Catholic Opposition to Contraception Not Sensible



Q. I also would like to raise the question of a person continually reproducing offspring that they cannot afford to clothe and feed. Do you think that God would approve of us conceiving a child that we cannot feed, clothe, or nurture?

A.  Regulation of family size is completely under the control of the parents. It is very simple–abstinence. That is how responsible people have since the beginning of history have been able to regulate their family size when necessary. Self control/self mastery is a Christian Virtue. It is our post-Christian culture that has come to believe that having sex is an inalienable right!

Q. I believe that every child is a precious gift from God, but do you believe that God intentionally allows a child to be born to drug addicts or child abusers?

A. No. He created our fertility. Our job is to seek to live virtuous and holy lives and love Him. Drug Addicts and child abusers and children born to them are the result of the sinful choices man makes with his free will. Does God intend these choices? Absolutely not. But He does allow it. You will have to take that up with God.

Q. I believe this becomes a question of our free will. Yes he wants us to be frutiful and multiply. Yes he wants us to have children and teach them about God, but he would want us to use our brain and not create children that may be loved from the depth of our heart, but cannot be provided for.

A. I could not agree more. So, self denial is called for in order to regulate family size.

Q. More often than not, this actually leads to a family having more children than they can possibly afford and can lead to money issues which can lead to abuse of an innocent child.

A. It is not cause and effect. Yes, poverty can stress parents. But I live in Southern California and travel down to Mexico where there is a lot of poverty due to government corruption. And, yes, a friend of mine and her family left their father in Mexico because he was abusive…but they were NOT poor. Although, of course, I don’t doubt it can happen in poor families also. But do you know what I see in Mexico and here in the US among poorer Mexicans? Love and celebration of family. Because of their poverty they value that which is eternal –people/family and friends. No doubt this will change, unfortunately the longer they are here. But poverty does NOT cause abuse, sin does that. Poverty oddly enough gives better clarity about what has lasting value.

NFP (Natural Family Planning) Contradicts Scripture


Bread From Heaven: “Because the pleasure of the marital embrace was created by God for babies & bonding.”

Q. If the “marital embrace” is only for babies and bonding and and “Anytime the pleasure of the sexual act is obtained while actively, purposely or incidentally excluding either of these goods, it is a grave sin.” Is it a sin to have the “marital embrace” if there is no chance of conception such as after a woman has reached menopause?

A. No. That is natural and a part of God’s created order. It is still open to conception, although highly unlikely. But, don’t forget Sarah and Elizabeth both conceived in their old age by the will of God.

Q. But according to the statement, sexual activity after menopause would be “purposely or incidentally excluding either of these goods” since “incidentally” means not intentionally.

A. That is a very good point. Then, perhaps, incidentally is the wrong word but I used it with homosexual activity in mind. Because they are not engaging in the activity in order to avoid conception but only pursuing pleasure, the act prevents conception b/c it is unnatural. I am open to suggestions. And I will think about how to reword that. Thank you very much.

Q. So, that would cause all sexual intercourse between husband and a wife that does not work towards conception a sin.

A. No, that is not what the Church teaches at all. If it were, then infertile couples, women with necessary hysterectomies, women in menopause, men with no or low sperm count etc. would have to be celibate. This is not the case. The purpose of the marital embrace is for babies and bonding, both. Conception must not be removed from it for selfish reasons.

Q. Family planning or abstaining from sex during the fertile times which is written as ok, contradicts these scriptures because you are not to deny your spouse sex except when both have agreed for prayer.

1 Corinthians 7:3 The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband. 4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband also gives authority over his body to his wife. 5 So do not deprive each other of sexual relations.

A. In our culture the right to sex is deemed to be absolute. Self-denial of sexual pleasure is thought to be ridiculous (except perhaps beastiality, incest, and pedophilia -the last taboos) At one time, not too long ago we had many more taboos -pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, pornography, even contraception in addition to beastiality, incest, and pedophilia. How much longer before these also become normative in our culture?

What translation are you using? Most of the respected translations do not interpret the Greek as “not deprive”. The negative is nowhere in the sentence. Rather it is stated positively.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (NASB)

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. (NIV)

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (KJV)

Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. (NKJV)

Husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex. (Contemporary Eng. Version)

To the wife, the husband the debt let him pay and likewise also the wife to the husband. (Literal Greek)

The Husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. (RSV)

should not deprive” should not be interpreted “as all demands for sex should be met lest one feel deprived

Your interpretation of I Cor. 7:3 is influenced by our culture. Because, the Protestant churches began to accept contraception in the early 1900’s they have lost the Christian perspective of sexual intimacy–Total Self-Giving. When a married couple indulges in the pleasure while practicing contraception they cannot be totally self-giving to their spouse. One or both are saying, with their bodies, while using a contraceptive, “I reject your fertility.” This subtle spiritual reality plays itself out in various subtle ways. For instance, the one with the strongest sex drive is freed to be more demanding of having sexual needs met and the other can begin to feel used. This is not conducive to a long and happy marriage.

For the difference between NFP and Contraception please click —> HERE

To read Humanae Vitae click HERE

What Scriptural Evidence Is There Against Contrception?



Q. I would be interested to see biblical proof that God is against contraception. I know that Genesis 38:8-10 talks of Onan spilling his seed, but God was mad at Onan for not obeying him, I don’t believe it was necessarily the act he committed. If you read the verse prior in 6 & 7 it says that Judah’s firstborn was wicked so God put him to death. This is what he was indicating when he said he slew him too.

A.Yes, Onan too was wicked. But God did not kill Onan because he was generally a wicked man. God killed Onan for one reason. Onan partook of sexual pleasure with his brother’s wife but contracepted by spilling his seed. That was his explicit intent. Let’s see what Scripture actually says:

GENESIS 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

He was not obligated to give his brother’s wife an heir upon pain of death. God did not kill him b/c he didn’t want to give offspring to his brother. This is explicitly laid down in the Law. Punishment for not giving a dead brother offspring was a ceremony of humiliation, not death.

Deut 25:5When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, …Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her 6“It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel 7“But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, …8“Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her, 9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house. 10“In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’

That is a far cry from execution.
Q. I also believe that God would not look down on a woman who prevents pregnancy because she has a medical condition that would either cause harm to her or the baby.

A. I agree with you.

Q. I had a friend who had 8 miscarriages because of a medical problem. It would be unwise for her to try for any more.

A. Unwise? If she just can’t bear another miscarriage or it would truly be a threat to her life, then her husband and she must agree out of charity to either adopt in order to have a child and/or abstain from intercourse during fertile times using NFP.
Q. I also have a friend who has a rare blood clotting disorder that endangers her life each time she gets pregnant. She has come close to dying with each child. After having her second child, she threw blood clots to her lungs and legs. They cannot give her any more medication for these clots again. If she has another child, she will sentence herself and her child to death. She will also leave her other two children motherless and her husband wifeless.

A. Then both her husband and she have a duty to avoid pregnancy. They may need to live as Mary and Joseph lived–in complete chastity, devoting themselves to God and their family in order to preserve the life of the mother. They will not die from abstinence. In fact, the self denial involved in this life will undoubtedly lead them closer to God, each other, and holiness.
Q. Yes she has faith, which is the reason she did not abort when so many specialist said it was the only way she could survive.

A. A noble, and holy woman.

Q. But, although we live by faith, we have to use common sense.

A. You mean that the husband should be allowed to indulge himself ?

And which methold of contraception would you stake your life on?

Abortion as a back up? Killing an innocent child just so they can have pleasure?

Q. I have faith that God will protect me, but I will not stand in the way of a moving train and expect to be saved from death.

A. Using contraception is not the only way to avoid possible death due to pregnancy. The holy thing to do is to abstain from sex for the sake of the mother. A good and noble man would do this.

This just in: January 13, 2009

New study links oral contraceptives to increased incidence of breast cancer. But will we hear about this in the politically correct press?

Click HERE for the aticle at American Journal of Epidemiology