I just don't get this...

[poohandwendy]

I'm curious though, is this a big no-no, or just a small one? (BC, sterilization). And does confession absolve you of that?

I ask, because I wonder how many Catholics are able to adhere to this? I see that there are some large families, but they certainly are not the norm anymore, so it would seem that this is sort of ignored. Are priests as strict about this, would they specifically ask a couple who only has one or two kids what's up?

I mean no disrespect, it's just interesting.

 

[golfgal]

That's very interesting. I'm glad they are doing that now. When my parents got married (through the Catholic church) 22 years ago they did not tell them that. But later, in conversations with their priests, he shared this bit of information with them. 'Course they'd already had me so... But I think it's great that they tell couples this now. Since that's very true. Sex isn't just for procreation.

The sex for procreation went by the wayside in 1968.

 

[beattyfamily]

I'm curious though, is this a big no-no, or just a small one? (BC, sterilization). And does confession absolve you of that?

Confession absolves you of sins you are sincerely sorry for and have remorse for.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

I'm curious though, is this a big no-no, or just a small one? (BC, sterilization). And does confession absolve you of that?

I ask, because I wonder how many Catholics are able to adhere to this? I see that there are some large families, but they certainly are not the norm anymore, so it would seem that this is sort of ignored. Are priests as strict about this, would they specifically ask a couple who only has one or two kids what's up?

I mean no disrespect, it's just interesting.

I doubt a priest would just right out say "Hey, why do you only have 2 kids?" That is a personal matter. No one can tell you how you should live. The Catholic Chruch has their stance on these issues and we are supposed to look at them as guidelines for how to live our lives. They aren't going to get mad because you only have 2 kids and then say "well we know you have intercourse more than that so why don't you have more kids?" That would be crossing the line. And you know what? If it's that much of a problem, I'll take it up with God when I see Him. I doubt you'd be condemmed for it.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

The sex for procreation went by the wayside in 1968.

Well not with the priest who married my parents which was in 1982...I think. Early 80's either way. Some priests still look at it the old school way I suppose.

 

[poohandwendy]

Confession absolves of sins you are sincerely sorry and have remorse for.

Is this something a woman or man would have to confess? Like if it were BC pills, would only the wife have to confess (and condoms for the husband? Or would you not even mention the BC during confession if you weren't truly remorseful?

 

[DisDuck]

But where is the 'scripture' basis for denying artificial b/c. When the 'bible' was written there was no 'pill, condom, diaphragm, shots, etc.'. This is the basis for my questions in my post. Along with how does one 'counsel' on sexual matters when never having experienced the good and bad sides.

Jewish scholars have at least tried to address this issue and have determined that artificial b/c is OK for women but not for men. They used passages from The Torah to come up with this conclusion.

 

[BuckNaked]

Is this something a woman or man would have to confess? Like if it were BC pills, would only the wife have to confess (and condoms for the husband? Or would you not even mention the BC during confession if you weren't truly remorseful?

In my case, I'm the one that confesses, because I'm the one with the IUD. While I'm sure that there are many people that don't confess to BC, I do, because I want to take Communion, and I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so if I hadn't confessed to the BC.

I've also found that different priests react/counsel differently on the confession of BC.

 

[beattyfamily]

Is this something a woman or man would have to confess? Like if it were BC pills, would only the wife have to confess (and condoms for the husband? Or would you not even mention the BC during confession if you weren't truly remorseful?

This is what I think based on the teachings/beliefs of the Church. If you are not sorry and going to continue to do it, then no, don't confess it but also do not receive Communion since you are sinning and not sorry and not confessing it. But you could confess it and explain you are having a difficult time with this teaching and see what the priest says as I'm no expert.

Birth Control pill = woman
Condom = man

 

[poohandwendy]

Since I had my tubes tied, I would be out of luck. I would have a hard time with that one. I can see why some people want the church to change their stance on this issue.

 

[beattyfamily]

Since I had my tubes tied, I would be out of luck. I would have a hard time with that one. I can see why some people want the church to change their stance on this issue.

Yes, but it's just NOT ever going to happen, IMHO.

 

[septbride2002]

Confession absolves you of sins you are sincerely sorry for and have remorse for.

That would be my issue - I'm not sorry that I used birthcontrol, and I won't be sorry that my DH will eventually be sterlized. However I don't believe that God cares about those things, and sees me for everything I am. Some of these "rules" or "dogma" is made my man, man is not infalliable. And in the words of so many here - why would God give us the means to control our reproductive organs if he didn't intend for us to use it?

~Amanda

 

[Lisa F]

In my case, I'm the one that confesses, because I'm the one with the IUD. While I'm sure that there are many people that don't confess to BC, I do, because I want to take Communion, and I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so if I hadn't confessed to the BC.

I've also found that different priests react/counsel differently on the confession of BC.

If you're only supposed to confess if you are truly sorry then why do you confess to this? You obviously aren't truly sorry if you know that you are going to continue to "sin". So isn't that in a sense a false confession?

 

[helenabear]

Again you are assuming that both people in the marriage want to do that. Since the church does not believe in divorce (and annulments within the church are cumbersome and expensive) what choice does a devout partner have?

I will say this as many times as necessary... annulments are NOT expensive!!!!! One friend is doing it for free and the other is doing it for $500. Not bad considering all the paperwork and councels that have to go on!

And an annulment isn't supposed to be easy... it is supposed to make you think and realize why or why not you divorced in the first place.

A devout partner has a choice... and honestly pre-cana was supposed to cover that... or at least ours did. We were in agreement on everything from forms of birth control to even what happens if the other has an affair. Counceling helped us to realize we agreed on many levels.

Helenabear - interesting. I was always taught that #2 (union), on its own, was not enough. I guess that if you are able to procreate, you should be open to it and not be taking action to prevent it using outside means. However, natural family planning is okay. I'm not sure why it's okay to use your cycle as birth control but not other artifical means. Considering nothing is completely fool-proof, what difference does it make?

Karen, this is just how this was explained to me. I know that my family had issues with conceiving and we may as well. Since we may or may not be able to have kids on our own, union is still justifiable for those who are unable to have kids.

It is about welcoming life... more than just having kids when it comes to "sex for procreation". As for the difference between a condom and NFP, I fail to see the entire difference myself. Both are conveying the same message... an unwilingness to have children in my eyes. I suppose a condom though is more like withdrawl method and that is frowned upon as well since that is "spilling the seed of life" (I think that is the phrase that spawned the whole thought). Won't go into hormones though since that is a whole other type of BC. So I do question it, but realize there has to be a reason... though neither anyone here nor at church could make me see the difference.

during my pre-cana classes 2 years ago we were taught that intercourse was a way for God to love us through another person and for us to be used as a way for God to love the other person. It is about intamacy. Procreation never came up as the reason for intercourse - but rather an intimate realtionship between yourself, your husband, and God.

Very well said... I think you stated better than I could have

 

[beattyfamily]

To receive communion now, the rule is you must confess all MORTAL sins. And for it to be a mortal sin, it has to be an act against God (the 10 commandments), done willingly and knowlingly. That's when you have to go to confession. So... whether BC is a mortal sin or not would depend on your interpretation of the law. Some have stretched it to become a mortal sin, and others haven't and classify it as a venial sin. You can confess those as well, but not required to do so to participate in full communion.

I disagree with this.

·Catholic Teachings

Every 20th Century Pope since 1930 has reaffirmed that contraception is a sin.

In 1930, Pope Pius XI called unnatural methods of birth control a mortal sin in Casti connubii – On Christian Marriage.

 

[septbride2002]

Isn't that the same Pope that refused to acknowledge the mass genocide of Jews during the Holocaust?

~Amanda

 

[beattyfamily]

Isn't that the same Pope that refused to acknowledge the mass genocide of Jews during the Holocaust?

~Amanda

This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but there's plenty of evidence to refute what you brought up about Pope Pius XII BUT I quoted Pope Pius XI, different Pope entirely.

I really don't want to debate this. I only want to answer sincere questions and correct any errors I think I see written.

 

[RitaZ.]

I guess no one wants to answer my question regarding NFP.

 

[DisDuck]

Or my questions on scripture justification for anti-b/c as Jewish Law (aren't we a Judeo-Christian culture) only prohibits male b/c. My personal belief is based on gender bias, ie. subservient role of women in religion.

 

[beattyfamily]

I guess no one wants to answer my question regarding NFP.

Ok, I'll do the work for you:

http://www.ccli.org/contraception/nfpvscontra.shtml