S/O: A few questions about Catholicism, and a general question

[melissel]

I just finished reading shinyhappypeople's lengthy thread about denominations, and I have a few questions of my own. I have some RC-specific (may apply to EO as well) questions and a general one. They feel kind of silly, but I'm really unsure of the answers, so please don't laugh at me. (Or at least be kind enough to snicker at me when I'm not looking! :tongue_smilie:)

 

1) Are there denominations that consider the Bible more a collection of parable and general guide then as an exact and literal historical document that has been translated exactly as Jesus intended, to be followed to the letter (whatever that may be, since interpretations often differ)?

 

2) It seemed to me that many of the Catholic posters in Shiny's thread pointed out that there's grace for the journey in the Catholic faith--there's room for joining even if you don't totally agree with or understand a tenet, because you'd be encouraged to question and learn and walk your way toward agreement and understanding. Is that accurate, or am I misunderstanding? If this is the case, what happens if one just never comes to agreement with a tenet of the church during their journey?

 

3) From what I've read, the official RC stance on birth control is that it is unacceptable under any circumstance. What does that mean for the Catholic who does use it? For example, I don't foresee DH ever changing his mind on having more children. If I were to convert (or, more accurately, finish my education as a Catholic) and hold to the official stance, the BC issue would be a very, very large one in my marriage. What then?

 

I think I had more questions, but I'd have to go back to the other thread and re-read, and I don't have time now (should have taken notes!). I may have to ask more later.

 

TIA for your thoughts.

Edited November 22, 2011 by melissel

[Parker Martin]

(1) To different degrees, basically any church that is not fundamentalist fits this description. There are also some churches where you will find both fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. (ETA: Note the "to different degrees." The description you gave is open to very broad interpretation. Would it include churches who don't believe the Bible is the literal, word-for-word word of God but do believe that it includes many accurate historical claims in addition to parables and life guidance? Would it include churches who look at the Bible as secular philosophy? There's a huge range this description could cover.)

 

(2) The expectation is that you will submit to the authority of the Magisterium. Even if you don't understand it, you will submit to the teaching because you have faith in the Church. That's not to say that the laity all practice that way, but that's the official expectation.

 

(3) You can use Natural Family Planning (NFP.) It's very effective. Lots of non-Catholics use it because it avoids the side effects of artificial birth control. There are some restrictions as to when it's okay to use NFP and be closed off to new life, but that's sort of getting out into the tall grass, so I'll leave that alone. Some Catholics do use birth control, but this is considered by the Church to be a mortal sin.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Parker Martin

[Mrs Twain]

In real life, there are many churches from various denominations who don't regard the Bible as truth. That may not be the denominations' official stance, but individual churches are led by and often influenced by what the main pastor or minister says. I have been to several in various denominations which teach this way, using the Bible where they like it and using popular psychology or popular books as the main source for the sermons.

 

There are other individual churches in the various denominations which hold that the Bible is truth and teach accurately from the Bible as the basis of their sermons.

 

You may just have to attend different churches in your area to see what they are like, particularly regarding #1 of your questions.

 

People who find that they have disagreements with the theology of the particular chruch or denomination they are attending either decide that the disagreements are only minor or gray area subjects and stay in that particular church, or else they may leave and find a different church if the disagreements if they consider the disagreements to be major differences.

 

I don't think your questions are silly at all. I am glad that you are asking them.

[Avila]

I am only going to take on #2. Hope that is OK.

 

http://usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-Teach

 

From the above: Catechesis involves the lifelong effort of forming people into witnesses for Christ and opening their hearts to the spiritual transformation given by the Holy Spirit.

 

Conversion is a lifelong process. Catholics are called to continually be open to it. I would definitely say that we are not expected to start at the finish line in regards to being fully Catholic. And many, many Catholics have become Catholic and remain within the Catholic Church without having all the issues resolved.

 

Having said that, to me, I think it depends on the things you have issue with. How important are those things to you? Are you open to studying, thinking and praying about them, in light of Church teaching? If you can't go in at least with an open heart to the things that you are questioning, now is not the time to join.

 

I guess what I am saying is that I would not let an imperfect understanding of the faith keep me from the faith. We are all imperfect, and we all struggle. Some things you have no issue with now, you may question later. Some things that seem like huge issues now may simply not be at another point. I would not join the Church knowing I was in full rebellion against it, but I would not let some doubts and questions keep me from further investigating.

 

We join the Church through RCIA, which is a lengthy process. We have time then to work out any large and looming issues. Attending RCIA classes just means we are investigating the faith. It does not necessarily mean you are joining the Church. If, at the end of RCIA, I felt like I had a large impediment to joining, I would delay joining. People do that all the time, for a multitude of reasons. The best thing to do if you are having trouble deciding which things are deal-breakers and which you might be able to work through is to make an appointment and talk with a good priest who can guide you. All the priests and RCIA directors I know would be happy to do that, and they would do in a way that respects your dignity, without trying to convince you unduly.

 

Best wishes!

Edited November 22, 2011 by Asenik

[Hannah C.]

Regarding #3 - NFP is allowed and encouraged. IIRC, using artificial birth control in knowing defiance of church teaching may even meet the criteria for a mortal sin - but I'm not sure, so definitely check that out for yourself! If one spouse is not Catholic, the birth control situation gets very complicated very quickly - the non-Catholic spouse is not bound by church teaching, and the Catholic spouse may not be culpable for the other's use of birth control. I've found really helpful information on all of this at Catholic Answers, but I'm still confused about it. The best way to answer your questions would probably be to talk with a priest, if that's possible.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Hannah C.

[dirty ethel rackham]

About question 1 ... the Bible is considered Truth ... but not as in a History or Science book as we understand them today. It is the God's story of salvation - the relationship between God and Man. But we do not have to take everything in there literally. But we do hold it in high regard in the teaching of the faith, along with Tradition (capital T - teachings that have been handed down) and the Magisterium (the church hierarchy).

[Teachin'Mine]

I just finished reading shinyhappypeople's lengthy thread about denominations, and I have a few questions of my own. I have some RC-specific (may apply to EO as well) questions and a general one. They feel kind of silly, but I'm really unsure of the answers, so please don't laugh at me. (Or at least be kind enough to snicker at me when I'm not looking! :tongue_smilie:)

 

It amazes me how much I don't yet know about my faith. Your questions are very good ones. :)

 

1) Are there denominations that consider the Bible more a collection of parable and general guide then as an exact and literal historical document that has been translated exactly as Jesus intended, to be followed to the letter (whatever that may be, since interpretations often differ)?

 

We consider the Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and as such it is the word of God. But the RC Church does not take everything literally - as in the 6 days of creation. The New Testament is more factual, although a lot was never written down and a lot was passed on through the Apostles who spent a few years living with Jesus and learning from Him directly. Sometimes the intended meaning is difficult to know without knowing more about the time frame and culture in which it was written. Hence the study of Scriptures is very helpful. :)

 

2) It seemed to me that many of the Catholic posters in Shiny's thread pointed out that there's grace for the journey in the Catholic faith--there's room for joining even if you don't totally agree with or understand a tenet, because you'd be encouraged to question and learn and walk your way toward agreement and understanding. Is that accurate, or am I misunderstanding? If this is the case, what happens if one just never comes to agreement with a tenet of the church during their journey?

 

That would probably be best answered by the people running the RCIA program and ultimately by the priest. I think it would depend a great deal on which tenet and the reasoning. I wouldn't worry about that at the beginning as they usually cover a lot in the classes and some of questionable tenets may be covered and no longer be a problem after thorough study. If something is still a problem after that, the priest would be the one to speak with.

 

3) From what I've read, the official RC stance on birth control is that it is unacceptable under any circumstance. What does that mean for the Catholic who does use it? For example, I don't foresee DH ever changing his mind on having more children. If I were to convert (or, more accurately, finish my education as a Catholic) and hold to the official stance, the BC issue would be a very, very large one in my marriage. What then?

 

Yes that is the official stance, but you have to remember that you are talking about you converting, and not your husband. There may be more leniency than you'd think in that situation. Again, the priest would be the best one to ask, and truth be told, you might get different answers depending on who you asked. This is all just in my opinion, so others may have better information which makes everything I've written null and void. :tongue_smilie:

 

I think I had more questions, but I'd have to go back to the other thread and re-read, and I don't have time now (should have taken notes!). I may have to ask more later.

 

TIA for your thoughts.

 

Keep questioning, keep learning and keep growing in your faith - wherever it leads. :)

[Mrs Twain]

Concerning thoughts that the Bible is not consistent with history and science--

 

I find these to be interesting topics to discuss. I don't know why people would consider the Bible a science textbook since the Bible's purpose is not to be a science book. The only thing I can think of is that people are referring to the age of the earth issue, which I consider a matter of interpretation. The Bible does not explicitly state how old the earth or the universe is. I have heard Bible scholars and geologists who argue that the earth is young, and I have also heard other Bible scholars who argue very well that the earth may be old. After a lot of study, I think both sides have plausible arguments. That is why I consider age of the earth a matter of personal interpretation. In addition, my career and most of my education is in the science field. I have not found anything in science that would contradict the Bible. In fact, in my most advanced science courses, I see the evidence pointing toward the most likely conclusion that the universe was created by an intelligent being.

 

The Bible does contain a lot of history and references to historical events. There is tremendous archaeoligical evidence that the historical information in the Bible is accurate. In fact, there are people who have become Christians after studying the archaeological evidence and comparing it to the Bible. I am not sure why there are people who claim that the Bible is not accurate according to history. I suspect that these people have not actually studied the subject. If you are doubtful of the historical accuracy of the Bible, I would encourage you to study the archaeology for yourself.

 

Just some thoughts on the subject of history and science in the Bible in case you are interested...

[cathmom]

On question number 2, it depends what you are having issues with. Is it some important tenet of the faith? (You don't have to answer me, just think about it.) For example, you believe that Jesus wasn't divine. Obviously, that would be a problem. But if you don't agree with asking the saints for their prayers? OK. Or you don't care about apparations of Mary? Fine. However, one needs to be careful with attitudes here. I've seen many people take the stance, "I don't agree with the Church, so the Church must be wrong" instead of "I don't agree with the Church, so I must be wrong." Humility is a virtue.

 

On number 3, yes, all artificial birth control is unacceptable. It doesn't matter if "most" Catholics use it, as a previous poster stated (if that is true). It is wrong. Most people lie. That's wrong too. However, the Catholic spouse is not liable if the non-Catholic spouse uses ABC. And yes, NFP is effective when used correctly, just like any other form of BC.

[cathmom]

Yeah well most catholics know that using birth control, despite the illogical and archaic catholic position, is not equivalent to failing to be open to life and they also know real life isnt catholic idealism and they go with what works for them bc they are the ones who have to pay for and rear these little kids, not the church.

 

 

signed, the catholic who is waiting for her nuvaring scrip to be renewed right now and who thinks the comparison to lying or abortion or whatever other mortal sin you want to toss out there is both eye roll worthy and ridiculous. But have at it. be pg every year! or use nfp! whatever! I dont care.

 

:grouphug:

 

I wasn't saying lying was a mortal sin. I was just saying that whether or not people do something is not the determiner of whether something is right or wrong, and I used lying as an example. It was a poor choice of words.

 

I disagree respectfully that the Catholic position is archaic and illogical.

[cathmom]

birth control issue should not be a deciding factor for anyone who considers joining the church, is my point. Esp given the gross disparity between the teaching and the practice.

 

Fortunately for me Im a cradle catholic grandfathered in, so dont have to fret over my lack of compliance. ;)

 

I see your point - thank you for clarifying.

[mommymilkies]

#1- Unitarian Universalists and many Liberal Quakers follow this view.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

IMHO I would look at the Episcopal Church since it meets criteria you mentioned and has much in common with the Catholic Church IMO as someone from a Catholic background.

[chiguirre]

3) From what I've read, the official RC stance on birth control is that it is unacceptable under any circumstance. What does that mean for the Catholic who does use it? For example, I don't foresee DH ever changing his mind on having more children. If I were to convert (or, more accurately, finish my education as a Catholic) and hold to the official stance, the BC issue would be a very, very large one in my marriage. What then?

 

 

It means you'll have a lot of company.

 

Here's a link to a Reuters article about a recent poll:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-contraceptives-religion-idUSTRE73C7W020110413

Edited November 23, 2011 by chiguirre

[VA6336]

I'm confused about what the study actually determined. The article states in bold at the beginning:

 

Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed

 

This is misleading, methinks. It says "have used" which does not mean "currently uses." In another thread it has been mentioned that there is grace in one's journey as a Catholic. We all make mistakes and do things that we later regret and choose not to do again. This may be the case, along with any number of other possible explanations. I would be curious to read the exact wording of the questions asked of the women in the study.

[cathmom]

And that info comes from the Guttmacher Institute, hardly an impartial observer in the subject.

[chiguirre]

If you read further down they go into more detail. I originally found this link at the NCR site, so I don't think that the RCC would dispute the accuracy of the findings.

 

Here's a link to the NCR article:

 

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/new-poll-nearly-100-catholic-women-use-banned-birth-control

[VA6336]

Hmm..I'm not a big fan of the NCR (biased and poor reporting, but it's been years since I've read it regularly) and don't know anything about the Guttmacher Institute so I can't comment on their bias. I did go to the NCR site, but didn't find much further explanation about the study.

 

If the study is an accurate portrait of the use of artificial birth control by Catholic women, I believe it to be another example of how poorly catechized many Catholics still are. We're all responsible for our own faith and knowing what we believe and why. I wish more people who call themselves Catholic took it upon themselves to take responsibility for their own faith.

[ElizaG]

But if you don't agree with asking the saints for their prayers? OK.

I'm not so sure about this. We ask the saints for their prayers during the liturgy, in the Confiteor. It doesn't seem reasonable to disagree with something as central as that.

 

That said, there's no requirement to mention the saints in one's own private prayers.

[melissel]

birth control issue should not be a deciding factor for anyone who considers joining the church, is my point. Esp given the gross disparity between the teaching and the practice.

 

Fortunately for me Im a cradle catholic grandfathered in, so dont have to fret over my lack of compliance. ;)

 

Hm, well, technically, so am I, I think--though I was never confirmed. I wonder what that means for me going through something like RCIA?

 

The funny thing is that DH was raised Catholic all the way, and when we met, he was of the "as many as God will grant us" mindset, and I was all, "Two is more than enough!" Now, 15 years later, I'm the one saying, "Aw, come on, maybe one more?" And he's the one considering the big V :001_huh:

 

Calandalsmom, I hear you, and I agree. It just feels disingenuous coming back to a faith when I know that I won't be able to even consider holding to one of the major points. I have a lot more thinking to do on that.

[melissel]

I'm not so sure about this. We ask the saints for their prayers during the liturgy, in the Confiteor. It doesn't seem reasonable to disagree with something as central as that.

 

That said, there's no requirement to mention the saints in one's own private prayers.

 

No worries, I have no problem with the Trinity, the saints, Mary, etc. Actually, that's part of what's drawing me back, I think. I do love all of that--the beauty of it all. My concerns are more of the socially liberal sort, as in, I am one and have always been, and am struggling with what that will mean. And yes, the BC issue as well. (Thanks to everyone who responded and PMed me about this. My inbox is full--I need to see to some responses.)

[VA6336]

Calandalsmom, I apologize to you. Re-reading my previous post, it could easily be inferred that I was speaking directly to you and about your knowledge of your own personal faith. That is not what I meant and I apologize for that. I was referring more broadly to the epidemic that I believe exists within the Catholic Church regarding catechesis.

 

OP: I hope you have found the answers you were looking for.

[milovany]

Melissa, can ya clear out some Inbox space, hey? ;)

[I.Dup.]

I disagree respectfully that the Catholic position is archaic and illogical.

 

:iagree:

 

 

If the study is an accurate portrait of the use of artificial birth control by Catholic women, I believe it to be another example of how poorly catechized many Catholics still are. We're all responsible for our own faith and knowing what we believe and why. I wish more people who call themselves Catholic took it upon themselves to take responsibility for their own faith.

 

:iagree:

[zaichiki]

If one spouse is not Catholic, the birth control situation gets very complicated very quickly - the non-Catholic spouse is not bound by church teaching, and the Catholic spouse may not be culpable for the other's use of birth control. I've found really helpful information on all of this at Catholic Answers, but I'm still confused about it. The best way to answer your questions would probably be to talk with a priest, if that's possible.

 

I've had this very discussion with a couple of Catholic priests. Talking to priest about our specific experiences saved my faith and my marriage. I really don't feel I can share details, but, especially if your situation is similar to what is detailed above, PLEASE talk to a priest before you rule out Catholicism over this issue.

[OrganicAnn]

On question #1 - I think most Catholics would not take the Old Testament literally, but rather a people's attempt to put down their explanation of the universe and a history of the Jewish People. Most Catholics would take much of the New Testament more literally (the exception might be the Book of Revelation).

 

#2 If you have some belief that you think is fundamentally different than the church dogma, you should probably talk it over with someone in authority like a priest to be sure that your understanding of the Church's position. There are sometimes nuances that get lost in popular reporting on the Catholic Church.

 

#3 Again I would talk over your situation with a Priest. It is not a simple issue.

[2squared]

It just feels disingenuous coming back to a faith when I know that I won't be able to even consider holding to one of the major points. I have a lot more thinking to do on that.

 

Two thoughts:

 

1) Your position on BC today may not be your position on BC next year or 10 years down the road. Like others have said, there's a lot of grace and room for growth in the Church as you walk your faith path.

 

2) Sounds like right now you are planning on using BC whether you are Catholic or not. Your position in God's eyes isn't any different inside or outside of the Church with regards to this issue. If God considers BC a sin, then you are sinning regardless of your denomination. If God doesn't consider BC a sin, then you aren't sinning regardless of your denomination. The Catholic label really only matters if the activities that come with the label pull you closer to God. If you think your faith walk is straighter and faster within the Church (despite the BC), then that's where you should be.

 

In full disclosure, we are non-birth control Catholics.

[anabelneri]

I feel like others have answered your questions for the first 2 fairly well... nothing to add.

 

#3. Ahh, #3. Such fun.

 

All moral decisions for a Catholic should begin with an informed conscience. Here is an article about what that is that might be helpful. Here is a section of the Catechism about conscience. The take-home part of this is that we are to form our consciences through study (including applicable scientific data), discussion, and prayer. Prayer about the issue is essential!

 

One thing I've learned is that Catholic statements (like the BC ones) have grounding in our theology; it is very useful to figure out what that is when making moral decisions, especially if you're leaning away from standard church teaching. So, on the BC issue, two major considerations that the Church emphasizes is (1) a married couple is called to be generative, including being open to children, and (2) a married couple is called to be united, entirely open to one another, the good, the bad, physical, mental, etc., and that includes fertility. The Church generally wants nothing to interrupt, damage, or replace the essential unity of a married couple. (An interesting aside -- when you dig into Catholic moral theology you'll find that this unity issue applies also when a couple is struggling to conceive... the husband and wife are called to be united, not the doctor and the uterus. But that's a whole other emotional and difficult discussion that isn't often had even within Catholic circles because we all truly want the couple to succeed and have their longed-for child... but the point is that the Church places great value on a couple's unity.) So, if you decide not to follow the standard teaching, how are you as a couple going to address those key issues? If we use BC, but conceive anyway, are we still open to that child? How can we remain fully open to one another with barriers in the way? Are we being fully open to one another if one of us is on a type of BC that changes our hormones, moods, etc? (related: "Your body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit"... how does hormonal BC affect the Spirit's Temple? In some cases BC indeed makes life in the Temple better, but is that the case if the purpose is purely for preventing children?) How can we address these issues?

 

Something else to think about... the Catholic church has more than a billion members, with communities in almost every country in the world (I think Saudi Arabia is the only one anymore that doesn't... Afghanistan was also on that list at one time). We are all called to follow our informed conscience, but that requires study and research. We in the U.S. have the luxury of doing that research. Overall, the majority of Catholics don't have that option. The Church has the duty to help folks make good moral choices in whatever circumstances they find themselves. They (the head guys in the Vatican) take this very seriously. They also don't want to tell people that something is Ok to do if it's not really and truly the best option. They tell us the ideal, and really desire the best for us. (Another aside -- as Americans we're prone to follow the law literally, whether it's state or national laws, or whether they're Church teachings. This isn't the case everywhere. Italian Catholics, for example, are more likely to be laid-back about following Church teachings. They'll acknowledge that the teaching is the ideal, but putting it into practice is a whole different issue. Not that that's ideal, but it might provide some perspective.)

 

In the end, I'm a fan of NFP. I've had 2 planned children in 11-1/2 years of active :tongue_smilie: marriage. I have a good (very Catholic) friend with 5 kids who decided that using condoms actually increased their unity as a couple, and they remained open to children (since condoms aren't 100%, and actually conceived 2 of their kids using condoms).

 

Every couple is different. As others have pointed out, it's a good idea to talk to a priest. It might also be helpful to talk to someone in family ministry at the diocese (or if you're lucky enough to have a family minister at your parish, that could be interesting too). Talk to multiple people, even, because each person has different insight. Depending on where you are, you're likely to find a wide range of emotions and experiences related to this topic. And pray about it. Like other issues in becoming Catholic, this one may take time to work through. There are plenty of Catholics who are still trying to figure it out; that doesn't make them any less Catholic.

 

Oh, and something else... in our country in particular, the teachings of the Church about moral sexual issues seem to garner an inordinate amount of attention. The Church calls us couples to be generative and united. Yes. The Church also calls us to serve one another, to serve the poor. She also calls us to love one another. To forgive one another. To pray, to feed, to heal. Our moral choices come out of our life in Christ. Choosing to not use BC should flow from that. It should be a beautiful branch on the tree of our life in faith. It shouldn't be an ornament we stuck on just because we were told that we should. If it feels like an ornament, there's more work, more study, more discussion, more prayer to be done, and sometimes it just takes more time.

 

Ok, that's probably more than you wanted. But it's a few thoughts I hadn't seen mentioned yet. Maybe something will be helpful. I hope I wasn't too preachy... I really don't mean it that way.

 

Good luck!

[cathmom]

c

 

I have a good (very Catholic) friend with 5 kids who decided that using condoms actually increased their unity as a couple, and they remained open to children (since condoms aren't 100%, and actually conceived 2 of their kids using condoms).

 

 

 

Could you explain their reasoning behind this?

[threeturn]

I feel like others have answered your questions for the first 2 fairly well... nothing to add.

 

#3. Ahh, #3. Such fun.

 

All moral decisions for a Catholic should begin with an informed conscience. Here is an article about what that is that might be helpful. Here is a section of the Catechism about conscience. The take-home part of this is that we are to form our consciences through study (including applicable scientific data), discussion, and prayer. Prayer about the issue is essential!

 

One thing I've learned is that Catholic statements (like the BC ones) have grounding in our theology; it is very useful to figure out what that is when making moral decisions, especially if you're leaning away from standard church teaching. So, on the BC issue, two major considerations that the Church emphasizes is (1) a married couple is called to be generative, including being open to children, and (2) a married couple is called to be united, entirely open to one another, the good, the bad, physical, mental, etc., and that includes fertility. The Church generally wants nothing to interrupt, damage, or replace the essential unity of a married couple. (An interesting aside -- when you dig into Catholic moral theology you'll find that this unity issue applies also when a couple is struggling to conceive... the husband and wife are called to be united, not the doctor and the uterus. But that's a whole other emotional and difficult discussion that isn't often had even within Catholic circles because we all truly want the couple to succeed and have their longed-for child... but the point is that the Church places great value on a couple's unity.) So, if you decide not to follow the standard teaching, how are you as a couple going to address those key issues? If we use BC, but conceive anyway, are we still open to that child? How can we remain fully open to one another with barriers in the way? Are we being fully open to one another if one of us is on a type of BC that changes our hormones, moods, etc? (related: "Your body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit"... how does hormonal BC affect the Spirit's Temple? In some cases BC indeed makes life in the Temple better, but is that the case if the purpose is purely for preventing children?) How can we address these issues?

 

Something else to think about... the Catholic church has more than a billion members, with communities in almost every country in the world (I think Saudi Arabia is the only one anymore that doesn't... Afghanistan was also on that list at one time). We are all called to follow our informed conscience, but that requires study and research. We in the U.S. have the luxury of doing that research. Overall, the majority of Catholics don't have that option. The Church has the duty to help folks make good moral choices in whatever circumstances they find themselves. They (the head guys in the Vatican) take this very seriously. They also don't want to tell people that something is Ok to do if it's not really and truly the best option. They tell us the ideal, and really desire the best for us. (Another aside -- as Americans we're prone to follow the law literally, whether it's state or national laws, or whether they're Church teachings. This isn't the case everywhere. Italian Catholics, for example, are more likely to be laid-back about following Church teachings. They'll acknowledge that the teaching is the ideal, but putting it into practice is a whole different issue. Not that that's ideal, but it might provide some perspective.)

 

In the end, I'm a fan of NFP. I've had 2 planned children in 11-1/2 years of active :tongue_smilie: marriage. I have a good (very Catholic) friend with 5 kids who decided that using condoms actually increased their unity as a couple, and they remained open to children (since condoms aren't 100%, and actually conceived 2 of their kids using condoms).

 

Every couple is different. As others have pointed out, it's a good idea to talk to a priest. It might also be helpful to talk to someone in family ministry at the diocese (or if you're lucky enough to have a family minister at your parish, that could be interesting too). Talk to multiple people, even, because each person has different insight. Depending on where you are, you're likely to find a wide range of emotions and experiences related to this topic. And pray about it. Like other issues in becoming Catholic, this one may take time to work through. There are plenty of Catholics who are still trying to figure it out; that doesn't make them any less Catholic.

 

Oh, and something else... in our country in particular, the teachings of the Church about moral sexual issues seem to garner an inordinate amount of attention. The Church calls us couples to be generative and united. Yes. The Church also calls us to serve one another, to serve the poor. She also calls us to love one another. To forgive one another. To pray, to feed, to heal. Our moral choices come out of our life in Christ. Choosing to not use BC should flow from that. It should be a beautiful branch on the tree of our life in faith. It shouldn't be an ornament we stuck on just because we were told that we should. If it feels like an ornament, there's more work, more study, more discussion, more prayer to be done, and sometimes it just takes more time.

 

Ok, that's probably more than you wanted. But it's a few thoughts I hadn't seen mentioned yet. Maybe something will be helpful. I hope I wasn't too preachy... I really don't mean it that way.

 

Good luck!

 

I am not the OP, but most excellent post. Thank you. :)

[Ellie]

Hm, well, technically, so am I, I think--though I was never confirmed. I wonder what that means for me going through something like RCIA?

You'd need to go through RCIA, or at least work closely with a priest so that you could be confirmed.

 

The funny thing is that DH was raised Catholic all the way, and when we met, he was of the "as many as God will grant us" mindset, and I was all, "Two is more than enough!" Now, 15 years later, I'm the one saying, "Aw, come on, maybe one more?" And he's the one considering the big V :001_huh:

Sounds as if he needs a renewal in his faith. Most priests are happy to talk with folks about stuff like that.:)

[6packofun]

And I think it says something when "good old-fashioned common sense" can trump the "infallibility" of the church.

 

It's all very simple (taken from http://www.twotlj.org/Sex%20in%20Marriage.pdf Granted, an older document, but it's about timeless issues, right?):

 

6. But suppose the condemnation of contraception isn't infallible. Then

it's fallible, isn't it? And if it's fallible, couldn't it be mistaken?

This argument looks convincing at first glance because it is perfectly

logical except for one thing—the words "fallible" and "infallible" are used

in theology with a technical meaning. If you say in ordinary English

that someone's statements are fallible, you suggest that they are not very

trustworthy—that he is likely to be mistaken.

 

But when we say a particular point of Catholic teaching is not infallible,

and so in the technical sense is fallible, the word "fallible" should not

be taken as suggesting that the teaching referred to is unreliable.

The teachings of the Church which are proposed with the guarantee

of her divine gift of infallibility and which Catholics accept on faith

have a kind of certainty that is absolutely unique for the mind of the

person who has the gift of faith. When a doctrine is not infallibly taught,

we do not have that same unique kind of certainty

.

However, it would be wrong to suppose that only the infallible teaching

of the Church really counts for Catholics. It is not as if there were

infallible doctrines on the one side, and mere fallible human opinions on

the other. Short of infallible doctrines there is a whole spectrum of Catho

lic teaching. It goes all the way from pious reflections up to very certain

points of Catholic doctrine.

 

For instance, the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgjn

Mary, body as well as soul, into heaven, was infallibly defined by Pius

XII. Before this doctrine of faith was formally proclaimed it already was

an unquestionable truth of Catholic doctrine. Though not yet infallibly

defined, it would have been farfetched to argue: "It's fallible, and there

fore possibly mistaken."

 

The teaching on contraception is not in the same situation that the

doctrine of the Assumption was the day before Pius XII defined it. The

whole Catholic world is not demanding that Pope Paul put the seal of

infallibility on this point of Catholic moral doctrine.

 

However, in the whole moral teaching of the Catholic Church there is

very little that has been infallibly defined. But this does not mean that

all this non-defined teaching is of doubtful validity. It is authentic teach

ing of the Church, and faithful Catholics accept it as solid Catholic doc

trine. The teaching on contraception that Pope Paul has reaffirmed at

least falls under this heading.

 

And we should remember that the Church does not exist just to provide

something for theologians to speculate about. It exists to bring men to

God, and we can be confident that its moral teaching does show men the

way to God, whether the teaching is ex cathedra or not.

 

Of course, the fact that many find it hard to accept the teaching of

the Church on contraception is being used as an argument that this

teaching is not true and certain. But we must remember that dissent is a

common feature of life today—from the family to the university, from

the government to the Church.

 

Moreover, moral teachings affect our lives very intimately, and there

are many personal reasons that make it harder for us to accept them

than, for instance, the doctrine of the Assumption.

 

It is also pertinent to notice that dissent from a particular point of

the Church's moral teaching does not prove a great deal. There is more

or less intense and widespread dissent from solid Catholic moral teach

ings on other matters ranging all the way from premarital sex to the kill

ing of innocent persons in war to the demands of racial justice.

 

*******************

Got it? :D

[dirty ethel rackham]

I want to point out that the Catholic church doesnt really have its practitioners best interest at heart all the time. Or else we wouldnt have a grotesque revolting and still continuing problem with bishops protecting their pedophile priests over their children. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/kansas-city-bishop-makes-deal-to-avoid-more-criminal-charges.html

 

So you know, grain of salt and all that.

 

Must we dredge this up over and over again? The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on pedophiles in the clergy, nor in positions of contact with children. They just make bigger news.

 

Don't get me wrong. My heart aches over this issue ... for the children who were harmed (I lost two classmates to suicide over this as we had two pedophile priests in my parish growing up), the people who lost faith and trust, and the overwhelming majority of priests and bishops who have no culpability in this. However, the hierarchy has gotten the message and BIG changes have been made. There have been bishops and priests who have sinned greatly ... but it is not correct to say that this is representative of the entire church. If it is, then we must paint the Boy Scouts, all teachers, pastors of other denominations, ice rink owners, etc with the same brush.

[ElizaG]

On question #1 - I think most Catholics would not take the Old Testament literally, but rather a people's attempt to put down their explanation of the universe and a history of the Jewish People. Most Catholics would take much of the New Testament more literally (the exception might be the Book of Revelation).

I have no idea what "most Catholics" believe -- as others have mentioned, there are a lot of poorly catechized people out there -- but the teachings of Catholicism about Scripture are pretty clear. Catholicism holds that the whole Bible is divinely inspired and without error: "the words of God, in the words of men." Although the sacred writers used a variety of styles and literary devices, this doesn't mean that we can choose to set certain passages aside as merely human writings. For instance, the Church affirms that Genesis is historical in nature, though it's written in such a way as to make it understandable to ancient people.

 

"This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

 

39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers."

 

The above is from Humani Generis (1950 papal encyclical). More specific details can be found in the official statements of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis.

 

Here are some more general sources that the OP might find helpful in understanding the Catholic way of approaching the Bible:

 

Providentissimus Deus (another encyclical)

Dei Verbum (dogmatic document from Vatican II)

Catechism of the Catholic Church on Sacred Scripture

[nono]

Must we dredge this up over and over again? The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on pedophiles in the clergy, nor in positions of contact with children. They just make bigger news.

 

Don't get me wrong. My heart aches over this issue ... for the children who were harmed (I lost two classmates to suicide over this as we had two pedophile priests in my parish growing up), the people who lost faith and trust, and the overwhelming majority of priests and bishops who have no culpability in this. However, the hierarchy has gotten the message and BIG changes have been made. There have been bishops and priests who have sinned greatly ... but it is not correct to say that this is representative of the entire church. If it is, then we must paint the Boy Scouts, all teachers, pastors of other denominations, ice rink owners, etc with the same brush.

 

I don't think ice rink owners as a group are protecting other ice rink owners. Nor are they advising others on how to live a moral, Catholic life. :confused:

 

As for big changes being made? I don't think we all see it that way. I'd choose slow, plodding, and maybe just window dressing is happening.

[anabelneri]

Could you explain their reasoning behind this?

 

The reasoning behind this was that, with three children to parent and a husband who worked long hours, if they used NFP then the chances for them to share a cup of tea would be exceedingly rare. They felt that a lack of tea would put a strain on their relationship, so in prayer and study they chose to use condoms. If you look at the data, using condoms alone is less effective in terms of preventing pregnancies than NFP, but they do put an artificial barrier between the husband and wife so the big issue for that couple was the unitive aspects rather than the procreative aspects (both additional children were welcomed with open arms). It was their decision, decided together with much study and prayer and not made lightly.

 

I hope that helps clarify...

[ElizaG]

This thread seems to have two different aspects:

 

1) the actual teachings/beliefs of Catholicism, as lived out by the saints and presented through the centuries in the creeds, councils, catechisms, etc.

 

2) various things done/believed by some people who are members of the Church, but aren't following its teachings in this instance. This would include both clergy who abuse adolescents (which I think we all agree is bad), and married couples who use condoms (which some are convinced is good). Please note that I'm not equating these two examples. But they're both representative of a lack of Catholic belief and practice. As such, I'm not sure how focusing on them is helpful to the OP's search, except to show that the Church -- while we believe it's divinely guided in its ability to teach and safeguard the faith and sacraments -- has its share of weak and fallible human beings in it.

 

(ETA: "Of which I am the first," as St. Paul said. Although I'm aware of the Church's teachings and try to follow them, I'm not some paragon of domestic sanctity over here. :tongue_smilie: But we can't grasp on to our failures -- whether individually, or on a widespread scale -- and hold them up as a model of the Christian life.)

Edited November 23, 2011 by Eleanor

[Ellie]

I have no idea what "most Catholics" believe -- as others have mentioned, there are a lot of poorly catechized people out there -- but the teachings of Catholicism about Scripture are pretty clear.

I think this is an important distinction: what Catholics believe, and what the Church actually teaches. It is what the Church actually teaches that counts.

[Aelwydd]

The reasoning behind this was that, with three children to parent and a husband who worked long hours, if they used NFP then the chances for them to share a cup of tea would be exceedingly rare. They felt that a lack of tea would put a strain on their relationship, so in prayer and study they chose to use condoms. If you look at the data, using condoms alone is less effective in terms of preventing pregnancies than NFP, but they do put an artificial barrier between the husband and wife so the big issue for that couple was the unitive aspects rather than the procreative aspects (both additional children were welcomed with open arms). It was their decision, decided together with much study and prayer and not made lightly.

 

I hope that helps clarify...

 

Definitely sounds like a "spirit of the law" thing to me. I totally get their reasoning.

[anabelneri]

It's funny... I remember being in grad school taking my moral theology courses and wondering why I had never heard about "informed conscience" and the primacy of following one's conscience (CCC #1800 et al) beforehand. And yet now that I've posted all that, I can see why priests don't talk about it... it's not licence to do what we want to anyway. It's very serious business. It's much, much easier to simply state the ideal teaching and leave it at that, hoping that everyone will follow that.

 

The trouble is, though, that in our country/culture, people seem to either follow church teaching (either out of obedience or out of understanding, or a combination of both though not always), or they seem to ignore it altogether. I know a lot of very intelligent, well educated people who have even left the Church because they've never been shown the logic and goals of the teachings. Especially the moral teachings. Most young couples in our area (and I've taught NFP for the diocese... I've had these conversations) don't know anything about the Church's teachings and have totally written off the BC issue as being archaic & misogynistic. I don't think that's what's going on in the BC issue. I feel pretty strongly that it's not. But people really need to see the underpinnings of the teachings before they can hear the call to embrace them. So that's what my earlier long post was about.

 

So, just in case anyone was looking at my post as license... it's not. If anything it's a call to study, discussion, and prayer, including study of the research and applicable Church documents. The Church's teachings follow logically from our beliefs about who we are in Christ... if the teachings don't make sense, then there is more to learn. And pray. Pray pray pray.

 

Ok, must take children to park day.

Blessings!

[ElizaG]

Yes, the emphasis in recent decades on "following one's conscience" was meant to encourage personal ownership of the Church's moral teachings, rather than an attitude of mindless rule-following (which did happen in some settings, pre-Vatican II, though it certainly wasn't universal). But I think it presumed a deeper understanding of those teachings than most people had. And then there was a lot of confusion, even on the part of some priests and theologians, as to whether or not it was possible for a "well-informed conscience" to directly contradict clear and unequivocal declarations such as those on artificial birth control.

 

The 1993 Catechism did a lot to help clear this up, but there are still people who approach the teachings on difficult issues like a teenager who says "okay, thanks for the advice, mom," while rolling his eyes and thinking that she just doesn't get it. :tongue_smilie:

[cathmom]

The reasoning behind this was that, with three children to parent and a husband who worked long hours, if they used NFP then the chances for them to share a cup of tea would be exceedingly rare. They felt that a lack of tea would put a strain on their relationship, so in prayer and study they chose to use condoms. If you look at the data, using condoms alone is less effective in terms of preventing pregnancies than NFP, but they do put an artificial barrier between the husband and wife so the big issue for that couple was the unitive aspects rather than the procreative aspects (both additional children were welcomed with open arms). It was their decision, decided together with much study and prayer and not made lightly.

 

I hope that helps clarify...

 

I understand now. However, all times of marital union are supposed to be both unitive and procreative, and in this decision I really fail to see how it's either. It's not unitive, because there is literally a barrier between them (not fully accepting of each other's bodies), and it's not procreative, because their intent is not to be open to life (whether or not they would accept a child lovingly is irrelevant - other people who conceive while using birth control can also welcome a child if conceived). And if the condoms are so unreliable that they've conceived twice while using them, why bother? Why not just be open to life in general, or use NFP to avoid, even if it does interfere with frequent marital relations? I guess I'm just puzzled how one comes to this choice after much study and prayer. Thank you for explaining it for me though.

[ElizaG]

Calandalsmom, I know there are people who outright reject definitive teachings of the Church. Some of them remain Catholic. There are a lot of different dynamics that could be at work there.

 

What I find hard to understand in general, though, is how people who have a habit of thinking deeply and logically about things (which doesn't necessarily include everyone in the above group) can be happy (again, not everyone) belonging to an organization that claims to be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in its teachings on faith and morals, when they themselves are evidently quite firmly convinced that this claim is untrue. I find it even harder to understand why a person in this situation would choose to convert to Catholicism, or would encourage others to do so.

 

This is not about "people like you;" we don't even know each other. It's about the OP's questions. I'm not sure that she's looking to join a faith tradition where she would be among the dissenters from a clearly established authority (whether one sees that as authoritative or authoritarian).

[LG Gone Wild]

Calandalsmom, I know there are people who outright reject definitive teachings of the Church. Some of them remain Catholic. There are a lot of different dynamics that could be at work there.

 

What I find hard to understand in general, though, is how people who have a habit of thinking deeply and logically about things (which doesn't necessarily include everyone in the above group) can be happy (again, not everyone) belonging to an organization that claims to be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in its teachings on faith and morals, when they themselves are evidently quite firmly convinced that this claim is untrue. I find it even harder to understand why a person in this situation would choose to convert to Catholicism, or would encourage others to do so.

 

This is not about "people like you;" we don't even know each other. It's about the OP's questions. I'm not sure that she's looking to join a faith tradition where she would be among the dissenters from a clearly established authority (whether one sees that as authoritative or authoritarian).

 

:iagree:

[melissel]

Thank you all for this discussion. You're all hitting on some in the internal discussions I've had with myself, so I'm still just :lurk5: and :bigear:.

 

Milovany, I made some space in my inbox!

[Mama2Many4]

Or maybe the church has weak and falible leadership which the membership disagrees with. I dont see my disagreement with the church as a failure but thanks for your careful criticism. Im sure you'll be saddened to know I've worked thru all this and just dont care what people like you think about people like me.;)

 

 

 

 

I think its far more important what the practitioners actually do, than what the body of law professess, but maybe that's just me.

 

Im a reality based sort of girl. I know all about the church teaching and invested a lot of time in learning about the teachings and I think they are in some cases misogynistic, other times merely archaic and ill advised. And often just plain not in concert reality.

 

Wow. I haven't said anything on this topic yet and I'm going to remain calm and not say anything that will get me banned this weekend. But you are CLEARLY bashing the Catholic religion. Blatantly bashing it. Certainly you owe the rest of us who ARE true Catholics the respect to step down from your name calling of the Church. Since the Church is founded on Jesus, not the bishops, priests, cardinals, etc. I follow the Church's teachings because I follow Christ.

 

And FWIW,(not directed at you) you won't get pregnant if the Lord doesn't want you to. We've tried mercilessly and it just isn't happening. Every child is a gift from God.