Anti-contraception confusions

[Rico_S]

Natural Law is thus, if you take the possibilitiy of procreation out of sex, then a woman is merely a man’s plaything and a man is merely a woman’s plaything.

You gotta be careful here in how you word that. Infertile couples and couples past menopause might take issue with that position.

 

[fakename]

user "Rico S":

You gotta be careful here in how you word that. Infertile couples and couples past menopause might take issue with that position.

that damages my position and it also makes me want to ask another question (or perhaps someone could point me to a resource that answers this question).

What is the relation between the unitive and procreative aspects of sex? We know that all sex must be both, or at least it must be unitive. So how essential is procreation to sex? And also, is one the cause, the other the effect?

and if procreation is so essential to the family (and by family I understand the proper act of women and men), then why is it not universally connected with all sex acts (for the sterile are allowed to have sex)? And these are real questions (I’m not sure what people mean by troll, if they mean disingenuous question-asking then what is the standard by which they intend to judge my sincerity? Surely they are not masters of some science of sincerity that allows them to have true justified belief that I’m being insincere RE: asking questions? For they haven’t discounted, as far as I know, that I’m simply uninformed or that I have a low threshold for belief).

Note: whether someone is a Catholic or not is determined by baptism and not by how well one knows the religion. It’s important to remember that.

 

[TimothyH]

Let me ask a few things:

(1) isn’t it more animalistic or uncivilized, in the evil sense, to be against contraception because it leaves health, domestic life, etc. to nature when it is controllable by reason?
Essentially, isn’t contraception more responsible then natural sexuality?

(2) But one could object that if natural sexuality is too animalistic, then contraception is too anti-animal. Is contraception too much of a denial of our animal sides and if so, then how?

(3) Why is sexuality so important that it needs to be given full freedom except for grave reasons? Some would say that it is important because it is a gift from God but our very being is a gift from God and yet we don’t need to obsess over preserving our lives all the time.

Contraception leaves neither life nor health in control of reason.

With the general acceptance of contraception after the first Christain Church allowed its use in 1930, came an increase in sexual promiscuity. This sexual promiscuity ramped up through the middle of the 20th century until abortion became legalized in 1970. Then the lid was blown off. The insatiable demand for recreational sex which contraception permitted has resulted in teen pregnancy, 25% of men and 9% of women addicted to porn, fatherless homes, divorce, gay marriage, and fifty million babies cut apart with wires, dismembered in their mother’s womb without anesthetic and sucked into jars.

This is not reason. It is the abandonment of all reason. Contraception is the root cause of it all. Contraception is the destruction of the very heart of family life.

Contraception has created the most base, animalistic culture in the history of man, where babies are slaughtered and their body parts are trucked off to medical waste facilities to be burned. We make Hitler look like an amateur.

That’s what contraception is.

-Tim-

 

[Abu]

fakename #22
What is the relation between the unitive and procreative aspects of sex? We know that all sex must be both, or at least it must be unitive. So how essential is procreation to sex? And also, is one the cause, the other the effect?
and if procreation is so essential to the family (and by family I understand the proper act of women and men), then why is it not universally connected with all sex acts (for the sterile are allowed to have sex)?

All that is required is that nothing is done to interfere with procreation in normal intercourse. It is time to study the encyclicals which are available on the Internet.

In Casti Connubii (II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Those who are past child bearing age, are infertile, or have had hysterectomies engage in moral sexual intercourse because what is moral is the intention and moral action – no human barrier is placed to thwart the act. The “inseparable connection” is directed to the will of mankind which must not so separate the two ends of the marital act.

In HV 12, mankind may not deliberately separate the unitive from the procreative ends of marriage.

The value or necessity of procreation is readily seen in the birth dearth in Europe with plummeting populations and skyrocketing percentages of the aged. It is known that women were designed so that almost 2/3rds of the time sex is inherently infertile. This fact shows that the unitive function of sex is just as important as the procreative aspect. At one time it was thought infertility was always an “abnormal” state. Now we find that infertility has been designed as a “normal” state a majority of the time in women.

 

[fakename]

user "Abu":

It is time to study the encyclicals which are available on the Internet.

But I find that reading the Summa or some such work teaches one about Catholicism way more than the encyclicals which latter apparently just assert things without giving reasons.

I don’t read encyclicals because the ones I have read seem to lack “meat”. For instance, HS didn’t answer my previous questions but you did. And indeed, I already knew a lot about what HS said before I actually read the encyclical. Is it required that every Catholic read encyclicals even if it is the case that they don’t get as much information about religion from them than from other sources? Honest question.

 

[fix]

You gotta be careful here in how you word that. Infertile couples and couples past menopause might take issue with that position.

If they do then they do not understand Catholic moral teachings.

 

[mark_a]

(3) Why is sexuality so important that it needs to be given full freedom except for grave reasons? Some would say that it is important because it is a gift from God but our very being is a gift from God and yet we don’t need to obsess over preserving our lives all the time.

Did you get a chance to read the pope’s column in Sunday’s Church bulletin this week?

 

[davidv]

But I find that reading the Summa or some such work teaches one about Catholicism way more than the encyclicals which latter apparently just assert things without giving reasons.

I don’t read encyclicals because the ones I have read seem to lack “meat”. For instance, HS didn’t answer my previous questions but you did. And indeed, I already knew a lot about what HS said before I actually read the encyclical. Is it required that every Catholic read encyclicals even if it is the case that they don’t get as much information about religion from them than from other sources? Honest question.

If you didn’t read the ones recommended in this thread, how could you possible declare they have no meat.

 

[fakename]

If you didn’t read the ones recommended in this thread, how could you possible declare they have no meat.

After people recommended them to me on this thread, I went to go read HS but not CC.

 

[davidv]

After people recommended them to me on this thread, I went to go read HS but not CC.

What is HS?

The two documents referred to where Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae [sp?]

 

[fakename]

user "davidv":

What is HS?

The two documents referred to where Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae [sp?]

it was a major spelling mistake.

I’ve also read some of the parts of a few early 20th century social encyclicals and I’ve read through some of Caritas in Veritate. From what I read, there’s nothing in them that you can’t learn from Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, or really most classical and medieval writers…

 

[davidv]

it was a major spelling mistake.

I’ve also read some of the parts of a few early 20th century social encyclicals and I’ve read through some of Caritas in Veritate. From what I read, there’s nothing in them that you can’t learn from Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, or really most classical and medieval writers…

I have read the first page of Casti Cannubi for the first time and have read HV several times.

In my opinion the only way one can claim they have no meat, is to be reading them with a jaundiced eye.

How can official documents of the Church, of more recent origin, be confusing when compared with Aristotle and Plato?

 

[underacloud]

I’ve also read some of the parts of a few early 20th century social encyclicals and I’ve read through some of Caritas in Veritate. From what I read, there’s nothing in them that you can’t learn from Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, or really most classical and medieval writers…

What you are learning is the teaching of the Church, to which you are required to assent. Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, etc do not define Church teaching. They may help you understand the moral teachings of the Church, but it is the Church itself that defines these moral teachings.

If the encyclicals do not seem to provide a clear understanding for you, then by all means search further. But start with the encyclicals as a basis for the moral position you wish to understand better.

 

[fakename]

What you are learning is the teaching of the Church, to which you are required to assent. Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, etc do not define Church teaching. They may help you understand the moral teachings of the Church, but it is the Church itself that defines these moral teachings.

If the encyclicals do not seem to provide a clear understanding for you, then by all means search further. But start with the encyclicals as a basis for the moral position you wish to understand better.

The Catechism already provides all the teachings that you have to believe though too right?

 

[fakename]

user "davidv":

How can official documents of the Church, of more recent origin, be confusing when compared with Aristotle and Plato?

This is a common complaint about a lot of Church documents: they are very ambiguous and indirect. For instance, a lot of people recently believed that we have to be in favor of a world government right now and not simply in principle.

I also recall that after reading the Catechism, I still didn’t come away with a clear understanding that the Eucharist was actually the body of Jesus.

The exact opposite is true of the philosophers. They are always direct and systematic: you never have to guess what Aristotle or esp. Plato mean and bonus, the existence of proof makes one hold to the truth much more obstinately than just hearing the conclusion.

But again, doesn’t the Catechism already implicitly and explicitly contain all the needed truths for Catholics?

 

[underacloud]

Essentially yes, but perhaps not with regard to a detailed rationale that some people seek, such as yourself. That is why the encylcicals are the next port of call on relevant matters where they form the basis of the content of the catechism (which you’ll find conveniently footnoted throughout).

 

[twoangels]

Let me ask a few things:

(1) isn’t it more animalistic or uncivilized, in the evil sense, to be against contraception because it leaves health, domestic life, etc. to nature when it is controllable by reason?
Essentially, isn’t contraception more responsible then natural sexuality?

Animalistic sex would start out as: 1. A man being promiscuous without contraceptives. He impregnates several women and leaves them. He feels no obligation to take care of the woman. He sees no obligation to take care of the children. Ultimately this hurts women and children.

Contraceptives does two things. It first allows the man to feel more responsible because he’s not leaving behind pregnant women and babies all the time. He’s “just” enjoying himself. It also frees the woman to behave as the animalistic man would without having to worry about the consequences. Prior to contraceptives, the woman would have more motivation to strive to be chaste. It was not easy to run away from pregnant or children, though some women did through abortion and infanticide.

The motivation to use contraceptives is an attempt to get rid of the overt consequences of sin: abandoned possible murdered babies, helpless poor women, etc. What it fails to recognize is that it treats procreative function as evil, rather than the people’s behaviors. Ultimately what the Church says is that our responsibility is not to find ways to run from responsibility without seriously hurting people, but to embrace responsibility. This means reserving sex for marriage. This means putting family above career and seeing career advancement as a way to better provide for your family. And certainly NFP can be a part of this.

(2) But one could object that if natural sexuality is too animalistic, then contraception is too anti-animal. Is contraception too much of a denial of our animal sides and if so, then how?

I think you’re thinking about this issue in completely the wrong way.

(3) Why is sexuality so important that it needs to be given full freedom except for grave reasons? Some would say that it is important because it is a gift from God but our very being is a gift from God and yet we don’t need to obsess over preserving our lives all the time.

It does not have to be grave reasons. It has to be just reasons. Discerning whether you have valid reasons or not is up to the couple. There is no list of just reasons to periodically abstain. You simply have to weigh in how important sex is to a marriage versus how important preventing a child is. Which is the greater act of love? Sometimes you can be on ground where you have less reason to avoid a child, but still reason enough and this might motivate you to still abstain but be more willing to let things go if the passions so lead you.

 

[fakename]

user "underacloud":

Essentially yes, but perhaps not with regard to a detailed rationale that some people seek, such as yourself. That is why the encylcicals are the next port of call on relevant matters where they form the basis of the content of the catechism (which you’ll find conveniently footnoted throughout).

I’m just wondering if I’m completely morally out of line in not reading encyclicals. So far it looks like a personal call but is there anything in Catholic truth that says that one must absolutely read them?

 

[davidv]

I’m just wondering if I’m completely morally out of line in not reading encyclicals. So far it looks like a personal call but is there anything in Catholic truth that says that one must absolutely read them?

Understanding is not required for obedience. God said that if you love Him you will obey Him. Disobedience is a sure sign the you don’t love Him.

So, not reading the encyclicals is morally neutral.

The Truth will set you free. Reading the encyclicals may reveal a truth or two.

 

[Abu]

Fakename #38
I’m just wondering if I’m completely morally out of line in not reading encyclicals. So far it looks like a personal call but is there anything in Catholic truth that says that one must absolutely read them?
davidv #39
Reading the encyclicals may reveal a truth or two

Much of the confusion and sloppiness displayed here and there could be dispelled by a vigilant attention to a major teaching event which is conveyed through an Encyclical – such as in *Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae, and in an Apostolic Epistle *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(on male-only priests). The same goes for Ecumenical Councils Vatican I and II and wherever truth is accosted or blurred, Papal teaching and that of the Councils should be offered.

The imperative to reevangelise is weakened when the sources of truth are neglected resulting in “anti-contraception confusions”.