Anti-contraception confusions

[fakename]

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.

 

[SteveGC]

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?

No. First off, health is not a valid argument in defense of contraception. If health would be at risk because of pregnancy, then abstinence is the cure, not contraception. Secondly, “domestic life”, or the family, is the domestic church, and is ordered primarily to God, not human reason. We use human reason in all things, to be sure, but reason itself must be ordered to God. He is first in all things. I assume by “nature” you meant God? If by “nature” you meant something akin to “chance”, then we have to step back in the conversation and address that first.

At any rate, it is more responsible to cooperate with the will of God in all things, including the potential growth of our families.

(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’ll presume that by “animalistic” you are referring to the natural physical attraction that exists between male and female. Contraception does not deny that attraction, it denies procreation in conformity with the divine order.

(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.

Sexuality is not what is important. Sacramental marriage, it’s consummation and lifelong openness to life is what is so important. The conjugal act of love within such a union is ordered to both unity and procreation with God as it’s compass. And God, knowing the inherent good of all things, knew to command us to go forth and multiply. No need to obsess over it, just to follow Him as best we can given our state in life.

 

[fakename]

user "SteveGC":

Sexuality is not what is important. Sacramental marriage, it’s consummation and lifelong openness to life is what is so important. The conjugal act of love within such a union is ordered to both unity and procreation with God as it’s compass. And God, knowing the inherent good of all things, knew to command us to go forth and multiply. No need to obsess over it, just to follow Him as best we can given our state in life.

there’s supposed to be a per se natural reason why contraception is wrong though, right? I mean, that contraception being wrong is not ,as such, a conclusion of supernatural theology but rather of natural, rational, moral philosophy?

So if that’s true, then I’m looking for that answer and not an answer that depends on revelation or sacraments.

 

[SteveGC]

there’s supposed to be a per se natural reason why contraception is wrong though, right? I mean, that contraception being wrong is not ,as such, a conclusion of supernatural theology but rather of natural, rational, moral philosophy?

So if that’s true, then I’m looking for that answer and not an answer that depends on revelation or sacraments.

I answered in the manner I did because your question revolved around the concepts of “grave reasons” and “gift from God”, so I naturally assumed you were asking along those lines. I must retire as it’s late, but will try to re-engage in this discussion tomorrow. I’ve not heard of an argument against contraception that did not have at it’s core the fundamental rationale of absolute Truth and objective morality, which is to say, God. But I will be interested to see if there is such an argument that does not have this as it’s ultimate origin.

Peace be with you.

 

[Dianne_L_Martin]

Even if you take all moral theology out of the debate on contraception, ALL FORMS OF IT HAVE SIDE EFFECTS except for Natural Family Planning. The Pill and all forms of hormonal contraception have so many side effects, some of them deadly in those who have them,

Condoms break and there is the idea of it being a possible allergen or a cause of irritation. Latex for instance,any friction whatsoever and I am one of those lucky few that it will literally blister and then peel the top layer of my skin away. If I have any broken skin…a pair of latex gloves will leave oozing open sores where there was only a tiny scab from some skin irritation…

Oh yes, and fragrances…You have wonderful people like me who cannot even use deodorant pads and tampons without having to use a ton of neosporin mixed with hydrocortisone to keep the sores that causes from getting infected. Can you imagine a foam or a gel being put inside of the vagina that you turned out to be allergic too?

As for IUD’s I got two words for you to google “dalcon shield” I can remember the neighbor across the road when I was younger laying in her living room watching a grotesque yellow spreading across her abdomen where she was bleeding internally as her baby died inside of her from her IUD… They say they have gotten safer bit are still not without risks…serious risks.

Add to it the pill and hormonal contraceptives work in multiple ways.

1 It impedes ovulation

2 It thickens the mucus in the cervix impeding sperm from travelling.

3 it thins the uterine lining. When the sperm does meet the egg and fertilizes (conception) the uterine lining is too thin for the baby zygote to implant. The body, due to the uterine lining being so thin will not accept the zygote. If this does not prevent birth then it is quite possible for the woman to miscarry as the baby grows, since the uterine lining was so thin from the very beginning.

In other words The Pill is an abortofacient drug. There are no two ways about it.

The spin doctors will tell you its not a baby and not an abortion because its not a pregnancy until it implants, They will try to tell you there is no moment of conception, no moment of anything. Of course these are the same folks willing to tell women who go in for abortion that it is just a lump of cells, its not a baby.

Oh and did I mention the co-worker whose sister had a stroke in her 20’s? and yet they still tell women that the pill and other birth control is “perfectly safe”. Tell that to the co-worker whose sister stood recently for the first time in nearly 30 years. Now girls don’t even have to be 18 and can get the pill without even notfiying the parent. Breast cancer rates in pre-menopausal women have went up nearly 600% since the pill came on the market. It used to be an old ladies disease. Oh and the earlier the onset the more aggressive the cancer tends to be.

The Catholic viewpoint is about SELF CONTROL rather than BIRTH CONTROL. We are not animals, and we should not behave like animals. We have the power and ability to say NO. We have the power and ability to know our own body and track our fertility and decide whether or not we want to have a baby.

NFP, the only family planning allowed under Catholic teachings has some serious benefits. Not the least of which is the couple getting to know thier own bodies well. : Shocking isn’t it. If you are paying attention you are more likely to detect changes earlier, including changes that could indicate cancer or other problems. NFP and its partnering tech NaPro technology advocates not manipulating the body to do what you want, but healing underlying conditions…Yep what a concept, actually heal the things that are wrong and work with the things that are right…No tons of clomid, no artificial insemination, no taking your eggs and a sperm donation to a petry dish and no Octomoms…It is natural, It does not manipulate the body into doing something un-natural, it simply times sex to those times you are not fertile. Oh and it does so at a success rate that rivals the pill, when the pill is taken the same time every day, and not with antibiotics…In other words it is as successful in preventing unintended pregnancy as the pill when you take it (the pill that is) like a well oiled perfectly timed machine, not when you take it wrong…

Oh yeah, and if you do get pregnant with a child who you do not want or cannot take care of yourself, rest assured there are a multitude of folks who would love to adopt that baby and raise him or her with love in the Nurture and Admonishion of the Lord.

 

[Qwestions]

The act of procreation within the sacrament of marriage is an exquisite gift from God, not in the least way animalistic. Outside the sacrament of marriage, though, intercourse does become a mere animalistic coitus. Why? The act ceases to be one of procreation, ceases to be the fulfillment, or a striving toward fulfillment of that covenant with God, which the couple promised before witnesses.

When inside a sacramental marriage, intercourse transcends anything remotely accomplished by animals. It is a renewal of the marriage vows. The intimacy, the understanding, the love, the knowledge of the depth of God’s love for the couple brings a poignant joy that is simply impossible outside marriage. When a man and a woman pledge their love in their marriage vows, they become one, not just during the act of intercourse. Each looks out for the other, sacrifices for the other, works for the other, prays for the other, pines for the other. They complement each other; they are incomplete without each other.

However, outside marriage, intercourse is simply a joining, an animalistic mating. Although the couple may love each other (or think that they do), there is only the immediate satisfaction of their mutual release; there is no fulfillment such as that experienced by two entwined by the sacrament of marriage, who KNOW that they’re in it for the long haul. Those who engage in intercourse outside marriage–fornicators–are united as one only for the duration of the coupling, like barnyard animals. There is no likelihood of certainty for a future together; there is only the moment that has just occurred. Although there may be fervent hope and longing for perpetuity, there is no promise of it. There is no continuing oneness, for there is no marriage. The sense of oneness is merely for the moment. Any fulfillment the couple think they have is only partially so. The utter joy of true and complete fulfillment is only attainable in the state of matrimony.

God gave us life that originates in the joining of a man’s seed, or sperm, with a woman’s egg. He TOLD us to join that seed and egg only within the sanctity of marriage. He TOLD us not to let that seed be wasted, so we have been given clear-cut directions: no fornicating, no barriers to the joining of the sperm and egg, and no spilling of the seed outside the vessel of the woman. It is clear that the most responsible action to take in regards to contraception is to follow what God has told us! To do otherwise is totally IRresponsible because it condemns both parties to the depths of hell!

Whether sensed or not, contraception casts a shadow over any emotional pleasure because it spreads the stain of mortal sin upon the souls of those choosing it. It reinforces the selfish aspect of intercourse outside marriage and it becomes a cancer within marriage, in addition to putting into jeopardy the souls of the parties involved, for they fully know that not only are they not protecting the souls of their beloved, but they are CONDEMNING THEM TO HELL!. How could anyone think, for even a moment, that contraception is even a remotely responsible choice?

 

[Abu]

Fakename #3
I’m looking for that answer and not an answer that depends on revelation or sacraments.

Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii, 1930:
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this while at the same time putting a barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act.
There is no child that “God does not want.” God has created mankind and the natural law. What is done is done by His creatures rightly or wrongly – according to His natural laws which are discovered by reason and faith. Catholics have discovered and developed the knowledge of the fertile and infertile periods through medical knowledge and application. The correct use of this knowledge has been declared a good by His Church.

 

[1ke]

No to all of this. You are very confused. I suggest you read Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.

 

[fakename]

user "Abu":

…offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

This has always been my question: how is it an offense against the law of nature precisely considered as a law of nature (that is, w/o depending in any degree on revelation)? True, sex is a gift from God, but just because something is God’s gift doesn’t make it a matter of revealed religion; human existence is a gift from God but existence is studied by rational metaphysics and not faith.

If indeed, it all depends on revelation, then there is no way to convince someone to be against contraception unless he is a believer -which seems absurd.

There are health problems with contraceptives, but they don’t seem to imply that in contraception should be always wrong, no matter what. For instance, if contraceptives cause heart problems, then in some possible time, one could simply develop a cure for heart problems and if that, then one could proceed to use contraception.

Let me further elaborate: what makes being open to life so important? Is it because one is not denying nature’s laws? If it is because of that, then it seems that anything natural should be done w/o anxiety (pooping, farting, belching should never be subjected to human planning; nature should take its course (that’s why I called it animalistic)). But this seems impossible. So what keeps one from drawing that conclusion?

 

[davidv]

This has always been my question: how is it an offense against the law of nature precisely considered as a law of nature (that is, w/o depending in any degree on revelation)? True, sex is a gift from God, but just because something is God’s gift doesn’t make it a matter of revealed religion; human existence is a gift from God but existence is studied by rational metaphysics and not faith.

If indeed, it all depends on revelation, then there is no way to convince someone to be against contraception unless he is a believer -which seems absurd.

There are health problems with contraceptives, but they don’t seem to imply that in contraception should be always wrong, no matter what. For instance, if contraceptives cause heart problems, then in some possible time, one could simply develop a cure for heart problems and if that, then one could proceed to use contraception.

Let me further elaborate: what makes being open to life so important? Is it because one is not denying nature’s laws? If it is because of that, then it seems that anything natural should be done w/o anxiety (pooping, farting, belching should never be subjected to human planning; nature should take its course (that’s why I called it animalistic)). But this seems impossible. So what keeps one from drawing that conclusion?

Do you know the difference between Natural Law and the laws of nature? Do you know they are not the same? Much of you apparent misunderstanding seems to be based on you confusing the two. Have you read the two encyclicals offered to you by another poster?

 

[fakename]

user "davidv":

Do you know the difference between Natural Law and the laws of nature? Do you know they are not the same? Much of you apparent misunderstanding seems to be based on you confusing the two. Have you read the two encyclicals offered to you by another poster?

From what I recall, the natural law is just a default setting in humans to fulfill our natures, that is, to act rationally.

The natural law is a part of the laws of nature and insofar as the laws of nature are objects of reason, they come under the natural law which disposes us to act rationally towards them.

Haven’t read the encyclicals, but is the matter so difficult that I need to read an encyclical? Plus I doubt that my specific question will actually be answered in it unless someone says otherwise.

 

[Abu]

fakename #11
Haven’t read the encyclicals, but is the matter so difficult that I need to read an encyclical?

“Catholics” who want to be real Catholics learn to follow Christ through faith and reason – the relevant Encyclicals are highly valued by them – it’s time to start – to mitigate and then abolish the “confusions”. Since the teaching against contraception is infallible, and constant from the beginning, there is no relevance in prevaricating.

The doctrine against contraception is based on the natural moral law.
The Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton),2001, p 169). So that’s where you have to start – with reason, and the effects of acting against reason and the natural moral law.

There is a comparable connection between the fact that contraception is against the natural law, as is any other wrong action: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided. But the idea of rupturing the bond between the uniting and procreative aspects of the marital act in contraception has opened the door also to other grave inhuman and unnatural, sexual perversions as well.

The natural moral law imposes on both parties the duty of not positively frustrating nature’s vital processes. God is the Author of life and of the means adapted to the production of life; and man is not free here to take the law into his own hands. We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape.

You have seen already what is taught in Casti Connubii.

 

[1ke]

Haven’t read the encyclicals, but is the matter so difficult that I need to read an encyclical?

If your goal is to clear up your confusion on the matter, then yes you need to read the encyclicals. I can also recommend the book 50 Questions on the Natural Law by Rice which would help you understand what natural law is and isn’t.

If your goal is to continue to type a bunch of nonsensical statements that in no way reflect the Church’s teaching, then by all means skip the encyclicals.

Plus I doubt that my specific question will actually be answered in it unless someone says otherwise.

I can’t even figure out what your actual question is.

 

[fakename]

user "Abu":

“Catholics” who want to be real Catholics learn to follow Christ through faith and reason – the relevant Encyclicals are highly valued by them – it’s time to start – to mitigate and then abolish the “confusions”. Since the teaching against contraception is infallible, and constant from the beginning, there is no relevance in prevaricating.

This is strange since I’m pretty up-front and yet a lot of people apparently “don’t-get-it”. Just remember, I’m not prevaricating, I think we just prefer different words for the same stuff (however, natural law is rational reason (it even has its own axioms) -of course natural law is also accessible to human reason, though I don’t think this latter formulation alone imparts the sense that natural law is inborn which it is).

In any case, is it true that Catholics are obligated to read the encyclicals because in my experience, you can learn about Catholicism w/o them? Plus logically there have been Catholics who couldn’t read who were probably holy so, it cannot be the case that orthodoxy implies reading encyclicals?

Anyways here’s what I took away from HS and you or someone else judge to see if it is correct: man and women were designed to be “people-makers” so to stop the quintessentially manly-womanly act of producing people would be to attack the very nature of men and women. And to go against this nature is wrong so contraception is wrong.

Correct?

 

[Abu]

fakename #14
man and women were designed to be “people-makers” so to stop the quintessentially manly-womanly act of producing people would be to attack the very nature of men and women. And to go against this nature is wrong so contraception is wrong.
Correct?

The fact that anyone who can read and understand should evade the Encyclicals on a given truth is very strange.

The birth dearth in Western nations and the plummeting birth rate worldwide attest to the evils of contraception. Fr Torraco gives the meaning of the doctrine with clarity.

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[gubernova]

All this legalism, you guys seriously know how to waste the gifts God has given you.

 

[fakename]

The fact that anyone who can read and understand should evade the Encyclicals on a given truth is very strange.

The birth dearth in Western nations and the plummeting birth rate worldwide attest to the evils of contraception. Fr Torraco gives the meaning of the doctrine with clarity.

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN):
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

so am I right?

I would also accept the above reasons why contraception is wrong but I think that a truly morally scientific answer must address the morality of contraception and certain sexual practices like it, based on principles proper to those practices and not on their results; for science is based on proper principles.

 

[fakename]

user "gubernova":

All this legalism, you guys seriously know how to waste the gifts God has given you.

This seems a bit judgmental: as said in the Summa, one should not judge people’s intentions since most of them are to us, unknowable in themselves and in these matters we should judge people to have the best intentions instead of contrary-wise.

we’re just trying to understand the immorality of contraception and all understanding is a long and detailed inquiry into proper principles.

So this looks legalistic but one can be assured that we are animated by a spirit of self-improvement and not legalism.

 

[Qwestions]

How do you pronounce: t-r-o-l-l ?

You work so hard to ask nothing and to say nothing, and, as has been noted, no one really knows what you’re asking. You’ve had your laughs while we’ve given you good answers. It’s time to find another bridge under which to crawl! I suspected your intentions before my previous post, but, on the chance that you were legitimate–especially considering that you claim to be “catholic,” have so many posts, and have been on the board for a good while–I took the time to give you an explanation, BEFORE reading numerous posts and thread questions in your post history. A genuine Catholic would have known the answers to many, many of your questions that you’ve raised on CAF since your first post–even if he’d been reared in an iffy Catholic home with very few CCD classes. It’s clear, after sifting through your threads and posts, that you’ve maintained the same modus operandi over time, which explains the lower case “c” in “catholic” as your religious designation. What a pity you insult God by failing to put your intellect to good purpose! I’d say, “Shame on you,” but trolls have no shame.

 

[Dianne_L_Martin]

I am getting the feeling he is wanting to see someone non Catholic being against contraception. MLK was a student of Ghandi. Ghandi’s words on contraception would have been very much like Humanae Vitae. Catholics are not the only people against the use of contraception.

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. We are not toys, we have a higher purpose and respect for ourselves that is diminished when we take the natural out and make a beautiful act somehow unnatural.

Do you not deserve more than to simply be someone’s plaything, while they keep the best of themselves from you? Are you good enough to be used by someone for physical release but not good enough to procreate with them? Are you so lowly that if a woman got pregnant by you that the baby conceived deserves death? That is what the contraceptive mentality says. It may be subtle, but that is what it says.

And we wonder why after the pill divorce rates went through the moon.