP, is not prohibited if there are serious reasons. If Bonaventure follows up with Paul VI, and John Paul II, as he said he might, I may not need to go into it further. But for now, thank you for pointing out that we have other reasons than being anti-abortion, for prohibiting artificial contraception. I hope to work my way through the thread in the next few hours.

Regards,

Rory   

Edited March 5, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 3/2/2022 at 10:29 PM, poptart said:

I'll ask this here as reddit is a bit too political for my taste now, that and there are practicing Catholics here.  What's the deal?  What's so bad about it?  What's the LDS take?  Thanks!

Thanks poptart...for another topic of interest that compares LDS and Catholic ideas. Hopefully, with help from my friends, we can explain a little from the Catholic point of view about why the Church teaches that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. As always, one hopes to do so with respect for all parties, not excluding adherents to the teachings of Martin Luther!

[3DOP]

On 3/3/2022 at 11:46 PM, Raingirl said:

Simply put – no, birth control is not an abortion-inducing drug. Pregnancy beginswhen a fertilized egg is implanted in the wall of a person’s uterus. Different methods of contraception work in different ways, but they all prevent pregnancy.  

For example, the combination hormonal pill(“the Pill”) uses estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation and thicken the cervical mucus. By preventing ovulation, there is no egg released from the ovaries to be fertilized. Furthermore, the thickening of the cervical mucus makes it hard for the sperm to enter the uterus and reach an egg. Through both of these mechanisms, fertilization is prevented and pregnancy never occurs.

 

Hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs) work similarly to the pill while the copper IUD kills sperm before they can reach the egg. Even emergency contraception, commonly referred to as the “morning-after pill,” acts by preventing pregnancy, not ending a pregnancy that has already begun.

 

 

As someone else points our later, the Catholic Church could not be limited to a concern about when science defines the beginning of pregnancy. Rather, the Church must focus upon the conception of a human soul. It almost seems from what you have said here, and further down, that you believe science has established that the soul is conceived at pregnancy. I agree that science may and should inform our moral values on a question such as this. In the Middle Ages, it was believed that the soul entered the body at the "quickening", when the child makes its presence more assuredly felt by movement in the womb. This is one of the reasons that St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He held, naively but sincerely, to the science of his times. I have never heard of the expression, but it seems likely that St. Thomas probably believed in what may be called, the "Immaculate Quickening".

Later, when science came to understand more clearly, the gestation process in the womb, the Catholic Church promulgated as doctrine, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is noteworthy that the Church believes in the existence of the soul of the Mother of God, prior to the impregnation of that body and soul in the womb of St. Anne, Mary's mother. We do not have a feast day for the Immaculate Pregnancy. If the LDS Church holds that the Human soul does not yet exist at conception, but rather at pregnancy, I have no quarrel. I do not hold that science has advanced to the point where it can detect the presence of the human soul. It also may be that LDS have a different definition of the term soul. I would not impose this definition on other religions that have their own ideas. But if other religions understand that Catholics define the soul as the principle of life in a material being, it should go some way towards helping them understand why Catholics believe that the human soul enters the body at conception. It becomes a human life at that point. It would not be any different for the beginnings of vegetative or other animal life, excepting of course, the unique properties for the various reproductive systems, and the relative values and potential of all animate life. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Rory 

Edited March 5, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

On 3/4/2022 at 9:47 AM, Raingirl said:

Just because someone believes something, doesn’t make it true. The Catholic church is very much against contraception, so it ignores/misinterprets science. And as is stated above, the pill prevents eggs from being released, so there isn’t even an egg available to fertilize. The IUD also prevents fertilization. I’ve known Catholics who believe if you’re on the pill that you are actually having an abortion every month. 
 

I’ve also found members of our church to be very ignorant about birth control.

Hi again, Raingirl.

As I said above, the concern cannot be limited to abortion. However...

Before I got married to my wife in 1982, the engaged couples in the Baptist church and college we attended were hustled into two separate rooms, one for guys, the other for gals. It seems like there were a couple dozen couples or more. The purpose was to try to discourage us from getting pregnant fast and so they explained birth control methods to us. I did not retain any of that. I would have had only an academic interest. I guess its worse if contraception actually kills a human soul, and it sounds like it does, if life begins at conception. I think I had heard that some of the methods caused abortion, but I have not known how. As far as I know, the Catholics you speak of who think abortion can occur on a monthly basis for users of the pill, are not as ignorant as you think. It seems possible that you are assuming that the LDS teaching on when human life begins is the same for Catholics. 

Even before we were Catholic, we agreed that it was good to have a baby, and quick, if God willed! We didn't have a lot. Sometimes I ate a row of wheat germ tablets with a drop of honey on top to fill my tummy. But our first child was born in 1983, two months before our first anniversary. She is now the happy mother of six of our grandchildren. It is one anecdote. Others may not have our experience. I am so happy we did not listen to those practical Baptists. We often look back with the fondest memories of those "tough times".

Sincerely,

Rory       

Edited March 5, 2022 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not presenting an argument for what is true. I'm explaining the Catholic view of it.

YES!

I talk to one guy at work who is beginning to understand why I respect LDS thinking. He knows I am not presenting it as true, but rather to show why LDS teachings comprise a cogent, reasonable, and even brilliant way of looking at the universe differently than we Catholics. Assuredly there are Catholics who think that many LDS teachings are just crazy. This is a problem in our world today. So many people can't just disagree about morality, science, and politics. The opponent has to painted as a monster, a fool, a villain, or insane. More than ever in my life, it seems like disagreement cannot result in respect. Today, with The Ukraine and Covid crises, it seems that many or most cannot allow for respect to be given to opposing points of view.

(I vehemently deny that I am referring to anyone in this thread, except my fellow Catholics who have seemed to be happy to assume that you guys are "off your chumps".) Heh. Thank you so much for attempting to explain the view of someone else, in its best possible light, even if in the end, you must conclude that it is false. If we have God's love in us, we will be delighted to find that most of our neighbors are neither stupid, nor inherently malicious. But we have to have good wil towards all, and want our neighbor to be as close to truth and goodness as possible, and to paint the opposing worldview in its best light.

All the diversity and conflict in the world of ideas is mistaken at a well hidden root that is difficult to expose. Even wrong presuppositions are usually difficult to criticise, and easier to understand. But if all of us...in our politics, our academic ideas, and our religions started from the same presuppositions, we would probably arrive at surprisingly similar "postsuppositions". We should try to stop wasting our time about what clearly appears from our perspectives to be absurd, and go below the surface to consider why we all think the different ways that we do. What clearly appears rarely explains the reality for why a person believes and thinks as they do. 

Thanks, bluebell.          

[3DOP]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:36 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I might say more later, and others can certainly chime in, but some key documents are:

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370 and 2399

Humane Vitae: Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) | Paul VI (vatican.va)

Saint Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body

St. Bonaventure, hi.

It's your turn. We still haven't come to the answers to the questions of the day. "Contraception: What's the deal? What's so bad about it?" 

If you are unable, I would use the resources you cited. Not today though.

I used to have a book, put together by a Lutheran scholar if I recall, that gave references from non-Catholic sources arguing against artificial contraception. I wish I still had it. It was mostly 19th and 20th Century. Same scientific understanding as the Catholics. I would be interested to know what prompts the Protestants to change their minds about the question. But that is NOT the question of the day. I would point out that the questions of the day ask about something upon which Protestants and Catholics, until recently, agreed about.

Peace be with you.

Rory

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

St. Bonaventure, hi.

It's your turn. We still haven't come to the answers to the questions of the day. "Contraception: What's the deal? What's so bad about it?" 

If you are unable, I would use the resources you cited. Not today though.

I used to have a book, put together by a Lutheran scholar if I recall, that gave references from non-Catholic sources arguing against artificial contraception. I wish I still had it. It was mostly 19th and 20th Century. Same scientific understanding as the Catholics. I would be interested to know what prompts the Protestants to change their minds about the question. But that is NOT the question of the day. I would point out that the questions of the day ask about something upon which Protestants and Catholics, until recently, agreed about.

Peace be with you.

Rory

Maybe the difference has to do with the principles in Mark 10: 2-12 and Matthew 19:3-12, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female... And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." and "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so... All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."

As Elder Oaks put it, "Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng I would point out that this is for the purposes of Church policy and enforcement; there still is a higher, celestial standard for which we are accountable to the Lord and not His servants.

To be "one flesh" pertains on multiple levels, one of them being the creation of a new person from two. Considering the concept of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers, we have the creation of a new person from thousands of ancestors (and still from the original two, Adam and Eve).

I find the idea of "save they to whom it is given" very interesting in terms of personal conscience, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the keys of the kingdom and the sealing power.

 

[MiserereNobis]

I'll also add that there is the idea of natural law and the purpose of sexuality. For us, it is two-fold: to procreate and to establish loving unity between husband and wife. These two should not be separated. Artificial contraception removes the former, which then distorts the natural law of sexuality. Natural contraception (the rhythm method) doesn't distort sexuality since sex is not taking place during certain times.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'll also add that there is the idea of natural law and the purpose of sexuality. For us, it is two-fold: to procreate and to establish loving unity between husband and wife. These two should not be separated. Artificial contraception removes the former, which then distorts the natural law of sexuality. Natural contraception (the rhythm method) doesn't distort sexuality since sex is not taking place during certain times.

How does this work with people who are sterile through no fault of their own?  Or when a woman reaches menopause?  Is sex under those circumstances distorted?  And if not, then how so (not trying to argue, just want to understand better, because I can't really see a difference in sex between a woman is past menopause and a woman who has had a tubal ligation, for example, sex after menopause cannot fulfill it's two-fold purpose either).

[mrmarklin]

In general, the Church has historically been against birth control, but has had the common sense to realize that we have our free agency, and that every situation is different. So no strict prohibition. 

[rpn]

On 3/4/2022 at 1:17 PM, pogi said:

Unless I am remembering wrong, I think that Handbook #2 was available to be read by the general membership, while Handbook #1 was not. 

While one could read Handbook 2 by sitting in the bishop's office if they had a bishop who allowed that, or by reading the pirated one online, Handbook 2 was not easily or widely available until this past year when every member has access through their membership account.

[telnetd]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:58 AM, bluebell said:

'm not presenting an argument for what is true. I'm explaining the Catholic view of it.

The topic of Birth Control at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng
says "Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely
with each married couple".

If a couple decides that two or three children are enough and then use birth control to
prevent future pregnancies and successfully, what consequences do they face?

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, rpn said:

While one could read Handbook 2 by sitting in the bishop's office if they had a bishop who allowed that, or by reading the pirated one online, Handbook 2 was not easily or widely available until this past year when every member has access through their membership account.

Actually the church made Handbook 2 available to everyone online with the 2010 edition, at the church’s official website. 

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11542095#cite_note-online-1

https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50690125&itype=CMSID&page=1

 

[MiserereNobis]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

How does this work with people who are sterile through no fault of their own?  Or when a woman reaches menopause?  Is sex under those circumstances distorted?  And if not, then how so (not trying to argue, just want to understand better, because I can't really see a difference in sex between a woman is past menopause and a woman who has had a tubal ligation, for example, sex after menopause cannot fulfill it's two-fold purpose either).

Good questions. If a couple is unable to have children because of natural causes (sterility, menopause, etc.), then natural law is not breached. The couple did not choose to alter their ability to procreate, it occurred naturally.

[poptart]

On 3/5/2022 at 8:50 AM, 3DOP said:

Thanks poptart...for another topic of interest that compares LDS and Catholic ideas. Hopefully, with help from my friends, we can explain a little from the Catholic point of view about why the Church teaches that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. As always, one hopes to do so with respect for all parties, not excluding adherents to the teachings of Martin Luther!

Curious, are you a cradle Catholic?  Also props for using Lutheran material, we have the best stuff.

Edited March 6, 2022 by poptart

[3DOP]

4 minutes ago, poptart said:

Curious, are you a cradle Catholic?  

No, poptart. I was a cradle Nothing in 1956. But I was born in a Catholic hospital. I have sometimes wondered if there was one of the sister nurses who used to care for the hospital, that had prayed for my young parents and me. In any case, by 1995, I was Catholic, and my parents, no longer young, followed in 2005.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

The topic of Birth Control at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/birth-control?lang=eng
says "Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely
with each married couple".

If a couple decides that two or three children are enough and then use birth control to
prevent future pregnancies and successfully, what consequences do they face?

None in terms of the Church.  Fewer grandchildren most likely in terms of family.  

Edited March 6, 2022 by Calm

[Chum]

I'd be more open to a conversation about contraception when hunger-level poverty becomes vanishingly rare.  Repeatedly not being able to feed one's own children gets old after a few years.

[poptart]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

No, poptart. I was a cradle Nothing in 1956. But I was born in a Catholic hospital. I have sometimes wondered if there was one of the sister nurses who used to care for the hospital, that had prayed for my young parents and me. In any case, by 1995, I was Catholic, and my parents, no longer young, followed in 2005.

I was wondering, the converts i've seen do tend to know quite a bit.  Your scholarship is appreciated, thank you.

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I'd be more open to a conversation about contraception when hunger-level poverty becomes vanishingly rare.  Repeatedly not being able to feed one's own children gets old after a few years.

Guess we'll be seeing how all that plays out with roe vs. wade, as it is nurses are fleeing the Midwest and South due to covid and politics, we'll see how this plays out.  Glad I don't have kids, seeing how poor kids get treated nowadays brings back a lot of bad memories.  

[Chum]

18 minutes ago, poptart said:

Guess we'll be seeing how all that plays out with roe vs. wade, as it is nurses are fleeing the Midwest and South due to covid and politics, we'll see how this plays out.  Glad I don't have kids, seeing how poor kids get treated nowadays brings back a lot of bad memories.

Southern states have made huge gains in their war on vulnerable people. More hungry children will represent some of the biggest wins in memory.

[poptart]

7 minutes ago, Chum said:

Southern states have made huge gains in their war on vulnerable people. More hungry children will represent some of the biggest wins in memory.

Going to be real interesting if big tech and other orgs decide to start canceling states over that.  Those people aren't human.  I believe the South tried something involving denying human rights to people a while ago, started a civil war that left them a broke shell of their former selves. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by poptart

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, poptart said:

Curious, are you a cradle Catholic?  Also props for using Lutheran material, we have the best stuff.

My complaint with Luther is that he proposed salvation by faith alone, a theological novelty. I could have gone that direction, but it did not derive from Christian tradition.

I am indebted to my attachment to formal liturgical worship to the Lutheran Church, Wisconsin Synod. Our last stop, short of Rome.