Contraception

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 3/2/2022 at 11:29 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!

I'll try to keep this simple. After Mass today I picked up one of the pamphlets my priest has placed in the gathering space. It's published by Saint Paul Evangelization Institute and is printed with Ecclesiastical Permission. It's intended for regular folks in the pews. Here are some excerpts:

An Argument from Reason

Quote

Biologically, what are humans supposed to do? That is, what is the biological effect of humans? It's undeniably the same as any other species: self-perpetuation. Therefore, if human beings are to be good at being human beings, biologically speaking, they cannot undermine fundamental bodily humans. There may be a hierarchy of biological functions, but even if this were granted for the sake of argument, it would not change the fact that reproduction is the most important biological function for any living thing. It is a matter of life or death, and only matters of life or death can approach the weight of the biological imperative of sexuality.

This is an argument from natural law. There are others, but this one gives the gist.

 

An Argument from Theology

The pamphlet has several points here, but the most concise is a quote from Pope Saint John Paul II in On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World (22 November 1981):

Quote

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its value of "total" self-giving. 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 Benefits of Natural Family Planning

Again, there are several points, and I'm choosing another quote from Pope Saint John Paul II:

Quote

The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never "used" as an "object" that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God's creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.

 

"This is Just a Catholic Thing"

Quote

Until the Anglican Communion decided in 1930 to allow contraception "in hard cases" only (doesn't that sound familiar from the abortion debate?), no Christian group had ever held that that contraception was permissible or moral, and all condemned it as sin...It's not that the Catholic Church has introduced novelties; other Christian communions have decided to forsake historical Christian moral teaching and compromise with modernism and secular ethics and sexual practices.

The pamphlet concludes by emphasizing that contraceptives that kill a child after he or she is conceived are abortifacients. The fact that the conception (the fertilized egg) is not yet being sustained by the mother (pregnancy), is not the issue. The issue is conception.  

I'm trying to balance being brief with also being sensitive to the fact that teachings on this topic can be perceived in very personal terms. I don't intend any offense, and hope I've provided a little clarity for further discussion.

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[poptart]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

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.

Let's not get into that, plenty of things I could rip the Catholic Church for, for one if it wasn't for Luther I doubt the Council of Trent would have solved the things it did, like with most things it took a huge war to make people pay attention.  Your civility towards Martin Luther and The Lutheran Church is noted and appreciated, I do hope this continues.  This is the most respectful I've ever seen you towards me, this is how civil converstation should be.  

I'm not a fan of WELS nor LCMS, they have some of the more Nazi-ish types in their ranks, also they don't even bother with the vestments nor trad liturgy unless you find some rare place that has it in the Midwest, North or Northeast.  At least i've yet to see it.  Also, I'm ELCA so the places I go to are more so geared towards LGBTQ, the poor, the non suburbanite etc., we don't always get the traditional stuff, at least as much.  I do wish more orgs were like that but this is the USA, Christian politics are quite ugly here nowadays.  

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by poptart

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:12 AM, bluebell said:

It was always amusing that they told people, in the handbook, that they should consult with their bishop before surgical sterilization and then didn't let people actually read the handbook so they had no idea that caveat existed.

That right there is probably a big reason for the addition to the wording in the handbook. Church members may now freely read for themselves what many previously would have had to rely on their bishop to tell them. 
 

I think it important to bear in mind that the Church still “strongly discourages surgical sterilization.” That part has not changed, and the phrase “strongly discourages” conveys to me that it ought to be the exception, not the routine. I’m afraid that in the past there has been too little “prayerful consideration” going on as opposed to cavalier and perfunctory — even trendy — decision making, largely because people have been unaware of the Church’s position. (And no, I’m not judging anyone in particular, so don’t anyone start with me on that; I haven’t the stomach for it. It’s an if-the-shoe-fits sort of thing.) 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/6/2022 at 10:23 AM, 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?

In the case of surgical sterilization, perhaps a change of heart later,  accompanied by heartache and regret that additional children are no longer possible for them. 
 

In other cases, perhaps later regret that they did not have additional children while they were still young enough to do so. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m afraid that in the past there has been too little “prayerful consideration” going on as opposed to cavalier and perfunctory — even trendy — decision making, largely because people have been unaware of the Church’s position.

What gives you this idea?  From discussion with women in the past, I found the opposite…a reluctance for surgical sterilization that was only balanced in most cases by prayer consideration and where significant prayer didn’t happen, there were major health reasons that made it almost a no brainer decision.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

What gives you this idea?  

Probably the same sort of thing that gives you yours: personal observation. 
 

In the instances I’m aware of, it was the husband, not the wife, who underwent the sterilization. And I have no great confidence that at the time, they were even aware of the Church’s position, much less gave it much thought. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

 

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That right there is probably a big reason for the addition to the wording in the handbook. Church members may now freely read for themselves what many previously would have had to rely on their bishop to tell them.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here.  Why would they change their position simply because members can now read it directly from the handbook instead of hearing it from their bishop?  It is not a simple "addition to the wording", it is a complete change in position.  Previously, the church suggested that surgical sterilization should be considered "only if" 2 medical conditions existed.  Those conditions have been removed.  That is HUGE. They also no longer recommend counseling with the bishop.  Another big change. 

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it important to bear in mind that the Church still “strongly discourages surgical sterilization.” 

That isn't true.  The new wording does not "strongly" discourage it anymore.  That is another noted and deliberate change in the wording. On top of removing the "strongly discourages" statement, they also added a caveat that didn't exist before - "However, this decision is a personal matter that is ultimately left to the judgment and prayerful consideration of husband and wife."  See:

Quote

The Church discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization includes procedures such as vasectomies and tubal ligations. However, this decision is a personal matter that is ultimately left to the judgment and prayerful consideration of the husband and wife. Couples should counsel together in unity and seek the confirmation of the Spirit in making this decision.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng

 

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m afraid that in the past there has been too little “prayerful consideration” going on as opposed to cavalier and perfunctory — even trendy — decision making, largely because people have been unaware of the Church’s position.

Ok, but this says nothing as to why they changed their position and recommendations on the matter.   Making it available to the church didn't require a softening of their stance. 

Clearly, there are other reasons for the change.  The fact that they do want more people to pray about it is itself is a huge change.  Previously, they didn't recommend that the general membership pray about it.  Previously, it should only be prayerfully considered if you met one of the two conditions (which applied to hardly any members).  For everyone else, it was off the table.  That has now changed.  I see the handbook being available to the general membership as completely unrelated to the significant changes. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by pogi