Can a Catholic use birth control "under the table"?

[Robb]

Is there any way a Catholic can, with his Churches permission use some form of artificial birth control?  I remember reading on this list some years ago that there were all kinds of ways that a Catholic could use birth control "under the table" (Such as one spouse demanding that the other use it in order to have coitus).  I was also lead to believe that these "under the table" allowances were both dispensed by priestly confessors and practiced by the lay faithful long before Vatican II and the 1960's came about?

Am I on the right tract here?  I seriously hope so.  While knowing that the RCC publically discourages contraception y artificial means, I have thought for a long time that they usually did give a wink and nod approval to its use "under the table" as long is nobody made a big deal about it?  I know that this must be right.  I just hope that the Church, while rightly attacking the Obamacare mandate, doesn't go so far as to drop the ball on this secret contraception that goes on.

[WeldeMikael]

I'd be very disappointed.

[PeterTheAleut]

"under the table" as opposed to "on top of the table"?

[Asteriktos]

Yes. The codeword is NFP.

[Robb]

No i mean artificial, not natural.

[Apotheoun]

Doing something immoral "under the table" does not make the act in question suddenly moral.

[Ortho_cat]

I'd be very disappointed.

why?

[Paisius]

Depends on how flexible they are............in their understanding of Church teachings. 

[elijahmaria]

"under the table" as opposed to "on top of the table"?

Great minds and all...I've been sore tempted but I am resisting!!

[Delphine]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

[elijahmaria]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

And by the same token when NFP is used with a contraceptive mind and heart it is not acceptable practice.

M.

[Ortho_cat]

Depends on how flexible they are............in their understanding of Church teachings. 

whew...

[Jetavan]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

Yeah, but I thought that the Catholic bishops were against Catholic hospitals, schools, etc., from having to pay for any birth control, regardless of whether it would be used for medical reasons?

[NicholasMyra]

No i mean artificial, not natural.

Natural/artificial is an irrelevant distinction, especially when considering an act that has to be planned and orchestrated like NFP.

[ICXCNIKA]

I was unaware of the fact that Roman Catholics were hiding the fact that they use contraception.

[J Michael]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

Yeah, but I thought that the Catholic bishops were against Catholic hospitals, schools, etc., from having to pay for any birth control, regardless of whether it would be used for medical reasons?

I don't think that's the case.  I believe that use of abc for purely medical reasons *is* actually permitted.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.

But the issue the Catholic bishops have, as do a great many of us Catholic (and non-Catholic) lay people, has to do with the government violating constitutionally protected religious freedom.  Contraception is **not**, per se, the issue here.  But all that is best left to be discussed in the politics forum, and I, for one, will say no more about it here.

[Delphine]

I was unaware of the fact that Roman Catholics were hiding the fact that they use contraception.

Plenty of Catholics use contraception without it being condoned by the Church, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. For the medically necessary cases... It truly is necessary. I know three instances in my personal circle where birth control was prescribed for reasons other than contraception, and those are just the people who told me. I don't think I should start detailing their problems, but suffice it to say that the human body doesn't always work the way it's supposed to.

[ialmisry]

No i mean artificial, not natural.

Natural/artificial is an irrelevant distinction, especially when considering an act that has to be planned and orchestrated like NFP.

One has to remember that Humanae Vitae was drawn up by someone who had no personal information on the subject at hand.  Spontinaity doesn't appear on the paper, and so doesn't go into the equation.

[ialmisry]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

And by the same token when NFP is used with a contraceptive mind and heart it is not acceptable practice.

the rhythm method became an accepted pratice in the Vatican only in the 1800's.  Before that, a "contraceptive mind and heart" meant having sex with no intention of conceiving.

[elijahmaria]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

And by the same token when NFP is used with a contraceptive mind and heart it is not acceptable practice.

the rhythm method became an accepted pratice in the Vatican only in the 1800's.  Before that, a "contraceptive mind and heart" meant having sex with no intention of conceiving.

There has always been pastoral accommodation, on the part of the Church, for spacing children or dealing with women who were ill.   What people did with all of that varied then, as it does now.

[ialmisry]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

And by the same token when NFP is used with a contraceptive mind and heart it is not acceptable practice.

the rhythm method became an accepted pratice in the Vatican only in the 1800's.  Before that, a "contraceptive mind and heart" meant having sex with no intention of conceiving.

There has always been pastoral accommodation, on the part of the Church, for spacing children or dealing with women who were ill.   What people did with all of that varied then, as it does now.

The start of the change in 1858 (as mentioned before) came with giving women permission to submit to their husbands even if they withdrew (Onanism in the biblical sense, if it has a biblical sense).

You have any proof of "pastoral accommodation" before that by the Vatican?

[elijahmaria]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

And by the same token when NFP is used with a contraceptive mind and heart it is not acceptable practice.

the rhythm method became an accepted pratice in the Vatican only in the 1800's.  Before that, a "contraceptive mind and heart" meant having sex with no intention of conceiving.

There has always been pastoral accommodation, on the part of the Church, for spacing children or dealing with women who were ill.   What people did with all of that varied then, as it does now.

The start of the change in 1858 (as mentioned before) came with giving women permission to submit to their husbands even if they withdrew (Onanism in the biblical sense, if it has a biblical sense).

You have any proof of "pastoral accommodation" before that by the Vatican?

Do you have proof against it?

[ialmisry]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

And by the same token when NFP is used with a contraceptive mind and heart it is not acceptable practice.

the rhythm method became an accepted pratice in the Vatican only in the 1800's.  Before that, a "contraceptive mind and heart" meant having sex with no intention of conceiving.

There has always been pastoral accommodation, on the part of the Church, for spacing children or dealing with women who were ill.   What people did with all of that varied then, as it does now.

The start of the change in 1858 (as mentioned before) came with giving women permission to submit to their husbands even if they withdrew (Onanism in the biblical sense, if it has a biblical sense).

You have any proof of "pastoral accommodation" before that by the Vatican?

Do you have proof against it?

Any of your prooftexts from the Patristic quote mine for Humanae Vitae's defense.  As Noonan points out, it is odd the HV approves the one method unanimously condemned by the Patristics its defenders depend on.

[elijahmaria]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

And by the same token when NFP is used with a contraceptive mind and heart it is not acceptable practice.

the rhythm method became an accepted pratice in the Vatican only in the 1800's.  Before that, a "contraceptive mind and heart" meant having sex with no intention of conceiving.

There has always been pastoral accommodation, on the part of the Church, for spacing children or dealing with women who were ill.   What people did with all of that varied then, as it does now.

The start of the change in 1858 (as mentioned before) came with giving women permission to submit to their husbands even if they withdrew (Onanism in the biblical sense, if it has a biblical sense).

You have any proof of "pastoral accommodation" before that by the Vatican?

Do you have proof against it?

Any of your prooftexts from the Patristic quote mine for Humanae Vitae's defense.  As Noonan points out, it is odd the HV approves the one method unanimously condemned by the Patristics its defenders depend on.

What does that have to do with the fact that the western Church, at least, has made room for spacing children and dealing with wives and mothers who are ill.  It is apparent in all kinds of documents.  Most likely they are not on your reading list.  It would take time to collect a few so I am not going to do it.  But there are histories that touch on it and as I find references I'll consider adding them here.

[JamesRottnek]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

And by the same token when NFP is used with a contraceptive mind and heart it is not acceptable practice.

the rhythm method became an accepted pratice in the Vatican only in the 1800's.  Before that, a "contraceptive mind and heart" meant having sex with no intention of conceiving.

There has always been pastoral accommodation, on the part of the Church, for spacing children or dealing with women who were ill.   What people did with all of that varied then, as it does now.

The start of the change in 1858 (as mentioned before) came with giving women permission to submit to their husbands even if they withdrew (Onanism in the biblical sense, if it has a biblical sense).

You have any proof of "pastoral accommodation" before that by the Vatican?

Do you have proof against it?

So he must produce documents stating that a non-existent practice was non-existent?  If you have reason to believe pastoral accommodation existed, it should be easy to give your reasoning.

[ialmisry]

I know some people who are able to take birth control for medical reasons, as long as their intent for taking it is not contraceptive in nature. From Humanae Vitae:

15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.

And by the same token when NFP is used with a contraceptive mind and heart it is not acceptable practice.

the rhythm method became an accepted pratice in the Vatican only in the 1800's.  Before that, a "contraceptive mind and heart" meant having sex with no intention of conceiving.

There has always been pastoral accommodation, on the part of the Church, for spacing children or dealing with women who were ill.   What people did with all of that varied then, as it does now.

The start of the change in 1858 (as mentioned before) came with giving women permission to submit to their husbands even if they withdrew (Onanism in the biblical sense, if it has a biblical sense).

You have any proof of "pastoral accommodation" before that by the Vatican?

Do you have proof against it?

Any of your prooftexts from the Patristic quote mine for Humanae Vitae's defense.  As Noonan points out, it is odd the HV approves the one method unanimously condemned by the Patristics its defenders depend on.

What does that have to do with the fact that the western Church, at least, has made room for spacing children and dealing with wives and mothers who are ill.

You are depending on a "fact" not entered into evidence.  In fact, as no evidence has been presented in support, it remains a bare assertion.

Do tell us of one before Casti Conubii (and one that doesn't have the embrace of celibacy as the solution).

It is apparent in all kinds of documents.

Then producing one ought not to be a problem.

Most likely they are not on your reading list.

I've ploughed through many a pointless document out of a sense of duty.  That I haven't come across the assUmed needle in that haystack neither means that I haven't looked nor that I have to jump back into the haystack.

It would take time to collect a few so I am not going to do it.

I'm SHOCKED.

But there are histories that touch on it and as I find references I'll consider adding them here.

Lord willing, we'll be here with baited breath. But we won't hold it.

[elijahmaria]

So he must produce documents stating that a non-existent practice was non-existent?  If you have reason to believe pastoral accommodation existed, it should be easy to give your reasoning.

Sure.  Saints sometimes talked about it with their spiritual children and that was recorded in histories.

You have to be immersed in the tradition to find these things.  If you reject the tradition as totally as the majority on this board, there's no way of knowing. But that's not really a problem.  You have no real need to know.

[PeterTheAleut]

So he must produce documents stating that a non-existent practice was non-existent?  If you have reason to believe pastoral accommodation existed, it should be easy to give your reasoning.

Sure.  Saints sometimes talked about it with their spiritual children and that was recorded in histories.

You have to be immersed in the tradition to find these things.  If you reject the tradition as totally as the majority on this board, there's no way of knowing. But that's not really a problem.  You have no real need to know.

Another dodge. If the knowledge is there, certainly you can share it with us. Otherwise, we're forced to believe you're just making it up.

[ialmisry]

So he must produce documents stating that a non-existent practice was non-existent?  If you have reason to believe pastoral accommodation existed, it should be easy to give your reasoning.

Sure.  Saints sometimes talked about it with their spiritual children and that was recorded in histories.

These saints have names, and these records preserved?

You have to be immersed in the tradition to find these things.

You seem to forget that many of us were immersed in your tradition.

If you reject the tradition as totally as the majority on this board, there's no way of knowing.

We have been rejecting gnosticism ever since it appeared.

But that's not really a problem.  You have no real need to know.

And you have no need to make vague illusions to non-existent, evidently, practices.  You have a need to substantiate, if we are supposed to take you seriously.

[JamesRottnek]

So he must produce documents stating that a non-existent practice was non-existent?  If you have reason to believe pastoral accommodation existed, it should be easy to give your reasoning.

Sure.  Saints sometimes talked about it with their spiritual children and that was recorded in histories.

You have to be immersed in the tradition to find these things.  If you reject the tradition as totally as the majority on this board, there's no way of knowing. But that's not really a problem.  You have no real need to know.

Was this recorded only in oral histories, or might it - per chance - have been written down somewhere?  If it was written down, can we have a title of a work, if not even a quotation, so that we might see the knowledge you have.  "Histories" is a very broad category, and I fear that I might not have enough life to search through every historical work since Christ, in order to find a record of these talks.

[elijahmaria]

So he must produce documents stating that a non-existent practice was non-existent?  If you have reason to believe pastoral accommodation existed, it should be easy to give your reasoning.

Sure.  Saints sometimes talked about it with their spiritual children and that was recorded in histories.

You have to be immersed in the tradition to find these things.  If you reject the tradition as totally as the majority on this board, there's no way of knowing. But that's not really a problem.  You have no real need to know.

Was this recorded only in oral histories, or might it - per chance - have been written down somewhere?  If it was written down, can we have a title of a work, if not even a quotation, so that we might see the knowledge you have.  "Histories" is a very broad category, and I fear that I might not have enough life to search through every historical work since Christ, in order to find a record of these talks.

These are things I read as a young woman 30 years ago, and copies of documents and translations of documents that I've used in the past while doing historical research, and I no longer have these things with me.  I would go look for secondary sources but I hate being sneered at and bullied.

XB!!

BB!!

M.

[JamesRottnek]

So he must produce documents stating that a non-existent practice was non-existent?  If you have reason to believe pastoral accommodation existed, it should be easy to give your reasoning.

Sure.  Saints sometimes talked about it with their spiritual children and that was recorded in histories.

You have to be immersed in the tradition to find these things.  If you reject the tradition as totally as the majority on this board, there's no way of knowing. But that's not really a problem.  You have no real need to know.

Was this recorded only in oral histories, or might it - per chance - have been written down somewhere?  If it was written down, can we have a title of a work, if not even a quotation, so that we might see the knowledge you have.  "Histories" is a very broad category, and I fear that I might not have enough life to search through every historical work since Christ, in order to find a record of these talks.

These are things I read as a young woman 30 years ago, and copies of documents and translations of documents that I've used in the past while doing historical research, and I no longer have these things with me.  I would go look for secondary sources but I hate being sneered at and bullied.

XB!!

BB!!

M.

Who is sneering or bullying?  You asserted something and made it sound as though there are countless such documents floating around that would be easy to find.  All I'm asking for is the name of just one or two such documents, or a book that mentions this information, etc., so that I can confirm what you have to say.  Would you trust me if I said that the Jesuits killed Pope John Paul I, and that I've read this in countless books and documents, but I'm too busy to tell you what books and documents?

As it stands now, it sounds like you are making something up, because you've provided not even a single shred of evidence.

[elijahmaria]

As it stands now, it sounds like you are making something up, because you've provided not even a single shred of evidence.

Sorry

[Peter J]

Is there any way a Catholic can, with his Churches permission use some form of artificial birth control?  I remember reading on this list some years ago that there were all kinds of ways that a Catholic could use birth control "under the table" (Such as one spouse demanding that the other use it in order to have coitus).  I was also lead to believe that these "under the table" allowances were both dispensed by priestly confessors and practiced by the lay faithful long before Vatican II and the 1960's came about?

Am I on the right tract here?  I seriously hope so.  While knowing that the RCC publically discourages contraception y artificial means, I have thought for a long time that they usually did give a wink and nod approval to its use "under the table" as long is nobody made a big deal about it?  I know that this must be right.  I just hope that the Church, while rightly attacking the Obamacare mandate, doesn't go so far as to drop the ball on this secret contraception that goes on.

My opinion, FWIW, is that you've mixed things up a little here. It isn't that the Church says contraception is alright if it's "under the table"; rather, it's that those priests who believe contraception is alright often don't make their view publicly known, but share their view with couples "under the table".

[J Michael]

Is there any way a Catholic can, with his Churches permission use some form of artificial birth control?  I remember reading on this list some years ago that there were all kinds of ways that a Catholic could use birth control "under the table" (Such as one spouse demanding that the other use it in order to have coitus).  I was also lead to believe that these "under the table" allowances were both dispensed by priestly confessors and practiced by the lay faithful long before Vatican II and the 1960's came about?

Am I on the right tract here?  I seriously hope so.  While knowing that the RCC publically discourages contraception y artificial means, I have thought for a long time that they usually did give a wink and nod approval to its use "under the table" as long is nobody made a big deal about it?  I know that this must be right.  I just hope that the Church, while rightly attacking the Obamacare mandate, doesn't go so far as to drop the ball on this secret contraception that goes on.

My opinion, FWIW, is that you've mixed things up a little here. It isn't that the Church says contraception is alright if it's "under the table"; rather, it's that those priests who believe contraception is alright often don't make their view publicly known, but share their view with couples "under the table".

I hope no one else got the same visual from that that I did  !

[Punch]

I must confess that I did.  I am so evil . . .

Is there any way a Catholic can, with his Churches permission use some form of artificial birth control?  I remember reading on this list some years ago that there were all kinds of ways that a Catholic could use birth control "under the table" (Such as one spouse demanding that the other use it in order to have coitus).  I was also lead to believe that these "under the table" allowances were both dispensed by priestly confessors and practiced by the lay faithful long before Vatican II and the 1960's came about?

Am I on the right tract here?  I seriously hope so.  While knowing that the RCC publically discourages contraception y artificial means, I have thought for a long time that they usually did give a wink and nod approval to its use "under the table" as long is nobody made a big deal about it?  I know that this must be right.  I just hope that the Church, while rightly attacking the Obamacare mandate, doesn't go so far as to drop the ball on this secret contraception that goes on.

My opinion, FWIW, is that you've mixed things up a little here. It isn't that the Church says contraception is alright if it's "under the table"; rather, it's that those priests who believe contraception is alright often don't make their view publicly known, but share their view with couples "under the table".

I hope no one else got the same visual from that that I did  !

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Can a Catholic use birth control "under the table"?