Can Catholics use artificial means of birth control?

[Kenneth77]

'I Am' hath sent me said:
Matthew 13:56 And his SISTERS, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Can you explain this? If Mary was a perpetual virgin and Jesus had NO brothers, what about His sisters?

Also, came across these verses. You said that brother/brethren could mean cousin or kinsmen in greek. Why does the Bible use brother/sister in one verse and cousin in the next?

Examples:
Luke 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins.......
Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth.....


Pauline replied with:

Hath,
Have you read Mt 13,56 and Mk 6,3 in light of Mt 27,56; Mk 15,40 and Jn 19,25?
Why are those children considered as brothers of Jesus in the former Scriptures, said to be the children of another woman, also named Mary, and wife of Cleophas, in the latter two verses?

The NT word for cousin can be applied only to cousins. So if the writer is refering to a group of kinsmen, some of whom are not cousins, he would not use the word for cousins. He would then use the word that is translated brothers in our Bibles.


Pauline, you still didn't clear up the SISTERS issue. And what about this verse: Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Also, look at this one:M't:1:18: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Now that says BEFORE, that means it did happen, they had marital relations. Say what you want Pauline, Jesus had brothers, sisters and the Virgin Mary did NOT stay a virgin. The Scriptures speak pretty clear on that. But see if she wasn't a perpetual virgin, then you'd actually have to give God all the Glory. Pope forbid that should happen, then the pope would loose his credibility and catholicism as you know it would cave in. Oh well, I'll stick with scripture.


Since this topic is on birth control. I am Christian and attend a Baptist Church. I do believe it is a sin to use birth control. Hey, I can agree with some of the Catholic teachings. That is few and far between though.

 

[wishtolearn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:


A couple of questions:

What are you now going to teach your children about the right/wrong of artificial birth control?

Isn't a vasectomy self mutilation? Is it that different than a tatoo or body piercing or breast enlargement?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. I don't have any children.


2. This question is so ignorant, I'm not even going to answer it. I suppose you equate spaying/neutering your pets to breast enlargement surgery? I am not implying that we are animals but all I can say is, "What??"

 

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wishtolearn:

This question is so ignorant, I'm not even going to answer it. I suppose you equate spaying/neutering your pets to breast enlargement surgery? I am not implying that we are animals but all I can say is, "What??"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A vasectomy deforms the body which God created. It is a surgical means to cause your body to function in a way other than God intended.

Many Baptists whom I know personally are against tatoos because they deface the body which is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

In my mind a vasectomy is an even greater defacement of that temple.

To talk about cats and dogs indicates to me that you do not give serious consideration to these grave issues. Do you?

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

[Pauline]

So Long,
You are trying to make the word before, like the word until and the word firstborn, fit what you'd take it to mean in our day and age. The word "before" in the verse you refer to simply means that she was pregnant without them having had sexual relations. It certainly does not say that they had sexual relations afterward. And the word "until" used in Mt 1,24-25 is used other places in Scripture where it could not mean the action took place after: David's wife had no children until she died. So, did she have children after she died? Christ must reign "until" God puts all enemies under His feet. Does that mean Christ won't reign afterward?

Firstborn was a legal term for a certain rank or rights. Even if the woman had no other children, he was called the firstborn.

There is too much evidence against Jesus having blood brothers or sisters. Mary being given into the care of John is a big one. In that culture, it was unheard of for the children to not take care of the mother. Yet Mary was given into the care of a young man who was not her own child.

Also, younger brothers never advised or reprimanded an older brother as happened in Jn 7,3-4. And we find that the same brothers that are named in a couple of verses as the brothers of Jesus are named as the sons of another woman at the crucifixion scene, and those "brothers" have a SISTER. What I said stands and Scripture shows it in this scene.

Jewish custom supports what I said too. It was Jewish Christians who told me that Joseph, as a faithful Jew, would never have had marital relations with Mary after she bore a child that was not his.

And I'd be very surprised if you yourself haven't used the words "brother" and "sister" to mean someone who wasn't a blood sibling. And if you haven't used it that way, you've heard others do so. So why not admit that the use of those words cannot be used to disprove that Mary remained celibate?

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all agreed with the Catholic teaching on Mary remaining a virgin.

Thanks for your comment on birth control. I pray that more and more Christians will see the truth on this issue and give a truly Christian witness in regard to it.
Pauline

 

[wishtolearn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:


A vasectomy deforms the body which God created. It is a surgical means to cause your body to function in a way other than God intended.

Many Baptists whom I know personally are against tatoos because they deface the body which is a temple of the Holy Spirit.

In my mind a vasectomy is an even greater defacement of that temple.

To talk about cats and dogs indicates to me that you do not give serious consideration to these grave issues. Do you?

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: trying2understand ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I do. That's why I use birth control and if I had children,I would be honest and intelligent enough to encourage them to do the same. People will not stop having sex even for religious reasons. They never have. To deny this fact is folly. Sex does not automatically conjure up immediate thoughts of lust and depravity. I have loved people without being married to them and have never regretted a minute of it, in fact I have thanked God for their presence in my life and have learned from every experience.

 

[ChristianCynic]

&lt; Can Catholics use artificial means of birth control? &gt;

It seems to me they can. They might even use REAL means of birth control.

 

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wishtolearn:


Yes, I do. That's why I use birth control and if I had children,I would be honest and intelligent enough to encourage them to do the same. People will not stop having sex even for religious reasons. They never have. To deny this fact is folly. Sex does not automatically conjure up immediate thoughts of lust and depravity. I have loved people without being married to them and have never regretted a minute of it, in fact I have thanked God for their presence in my life and have learned from every experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If by "loved people without being married to them" you are talking about sex without marriage, it seems that you are talking about unrepented sin, if you "have never regretted a minute of it".

If a relationship with God would not prevent someone from sex outside of marriage, why would a relationship with one's husband or wife prevent them from the same?

 

[wishtolearn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:



If by "loved people without being married to them" you are talking about sex without marriage, it seems that you are talking about unrepented sin, if you "have never regretted a minute of it".

If a relationship with God would not prevent someone from sex outside of marriage, why would a relationship with one's husband or wife prevent them from the same?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're asking me what would keep me in a faithful marriage if I had sex outside of marriage? It's called morals, commitment, vow before God. Call it what you will but I make decisions on my life based upon my life's experiences. It is in my best interest and God's to stay faithful to my husband. Oh yes, and I love him too. That would be very important. My use of birth control and sex without being married to a person has not diminished my relationship with God. I have been blessed by him countless times. Everything I have experienced in life has been according to His will. I am human and love people because it is human to do so married or not. I do not have to constantly question his intentions or mine. I do not have to try and get someone to think the same way I do in order for them to be saved as well. And I use the term "saved" lightly as it is my personal relationship with him and everyone faults great or small are saved by His grace. I do not subscribe to this religion or that, do not follow a dogma of any church. I am a Christian because it is what I believe. I know His love for me and if He wants me or others to have children, He will make that happen. Birth control or not.

 

[Pauline]

wishtolearn,
Could you tell me what your definition of a Christian is? How can a person know if he or she is a Christian? How can other people know that he or she is a Christian?
Thanks,
Pauline

 

[Pauline]

A Catholic cannot use contraception in any form (even herbal) without rupturing his/her relationship with the Catholic Church.

Catholics spouses may use natural family planning if they have a serious reason for limiting the number of their children. NFP is the really natural means because nature makes the woman infertile for certain days of her cycle. NFP is simply a cooperation with nature. It is much better than the old rhythm method.

To say that a person can use contraception and God will make her pregnant if that is His will is an unrealistic statement. It's about like saying a person is going to go out and stab someone he's angry at and if that's against God's will God will save the other person from harm. So does that mean, we can do whatever we want and God won't let any harmful consequences come from it. It also seems to be saying, I'm not responsible for anything I do. That is against Bible teaching, Church teaching. And it is quite illogical!

Pauline

 

[Ps104_33]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A vasectomy deforms the body which God created. It is a surgical means to cause your body to function in a way other than God intended.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Birth Control

What the New
Testament Says
About
Birth Control
By Mary Van Nattan
It is common these days to assume that if someone is KJV only; home schools;
believes in courtship; and is a member of a rip snorting, fire breathing, soul winning
church that they will also believe that all forms of birth control are evil.
"Naturally," they will know that it is "God's will" for every married couple of child
bearing years to have as many kids as they can and just "trust God" regardless of
the consequences. (It is seldom taken into consideration that it might be God's will,
and to His glory, for some people not to have children, but we will take that up in
another article.) Those who do not follow this plan are considered "unspiritual" and
of little faith.
First and foremost, it must be stated that we are against any form of birth control
that endangers the life of an already conceived baby. As far as we know, at this time
that includes all chemical forms of birth control. They are apparently all
abortificient, causing the womb to be inhospitable to any baby that is conceived
inspite of the medication. This is murderous.
But, to go from this point to the conclusion that all forms of birth control are evil is
a big jump.
So "what saith the scripture"?
We are in the New Testament Church era, and the verses in the Old Testament that
refer to child bearing as a reward, heritage, etc. are in the context of Jewish
obedience to the law of God. Deuteronomy 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if
ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God
shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy
fathers:...14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female
barren among you, or among your cattle. This is the context of the famous and
much quoted Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit
of the womb is his reward. The reward is for obeying the law of God given by Moses
to the Israelites under the covenant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
What does the New Testament say to Christians under the covenant of the blood of
Jesus Christ? A simple list of the verses would be useful.
1. VERSES SAYING BIRTH CONTROL IS WRONG: NONE
2. VERSES SAYING CHILDREN ARE A REWARD FOR FAITHFULNESS TO
THOSE RECKONED UNDER GRACE: NONE
3. VERSES THAT SAY A COUPLE MUST HAVE CHILDREN, EVEN IF
ADOPTED, TO BE RIGHT WITH GOD: NONE
4. VERSES SAYING HOW MANY OR HOW FEW CHILDREN A COUPLE
MUST HAVE: NONE
5. VERSES THAT SAY A WOMAN CAN TAKE CHARGE OF OTHER MEN'S
WIVES IN THIS ISSUE: NONE
(This, of course, would not be popular with all the Baptist popelets who are using
this doctrine to fill their pews with tithers - a plan very reminiscent of the Roman
Catholic Church.)
Number 5 actually has verses that say the exact opposite.
1Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Corinthians 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and
likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any
obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of
the wives;
Something is gravely wrong with this anti-birth control teaching when we realize
that women are found instructing other men's wives on the subject. My Dad points
out that these women are in essence entering other men's bedrooms through their
wives. Women who would never dream of dictating behavior in another man's
bedroom, will do so in this issue because "it's so important." If it is so important
then why didn't God say something about it in the New Testament?
-----------------------------------------
Lord willing, my Dad will add his thoughts from the scripture to deal with the many
other fallacies relating to this subject which need to be directed to and dealt with by
the God given heads of the homes, not the women.

Birth Control
"Woman's Health and Baby's Death. Users of the "old" high-dosage birth control
pills experienced relatively severe side effects. However, many of these pills were
generally considered non-abortifacient in their two-fold ("biphasic") modes of
action. The pills would thicken cervical mucus and inhibit ovulation, but they would
generally not inhibit implantation of the blastocyst (the five-day old, 256-cell
developing human being) in the uterine lining.
However, the new low-dosage pills are "triphasic." They have three modes of
action; they thicken cervical mucus, inhibit ovulation, and block implantation.
Therefore, the "new" Pills are all abortifacient in nature.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in its 1984 pamphlet
entitled 'Facts About Oral Contraceptives,' said that 'Though rare, it is possible for
women using combined pills (synthetic estrogen and progestogen) to ovulate. Then
other mechanisms work to prevent pregnancy. Both kinds of pills make the cervical
mucus thick and 'inhospitable' to sperm, discouraging any entry to the uterus. In
addition, they make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant, by causing changes in
Fallopian tube contractions and in the uterine lining. These actions explain why the
minipill works, as it generally does not suppress ovulation.' "
The Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia, published by The American Life League. http://hebron.ee.gannon.edu/~frezza/plae/encyc031.html

 

[Ps104_33]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A vasectomy deforms the body which God created. It is a surgical means to cause your body to function in a way other than God intended.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Does this mean I cant get my laser eye surgery?
Are RCs against any kind of cosmetic surgery?

 

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ps104_33:

Does this mean I cant get my laser eye surgery?
Are RCs against any kind of cosmetic surgery?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ps, what was the point of your longer post just before the one above? Can you offer some of your own words to express what you wish to say?

As to laser eye surgery: why would you ask? Will eye surgery cause your body to function in a way contrary to the way God created all men? Try to look beneath the surface of the issue.

As to cosmetic surgery, it would depend upon the circumstances. Are you talking about repairing a particular disfigurement or having a sex change? Depends on the particular surgery and why. No?

 

[4xBlessed]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:


Ps, what was the point of your longer post just before the one above? Can you offer some of your own words to express what you wish to say?

As to laser eye surgery: why would you ask? Will eye surgery cause your body to function in a way contrary to the way God created all men? Try to look beneath the surface of the issue.

As to cosmetic surgery, it would depend upon the circumstances. Are you talking about repairing a particular disfigurement or having a sex change? Depends on the particular surgery and why. No?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying the eye surgery is okay? Are you aware that some people have suffered serious eye troubles because of this surgery? It may not be extremely common, but it happens. For the most part it's very safe, but sometimes it causes vision to be not what God intended it to be and is a nightmare for those on the receiving end. Does this make it more wrong in your opinion, since wearing contacts or glasses is a perfectly safe option?

 

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 4xBlessed:


Are you saying the eye surgery is okay? Are you aware that some people have suffered serious eye troubles because of this surgery? It may not be extremely common, but it happens. For the most part it's very safe, but sometimes it causes vision to be not what God intended it to be and is a nightmare for those on the receiving end. Does this make it more wrong in your opinion, since wearing contacts or glasses is a perfectly safe option?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, you seem to want to focus on the "what God intended" portion of my answers. We have been engaged in a discussion about birth control so lets stay with it.

When one deforms the body with a sterilization surgery, they are causing their body to function other than God intended, by seperating the unitive and procreative functions of sex.

Let's look at the issue from the another perspective. You seem to accept sex that is unitive while not procreative, as when artifical birth control is used. Do you accept the opposite?

What are your feelings about a husband who has an extreme dislike for his wife (just can't stand her) but has sex with her only because he has animalistic urges. Throughout the entire act he focuses only on the base physical union without any feeling of love for his wife. Is that a sin?

 

[wishtolearn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
A Catholic cannot use contraception in any form (even herbal) without rupturing his/her relationship with the Catholic Church.

Catholics spouses may use natural family planning if they have a serious reason for limiting the number of their children. NFP is the really natural means because nature makes the woman infertile for certain days of her cycle. NFP is simply a cooperation with nature. It is much better than the old rhythm method.

To say that a person can use contraception and God will make her pregnant if that is His will is an unrealistic statement. It's about like saying a person is going to go out and stab someone he's angry at and if that's against God's will God will save the other person from harm. So does that mean, we can do whatever we want and God won't let any harmful consequences come from it. It also seems to be saying, I'm not responsible for anything I do. That is against Bible teaching, Church teaching. And it is quite illogical!

Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pauline,
We could debate this until next Christmas and neither one of us will do anything other than insult the other. I have given my statement on this matter and I do not care what you or anyone else on this board thinks of it. I do not need you to judge my belief in Christ or to determine how good of a Catholic I am. I know what I am in my own heart and I am very accepting of that. YOu do not know me at all to determine how responsible I am or what my consequences may be. End of story for Wishtolearn.

 

[wishtolearn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:
[QB

What are your feelings about a husband who has an extreme dislike for his wife (just can't stand her) but has sex with her only because he has animalistic urges. Throughout the entire act he focuses only on the base physical union without any feeling of love for his wife. Is that a sin?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not one to tell someone something is a sin or not but common sense as a woman would tell me to get some serious counseling for this marriage and if that is not a possibility, get out fast.

 

[Pauline]

wishtolearn,
You haven't told me yet how you define who is a Christian. There must be some way for a person to truly know whether he or she is an actual born-again Christian or not. What is it?

And how do you define who is a Catholic? By being born into a Catholic home or just how?

Pauline

 

[wishtolearn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
wishtolearn,
You haven't told me yet how you define who is a Christian. There must be some way for a person to truly know whether he or she is an actual born-again Christian or not. What is it?

And how do you define who is a Catholic? By being born into a Catholic home or just how?

Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pauline,
I am a Christian because I believe in Christ and what he came here to do. If someone else claims to be a Christian for the same reasons, and I am being quite broad here, then I have no reason to doubt someone. As far as being Catholic. Like I said, I was raised Catholic and confirmed in the faith. Do I practice it? No. I find the churches to be prettily decorated for Christmas; I think the Mass is a peaceful and interesting ceremony; the Vatican looks like a neat place to go on vacation; my grandmother was happy we have had a Polish Pope; I got married in the Church because I could and our priest was a sweet fellow. Do I beleive in their stance on certain social and political areas? No. And I have every right to disagree because I can, it's a free country.

Whether someone is born-again is not my place to determine. My father claims to be born-again but Lord knows he doesn't act like it. A lot of people claim to be born again on this forum, but by their treatment of others, that's questionable too. Same goes for Catholics. I am not a Baptist so I cannot make an educated statement on the fact nor can I quote Scripture off the top of my head.

As far as my personal life goes, I have made comments to defend this and am comfortable with them. How much further do you want to drag this topic? And who are you to gauge what kind of a Christian I am. I have not done that to you.

 

[Pauline]

wishtolearn,
I don't think I have ever attacked you on this board. If I have, please, tell me where. I'll examine what I wrote and if it was, indeed, an attack, I'll apologize.

I have tried to show the problem with some of the thoughts you have posted. But that's part of posting on this board. That is not an attack on the person.

It does bother me, and probably every Catholic posting on here, when you call yourself "Catholic". I really appreciate it if you have removed that designation from your profile.

And I do think you're defensive where my posts are concerned. I also think that for some reason, which I do not know, you have given up the greatest treasure on this earth -- being a faithful Catholic. But thinking those things does not constitute an attack on you. And I do pray for you daily.
Pauline