A Stunning Change

I did not see this comment when I wrote my earlier reply. So THIS response really will be my last. I believe that it takes exceptional self-understanding and maturity for a couple to recognize that they are not well-suited to be parents. There may be some for whom it's a "me, me" decision, but I have known couples who made the decision not to have children and it was the right decision. They are good, loving, generous people - not at all self-centered. They withstood the pressure from family, church and society in general, all of which generally try to push young marrieds into having children. Not everyone is suited to be a parent. There are far too many people who have children who are not suited than who have the wisdom to refrain from having children because their personalities and gifts lie elsewhere. They are free to contribute to others in ways that busy parents often are not. I have also seen many parents where being parents is pretty much "me, me, my kids, my kids". They get upset if someone doesn't agree that little Jimmy or Janie isn't their spitting image, or if their child isn't the top student or the star athlete or the most beautiful or handsome. Then their poor children suffer. Some live through their kids, and the name "helicopter parents" was coined for them. God really has nothing to do with this issue. It is my personal belief that God gave humankind the gift of modern contraceptive methods at the precise time in history when they would be needed. Give thanks for such a blessing! God wants what is best for each off us as individuals - marriage and children may be what is "best" and it may not be. Each of us has the responsibility to pray and reflect in our discernment about these very important decisions (marriage and children). There is nothing in scripture that supports the church's teaching on contraception. The church's understanding of natural law is based on the thinking of pagan philosophers who lived hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Few outside the Catholic church accept the ancient understandings of natural law developed by the Greek philosophers. Not even the Orthodox ban conraception, but trust their people to discern what is best for their own marriage and family. The church's teaching is based also on ancient understandings of gender roles. Women were first the possession of their fathers, then of their husbands. They had no rights as people. They had no choice in the matter of marriage usually. It is ironic, is it not, that many of the earliest communities of women religious (the desert mothers) attracted candidates because it was the only acceptable way young women could avoid being "sold" into marriage to a stranger. There were financial considerations involved as well. The "contract" was that the man would have a woman to meet his sexual desires (and thus save him from burning in hell, according to Paul), bear and raise his children, and run his household and maybe the familly enterprise (eg, farming) in exchange for a roof over her head, food, and clothing. The couple (both the man and the woman) had no voice in the selection of their marriage partner - so, of course, love had nothing to do with it. It was a business arrangement, contracted by the parents. Children were considered to be units of economic utility. The families needed labor - for the farm, for the herding, for the blacksmithing - whatever the family business was. They were also the only social security available for their parents in old age. One hopes that most parents did love their children, but history often has a sadder story to tell about that. Economic necessity was the dominant force. Maternal and child mortality rates were high, so many births were needed to assure that enough of the children born would survive to adulthood to be able to contribute to the family enterprise (usually starting at a very young age) and take care of the elderly parents. It's a big improvement that people now choose their own marriage partners freely, and that they freely choose to have children - out of love, not out of " duty" or economic necessity. It's also a tiny step forward that the church finally acknowledged (but not until well into the 20th centuiry) that marital lovemaking plays a critical role in supporting the marriage as a unitive act. The church still stresses procreation, however and puts it first. NFP is often very damaging to the unitive aspects of marital sexual love. At least the institutional church has now disavowed Augustine's extreme views on this which not only put out the notion that sexual relationships between spouses is justified only by procreation, but that enjoyment of sex was a sin. . You may wish to read some of the histories out there that give the details of the workings of the Birth Control Commission, and of the machinations by Cdl. Ottaviani and other conservative forces in Rome to undermine both its work and Vatican II in general. Their actions have caused great harm to the church.

Michael and Anne: First off, you are mistaken when you say that “teachings” of the church have been overturned or that the Church has been wrong in its teachings. Church Doctrine has never changed. Ever. It’s important to differentiate between teachings (doctrine, such as three persons in one God) and practices (such as priests being allowed to marry). Second, if “love” is the only component of marriage that matters, then if a married man and woman cease to love one another the marriage ceases to be. Also two men, two women, a brother and a sister, a whole group of people, a man and his dog, and so on, should all be allowed to marry providing the marriage is based on love. In effect it is your argument, Anne that changes marriage into a contract as opposed to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. You might want to visit the website I mentioned in my earlier comment and even visit Dr. Janet Smith’s website and maybe purchase her CDs on “Humanae Vitae and Conscience” and “Sexual Common Sense.” http://www.janetesmith.com/tag/marriage/ Third, the moral theory that supports HV predates it. It starts with the teaching that there is a moral order to creation, that God is both a rationale and logical God, and that He put us here for a reason. Many of our beliefs as Catholics flow from this teaching. I’m 62 years old and I still don’t fully understand it all, but I’m trying. I can’t explain these teachings, all the nuances of Natural Law, or summarize Catholic thought in the area of Metaphysics in the course of these short comments. I read A LOT, and it’s only in the course of trying to understand the “why” throughout my 40+ years of marriage that I’ve come to the conclusion that contraception is “most likely” wrong. (I can’t say for certain because that would mean I know God’s mind and I seriously doubt any human being can say that with absolute certainty.) I can say, however, that the devil is good at what he does and he has certainly managed to corrupt consciences and influence many people (including almost the entire entertainment industry!) to put their own wants and desires before what God wants. All this being said, here is a link to a recent essay at EthikaPolitika entitled “Natures as Words Contraception as a Lie“ that touches on how this moral order thought develops: http://ethikapolitika.org/2014/09/16/natures-words-contraception-lie/ I would encourage you both to try to prove to yourselves that you are right and Catholic Doctrine is wrong by reading everything you can. I have links to over 70 Catholic websites in my browser and at least two dozen books on my bookshelf on the Catholic faith, so there is plenty of material out there. And, unfortunately, that, as I alluded to earlier, is part of the problem. The Church really does need to do a better job of educating the laity not just on beliefs but on the whys of our beliefs.