I just cannot get over this one issue...and it's keeping me from being Catholic

[jinc1019]

First of all, let me just put my life in perspective (I think that is an important part of this equation) so that you can understand where I am coming from before outlining the major thing keeping me away from really engaging myself in the Church. I am 24-years-old, currently in law school, married (in the Catholic Church), and I have always been a very spiritual person. I grew up in a Catholic middle class home in a rural town in the middle of New Hampshire, but my parents never really taught me the ins and outs of the Catholic faith, and my father, who still identifies himself as Catholic, does not completely accept the Church and believes other religions have some small amounts of faith to offer. I went to Sunday school growing, was in the choir, and never really understood what it all meant.

Once I got older, I was still very spiritual; I prayed every night, but I didn't get too involved in thinking about whether Jesus was actually God or just a moral teacher, whether Protestants are valid as a sect of Christianity, etc. Then, however, I met my wife...and my new-found father-in-law, a devout Catholic, encouraged me to look in various directions to help find my faith. Over time, I slowly (agonizingly so) found answers to most (nearly all) of my very difficult questions. I started not even believing in Jesus as God and have now come to the point where I not only believe that Jesus was God, but also believe He intended for a universal church that would distribute the Eucharist, which I believe to be the supernatural manna of the New Testament. I have read countless scholars and arguments regarding various levels of the faith, and that long journey has led me to a place where I am firm in my faith, which happens to be the Catholic faith. I even read atheistic former evangelicals like Bart Ehrman, whose works I found ironically pushing me toward the Catholic Church as well.

For starters, let me begin by saying that I believe in everything in the Nicene Creed....but one primary issue, which is attached to numerous other issues as well, has kept me from going to Church, from finally being confirmed, and from truly accepting the Catholic Church.

I call this problem my "filler issue," because it directly relates to all of the Church stances made to "fill in" what Jesus did not directly address. For instance, on the issue of birth control, Jesus never directly addresses this (for obvious reasons) and nowhere can it be implied or seen that a married couple cannot use birth control or that sex should only be to create children and not as an expression of love between two married people. This is only ONE example, but there are many, many, many issues. Women being allowed to be priests is yet another. Confession is one as well. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus suggest the Church's role is to engage in these activities. I know confessional powers was given directly to the apostles AFTER the resurrection, but it doesn't say priests 2,000 years later should have the same power. The Catholic Church has addressed these issues and insists many of them are inferred from the actions of Jesus, but I have trouble buying that argument. I guess in the end, my primary issue is accepting the Catholic Church's role as creating NEW doctrine. I know why I should trust the Church's stances on the issues relating directly to Jesus and the Old Testament, but I cannot bring myself to accept Church doctrine that was created by the Church alone, and I often wonder if the Church should be creating new doctrine or simply defending the doctrines handed down to them by Jesus and developing those further. I am NOT saying that Church does not have the authority to further develop ideas passed down by Jesus...the Trinity is an example of Church doctrine developed by the Church BASED on the teachings of Jesus. But contraception in married relationships doesn't fit anywhere in that model because it's not even based on what Jesus taught, and the Church's position on women being priests makes little sense to me as well.

I believe Jesus established the Catholic Church, but with what mission? To create new doctrine as well as defend and develop original New Testament teachings? I am not so sure. I don't know that Jesus ever intended for his Church to truly be making decisions only God could make. This is at the heart of my problem. I don't know if I can be apart of the Catholic community truly because I don't know if I can ever accept the Church's role of creating new doctrine and then treating it as though it came directly from Jesus. Clearly the Church has made many mistakes in the past so not every decision it makes is what Jesus wants. If anyone can help me with this problem, I would greatly, greatly appreciate it. God bless.

[theidler]

Hi friend,
Wow...I could have wrote this myself. I have struggled with the exact same thing for years now. It is why it has taken me sooooooo long to finally be baptized.
I had a saying in RCIA - "I can explain transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, whatever - but this contraception thing I just don't understand."
First of all, I think it is important to come to grips with the teachings on contraception and the like on an intellectual level. Learn what the Church teaches on it - read Humanae Vitae and you'll be quite surprised. Intellectually, I assent to the teaching of the Church.
But what really changed my mind was reading about the health-effects of birth control - it causes the body a tremendous amount of internal chaos, is linked to cancer, and I have read that the use of birth control indirectly leads to pollution of the environment as well. It's nasty stuff. I didn't want my wife taking something that would harm her.
As for condoms, I still am not sure I get it, but I intellectually understand the idea. In practical life, I am not sure - every situation is different. Some are in mixed marriages with non-Catholics, some aren't. But allegedly NFP is far more effective than any artificial form of contraception - I keep hearing the name Janet Smith tossed around - maybe you should check her out? Plus it's free.
Anyways, I hear you friend. This set of issues has driven me up and down the wall. I was always told that contraception was what responsible adults use - I was taught it was simply being responsible. When I heard the Church's teachings on it, I went into full-on fight mode, believe me.
Here I am, though, getting baptized this year.

[Phyllo]

Originally Posted by jinc1019

First of all, let me just put my life in perspective (I think that is an important part of this equation) so that you can understand where I am coming from before outlining the major thing keeping me away from really engaging myself in the Church. I am 24-years-old, currently in law school, married (in the Catholic Church), and I have always been a very spiritual person. I grew up in a Catholic middle class home in a rural town in the middle of New Hampshire, but my parents never really taught me the ins and outs of the Catholic faith, and my father, who still identifies himself as Catholic, does not completely accept the Church and believes other religions have some small amounts of faith to offer. I went to Sunday school growing, was in the choir, and never really understood what it all meant.

Once I got older, I was still very spiritual; I prayed every night, but I didn't get too involved in thinking about whether Jesus was actually God or just a moral teacher, whether Protestants are valid as a sect of Christianity, etc. Then, however, I met my wife...and my new-found father-in-law, a devout Catholic, encouraged me to look in various directions to help find my faith. Over time, I slowly (agonizingly so) found answers to most (nearly all) of my very difficult questions. I started not even believing in Jesus as God and have now come to the point where I not only believe that Jesus was God, but also believe He intended for a universal church that would distribute the Eucharist, which I believe to be the supernatural manna of the New Testament. I have read countless scholars and arguments regarding various levels of the faith, and that long journey has led me to a place where I am firm in my faith, which happens to be the Catholic faith. I even read atheistic former evangelicals like Bart Ehrman, whose works I found ironically pushing me toward the Catholic Church as well.

For starters, let me begin by saying that I believe in everything in the Nicene Creed....but one primary issue, which is attached to numerous other issues as well, has kept me from going to Church, from finally being confirmed, and from truly accepting the Catholic Church.

I call this problem my "filler issue," because it directly relates to all of the Church stances made to "fill in" what Jesus did not directly address. For instance, on the issue of birth control, Jesus never directly addresses this (for obvious reasons) and nowhere can it be implied or seen that a married couple cannot use birth control or that sex should only be to create children and not as an expression of love between two married people. This is only ONE example, but there are many, many, many issues. Women being allowed to be priests is yet another. Confession is one as well. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus suggest the Church's role is to engage in these activities. I know confessional powers was given directly to the apostles AFTER the resurrection, but it doesn't say priests 2,000 years later should have the same power. The Catholic Church has addressed these issues and insists many of them are inferred from the actions of Jesus, but I have trouble buying that argument. I guess in the end, my primary issue is accepting the Catholic Church's role as creating NEW doctrine. I know why I should trust the Church's stances on the issues relating directly to Jesus and the Old Testament, but I cannot bring myself to accept Church doctrine that was created by the Church alone, and I often wonder if the Church should be creating new doctrine or simply defending the doctrines handed down to them by Jesus and developing those further. I am NOT saying that Church does not have the authority to further develop ideas passed down by Jesus...the Trinity is an example of Church doctrine developed by the Church BASED on the teachings of Jesus. But contraception in married relationships doesn't fit anywhere in that model because it's not even based on what Jesus taught, and the Church's position on women being priests makes little sense to me as well.

I believe Jesus established the Catholic Church, but with what mission? To create new doctrine as well as defend and develop original New Testament teachings? I am not so sure. I don't know that Jesus ever intended for his Church to truly be making decisions only God could make. This is at the heart of my problem. I don't know if I can be apart of the Catholic community truly because I don't know if I can ever accept the Church's role of creating new doctrine and then treating it as though it came directly from Jesus. Clearly the Church has made many mistakes in the past so not every decision it makes is what Jesus wants. If anyone can help me with this problem, I would greatly, greatly appreciate it. God bless.

Isn't it in Genesis that we are told to multiply and fill the earth? That would nix birth control. Women priests? If Jesus wanted women to be priests then He would have had some female apostles. What new doctrine has the Church made that doesn't have its foundations in the Bible? Can you cite some and maybe we can find out where they originated from?

Yes Protestants do have a minuscule of truth in them but the full truth is only in the Catholic Church. But know that Protestants by name are protesting things taught in the Catholic Church that they or some one disagrees with.

I know these are simplistic responses to your questions. Stick with the Catholic Church because there is no other as beautiful, truthful and fulfilling and no other Church has the Holy Eucharist. Can you imagine Jesus really present in the Catholic Church? Others can only make this claim but the Catholic Church has the Real Presence.

Would it help you to read the CCC on what it says about doctrines?

I guess I wasn't much help but I tried.
Pray to the HS for his help .
God Bless

[Phyllo]

Originally Posted by theidler

Hi friend,
Wow...I could have wrote this myself. I have struggled with the exact same thing for years now. It is why it has taken me so long to finally be baptized.
I had a saying in RCIA - "I can explain transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, whatever - but this contraception thing I just don't understand."
First of all, I think it is important to come to grips with the teachings on contraception and the like on an intellectual level. Learn what the Church teaches on it - read Humanae Vitae and you'll be quite surprised. Intellectually, I assent to the teaching of the Church.
But what really changed my mind was reading about the health-effects of birth control - it causes the body a tremendous amount of internal chaos, is linked to cancer, and I have read that the use of birth control indirectly leads to pollution of the environment as well. It's nasty stuff. I didn't want my wife taking something that would harm her.
As for condoms, I still am not sure I get it, but I intellectually understand the idea. In practical life, I am not sure - every situation is different. Some are in mixed marriages with non-Catholics, some aren't. But allegedly NFP is far more effective than any artificial form of contraception - I keep hearing the name Janet Smith tossed around - maybe you should check her out? Plus it's free.
Anyways, I hear you friend. This set of issues has driven me up and down the wall. I was always told that contraception was what responsible adults use - I was taught it was simply being responsible. When I heard the Church's teachings on it, I went into full-on fight mode, believe me.
Here I am, though, getting baptized this year.

I am surprised that the church recommends NPF. To me that is just another form of birth control. We are birth controlling ourselves out of a civilization here and every place else.

[tafan]

Go to the early Church fathers, look at the commonalities between the truly ancient Christian churches, Greeks, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic, Catholic. You will find that most of these issues are not development of doctrine, but have been tere since the beginning:

Btw, why does it matter if Jesus said it after resurrection or before?

[Mijoy2]

May I suggest reading Humanea Vitae?

It can be found at the vatican website. I'm not suggesting it is an answer to your questions, but it may serve as a primer to a deeper understanding.

[Inquiringperson]

Originally Posted by Phyllo

I am surprised that the church recommends NPF. To me that is just another form of birth control. We are birth controlling ourselves out of a civilization here and every place else.

To my understanding, NFP is alright because you are not having any physical barriers to procreation as the sperm still goes through.

[Texas Roofer]

lots of mixed issues here. I would doubt we can do this all in one thread. The Church is our shepherd. Its people are not infallible which I think is your point. The Church has the ability to bind and loose which protects us in the rare event of error. Many of the issues you cite may be collateral for example contraception greatly damages society through openly allowing sex abuse in many, many forms. So a man and wife with a family may certainly show that is outside their issue, but yet it is contraception. Married priest have to balance family life with work and need to earn enough for a family. Celibate Priests do not have those problems, so a discipline is imposed. Let’s not confuse disciplines, fallibility, etc. with traditions and doctrine. Maybe you want to explore a better answer to each issue, my guess is you will find the Church teaching better after exploring other options.

[St Francis]

Is your quesfion about contraception or about Church teachings which are not explicitly set forth in Scripture?

BecUse if the latter Scripture itself mentions that it does not contain everything that Christ taught.

What Christ taught that is not in Sxripture is contained in Tradition--one of the three sources of teachings for the Church (Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium).

additionally, some of what the Church teaches is natural law (which is not the laws of nature but truths we can know ithout having them be revealed). Natural law has been mostly abandoned in the West so a lot of times we don't understand this.

And remeber too the the Church's teachings are protected from error by the Holy Spirit!

[JRKH]

jinc1019,

I'm sure that you are going to get a lot of good advice, in fact it has already started.

Now I have not read any of the replies but wish to offer just a couple of fundamental points for you to consider.

I see that you are in law school... so I can assume that you like the law and are training your mind to think within the logic of the legal system I actually think that this is a good place to begin.
Let's consider the Gospels to be like the Declaration of independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We might also include the federalist papers in there as sort of like the Epistles - ECF's...
The point is that there are two components to these items. The actual written word and the principles behind those words. There are many things in law today that the constitution did not specifically cover and the Founding fathers never heard of and so never considered. Yet - contained in our countries founding documents are the principles that we try to use as we move forward.
Likewise the Church - as it relates to Scripture and ECF's - does the same thing. The Church must, as a matter of course, deal with things that were not directly addressed in the written Scriptures and may or may not have been addressed or alluded to in the writings of the ECF's. Yet the faithful need guidance and Christ provided for that in His Church and he told us how to relate to His Church here:

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

So, when issues come up, we are to "Tell it to the Church" and we are to "Listen to the Church".

Now - One of the absolute core's of our founding principles is "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". This is found in the rock basic founding document, the declaration of Independence. In the Church, in the Gospel and from Christ's own mouth we likewise have an absolute core principle upon which everything else is built. You will find it here:

Mt 22:36-40 36
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, " `You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, `Your shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

So the Church, in trying to address issues that have come up, (...tell it to the church...) She does her best to investigate, review and found her teachings on Love and the historical teachings and positions of the Church - Just as the Supreme court, in deciding some issue will look deeply into past law, principles etc before rendering a judgement.
Then, one the Church has prayerfully come to an understanding - a teaching - she promulgates that teaching so that we, the faithful, may know and understand the teaching (...Listen to the Church...)
Of course this might, and often does, lead to other questions and other investigations and more writings and clarifications etc. on the subject. Again, not unlike how things operate in the Law and courts of the US.

As you move forward in your faith journey, do seek to keep this in front of you. That all true things of God are based on Love. It will help you tremendously...It has me...

Peace
James

[Texas Roofer]

Originally Posted by theidler

............................... - read Humanae Vitae and you'll be quite surprised. ........................................ ....................
As for condoms, I still am not sure I get it, but I intellectually understand the idea. In practical life, I am not sure - every situation is different. Some are in mixed marriages with non-Catholics, some aren't. But allegedly NFP is far more effective than any artificial form of contraception

may be a little more study on Humanae Vitae?

- I keep hearing the name Janet Smith tossed around - maybe you should check her out? Plus it's free.
Anyways, I hear you friend. This set of issues has driven me up and down the wall. I was always told that contraception was what responsible adults use - I was taught it was simply being responsible. When I heard the Church's teachings on it, I went into full-on fight mode, believe me.
Here I am, though, getting baptized this year.

I would go lite on Ms Smith, don't worry about the baptism it takes time to learn so much.

Originally Posted by Phyllo

I am surprised that the church recommends NPF. To me that is just another form of birth control. We are birth controlling ourselves out of a civilization here and every place else.

It is a moral methold of birth control which is covered in Humanae Vitae

Originally Posted by Inquiringperson

To my understanding, NFP is alright because you are not having any physical barriers to procreation as the sperm still goes through.

Yes, the teaching refers to this being god's design for spacing child bearing.

hope that helps

[Iron Donkey]

Hey,

I realize that contraception is not your only issue, but I think it's worth addressing briefly as an example of how these sort of issues are handled.

First, contraception is (sort of, or as close as was possible at the time) addressed in scripture a little bit in Genesis 38:

Originally Posted by God

8And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. [Note: the brother was dead at this point - no funny business.]

9And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

10And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

I believe somewhere there is a passage speaking on sterilization as well. You can read more about this here: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/contr...-sterilization.

Things like opposition to contraception may seem weird at first glance, but everything is really tied together nicely. It starts from the fact that men and women are actually different (though equal in dignity, of course), but complementary to each other, and continues through the fact that sex is supposed to be a completely unselfish act of giving between the spouses that both acts as a physical sign of their joining into one flesh through marriage and remains open to new life, ending up with the conclusion that since contraception messes with this (potentially removing the "selfless" part as in the case of Onan and always remaining closed to one of the two essential purposes of the act), it is not allowed. This sort of thing is not just the Church saying "this vaguely reminds me of something Jesus said, so lets do it."

(Also, it is not true that the Church thinks "that sex should only be to create children and not as an expression of love between two married people," but that neither aspect should be separated from the other.)

Confession is also directly addressed in the bible - "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" said to the apostles, binding and loosing, etc.

To address the issue of "filler" directly, Jesus founded a Church led by apostles. He did not write a book. His Church wrote the book later - under the guidance of God, yes, but that guidance was given to the Church to determine what was scripture rather than God dropping a book down from the heavens.

What I'm trying to say is that as awesome as the bible is, it was never meant to contain the entirety of the faith, and even says so repeatedly. There are many issues Jesus did not address. Cloning, for example - it wouldn't have made much sense for Christ to say "Oh, by the way, in a couple thousand years, some of your descendants will learn how to make other people in little glass-like jars, make sure to warn them not too." Who knows what other moral issues will arise in the future, from new technology or what have you? While the Earth could end tomorrow, it could also go on for another billion years or more, so a conclusive guide to every issue that could ever come up that could be understood by people centuries before the issues would arise would be a bit of a waste of time

But the issues will come up. And they will have to be dealt with. And they must be dealt with according to God's will. So rather than codifying absolutely everything that could ever need to be known into one volume and delivering it to us, He gave us the basics, some of the details, and a Church that is entrusted with coming up with the rest.

In essence, coming up with solutions to "filler issues" is what the Church is for.

[B79]

Jinc1019,

The Church does NOT "create" doctrine -- that was never her role. Doctrine, by definition, is revealed truth, meaning it comes from God. His truth is summed up in the Person of Jesus Christ, who founded the Church to teach those doctrines ("Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you"). That is why the Church CANNOT change any doctrine. Nor does she "come up with" doctrines herself (although, guided by the Holy Spirit, she does expound and clarify doctrines as required -- Jesus promised the Apostles the Holy Spirit to “guide them into all truth“). Everything she officially teaches as true in the realm of faith and morals has been given her by God (we call it the "Deposit of Faith"). Which is why even those doctrines that Protestants find most difficult to accept, such as papal infallibility or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, can be traced to the EARLY Church (just read the Fathers), long before they were solemnly defined. What we're referring to here is the living Tradition of the Church, which existed BEFORE the books of the New Testament were ever compiled (indeed, the New Testament was born of that Tradition).

In that Tradition (as well as the sacred writings of the New Testament) there is simply NO support for the idea of female priests -- Christ became incarnate as a human male, and chose only male apostles, who themselves ordained only male successors.

As for contraception-- its immorality was understood by ALL Christian churches until the 1930s. It's also right from the Book of Genesis -- it is the sin of Onan, who purposely “spilled his seed on the ground” (for which he was punished by DEATH).

God bless.

[Phyllo]

Originally Posted by Inquiring Person

To my understanding, NFP is alright because you are not having any physical barriers to procreation as the sperm still goes through.

Yes, but you have to be careful what time of the month to be with your spouse. So that takes all the spontaneity away. Making love by the calender--how romantic! No matter how you dress it up, it is still birth control. It used to be called the rhythm method.

[COPLAND 3]

I came from a Baptist background, I trained for the ministry, and I came to a point where I was looking for that Church that Christ established 2000 years ago. I realized Christ did not establish the Southern Baptist Convention, nor any other demonination. I nearly abandoned going to church altogether.

But the writings of the Early Church Fathers showed me that the Church that Christ established was there, which was the Catholic Church! Once I got to a point where I believed that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church, then I had no problems believing and accepting what She taught, and submitting to it. I accept it, though I may no fully understand it. If I dont understand why the Church does and teaches certain things, then I either need to study and research it, or I accept that my own understanding is limited.

I believe that the Church is there because Jesus went to Heaven, and the Apostles He chose have passed on too. But the Holy Spirit is given to lead the Church in Truth and to lead people in the best way possible to get to Heaven. The Church is led by the successors of the Apostles, and the Church has the job of getting people to Heaven and to provide people with the fullness of the Christian faith for every generation and the changes and new challenges that the world brings.

Its natural to question what's right or wrong. When I analyse something to the extreme, I find myself wondering why the Church does this or that. I even wonder why God Himself has done certain things, and think to myself that I would have done it differently. But I know that God is perfect and I am not, so whatever He has chosen to do is much better than what I would do!! And the same goes with the Church that He established. When I get to a point where I would teach some things differently than the Church, then thankfully I am not the Magisterium because I would screw up!