Does the Church ever give exemptions for contraception?

[Kaesekopf]

To be honest  I am having  a really hard time with  the Churches view on contraception. Ive had people try convince me for a long time and nothing.

Aside from you wanting to have sex with this broad, why exactly do you have an issue with it?

Flesh it out and address it like a man, not some horny teenager who found someone willing to sleep with him. 

[Sophia3]

Warwick,
I think there are actually rare circumstances where certain types of contraception may be aloud due to medical life threatening type reasons but you would really have to contact a priest to know for sure. It sounds like the priest you are talking to may know.
Either way, if she is not willing to show the priest what he needs to know to determine this you really should stay away.

All the best to you!

[Gardener]

Warwick,
I think there are actually rare circumstances where certain types of contraception may be aloud due to medical life threatening type reasons but you would really have to contact a priest to know for sure. It sounds like the priest you are talking to may know.
Either way, if she is not willing to show the priest what he needs to know to determine this you really should stay away.

All the best to you!

Not allowed. Never morally permissible. Only in the treatment of a disease, such as uterine cancer and a hysterectomy would an act which is otherwise sterilizing be permissible since that would get into double effect. But merely taking artificial contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, regardless of if pregnancy could result in the death of the mother, is never, ever, ever morally permissible.

He got the correct answer from the Trad priest: No.

Whatever other priest he talked to is misinformed at best. At worst, he's a moral heretic and needs to shut his mouth.

[John Lamb]

Question:

Is sex in marriage that is not open to life worse than fornication that is not closed to life?

Yes, and contraception in marriage is worse than contraception outside of marriage.

[JesusIsGod]

The Church allows us to use contraceptives in all cases
-Peace

This is dead wrong.  Take a week off, since you're a brand new account, and you're either woefully misinformed or malicious.

I have been Catholic my whole life.  Please do not insult JesusisGod.

[Gardener]

The Church allows us to use contraceptives in all cases
-Peace

This is dead wrong.  Take a week off, since you're a brand new account, and you're either woefully misinformed or malicious.

I have been Catholic my whole life.  Please do not insult JesusisGod.

If you're a Catholic, I'm the Queen of France. Since I am a man, and have my head, well, you see where this is going.

[Gardener]

Secular studies proving detriment of contraception on female health (physical and mental).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6418691/TV-doctor-investigates-claims-pill-linked-breast-cancer-blood-clots-depression.html

[Warwick]

Considering  NFP but it doesn't seem very effective.  I just do not understand  how preventing children without abortion  is a mortal  sin  that will send me to hell forever.  I am tryong  to understand it, i dont mean to be stubborn  im very sorry.

[St.Justin]

Considering  NFP but it doesn't seem very effective.  I just do not understand  how preventing children without abortion  is a mortal  sin  that will send me to hell forever.  I am tryong  to understand it, i dont mean to be stubborn  im very sorry.

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)



Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

[Sophia3]

Warwick,
I think there are actually rare circumstances where certain types of contraception may be aloud due to medical life threatening type reasons but you would really have to contact a priest to know for sure. It sounds like the priest you are talking to may know.
Either way, if she is not willing to show the priest what he needs to know to determine this you really should stay away.

All the best to you!

Not allowed. Never morally permissible. Only in the treatment of a disease, such as uterine cancer and a hysterectomy would an act which is otherwise sterilizing be permissible since that would get into double effect. But merely taking artificial contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, regardless of if pregnancy could result in the death of the mother, is never, ever, ever morally permissible.

He got the correct answer from the Trad priest: No.

Whatever other priest he talked to is misinformed at best. At worst, he's a moral heretic and needs to shut his mouth.

Hilarious how you say "never" and then in the next sentence give an example where it is just like what I was saying in rare circumstances for medical reasons.

[Gardener]

Warwick,
I think there are actually rare circumstances where certain types of contraception may be aloud due to medical life threatening type reasons but you would really have to contact a priest to know for sure. It sounds like the priest you are talking to may know.
Either way, if she is not willing to show the priest what he needs to know to determine this you really should stay away.

All the best to you!

Not allowed. Never morally permissible. Only in the treatment of a disease, such as uterine cancer and a hysterectomy would an act which is otherwise sterilizing be permissible since that would get into double effect. But merely taking artificial contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, regardless of if pregnancy could result in the death of the mother, is never, ever, ever morally permissible.

He got the correct answer from the Trad priest: No.

Whatever other priest he talked to is misinformed at best. At worst, he's a moral heretic and needs to shut his mouth.

Hilarious how you say "never" and then in the next sentence give an example where it is just like what I was saying in rare circumstances for medical reasons.

*Southern Grandma voice* Oh, bless your heart, Sugar.

A hysterectomy is not contraception when it's purpose is the removal of a cancerous organ. That a woman would be unable to conceive is a foreseen double effect, but is not, in fact, the purpose.

Words mean things.
Contraception means to prevent conception, hence, "contra"[against]+"(con)ception" [self-explanatory].

What you wrote and what I wrote are universes apart in the spheres of morals and ethics. Only a Fr. Who, S.J. could travel between them with ease.

[Traditionallyruralmom]

There is a very good read on a link here, how a Catholic ought to think about marriage and children, and how we did think until modernism crept in. 
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/heroic-parenthood-case-against-nfp.html

click where it says this and it will bring you to the PDF
read this provocative piece from Christian Order

I have quite a large family, and I came from a non christian secular background before I became Catholic.  I totally get where you are coming from.  But I will also say that accepting Gods plan for marriage and family life is so much better than anything that the world pedals as "new and improved" 

[Sophia3]

Warwick,
I think there are actually rare circumstances where certain types of contraception may be aloud due to medical life threatening type reasons but you would really have to contact a priest to know for sure. It sounds like the priest you are talking to may know.
Either way, if she is not willing to show the priest what he needs to know to determine this you really should stay away.

All the best to you!

Not allowed. Never morally permissible. Only in the treatment of a disease, such as uterine cancer and a hysterectomy would an act which is otherwise sterilizing be permissible since that would get into double effect. But merely taking artificial contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, regardless of if pregnancy could result in the death of the mother, is never, ever, ever morally permissible.

He got the correct answer from the Trad priest: No.

Whatever other priest he talked to is misinformed at best. At worst, he's a moral heretic and needs to shut his mouth.

Hilarious how you say "never" and then in the next sentence give an example where it is just like what I was saying in rare circumstances for medical reasons.

Words mean things.
Contraception means to prevent conception, hence, "contra"[against]+"(con)ception" [self-explanatory].

Thus the reason why it could be okay in cases where its goal is not to prevent conception and there is a serious medical need in certain cases and only certain methods. I have heard of this from priests.

It is rare and of course not the norm and surely needs approval, but there are cases of this.

[Gardener]

Thus the reason why it could be okay in cases where its goal is not to prevent conception and there is a serious medical need in certain cases and only certain methods. I have heard of this from priests.

It is rare and of course not the norm and surely needs approval, but there are cases of this.

That's not what you said, and it's not the case of the OP.

In other words, it's irrelevant.

[Sophia3]

Thus the reason why it could be okay in cases where its goal is not to prevent conception and there is a serious medical need in certain cases and only certain methods. I have heard of this from priests.

It is rare and of course not the norm and surely needs approval, but there are cases of this.

That's not what you said, and it's not the case of the OP.

In other words, it's irrelevant.

Of course it is relevant and it is what I am saying.