Birth Control?

This is not me objecting or anything to church teaching, I’m still kinda new to the whole Catholic thing. Why do we say that Birth Control is wrong (except for the “rythem” {?} method)? (And Abortion, the wrongness of that is obvious to me) but, I don’t quiet understand why we can’t. Thanks for the help.

First, start with the Catechism:

**2370 **Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil: Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
The gift of a child

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.163

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

2378 A child is not something *owed *to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

Next, NFP is not the rythym method it is so much more:

Couple to Couple League

OneMoreSoul - spreading the truth about the blessings of children and the harms of contraception.

Because as Catholics we believe that ABC (artificial birth control) speaks a language with our bodies that is contrary to the sacramental vows and meaning of the marital act, i.e., it is a lie. The marital act (sexual intercourse between a sacramentally married couple) encompasses the dual function and meaning of being procreative and unitive. ABC acts against (contra-) both of these aspects by blocking the full giving of one’s self (one’s fertility) to the spouse in the marital embrace. This contradicts the sacred marital vows exchanged between the couple.

Pope Pius Vl predicted that if contraception became widespread and the sexual act was divorced from giving life, we would have abortion, an increase in divorce, and an assault on the dignity of women, among other social evils.

Hmmmmm…I think he was right…

You can’t mess with what God meant the family to be and expect that everything will be rosy in society: as goes the family, so goes the civilization. And, as another poster has mentioned, our bodies have a language of their own. You can’t be saying with your mouth, “I love you completely” with honesty, if bodily you’re saying, “Except for your fertility. I don’t want that”. We were told, “Be fruitful and multiply”, not “Make sure you have a nice house, good careers, and two cars before even thinking of having kids. Better yet, have a dog instead”.

The above are really good answers.

There is a kind of short hand analysis which comes down to the same thing.

The natural structure of human sexuality is, “A peek at Heaven for incurring the risk of generating life.”

If one takes affirmative action to artificially disconnect the peek at Heaven – the pleasure reward of sex – from the risk of generating life, one is stealing from God, and the conscience will rebel.

Artificial contraception is as a consequence about as dignified as snorting cocaine or as dignified as a Roman vomitorium.

ABC users will be asked by God, “Okay, Mr. Smith, tell me: Why did you steal from me the pleasure I reserved to the risk-takers?”

This subject is beautifully covered in a small book (not just for Catholics!) by Christopher West called *Good News about Sex and Marriage. *It clearly states the Catholic position in a feisty Q & A format. (When is the Catholic Church going to get with it and realize that masturbation is not only normal, it’s good for you?)

There is another excellent book (more like a tract) by Father John Kippley, Sex and the Marriage Covenant.

Both of these books state the case in a way that is perfectly accessible to Christians of all stripes. NFP does not stand for “Not For Protestants!”

[quote=mercygate] (When is the Catholic Church going to get with it and realize that masturbation is not only normal, it’s good for you?)



Masturbation may be “normal” in the sense that sin is “normal,” but masturbation is against God’s will, and against the dignity of sexuality.

Is the quoted line a joke, or are you serious?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit